Bergoglio victim-of-the-week

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

...

This was a very eventful week; in fact, far too eventful for me to do it any justice, especially having fallen so far behind my weekly reviews that I am forced to be brief. I shall therefore only pick out 2-3 stories which I found to be of paramount importance, and anything beyond that will get a simple passing mention.

For honourable mentions alone, I must begin with Cardinal Sarah who in his homily at Chartres told us that "The West Has Nothing to Offer but Emptiness", at least as headlined by Gloria.tv. I must admit to not yet having read the whole transcript but these are sobering words, for several reasons.

The most important reason is that his words are the bitter truth. When Cardinal Sarah said that “the Western society, chosing to organize itself without God, has fallen into lies and selfishness”, he was only saying what any open-eyed Catholic can tell from reading the news, or looking around, or reading various statistics. He then went on to state that Western society “has embraced the craziest ideologies and has become the target of an ethical terroism more destructive than the terror of the Islamists.” That is a point I have made too many times to recall, and often ended up in heated conversations about it.

The fact of the matter is that the suicidal policies of the West - and I don't simply mean the governments alone here - are what has brought the Western world to the edge of destruction. It's not Islamists who got the West to kill off a vast number of their children. It is not Islamists who got the West to squander the investments of their forefathers and get itself into a debt it is unlikely to ever climb out of peacefully. It is not Islamists who turned men against women, women against men, women against children, people against their very nature. It is not Islamists who destroyed the great heritage of Christianity in Europe, and even the Americas. All these things have been done by Westerners. Granted, they have been driven by the rulers of Western states, but with every missed Mass, with every modern interpretation of ancient wisdom, with every vote cast for a morally dubious candidate, with every bomb dropped unjustly, the West has turned itself into the enemy of the very Christendom which built it, and I feel, has brought itself beyond the point of salvation.

Virtually all of the most dangerous ideas of the 20th century all originated from the West , be it all-out homosexualism, transgenderism, feminism, communism, nazism, freemasonry, warmongering, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, the killing of the unborn, the killing of infants (although China gets a dishounourable mention here), the killing of the elderly and I am sure the list could go on and on.

It has become common among many so-called Alt-Right or generally 'conservative'-leaning people to proclaim the West is best without specifying what is good in the first place. If an alien landed on Earth today and used Christian metrics to measure a society's standing, I can assure all that the West would not indeed be best. If another alien was to use metcis of sustainability - and I don't even mean eco-stuff, but simple demographics - the West would not be best. If yet another alien was to use metrics of economic sustainability, even there the West would not be best. If yet another alien was to use more natural law metrics, such as quality of family life, value of human life, number of friends, or what not, the West would trail even here. The warmongering NATO would also drag the West down on any metrics measuring peaceability.

In fact, the only area in which the West is clearly best is that which has to do with self-indulgence, but it is precisely due to winning this particular 'award' that the West trails on so many other fronts.

Christendom was the best culture. The West is the monster that chewed up Christendom and is trying to dump what remains of it in the deepest sewer it can find. The sooner we realise that, the better.  We must never conflate 'the West' with Christendom for the former is a morally decrepit empty shell of a society with very bad future prospects, whereas the latter is what built up virtually all the good that we enjoy today. Europe without Christianity is likely to be no different than the Soviet Union - a cold, sterile, ugly, violent, hateful place.

The sooner we work to restore Christendom, the sooner Europe can in any honest sense attempt to reclaim moral or even existential superiority.

It has escaped nobody's attention that the Irish voted to remove legal protections for the unborn. This means that before long the sodomitical prime minister of theirs will be able to introduce legislation to kill all the unborn, if he so desires. No doubt he will play it safe by introducing an age limit on those who can be killed, but we can expect this to be the top of the slippery slope. I am not going to waste much time on this, except to state that this is yet another win for the Novus Ordo. Everything the Novus Ordo touches, it kills, and Ireland is the best example of that.

As the author of the piece May 25th was the burial, not the death, of “Catholic Ireland” notes and as I have mentioned many times before, the Catholic Church runs most of the schools in Ireland. According to the piece, 93% of primary schools are run by the Catholic Church. This means that virtually each and every one of those people who voted to kill the unborn will have been touched by NOChurch in no meaningless way.

Ireland is not the Novus Ordo done badly, but the Novus Ordo done well, almost to perfection. This is what the Novus Ordo does: It kills the faith, then poisons society, then destroys the...

This week's entry will be quite brief, as I have fallen far behind my blogging schedule.

