anti-traditionalism

Beware of NOChurch cardinals, especially when they come saying the Tridentine Mass - Sunday 10th to Saturday 16th of June

In a week which contained a lot of major news from the secular world, it might seem odd that my highlights are to do with an event that didn't even take this week - the Chartres pilgrimage. My primary concern is for the Church, for only the Church can save the world, and with that in mind I shall go on to address some of the events on the Chartes pilgrimage.

It is rather significant that the Chartres pilgrimage has become so famous. I had not even heard of it until som 4 years ago or so, but I shall have to agree with Michael Matt that it is one of the most significant events taking place in the Church today, although in his case he plainly states that it is the most significant, with which I do not quite agree. Along with its increasing profile, the mass has attracted higher profiles of celebrants. Last year it was Cardinal Raymond Burke, who is probably the closest thing we have right now to a champion of the faith. When Cardinal Burke celebrated though, it was without a position in the Curia, having been unceremoniously kicked out of his position as the head of the Apostolic Signatura (the Church's highest court) so that Bergoglio could railroad his full-throttled assault on marriage through easy annulments and sacreligious Communion.

This year's celebrant, therefore, would have to count as the most high-profile yet. In Cardinal Sarah, we had the head of the Congregation of Divine Worship, the man in charge of not only the Mass but the administration of all sacraments. Yes, there are bureaucratically speaking other higher-profiled cardinals - the secreatary of state comes to mind - and even with regards to Catholicity the prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith ranks higher. However, in his capacity as head of worship, he ranks second only to the pope, so one is entitled to say that they don't come much higher than Cardinal Sarah. Also in terms of standing up for the faith, Cardinal Sarah is one of only 2 cardinals under the age of 80 - the other being Cardinal Burke - who have consistently stood up against efforts to water down the faith, or to outright corrupt the faith (however tepidly).

It was therefore with great sadness that I read a piece written by Peter Kwasniewski titled Traditional Clergy: Please Stop Making “Pastoral Adaptations”. It quickly became clear that the piece was about the final High Mass at the Chartres pilgrimage, of which Cardinal Sarah had been the main celebrant. Among the 'pastoral adaptations' on show was reading both the Epistle and the Gospel in French, instead of Latin, and not bothering with having the proper orientations when reading Sacred Scripture, instead turning towards the people, and not even bothering to chant but rather speaking it out instead. These were grave liturgical abuses. It is unclear who was in charge of these abuses - the master of ceremony, the local bishop, or the cardinal are all potential agents. What cannot be denied, however, was that in perhaps the most prominent Tridentine Mass in the world today, we were being confronted with a very well-orchestrated Novusordoisation, and that ought to trouble us all.

If there is anything that the Novus Ordo has taught us, it is that slippery slopes are real, and once embarked upon one will quickly find oneself close to the bottom. It is therefore inexcusable that at the most prominent Tridentine Mass the celebrants would embark upon the same slippery slope which led us to where we are in NOChurch today, i.e., little if any reverence at Mass, with priests who treat the Mass as if it is their plaything, and laity who froth in anger at hearing that there are authentic Catholic alternatives. Another point that Dr. Kwasniewski made which is worth repeating is that Latin is the language of the Church, and the Chartres pilgrimage is the most international pilgrimage that we have today. It therefore makes little sense to have the readings in French when many of the attendees will be non-French. They could, if they so wished, read out in Latin according to the rubrics and then afterwards read in French (which is allowed by Ecclesia Dei, it turns out, although even that is a slippery slope) but that's not what they did. In other words, I am quite certain that whoever made the decision did it knowing full well that it was against the liturgical laws and against the spirit of the Tridentine Mass, yet did it anyway, perhaps to force the point that the Tridentine Mass has to get along with the Novus Ordo mass.

This being NOChurch times, of course, not everyone was upset. As I have previously mentioned, Catholics as a whole have lost the ability to get angry at anything directed against the faith. In "WHEREIN ROBERT CARDINAL SARAH GETS IT RIGHT AND FATHER Z DOESN'T " (I've no idea why he insists on capital letters for his headlines), a response to Fr. John Zuhlsdorf's Why we Say The Black and Do The Red, which was in turn a commentary on what Dr. Kwasniewski had wrriten , Fr. Allan McDonald chimed in that Cardinal Sarah was right to make adaptations in order to get people to feel at home, once again showing that the Novus Ordo has poisoned the minds of even many of those who say the Tridentine Mass occasionally. We don't adapt the Mass to ourselves; rather we adapt ourselves to the Mass, and the arguments he was making were well-adressed in Dr. Kwasniewski's original piece, which it seems blew completely over his head.

