Bergoglio flubs Fatima Russian Consecration. Of course he does...

Amici,

Bergoglio and Fatima: unfortunately, this isn't an April Fool's joke.

Bergoglio flubbed the Fatima Russia consecration. Of course he did. What else would ye expect?

From a Lifesitenews article here by Michael Haynes. "Why is a leading Vatican theologian rejecting Fatima links to Pope Francis’ consecration of Russia?"

Read the whole article for details of the Bergoglian disaster's non-Fatima Fatima consecration of Russia, Ukraine, and especially the world – oh, wait, it was a consecration of the whole world and especially Russia and Ukraine, or something like that – to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Except Fatima wasn't mentioned. The event was, in a word, your basic Modernist mess.

And in to add insult to injury, among all the languages the event was said in, Fr Hunwicke notes that Latin was not one of them. "Clearly, the once 'Good Pope John' has lost his cred in this Age of Bergoglianity ... PF respects his views on the Curia no more than he respects the detailed regulations he laid down in Veterum Sapientia for the reinforcement of Latin (the Vatican recently published texts for the Consecration of Russia and Ukraine in, I think, 32 languages ... which, by failing to include Latin, put it on a level with  Cornish)."

Back to the Lifesite Article by Michael Haynes. Excerpt:

Though the official English translation does not mention Our Lady of Fatima, or the errors of Russia that she warned of, the Pope and bishops who joined him prayed the consecration before a statue of Our Lady of Fatima and consecrated Russia and Ukraine to the “Immaculate Heart.” The intent on the day appeared clearly oriented to Fatima, being made before statues of Our Lady of Fatima.

Yet only hours before the consecration took place, Vatican News published an interview with Fr. Stefano Cecchin, OFM, the president of Rome’s Pontifical International Marian Academy, who made strong efforts to completely disassociate the consecration from Our Lady of Fatima’s request, and instead highlight the role of “synodality.”

AnP again: one just despairs. So Bergoglio has an anti-Marian as president of the Marian Academy. Makes perfect sense for the heretic. That's exactly what Modernism, the "mother of all heresies", does. It can't help itself. And we're damned if we pretend there's no problem, which many insist on trying to do. I came across the following comment at Fr. Z's blog:

Pope Francis is Pope because the Holy Ghost would not allow otherwise. We may not like it. He has not made any Excathedra statements and if he did they would not be heretical because once again the Holy Ghost would not allow it.

A "Cop-out"

This is both mental and spiritual laziness, what used to be a "cop-out", an excuse rationalization, even blasphemous because it alleges the Holy Ghost has appointed an ecclesiastical murderer. It's a "Don't believe your lying eyes" and we, today, have far, far too much for that. It's drowning us! Basic Reality: A pope, when he opens his mouth in any faith or religion sense, teaches doctrine pretty much with every comment. Why? He does so because he is Christ's Vicar. He's like a grand vizier of any ancient Israelite king. He holds the palace keys and Great Seal, as they did. He doesn't have to "make ex-Cathedra statements"! Those are for special notice and emphasis, usually to settle a long-debated issue. In short, a pope is like a prime minister of a monarch or an American president. When Joe Biden says something stupid off the cuff, he can actually change U.S. policy. He can actually start a war. That's the power a president has, a prime minister – and a pope.

Our Grim Ecclesiastical Reality

Bergoglio is clearly a heretic, murdering the Faith, and certainly the Church. Look at his whole pontificate.

1. Take the long view. Don't lose the Bergoglian forest for the (pretty much everyday) Bergoglian tree, wherein he puts his foot in his mouth with quotidian regularity.
2. In doctrine of every sort, and certainly moral issues (he's pathological about nutty sex stuff), he goes against Scripture and Tradition.
3. Bergoglio has a pathological hatred of the Traditional Liturgy, the Vetus Ordo.
   
4. The traditional Latin liturgies, as they naturally evolved over centuries, are the "form" of the Western Church, like the soul is the form of body. The Eastern Liturgies do the same for those Churches. In contrast, the Novus Ordo was made up by a committee, basically one man, Hannibal Bugnini. It's a sort of Frankenstein's Monster, made with pieces of this and pieces of that.
   
5. This lack of actual life in the Novus Ordo was manifest from the beginning, as the Church started shedding members from the N.O.'s inception. Today, churches are empty, seminaries are empty or gay encounter clubs, and the U.S. Church (for one example) survives on Federal money for "refugees", which is why the Church is so strident in advocating for illegal immigrants.
   
