Novus Ordo priorities

As we all should be aware, but most are not, the Holy Week reforms of the 1950s were quite sweeping. Berfore Holy Week, Rorate Caeli once again re-posted an article on " The Reform of Holy Week in the Years 1951-1956". It is well-worth reading, especially in connection with the news recently that some traditional orders had been allowed to celebrate the pre-1950s Holy Week on a 3-year experimental basis starting this year.

Traditionalists are nothing if not resourceful and it didn't take long before there was a resource for the pre-1950 Holy Week with English translations, aptly called Pre-1955 Holy Week (although I grant that it may well have been present before the announcement). Rorate Caeli also provided us with a clarification on who exactly may chant the Passion. These two interventions by Rorate Caeli were quite helpful to me personally, as I finally came to realise taht the Passion is not actually the Gospel reading for Good Friday, but that we actually have a Passion reading followed by a Gospel reading, at least in the traditinal liturgy, pre-1950s edition in any case. Rorate Caeli was also kind enough to provide us with pictures of Palm Sunday from the pre-1955 Holy Week celebration.

Anybody who knows anything about Christianity knows that Easter is the biggest event of the Church year (yet it seems that professional journalists writing for major state-sponsored publications don't have a clue about what Easter is all about, to nobody's surprise, and they are probably even proud about it). We shall also know that Holy Week is the most august week of the year. It is for this reason that the secular anti-Catholic world generally steps up its attacks on the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church. It is also the week that the world's most popular attention-whore gets up to his usual attention-seeking antics in order to seemingly steal attention away from the Church's commemorations and celebrations.

This year was no exception, but having noticed that his Maundy Thursday foot fetish doesn't get the attention it used to , Bergoglio decided to get a little help from his now 93-year old atheist friend Euginio Scalfari. Every time he speaks to that an he can be guaranteed a few scandalous headlines and this time was no different. Just in time for the Holy Week Celebrations, in which Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist and died to save us from the fires of hell and allow us too spend eternity with God, Bergoglio told his friend that there is no hell, and that those who die in sin simply vanish, while those who repent before end up spending eternity in the presence of God. This interview was timed to coincide with Maundy Thursday, and naturally overshadowed his feet-washing ceremony, which was once more carried out in prison and against the rubrics of the Novus Ordo, rubrics which he himself amended, it has to be mentioned.

The reactions were not long in coming, and predictably, much of the Catholic press tied itself up in knots, blaming the poor atheist fool Scalfari, instead of pointing to Bergoglio as the culprit. The Vatican issued a non-denial denial, informing us, as we all know, that Scalfari does not record his interviews so it cannot be ascertained whether what was reported was the exact phrasing that Bergoglio used. In other words, they were saying loudly and clearly that Bergoglio is a heretic, as we all know, but we can use the he-doesn't-record-interviews card to get us out of a very serious doctrinal situation. They could really have done little else, for had they said that Bergoglio had actually admitted that he doesn't believe in hell, then they would efffectively have been confirming what we all know, that the man is not Catholic. Had they come out and denied that Bergoglio said that, then they would have had to explain how it is that a man who, as far as I know, hasn't faced many accusations of total misrepresenation in his work before - save for when he speaks to Bergoglio - could get such a fundamental thing so wrong.

Bergoglio himself did not come out and deny it, so we can rest safely in the knowledge that Bergoglio told his atheist friend that. It must be noted that this is not the first time that Bergoglio has denied that souls end up in hell, as Scalfari has reported on this before, and even in Church documents Bergoglio has written something to the tune of everything been on its way to Heaven. His defenders have pointed out that Bergoglio mentions the devil quite a lot, and so he must be misquoted if he has said that the devil does not exist. That is a logical fallacy if ever there was one, as it is entirely possible to believe that the devil exists and yet believe that nobody ends up in hell; that the devil would spend eternity in hell with his demons. In any case it was dishonest of them as they could easily have found multiple instances of Bergoglio telling us that those who die in mortal sin never end up in hell, assuming that anybody can even die in mortal sin, which Bergoglio does not seem to believe - save for traditional Catholics who use doctrine as stones to throw at people while sitting in the judgment seat of Moses. That's his phrasing, not mine, of course.

On the topic of attacking the Church's doctrines, Bergoglio could not resist taking a barb at the notion of truth, insisting that priests ought not to make "idols of certain abstract truths". This was in a separate speech, mind you, proving beyond doubt, if anyone is still not convinced, that the man is in constant heresy mode, and not just when speaking to his atheist anti-Catholic friends who, if you are to believe his enablers, have nothing better to do than...