The best commentary on Fr. McDonald's piece came from Henry , who wrote:

A single instance of vernacular abuse, as at Chartres, is not a big deal. No doubt God will survive the desacralization of a couple of moments in this one Mass, and the

...

Sometimes good deeds do not go unrewarded - Sunday 18th to Saturday 24th of March

As far as the Vatican goes, this was a slow news week, which is good. The biggest news of the week, without a doubt, was the re-election to the Russian presidency of Vladimir Putin, who was rewarded for his stellar work.

Few were surprised at the outcome, not least since the polls showed him to be winning with a very large margin. The goal they had set was 70/70, which is to say, a 70% of a 70% voter turnout. The turnout was not quite as high as 70% - I believe it came up just short - but the support was even higher.

Here we have a man who towers above all heads of state in the world today, one who has charted a course which has seen his country steer away from destruction and utter despair into once more being a powerhouse. There is no doubt that most of the scaremongering regarding Russia is blantant propaganda and lies, but there is also little doubt that Russia is a feared nation once again, and most of the credit for that has to go to Putin, a man respected by most who have not not fallen victim to the propaganda of mainline Western narratives.

In the Soviet days, 'Russia' was feared, but today it is very much also a respected country. It is respected by many in the global South, and in the East, and in Latin America, because it has shown that one does not have to bend over to appease the West. In fact, Russia's greatest error after the collapse of the Western Union was allowing itself to be lulled into a sense of friendship with the West, for which it paid very dearly, with the country being looted almost literally to the point of bankruptcy.

There are those who, predictably, have said that the elections were rigged, although they have received a passing grade from observers. What many will find striking is the nothin that 76% of a country's electorate can vote for a single man, can support a man so as to essentially obliterate any meaningful opposition to him.

What a lot of people don't realise is that in Putin, Russians see a man they can trust, a man who they know loves his fatherland, and who has spent his life trying to serve his nation. Most Russians will definitely not agree with everything Vladimir Putin does, and neither do I, because the man is not perfect, as no one is. However, I doubt you will find many Russians who question whether what Putin does politically he does because he thinks it is the best for Russia.

Of which rulers (and I call them rulers and not leaders for a reason) in the West can we say that? Not even Trump comes close, because Trump's "America first" mantra in reality seems to translate to 'Israel first', to 'military-industrial complex first'. We definitely cannot say that about the rulers of the U.K, nor Sweden, nor France. What people also fail to realise is that Russians, although diverse in many ways with regards to ethnicity, have been forged by a common history, and they have a common sense of duty towards their nation.

It probably deserves mention that most Russians are 'ethnically' Russian, but the broader point is that their is a national sense of being Russian, and it would seem as though Russians want a strong ruler who they can respect and who also gets others to respect their motherland. It would seem as though Putin is a near-perfect embodiment of this rule, who actually is a very good leader as well.

One could make a comparison between Putin and Bergoglio, and if one can do it while maintaining a straight face one would realise that the two are polar opposites. The less said about the cabal running things in the Vatican today the better, but I shall say that those who claim that Bergoglio seriously thinks he is acting for the better of the Church, are more than kliley trying to convince themselves of that more than anything else.

I know that this is Edward Pentin's line, but how such a learned and good-natured man can say that in public I really do not understand. He knows more about Bergoglio's evil machinations and the mess they are making than most, so his claim does assume a seriousness that it would not otherwise merit. However, given all the scandals that have been uncovered, all the scheming, all the anti-Catholic statements, I really would like Edward Pentin to elaborate on how exactly it is he concludes that Bergoglio is trying his best and not working out of sheer malice.

So much for intentions. As for outcomes, I'll not waste anyone's time comparing Bergoglio's to Putins save to mention that one has turned his country into a feared and respected nation, while the other is well on his way to turning the Church into an obscene and blasphemous joke. That he will not succeed in his evil plans is neither here nor there, but it says much of the man that those who have always defended the papacy and papal authority are now his most fierce opponents, and that even the general audience is more or less tired of this lewd man, appropriately enough showing up in fewer and fewer numbers at his general audiences, such that some mockingly wonder whether they are still free to attend. As the elections in Russia showed, the people in Russia have taken the opposite view, and feel entirely content with handing over to Putin all the power he needs to do what he thinks is good for the country. If his record is anything to go by, it probably will be.

Finally, it is also interesting to note that Putin got more votes this time around than in 2012, whereas with Bergoglio, genuine Catholics seem to find him more offensive by the month, if not...

The Roman Rite gets in a good punch once in a while, vicious attacks on traditionalists not withstanding - Sunday 25th of February to Saturday 3rd of March

There are very many neo-Catholics who look down smugly on traditionalists. They want to claim that they still hold to the Catholic faith but do not soil their hands by mixing with those who question disastrous multiple (im)prudential decisions by the Holy See since Vatican II.

