Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Cardinal Sarah Publicly Refuted by Pope Francis on Liturgy Changes

In a new open letter rebutting points made by Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments (CDW), pope Francis has made clear that he is not in agreement with the African cardinal’s commentary on his recent liturgical moto proprio, Magnum Principium. This public “calling out” of the cardinal responsible for overseeing the Church’s liturgy is being celebrated by some progressive elements in the Church as a “rebuke”, leading to calls for Sarah’s resignation.

In my own analysis of Magnum Principium, I argued that its delegation of liturgical translations to episcopal conferences was the “antithesis of authentic liturgical development” that represented an “intentional balkanization of the Church’s ‘ordinary form’ of the liturgy” which would “undoubtedly only weaken it further”. In essence, whereas Quo Primum united and standardized the liturgy in the Latin Rite, Magnum Principium represented a liturgical Tower of Babel moment. I also speculated on the lack of Cardinal Sarah’s signature on the document, which instead bore that of the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, Archbishop Arthur Roche:

I don’t know if it’s standard practice for the secretary of the CDW to add the explanatory note on a papal motu proprio on liturgy, but the prefect of that congregation’s name — Cardinal Robert Sarah — was conspicuous by its absence. And it is hard not to wonder if it is because he wanted nothing to do with its contents.

An Associated Press story on the Summorum Pontificum Congress — published just a week after the release of the motu proprio — suggested an alternative reason for his missing signature, claiming that Cardinal Sarah had been “effectively sidelined by his deputy”, Archbishop Roche, who “signed the explanatory note to Francis’ new law allowing bishops conferences, rather than Sarah’s office, to have final say on Mass translations.”

In a commentary published earlier this month on several websites in various languages (viewable here in English)Cardinal Sarah appeared to assert his authority while pushing back against interpretations of Magnum Principium as an unfettered opportunity to decentralize the Mass with varying regional texts. The National Catholic Register‘s Edward Pentin wrote that Sarah’s commentary had the effect of “reassuring the faithful that the Vatican will continue to safeguard any changes or new liturgical translations to ensure they remain faithful to the original Latin.” Pentin also noted that Cardinal Sarah reasserted “that the ‘authoritative text’ concerning liturgical translations remains Liturgiam Authenticam“, an instruction issued in 2001 by Congregation for Divine worship “that aimed to ensure ‘insofar as possible’ that texts must be translated from the original Latin ‘integrally and in the most exact manner.'”

Now, Pope Francis’ October 22 open letter to Cardinal Sarah has refuted several key points of Sarah’s commentary, including the idea that the Vatican would have the final say on liturgical translations proposed by bishops’ conferences. The pope also said that a number of websites had “erroneously” published the commentary in his name, and requested that Sarah take responsibility for contacting those websites — as well as “all episcopal conferences, and … the members and the consulters of the Dicastery — to see that they receive his own clarification. It is unclear who the commentary is believed by the pope to have been written by, since it appears under Sarah’s signature.

Veteran Vatican watcher Marco Tosatti says the pope’s response is being “celebrated as a just humiliation of the cardinal” and has been “accompanied by calls for his resignation.” Though some, like priest blogger Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, have proposed a less inflammatory interpretation of events, Tosatti sees this not merely as an isolated incident, but part of a larger pattern:

Earlier this fall, Pope Francis issued Magnum Principium, a document granting bishops’ conferences greater latitude to make their own translations of sacred texts and liturgy. Cardinal Sarah replied with a letter that offered a narrow reading of the document, preserving as much as possible the power of Rome to guard against mistranslations (such as the desire of German bishops to translate pro multis as “for all,” rather than as the correct “for many”). Pope Francis has now publicly declared that Sarah is wrong, and that Magnum Principium has indeed reduced Rome’s power of oversight.

This is a calculated humiliation of Cardinal Sarah—and not only of him. Of Pope Benedict XVI, too, since he is the great champion of the “reform of the reform,” an attempt to correct the liturgical innovations that followed the Second Vatican Council. And of St. John Paul II, who in 2001 issued the document Liturgiam Authenticam, which Francis has sought to gut with Magnum Principium.

Cardinal Sarah suffered a similar humiliation a little over a year ago, after he urged bishops and priests to celebrate the Mass ad orientem, facing east, according to the ancient practice of the Church. This was another effort to advance “reform the reform.” The cardinal stated that he had talked with the pope about the topic, and that the pope had given his assent to the proposal. If so, the Vatican made no acknowledgment of this fact in its note of blunt denial.

Another humiliation occurred when the pope eliminated most of the existing members from the Congregation for Divine Worship and replaced them with people who are more hostile to Sarah and his liturgical views.

But that’s not all. Tosatti reports that he has sources confirming a rumor that has been circulating for months now pertaining to a proposed interfaith liturgy:

And there is the matter of the “Ecumenical Mass,” a liturgy designed to unite Catholics and Protestants around the Holy Table. Though never officially announced, a committee reporting directly to Pope Francis has been working on this liturgy for some time. Certainly this topic is within the jurisdiction of the Congregation for Divine Worship, but Cardinal Sarah has not officially been informed of the committee’s existence. According to good sources, Sarah’s secretary, Arthur Roche—who holds positions opposite to those of Benedict XVI and Sarah—is involved, as is Piero Marini, the right-hand man of Monsignor Bugnini, author of such noted works as La Chiesa in Iran and Novus Ordo Missae.

In commentary on the matter at his website Crux, John L. Allen, Jr. suggests that the reason the pope moved so quickly to address Sarah’s “interpretation” of Magnum Principium when he has avoided answering other public criticisms such as the dubia is because of Sarah’s standing as “the Vatican’s top liturgical official” who is in charge of “the department charged with putting the document into action.”

“This is a pope, after all,” Allen writes, “who said in a 2016 interview that he ‘doesn’t lose any sleep’ over critics of his decisions, and has made not engaging those criticisms almost a principle of governance.” Nevertheless, Allen concedes that “this is hardly the first perceived gap between Francis and Sarah, and likely will reinforce the longstanding question in some quarters of why the pope doesn’t simply make a change.”

It seems fair to question, too, why Cardinal Sarah himself doesn’t make that change. Like Cardinal Müller before him, Sarah has been sidestepped and isolated as pertains to matters within his competence. Like Müller, he has had changes made to the dicastery he heads up without his consent. And like Müller, it seems likely that eventually, he’ll be phased out entirely. It appears that he has already been rendered irrelevant — a strategy Allen previously reported the pope has admitted to using when it comes to dealing with “difficult personnel choices.”

Perhaps it’s time for the forthright African cardinal to do what Müller failed to before it is too late: take a stand and resign in protest rather than allowing himself to be further co-opted by an agenda not of his making.

250 thoughts on “Cardinal Sarah Publicly Refuted by Pope Francis on Liturgy Changes”

  1. Step by step, Jorge Bergoglio is making it impossible for his apologists to assert with a straight face that he is a benign and fatherly figure only interested in “mercy.” More and more Pope Francis resembles another Argentine leader, Juan Perón.

        • What will it take for you to shut up, cease the sloganeering and ideological posturing and attempt to understand what Pope Francis is attempting to do in conjunction with the rest of the Catholic people.
          Sarah has been acting as though his personal opinions are Church doctrines so it is no wonder the Pope has corrected him. Burke did the same show boating and was ‘re-positioned’ for his performance.
          Wake up to yourself.

          • “Personal opinions as Church doctrine” would be nothing new under this administration. “Amoris Laetitia” was pulled out of his posterior.

          • What IS Pope Francis is attempting to do in conjunction with the rest of the Catholic people?

            From my perspective, it appears that Pope Francis is replacing all doctrine, all justice, with a nebulous concept of mercy and accompaniment. Now, I am as fond of the parable of the Prodigal Son as the next guy, but when the father sees his wayward son from afar, he goes out to meet him, the prodigal son admits his faults, and the father accompanies him BACK to the father’s house.

            Accompaniment means little, unless we know where they are going.

          • Read the text again and see exactly where the Father cuts the prodigal’s pre-scripted confession short, orders him to be treated like his son again, clothed in all the garments of an heir and celebrated as such.
            It’s this that infuriates the older brother (Jesus’ audience) because the Father (God) who turns out to be prodigal because he doesn’t thrash the cutlets off his wayward son and relegate him to a life of slavery.
            It’s not wonder Ray Burke, the Dubia Bros and their disciples are in a rictus of rage and resentment that they are being reminded of the sheer offensiveness of Jesus teaching on mercy on the sin against the sermon (Yates)

          • The Father never meets the Prodigal Son unless he repents and returns to His Father. The Father, for his part, shows his Paternal Nature and receives the son back as a son, which further demonstrates the waywardness of his son who did not understand the graciousness of His Father or His Love.

            In no way does this promote a permissive understanding of sin, rather it promotes the Love of the Father for his son. If the son does not recognize his own folly in his sin, then he is lost not saved. The Father did not go to that far away place amongst the swine to rescue his son! Only the son’s memory of his father’s house and his own dire situation via his sin brought him to his senses. Fear of his ultimate end brought him back to his Father, not love of his Father.

            And only the Love that the Father had for his son saved him from his evil end amongst the swine and as a slave.

            Fear of the Lord is the first stage of Wisdom. Not something being taught by the current Pope, nor many of his Episcopal appointees.

          • That’s a fine example of eisegesis not exegesis. You clearly don’t know the difference or understand that text without context is just pretext. Yours is pretext for trotting out an special interests ideology not a sound theology. The stuff you are trotting out here is not only bad theology, it’s utterly appalling. Get help.
            I suggest you get yourself into some high powered Scripture professional development courses.

          • What is wrong with you!?! This is how you speak to a priest of God who offered this beautiful scriptural reflection? Strike three. You’re gone. Take your arrogance and nasty attitude with you.

