On 29 March, Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, delivered an address at a conference commemorating the 10th anniversary of Summorum Pontificum.
Neo-Catholic and faux “traditionalist” media outlets alike (if you’ll pardon the redundancy) are sure to use the occasion to once again sing the Cardinal’s praises; as if he is a beacon of hope piercing the modernist fog that presently engulfs Rome.
Most of us already know who the neo-Catholic players are, but the faux traditionalists can be a little more difficult to spot.
Difficult, not impossible.
Their treatment of Cardinal Sarah is always revealing in that it makes plain the degree to which they fail to grasp the diabolical nature of both the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo Missae; apart from which no claim to “traditionalism” can be taken seriously.
In short, you can rest assured that wherever one finds Cardinal Sarah being praised for his orthodoxy, or congratulated for standing firmly against liturgical and doctrinal innovations; there, tradition does not truly live.
(Thanks to a kind reader, S.B., for forwarding quotes to this extent from just such a “faux traditional” outlet that I prefer not to name.)
Returning now to Cardinal Sarah’s most recent address, he began his talk:
As you know, what was called “the liturgical movement” in the early twentieth century was the intention of Pope Saint Pius X, expressed in another Motu proprio entitled Tra le sollicitudini (1903), to restore the liturgy so as to make its treasures more accessible, so that it might also become again the source of authentically Christian life. Hence the definition of the liturgy as “summit and source of the life and mission of the Church” found in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium of Vatican Council II (see n. 10).
How dare Cardinal Sarah suggest for even a moment that the unprecedented liturgical devastation following Vatican Council II can in any way be traced back to the magisterium of Pope St. Pius X!
This alone tells us all that we need to know about Sarah’s relationship with tradition.
I would encourage anyone who has yet to do so to read the aforementioned Motu Proprio in its entirety. Those who do will find that neither Sacrosanctum Concilium nor the Novus Ordo Missae find any quarter whatsoever in the words of the saintly pope.
And yet, Cardinal Sarah calls the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of Vatican II “one of the finest fruits” of the “liturgical movement initiated by Pope Saint Pius X.”
Nonsense!
I won’t rehash covered ground, but would invite those interested in reading (or re-reading as the case may be) an examination of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and its contribution to the present liturgical disaster that was originally posted HERE.
The Prefect went on to insist upon the novel idea of an “ordinary” and an “extraordinary” form of the one Roman Rite, a novelty that was invented by Benedict the Abdicator:
Thus, presently, in the Roman or Latin rite, two missals are in force: that of Blessed Pope Paul VI, the third edition of which is dated 2002, and that of Saint Pius V, the last edition of which, promulgated by Saint John XXIII, goes back to 1962 … the two Forms of the usage of the Roman rite can be mutually enriching…
Blessed Pope Paul VI. Saint John XXIII.
A theme is developing… (HINT: Men of the Council: Good. Men of tradition: BAD.)
At one point, Cardinal Sarah states:
I vehemently refuse therefore to waste our time pitting one liturgy against another, or the Missal of Saint Pius V against that of Blessed Paul VI.
Pitting one liturgy against another, you know… like those bad men Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Bacci, and Archbishop Lefebvre.
The idea that Cardinal Sarah stands firm against doctrinal and liturgical innovation is patently absurd.
The Prefect goes on:
It is also very important to emphasize the continuity between the two missals…
Yes, so much “continuity” that a 1950’s era Catholic, if dropped into a “reverent” Novus Ordo, would be absolutely positive that he was witnessing a protestant service.
It is also very important to emphasize the continuity between the two missals by appropriate liturgical catechesis… this mystical and spiritual renewal that is therefore missionary in character, which was intended by the Second Vatican Council, to which Pope Francis is vigorously calling us.
This is the same “Pope Francis” who on multiple occasions has condemned the work of seeking coverts (so much for missionary character) and who also vigorously called Cardinal Sarah to the carpet; ordering him to knock it off with all that ad orientem talk.
Clearly, Cardinal Sarah got the message loud and clear, and it is plain for all to see precisely where his priorities lie; namely, in finding favor with the Modernist in Chief.
There is much in Cardinal Sarah’s address that rightly applies to the sacred liturgy generally speaking; i.e., to the Traditional Roman Rite, but the soundbites don’t tell the whole story.
The premise of his talk is that the Novus Ordo is a liturgical treasure, the luster of which is sullied only to the extent that one lacks knowledge of just how magnificent it truly is.
