What is at stake after the European election

De Mattei: What is at stake after the European elections of May 26 

Roberto de Mattei 

Corrispondenza Romana

May 29, 2019

The elections of May 26th were an important episode in a conflict that goes way beyond the destiny of the European Parliament or any national government. In fact, a lobby exists that has as its aim, the destruction of Christian identity and the construction of cosmopolitan organisms that are assuming sovereign power of life and death over its European citizens. An example of this plan is what has just happened in France, where the Paris Court of Appeals handed over to the United Nations Organization, the ultimate decision on the life of Vincent Lambert, the French paraplegic condemned to death by his wife and the doctors at Rheims Hospital, where he is a patient.      

It is clear that power of legislation on the life of Lambert does not pertain to the French judges, nor those of Europe or the United Nations. Positive laws, both national and international, do not have their source in the entities that emanate or apply them, but in a divine law that is preexistent to the laws of men and by the laws of men cannot be changed.   Now, the natural and divine law prohibits the killing of the innocent and any human law claiming to establish the contrary must be considered a non-law, invalid and iniquitous. Further, inasmuch as the only guardian of the divine and natural law is the Catholic Church, it is first of all up to the men of the Church to proclaim the inalienable right to life.  But today the voice of the men of the Church is gone.  The only problem  the leaders of the Church seem to be interested in is that of hospitality to migrants from outside of Europe. An absolute, unconditional, total hospitality. We are not dealing here with the ancient virtue, whether Christian or secular, of hospitality, but of an ideological choice, wherein the philosophy of hospitality is presented, in reality, as a theory of renouncing European identity, or rather, its replacement.

The concept of "the great replacement" introduced by Renaud Camus (Le Grand Remplacement, David Reinharc, Neuilly-sur-Seine 2011) was developed by Professor Renato Cristin in his book I padroni del caos [The Lords of Chaos] (Liberlibri, Macerata 2017).  By way of a rigorous analysis, the author, who teaches philosophy at the University of Trieste, explains how this theory aims at substituting European populations with other populations (Africans, Arabians, Asians, for the most part Muslim) [thus] producing chaos as a concrete historical prospect. Cristin refers to the existence of a 2001 United Nations project in which "replacement migration" is explicitly addressed, in order to deal with the European demographic decline. 

The flows of populations are not only an ethnic transplanting, but a toppling of civilization, a "counter-colonization", in which migrants are seen as bringers of a hybrid civilization or mixed race,  opposed to the Christian one which built Europe. The destruction of the national States passes thereby through a policy of replacement, whether it be ethnic or cultural. The cultural replacement consists in the negation of any identity rooted in European Christian tradition; the ethnic replacement occurs with the entry of a human mass of immigrants that substitute the European population, decimated by abortion and contraception. The anti-birth mentality is the biological expression of the cultural and moral suicide of the West. 

The results of the European Elections rewarded the political parties that most openly invoke national identities. Of particular importance is the sweeping victory of Matteo Salvini's Lega, which attained 34.3% of the votes in Italy. But Italy, however, has been the country where the push for immigration has been the strongest, with not only the Episcopal Conference entering the field, but even Pope Francis who has been presenting himself as the leader of the leftwing political spectrum. The front-cover of the weekly L'Espresso, May 26th, portrays Pope Francis with the mask of Zorro, the vigilante, and defines him as the voice of "the people's protest" against Salvini. On May 27th,in his Message for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees", Pope Francis affirmed that "the motto of the true Christian is 'the last' first', reiterating: " this is not only about migrants: it is about putting the 'last' first". That same morning, the Pope met with the Chief of the Kayapo Indios of the Amazon, Raoni Metukire, to re-launch revolutionary indigenism, in view of the Synod on the Amazon in October. 

 The Bergoglian theology of the "last" represents open encouragement for the "replacement migration" strategy.  It is not clear who 'the last' are, but it is clear who those that must be replaced are, in the new "preferential option." The Gospel exhorts us to love our neighbor as ourselves: "there is no greater commandment than this" (Mark 12, 29-31). St Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica (question 26, part II-II), explains however, that love for our neighbor is not a generic and indiscriminate sentiment, but has a precise gradation, which he calls the 'order of charity', whereby love must progressively extend itself from those closest to those farthest away. God must be loved more than our neighbor (a.2) and more than ourselves (a.3). Man must love himself more than his neighbor (a.4) and among our neighbors, some are to be loved more than others (a.6). The closest to us are those who gave us life and those we gave it to: our parents and our children. It is from them that love for our neighbor begins. 