          • THANK YOU!!!! How dare he speak to a Priest in that manner. It’s pretty obvious all he is trying to do is sow discord. It takes all kinds I suppose. Good riddance. Thank you Father for your defense of Our Lord and the Gospel and a beautiful explanation of one of my favorite parables.

          • Thank you, Brian. You, like the man who finally brings a canister of cool water to the stranded desert travelers…..

          • Do you mods have any way of checking the IP addresses used by commenters? I am pretty certain that “Gregory” is the same person as a “Phillip” who has been commenting on another post. If you can check their IP addresses, I bet you would find that both of them originate in the North West of England and belong to a chap called “Phil” who has been trolling Catholic sites for years. He pretends to be a Catholic, but best case case scenario is that he is a CINO, worst case that he is just another anti-Catholic troll.

          • Gregory and Phillip have different IP addresses, emails, etc. Also, Phillip made a humble apology in his last post, which is a very un-Gregory thing to do. Don’t think they’re the same person.

          • Thanks for checking, Brian. I will keep an eye out anyhow – the guy I know is perfectly capable of using VPN’s to manage his sockpuppets.

          • Typical calumny. No countering of the clear reading of the actual text, simply an accusation without substance.
            And in case you are inclined to argue via this fashion: Jesus is sent by God to the World to save it, therefore the Father did go to that far off country.

            One, Jesus is not the Father. Two, He is the word of God incarnate (in the parable he is the memory of the Father being presented to the son) and he was sent to call man back to the Father, not to call the Father back to Man!

            Jesus specifically calls for absolute repentance for Sins and to Sin no more.

            He never calls the Father to go to the unrepentant son and give him his lost heritage back.

          • You can tell by the way ” Gregory ” used language to speak to others that his spirit was one of disruption.
            It’s really an attack on this website and that PROVES it’s quality and honest appraisal of current events.
            We are at a very surreal station in our lives but it is what it is, in good conscience we continue…

            Too much evidence to doubt these troubles are misguided….

          • “High powered Scripture professional development courses”?
            Oh my….that sounds scary. Is that what you teach? Ooooooh….you must be very smart! Much smarter than we are.

            The only thing this post says is that you disagree with your interlocutor. No explanation of why you disagree, no substance of any sort. Just a condescending, sneering ad hominem screed. This is nothing more than adolescent, school yard “I’m so smart, you’re so dumb” trash talk.

            Here’s a suggestion for you. Man up and grow up, you little effeminate lavender, pansy boy!

          • Clericalism corrupts — from the inside out. If not the collar, he still has the megalomania. It happens when they think themselves academic, intellectual, and forget they — and all of us — are merely poor servants.
            And what will happen when the Master returns?

          • Did some research. This guy is a “former” priest who’s been chasing the spirit of Vatican 2 his whole life. Sad story. Pray for him.

            With an attitude like that, no wonder he left (or possibly was laicised). He is monstrous. I engaged with him on another post, and he walked right into my little trap! I asked him openly if he accepts contraception as a good, and he wouldn’t respond. To me, he is a heretic. So, in the words of St. Paul:

            A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment. [Titus 3:10-11]

            EDIT: God have mercy on his soul! The place he’ll end up….well, let’s just say, there is a barbecue, and you are the meat!

          • And, naturally, these days the phrase “former priest” conjures up all kinds of things, most of them unpleasant, some even illegal. Perhaps what we are seeing is Gregory wrestling with his own conscience, acting out in public the internal struggle that gives him sleepless nights. I wonder how many there are like him in the wake of the spiritual malaise we’ve suffered post-Vatican II.

          • His response to Father’s reflection on the Prodigal Son was the tip off for me. That was so bizarre. Clearly a man who can’t stand to face what he should have been.

          • I don’t know about others, but little unsettles me more than being in the presence of “former” priests or ex-nuns. It always reminds me of the last half century of widespread dishonesty, apostasy, sexual perversion, institutional decline, and generalized failure. I feel the urge to vomit, the need to escape and get fresh air.

          • Clarity is of God……ramblings and needing to use big words to prove something ( I leave your motives to you to ponder) and being a ‘smarty pants’ does not serve you well and is of the world and the devil. That explanation of the Father by Father RP was truly illuminating. The point made about the Father not going to the far away place, I have never heard spoken before and it points to the son’s need to see his sorry state before the Father could apply his love and mercy. This is exactly what is missing in the minds and homilies of so many bishops, priests and cardinals today.

          • If only you could abandon the façade.
            The substitution of academic vesture for the reality of the real man standing before the face of Jesus Christ is only workable until it is not. And it will come to its terminus, and it will be a reality sandwich unpalatable.
            Then the light will go on.

          • No, the Father does NOT turn out to be prodigal. He doesn’t even cut the speech of the prodigal (an act of contrition!) short. In reading the text, I also find this statement from the father to the older son: “But he said to him: Son, thou art always with me, and all I have is thine.” the parable cuts off there: we don’t know if the older son stayed outside, or if he went in to rejoice with his father. That is the challenge God gives to us.

            There are several parables like this, with the workers in the vineyard, the wedding feast of the King. If you remember the wedding feast, at the end one of the men pulled from the roadsides and byways didn’t have a wedding garment, as so was cast into the outer darkness. The prodigal, the sinners, still aren’t guaranteed a seat at the feast unless they come properly prepared.

            I have met Cardinal Burke, and talked to him face to face. He is in no way in a rictus of rage and resentment. He is actually one of the gentlest people I have ever met. There are none of us here, Cardinal Burke included, that would not willingly, gladly, welcome a sinner back into the Church. Cardinal Burke himself has had people come up to him to confront him, and has spent time with them patiently explaining the teachings of the Church.

            But the key is “welcoming them back”. The prodigal realizes that his life was killing him and he returned to his father. His father didn’t seek him and say: “hey, it’s ok, just go back to your prostitutes and pig feeding”. This is the opposite of mercy, this is withholding the path of salvation from the sinner just for the sake of being nice and being popular.

            I think you are arguing against a caricature of conservatives that doesn’t really exist. And you really like to. So you still didn’t answer the question.

            What is it that Pope Francis is attempting to do in conjunction with the rest of the Catholics? Don’t talk about Cardinal Burke, or conservatives. Explain to me, if you can, what Pope Francis is actually proposing. What are the ramifications of mercy without justice, heaven without hell? Do we still have free will? Why did God send his Son to die for our sins, if all are saved anyway? Or is Pope Francis’ theological view (it specifically isn’t a ‘system’, he does not like systematic theology) even coherent enough to categorize?

          • Well, I think Greg has been banned for not playing well with others (intolerant liberal), but they also work as rhetorical. 😉

          • Let’s get to the heart of this matter. Which are you, Gregory, a heterosexual adulterer or a sodomite? It’s got to be one of those two.

          • Faithful Catholics must persevere in the faith once delivered to the saints, teach the faith to their children and support faithful priests who these days, get no support from the dictator in chief. Sarah is above the pettiness of Francis.

          • Please define “rest of Catholic people”. And we all will appreciate more respect on your comments.

          • What will it take?
            Some of us have been observing for fifty-seven years with olympian patience the subterfuge of misguided clerics, members of the hierarchy and laity deprived of catechesis dismantle of a thriving Roman Catholic Church in order to provide a space for their self-gratification.
            One might suggest that you take stock of your perspective, personal, moral, spiritual, historical and come to terms with its reality and how it stands in contrast to Holy Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the perennial Magisterium.
            Yours is amply upheld in any number of protestant venues. Just what drives you to homogenize the sects with the One True Church established by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity?
            You need time to reflect on what you spill.
            You do yourself an incredible disservice.

          • I find it not only strange but disingenuous that many, if not most, of the commenters on this board – you among them it seems, exclude Pope Francis from, “the Apostolic Tradition and the perennial Magisterium.’
            George Weigel calls that kind of cherry picking ‘cafeteria Catholicism’ or ‘catholic Lite.’

          • Nothing strange about it. We’re simply following our well formed consciences, which inform us — along with the dubia cardinals, the filial correctors, and their vast number of supporters — that important parts of Francis’ teaching exclude themselves from Apostolic Tradition and the perennial Magisterium.

          • Familiaris Consortio needed a lot corrective work done on it along with the rest of JPII’s theology of the Body. JP was a moral philosopher not a theologian and the particular stream of philosophy he leaned, taught and passed on tends to be overly lop-sided, rationalistic, disembodied and limited severely by the voluntarism that pervades Augustine’s moral teaching, even his otherwise good theology of conscience which is governed by love/desire not law, prescription or command of any kind. John Paul accepts that in theory but didn’t know how to integrate it into a balanced Catholic moral vision. He was/is far to robotic in his treatment of the human person.

          • Great, so you concede AL was egregious in its cherry picking of FC. And your rationale? FC had lots of mistakes. Got it.

            The problem for you is that everyone agrees that FC faithfully upheld the Church’s unbroken tradition on the matter of the divorced and “remarried” receiving Holy Communion.

            So, since by your own admission you acknowledge that AL departs from FC, you have now essentially joined us in recognizing that, on a number of important matters, Francis has excluded himself from Apostolic Tradition and the perennial Magisterium.

            Welcome aboard.

          • ????

            “John Paul accepts that in theory but didn’t know how to integrate it into a balanced Catholic moral vision. He was/is far to robotic in his treatment of the human person.” – quote from Gregory

            Disturbing comment to me.

          • Saint John Paul II “robotic in his treatment of the human person”? This goes too far! Are you uberhaupt Catholic? It seems to me that you understand little even from the basic Catechism, learned by children before the First Communion.

