Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, set the neo-conservative world ablaze with excitement a few days ago when, as reported by National Catholic Register, he “called on all Catholic priests to start offering Mass ad orientem (facing east), beginning on the first Sunday of Advent.”
Well, he didn’t actually “call” for anything; he just kinda sorta suggested that ad orientem worship might be something worth considering at some point in the future, maybe.
Speaking at the opening of the Sacra Liturgia conference in London on July 5th, His Eminence said of the Eastward facing posture:
I want to make an appeal to all priests … Your own pastoral judgement will determine how and when this [ad orientem posture] is possible, but perhaps beginning this on the first Sunday of Advent this year … may be a very good time to do this.
How weak can one hero be!
Even so, this was enough to prompt a blogger at Chant Café to exclaim: Thank you, Your Eminence, for your leadership!
In the dialogical post-conciliar world of pusillanimous popes, castrated cardinals and balless bishops, a Roman prefect pleading his case at a conference is what passes for a bold initiative, I suppose.
Viewed through a traditionalist (aka Catholic) lens, however, a different picture emerges.
Cardinal Sarah’s appeal – even if it is widely heeded (which it won’t be) – can only serve to perpetuate the current ecclesial crisis by further deceiving the faithful in matters liturgical; ultimately delaying the inevitable, which we will get to momentarily.
The real problem lies not so much in Cardinal Sarah’s lack of authentic leadership as it does in the preposterous nature of his premise as summed up rather succinctly in the title to his address, “Towards an Authentic Implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium.”
After more than fifty years, neo-conservatives are still searching in vain for the real conciliar reforms; the ones that if only we follow faithfully will surely bring about a glorious new Springtime.
The depths of denial on display here is nothing short of diabolical. In truth, Sacrosanctum Concilium isn’t the answer to the current liturgical crisis; it’s the very root of the problem.
Cardinal Sarah, devoted man of the Council, declared just the same:
We must be utterly clear about the nature of Catholic worship if we are to read the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy correctly and if we are to implement it faithfully.
Ah but the ol’ hermeneutic of continuity approach dies hard, does it not?
The fact of the matter is, however, when one applies a clear understanding of Catholic worship (in particular Holy Mass) to the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the document is immediately revealed as condemnable.
For instance, right out of the gate, the Constitution states the very purpose of the proposed liturgical reform:
This sacred Council desires… to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. (SC 1)
That’s right; a desire to turn Holy Mass into a tool for ecumenism is the driving force behind the reforms that were forced upon the rite after the Council – not in spite of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, but because of it.
This is how we ended up with the protestantized rite known as the Novus Ordo Missae!
And yet, intransigent promoters of the conciliar fallacy, like Cardinal Robert Sarah, insist on the ludicrous notion that an authentic implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium is the key to restoring liturgical sanity.
Want more evidence of the Council’s guilt?
How’s this:
“The Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them [the sacred rites] with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community … The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.” (SC 21, 34)
Though the phrase “noble simplicity” had been used well prior to the Council to describe the traditional Roman rite (yes, in all of its glorious, triumphalistsic, grandeur), the Council Fathers not only neglected to define it; they coupled it with the preposterous notion that mere mortals like us should be able to easily “comprehend” the mystical encounter with Christ that is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass!
This is how we got the dumbed-down, earthbound service that emerged after the Council!
More examples of the Council’s role in the liturgical destruction that followed can be found on this blog, but I trust the point has been well made enough.
Returning to the topic of ad orientem worship, Cardinal Sarah – if you will allow for a bit of bluntness – shows his incompetence when he states:
“This practice is permitted by current liturgical legislation. It is perfectly legitimate in the modern rite.”
Not only is the ad orientem posture “legitimate” and “permitted,” the missal for the new Mass actually presumes it.
For instance, there are several places where the priest is explicitly instructed to face the people; e.g., at Orate fratres and Ecce Angus Dei, with the obvious presumption being that he is not facing the people prior to that point.
