Hey Bergoglio - this is here to piss you off! Have a nice day.

https://www.ignatius.com/From-the-Depths-of-Our-Hearts-P3550.aspx

Bergolian thugs in fake Catholic media accuse Cardinal Sarah of being a liar

Update at 06:30hrs. EST.

From Joshua McElwee, to James Martin, Massimo Faggioli to Austen Ivereigh and a so-called priest named Dan Horan - all these have come out like vultures condemning our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI that he is incompetent and that Cardinal Sarah is a liar. I won't reprint their comments here, there are two links below that summarise them.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/critics-of-pope-benedict-furious-over-news-of-new-book

https://wdtprs.com/2020/01/lib-reactions-to-the-new-book-from-card-sarah-and-benedict-xvi-order-soon/

Yet, Cardinal Sarah has said that it is wrong to interpret this book as being opposed to Francis. Meanwhile, Father Fessio of Ignatius Press has announced that he will be publishing the "fake" book from the incompetent Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Sarah has issued a letter vehemently defending his honour against those who have called him a liar, including his correspondence with Pope Benedict XVI.

What this reveals to me is that the filthy rats listed above know that they are on the ropes. They are vicious and they have come to realise that the jig is up on them, and their filthy master, the Argentinian boil on the seat of Peter.

Pope Benedict XVI must speak. 

Someone raised a question yesterday, "Why is the Swiss Guard not staging a rescue."

Papa Ratzinger is in danger, he is a prisoner but something bigger is happening here and it may be divine.

Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Sarah lay down the law to Bergoglio!

Is it time to storm the Vatican and rescue Pope Benedict XVI?

https://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-emeritus-benedict-and-cardinal-sarah-collaborate

Something different from the Bergoglio imbroglio

On the brighter side, notwithstanding the stacking of the deck don't discount the fact that this man may be, please God, the next Pope.

TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2018

Cardinal Sarah’s Homily to the Chartres Pilrgims

GREGORY DIPIPPO

With the kind permission of His Eminence Robert Cardinal Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, we here publish an English translation of the homily which he delivered yesterday in the cathedral of Chartres to the pilgrims present for the annual Notre-Dame de Chrétienté pilgrimage. Our deepest thanks to His Eminence, and to the organizers of the pilgrimage for the pictures, from the Notre-Dame de Chrétienté website.

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2018/05/cardinal-sarahs-homily-to-chartres.html#.WwQAPe4vy70

Cardinal Sarah: "No Inter-Communion between Catholics and non-Catholics."

The potential for open schism grows. Cardinal Sarah states clearly that Holy Communion is not to be given to Protestants!

CARDINAL SARAH: "NO INTER-COMMUNION BETWEEN CATHOLICS AND NON-CATHOLICS. YOU MUST BE CATHOLIC”

by Matteo Orlando

"Inter-communion is not allowed between Catholics and non-Catholics. It is necessary to confess the Catholic faith. A non-Catholic cannot receive communion. This is very, very clear. It is not a matter of freedom of conscience. " This is how Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Divine Worship Congregation, responds to those who have seen an intercommunion between Catholics and Lutherans in a response given by Pope Francis to a Lutheran during his recent visit to the Lutheran community of Rome. "We give communion to Catholics," giving communion to everyone is "a nonsense," says the African Cardinal.

"There is no intercommunion between Anglicans and Catholics, between Catholics and Protestants. If they go together, the Catholic can go to communion, but Lutherans or Anglicans do not. " Without a union in faith and doctrine, opening the doors to intercommunion "would promote profanation." "We cannot do it. It is not that we must speak to the Lord to know if we can make Communion. We need to know whether we are in agreement with the rules of the Church. Our consciousness must be illuminated by the rules of the Church that says that, in order to communicate, we need to be in a state of grace, without sin, and have faith in the Eucharist. It is not a desire or a personal dialogue with Jesus that determines whether we can receive communion in the Catholic Church. A person cannot decide whether he is able to receive Communion. Must be Catholic, in a state of grace, properly married [if conjugated] ". The inter-communion does not allow unity because "the Lord helps us to be one if we receive it properly, otherwise we will eat our condemnation, as St. Paul says (1 Corinthians 11: 27-29). We cannot become one thing only if we participate in communion with sin, with contempt for the Body of Christ. "