          • Surely the least robotic of men. Wasn’t that his great grace? A holy man comfortable in his skin. Flawed only in his willingness to let the brats play — tenderhearted, somewhat gullible. Despite his experience, his wisdom, he had an innocence which allowed him to see the best in individuals in whom it was quite necessary to see the insidious.
            We live with the consequences of that today.
            Doubtlessly he is praying for all of us. We can take comfort in his loving intercession.

          • Yes, and George Weigel is the be all and end al of true Catholicism. Or is that Pope Francis? The current Pope being the only true teacher of the Perennial Catholic Faith? No need for Unity of Time let alone Space…isn’t time supposed to be greater than space? So, what about all those other Popes, Doctors of the Church, Saints, Theologians and regular Faithful throughout time? Their voice is rendered mute because of the present time and current pontificate?

            That’s Catholicism as it has always and everywhere been understood, taught, accepted and practiced? Really?

          • Ol’ Georgie’s days are numbered, so are PF’s cronies Obama, the Clintons and others. Lord, may it be sooner than later.
            Trump will take care of all these vermin.

          • Chesterton: “Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.”

            Perhaps our Gregory has father issues.

          • There is nothing strange that we question whether Pope Francis is sincerely and with complete submission adhering to Holy Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the perennial Magisterium of the Church. The Pope’s personal “magisterium” has raised an infinity of questions. He has been asked with the greatest respect by individuals reasonably credentialed to clarify the ambiguity he has created.
            He does not respond.
            Why, Gregory? Why?
            You accuse committed laity, the faithful laity, of being disingenuous when ambiguity goes unclarified? Confusion unresolved by the supreme “pastor?”
            Duplicity has long gone viral in the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of Popes John Paul and Benedict. Their effort to preserve unity kept them from bringing that duplicity – rampant in theology faculties, dioceses, religious orders and congregations — to a mighty terminus. Their gravely flawed estimation of the situation allowed them to see heterodox figures advance in the episcopate in the hope that free exchange would allow the chaos of the post-conciliar period to rectify itself.
            They were wrong. They were gravely wrong.
            George Weigel has his strengths, but diagnosing the current catastrophe is not in his portfolio. His unwillingness – or his inability – to offer an honest critique of the deficiencies of John Paul’s and Benedict’s pontificates is inexcusable. It is tragically unfortunate and will greatly mar his credence as time passes.
            Never call those asking for clarification of the wink-and-the-nod magisterium of Pope Bergoglio “disingenuous.” Reserve that judgement for whom it belongs.
            A man of virile moral fiber would emerge from his sandbox and answer the dubia.
            He dare not. That is most properly regarded disingenuous.

          • And obviously you do not know your ‘real’ Catholic faith. You have been indoctrinated probably for the past thirty-five plus years, have probably attend clown masses, never went to a Latin-Rite Roman Catholic mass, and believe in Ecumenism

          • Gregory:

            Can you explain how Pope Francis stands in the line of Tradition with his letter to the Argentine Bishops and his guidance to the Maltese Bishops? With his statement about Mary feeling God lied? How about when Jesus needed to ask for forgiveness? And what about his blatant misquote of Jesus in Evangelii Gaudium 161? How about his statement that capital punishment is incompatible with the Christian faith? How did he know that the Apostles left Jesus behind and walked on when Jesus engaged Blind Bartimaeus when the bible says no such thing and indeed says that they were all together? And of course, explain how his view of annihilation of souls fits in with the perennial Magesterium or the clear words of Scripture?

            Or to you does none of that matter?

          • You make excellent points. The pope has said cohabitation is a ‘real marriage’. does the devil write his speeches?

          • Not sure why, but while reading your post an expression my Irish-Am father was fond of came to mind, viz. “He says more than his prayers.” Very apropos in this case in all senses.

          • We used to call that “Common Law marriage”. If a man and a woman are living together, doing the things married people do, having children, with the expectation that they are together til death do them part, they are “married”, but it is not a sacramental marriage, and lacks the graces that go along with that. The pope should be telling them to get regular and avail themselves of these graces, which are really needed. But I see no evidence that he or his followers are.

            Marriage is different from the other sacraments in that the bride and groom are the real ministers; however, the Church added the requirements for witnesses and the presence of a priest or deacon to protect the rights of the participants and to prevent cads (or vixens) from claiming marriage or not marriage in a he/she said.

            This pope is either intentionally out of contexting and vague-ifying, or just incredibly sloppy. As I see it, it is analogous to the difference between murder of morality, or negligent homicide of morality. Either way, even giving him the benefit of the doubt, (increasingly difficult to the point of absurdity) it is some seriously bad Poping.

          • Sigh, I know. It is really bad when I am wishing and hoping and praying that the Pope is simply massively incompetent. And over the course of the last year, I’ve gone from about 50% – 50% to 95% – 5% on this.

          • “Common Law marriage”, if he meant that, why didn’t he call it that? Simple. Because he didn’t mean that.

          • LOL. Everyone knows that the infallible aspects of the Magisterium cannot contradict themselves, and everyone knows that Popes only contribute to the infallible Magisterium when they speak ex cathedra, which hasn’t been done in decades. So your point is utterly invalid.

          • Oh….you again. For starters nobody cares what George Weigel calls anything. If he called a dog a dog I would look it up.

          • Not surprisingly, you’ve got it exactly backwards again. If there is anyone busy excluding people and things from “the Apostolic Tradition and the perennial Magisterium,” it is the man in the white robes. And it also seems you have trouble reading and understanding even George Weigel’s prose. In a very recent article (URL below), Weigel actually uses the term “Catholic lite,” but hardly to defend the moronic ultramontanism you espouse in your sophomoric posts here.

          • Gregory, gregory, you are anxious about many things, only the Truth should be your and George’s concern as it is the better part, now you are in satan’s smorgasbord with him…..not only is it dark lite, it is deadly….Francis is saying things and letting things be said that are outside of the Saving Revealed Truth, it is Cafeteria lite ”c”atholicism to ad hominized those who see this and ask Jesus and Mary to rescue us from these evils…..but as the Holy Spirit said in Benedict, ‘the Lord and Church will win out in the end’…

          • No, Gregory. It is Bergoglio, not the Catholics on this board, who, by his heresies and degenerate associates and friends, excludes himself from “the Apostolic Tradition and the perennial Magisterium.’ He and George Weigel should take up residence together. Perhaps they’ll have you over to dinner.

          • Hmm I think you are on the wrong website please join your ill mannered CINO brothers and sisters at the N_R website

          • No sale.

            What Francis is “attempting to do” is sever current Catholic praxis from Catholic tradition.

            This has nothing to do with “personal opinions”. Learn some Church history and read the writings of previous Popes. That’s what this is all about.

          • Cardinal Robert Sarah is faithful to Christ’s teaching and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. These are not his “personal opinions” but faithful teaching.
            Bergoglio is not my pope.

          • Some people have, as their favorite items in life, a mirror and a keyboard.

            Such people tend to take to the Internet to bloviate about many things of which they have no firsthand knowledge, e.g., whether the Blessed Virgin was present at the foot of the cross when Christ was crucified.

            They prefer their own opinions on moral issues to teachings from organizations (e.g., the Catholic Church) which conflict with those opinions because they want to live their lives according to their own lights.

            Said people feel superior to the great unwashed and often tell their inferior interlocutors to “read a book” or “get help.” They feel that the primacy of conscience trumps allegiance to moral codes with which they disagree and refuse to adhere to, and their course of action usually takes the same tack: Shut down the opposition.

            What those people don’t seem to understand is that the very act of lashing out at perceived enemies is in keeping with “the primacy of conscience” that they espouse because their attacks on perceived enemies are the result of their guilty consciences.

            We see this most brazenly today in the “gay rights” movement.

            They also have a myopic view of, not only history, but the present and the future, as if life were static. For instance, they presently have a pope to their liking, but the man is in his 80s.

            Do they not understand that it’s possible that Cardinal Sarah could be the next Roman pontiff? And do they not understand that this could happen within a matter of months? And do they not understand that the Church has had such wild swings in the past (Pope Formosus, et al., come to mind).

            What then?

            No man knows either the day nor the hour of his demise.

            It would be easier on all of us if said people, instead of posting interminable paragraphs on the issue du jour, would just sign on and under their names post a simple statement: Non serviam.

            That way, none of us wastes any time, either writing or reading.

          • Cardinal Sarah is a faithful Catholic and a true son of the Church of Jesus Christ. You and Bergoglio are enemies of Christ. Cardinal Sarah’s teachings are not his opinions, but the ages old teachings of Holy Mother Church. Bergoglio’s teaching are his opinions. Tell me, Gregory, is adultery a mortal sin? Is sodomy a mortal sin? Wake up to yourself, Gregory. Your time is short. Don’t follow Satan. Follow Christ.

        • Yes, how long will this farce/heresy continue?
          It is painful to behold!
          When will he be finally removed? It won’t be one moment too soon !

          • I know. I remembered my mistake last night after closing down the computer. I’ve corrected it above.

          • So why is the thing the Dubianists are backing called a Correction Filialis ? If they had meant Fraternalis, why did they not use that word ? Why say X, when Y is meant ? Whoever heard of such ignorance ? “Filialis” means “filial”. It does not and cannot mean “fraternal”, and no power on earth, in heaven, in the seas or in the world beneath, can make it mean “fraternal”. The CC’s power, however great, does not extend to making words mean what they do not. It cannot do any dumb thing it feels like doing, regardless of whether it likes this or not.

        • I think that is a non-starter, Johnny. We are far beyond “enough is enough.” If the Cardinals had it in them it would have been done over two years ago.

          • I fear you could be right. It appears that the spiritual progeny of Thomas Wolsey outnumber those of John Fisher by a depressing margin these days.

      • How about, “Don’t cry for me, Vaticana!” I need to contact Laurence England so that he can do his new music video.

