Church in China

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

...

We dare to question, and we dare to join the dots - Sunday 11th to Saturday 17th of February

If one was to write extensively about all the public evils going on in the Church right now one would hardly have time for anything else. For that reason I'll save those for last and attempt to be brief in my coverage of them. It's same old really - Bergoglio's sodomites and apostates are pushing apostasy and sodomy, in different guises and with a different cast of characters every week.

We start with a very curious story regarding Syria, one which confirms what anybody with half a brain already knew but which is nonetheless intriguing. We had the French defence minister admitting that they have never had any reliable evidence of chlorine use in Syria by the government. If I am not mistaken, this came not long after the U.S. defence minister also stated that they have no evidence that the government of Syria has used chemical or biological agents against anti-government Islamists. The question of whether it is any of their business what the Syrian government does in its own country's fight for survival against Jihadis - armed and trained by the West and its allies - is one which I shall not address now. We must assume that none of them have ever had any evidence of the Syrian government ever committing atrocities of the likes against its citizens, or even the non-citizens killing its people in an effort to turn it into an Islamic state.

This should have made news, but predictably did not.

Le Creep did not waste any time stating that if they do find evidence they will strike against Syria - in contravention of international law, of course, but which of these globalists cares about that?

The important thing to take home is that for some reason, the narrative from the NATO aggressors has started to shift. I cannot help but wonder why this is, given that the U.S. has dug its heels in Syria by attacking the Syrian government forces and its allies multiple times. It's almost as though Syria is the battleground for different factions of the Western establishment, the major cost being Syrian blood.

A similar theme, this time limited not to general NATO roguery but only to U.S. roguery, is "If America Wasn’t America, the United States Would Be Bombing It", which I read on the website of the Ron Paul Institute.  The piece was specifically about the multiple war crimes the U.S. has perpetrated since the end of the Second World War, with a special emphasis on crimes only over this past decade. It is difficult to disagree with the claim of the piece, and truth be told, if the U.S. had an embassy in Washington, then they would have found a way of taking out Donald Trump militarily by now. I would much rather think that the U.S. would not be bombing America, had America been a different country, but rather supplying it with weapons and propaganda aid.

The only group of people who largely get the U.S. straight are traditionalists, and even here I would argue that at least within the U.S. it is not a majority which is opposed to U.S. aggression. A lot of American traditionalists, however, are honest enough to recognise the U.S. as the threat to world peace and morals that it really is, and are ashamed of the U.S. for that reason.

If you think I am exaggerating ask yourself this: Since the end of the Cold War, what is the body count of non-U.S. aligned Islamists compared to that of the U.S.?  This is a particularly good mental exercise for those who do nothing but fret about the threat of Islamist violence. I don't have the numbers, but I would be extremely surprised if the numbers were not in the region of 100:1, with the U.S. having the larger number. It is also worth pointing out that the only country in which the U.S. and al Qaeda have been on opposite ends of the battle ground has been Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent Iraq (although that's questionable). In Libya, Syria and Yemen, the U.S. and al Qaeda have not only fought side-by-side, but the U.S. has provided air support for al-Qaeda, the very organisation over which the U.S. claims to have started the Afghan war.

For the longest time I resisted the notion that al-Qaeda was a CIA-front, but now I have grudgingly come to accept that it must be the case, given that in most conflicts they fight on the same side, and in the only conflict in which they had direct combat, the U.S. had been responsible for their creation in the first place, having supported Islamists in Afghanistan in their fight against the Soviet Union.

That war has destroyed a country and destabilised a region. Instead of showing contrition, Americans are now led into welcoming the tune of war drums against North Korea, Venezuela and Iran - and those are only the countries that make it to the news. I am sure there are many other threats made against smaller states but which are not found newsworthy or propaganda-worthy enough for the U.S. to make a big show about.

If we count the dead unborn, and the rising number of dead elderly, killed for no other reason other than for being inconvenient, then the body count of the West versus the Islamic world is in the region of 1,000:1 at least. As Michael Matt from the Remnant asks , why should any American think they have the moral high ground over Islam, or Islamists, or even communists? Well, at this rate the U.S. will be communist before long and large chunks of Europe will be Islamist, so we shall soon be able to see if the body count will increase or decrease.

On the topic of body counts, we were informed that there was a school shooting in the U.S., with 17 people being killed as a formerly-expelled student shot up at his...

Extremely malicious or mind-numbingly incompetent or both; the only ways to understand U.S. policy in Syria and the wider Middle East - Sunday 21st to Saturday 27th of January

It was a relatively slow news week so I hope my summation of the week's events shall be quite brief.