The slap in the face heard around the world

The praise of Bergoglio's Evangelii Gaudium, his "manifesto" or his "mein kampf" displayed for all who would read and comprehend, the destruction this fiendish and unscrupulous derelict had in mind for the Church of Christ.

Sandro Magister reminds us of that fact in this morning's post about the humiliation and rebuke of Robert Card. Sarah by the Bishop of Rome, a man incapable intellectually and spiritually of walking in the shadow of the African.

The "devolution" of the Catholic Church spoken of by Bergoglio after the second Synod on the destruction of the family is in full swing. He told everyone he would do it, and bishops and cardinals sit by and do nothing whilst this enemy of Christ and His poor abuse flock continue to react in horror as to what this malefactor undertakes.

Because the “process” that Francis wants to set in motion is precisely that of changing, through a devolution of liturgical adaptations and translations to the national Churches, the overall structure of the Catholic Church, turning it into a federation of national Churches endowed with extensive autonomy, “including genuine doctrinal authority.”

These last words come from “Evangelii Gaudium,” the agenda-setting text of Francis’s pontificate.

http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2017/10/26/franciss-slap-at-cardinal-sarah-behind-the-scenes/?refresh_ce

Devolving doctrinal authority to local bishops conferences is not Catholic. 

Wake up people. Wake up to the reality that is in front of us

Do not, however, do not abandon Christ, or His Truth or His True Church. What is coming on us is going to shake the faith, shake the belief in the indefectibility of the Church. Do not doubt that, the Church of Christ, Catholic is indefectible, what these malefactors are doing is creating a false church.

Do not follow these men into Hell.

Remain faithful to Christ, eternal Rome and the magisterial teaching of the fathers.

Is the Pope using Alinsky tactics against Cardinal Sarah? Is racism behind the attacks by his minions?

Quite the headline. Yet to be sure, one must ask the question?

Robert Cardinal Sarah has been, what can only be described as, abused, by Pope Francis and his minions such as Robert Micken, Massimo Faggioli and others when it comes to Cardinal Sarah. First, it was the Cardinal's comments a year ago about "ad orientem," now, he has been pubicly dressed down by Bergoglio to the cheering mobs of minions

Pure Alinsky tactics to discredit and malign. We also well remember Cardinal Kasper's comments about Africans, that "they should not tell us too much what to do."

Is racism an issue here? It's a fair question, because Caucasian European and American bishops and cardinals are making continuous statements that go against the faith. Yet, here we have this African who upholds the faith and the treatment is different.

My view?

The Holy Spirit is at work allowing complete freedom by withdrawing grace from the enemies to show themselves. At the same time, he is pouring out grace upon Cardinal Sarah to refine him from an dross as in a refiner's fire.

There is a reason why Bergoglio, Kasper, Faggioli, Micken and the rest or doing this.

They can see it as clearly as you and I.

The only question is, what name will he take?

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/10/the-war-against-cardinal-sarah

Has Francis dressed down Cardinal Sarah over issue of translations of the liturgy?

On a Sunday, (October 15) of all days, Pope Bergoglio issued a letter to Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments on the matter of translations. 

