JCPOA

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

...

As hubristical as he was wrong-headed: new transcripts shed light on the father of NOChurch - Sunday 13th to Saturday 19th of May

One of the saddest things about Novusordoism's destruction of Catholicism, is that Pope Paul VI was warned about it both before, during and after the council, and before, during and after the many modifications made to Church documents, Church law , Church practice and even the Church's own liturgy.

In what must seem to us like infinite hubris, Paul VI brushed it all off , insisting that everyone should follow him since he is pope, and more concerned that people dared to question him than that the changes made were causing actual harm. That is the take-away from the release of a transcripts from a meeting between Pope Paul VI and the honourable Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre some time in the 1970s.

The honourable archbishop pointed out why he had to resist. He pointed out just how far people had wandered off from the faith. He pointed out how his resistance was done out of love for Holy Mother Church than out of a spirit of rebellion. Pope Paul VI, on the other hand, seemed to be more concerned that Archishop Lefebvre did not accept everything from his mouth as binding, and that he had pinpointed him as the source of many problems, than he was about the souls being lost.

That in a nutshell, is what Novusordoism is all about. It is more important that one never utters a word against the many harmful novelties, than that the souls who are harmed as a result of these novelties be brought back to the faith. Then, of course, if you defend NOChurch enough, there is a dubious canonisation at the end of it for you.

One who will not go quietly down into the bad night is Bishop Gracida, who at 94, is now retired. This week he wrote about how a conclave should be held to depose Bergoglio. I would agree with him , were it not for the fact that I cannot see what authority a council of cardinals has to depose Bergoglio. By all means, Bergoglio should be condemned, but there is no Earthly power to depose a pope, short of  killing the man, and I don't see how that can be done licitly, given that no cardinal can stand in judgement over Bergoglio to issue him with a death sentence, even if they were so inclined.

In the Korean Peninsula, North Korea announced that it would dismantle its nuclear test site in ahead of the Kim-Trump summit. Then they threatened to withdraw from the summit given that the U.S. and South Korea were holding drills outside its shores. It's hard to know what to make of this whole scenario, because I think a lot of details are lost in the headlines, and without these details, the timelines are often off, and we cannot appropriately apportion blame.

The same cannot be said of the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump pulled out of the week before. Iran has been compliant, but Trump decided to pull out, no doubt egged on by his zionist and wahhabist handlers. In anticipation of what everybody excepts will be the cave-in of the spineless Europeans, China announced that it would enter Iran should Total - the oil company - pull out as a result of the sanctions.

In other Trump-roguery news, the U.S. opened its new embassy to zionism in Jerusalem. Among those in attendance were some of the most vile warmongering zionist televangelists around, most notably Haggee.  Those Catholics who blindly defend Trump would do well to learn what a man such Haggee teaches. He almost makes John McCain look like a peacemaker, such is his love for war in favour of zionism.

Peter Hitchens asked "What moral standing do we have after this outrage? And are we about to join *another* idiotic war, like feeble minions? " The war part was about Iran, I suppose, but the moral standing bit was in retaliation to news of British torture and kidnap victims. That answer to his question is simple, and it is that the U.K. has never had moral standing. What it has had though, is the appearance of morally upright behaviour. I associate the U.K. with the murder and torture of Catholics in the 16th and 17th centuries, barbarous colonisation of Africa in the 19th and 20th, and endless poodleship in American wars in te 21st century. I don't have much on the U.K. in the 18th century, but I doubt they were up to any good then either.

The German president - a protestant - was out in the press saying that the Catholic Church should allow intercommunion. His wife is supposedly Catholic and she pays tax, so he wants a stale waffer on Sundays as well, I suppose. You know what, I don't blame him, because he is only parroting what the German bishops and Bergoglio have been saying for years. I do, however, have to ask whether he cannot afford tastier bread than the one offered on Sundays in Catholic churches, because I cannot for the life of me entertain the notion that he believes in the Real Presence, so I have to wonder why he doesn't instead visit a buffet on Sunday mornings instead of attending Catholic church services. Surely he can afford it.

Finally, the Vatican released a document on the economy, or finance, or some such. I honestly couldn't care less!

If they cannot be trusted with clarity on that which ought to be their speciality, and their bread-and-butter - i.e., the faith - , and they can't, then we ought not to pay attention to anything they say about anything else.

This week's Bergoglio victim of the week has to be Vatican documents. Given the mess in which we find ourselves, the Vatican finds itself with nothing better to do than to write a document on the economy. Some have written that the document is actually quite good, and it may well be, but we ought to insist that...

Chessehead Doland does what he does best, making a fool out of himself and mocking the Church yet again - Sunday 6th of May to Saturday 12th of May

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...

Pages

Subscribe to JCPOA