  2. I like Fr. Z…..good priest…….but he needs to get his ” head out of the sand”, here.

    Here will be the first line to GO in the Mass, ” And with your Spirit”, my prediction.

    • I don’t understand why people have such a psychotic attachment to the phrase “and also with you.” Is it because it subconsciously made them feel equal to the priest?

      • I think that, and that they have such a psycho attachment to every change they made, and their world view is forward, always progressing forward. In the heady days of the 1960’s and 1970’s, a new generation seized control and made a cultural revolution within and without of the Church, and NOTHING they did can be questioned, or reversed, because they were the privileged spoiled generation who could do no wrong. Every change they made was right and perfect, just by virtue of the fact that they did it.

        To them, to say otherwise, amounts not to a disagreement on translation, but a personal attack on their core identity.

        • We are not supposed to be “of the world”, but pilgrims pasding through it. We are not supposed to be moving FORWARD. We are supposed to be miving UPWARD, EVER UPWARD because we are supposed to be growing into a more precise likeness of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. What Francis and his Modernuists want is for us to move DOWNWARD, EVER DOWNWARD, and grow into a much greater likeness of their lord, the Demon.

      • Yes.

        The goal of Vatican ll has been to diminish the priesthood, along with the Sacrifice of the Mass of course.
        It is all tied into the point we are at in the Church: a loss of the sense of sin, an entitlement, a lack of awe to our Lord, and sadly, the diminishing of the priesthood as Persona Christi, has so damaged many good priests and with them, the laity of course.

        Many years ago, when Pope Benedict started to make the changes, I was searching a group of Dominican Nuns as a lay apostolate. The first thing, one of the nuns said to me, with hair up to her ears, and without a habit, ” I just hate this new translation of Benedict’s”. Well, I just sat there…….stunned. She went on to complain about this and that and this and that, citing having to use the word consubstantiation. The nun felt it was too much for the laity to understand, and would drive ” others” away. I said, I shall never forget this, for it just came out of my mouth, ” Why sister, that is our faith. Don’t you think the laity should know and understand this?” silence……and I never went back.

        • Myself, I’ve never cared for the consubstantial turn of phrase either. It seems to diminish, rather than enhance or enlighten. Even “one in being” seemed better to me.

          A chair and a table made from the same tree are consubstantial, but in no way do they share any aspect of the relationship between the Father and the Son. Heck, all humanity can be said to be “consubstantial,” made of the same water, carbon, etc, molecules. Consubstantial literally means nothing more than “of or from the same substance.” The broadness of that definition does not make it more explanatory of the nature of the Trinity. It dilutes and blurs the definition. It is closer to the original Latin, but it does not seem to benefit the liturgy or the congregation or the teaching of the Church.

          • Consubstantial has more specific meaning in my opinion, dating back to the days of the Arian crisis, I believe.
            The term ” One in Being” can denote a multitude of perceptions.

            “The other part of consubstantial is the first three letters
            “con”—profound yet beautiful in its simplicity. It comes from
            the Latin preposition cum meaning “together with.” In the
            Creed, consubstantial means that Christ was of one substance
            with the Father, but it also implies one substance with our
            humanity. He is co-substantial, referring therein to the two
            natures of Christ—human and divine.
            The previous translation “one in Being” does not portray
            this multivalence. Also, most would assert that this phrase is
            not as precise. The English word “Being” has a broader meaning
            than the philosophical term “substance.” “Being” commonly
            refers to all that is, which would include the appearance
            or form of a thing, and in relation to the holy Trinity, could
            mistakenly include Personhood. God the Son is not the same
            Person as God the Father, but they do share the same inner
            being, or the same substance. Both phrases, “one in Being”
            and “consubstantial,” are accurate when properly understood.
            In translating the Creed, however, it is important to be as precise
            as possible, and the Church believes strongly that the term
            “consubstantial” is a better choice in naming the Great
            Mystery that is the relationship of Jesus Christ to God the
            Father and to us, his adopted sons and daughters.” –

            with the Father”
            by Daniel Merz, SLL

            Unfortunately, I wonder how many priests understand this and were able to communicate this great and beautiful Truth to their parishioners. They should have.

            The point of my post here, was this nun and what to seemed to be much of the community had a strong distaste for Tradition and a sense that ” the masses would simply not understand.” Of course, this nun rejected STRONGLY the changes from ‘We believe to ‘I believe” in the Creed.
            I would suggest, it was ” they” who do not understand, either in pure ignorance or willfulness.

          • This is a fantastic explanation, thank you! I did not realize the “con” prefix in Latin had a slightly different meaning than in English. It definitely changes the implications for the words. I do wish there was maybe a better term in English that could communicate the intent more precisely, but what can you do?

          • I, too, am learning all the time about the Liturgy. Every TLM brings me to a heightened understanding of our glorious faith. From my own personal experience, I try to have trust in our Church Fathers and all that they gave us; including the Liturgy. And what I do not understand, I seek to…….and that seems to be something that occurs quite often.

          • Your understanding of the word “substance” is based on modernism, which is essentially the assumption of physical materialism. You are assuming as a modern does, that substance is the bits of stuff a thing is made of.

            In classical philosophy, substance meant, basically, the subject of a sentence, hence the word similarity. If I say Jane went to the store and She went to the store – I refer to the same substance, the same thing.

            Material substance makes no sense since God is pure Spirit, no body, as the Bible says. And quality would not be substance in the classical sense, as three horses have the same quality but are not the same thing.

            We are all modernists now is the problem.

          • It is a big problem, and it is 100% the fault of the Church leadership and catechesis. These things aren’t taught. I’m 40 years old. I’ve never been to a TLM mass. I don’t know a single person who has.

            My parents were adamant on my religious education and foundation. They forced me to read so much, watch so much, and talk about so much that I loathed all of it for a long, long time. But I absorbed a lot of it.

            However, you can’t learn everything in a classroom environment. Some of it has to be absorbed from the common culture. Without that foundation, it is very difficult if not impossible to build a complex, complicated structure without a common understanding/identity/culture. And we lost the culture wars, because the church leadership refused to fight it. That lead to degradation everywhere. No no one fights the culture war, except for the alt-right.

          • I understand. By the way, I can go into more detail later, but there is a simple, fun recommendation I have to recover the sensus fidei, the true “sense of the faith” we have lost. Dante. The Divine Comedy. You will think, breathe, sing and dream like a 13th century Catholic! Get the Anthony Esolen version, as his notes bring out the full Catholic force. Read the notes for a canto, then the canto out loud, enjoying the music. You will be healed. We have an answer – and it’s Dante!

      • There is a story about an incident that is alleged to have occurred at a large suburban parish somewhere in the U.S. back when revisions were being made to the Mass and we began seeing microphones appearing in sanctuaries everywhere.

        Father X came out to start the Mass, stood in front of the microphone, and stated, “The Lord be with you.” The microphone was not working, so Father fidgeted with it for a few seconds but could not get it to work.

        To remedy the situation, he said very loudly, “The Lord be with you.”

        He then immediately added, “There is something wrong with the microphone!”

        On cue, the congregation replied, “And also with you!”

  3. But of course! He can do what ever he wants! He is pope, right!?
    He’ll keep doing these and even more worse, disastrous things… so long as he like it – until some of his fellas do not get some courage and open his mouth, and say the right and just words to him and about him, which long time ago should be said!

  4. Well, of course the Pope smacked down Sarah.

    What ELSE would Bergoglio do?

    Thanks for reporting it, but really, it isn’t news.

    Now if the headline was “Pope Supports Cardinal Sarah and Calls for World Abolition of Abortion and Preaches Angelus homily on 2 Thessalonians 3:10” THAT would be news!

  5. Remember, Cardinal Sarah has been through something like this before, as a Catholic Bishop in a country run by a despotic marxist.

    Read his books. Don’t think of it in terms of what the modern world thinks “oh, what a burn! What humiliation! He should resign in response to such foul treatment!” Instead, Cardinals Burke and Sarah persist, doing their work, speaking at events, just witnessing and forcing others to deal with them. They are following Jesus’ admonition to “turn the other cheek”, and with each slap it becomes clearer to us who exactly is the follower of Christ, and who is not.

    Vatican watching appears to have taken on an aspect akin to commentary on professional wrestling, or politics. Instead, we might see what is happening at the Vatican as similar to being Catholic in 1970’s Guinea, or in mainland China. Sometimes it takes significant courage just to persist and endure in a kind of “white martyrdom”.

    Maybe it isn’t as satisfying as vicariously seeing someone else go out “in a blaze of glory”, but I find it more inspiring. And less american modern.

    • Sarah’s background is very similar to JPII in their fights with Marxism. Nevertheless, Francis had his world class defense experience as the “bouncer in a bar”. I would say that both are “almost” equal.

    • “Vatican watching appears to have taken on an aspect akin to commentary on professional wrestling, or politics. ”

      Well, the Jesuit Pope has been described as the “The Political Pope”.

  6. The Balkanisation of the liturgy began shortly after 1962 and was underpinned by the promulgation of the novus ordo in 1969. Priests, never mind bishops, have been in charge of the liturgy since that time. I therefore find it hard to get exercised over the deckchair rearranging which this story illustrates and exemplifies.

  7. As much as I loathe Francis’ frontal assault on the catholicity of the Church’s worship, I am grateful for this humiliation of Sarah.

    These attempts to make orthodox squares out of Francis’ erroneous circles has got stop.

    ATTN “conservative” Francis apologists: STOP IT.

    Stop telling us Francis is saying something other than what he is clearly saying. Stop telling us he is perfectly in line with Sacred Tradition.

    No he’s not. He deliberately running roughshod over it.

    If NO. OTHER. INTERPRETATIONS. wasn’t clear enough for you, is this getting through? Sarah’s mistake was trying to save this dog’s dinner, rather than call it for what it is. Well, fortunately, Francis has now done that for him. Just to make sure everyone’s clear: No, he really has no interest in safeguarding the integrity of Catholic worship. He wants just the opposite.