Be that as it may, the Novus Ordo is precisely what the nefarious masterminds of the Council desired and the naïve would-be defenders of tradition accepted; a protestantized rite that is deliberately designed to make heretics feel right at home by drawing attention away from the sacrificial and propitiatory nature of the Mass; downplaying the unique identity of the priest; expanding the number of Bible readings; placing undue emphasis on preaching, and exaggerating the role of the laity.
This is the reason the majority of new Mass-goers have little if any sensus Catholicus.
Sure, all things being equal, the traditional ad orientem posture is to be preferred over the overwhelmingly more common versus populum posture that dominates the Novus Ordo.
All things, however, are not equal; while the traditional Mass impeccably communicates the true Faith and the reality of its essence, the Novus Ordo Missae is a poisonous, schismatic rite that all-too-often leads to a loss of Catholic faith.
Cloaking the new Mass with sacred signs taken from tradition only makes it appear less dangerous and ultimately just delays the inevitable; its wholesale abrogation.
It would still be the same Neo Lutheran Confiteor, Two Brucha Offertory & 13 Anaphorae for The Consecration+The Same Extremely Bad Adaptation of The Litanies of The Divine Liturgies of Byzantine Rite, in the form of The Prayer of The Faithful. If St. John Chrysostom & St. Basil The Great were to walk into a NO Mass, someone would end up getting smacked pretty hard.
Que’ Sarah, Sarah, Whatever will be, Will Be, The NO Mass Is Ours To See, Que’ Sarah, Sarah.
“Father, we should not wait for a call to the world from Rome on the part of the Holy Father to do penance. Nor should we wait for a call for penance to come from the Bishops in our Dioceses, nor from our Religious Congregations. No, Our Lord has often used these means, and the world has not paid heed. So, now each one of us must begin to reform himself spiritually. Each one has to save not only his own soul, but also all the souls that God has placed on his pathway.” -Sister Lucia to Father Fuentes in 1957
“expanding the number of Bible readings”
I have to ask why this is necessarily a bad thing?
Because I’ve always thought that amongst the novelties, this at least was one thing I couldn’t complain about.
Why not have a reading from the OT and the NT and see how one foreshadows the other?
Or was it the intent that was at fault here? Like wanting to please Protestants and Jews by including more readings?
What’s the rationale behind seeing this development as a negative thing?
The intent was ecumenical. Also, they took out alout of the hard sayings/doctrines of the Bible. They also disconnected the Scripture selections from the feast days because of the 3 year rotation. They often have nothing to do with each other.
A protestant would never come to a Catholic mass in the first place, simply because a priest is presiding. So it would make no difference to them whatsoever, in the mass, what you do or how you do it. And we’ve thrown away our traditional understanding for this; something would only ever have attracted a handful of converts in worldwide in 50 years. What a tragic waste.
I agree with you Mr. V, that there’s some danger of worse confusion resulting from this, I also have to wonder if this a part of God’s plan for restoring what has been lost to so many priests over the last 60 years. There are some remarkable testimonies on the internet from priests like this one:
Dom Mark Daniel Kirby, a Conventual Prior of Silverstream Priory in Stamullen, County Meath. After 5 years of saying Mass ad Orienentem, he wrote:
” I can say that I never want to have to return to the versus populum position. While traveling, I am, however, sometimes obliged to celebrate versus populum, notably in Ireland, in France and Italy; it leaves me with a feeling of extreme inappropriateness. I suffer from what I can only describe as a lack of sacred pudeur, or modesty in the face of the Holy Mysteries. When obliged to celebrate versus populum, I feel viscerally, as it were, that there is something very wrong — theologically, spiritually, and anthropologically — with offering the Holy Sacrifice turned toward the congregation….
He goes on to ask,
“What are the advantages of standing at the altar ad orientem.. I can think of ten straight off:
1. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is experienced as having a theocentric direction and focus.
2. The faithful are spared the tiresome clerocentrism that has so overtaken the celebration of Holy Mass in the past forty years.
3. It has once again become evident that the Canon of the Mass (Prex Eucharistica) is addressed to the Father, by the priest, in the name of all.