It would make no sense, for example, to throw our parents out in the street in order to bring a couple of immigrants into their room. Further, the love that we owe our neighbor is primarily of a spiritual nature. What we must desire more than anything else, is the salvation of those we love. And loving means desiring their salvation. In the case of immigrants this consists in desiring their conversion to the true faith.  But today there is no pastoral care of evangelization for immigrants underway, in Italy or in Europe. Multiculturalism is presented as a much higher value than the monocultural Christian identity. 

The dogma of hospitality is being proclaimed furthermore, by a society that takes the life of innocent human beings, unborn babies and old people; the former condemned to death by abortion, the latter, by euthanasia, without any real opposition to these crimes by the men of the Church. In reality, those who are scandalized by the display of a crucifix in schools or by a rosary kissed by a political leader, not only want to extirpate every public expression of Christianity, but also expect to snuff out the light of the divine and natural law still existent in our consciences, compelling us to defend innocent human life. And those who still have a Christian conscience, cannot but reclaim the vivid presence of the Crucifix, not only in private life, but also in public life and in the collective identity of European nations.  

Hence, we call upon the political parties in Italy, Hungary, France and many other countries that won the elections, thereby defeating "immigrationism", not to limit themselves to a generic or superficial call to Christian roots, but to express this identity concretely in the institutions and laws of Europe, starting with the uncompromising defense of life and the family. The "Lambert case", after that of Eluana Englaro and Alfie Evans, is the example of a battle that must be conducted in the upcoming months. This will perhaps raise the level of the conflict, but today we are battling for the life or death of our civilization. This battle, prior to being in parliament, is to be conducted in [our] culture and mentality. Yet, the electoral results have the function of revealing the deep tendencies of public opinion and in the case of May 26th, the electoral test demonstrates a European population that is not about to capitulate

Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment: Newman and Liberalism and the Spirit of the Antichrist

http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2019/05/newman-and-liberalism-and-spirit-of.html

The shortage of priests didn’t just happen by itself, it was engineered. | Fr. Z's Blog

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2019/05/the-shortage-of-priests-didnt-just-happen-by-itself-it-was-engineered/

Evelyn Waugh Predicted the Collapse of Catholic England

He saw Vatican II as an attempt by elites to foist changes on a laity that didn't want them.

By CASEY CHALK • May 2, 2019

Credit: Carl Van Vechten Photographs

Imagine a society enfeebled by constant, top-down, progressivist experimentation offering universal, programmatic solutions to problems that are either inherently localist or transcendent. Imagine an intellectual elite who are arrogantly uninterested in—and perhaps conscientiously deaf to—the concerns of ordinary, working-class people. Imagine a media that serves as a microphone for this elite, actively avoiding stories that don't harmonize with their enlightened narrative.

This probably sounds a bit like the milieu that resulted the cultural distemper of the 2016 presidential election and that still largely defines American politics today. It is also, interestingly, a description of the liturgical changes imposed upon the Catholic Church in the United Kingdom during the 1960s, as painfully described in A Bitter Trial, a series of correspondences between English Catholic writer Evelyn Waugh and John Carmel Cardinal Heenan.

The liturgical changes in question stemmed directly from the Second Vatican Council, which met from 1962 to 1965. For many, the council was, in the famous words of Pope John XXIII, a chance to "open the windows [of the Church] and let in some fresh air." This was not so much the case for Waugh, who loudly (though unsuccessfully) protested the radical transformations foisted upon Catholic worship. These changes included an emphasis on vernacular languages over Latin, a revised lectionary, and significant alterations to the components of the Mass. Waugh's words in response to this revolution are arresting: "Church-going is now a bitter trial," he wrote. Elsewhere he said, "the Vatican Council has knocked the guts out of me." To a friend, he wrote, "I have not yet soaked myself in petrol and gone up in flames, but I now cling to the Faith doggedly without joy." In another letter to a cleric, he sought to know the least he was "obliged to do without grave sin." This is remarkable, coming from one of the most famous Catholic writers of the 20th century, one who had previously adored the Mass.