    Why? It seems increasing unlikely that he’s just one of these misguided do-gooders who honestly believes that scattering the liturgy to the wind will actually bear fruit. But whatever the case may be, it is certain that there are many prelates within the Church who are attacking the liturgy precisely because they know it’s our lifeline to the Most High. With that compromised we’re finished, which is precisely what the want.

    God save us.

    • Hi Brian, I actually think Pope Francis is more afraid of Cardinal Sarah than any other cardinal. I think that’s y he was so quick to clarify something, while still ignoring the Dubai. I honestly think this is a Saul and David situation. Just a gut feeling..i have no mountains of evidence.

  8. The pope once again gives evidence of being a left-winged flake, vituperative, vengeful, and vindictive. Poor behavior from an elderly man who could be seen as a wisdom figure if grounded in the perennial Magisterium, but chooses to amuse himself in the ecclesiastical sandbox. Can you imagine what those in community had to put up with this individual as a confrere and a superior?
    He is the epitome of pathological clericalism.
    It is incumbent he return to an environment where can be looked over by those who have an interest in his wellbeing.

  9. If Cardinal Sarah did not shy away from a dictator in Guinea that was bent on ending his life, I don’t think he will before a demagogue like Francis and his German heretics. Sarah will continue, with serenity, doing the work of God, and serving the Church that is wider than Francis. The future of the church in Western europe lies with the Traditional Catholics that Francis hates. How many of the heretics he publicly supports and promotes have returned to the Church? A disastrous Pontificate of terror.

    • The Traditional Catholics in Western Europe? Sounds down-right alt-right-ist. They’re going to have a much harder time pinning the “Nazi” label on Cardinal Sarah, though. That doesn’t mean they won’t try. All of us Trads will soon be compared to that unholy regime.

      • The “Nazi” label has been so overused, it has become meaningless. When someone resorts to using it, it usually means they have a profound lack of imagination.

        • It’s the last card they have left to play. It doesn’t seem like it, but the forces of evil and darkness are losing, all over the planet. We’re not winning every battle, or every engagement, and it seems like we barely have any forces remaining with which to take the field. And yet, yet, somehow the legion advances. We have painted the cross on our shields, and under this sign we shall conquer.

          A Catholic Nationalist was just elected in Austria. Poland mustered millions to the borders to pray the rosary for protection. Ireland is going to try to imitate it on the feast of Christ the King.

          The corrupt, the evil, the globalists (but I repeat myself) are under an overwhelming onslaught rising up as if from nowhere, from populaces they long thought defeated or cowed. We’re going to win this thing, because for once the laity is coming together and taking charge. They’ve picked up the ball that has been dropped by the elites and leaders of our nations and our churches, and are heading for the endzone. Scoop and score!

      • Southern Poverty Law Center has had traditional Catholic parishes on its “hate map” for quite a while. I remember the first time I saw stuff I had attended being on there, and was blown away. This is a done thing.

  10. As to the bizarre comment of Pope Francis saying that the commentary on Magnum Principium which appeared, in various media, under the signature of Cardinal Robert Sarah, was falsely attributed to the good Cardinal, I speculate that it’s PF’s way of saying “you better go along with this and pretend that you never actually said what you said.”

    As to the “tower of Babel” analogy, Magnum Principium (indeed!) isn’t actually it’s moment but rather a return to and furthering of the moment which was inaugurated with promulgation of the Mass of Paul VI. The ‘Novus Ordo’ missal, though it may not have been Paul VI’s intention, made Liturgical division the norm (though, I do believe that, that was Bugnini’s et al. intent.) The imposition of the Vernacular etc. upon the Mass and the masses has done nothing to further the Unity of the Catholic Church, while it has enforced and fostered Division within the Catholic Church from it’s very inception. The Latin Rite is no longer Latin: it is whatever it is.

    There are Mexicans who live within my Parish boundaries who travel 50 plus miles to attend a ‘Spanish Mass’ at another Parish. They are more Spanish speakers than they are Latin Rite Catholics. For them, the Mass isn’t the Mass unless it’s in Spanish. This is absurd, yet it is the very real and constant fruit of the Mass of Paul VI. And it’s like that everywhere. The amazing thing is this isn’t a Liturgy for a Truly Universal Church, but rather a Liturgy concocted for a National Church being fostered…wait for it…Universally! (At least under the Latin Rite, which is Liturgically and Geographically the vast majority of the Catholic Church.)

    I thought that, according to Progressives like Pope Francis et al, Nationalism was evil and Universalism was good? If the Liturgy is truly the bedrock of the legitimate expression of the Catholic (universal) Church’s Faith (Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi) then why is Liturgical Nationalism, which of it’s very nature is not Universal, being promoted via the Roman Catholic Church’s Liturgy?

    Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with Nation States per se. However, the Church isn’t a Nation State, she is the Kingdom of God on Earth and she is the single truly unifying factor amongst the Nations, as is indented by God Himself. Neither am I opposed to the Eastern Rites of the Church, which are ancient and show forth the splendor of the Sacred Liturgy in truly worthy forms. However, they themselves speak to the good of each Rite united to One True Faith, which has been almost entirely and forcibly abandoned and subsequently lost by the Latin Rite of the Church.

    The Latin Church, that is the Roman Church, is and has been, the visible source of unity within the Church from the Day’s of St. Peter himself. The loss of the Roman Church’s unity via her liturgy has been the greatest source of division within the Church Universal since the days of Arius. Is it a wonder then that we are now living in a Crisis that is the greatest since the days of Arius?

    May God Help Us.


    Fr. RP

    • Oh they want a universal liturgy alright, just not one that forms men’s hearts like the Traditional Latin Mass or even the Novus Ordo; i.e. to worship the Triune God on His own terms. Thus the goal is to erode an compromise the liturgy until this original character has been utterly destroyed; from there, a new liturgy celebrating say, the universal brotherhood or man, or perhaps “the lightbearer” can be imposed on all. See?

    • Your observation with regard to Spanish speakers only going to Spanish Masses matches my experiences as well. We have people at the local parish who only go to Mass once a month when a visiting priest comes for the Spanish Mass. And the people who go to the English Mass never see them; it’s like a subculture within the parish.

      Of course, if Latin was the norm, this wouldn’t be an issue.

      • The subdivisions are endless. In my English parish we have Mass in Ukrainian, plus an occasional Mass for the Goan community. The Hungarian Mass has been discontinued. The Poles moved out years ago to their own church. As there are parishioners from 54 countries, only a minority can enjoy Mass in their native tongue. Latin would include us all.

    • Father, is it not doctrine that one must believe it is the body and blood of Christ and be a Catholic to receive the Eucharist?

    • Hello Father, this isn’t exactly on the topic of the article, but a response to/question about one of your comments above. This one, your “aside”:

      “I do not have a problem per se with proclaiming the reading of the Sacred Scriptures in the Vernacular, as these should be intended to be directly received by the faithful and expounded upon via the Homily. Whereas the prayers within the Mass are intended to be received by God, and not directly by the faithful, but to which they give their faithful assent. And are quite easily understandable and accessible via a good Pew Missal.”

      Father, I concede that, at the very least, the readings have a more direct connection to the people than the prayers of the Mass; i.e. that compared to the prayers, the readings could be construed as more directly for the benefit of the people. However, why does not the whole history of liturgy seem to back this up? Why were the readings never sung facing the people until recently? In fact, it would seem that the reason that they are supposed to be sung (and always are in the ideal of the Roman Rite, the Solemn High Mass) is further proof that they are not primarily for the people but for the glory of God. Why would vernacular not have been introduced much, much earlier, if the primary purpose of the readings was for the benefit of the people?

      In sum – I am not saying it is a bad thing, per se, that the people readily understand the reading as it is being said (or, as should be done as often as possible, sung) – just that I don’t see this ever being a priority in the Church in its long liturgical history. Am I wrong on that? Or did the Church not get this right the past however many centuries that the majority of the congregation didn’t understand Latin? Or what? Please understand I’m not trying to be snide or whatever – I am genuinely wanting to hear a good explanation about this, and I’m interested in what you have to say.

      • Charles, I hear you. The Proclamation of the Sacred Scriptures is always to the Praise and Glory of God, especially within the Sacred Liturgy of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I offer nothing to counter what you have said as it is truly meet and just and I agree with it.
        That being said, it’s isn’t contrary to the Praise and Glory of God to proclaim the Sacred Scriptures in the Vernacular, even if one first reads them in Latin. I personally do not think that it is necessary to do so for the Sacral nature of the Mass to remain truly Sacred, Elevated and Reverent. It is entirely necessary though to follow the current rubrics governing the 1962 Missal, which should be followed without alteration as the Priest is the custodian not the promulgator of the Rubrics.
        I was simply adding my 2 cents worth, which are about worth that much.
        Also, remember that for the longest time Latin was the Vernacular of the Latin Rite Church. Singing/Chanting the readings adds to them the greatest dignity as singing is an elevated form of speaking. Chanting also helps carry the Voice and makes the passage much more memorable. Music is to Memory what high octane fuel is to a combustion engine: it helps it achieve optimum performance. Poetry and melody were developed before the written word and they were not developed for entertainment, but for the sake of memory: it’s how the history of the peoples was passed on via Oral Tradition. The earliest Hebraic Scriptures are quite poetic in many places, because parts of these come from the era of the pre-written word.
        In the Modern age we can forget that Language is first and foremost Oral, not written. And it is meant to be heard with the ear not just the mind.
        By the way, this is why having Excellent Translations of the Scriptures is of supreme import, not just to get the letter, word and content correct, but also the poetry of the Word, it’s cadence, it’s Sacred Beauty.