Father Zuhsdorf has his take on it; particularly on the scumbags known as Massimo Faggioli, James Martin and Robert Mickens.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2017/10/i-learned-that-when-a-person-has-decided-to-destroy-you-he-has-no-lack-of-words-spite-and-hypocrisy/

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2017/10/what-does-pope-francis-letter-to-card-sarah-really-say/


https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/10/22/pope-tells-sarah-power-indeed-shifting-rome-bishops/

Pope tells Sarah power is indeed shifting from Rome to the bishops

• Crux Staff
  October 22, 2017
   

In a rare move, Pope Francis has issued a public letter to one of his own cardinals correcting their interpretation of one of his decisions. In a missive dated Oct. 15, Francis tells Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea, head of the Vatican's liturgical department, that the pope's recent document 'Magnum Principium' does indeed mean a power shift away from Rome and toward local bishops' conferences.

Sorry Cardinal Sarah, I'm not buying what you're selling!

You are probably familiar with how Cardinal Sarah, in his earnest attempt to keep the "Reform of the Reform" alive, was slapped down last year over the "ad orientem" posture matter. I wrote then that the idea of the ROTR was dead and that the "bastard rite" was not reformable. 

The tools needed to put lipstick on the pig are already there. The mock of the Mass brought to you by Giovanni Montini already has all that which is necessary to bring it more in line with the traditional. Use the Graduale Romanum of 1975 for the chant, face east, use incense, Penitential Rite A and the Roman Canon (EPI), incense, and so on. But this is all window dressing, it is lipstick on a pig. The fundamental problems remain in the Offertory, the theology behind that Missal and, yes the Lectionary.

Others have written erudite articles on this. Dr. Shaw, Father Zuhlsdorf and more, Father Raymond J. DeSouza has come out backing it and then, backed off. You can read them.

I'm a little behind on this post, so there is no sense me rehashing them, but I will give a few of my thoughts, given my over thirty years of work in both "forms" of the Roman Rite.

• The one improvement that could benefit the traditional Lectionary is the structured Advent weekday readings. This follows the ancient Lenten lectionary in the traditional rite where each day has prescribed readings rather than ferial or Sunday repetition.
• An Old Testament Lesson could be added to Sundays and First Class Feasts.
• There are no other benefits, notwithstanding Sacrosanctam Concilium.

The loss would be greater. Embers. Rogations. Vigils. Octaves, the yearly repetition of beautiful Catholic doctrine. The Mass is not a bible study.

When one reads the Divine Office, particularly even with the 1961 revisions, one sees the intricate connections between the Office and the Mass. It is especially evident in the Divino Affaltu and the Sanctoral cycle. The readings in the Office are related to the readings of the Mass and the chants of the Mass are also intricately woven in to the readings.

At one time, I hoped for a unified calendar and lectionary. That was when I worked with both, "forms". I see now that folly.

The calendar is the other challenge put forth by the good Cardinal, and I do not doubt his sincerity, but it is simply not possible. The modern must give way to the traditional. The traditional feast days for saints would require restoration. What about the Embers, the Rogations, Vigils, Octaves, Christ the King?

No, get back to paying attention to bringing the Novus Ordo back where it belongs, at least to the point of the "1965 Missal."

But get your hands off the traditional.

Oh, how these heretics in the Church hate Cardinal Sarah

The liberals and heretics in the Church are speechless. They are between a rock and a very hard place. They hate Cardinal Sarah, but they can't hate him too much because he is an African.  

You can thank Archbiship Marcel Lefebvre for these faithful Africans. May they come to rescue us from our modern paganism.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/june-23rd-2017/why-cardinal-sarah-terrifies-his-critics/

Why Cardinal Sarah terrifies his critics

Cardinal Sarah's opponents have attacked his views and called for his sacking. His response has been a gracious silence

A growing crowd wants Cardinal Robert Sarah’s head on a platter. Open a liberal Catholic periodical and you are likely to find a call for the dismissal of the Guinean cardinal who heads the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship: “It’s past time for [Pope Francis] to replace Cardinal Sarah” (Maureen Fiedler, National Catholic Reporter); “New wine might be needed at the Congregation for Divine Worship” (Christopher Lamb, the Tablet); “Curia officials who refuse to get with Francis’s programme should leave. Or the Pope should send them somewhere else” (Robert Mickens, Commonweal); “Francis must put his foot down. Cardinals like Robert Sarah … may feel that with a papacy heading in the wrong direction, foot-dragging is a duty. But that does not mean Francis has to put up with them” (The Editors, the Tablet).