4. The sacrificial character of the Mass is wonderfully expressed and affirmed.
5. Almost imperceptibly one discovers the rightness of praying silently at certain moments, of reciting certain parts of the Mass softly, and of cantillating others.
6. It affords the priest celebrant the boon of a holy modesty.
7. I find myself more and more identified with Christ, Eternal High Priest and Hostia perpetua, in the liturgy of the heavenly sanctuary, beyond the veil, before the Face of the Father.
8. During the Canon of the Mass I am graced with a profound recollection.
9. The people have become more reverent in their demeanour.
10. The entire celebration of Holy Mass has gained in reverence, attention, and devotion.
http://vultus.stblogs.org/2010/12/five-years-of-ad-orientem.html
How low our standards of heroism have fallen! This impoverishment of heroism is all-pervasive, in accord with today’s race to the bottom on all fronts.
For example, on the “conservative” Fox News today some cops were being hailed as heroes simply for having been shot. But being shot in the line of duty doesn’t, by itself, make one an actual hero; it makes one a victim. But of course VICTIM STATUS now, by itself, makes one a hero. I’m reminded of the actual conservative Paul Gottfried’s analysis in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZ1RQSC8CF4
From Restore-DC-Catholicism: Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, called upon bishops around the world to implement several reforms by Advent of this year, e.g., November 27th. The First Sunday of Advent is the start of a new liturgical year… The reforms are:
—The priest should face “ad orientem”, meaning that he faces the tabernacle instead of the congregation.
–Communicants should kneel for Holy Communion.
–Kneeling at the Consecration. In most U.S. dioceses, that already happens. In some countries, like England, the congregation stands for the Canon.
–Curtailing usage of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
There are others. The Cardinal states that he is initiating these measures at the request of the pope, for which the latter should be thanked. If these changes are implemented I think that can only be beneficial to the Church at large. Two years ago, Cardinal Burke explained that “there is a strict correlation between liturgical abuse and moral corruption”. The Mass is utterly crucial to the Catholic life; we need to worship God properly if we are to secure our own salvation and be effective in the culture wars in which we are now embroiled.
We know, of course, that there will be a concerted “push-back” from liberal and progressive parishes and dioceses. We must prepare to engage them in battle. If and how we’ll do that remains to be seen. (End of Restore’s post).
I really don’t get why we have to pee all over ANYBODY who says something positive because it doesn’t meet our personal expectations. This is happening more and more lately; frankly a change in tone in the last several months. I understand the frustration and anger. I, for one, am thankful for Cdl. Sarah’s statement. Who else is speaking up at all?! To show just how right he is in what he says, get a gander at what all the true neos have been saying about him in the last day.
The suggestion of Cardinal Sarah doesn’t get me too excited. I’m waiting for the day when this Cardinal or any Cardinal says Francis is a heretic and must be excommunicated and the Catholic Church must abandon Vatican II and once again actually BE Catholic. Now, that’s reason for celebration!!
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“… a traditional looking exterior, an exterior piety, an exterior of religious discipline, but with liberal ideas. There’s not [the] concept of fighting against the ‘rights of man,’ against religious liberty and against ecumenism. So, for this balance they’ll have to put down liberation theology a little, put down the French bishops a little due to their catechism, it’ll mean they’ll have to give a little bit of satisfaction to those who have a real nostalgia for the old Mass: and voila! Ultimately, they’ll give the impression of wanting to return to Tradition, but they don’t really want to do so. So we have to warn our faithful, in such a way that they won’t end up being fooled, so that they don’t let themselves be taken in by an exterior traditional reform which would fatally lead them into adopting liberalism and liberal ideas.”
Perfect. What’s the source?
The above +Lefebvre quote is from a sermon at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, December 13, 1984.