While ignorance of things liturgical can hamper one’s ability to enter deeply into the sacred mysteries, what Cardinal Sarah is promoting is a form of liturgical Gnosticism wherein the principle lex orandi, lex credendi is turned on its head.
This, he makes explicit when he paraphrases Cardinal Ratzinger:
The crisis of the weakening of the faith comes in large measure from the way in which we treat the liturgy, according to the old adage: lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of faith is the law of prayer).
This is exactly backwards.
In reality, the weakening of faith that characterizes the post-conciliar period came in large measure from the way in which the new liturgy treated the people by allowing, if not explicitly cultivating, a protestant mindset and theology that is utterly foreign to the Mass.
[For specific examples, consider the so-called Mass of Christian Burial according to the Roman Missal.]
Cardinal Sarah is unwilling to address this particular elephant in the sacristy. He says:
The Eucharist is not a sort of “dinner among friends”, a convivial meal of the community, but rather a sacred Mystery, the great Mystery of our faith, the celebration of the Redemption accomplished by Our Lord Jesus Christ, the commemoration of the death of Jesus on the cross to free us from our sins.
This is all well and good, but hold your applause:
Nowhere does Cardinal Sarah acknowledge the fact that the Novus Ordo rite itself is flawed; so much so that those who approach the New Mass as if it is a “convivial meal” will find plenty in the rite to confirm their protestant ideas.
What’s more, it is my experience that many, even most, daily Novus Ordo attendees have no idea what the Mass truly is. It’s not because they are stupid; it’s because the rite is failing them.
If the Sarah approach is followed, at best those who bring a Catholic understanding of Holy Mass to the Novus Ordo will be left to force their knowledge upon the proceedings in spite of its mixed messages and deviations.
And let me be clear: I’m not talking about liturgical abuses, but rather the rite celebrated “by the book.”
You may read the rest of Cardinal Sarah’s address for yourself if you so care.
Whatever you do though, don’t be tricked into supporting those in Catholic media who are pleased to place Cardinal Sarah on a pedestal as neither one is a true friend of tradition.
And speaking of Neo-Catholic media outlets, (sorry this is off topic) I just watched the EWTN airing of this mornings Mass. Fr. Stephen Imbarrato of Priests for Life gave the homily. It appeared to me that a remark was edited as the camera stopped and started again and he was in a different position and the subject changed.
It was toward the beginning, right after he talked about people receiving Holy Communion while in a state of mortal sin, as in “irregular” marriages, etc. It seemed to me that he might have made a comment about what’s currently going on in the Church – especially in the hierarchy. Does anyone know what he said that was cut?
The NO is not Catholic and I advise all of you to avoid it completely and to avoid all the “priests” that say the NO. You must make a choice at some point. Modernism or Catholicism.
I’m sorry, but this article is a step too far.
Anyone who has read Robert Cardinal Sarah’s books (I recommend “Dieu ou rien”) or heard him speak can tell that he is a man who cares deeply for the Faith and is a true shepherd.
Attacking him and others who try to do their best under difficult circumstances (Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider, and so on) at this crucial juncture is both unfair and redolent of an embattled, cult-like “siege” mentality. Our energies would be better spent on criticizing openly heterodox prelates such as Marx or Kasper, as well as their enablers such as Coccopalmiero.
And don’t forget Francis if you are going to list openly heterdox prelates.
Brilliant Louie;
Its time to flush the enemy out of their Fox holes. I see the subtly of the approach here. Laying down a false traditional trail, co-opting the great St Pius X to add authentic elements, whilst trying hard not to over play the hand, all the while using convenient for now “stalking horses” to get closer to the Remnant. [SSPX?]
Do you read that smoke? Seriously despite the current floods, some of us came down well before the last rain shadow.
What their plan is, to reduce collateral damage in the “sincere but misguided trad camp”, is try lure away the half hearted seed, the seed that fell on the rock withered by all accounts. Now they want to mothball or cocoon the rest of us in an ambush, carefully laid….equanimity, equal value with ordinary and extra ordinary and therefore both efficacious leading to Heaven proper, saving the Earth as Frank goes. A Happy Meal at the twin arches! Come on guys..
Not surprising of course given the intellect we are facing..minions in sheep clothing…pseudo Shepherds, chastising each other, while the cart rolls towards the French gallows.