Sarah was not always treated as the most dangerous man in Christendom. When he was appointed to his post by Pope Francis in 2014, he enjoyed the goodwill even of those who criticise him today. Mickens described him as “unambitious, a good listener and, despite showing a clear conservative side since coming to Rome … a ‘Vatican II man’ ”. Lamb was told by his sources that Sarah was someone liberals could like, the kind of bishop who was sympathetic to “inculturation”. John Allen summed up the consensus around the Vatican: Sarah was a low-profile bishop, “warm, funny and modest”.

All that changed on October 6, 2015, the third day of the contentious synod on the family. The synod fathers were riven by the seemingly competing demands of reaching out to people who felt stigmatised by the Church’s sexual teaching and boldly proclaiming truth to a hostile world. In what has come to be known as the “apocalyptic beasts” speech, Sarah insisted that both were possible. “We are not contending against creatures of flesh and blood,” he told his brother bishops. “We need to be inclusive and welcoming to all that is human.” But the Church must still proclaim the truth in the face of two great challenges. “On the one hand, the idolatry of Western freedom; on the other, Islamic fundamentalism: atheistic secularism versus religious fanaticism.”

As a young priest, Sarah studied at the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem and planned a dissertation on “Isaiah, Chapters 9-11, in Light of Northwestern Semitic Linguistics: Ugaritic, Phoenician and Punic”. So it is no surprise that he employed biblical language to make his point. Western freedom and Islamic fundamentalism, he told the assembly, were like two “apocalyptic beasts”. The image comes from the Book of Revelation, which describes how two beasts will attack the Church. The first comes out of the sea with seven heads, 10 horns, and blasphemy on its lips. The second rises out of the land performing great wonders, and persuades the world to worship the first.

This strange dynamic – one monstrous threat leading men to embrace the other – is what Sarah sees at work in our own time. Fear of religious repression induces some to worship an idolatrous freedom. (I recall the time I found myself the only man left sitting when Ayaan Hirsi Ali ended a speech by asking her audience to give an ovation “To blasphemy!”) On the other hand, attacks on human nature tempt some to embrace the false reassurance of religious fundamentalism, which has its most horrible expression under the black flag of ISIS. Each evil tempts those who fear it to succumb to its opposite. As with communism and Nazism in the 20th century, both must be resisted.

Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki, head of the Polish bishops’ conference, wrote that Sarah’s intervention was made at a “very high theological and intellectual level”, but others seemed to miss its meaning altogether. Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Brisbane decried the use of “apocalyptic language”. (One wonders what he makes of the rest of John’s Revelation.) “The boys don’t like to be reminded of judgment,” quipped one cardinal after Sarah spoke.

A prominent Vatican watcher wrote to me from Rome: “He stepped in it today by talking about the two beasts of the Apocalypse. His popable stock took a hit.” Fr James Martin SJ claimed that Sarah had violated the Catechism, “which asks us to treat LGBT people with ‘respect, compassion and sensitivity’ ”.

One sometimes wants to ask whether, for Catholics like Fr Martin, there are any words in which the Church’s sexual teaching can be defended – since they seem never to employ them. Still, the reaction to Sarah’s speech probably had more to do with simple illiteracy than any difference in principle. Cardinal Wilfred Napier of Durban said in the run-up to the synod that Europeans suffer from a “widespread ignorance and rejection not only of Church teaching but also Scripture”. He was right. Those who do not live in Scripture and know its figures first-hand are more likely to view biblical language as irrelevant or inflammatory.