Sometimes in Archbishop Lefebvre’s sermons and conferences he seems to have a certain discernment about Rome. It’s interesting. Here he is talking about the two Cardinals who came to visit the Society:
“As soon as Cardinal Gagnon and Mgr. Perl got back to Rome we were treated with contempt. Cardinal Gagnon made the most extraordinary statements to the press…
…In short, they were contradicting all that they had said and done during their time with us. It all seemed unbelievable. Once they were back in the Vatican and once more under Rome’s bad influence they also returned to the Roman way of thinking, and when they looked back at us they again held us in contempt.”
Why would you thank Bergoglio for anything at this point? He should be burned at a stake.
I’d like to read more of this material. Is it in a certain book?
There are a lot of Archbishop Lefebvre’s sermons and letters on the sspxasia website in the library of Catholic documents. The Angelus Press probably has various books and there’s a very good biography of Archbishop Lefebvre written by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais.
A few facts from history.
1. In 1960, Pope John XXIII named Fr. Annibale Bugnini Secretary of the Preparatory Commission for Vatican II’s document on sacred liturgy.
2. In 1962 John XXIII removed Bugnini from his position as Consulter to the Sacred Congregation of Rites and Professor of Sacred Liturgy in the Lateran University.
3. In 1962 John XXIII promulgated the 1962 edition of the Missale Romanum. In February of the same year, he promulgated the Apostolic Constitution Veterum sapientae (on the wisdom of Latin as the universal tongue of the Church).
4. During the 2nd week of the Second Vatican Council, the Rhine Fathers (German and French episcopal conferences) rejected the Pope’s prepared schemata and demanded that the reform of the liturgy be considered as the first item of business.
5. Pope John yielded to their demands and threw away three years of prepared schemata.
6. Bugnini’s draft of Sacrosanctum concilium was introduced as the first document for discussion of Vatican II.
7. According to eyewitness Jean Guitton, Pope John XXIII cried out on his death bed, “stop the council!”
8. After the Pope was laid to rest (and with him, the Council), Pope Paul VI reconvened it and named Bugnini Secretary for the Council’s document on sacred liturgy.
9. Bugnini’s ‘missa normativa’ prototype was shown to a synod of Roman bishops in 1967 which voted to reject it.
10. Pope Paul VI disregarded their decision and promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae in April 1969. In 1974 he would remove Bugnini from all positions dealing with liturgy and appointed him as an auxiliary bishop to a diocese in Iran.
Thank you, Louie, for combatting the superstition — and denial —- that the Second Vatican Council had nothing to do with Pope Paul VI’s imposing the Novus Ordo Mass on the hapless flock.
One simply has to review Cardinal Ratzinger’s book, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, and the chapter entitled “First Debate on the Liturgy Schema”, to note that Ratzinger’s observations of the session on the liturgy from October 21, 1962 to November 14, 1962, is replete with all the buzz-words and notions that conclude the Tridentine Mass is passe’, infertile and useless to the modern world. Here are some samples from that book:
“…in debating (the Liturgy) the Council….could find itself spiritually; and above all, it could experiment with procedural forms”;
“…we can highlight….
(1) …the return to Christian origins and the pruning of certain accretians often enough concealing the original liturgical nucleus….the dialogical nature of the whole liturgical celebration and its essence as the common service of the People of God had to be once more fully emphasized. The natural consequences of this was a reduction of the status of private Masses in favour of emphasis on greater communal participation.
“(2) There will be a stronger emphasis on the Word as an element of equal value with sacrament…. There is also to be a new arrangement of biblical readings to make the treasures of scripture more liturgically accessible than before.