        • Father, thank you for your comments – they certainly make sense to me. I agree with you that glory and praise can be rendered to God via vernacular scriptures – although vernacular readings in the Liturgy are not something I personally agree with, I can’t see why they could not still be very fitting, reverent, and God-oriented.

          A side note on this very topic of vernacular readings – regarding your comment on following the rubrics of the 1962 Missal: there is permission, following Summorum Pontificum, to have vernacular readings in the Traditional Mass when it is a Low Mass, so I guess whatever rubric there may be about Latin readings in the 1962 Missal is overturned by that allowance of Pope Benedict XVI.

          The rest of your comments regarding language and singing sound good to me! We definitely have a much different understanding of language today than in previous ages.

    • Yes, Father, conceivably greater, indeed.

      The gist of the 16th century Protestant Reformation was not the theology of Sola Fide or the ins-and-outs of Sola Scriptura (a ridiculously weak idea, SS; one can defeat SS in three minutes, probably less): no, the gist of the Reformation was in worship. For the average folks, what did they experience? First, iconoclasm. Second, the priest turned around to face them. Third, the use of the vernacular and the dumping of the hieratic language.

      And that’s exactly what Vatican II (or of course, technically, the “spirit of Vatican II”) was all about. So, in a sense, “theology, smeology”. Where “the rubber hit the road” was in worship. Worship is just central.

      And remember the reasons the Greeks’ split from us (off and on before and after 1054, btw) was not the theological issues they’ll still bring up. It was because we spoke Latin and they, Greek. We could no longer actually “speak” to each other. And before that, please remember the Copts and the Syrian/Aramaic speakers (Syriac) who broke from the Greeks! Sure, they too had theological issues (the famous iota, etc.) but the real issue was language-based.

      In other words, once the Western Church adopted the vernacular post-Vat2, the time bomb started ticking. Even now, the German Church pretty much goes its own way, as does the Church in Latin America. In 20 years or less, there simply won’t be a “Catholic Church”, except were those of us Trads worship in Latin.

      And to this pope and his friends, that’s a feature, not a bug.


      • PS: Arius spoke Greek, of course, but being from Alexandria, that wondrous city that the Muslims destroyed in a half-generation, he might well have spoken Coptic, too. And then his heresy survived longest among certain Germans (what is it with Germans and heresy?), such as the Visigoths in Spain. (And of course Jan Hus and his Reformation made great use of the Czech of his day.)


    • “There are Mexicans who live within my Parish boundaries who travel 50 plus miles to attend a ‘Spanish Mass’ at another Parish. They are more Spanish speakers than they are Latin Rite Catholics. For them, the Mass isn’t the Mass unless it’s in Spanish. This is absurd, yet it is the very real and the constant fruit of the Mass of Paul VI. And it’s like that everywhere, as English speakers etc. do the same. The amazing thing is this isn’t a Liturgy for a Truly Universal Church, but rather a Liturgy concocted for a National Church being fostered…wait for it…Universally! ”

      Rather brilliant picture of the problem. I also liike the way this alludes consciously or no, to the Kingdom of the Antichrist which is, as Daniel says, “of iron and clay”. Which has always been taking to mean a kingdom that is de facto cohesive but reserves a dodge or ruse of diversity. This comment suggests the new liturgy destroys both the mass and the local culture, leaving a cheap, homogenous stamp pressed into the wax of what it destroyed. Very nice, Father!

  11. Lots of ink is being spent on what this means for Sarah but the elephant in the room is what this means for Liturgiam Authenticam. In case it wasn’t already clear, Liturgiam Authenticam is dead in the water which, of course, was Francis’ overriding objective. Magnum Principium has sunk a dagger right into its heart. If translations do not need to conform to LA on “every point” (as Francis says in his letter), then they don’t have to conform on any point.

    Francis sez…..”hey Benny, I got ya translations right here, buddy…….*points to his butt*.

    Someone call Ganswein and ask him to tell us again how close Benedict and Francis are.

  12. Why no resignation? (Maybe) because the more be stands, stump and boulder stubborn, in the path of his enemies (can we call them that?) they will make fools of themselves, stumble over his stubbornness, their pretenses and masks ripped off. They stand before him as they truly are. Bridge-builders to nowhere.

    I know some speak of the Cardinal as a god-sent in the next conclave (i.e. First Things) but his age (and Francis’ longer than expected – wanted – reign) may prevent that. By being forthright, faithful, and stubborn were he is, he is doing the next best thing – in short, being pope-like.

  13. The Church is up to its ears in stinking Marxism which includes most of the Cardinals. I’ve got my Catechism, breviary, and 1962 Missal. That’s all I need to remain faithful to the true teachings of Jesus until this storm is over (which probably won’t be in my lifetime unless there is a chastisement which seems likely.)

    • No, Bruno. We need the sacraments, too. We need the Eucharist, confession and, for people like me who are blessed to be parents to some of God’s little ones, first confession, communion and confirmation.

      There are also the elderly and dying who need access to extreme unction. No, Bruno, we need the sacraments and each other. Christ didn’t say “wherever one speaks or prays to me” but rather “wherever two or three are gathered in my name”. Ours is not a religion about us but we do need each other and the sacraments.

      • Brian I assumed that went without saying but obviously it is important to mention these in a forum that has many poorly catechized folks. I am a TLM Catholic and member of a FSSP parish in Dayton OH. Pray for me

  14. Since Bergoglio took over the Chair of Peter, he’s swiftly been moving to bring down holy mother church as we knew her before Vatican2. He’s never fooled me as I had his number the day he appeared on the Vatican balcony. His main plan was always to make the Catholic church insignificant so she blends in with all the Apostate so called Christian religions to form; “A ONE WORLD RELIGION.” In the end, Bergoglio and his compadres will answer in the end to the Almighty Judge Himself.

  15. Congratulations to the pope for writing and signing this letter to the Prefect of the Congregstion for Divine Worship which will lead to gutting the Holy Mass on a Sunday. The Lord’s Day. Mass Day. A day when we are not to be unnecessarily conducting business affairs.

    I don’t know who he wished to insult more: God or Cardinal Sarah.

  16. I bet there are certain dioceses with those radicals in their chancery offices who are already working like bees to tear away at the liturgy. This is Francis’ message to them…have at it…I won’t be checking.

  17. An “ecumenical mass” is apostasy plain and simple. At what point do we have to call a spade a spade and recognize what happened after the pontificate of Benedict XVI? I am not saying what happened in this forum; but I do know a manifest obstinate formal heretic cannot also be a Pope.

  18. Getting real tired of this pope and the rest of his leftist Marxists gay buddies.
    Cdl. Sheen said change had to come from the laxity.
    Stop giving them money till they stop all this nonsense and get on the phone to their bishops!

  19. I believe the time has come for Cardinal Sarah to resign and lead the whole African continent into filial opposition to Pope Francis the Destroyer. Our resistance so far is piecemeal and fragmented and this is how Francis the Destroyer is slowly winning. We need a full-frontal resistance to the evil designs of this Pope, one that will make him think twice every time he makes a move. Otherwise, expect more heretics to be made Cardinals, the imposition of an ecumenical liturgy, revision of Humanae Vitae, female deacons, female priests, the lists goes on and on. Pope Francis the Destroyer is no true Vicar of Christ; he is more the Vicar of Kasper and all the other German heretics.

    • Lead the Filial opposition? No. Rather, he should publicly sign the Dubia, then resign, then join in the public, fraternal correction of Francis.

    • Maybe he should declare together with the other Cardinals that “Pope” Francis is a Heretic, it seems to point in this direction

  20. My gut feeling is that Cardinal Sarah will not resign but stand his ground. That is how I read him. He trusts in God and stands like a rock. If Pope Francis were to try and sack him then he might find that the papal boat is holed below the waterline by this rock.

  21. What have we seen from the Pontificate of Pope Francis the Destroyer over the past nearly 5 years but a confirmation of what Cardinal Ciappi said in 1995, that the Third Secret of Fatima relates to “the apostasy in the Church, which will begin at the top.” Pope Francis is without a doubt the Pope of this apostasy, with the following as undisputable evidence:

    – The appointment of heretical Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinal across the globe;
    – The staged rigging of the so-called Synods on the Family in 2014-15;
    – The formalisation of Eucharistic sacrilege by allowing remarried divorcees without an annulment to receive Communion;
    – The sacking and removal of orthodox clerics and academics from positions of influence;
    – The regular mocking of orthodox and faithful Catholics as rigid Pharisees and doctors of the law;
    – The allowing of heretics such as Fr James Martin SJ to run amok with his homo-heresies without restraint or rebuke;
    – The destruction of the John Paul II Institute on Marriage and the Family;
    – The revision of the infallible teaching of Humanae Vitae;
    – The future further destruction of the Roman liturgy through Magnum Principium;
    – The praising of heretics from Bernard Haring to Martin Luther;
    – The denial of the eternity of Hell.

    I could go on and on. The end result of this Pontificate will be the ‘germanisation’ of the Catholic Church – exporting the auto-demolition and relentless decline of the German church (Pope Francis’ mentors and greatest supporters) across the Catholic world.

    It will take a century to recover from these evil days, unless, of course, God intervenes with a chastisement to shorten these days.

    Undoubtedly, this current Pope will go down in history as a total and unmitigated failure and be known forever as Pope Francis the Destroyer.

  22. The Pope is ordering Cardinal Sarah to disown the commentary which was written under his name implying that the commentary was not written or authorised by Cardinal Sarah. Let us suppose, as indeed seems highly probable, that the commentary was written by Cardinal Sarah. Cardinal Sarah is being asked to say that he did not write it. To do so would be to lie. I cannot see Cardinal Sarah lying and therefore he will not obey this command from the Pope. No doubt the Pope will then be faced with clear disobedience from Cardinal Sarah. What will he do? Will he sack Cardinal Sarah for refusing to lie?