One of Waugh's most persistent criticisms of the liturgical changes is that progressive, elitist-driven experimentation hurts ordinary people the most, undermining their confidence in important institutions. Vatican II represented, in Waugh's mind, a rejection of the needs and opinions of local people. "A vociferous minority has imposed itself on the hierarchy and made them believe that a popular demand existed where there was in fact not even a preference," he warned.

Advertisement

00:02

/

00:59

00:00

Nor were parish priests, the local leaders who best understand the common man, sufficiently consulted. Waugh wrote: "I know of none whose judgment I would prefer to that of the simplest parish priest. Sharp minds may explore the subtlest verbal problems, but in the long routine of the seminary and the life spent with the Offices of the Church the truth is most likely to emerge."

Waugh went unheeded, though many subsequently acknowledged the truth of his admonitions. Cardinal Heenan in a 1967 pastoral letter acknowledged that "bishop after bishop in the Synod rose to complain that his people are thoroughly tired of the constant changes." Heenan and later Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) accused the Council of failing to consult ordinary parish priests and laity, preferring instead the opinions of "specialists and experts." Catholic scholar Alcuin Reid has similarly noted that "to change ritual is to risk altering the faith, particularly that of simple folk."

The great author of Brideshead Revisited also perceived in the changes an attempt to reorganize the Church into an institution focused primarily on community and social reform rather than transcendent worship. He wrote disparagingly of one famous priest who "wishes to have a 'priest-president' who will conduct a 'sort of town meeting' to discuss social projects. The people would discuss their worries and share their 'developing insights.' The priest-president will sum up, giving the 'ancient Eucharistic prayer a whole new tone and content.'"

Waugh found this entirely wrongheaded, arguing that such an approach would drive people away from church. "Awe is the natural predisposition to prayer. When young theologians talk, as they do, of Holy Communion as a 'social meal' they find little response in the hearts and minds of their less sophisticated brothers." Elsewhere he cautioned: "If the Mass is changed in form so as to emphasize its social character, many souls will find themselves put at a further distance from their true aim." Indeed, in attempting to turn the Mass "into a parish meeting" that replicates other social organizations, the Church undermined its transcendent function in society.

• Evelyn Waugh: From Savage to Sober
• Ross Douthat Peers Into the Papal Murk

Finally, Waugh (and Heenan) argued that the reform movement embraced a modernist paradigm that pitted traditionalists against intellectual progressives, the latter manipulating the media to both direct and narrow the conversation and silence alternative opinions. Heenan observed that the reform was driven by self-described "intellectuals" whose "constant nagging" and "tiresome letters to the press and articles in the Catholic papers may eventually disturb the faithful." Moreover, Heenan noted, "the voice of the laity" was largely ignored by the media, as were conservative leaders in the Church, whom intellectuals painted as "mitred peasants." Waugh argued, "the function of the Church in every age has been conservative—to transmit undiminished and uncontaminated the creed inherited from its predecessors. Not 'is this fashionable notion one that we should accept?'" Indeed, what is "fashionable" is usually identifiable not with what the ordinary man on the street wants, but what elites desire.

The great irony of the liturgical reforms of 1960s Catholicism is that rather than bring new faces into the Church, they drove people away. During the 1930s, there were 12,000 English converts a year to Catholicism. Yet Church attendance among Catholics in Britain has been on a steady decline ever since Vatican II. As Joseph Pearce observes:

It is a singularly intriguing fact that the preconciliar Church was so effective in evangelizing modern culture, whereas the number of converts to the faith seemed to diminish in the sixties and seventies in direct proportion to the presence of the much-vaunted aggiornamento, the muddle-headed belief that the Church needed to be brought "up-to-date."

Progressivist elites, through their adroit manipulation of the media and effective appeals to their own intellectual and theological expertise, did incredible damage to English Catholicism. They misunderstood both the human person and human society. They ignored the common man's sense of his own needs, while foisting upon him programmatic solutions that positivist anti-Catholic thinker Auguste Comte had yearned to implement. By the 1960s, modernism and technological advancements had already fashioned a culture unprecedented for its level of isolation and atomization. Progressivist Church leaders, eager to upend time-proven traditions, only accelerated this process.