“(3) … a more active participation of the laity, the inclusion of the whole communion of God into a holy fulfillment (sic) (or “say what?” — Alarico)
“(4) An especially important development is the decentralization of the liturgical decision making…. The formulation of liturgical laws for their own regions is now….the responsibility of the various conferences of bishops…..not by delegation for the Holy See, but by virtue of their own independent authority. …from the standpoint of canon law the bishops’ conferences as such did not exist before. They possessed no legislative power but were merely advisory. Now that they possess in their own right a definite legislative function, they appear as a new element in the Church’s structure and form a kind of quasi-synodal agency between individual bishops and the pope… for the first time assigns to the conferences of bishops their own canonical authority (yeah?! And how as that been working out vis-à-vis the Liturgy? — Alarico)
“(5) by far the most discussion time during the first session was, oddly enough, the debate over the language of the liturgy. …. to quote ….Melchite Patriarch Maximos Saigh: ‘…The Latin language is dead, but the Church remains alive. So, too, the language which mediates grace and the Holy Spirit must also be a living language since it is intended for men and for angels. No language can be untouchable…’
Ratizinger continues here, “…For it can hardly be denied that the sterility to which Catholic theology and philosophy had in many ways been doomed since the end of the Enlightenment was due not least to a language in which the living choices of the human spirit no longer found a place.” (To quote Vico, this is the pinnacle and height of the arrogance of both the learned (boria dei dotti) and the modern nations (boria delle nazioni) — Alarico.)
Ratzinger continues: “The East was able again and again to open up the narrow Latin horizon and to force the Council to think not in a Latin but in a catholic manner, and to avoid the fateful equating of Catholicity with Latinity (Ohh!!! You envious German!!! Don’t you remember it’s the devil that brought envy into the world —- Alarico.)”
This book was apparently first published in October 24, 1966, but echoes exactly the intent and sentiments of that traitor, Pope Paul VI.
Yes, the superstition — and the denial —- that Pope Paul VI’s Novus Ordo Mass was something separate from Vatican II must be debunked. We Catholics love the truth, and this is the truth which will set us free.
The Titanic is sinking. Not to worry–one of the passengers has silly putty.
I agree with Tradprofessor,
Attacking people like Cardinal Sarah is not helpful. He is at least trying to turn the Titanic around. The celebrant facing ad orientem and the faithful receiving Holy Communion kneeling would be a major, I might say seismic, shift in Novus Ordo parishes and the people would have to ask themselves what these changes were telling them. They, in fact, would be forced to start seeing the Mass as something other than a feel good Protestant happy meal.
Sure the Novus Order itslef is appallingly weak doctrinally, but as I said, Cardinal Sarah’s changes would be a start in changing how people viewed the Mass. Also his plan to limit the use of that abomination called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, would be a major victory for a return to a holier Mass.
Please let us recognise our friends and not dismiss and insult someone simply because at the present time they don’t pronounce evrything we want.
While I, like all Traditional Catholics (AKA Catholics), would prefer to see manly prelates who defend Our Lord and His Church with forceful directness, “throwing the money changers out of the temple,” so to speak, allow me to play devil’s advocate for a moment.
Perhaps this could be a way to return the Church to what it should be, in little increments that don’t seem too radical for people. Let them get used to the idea, and float out another, and another, until we’re back to the pre-VII practices. In just the same manner that it was stolen from us.
Otherwise, I see no way back but through a great chastisement of the world which will bring people back to their knees and senses.
In regards to LV’s article, the problem isn’t whether the VII documents are linked (with Paul VI and Bugninni) with the problems in the Mass. It’s whether—– or not—– Sacrosanctum Concilium offers protections that would prevent any revisions from being in continuity with tradition. If it offers such protections then it can be appealed to for organic changes in the Liturgy in continuity with tradition, and the accusations against Cdl Sarah are false.
Are these protections there? Let’s take a look:
From the Intro:
“4….The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition…”
From the General Norms:
“23. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised…”
“23…Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.”
No matter what else is quoted in SC, these above are also stated in SC; therefore, all revisions must follow these principle too. One can quote whatever else they wish from SC; regardless of what “openings” those quotes allow; one must reconcile those openings with the above statements as well.
So now the question is: Does Cdl Sarah have a case to appeal to SC? The answer is proven to be yes. The protections are there no matter how many “openings” one quotes.
Do we want these openings for progressives to use to their advantage? No, but even they (the progressives) are forced to reconcile any of their abuses with the above quotes in SC
In regards to LV’s article, the problem isn’t whether the VII documents are linked (with Paul VI and Bugninni) with the problems in the Mass. It’s whether—– or not—– Sacrosanctum Concilium offers protections that would prevent any revisions from being in continuity with tradition. If it offers such protections then it can be appealed to for organic changes in the Liturgy in continuity with tradition, and the accusations against Cdl Sarah are false.
