kangaroo courts

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

...

Bergoglio outdoes himself in Bergoglian mercy, this time back in his old stomping ground - Sunday 3rd to Saturday 9th of June

This will have to be one of my shorter entries, as I have fallen hopelessly behind schedule in my commentaries. I shall attempt to limit myself to this week's Bergoglian attack on the Church - every week has one - as well as the most important news otherwise.

As we are all well aware by now, Ireland is no longer a Catholic country, and in fact has not been for a while. In Ireland: A Chronology of De-Christianization, ChurchMilitant.tv attempted to chronicle various low-points which led to where we now find ourselves.

Some have not given up on saving the lives of unborn in Ireland, however, and Another big rig in Ireland mentions that there were many irregularities with the referendum, to the extent that some are calling it rigged. As proof of this, the author cites the large discrepancy between the polling data and the outcome. I have no doubt that the elitists would have rigged it had they felt it necessary, I just doubt that it would have been necessary to do so. This is, after all, the same country which voted for sodomitical unions just some 2 or so years ago. It is the same country which has a sodomite as its political ruler, an elected one at that to boot. Having voted for one of the 4 sins which cry out to Heaven, it is rather fanciful to think that the Irish would not want to complete the set and vote in another one.

As if to emphasise my point, Eamon Martin, an archbishop, came out after the referendum and said that abortion should be "safe and rare" - not necessarily a direct quote. He had to walk back those words but it is nonetheless instructive that a Catholic - and I use that word extremely loosely - prelate uses the language of abortionists in response to the referendum. The very fact that protection of the unborn was removed from the constitution does not in itself mean that the battle is over. His duty should have been to make it known that Catholics are obliged to oppose legalising abortion. Alas, we have one of our effeminates mouthing off support for the culture of death.

At this point I am forced to ask: Would anyone follow this guy? Part of the problem with NOChurch is that it has given us such spineless leaders that one is ashamed to say as a Catholic that these people represent any form of hierarchy. Can anyone actually see himself lining up behind Martin in a sort of campaign for the common good? Why is it that NOChurch popes think that being an effeminate non-believer is some sort of qualification for being a bishop? It's no wonder a lot of people think that priestesses  can be acceptable clerics.

It is not all doom and gloom though, and I was happy to see that the Portuguese parliament rejected euthanasia. It is a sad state of affairs though when it is the communists who come to the aid of  Catholic values in what was a Catholic country just 2 generations ago.

After much consternation, the Vatican released a document saying that the Church in Germany ought not to proceed with issuing heretical guidelines which would allow protestants to receive Holy Communion. The term "heretical", is of course, one I added myself, since this term seems to have been forbidden in the 1960s even for the most obvious of heresies. The Germans were, true to form, most displeased at having to hold off on their sacrilege jumboree. The point to take home in all of this, however, is that Bergoglio only informed the Germans that it was inopportune to do it, not that it was wrong. In other words, it is a bit too early to celebrate! Wait for this one to come back to the forefront when Bergoglio finds his moment!

Whether the prohibition of sacrilege at the hands ordained ministers is cause for celebration, is obviously another matter entirely, but these are desperate times, and there is so little good news to go around.

In the Diocese of Buffalo in the U.S., a couple which attends SSPX services was barred from acting as Godparents . So much for reaching out to the peripheries.

Staying on the theme of the U.S., but this time in the secular realm, we were informed by the 9-man junta which runs the country - the supreme court - that a  baker does not have to bake a cake for a sodomite pair  which enters his bakery. Most of us would call this common sense, but the decision is not the victory of common sense that some have made it out to be. From what I have been able to understand, the supreme court found that a lower court had been openly prejudicial against religious arguments in siding with the sodomites. My reading is that if the civil rights court had not been as openly hostile to the baker's religious motivations, the decision would have stood. At the very least, it is unlikely to think that 7 of the judges would have come to the baker's aid in those circumstances, although we can still hope it would have been a 5-4 decision on the side of sanity (or what's left of it in the Western world anyway).

Finally, I would like to conclude with another act of Bergoglian mercy. It turns out that there is a bishop in Argentina who did not see eye-to-eye with Bergoglio in his time there. This was the bishop of La Plata - apparently an important see in Argentina - Archbishop Héctor Rubén Aguer. This bishop reached the arbitrary age of 75, which NOChurch has set as the age of sending in one's resignation letter to the pope. To the surprise of nobody, the resignation was accepted immediately. This is where things really get interesting...

His hypocrisy  Bergoglio then had the bishop...

Subscribe to kangaroo courts