It would be tempting to begin with political matters given that there were some momentous ones this week, but I'll choose to highlight the Met Gala disgrace officiated by Cheesehead Doland with a lot of help from the Vatican.

For anyone who may have missed it, there was a charity gala in New York. This year it was termed "Heavenly Bodies", with a sub-title too long for me to remember and too ridiculous for me to look up. In any case, the Vatican lent some garments and items to the exhibition. The museum itself had some scandalous garments on display, some portraying priestesses' clothes inspired by real priests' attire. The biggest scandal, however, was reserved for the red carpet, when the celebrities paraded in scandalous Catholic-related garments, each more ridiculous than the last, each more blasphemous than the last.

Many were outraged and righly so. Cheesehead Dolan, however, informed us that he saw nothing offensive and nobody out to mock the Church. His sodomitical Jesuit priest buddy Martin followed suit, ecstatic about the blasphemies which the world had witnessed. Cardinal Ravasi represented the Vatican in this horror show. He's head of some pontifical something in charge or culture or some stuff.

Some were keen to give the Vatican the benefit of the doubt, insisting that it was not certain that the Vatican was informed of the scandal that the world was about to see, proving yet again that those who defend the NOChurch hierarchy are even more cruel towards the hierarchy than those who attack them. We think they are simply weak, populist, vain and possibly evil, whereas these folks think they are simply mind-numbingly stupid. When the best excuse someone can come up with is that you're a total moron, chances are that they are fooling themselves into that defence.

In any case, Cheesehead Cardinal Dolan soon put paid to that notion with his insistence that he saw nothing blasphemous or mocking. In other words, what he was saying, and the Vatican with him, was that they would have done the very same thing had they had the opportunity. After all, why not, if they saw nothing offensive? They even got to rub shoulders and cleavage with some of the most glamorous women in the entertainment industry, an offer too good for them to refuse for sure.

Many were quick to say: "Imagine if this had been Islam!", "Would they ever do that with Islam?" To that I must once again reply that if the ayatollah of Iran, or indeed any ayatollah, granted me the permission to mock Islam as freely as Cheesehead Dolan and the Vatican did, I would do it to no end. However, they don't, nor should they. They at least pretend to respect the religion they claim to follow at the very least, which is more than we can say about our evidently mainly apostate hierarchy.

The blame cannot and must not fall on the atheist Christianity-hating entertainment industry, which we all know detests Christianity anyway; it has to fall firmly on the shoulders of the Vatican and cheesehead himself for allowing this to happen and allowing themselves to be seen promoting it. If they are invited to a large and prominent mock-fest of Holy Mother Church, you can be sure they will join in, either out of stupidity or out of malice. I cannot, however, accept the notion that the bishops do these kinds of things out of sheer stupidity, unless you can convince me that they are so stupid that somebody dresses them in their robes because they are incapable (the few who still wear robes, let's not forget).

Let us at least give them the benefit of having chosen to betray Christ, instead of assuming that they were suckered into it by liposuctioned over-proportioned barely-clad heavily-cleavaged women!...Although at least in that scenario, these effeminate types would at least be drawn to women, so perhaps there is some charity there after all. I don't buy it in any case.

On the political front, Donald Trump pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action, the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal. It's hard to see who benefits from this, apart from the warmongers, of whom he is now very prominently a part, it has to be said. Tearing out agreements simply because your predecessor signed them, however incompetent, sodomitical and evil he may have been, is simply no way to behave if you want to make your country 'great again'. The Europeans have insisted that they will resist Trump, although I very much doubt it. After about 70 years of not having a spine, it is difficult to see the Europeans suddenly growing one, especially when they are led by pretty-much the most bought-and-sold unqualified political class to ever see the light of day.

I very much hope to be proved wrong on that.

Donald Trump then has the gall to say that he wants another deal. Who would sign another deal with him? Even if Trump was to keep it, his successor would probably come and rip it up anyway, judging from recent American precedent. Furthermore, which self-respecting country would want to join an agreement whose sole purpose seems to be its humiliation?

In the meantime, Donald Trump continues his warmongering against Iran, to the wild applause of the zionists in Palestine and Islamists in Saudi Arabia. The zionlist-Islamist alliance is strong indeed and Trump seems to be its figurehead.

One of many sad things about this is that as soon as Trump is no longer useful to whomever-he-has-sold-himself-out-to-serve, he will be discarded like a wet rag, given that there is no shortage of material to pin on him. That day may be coming sooner than anyone of us realise, because as useful as Trump has been to the congressional-military-industrial complex, they will never trust him because he is simply too unpredictable. At the first sign of...