Are these protections there? Let’s take a look:
From the Intro:
“4….The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition…”
From the General Norms:
“23. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised…”
“23…Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.”
No matter what else is quoted in SC, these above are also stated in SC; therefore, all revisions must follow these principle too. One can quote whatever else they wish from SC; regardless of what “openings” those quotes allow; one must reconcile those openings with the above statements as well.
So now the question is: Does Cdl Sarah have a case to appeal to SC? The answer is proven to be yes. The protections are there no matter how many “openings” one quotes.
Do we want these openings for progressives to use to their advantage? No, but even they (the progressives) are forced to reconcile any of their abuses with the above quotes in SC
People are wont to ask how much a man has done, but they think little of the virtue with which he acts.
Thomas a Kempis
Ever Mindful, your quote of Thomas a Kempis is true. However, the current crisis in Our Lord’s Church requires HEROIC virtue from the Princes of the Church. It my opinion that Heroic Virtue is need by Catholics who desire to practice their faith as aka Catholics.
Tweak this, tweak that.
All the ad orientem in the world won’t fix bad THEOLOGY.
You can’t polish rat sh*t.
I agree with much of what you said, and yes, we still have a long, long way to go.
But having said that, at least Cardinal Sarah is taking a step in the right direction. A small step, but a step nonetheless. We must continue to pray for the union of our Lord’s Church Militant, so that we may all adhere to His true teachings of the Catholic Church. In time, those like Cardinal Sarah will realize what so many of you here have realized already. But in the meantime, continue to pray for them, for I do believe Cardinal Sarah is genuinely trying to do the right thing, but is not fully aware of the depth of the problem yet.
Also, never forget the strategy of “divide and conquer”. As Catholics, we are so much weaker if we are turned against each other. It’s exactly what Satan wants. So when a fellow Catholic like Cardinal Sarah takes a step forward like this, even if it’s extremely small, we should encourage and support that effort.
I appreciate all you do, and I understand the anger, I’ve felt the same way so many times. But we have to support each other in any effort to get things back to the way they are supposed to be.
I concur.
Cardinal Sarah is 71 years old….and he’s not a recent convert from another faith, and therefore still getting is Catholic bearings, as he was ordained 9 months before I was born, and Im 46. He’s currently lost and lost badly (whether through willful ignorance or evilness I have no idea). You cant be faithful to Catholicism at 71 years old and still be a member of the vatican 2 religion if you were ordained a priest in 1969.
Today is the Feast day of St Benedict….how many of these 73 instruments of good works do you think Cardinal Sarah fulfils?
Perhaps more than those so quick to criticise him ?
The Instruments of Good Works
(1) In the first place to love the Lord God with the whole heart, the whole soul, the whole strength…
(2) Then, one’s neighbor as one’s self (cf Mt 22:37-39; Mk 12:30-31; Lk 10:27).
(3) Then, not to kill…
(4) Not to commit adultery…
(5) Not to steal…
(6) Not to covet (cf Rom 13:9).
(7) Not to bear false witness (cf Mt 19:18; Mk 10:19; Lk 18:20).
(8) To honor all men (cf 1 Pt 2:17).
(9) And what one would not have done to himself, not to do to another (cf Tob 4:16; Mt 7:12; Lk 6:31).
(10) To deny one’s self in order to follow Christ (cf Mt 16:24; Lk 9:23).
(11) To chastise the body (cf 1 Cor 9:27).
(12) Not to seek after pleasures.
(13) To love fasting.
(14) To relieve the poor.
(15) To clothe the naked…
(16) To visit the sick (cf Mt 25:36).
(17) To bury the dead.
(18) To help in trouble.
(19) To console the sorrowing.
(20) To hold one’s self aloof from worldly ways.
(21) To prefer nothing to the love of Christ.
(22) Not to give way to anger.