    • No. He won’t fire him, he’ll isolate him. Firing him would be taken very personally by the African church. Isolating him is less dramatic but will be effective. This will be Cardinal Sarah’s great trial in this life, and he will be truly sharing in the Cross of Christ.

  23. Mark my words written here today: Soon, very soon, Francis will issue a Moto Proprio abrogating the Traditional Latin Mass. This is just the precursor.

  24. I wish he would ” take a stand and resign in protest rather than allowing himself to be further co-opted by an agenda not of his making.” And he might. I’d love it if he did resign and then ask Bishop Fellay premission to join the SSPX. THAT would cause an earthquake, all right.

    But Cardl Sarah is trying to hang in there in order to be elected pope in the next Conclave (Tagle has probably already been picked) and thus he doesn’t want to exclude himself from that consideration by a rash action.

    Another major concern of all the (few remaining) conservative or orthodox cardinals is that they don’t want to damage the office of the papacy. Brining the hammer down on El Bergo might mean that a pope who is orthodox/traditionalist would find himself subject of “discipline”. But after what the Modernists did to B16, this sort of idea is a vanity, and chasing after wind, to quote someone, somewhere. 🙂


    • If I were in Sarah’s shoes, I would not worry about getting elected pope. The truth is that “El Bergo” continues to stack the College of Cardinals with clones of himself. How the Church gets out of this without a major schism and more than one man claiming the papacy is anyone’s guess at this point.

      • AI P,

        I know. They’re trying to think “long term” but the time for that has
        past, obviously. And you are right, El Bergo is stacking the college. It would
        take a major miracle to elect Sarah now, or anyone no more to the left than he
        is: and what good would such an election of Cardl Sarah do? That “We’ll elect a better one next time around” won’t work any more. We’ve seen in the
        pontificate of B16 what extremes the Modernists will go to bring down a pope they
        don’t like.

        Without divine intervention, a Schism is the only hope to separate Catholics
        from those who claim to be Catholics but are (mainstream church) Lutheran lite
        or C of E degeneracy.

        And no, I’m not making any hints as to the eternal salvation of such; but if they are allowed to define “Catholic” they’ll define it completely away from what it ever was before; this is the Protestant Reformation come again, folks. Remember, that too began inside the Church; it didn’t come from outside. Calvin used the word “Catholic” to define his church, after all, and “Romist” or whatever for the “Romans”.


  25. There were rumours that Francis would attack LA. People laughed at it….not laughing now, are we? And I suppose the “Ecumenical Mass” will get laughed down…until it comes out.

    Holy Mary, Mother of the Church, save us!

  26. The longer they delay calling a heretic a heretic the more damage is done…are the Cardinals themselves humiliated for their lack of courage, publishing works about silence when what we need are Cardinals who are willing to be martyrs and call a heretic a heretic!!

  27. I just recently came across Sedevacantism ( last week ) . I think it would be worthwhile for onePeterfive to relook at what they are saying. It seems to me the sedevacantists may not be so wrong with regard to “Pope” Francis. It seems to be clearer by the day

    • Thanks Paul. Believe me we understand how difficult Francis is for faithful Catholics to stomach. But however bad he may be, whether he has lost his office or never had it in the first place is for the Church alone to decide. Barring that, our role is to respectfully resist his errors and hold fast to the truth. We can be an example to others of how not to lose hope when they find their faith shaken by this man. God bless.

        • I’m familiar with that author, and while I agree there is certainly grounds to wonder about the implications of Francis’ false teachings, what I disagree with — and what is a violation of our comment policy here — is definitively declaring, on our own authority, that Francis is not the pope. That is just not our place, however cocksure we may be in our own assessments of the situation.

          • Francis is Pope. And he appears to me to be a sedevacantist, too.

            Yes, a sedevacantist Pope.

            In fact, an Ultramontanist Sedevacantist.

            See, he appears to be doing his level best to erase the See of St Peter and he’s doing it by asserting dictatorial, monarchic power.

            The goal appears to me to be to make sure the papacy is destroyed by this single pontificate, that the papacy in the future is wholly gutted, powerless, void of authority or the ability to decide on issues of morality and doctrine, judge violations of morality or doctrine and prevent future violations of morality and doctrine.

            Everything he is doing appears clearly to be designed to irretrievably throw out the entire system Christ established in the Catholic Church and he is doing it by asserting the full monarchic power and authority of the papacy in one last desperate effort.

            Thus, how else to describe him than as an Ultramontanist Sedevacantist?

          • Brian thanks for your comments. What is very interesting is what St Paul says, he would perhaps disagree with you about not definitely declaring what we know is false, Pope or not Pope , even an angel, here is a quote from that article, it’s well worth reading “Recall the words of St. Paul, stated so emphatically and with repetition:

            There are some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. (Galatians 1:7-9)

            Notice that St. Paul does not suggest that the faithful must pretend not to believe their ears when they hear a false gospel, as if it is above their pay grade to recognize the perversion as such; rather, he tells us let those who would pervert the gospel of Christ be anathema!”

    • According to the Scholastics, a heretical Pope is still materially the Pope until removed from office. Sedevacantism is simply an ultramontanist fever dream, functionally identical to the mentality of Francis sycophants.

  28. This article is interesting because it points out that Pope Francis could indeed be a Heretic and our Cardinals are perhaps indeed not saying the Truth. I am not a Sedevacantist but I would say one thing these people seem to have some very valid arguments when it comes to “Pope” Francis. How can a man who does not answer the Dubia really be Pope? Why would a Pope whose job is to bring clarity cause confusion? The cat is out of the bag and perhaps the Cardinals are realising that indeed because they do not have the courage to call a heretic a heretic they are themselves be humiliated. Perhaps…

  29. Enough is enough. A wolf in sheep’s clothing occupies the seat of St. Peter. In the spirit of Christ rebuking the pharisees and sadducees, those who truly hear the voice of Jesus must rebuke this pope and his accomplices.

  30. Pope Francis the Usurper is getting a free pass on his destruction of the Catholic Church. A Roman Legion was required to tear down the Jewish Temple in 70 A.D. Now it seems a single man can pull it off with a group of faithless Cardinals. Is there any member of the hierarchy who will stand in Pope Francis way? Anyone? Christ was right to wonder if He would find any faith on earth when He came again. It’s already disappearing.

    • “I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will
      keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and
      whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and
      “I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline
      and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever
      dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.

      Oh, wait! This quotes are from wrong book. From some other pope, POPE ST. AGATHO (678-681)

        • Yeah, right. :-/ But seriously, those who ‘makes’ historical veracity questionable, are the falsehood and its members and servants. Those liars and deceivers are constantly perverting the truth, and they sell such lies to people as: “This was true then, but nowadays are new times, the modern times.” – But, that’s a LIE!
          What in one momentum was true it’s in other too. The Church did not know all at once on the first day of its birth. But She developed and grew into knowledge as well, and strengthened in faith, guided by the Holy Spirit.
          Of course it would not be understandable, nor would it be useful if the Holy Spirit or Jesus Himself, after His resurrection maybe immediately has exalted to Kefi and the other apostles the all of that what the Church will need even 200 years later.
          It’s full of logic that the church is being developed and grew and strengthened in the true faith of Christ.
          But the Liar, and his minions are twisting the truth, when they says: “That was then true, but these days should be other way.” Or when they are saying: “Nobody will go to Hell. That’s against the logic of Gospel.”
          The traitors, deceivers, liars, seducers.,… are not busy with developing and growing, – but they corrupt, distort and twist the very FUNDAMENTALS of the Church, which are engraved by God himself in the cornerstone of Christ’s Church.

          Let us recall Kefa’s speech to the Romans, who spoke of the anger of God over the Gentiles and the Jews:
          “For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek.
          For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith.
          For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:
          Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.
          For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
          Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened.
          For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…”

          (Romans 1,16-22)

  31. Are others here at 1P5 as depressed as I am about all this? For 72 years I’ve weathered the likes of Stalin, Kim Il-sung, Ulbricht, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, the degnerates John Lennon, JFK and Mick Jagger, the political alley cat Clinton, the cohort of ecclesiastic traitors around Cardinal Law, the apt-named Weakland, Bernadine and the Windy City Sodomite Singers at his funeral, the cover-up artist Danneels, etc. But even after all that “training,” I never guessed one day I’d be faced with the likes of Francis, with this worst of all challenges. It never occurred to me that someone like Jorge Bergoglio could ever occupy the chair once graced by Eugenio Pacelli.

    • I tell you who I blame mostly. The establishment professional Catholics. The ones that pretended for decades that there was a “biologic solution” meaning the liberals were dying off and the new “conservatives” would be talking over. They still spin today! The ones who viewed the Pope as a mini god and explained away every scandal or bad judgement as no big deal.

      Guess what? They gave us this current Pope.

      • “She ( The Catholic Church ) will become small and will
        have to start afresh more or less from the beginning.
        She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices
        she built in prosperity.” Pope Benedict XVI

        Faith and the future ( St.Ignatius press San Francisco 2009 )

        • She is already not inhabiting many of those edifices. Here in the Pittsburgh area, many of the old ethnic parishes are closed, and just recently it has been announced that there will be more closing and “consolidating” to come. Some of the closed older churches have been turned into apartments, a beer hall, etc. Very sad indeed.

          • That is actually a very interesting point.

            We lament the thought of loss…but we have already suffered it, if not in total volume. But then, one man can only worship in one place at a time. And therein lies the problem.

            In our transient culture, will Catholics be willing to move to or build communities of faith where a proper minister of the faith resides and can confect the Holy Sacrament?