On October 14, a week after Sarah’s speech, Cardinal Walter Kasper complained about African interventions at the synod. “I can only speak of Germany where the great majority wants an opening about divorce and remarriage. It’s the same in Great Britain, it’s everywhere.” Well, not quite everywhere: “With Africa it’s impossible. But they should not tell us too much what to do.”

Kasper’s dismissal of Sarah and the other Africans prompted an immediate outcry. Obianuju Ekeocha, a Nigerian Catholic who campaigns against abortion, wrote: “Imagine my shock today as I read the words of one of the most prominent synod fathers … As an African woman now living in Europe, I am used to having my moral views and values ignored or put down as an ‘African issue’.”

Cardinal Napier agreed: “It’s a real worry to read an expression like ‘the Pope’s Theologian’ applied to Cardinal Kasper … Kasper isn’t very respectful towards the African Church and its leaders.”

Kasper’s statement was like the breaking of a dam. Since then, a great wave of abuse has poured over Sarah. His critics have described him as uppity, uneducated and possibly criminal – or at least in need of a good beating.

Michael Sean Winters of the National Catholic Reporter reminded Sarah of his role (“Curial cardinals are, after all, staff, exalted staff, but staff”). La Croix’s Fr William Grim called his work “asinine … patently stupid … red-capped idiocy”. Andrea Grillo, a liberal Italian liturgist, wrote: “Sarah has shown, for years, a significant inadequacy and incompetence in the field of liturgy.”

In the Tablet, Fr Anthony Ruff corrected Sarah. “It would be good if he could study the reforms more deeply and understand, for example, what ‘mystery’ means in Catholic theology.” Massimo Faggioli, a vaticanist who haunts Rome’s gelaterias, innocently observed that Sarah’s apocalyptic beasts speech “would be subject to criminal charges in some countries”. (Having ministered for years under the brutal Marxist dictatorship of Sékou Touré, Sarah hardly needs reminding that open profession of Christian belief can be a crime.)

After Pope Francis rejected Sarah’s call last year for priests to celebrate mass ad orientem, contempt for Sarah broke out in a shower of blows: “It is highly unusual for the Vatican to publicly slap down a Prince of the Church, yet not entirely surprising given how Cardinal Sarah has operated…” (Christopher Lamb, Tablet); “the Pope slapped down Cardinal Sarah quite strongly, with only a bit of face-saving spared him,” (Anthony Ruff, Pray Tell); “Pope slaps down Sarah” (Robert Mickens, on Twitter); “Pope Francis … slapped him down” (Mickens again, in Commonweal); “a further slap-down” (Mickens once more, a few months later in La Croix). Added up, it makes for quite a beating.

Exchanging charges of insensitivity is probably not the best way to settle doctrinal disputes, but the rhetoric of Sarah’s critics reveals something important about Catholic life today: in disputes doctrinal, moral and liturgical, liberal Catholics have become ecclesial nationalists.

Traditional Catholics tend to support consistent doctrinal standards and pastoral approaches regardless of national boundaries. If they do not actually prefer the Latin Mass, they want vernacular translations to track the Latin as closely as possible. They are not scandalised by the way Africans speak of homosexuality or Middle Eastern Christians of Islamism.

Liberal Catholics, meanwhile, campaign for vernacular translation written in idiomatic style and approved by national bishops’ conferences, not by Rome. Local realities require truth to be trimmed whenever it crosses a border. Catholic doctrinal statements should be couched in pastorally sensitive language – sensitive, that is, to the sensibilities of the educated, wealthy West.

One of the advantages of ecclesial nationalism is that it allows liberals to avoid arguing on direct doctrinal grounds, where traditional “rigorists” tend to have the upper hand. If truth must be mediated by local realities, no man in Rome or Abuja will have much say over the faith of Brussels and Stuttgart (this was the point behind Kasper’s dismissal of Africans).

One sees this in writers like Commonweal’s Rita Ferrone, who says that rather than heeding Sarah, English speakers should be “trusting our own people and our own wisdom concerning prayer in our native tongue”. The “we” behind that “our” is not global and Catholic, but bourgeois and American.

