Cardinal Sarah: Francis Is Perceived As an Aggressor Against Peace
Traditionis Custodes (July 2021) and the related Responsa (December 2021) are “perceived as acts of liturgical aggression” and “seem to have damaged” Benedict XVI's liturgical peace, writes Cardinal …More
Traditionis Custodes (July 2021) and the related Responsa (December 2021) are “perceived as acts of liturgical aggression” and “seem to have damaged” Benedict XVI's liturgical peace, writes Cardinal Sarah in a 20-page article in the Winter 2022 issue of Communio-icr.com.
These documents “could even pose a threat to the Church’s unity”, he fears. Sarah describes the facts in "if"-terms, "If there is a revival of the post-conciliar ‘liturgy wars,’ or if people simply go elsewhere to find the older liturgy, these measures will have backfired badly.”
For Sarah, it's “difficult" to conclude that Benedict XVI was wrong in asserting that the Roman Liturgy cannot suddenly be totally forbidden or even considered harmful, especially when its unrestricted celebration has manifestly produced good fruits” [while the Novus Ordo is in full decadence.]
#newsEaevnmhvgb
These documents “could even pose a threat to the Church’s unity”, he fears. Sarah describes the facts in "if"-terms, "If there is a revival of the post-conciliar ‘liturgy wars,’ or if people simply go elsewhere to find the older liturgy, these measures will have backfired badly.”
For Sarah, it's “difficult" to conclude that Benedict XVI was wrong in asserting that the Roman Liturgy cannot suddenly be totally forbidden or even considered harmful, especially when its unrestricted celebration has manifestly produced good fruits” [while the Novus Ordo is in full decadence.]
#newsEaevnmhvgb
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
mccallansteve
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
The cardinal should have said that Francis is perceived as an aggressor of the True Faith
Jan Joseph
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Kort gezegd, het Tweede Vaticaanse Concilie Rooms Katholieke geloof, de Novus Ordo, is decadent en stervende, het Universele Tridentijnse Romeinse Rooms Katholieke geloof, de Vetus Ordo, is snel groeiende en het nieuwe Rooms Katholieke geloof.
Strong and Steadfast
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Seabass You claimed BXVI was wrong, but you seem to be saying he was right. Certainly the existence of Quo Primum only further solidifies the same position, right? Or are you saying the "Roman liturgy" is not the same as that spoken of in Quo Primum?
@Strong and Steadfast I'm saying BXVI was wrong in writing Summorum Pontificum as it wasn't even necessary in the first place. Surely, he would have known this - world class theologian that he was. Quo Primum is the final word on the Mass for all time and cannot be revoked. So, the only
conclusion one can draw about the purpose Sum Pon served, was that it further muddied the waters and created a …More
@Strong and Steadfast I'm saying BXVI was wrong in writing Summorum Pontificum as it wasn't even necessary in the first place. Surely, he would have known this - world class theologian that he was. Quo Primum is the final word on the Mass for all time and cannot be revoked. So, the only
conclusion one can draw about the purpose Sum Pon served, was that it further muddied the waters and created a question of having a 'right' to celebrate the Roman Litugy that we already had to begin with.
I don't understand why more 'trad bloggers' aren't talking about Quo Primum? I think it's the litmus test for who is actually fighting to help liberate us from the current modernist regime, and who is just providing distraction.
conclusion one can draw about the purpose Sum Pon served, was that it further muddied the waters and created a question of having a 'right' to celebrate the Roman Litugy that we already had to begin with.
I don't understand why more 'trad bloggers' aren't talking about Quo Primum? I think it's the litmus test for who is actually fighting to help liberate us from the current modernist regime, and who is just providing distraction.
Strong and Steadfast
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
I disagree. Certainly BXVI wasn't wrong, as you have asserted. I don't even think it was unnecessary. The whole job of the pope is to reassert the Church's teachings, and this especially when those teachings are being attacked in some way. He did his job, and restated, as Quo Primum asserted, that the right to celebrate the TLM cannot be taken away, even by the pope. In fact, given what's going on …More
I disagree. Certainly BXVI wasn't wrong, as you have asserted. I don't even think it was unnecessary. The whole job of the pope is to reassert the Church's teachings, and this especially when those teachings are being attacked in some way. He did his job, and restated, as Quo Primum asserted, that the right to celebrate the TLM cannot be taken away, even by the pope. In fact, given what's going on today, I would say it was not only necessary and timely, but prophetical.
Really what it did is it helped solidify a logical point. Either Francis is simply wrong and can be disobeyed (because if he's right then the logic breaks down into a circular argument), or the pope has no lasting authority, which means the Church is not real. It helped to make the line between black and white very clear. Quo Primum did the same thing, of course, but Summorum Pontificum brought it into the contemporary sphere.
Are you aware there are "Catholics" out there who will ignore any direction given by a pope before VII, regardless of the authoritative status, simply because they feel it doesn't speak to the issues of today? Clearly they're wrong, but that's a very prevalent attitude. Summorum Pontificum helps in those kinds of cases.
Really what it did is it helped solidify a logical point. Either Francis is simply wrong and can be disobeyed (because if he's right then the logic breaks down into a circular argument), or the pope has no lasting authority, which means the Church is not real. It helped to make the line between black and white very clear. Quo Primum did the same thing, of course, but Summorum Pontificum brought it into the contemporary sphere.
Are you aware there are "Catholics" out there who will ignore any direction given by a pope before VII, regardless of the authoritative status, simply because they feel it doesn't speak to the issues of today? Clearly they're wrong, but that's a very prevalent attitude. Summorum Pontificum helps in those kinds of cases.
Strong and Steadfast
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Ok, I see what you're saying now. I thought you were going a different direction with that based on how you phrased it.
Yes, I have read Quo Primum several times.More
Ok, I see what you're saying now. I thought you were going a different direction with that based on how you phrased it.
Yes, I have read Quo Primum several times.
Yes, I have read Quo Primum several times.
Benedict XVI was wrong in asserting that the Roman liturgy cannot be totally forbidden....Summorum Pontificum was unnecessary. Quo Primum already quaranteed our Roman Liturgy and is binding on the Church for all time. As if BXVI (and the rest of the modernists) didn't know about this documents existence: Quo Primum - Papal Encyclicals