Americans, both traditionalists and progressivists, should take note. The more one seeks to radically (and dictatorially) transform a people and their ways of life, the more one works to destroy that people, taking from them the beliefs and practices that give their lives stability and purpose. If Americans want to avoid the tempestuous times that ravaged the postconciliar Catholic Church (and of which, sadly, we are still suffering the consequences), they should heed well the warnings of Evelyn Waugh.

Casey Chalk is a student at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Theology at Christendom College. He covers religion and other issues for TAC

The Eponymous Flower: THE TRUE ORIGIN OF THE NEW MASS

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-true-origin-of-new-mass.html

Sunday, May 5, 2019

THE TRUE ORIGIN OF THE NEW MASS

By David Martin

While Pope Paul VI today is seen as the father of the New Mass of Vatican II, it's important to note that the outline for the New Mass was in the works before Paul VI was even pope, i.e. since 1960. The infamous new draft was principally the work of Msgr. Annibale Bugnini who had long been suspected of Freemasonry, and unfortunately his draft was approved by the Preparatory Commission on the Liturgy early in 1962. (Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, the Rhine Flows into the Tiber)

The outline, known also as the "Bugnini Draft," would dominate the discussions in the opening session of Vatican II, after which it would formally be adopted as the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy on December 7, 1962. The Constitution (later called Sacrosanctum Concilium) would serve as the blueprint for the New Mass to be implemented later, which would be dubbed the Mass of Pope Paul VI.

Hence the blueprint for the "Mass of Pope Paul VI" was finalized and adopted six months before Paul VI was even elected! (Michael Davies, How the Liturgy Fell Apart: The Enigma of Archbishop Bugnini)

Pope Paul Never Abrogated the Old Mass

It should also be pointed out that while Paul VI is often accused of imposing the New Mass, he never forbade the Old Mass. In 1986, a panel of nine Vatican cardinals concluded that Pope Paul VI never abrogated the Mass of Pius V, nor did he mandate the New Mass, nor did he grant bishops the right to forbid or restrict priests from saying the Tridentine Latin Mass. Pope John Paul II had commissioned the cardinals to look into the legal status of the Old Mass, as it was his intention to bring its legality to light.

If Pope Paul had truly mandated the New Mass, he would have specified this, but this was never done. Nowhere in the 1969 Missale Romanum does it mandate that the New Mass must be said. The document merely mandates the publication of the new missal, ordering that "the prescriptions of this Constitution go into effect [are validated] November 30th of this year" and that it "be firm and effective now and in the future." But there is no mention of its use. 

The decree then validates and makes available the new missal for those who want it, i.e. it is an indult. A Traditionalist priest of the Society of St. Pius X, Father Francois Laisney, points out that "Pope Paul VI did not oblige the use of his [new] Mass, but only permitted it.... There is no clear order, command, or precept imposing it on any priest." 

According to Fr. Laisney, the same applies to subsequent decrees on the New Mass, including the 1971 Notification from the Congregation of Divine Worship, of which he says: "One cannot find in this text any clear prohibition for any priest to use the traditional Mass nor an obligation to celebrate only the New Mass."

Be that as it may, Pope Paul did sign for the New Mass in 1969, which was a mistake on his part. He unfortunately gave in under duress and yielded to the wishes of those who had ¹proposed and designed the Novus Ordo, namely, Msgr. Bugnini and his Protestant clique.

The pope on occasion had been briefed about Bugnini's affiliation with the Freemasons, but he didn't give it much credence. Unfortunately, Bugnini had managed to dupe the Holy Father, as he [the pope] would later admit to his liturgist Fr. Louis Bouyer in 1974.

Conspiracy Unveiled

In July 1975, Pope Paul was forced against his will to learn of Bugnini's affiliation with the Freemasons. Bugnini had attended a meeting with the Secretariat of State where he accidentally forgot his briefcase. A dossier obtained from Bugnini's briefcase was personally brought to the Holy Father by a reputable high cardinal who had obtained it from a priest who had opened the briefcase to see who it belonged to. The dossier contained private instructions from the Italian Masonic Grand Master to Bugnini, which convinced the pope beyond any doubt that he was a Freemason. The following is part of what Pope Paul VI read in the dossier and is dated June 14, 1964.