6. The only growth the Vatican II Church has actually EVER actually seen involves the TLM laity and, possibly, the Charismatic Catholics, although they're not as stable a set as the TLMers. But otherwise, people have been falling away from the Vat II Church since it launched.
   
7. Benedict's Summorum Pontificum recognized and blessed the reality that the TLM attracted people, solid folks who started having large families in the Church, and it obviously has transforming power.
   
8. Bergoglio hates that and has tried to kill it. He's has done everything possible to destroy the TLM movement! We're as insane as he is if we think God prefers such an ogre to be His vicar on Earth. Old Fr. Hunwicke, a wise man if ever there was one, has a must-read column here about Bergoglio and the Liturgy. 

An excerpt:

In concluding this four-part survey, I remind readers that we have met no examples of liturgically-preoccupied popes hunched over desks in Rome, micromanaging what every insignificant curate anywhere in the World can be allowed to do at the Altar. 

We have met no pope who believed that doctrinal unity could only be secured or expressed by rigid uniformity of worship.

But there is an even broader point to be made than the merely liturgical question: the 'papacy' which at this moment we are so painfully enduring is a Novelty; it is not found in Antiquity and no more is it found in the admirable teaching of Vatican I (or the subsequent clarifications by Blessed Pius IX) nor in the texts of Vatican II. In the sometimes-derided high baroque period of the Roman Primacy, the writings of that admirable pontiff, Prospero Lambertini, Benedict XIV, give no countenance to it. 

It is because this style of papacy is a Novelty that it needs to be unambiguously rejected. 

Catholicism with Novelty is not Catholicism with something exotic added. Once you embark upon nailing alien matter onto the Faith, what you get is not Catholicism-plus. Catholicism, with the authentic Papal Ministry subtracted from it, has ceased to be Catholicism at all.

AnP again:

Bergoglio, and all the Modernists, do precisely that: they add something exotic, like their putrid Pachamama mess; they're nailing alien matter onto the Faith. They keep trying to create a "Catholicism-Plus" because they can't imagine anyone who finds the Holy Ghost calling them from Catholicism-as-God-set-it-up. They themselves don't. Luther couldn't. Calvin didn't try, and Progressive Catholics are just bored of the whole thing and think idiotically, "Gee, if we just make the Church more like the Church of England, everything will be great!"

So, Bergoglio flubbed the Fatima Russia Consecration. And we hover on the edge of nuclear Armageddon, pushed into the Pit by a demented, non compos mentis mannequin and his masters, people like Jacques Attali, the true éminence grise of Globalism, or the infamous Yuval Noah Harari, whom the great Dr. Zelenko has exposed. 

Bergoglio isn't even a tertiary player among these big shots; and he's certainly NO defense against them. Instead, Bergoglio has turned the Church into a their lickspittle NGO lobby.

An Préachán

The Novus Ordu lacks intimacy; the TLM has it abundantly

A Chairde, Amici,

In his new motu proprio, Traditionis custodes, Bergoglio clearly signals he intends to end the Traditional Latin Mass. He'll allow a window for it temporarily, but he intends shutting that window. And soon. (Maybe his doctors told him he hasn't much longer on Earth?)

I know he's not going to be able to achieve his evil design. But in reflection on this: here's a excellent essay by Fr. Hunwicke at his blog Liturgical Notes, tiltled: Mass Last Saturday. Fr. H reflects on the poignancy of a thing about to be taken from one.

As for myself, here's the first in an essay series on the TLM and N.O. Liturgies regarding why one works and cannot be killed off, no matter how desperate the attempt, while the other has to be kept on life-support by all the official Church, making use of every hook and every crook, and by use of every sort of bullying and threat.

Novus Ordo is it lacks intimacy

I think one of the drawbacks of the Novus Ordo is it lacks intimacy. The TLM is like an Eastern Rite liturgy in its heart – mystical, interior, the Incarnation and yourself participating in that stupendous event are its raison d'être – and it uses time differently than the Novus Ordo does, certainly. But aside from the focus on the Incarnation, the intimacy of the the Eastern Rites and the TLM are what stand out to me so strongly.