They say that polls can be used to tell us just about anything, and it's true that the way questions are posed does make a big difference. If the questions are posed in the same way year after year, however, then the polls must tells us something of value, if it is the case that there are variations year on year, of even if there are no variations, to the very same questions asked in much the same way.

This, I assume, is the way that the Pew Research Center has been conducting its various surveys aimed at Catholics on various issues. The latest survey is quite telling in may ways and some will indeed choose to focus on the fact that Bergoglio has lost a lot of trust among most Catholics. Mind you, by 'Catholics' the researchers mean people who self-identify as Catholics. Had the term 'Catholic' been defined to mean people who actually believe in everything that the Catholic Church teaches there is little doubt that the figures would have looked much worse for Bergoglio, but then again, there might not have been a big enough sample to go by, given that believing Catholics are virtually an endangered species after almost 60 years of NovusOrdoism.

I could go on and ask this and that question, such as "how can an overwhelming majority of Catholics still maintain  positive opinion about this man?", or "how can a majority think he is a force for good?". That really wouldn't get us anywhere because the point that traditionalists have been making for a long time is that 'Catholics' for the most part nowadays are practitioners of a religion that would have been deemed abominable by virtually any practising Catholic before 1950.  I'll not dwell much on Bergoglio except to point out that Bergoglio has only accelerated  a loss of identity and virtue that began even before the Second Vatican Council, probably since they re-made the Holy Week liturgy in 1950, and it is not hard to see why because the psychological effect of these changes must have led to the conclusion that Christianity is a man-made religion.

If you don't believe me then simply ponder what I wrote on the day I read the survey:

In other NOChurch apostasy news, we have a poll measuring attitudes of Catholics in the U.S. to various topics, althouth most of the piece focuses on Bergoglio. A lot of people will focus on Bergoglio but I thought the most telling point was the following:

The share of U.S. Catholics who favor allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry has grown from 54% in 2012 to 67% in 2017.

In other words, the mass apostasy within NOChurch began long before Bergoglio began homosexualising and anti-evangelising through his voluminous seemingly-never-ending rantings.

In a discussion that I had some while back, it was mentioned that Vladimir Putin does not give full freedom to the Catholic Church in Russia. I am unsure what that means, as the Catholic Church in Russia seems to be under less oppression than in say, the U.K.. In any case,  my response was simple:

If I was in charge of Russia I wouldn't allow the Catholic Church to operate either. This is a country coming out of 80 years of communist propaganda, with a president trying to rebuild the moral fabric of the nation. On the other side we have the Catholic Church, which in its NOChurch guise seems to do nothing other than promote homosexuality and feminism.

The survey of American Catholics confirms pretty much what I said then. Whatever NOChurch touches is worse off for it.

Many will say that one needs to make a distinction between people who self-identify as Catholics and those who actually go to Mass every single Sunday. I agree that the distinction is not irrelevant, but I have always argued that the greatest argument against the Novus Ordo is not the vast number of Catholics who never bother going to Church on Sundays, but rather a good conversation with a large number of those who do. I have had many of these discussions, and I can disabuse anybody of the notion that the statistics for Sunday Mass-going Catholics would be anything other than horrifying.

I really do not want to spend too much time on other news of the week, because nothing out to detract from the frightening news contained in that survey, which I urge everyone to read.

In other weeks, I might have spent more time on a new homosexual priest scandal, this time in Italy, on account of the news that a homosexual prostitute made a list of 40 sodomitical clerics with whom he has been involved and this list has now been presented to the Vatican. As I wrote last week, we seem to have sodomy news from clerics almost every week and it is utterly depressing, yet it explains so much of what is going on in the Church today.

I could mention that an African cardinal, a certain Cardinal John Onaiyekan, is bemused at why the Catholic Church in Europe is attempting to tackle the 'isolation' of homosexuals, instead of tackling its empty Churches.

In another week, I might have written extensively about the Italian elections, in which anti-immigration and anti-EU forces won the majority of the votes, very much in oppsition to Bergoglio's and the Italian bishops' conference's prodding.

We might have been able to tackle comments by Cardinal Brandmüller taking issue at the German bishops' conference promoting and authorising protestants to receive 'Holy Communion' on Sundays if they are married to Catholics, a move based on "utterly dishonest" premises. After all, these would be protestants who long so much to receive the Eucharist that they couldn't be bothered to enter the Catholic Church in order tod o it.

Also of mention is the fact the truth regarding the...