            And we should not say “That difficulty proves the invalidity of the precept demanding Mass attendance”.


            Because in mercy the Church allows for those who can legitimately only attend once per year but ALSO She calls for strength upon strength and the building of new communities when the sheep are scattered.

            And I do believe that they are scattered now.

            Thank God for the wonderful parish I have. A truly unique and special gift of God.

      • This is the approach that Cardinal John Newman feared Vatican I’s declaration on papal infallibility might engender, viz. papolatry on the part of the faithful. Once again England’s giant intellect demonstrates his prescience.

        • Exactly, plus you have the willing sycophants that refuse to call a spade a spade.

          The evil ones take over and the lemmings make excuses and pretend.

      • Re. the “biological solution”: Why do I have the feeling prelates within the Vatican read Fr. Zuhldorf’s blog 10 years ago or so, observed his repeated assurances that the liberals would die out soon, and then said “Well, we’ll show that SOB!” And then: Presto! Francis/Bergoglio sits on the chair of St. Peter.

    • Dear Johhny,
      But, but,… it’s really everything, but unexpected.
      PF and all his minions, and other evil man (who have PF as their own minion) are, and can only be just THE fruit of THE seed that was previously planted.

    • I’m not depressed about it. I am livid. The consolation prize is this, and I think I said it in the last few weeks. They are revealing themselves for what they are — the masks are off. The episcopate is inhabited by heretics, liars and cowards. There are also the wise and the prudent who are doing what must be done with stealth — that is the nature of clerical culture and there is no getting around it.
      If I ruled the world the trauma the lads would be enduring would be unmatched, but that is not the way the world works and it is definitely not the way the Church works.
      Christ will triumph. We need to regard what is presently transpiring in the context of history — particularly the last five hundred years.
      Secular materialism has infected the Church. What is transpiring has been in operation for centuries and is now coming to fruit in the age of technology — and also remember, the multiple defeats of secular materialism in the pasts two hundred years. They had to get into ecclesial culture at some point. Our deference to ecclesiastical authority in the fifties and sixties when this particular operation was going into drive prevented us from recognizing what was happening for what it was.
      I don’t believe Roman Catholics will ever allow themselves to led off the cliff without critical response ever again — we have learned a lesson for the future.
      The reptiles accomplishing their dirty work today will go a bridge too far. It has to be just over the horizon. It will either be Francis or the puppet that comes after him. It could be this ecumenical “Eucharistic prayer” they are cooking up. It could be the nail in the coffin. But the nail is at hand. One of the narcissists will soon pick it up and it will be their undoing.
      The next conclave will say much. God willing they will have the elements to hold out until a faithful Roman Catholic man can take hold of the Chair of Peter. I don’t care if it takes thirty years. An authentic Roman Catholic devoted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ or no pope. The theater has to stop.
      Discouragement it a prime tool of the devil. Do not give in to it.
      Jesus Christ will be the Victor.

    • I used to get depressed by it. I also used to get raging, spitting mad about it. I’ve yelled, at extremely high volumes, complete with shaking fists, vociferously at God, reminding Him that it is His Church, and there’s only so much I can do.

      I too, am disproportionately Irish. My Grandfather was full-blooded Irish (born in America) and never let anyone forget it. The hotness of blood seems to be genetic.

      Now, I’m not resigned to it, but something that might be similar. It is difficult to describe. I don’t think we have a word for it in English. This is the world we live in now. I don’t accept it, and I don’t like it. I do what I can in my own little ways to fight against it, to push back. I see more and more, maybe because they are getting more brash, more open, maybe because I’m paying more attention, or maybe because they are being revealed to us. However, I know I can’t save the world. I can’t even save myself.

      I still go in cycles, sometimes being more down, other times being more frustrated and angry. I give it all back to God. I am such a terrible sinner myself, I’ve got more than enough there to occupy my labors. I put my hope and trust in His salvation, as it is the only thing I’ve got. When I pray, I try to give it all back to Jesus. My worries, my frustrations, my anger, my sorrow, my despair, my failures, my pride, and even the state of the Church, the country, the world. If anyone can make something good out of that mess, it is Him, and he does so quite often.

      I just know that I can’t. I don’t have enough education in theology or canon law, or anything else. I’m forever to be a piker on the sidelines. I read, and I learn, but I won’t ever be able to devote my life to stuff like that. I’m humble enough to know that I don’t know everything, can’t know everything, and am likely to be wrong on many things. But I do know for certain that this world, and this life, will never be perfected through humanity, politics, or anything else. We’re not meant for that. This world isn’t meant for that.

      Evil is not the opposite of good. Evil is the absence of God, much as darkness is the absence of light. There is no force of darkness, no power of darkness, no speed of darkness. Merely the absence of light.

      To that end, darkness wins not by overcoming or overpowering the light, but merely having the light withdraw. Once the light is gone, the darkness is there, unsummoned, unbidden. No further acts need to occur for the darkness to be absolute. All that is required is the light to be gone. Hence, why all that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.

      All this does not mean that there are not dark forces out there, or forces aligned with the darkness. We must fight them constantly.

      Always remember, too, that light is invisible unless it shines upon something, or you view the source directly (in which case, the light is shining directly on your retinas).
      The brightest flashlights when viewed from the side appear to not be on at all. It is only when the light strikes an object that the brilliance is unveiled, and the luminescence is apparent. We are each charged, therefore, to show up. The light cannot be denied as long as we stand. We reflect the Light, and the Light is the Truth, and the Way, and the Son.

      Do not be afraid to walk in the Valley of Darkness, for the light is there, though you do not see it, and in you being there, you become a beacon of Light not of yourself, but because of the Light shining on you.

      Go forth and represent the Light. Go forth and fear no darkness. Go forth and bear witness by your mere presence, and fight for Him and His Truth always, even if you can do nothing more than stand silently by and let the Light shine upon you to be reflected where it is impossible to ignore.

  32. Is it just me or does Papa seem spiteful and angry and bitter? This is not a Pope I can connect with as “shepherd” but rather he seems to have an agenda not in accord with the traditions and teachings of the Catholic Church. He seems to enjoy shaming people and insulting traditional Catholics, whom he is trying to make irrelevant in order to make way for the progressive future Catholic Church made in his image. This is not from God. Although I am only a simple Catholic with no special theological training, I do know that it doesn’t take a theological scholar to interpret the teachings of Christ and to know something is wrong here with our Pope. He is very concerned with being accepted by the world and rips the faithful, even leaving us to the wolves. This is not what a good shepherd does. I am on my guard. Sensus fidelium comes to mind and will look to the centuries of teachings from Popes and Saints that he is willfully and deliberately trying to destroy or remake in his image. This feels like the Vatican Swamp, the establishment, and globalism that I pray the Holy Spirit will renew. The church has been infiltrated by Saul Alinsky disciples. Marxists. Like our Marxist Pope. Sad. I also wonder if someone else isn’t driving the Vatican bus and the Pope is just a puppet. Someone is whispering in his ear all imaginable kinds of filth.

  33. Gee, I wish Jorge would quickly answer the 7 heresies that he was charges with by 250 Catholic scholars (Correctio Filialis de haeresibus propagatis)
    from around the world. No, he is too busy with the decentralization of the Church and turning it into a Protestant Sect.

  34. Cardinal Sarah just radiates integrity. Never has a Pope stood in such sharp contrast with one of his flock. May God strengthen and guide this great soul.

    • I agree, Anne. We should pray that God sends His Church salvation out of Africa. I remember that once I was in the cathedral of St. Anne de Beaupre in (now completely faithless) Quebec during visiting hours. Suddenly, the doors opened and a busload of tourists from somewhere in Africa came in. Unlike other visitors who were content to simply amble about looking at the interior, these people hurried to the front and went immediately down on their knees; they were authentic pilgrims! As I looked at them, the thought went through my mind, “Send us good priests, as fervent as you are, from your land! Save us!”

  35. This is the beginning of the end of Card. Sarah. It is clear that Francis and his minions want to get rid of him. Francis is reluctant to fire him, because he himself appointed him and because firing him now would go against the Curia’s normal appointment term of five (or six?) years. So instead of firing Sarah, Francis is trying to make him powerless and to make him look ridiculous in order to undermine the Cardinal’s authority. That’s the whole reason for this peculiar and weird letter.

    Remember, the modernists have definitively won the fight with the election of Francis. Now they are organizing the silencing of all orthodox voices.

    • Yes.

      I don’t see an institutional future for Cdl Sarah, either.

      He’s gone, either physically or effectively or both. This did it.

      The Pope is high as a kite now. Whatever he does is met with either support or silence. No effective public pushback, no resistance.

      I predict full bore, over-the-top, unrestricted warfare against the saints, now.

      Salted and peppered with orthodox statements to appease the last remaining lemmings at EWTN, naturally…

  36. There is still the issue of offending Africa, and eliminating the most well-known and respected black African figure in the Vatican.

    Bad public relations. Better to leave him there and let him slowly roast in his misery and powerlessness.

  37. “Perhaps it’s time for the forthright African cardinal to do what Müller
    failed to before it is too late: take a stand and resign in protest
    rather than allowing himself to be further co-opted by an agenda not of
    his making.”

    Waaaay past time, actually.

    Also, I’m not sure why people see Africa as some sort of bastion of orthodoxy, when we have leaders like Cardinal Peter Turkson and Archbishop Palmer-Buckle pushing for acceptance of polygamy within the Church.

  38. So the Cardinal has “La bataille du Vaticain” in his library ( by Christine Pedotti.

    From the description of readers, this book portrais Vatican II as a long battle between conservatives and reformers, with the latter availing themselves from the services of a brilliant theologian by the name of Josef Ratzinger.

    One who would later think of himself as a bear who has devoured the saint’s horse, and in penance has to carry the saint’s load to Rome.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...