From Le Creep's mouth to your screen: "I'm the equal of Putin". This story would have quite likely have formed the body of the article had it not been for yet another infanticide committed by the British authorities in plain sight.

It's too good a story to leave without comment though so I'll simply state that the only way that Le Creep Macron is the equal of Putin is with regard to the ages of their wives. Given that Putin is (unfortunately) divorced and (possibly) remarried, I might have to qualify that statement and re-state it as "with regard to the ages of their first wives". In any case, Le Creep informed us that he had to bomb Syria to prove that he is the equal of Putin, which tells us that we have in charge of a nuclear-armed nation a man with very deep and disturbing issues.

Now to poor blessed Alfie Evans, the latest public victim of the totalitarian death cult that has swept over all of the 'West' and is firmly entrenched in the U.K., as was proved yet again this week.

We had a sweet boy who happened to have the misfortune of falling behind on his development milestones. Upon closer inspection it was revealed that he had a brain disorder. The doctors supposed to assist him decided he would be better off dead. The parents disagreed, took the hospital to court and kicked up a fuss over it. The father, Tom Evans, is a Catholic, but the mother is not. The parents were unmarried.

The court, under the power of a homosexual (from what I understand) homosexualist decided time and time again that it would be in the child's best interest to have life taken away from him. This came despite the fact that the parents had raised money to take him abroad for treatment, that there was a plane ready to take him to Italy, and that the Italian state even granted sweet Alfie Evans citizenship.

None of that mattered because if the state says you are do die in a hospital bed, you are to die in a hospital bed, if they have to kill you to make it happen. This they did, first taking him off life support, and if that was not enough, starving him. His death came some 5 days after being taken off life support and there are strong suspicions that he was actually poisoned.

Now, just like Charlie Gard last year, we have in this a classic example of statism gone wild. The U.K. government simply cannot allow someone - least of all a Catholic working class man - to counter the dictates of the pseudo-religious entity known as the NHS, for if the U.K. has a religion, it is the NHS and the belief that the NHS is a source of good like few others and therefore must be all-powerful. This is the reason why the U.K. fights so hard to have children dying in their hospitals, because the NHS said so and because it would be a source of national shame to have a child flown abroad, treated and brought back to health, after the NHS had condemned that child to an early death on account of having a life it deemed not worth living.

Just like Charlie Gard last year, it was so obvious what the right thing to do was that even Bergoglio could not resist interfering - either because he actually cared for the child (I doubt it) or because he wanted to win some cheap publicity points (much more likely).

Bergoglio's invervention, however, seems to have been the catalyst for yet another disgraceful actor to enter the scene: the archishop of Liverpool Malcolm McMahon. This pathetic excuse for an oxygen consumer actually came out publicly and sided with the government. He actually went to the trouble of flying out to Rome to meet with Bergoglio, and it seems, to tell him to tone down his opposition, because it is reported that the Vatican's support for the Evans' subsided following McMahon's visit. Presumably it is McMahon who provided the title for the satirical piece The Gospel according to St Malcolm by EcclesIsSaved. That piece was written upon the death of sweet Alfie and was a follow-up to Career options in the modern world which had taken aim at the characters in this tragedy.

I have read that in its original Greek usage, the term "tragedy" is applied to a series of events which have a very unfortunate outcome  which derive inexorably from the steps taken before the regrettable conclusion comes about. If this is true then the case of Alfie Evans is tragedy 101.

In it we can track the moral degradation of a society whose primary indentifying feature is being not Catholic, on account of a king who killed a number of his wives and broke from the Church in order to commit adultery without being chided for it. Instead of contrition, the Brits seem to be proud of this fact. This very state then allowed the killing of the unborn in then 1970s, sodomitical unions in the 2000s - the same period in which it was going around the world bombing virtually defenceless countries in pursuit of another country's militaristic hegemony - , and now practical euthanasia. Then we have a NOChurch which is so hell-bent on cosying up to the 'modern' world that it is willing to go along with every evil, only paying the occasional lip service to the poor and the needy - and not even that to Almighty God - when it feels that no consequences will flow from such empty gestures. Of course, then we have the feeble British, weakened by decades of inane political correctness and unable for the most part to formulate an independent opinion, and a government which knows full well that it can take advantage of such an idiocracy.

What right does anyone in Britain, or...