Very much so, the individual has a different place in the two Masses. The N.O. is a horizontal construct with a horizontal vision; it is like a marching band with everyone in group lockstep, playing the same tune and all changing tunes at the same time. It lacks intimacy precisely because the souls worshiping in it are not allowed to wander. (Or wonder, either, for that matter.) On the other hand, the TLM is like floating in a river of grace, wide and warm and everyone can move along at their own time and own pace whirling about in endless eddies and currents, wherever the Holy Ghost wants them to go or where they feel the need to be, spiritually. 

That's why it is so intimate, and the N.O., well, not.

For myself, only after attending Eastern liturgies and then the full TLM did I realize I had never prayed in a Novus Ordo. I, myself. Mé fhéin. With God. The congregation prayed, sure. Loudly, too. But such congregational praying is not the same as one oneself praying. It hinders one's prayers. (This is why so many Protestants will say they feel "closer to God" on a seacoast or high on a hill, etc.) And in any event, large group recitation is only the shallowest form of prayer. (One can manage it with the family Rosary, yes, but to participate in the Incarnation, not so much.) 

That insight is worth a ton of blather about celebrating the N.O. 'reverently', as exemplified in so many Magisterium (center-of-the-road) Catholics saying, "We must celebrate it more reverently." Right. Keep trying. Didn't Einstein supposedly say, "The definition of insanity is keep trying the same experiment over and over and expecting a different result"? The truth is, it can never be very reverent precisely because of the group marching band nature of it.  

An Préachán

June 9 was St. Columba's Feast Day...

 A Chairde,

Sorry to be just mentioning this, but 9 June was St. Colum Cille's Feast day. He lived from 7 December 521 to 9 June 597, and was an O'Neill prince (a great-great grandson of Niall of the Nine Hostages himself, high king before Patrick ever arrived) from the north of Ireland who became the Apostle of Scotland, or as some would have it, Apostle to the Picts, or at least to the Irish colony in what is now southwestern Scotland.

Were I to start to even begin a cursory history of the saint, I'd end up writing a book. For those interested, try the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on him. 

For an interesting bit of insight into the times of St. Columba, and especially those small stone "oratory" churches here and there, particularly in Kerry (far outside of St. Columba's activities) consider reading old Fr. Hunwicke's 9 June column. 

A lot of great info, on many levels! As it is not long, here it is.

9 June 2021

S Columba: all is revealed (2) (With a fine thread from more than a decade ago)

There isn't really any mystery about why S Columba did not enter the church until after the Gospel of the Mass. For the answer, you only need to go to the Iveragh peninsula in County Kerry - that's the bulge sticking out into the Atlantic just South of the not always edifying tourist honey-trap of the Dingle. (Avoid the Dingle; go to the Waterville and Valentia Island area.) If you are a bookish sort of person, take the admirable Archaeological Survey of the Iveragh published by UCC. And, before you go, read my own paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Volume 102C, Number 1, 2002. (You could do worse than to read the even older treatment in by Francoise Henry: Volume 58C, 45-166.) And let yourself be lured into crawling around the innumerable early Christian sites. 

The Skellig Island (to which, as I recently observed, G B Shaw once had himself rowed from Sneem) is uniquely dramatic and - provided you are not easily seasick - a must, but you may be a little diasappointed by being made to wait before climbing to the top so that the previous lot of tourists can come down, chattering away into their mobile phones to their boyfriends in Barcelona. Go as well or instead for peace and quiet and visit Killabuonia and trace the buildings among the brambles on the hillside; and get a boatman to row you the few yards from Port Magee to Illaunloghan,  excavated and spectacularly written up by Jenny Marshall White (for sale in the shops at Port Magee ... Magee was a pirate ...). Or during the spring low tides you can walk through the straights across to Illaunloghan, watching the scallops snapping shut as you wade past them.

What you will discover is that the stone oratories which survive in such abundance, often with 'Founder's Shrines' and standing crosses beside them, were very very small. And archaeology has revealed that the wood and peat oratories which preceded the stone edifices were even smaller. And yet, apparently, these chapels served large 'monastic' communities and very large lay districts. It is clear that entire congregations could have not got into these little buildings. 

What obviously happened was that the bulk of the congregation was outside, and that even the clergy were outside, from the litany which started the Mass until after the Gospel. Then the clergy, probably not more than half a dozen individuals, went inside for the Holy Sacrifice.

Ergo ...