In "An attack on older Traditional Catholics in the Catholic Herald", Joseph Shaw chronicled a new type of Catholic - the "self-hating self-righteous not-really-trad Trad" as evidenced by Michael Davis, writing for the Catholic Herald. In his piece he managed to cobble up just about the most extreme caricatures of traditionalists, while claiming that he is a traditionalist, but of the friendly type. He trashed the older generation of traditionalists while praising the novus traditionalists of whom he obviously counts himself.

My regard for the Catholic Herald went down the drain with the Libyan war, which they cheered as enthusiastically as the war propaganda room of NATO. Things have not improved under Bergoglio but have only gotten worse. Occasionally we have a piece which is provocatively truthful, but for the most part whenever they cover anything remotely political you can count on it being anti-Russian propaganda, and when  it comes to Church news, their reporting is often less than stellar, and they often gloss over the most offensive utterances of Bergoglio for nobody-knows-why. I am therefore not surprised that their new American editor found time to write such a vitriolic piece attacking traditionalists.

Sticking to that newspaper, we had a piece by Francis Philips titled "How many of us would truly resist an evil regime?" Its focal point was a woman who died not long ago, but who is best known for serving as a secretary for Goebbels, Nazi Germany's propaganda general. I only bring this up to highlight the lack of self-reflection to which we can all fall victim. As I wrote previously, the Catholic Herald and I have fallen out, so it may well be that Miss/Mrs. Philips has been writing about the diabolical scheming of Bergoglio in the most resistant of ways. I suspect she hasn't. It could also be that she has been shouting from the rooftops and denouncing the British government as it has attacked the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, the facts of nature, and armed Islamists who have killed hundreds of thousands in the Middle East while driving out millions from their home. I suspect she has done none of that either.

In essentials, modern U.K. is every bit an evil regime as was the Nazis - most visibly with its callous disregard for human life and its incessant attack on the family -, but Francis Philips has done little to resist it. In essentials, the Bergoglio regime is even worse than the Nazis, since the Nazis - we are led to believe - wanted the death of our bodies, whereas Bergoglio seems hell-bent to see our souls damned for eternity. She has done even less to resist that, I suspect. So the question is open as to how many of us would resist an evil regime, but we can be relatively certain that Miss/Mrs. Philip wouldn't recognise one unless it popped up in her schoolbooks.

Without a hint of irony she asks us "How many of us would resist an evil regime?" That one can be so blind as to one's surroundings should concern us all.

I shall stick to the "evil regime" of the U.K. and illustate my point. We had yet another case of a child being pulled off child support by a judge against the wishes of his parents. This is a death sentence with a twist though, as the judge cited Bergoglio as justification for his decision to have the child die. This comes, of course, hot on the heels of the Charlie Gard story in which the judges denied a child the chance for experimental treatment because they wanted the child to die in a U.K. hospital. The diabolical Bergoglio effect on full display.

Moving onto the Church in the U.K., we are told that the number of Catholic weddings falls by two-thirds since 1990. So much for the sprintime of Vatican II. I doubt the quality of marriages is as high as it was before the Council either.

With yet another blasphemous Vatican stamp, this time with a homo-erotic presentation of some approximation of some Christ-like figure, Fr. Ray Blake asks "Where is the Vatican going?"

Finally, to finish of the theme of the United Kingdom, we have some good news, with Graeme Garvey mapping the English Catholic martyrs on a map that is now available online. The map is non-interactive, but I can do nothing but applaud the efforts of this layman and hope to emulate his efforts in one way or another down the road, in paying homage, however unworthily, to our Catholic forebears and the sacrifice they paid.

There is normally enough bad news in BergoglioChurch to leave one depressed for a week, and hardly a week goes by without a paedophilia/pederasty/homosexual scandal from a higly-placed cleric. It's depressing, and it's oftentimes demoralising and I wish I could just ignore it but we have to face NOChurch as it is. This week was no exception, as a former diocesan vocations director priest in the U.S. was arresed for homosexual sex assault on a 17-year old boy/man. I'll spare you the details.

Cardinal Cupich was up to his old Bergoglio-approved sin-promoting ways, and Fr. Gerald Murray took him to task for it.

Since the U.S. does not have the same simoniacal church tax system  that the Germans have, and that Sweden has - although to a less nefarious degree - one has the option of refusing to support a bishop who one knows is causing harm to the faith. In " Excellent Idea For Annual Bishop/Cardinal Appeal" , the author argues for withholding money from one's diocese if one has...

Pages

Subscribe to anti-traditionalism