In Syria, American bungling is reaching titanic levels - in the modern conception of the word "titanic".

The U.S. said that it would back a Kurdish border force, upon which Turkey promptly initiated a military campaign against Kurdish regions in northern Syria. Now the U.S. is telling Turkey that it should be careful about what it is doing there, and Turkey is responding by asking the Americans what gives them the right to be in Syria in the first place. A major political confrontation between NATO allies is at hand, and if we are lucky it could escalate to a military confrontation and help bring about the end of this out-dated organisation.

I am at times left wondering whether the American leadership - and this is no different under Trump - is simply incompetent or malicious, and I always fall back on malicious because I have a hard time believing that anybody could be as ignorant as the Americans would have to be to think that they would be able to arm a 30,000-strong Kurdish militia while expecting Turkey to sit on the sidelines watching by. My take on this is that the Americans want Turkey in Syria and in order to do this they had to provoke them into a military confrontation. The resentment from the Turks over this certainly seems genuine, so I dismiss the notion that both sides are acting.

That theory at least leaves the Americans in control of their senses, and is about as charitable as I can be towards American imperialist aggression. We cannot dismiss the notion that they are totally intellectually inept, however, and the number of flip-flops that TIllerson makes would be able to give an ordinary man whiplash.

The Syrians threatened to shoot down Turkish jets if they cross into Syria, but I doubt they will follow through on that threat, given the NATO-menace. This is why we must all hope for the quick disintegration of NATO.

The Bergoglio Vatican continues to lie to us, this time telling us that the award it gave to a pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-euthanasia Dutch politician was not done in order to honour her, but in order to insult her. No comments needed on that one.

Sticking to the most perverse pseudo-pontificate in history, we were told that Bergoglio's Vatican is asking faithful bishops in China to resign so that the Vatican can reach a deal with China to have communist-appointed bishops. The strange thing about this whole scenario is that Cardinal Zen seems to have been under the impression that Bergoglio was unaware of the Chinese Catholics being sold out. Alas, the Vatican has been quick to issue a correction to his narrative and assured us that the shenanigans of the Vatican diplomatic corps are in lock-step with the thoughts of the most openly communist pope in history.

I have pointed out before that if you do not feel betrayed by Bergoglio, then you have to question your Catholic credentials. Alas, we now know that the Chinese underground Catholics are true Catholics, because they have joined the large group of faithful Catholics which Bergoglio has sold out at one time or another.

The actor Jim Caviezel, who played Jesus Christ in the movie "The Passion of the Christ" by Mel Gibson, recently gave a speech to Catholic university students. It is well-worth watching and listening to if you can stand the annoying introduction which lasts less than 80 seconds, or simply skip the firssty 80 seconds - it's somewhat NovusOrdoist ending not withstanding. In brief, it is more Catholic than what virtually any Novus Ordo bishop in the Church has said since Vatican II. It really put our effeminate episcopacy to shame.

VoxCantoris is angry that Catholics in Canada put the most anti-Catholic ruler they have ever had in that country in power. He referenced an earlier post in which Canada's supreme court came down softly on a bestiality case. I sympathise with him, but must point out that under Anglo-Saxon custom, one can only be charged under crimes which are in the statutes. If the wording of the statutes produces undesirable or immoral outcomes, then the statute has to be changed. This is partially why we have had such broad statutes of late that virtually anybody can be found guilty of some kind of law in the Anglo-Saxon countries. That is not a suitable alternative.

A more suitable alternative would be an Old Testament kind of system in which the judges are presumed to be wise and therefore have much greater leeway in issuing their judgements. That however, reminds me of the old Soviet joke, that "if we had ham, we could make eggs and ham, if we had the eggs". One would need wise judges - who are in short supply in the West nowadays - and a moral code which is virtually universal in society, another thing which doesn't exist in 'modern' Western societies.

Finally, we were treated to a very good quote from Joseph Sobran by Laura Wood, regarding Western aggression in the Middle East:

 “Let’s face it: Christianity and Islam are eternal enemies. Each makes uncompromising claims of exclusive truth. But this doesn’t mean that the secularist-Zionist war on the Islamic world serves any Christian interest or deserves Christian support.”

I naturally agree with that completely, and it more or less sums up my view on zionist and Western secular aggression directed against non-Jews in the Middle East - many of these victims being Christians even. It would seem the zionists have co-opted the secularists and the Christian zionists (ignorant as they are of both history and theology) in a battle-of-civilisation which rests on completely false grounds - namely, that Christians and Jews stand on the same side religiously, or even morally.

We were also informed that a traditionalism-leaning monastic community in Germany was closed, and that it didn't...

Pages

Subscribe to Church in China