Dear Buan [Masonic code-name of Bugnini]:

We communicate the task appointed to you by the Council of Brothers, in accordance with the Grand Master and the Assistant Princes to the Throne. We oblige you to spread de-Christianization by confusing rites and languages and to set priests, bishops and cardinals against each other. Linguistic and ritualistic babel means victory for us, since linguistic and ritual unity has been the strength of the Church…. Everything must happen within a decade."

Note the satanic strategy proposed for defeating Christians: To divide is to conquer. The following now is a letter from Bugnini to the Grand Master of the P2 Lodge updating him on the progress of his mission. This is dated July 2, 1967.

Peerless Grand Master:

The de-sacralization is rapidly taking place. Another Instruction has been issued, which took effect on June 29. We can already sing victory, because the vernacular is now sovereign in the whole liturgy, even in the essential parts…. The greatest liberty was given to choose between the various formulas, to individual creativity, and to chaos! ... In short, with this document I believe to have spread the principle of maximum licentiousness, in accordance with your wishes.

I fought hard against my enemies from the Congregation for the Rites, and I had to use all my astuteness so that the Pope would approve it. By luck, we found the support of friends and brothers in Universa Laus [International Association for the Study of Liturgical Music], who are faithful. I thank you for the funds sent and am waiting to see you soon. I embrace you,

Your Brother Buan

This correspondence is taken from Andrea Tornielli's Dossier: Freemasonry and the application of the Liturgical Reform, which appeared in the June 1992 issue of 30 Days magazine. In commenting on the two missives, the author admits that "the outcome of Bugnini's reforms fully matches the intention expressed in them."

The letters coincide with Tito Casini's book of April 1976, "In the Smoke of Satan-Towards the Final Clash," in which the author states: "The reform has been conducted by this Bugnini who has been unmasked at last; he is indeed what we long suspected: a Freemason." Casini was reporting on the 'dossier' incident of July 1975 which caused Bugnini to be expelled from the Vatican.

Traditionalist Catholic writer Michael Davies investigated the allegations against Bugnini and made contact with the priest who had discovered the dossier in Bugnini's briefcase and who had "this information placed in the hands of Pope Paul VI by a cardinal."

The matter is discussed in his book, How the Liturgy Fell Apart: The Enigma of Archbishop Bugnini, wherein he shows how the pope at this point was convinced of Bugnini's affiliation with the Masonic lodge. 

The story about the briefcase also appeared in Piers Compton's 1981 book The Broken Cross. Therein he states that Bugnini's Masonic membership was recorded in "The Italian Register" on April 23, 1963, "and that his code-name was Buan."

Moreover, the June 1976 issue of the Italian publication SI, SI, No, No, and four months later, the October edition of the French journal La Contre-reforme catholique, among others, carried the news about the Bugnini dossier. 

As a result of Pope Paul's shocking discovery, Bugnini was suddenly dismissed as the head of the Congregation of Divine Worship, whereupon the Congregation itself was dissolved and merged with a new Congregation for the Sacraments, which Bugnini wasn't even permitted to join. This occurred in July 1975. Thereupon, a plan was in motion to send him into a sort of exile  by making him 'papal nuncio' of Iran, which was announced in the press shortly thereafter. 

Shortly after Bugnini's expulsion, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre declared in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors: "Now, when we hear in Rome that he who was the heart and soul of the liturgical reform is a Freemason, we may think that he is not the only one. The veil covering the greatest deceit ever to have mystified the clergy and baffled the faithful, is doubtless beginning to be torn asunder."

The Freemasons of course are a satanic secret society committed solely to destroying the Roman Catholic Church. Their practice of witchcraft, murder and devil worship is no secret, for which reason the Church has always forbidden association with them. Those who join them are accursed.

1. This does not invalidate the New Mass, since the essentials for a valid Mass remain present in the new rite. If the priest is duly ordained and he pronounces the words of consecration, "This is My Body-This is My Blood, the Sacrifice of Calvary is reenacted as in the old Rite. The difference between the old and new liturgy is that the former renders honor to Christ's Sacrifice while the latter detracts from it, but Christ is present in both.