So a spade is a spade is a spade, Darwin is irrelevant and just another distraction. A bit like Global Warming – so what?
If the Media fall for the honey, I’ll have some vinegar. Gall on stick….apt for this Season.
Its time to take the gloves of Prof Q. the wide road has no hand holds ! Savvy?
Its not a tumbling journey into Graceland…Paul Simon.
That should have read, “gloves” – Its hand to hand fighting from now on. The Lord of Lies is trying harder to catch the Flies. Its using honey instead of vinegar to upstage Gods Church.
All dressed in finery and white and loaded to the gunwales with humility and poverty.
If you swallow that bait, you will believe anything. {Lex…and Lex…]
That was the whole idea from the beginning…devils plan…there is no God..worship me.
He told Our Lord as much in the desert.
Flee to hills folks..its all over bar the shouting down around here.
Angus Dei, miserere nobis.
Conflating the litugical movement of Pope St. Pius X with the judeo-masonic revolution of Vll is absurd and may even be evil in intent. “And what concourse hath Christ with Belial?”
The Revolutionaries obviously needed to work their magic on his “understanding” of all things Modern. After all, if you want to stay in the club, you had better learn to play by the rules.
Since Pope SAINT Pius X, thoroughly reviled by the Revolutionaries, pops up in this address, only to tell a lie about him, is a signal, or should be, that the re-education efforts of the Revolutionaries are on-going.
A century of Modernism.
Well worth a read so as to understand how truly diabolical this attack on Christ and His Church have been.
http://www.apropos.org.uk/documents/ACenturyofModernism22-11-13.pdf
Frighteningly true, Katherine.
The hirelings cannot give up their “staged new evangelization scripts” the devil has locked them in. Hostage t their own pride filled dreams of a better World. Forget it!
Besides what would they do when dismissed, being a useless servants? Go around discounting bushels of wheat? or barrels of oil; Selling IPhones? Seriously these people have to be exposed for what they are doing, not who they are necessarily. The Emperor Frank has no soul[clothes], he sold that one to the Devil. Can he make a come back…time tells.
Ummmm… no? The article is not a step too far. It is spot on. Because the Truth is spot on and never a step too far.
Cardinal Sarah is a ‘Man of the Council’, he is trying to square the circle, he is trying to reconcile the irreconcilable.
This needs to be called out repeatedly because at this rate Cardinal Sarah is achieving nothing, burying himself deeper by running around in circles and is only a few steps away from becoming a Coccopalmiero himself if this song and dance keeps up.
I wonder how many here who use “man of the Council” as some sort of deadly insult have studied the actual Council documents carefully themselves.
You mean where SUBSIST is used to confuse what was crystal clear with IS.
The origins of that particular subtlety go back to Blessed Pius IX and were re-affirmed more than once by Pius XII. Fr. Leonard Feeney (RIP) could tell you more about it.
(Thanks to a kind reader, S.B., for forwarding quotes to this extent from just such a “faux traditional” outlet that I prefer not to name.)
HA!!! I totally picked up on that! Methinks S.B. has also been reading a little OnePeterFive drivel! I’d like to take that S.B. out for a drink, Louie!
You call it a subtlety and I’ll call it an ambiguity. Modernists are famous for their ambiguities and clever deceptions. EST was removed to placate protestant heretics, pagans, and jews.
I disagree. This article is far from an “attack”. It is to state that things are not always what they seem and we need to use discernment. Discernment is hard if we are not properly formed, and since we are lied to about so many things, it is a relief for someone to point out the truth of things. We can thereby judge for ourselves. At this point, I want to know who is who, and it is confoundedly hard to figure these things out. Thanks to this site that points us in right directions and also points out landmines. I am so tired of misrepresentations and errors, but most of all, wandering around wondering what is going on.
I find myself looking askance, when references to Saint John Paul II or Saint John XXIII are mentioned. How terrible, they seem to have been beatified to give the golden seal on VII. I admit I’m now a terrible skeptic.
What makes me really sad, is I suspect the same thing of the Fatima seers. How convenient! To find the seers can be beatified JUST in time for his Fatima photo-op this May! What ARE the odds….If he is allowed to stand there and beatify those children…frankly I will be scandalized. Does anybody else feel the same way, or am I now officially a horrible cynic.
I don’t know who is who at all, but wish I did. Can anybody find a way to inform me of who the phonies are and who the real deal are? Maddening.