On Fashions, Masses, And Popes.
In every reasonable, commonly accepted and proper sense of the term, the word fashion denotes something impermanent, fickle, mutable.
In Italy, and elsewhere, the word fashion is often opposed to the word elegance.
The two worlds do not really communicate, and everyone must choose if he – or she – wants to follow the one or the other. Traditionally, fashion has been the preserve of women, whose ways of dressing have shown a marked tendency to change, particularly in certain matters like, for example, shoes. A woman can – in some ways, will have to – follow the fashion and still be elegant, but not a man. In brutal contrast to women, the concept of men’s elegance has been as conservative as, so to speak, a SSPX priest. It is nothing less than astonishing that a well-dressed man of today dresses pretty much in the same way as the lower middle-class well-dressed man of one hundred years ago; the man, that is, who could not afford those expensive garments now confined to a kind of ceremonial, highly defined role (the morning coat, say; or the tails; whilst the frock coat has basically disappeared) but had to limit themselves to the kind of suit that has come to us, unchanged in essentials, more than 100 years later. The beautiful Ealing Comedy classic Kind Hearts and Coronets, the product of extremely thorough research and a sartorially lavish production, is a very pleasant way to educate yourself to the elegance of 100 years ago.
You will notice, though, that even in matter of men’s clothing, fashion regularly tries to invade the citadel of men’s decency. From the peacock revolution of the Sixties, to the unspeakably ugly Armani jackets of the Eighties, to the even worse looking “faggot look” of these days – you know what I mean: the jackets that look as if they had shrunk in the washing machine, and leaving the backside in sight; and the ridiculously tapered trousers, again in faggot’s style – some men think they have to dress in a fashionable, rather than in a traditional way. They are fools, and not very manly; because the stylists who create such fashions are largely homosexual, and they will let the men stupid enough to follow them look like homosexuals. Cue the buttocks in sight, the desperate attempt to get a boyish, or even ephebic look, and the general air of “diversity” from the accepted standard of manliness. Fashion for men is – and cannot but be – effeminate; because fashion for men must be – even when the buttocks are not in sight – the contrary of that steady conservatism, that strong and quiet assertiveness of a never-changing strenght, that is the very essence of masculinity.
Elegance is for manly men, and fashion is for men who would like to be women; because fashion is changeable and fickle, and elegance is permanent and steady.
Why this long rant about the faggotry look invading our streets, and worn by idiots who don’t even get how ridiculous they are, and how they are advancing the cause of the perverts? Because the Bishop of Rome has allegedly called the Traditional Latin Mass rather a kind of fashion, and those devoted to it, wait for it, addicted to it.
The confusion – or worse; much worse – reigning in the head of this man could not be exposed more brutally than by its own words. He does not know what he is talking about, or he hopes you don’t notice what nonsense he is talking.
We have here a 2,000 year tradition compared to which even elegance – much less fashion – can be seen as extremely unsteady. A 2,000 year tradition not only tracing his roots to the very beginning of Christianity, but whose untouchable sacredness has been long considered one of the most obvious facts of Church life. A 2,000 year tradition solemnly declared inviolable for all times by Pope St. Pius V. A 2,000 tradition of which Pope Benedict had the following to say:
What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.
This foolish man now declared the Traditional Latin Mass… a fashion. His words are reported as follows:
When I search more thoroughly – the Pope said – I find that it is rather a kind of fashion. And if it is a fashion, therefore it is a matter that does not need that much attention. It is just necessary to show some patience and kindness to people who are addicted to a certain fashion.
Seriously, this is way out of line: extremely confused, or wilfully evil. It might not be anathema – I think; not entirely sure there – but to treat 2,000 years of most sacred Christian liturgical tradition as if it were a fix for fashion junkies is beyond stupid. It is positively obscene. It has an indecency in it that borders the blasphemous. It shows a willigness to twist the most simple words, to make the most outlandish accusations, that is utterly Jesuitical, Pharisaic, evil. It shouts out loud the utterly subversive nature of this pontificate, the mocking disrespect for 2,000 years of Christianity, the unspeakable arrogance of a man who thinks he can liquidate 2,000 years of God-willed liturgy with the insulting name of fashion, and label those who love and respect this Christian tradition as addicted.
What kind of man is this? Who made him Cardinal? Why was he made a Bishop? How was he allowed to become a priest in the first place?
The answer to this is, alas, sobering. He was made Cardinal by John Paul II. Bishop by the same man. And priest by the most benighted of all wannabe Catholics, South American Jesuits; in 1969, in the very midst of a satanic revolution within the Church, that is: smack dab in the middle of Satan’s party.
It beggars belief that the Papacy could sink so low. Who could have thought, one year ago this very day, waiting for a Pope that would continue Benedict’s slow and too prudent, but still reasonable work, that such an individual would be elected.Lord, have mercy.
Still, let us see the positive side of this event.
In his unspeakable way, Francis is saying that he has no intention to make any dramatic move against the Mass of the Ages. He will mock it, obstacle it any way he can. But he will, for the time being, not make any overt move against the Tridentine Mass qua Tridentine Mass.
He will attack it from the periphery, for example crushing the FFI; but he will, if this words make any sense, not dare to abrogate Summorum Pontificum.