(23) Not to foster a desire for revenge.
(24) Not to entertain deceit in the heart.
(25) Not to make a false peace.
(26) Not to forsake charity.
(27) Not to swear, lest perchance one swear falsely.
(28) To speak the truth with heart and tongue.
(29) Not to return evil for evil (cf 1 Thes 5:15; 1 Pt 3:9).
(30) To do no injury, yea, even patiently to bear the injury done us.
(31) To love one’s enemies (cf Mt 5:44; Lk 6:27).
(32) Not to curse them that curse us, but rather to bless them.
(33) To bear persecution for justice sake (cf Mt 5:10).
(34) Not to be proud…
(35) Not to be given to wine (cf Ti 1:7; 1 Tm 3:3).
(36) Not to be a great eater.
(37) Not to be drowsy.
(38) Not to be slothful (cf Rom 12:11).
(39) Not to be a murmurer.
(40) Not to be a detractor.
(41) To put one’s trust in God.
(42) To refer what good one sees in himself, not to self, but to God.
(43) But as to any evil in himself, let him be convinced that it is his own and charge it to himself.
(44) To fear the day of judgment.
(45) To be in dread of hell.
(46) To desire eternal life with all spiritual longing.
(47) To keep death before one’s eyes daily.
(48) To keep a constant watch over the actions of our life.
(49) To hold as certain that God sees us everywhere.
(50) To dash at once against Christ the evil thoughts which rise in one’s heart.
(51) And to disclose them to our spiritual father.
(52) To guard one’s tongue against bad and wicked speech.
(53) Not to love much speaking.
(54) Not to speak useless words and such as provoke laughter.
(55) Not to love much or boisterous laughter.
(56) To listen willingly to holy reading.
(57) To apply one’s self often to prayer.
(58) To confess one’s past sins to God daily in prayer with sighs and tears, and to amend them for the future.
(59) Not to fulfil the desires of the flesh (cf Gal 5:16).
(60) To hate one’s own will.
(61) To obey the commands of the Abbot in all things, even though he himself (which Heaven forbid) act otherwise, mindful of that precept of the Lord: “What they say, do ye; what they do, do ye not” (Mt 23:3).
(62) Not to desire to be called holy before one is; but to be holy first, that one may be truly so called.
(63) To fulfil daily the commandments of God by works.
(64) To love chastity.
(65) To hate no one.
(66) Not to be jealous; not to entertain envy.
(67) Not to love strife.
(68) Not to love pride.
(69) To honor the aged.
(70) To love the younger.
(71) To pray for one’s enemies in the love of Christ.
(72) To make peace with an adversary before the setting of the sun.
(73) And never to despair of God’s mercy.
Behold, these are the instruments of the spiritual art, which, if they have been applied without ceasing day and night and approved on judgment day, will merit for us from the Lord that reward which He hath promised: “The eye hath not seen, nor the ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love Him” (1 Cor 2:9). But the workshop in which we perform all these works with diligence is the enclosure of the monastery, and stability in the community.
Rule of St Benedict
Chapter one-chapter iv
Could we add one more:
To be willing to be a martyr for Christ’s Church during this horrendous time of crisis.
I pray that Cardinal Sarah possesses all or at least most of these instruments of good works. Therefore, he would be in a good position to fulfill the one listed above.
Let us pray for our own sanctity and for a Cardinal or Bishop with these wonderful virtues to come to the aid of the Holy, Roman Catholic Church and the faithful who are struggling to be (aka) Catholics. This is not a criticism. It is our right and duty to expect more.
Why heroic virtue is needed: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/07/11/cardinal-nichols-discourages-priests-from-celebrating-mass-ad-orientem/
Well. So much for Card. Sarah’s request….
They have not (and probably will not) publish it in English, but the Vatican has “clarified” Sarah’s request… (Google translate it. No surprise here)
https://www.aciprensa.com/noticias/vaticano-aclara-afirmaciones-del-cardenal-sarah-sobre-la-celebracion-de-la-misa-89693/
There really is no end to your virtue-signaling, is there?