What if instead of being put back in his place, slapped down and locked up for violating Western speech codes, Sarah becomes pope? This is what his critics fear most. Mickens writes of the dark possibility of a “Pius XIII (also known as Robert Sarah)”. Lamb says that Sarah may turn out to be “the first black Pope”. (That would be a beautiful thing – Sarah’s parents, converts in the remote Guinean village of Ourous, assumed that only white men could become priests and laughed when their son said he wanted to go to seminary.) The same well-connected Vatican watcher who told me that Sarah’s stock fell during the synod now says his fortunes are improving. “People have noticed all the attacks, and his gracious refusal to respond in kind.”

It is indeed remarkable that Sarah has suffered this hail of abuse with such grace. In his newly published book The Power of Silence, we hear his stifled cry of anguish:

I painfully experienced assassination by gossip, slander and public humiliation, and I learned that when a person has decided to destroy you, he has no lack of words, spite and hypocrisy; falsehood has an immense capacity for constructing arguments, proofs and truths out of sand. When this is the behaviour of men of the Church, and in particular of bishops, the pain is still deeper. But … we must remain calm and silent, asking for the grace never to give in to rancour, hatred and feelings of worthlessness. Let us stand firm in our love for God and for his Church, in humility.

Despite it all, Sarah is a man unbowed. His book reiterates his call for Mass ad orientem and the rest of the “reform of the reform”: “God willing, when he wills and as he wills, the reform of the reform will take place in the liturgy. Despite the gnashing of teeth, it will happen, for the future of the Church is at stake.”

If Sarah has refused to make himself pleasing to those who run Rome, he is not about to serve any other party either. In this wonderfully individual book, he tells old Islamic folktales, dotes on the suffering and weak, and decries military intervention: “How can we not be scandalised and horrified by the action of American and Western governments in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria?” Sarah views these as idolatrous outpourings of blood “in the name of the goddess Democracy” and “in the name of Liberty, another Western goddess”. He opposes the effort to build “a religion without borders and a new global ethics”.

If that seems hyperbolic, recall that six days after missiles hit Baghdad, Tony Blair sent George W Bush a memo saying, “Our ambition is big: to construct a global agenda around which we can unite the world … to spread our values of freedom, democracy, tolerance.” Sarah views this programme as something close to blasphemy.

He has equally pungent views on the modern economy: “The Church would commit a fatal mistake if she exhausted herself in giving a sort of social face to the modern world that has been unleashed by free-market capitalism.”

War, persecution, exploitation: all these forces are part of a “dictatorship of noise”, whose incessant slogans distract men and discredit the Church. In order to resist it, Sarah turns to the example of Brother Vincent, a recently deceased young man whom Sarah dearly loved. Only if we love and pray like Vincent can we hear la musica callada, the silent music the angels played for John of the Cross. Yes, this book shows that Sarah has a great deal to say: on the mystical life, the Church and world affairs. But for the most part he keeps silence – while the world talks about him.

Matthew Schmitz is literary editor of First Things and a Robert Novak Journalism Fellow

This article first appeared in the June 23 2017 issue of the Catholic Herald. To read the magazine in full, from anywhere in the world, go here

Cardinal Sarah's comments

Many of you have read the recent remarks in Germany by Robert Cardinal Sarah on the liturgy. I would like to get excited by this that it signals a change. We know that it will not be the case, at least not yet. In the meantime, we must seek out the traditional Latin Mass and if it cannot be found, then you must leave the parish where liturgical abuse and errant teaching prevails and find the most faithful priest and parish that you can.

Let us pray to the great God of the universe, who condescended to take up our humanity and walk amongst us only to be mocked, slandered, spat upon, persecuted and crucified, only to rise again from the dead to save us from our sins, that He will soon deliver his unworthy and unfaithful creation from the hands of evil men who have invaded his Temple and go about doing abominable things and leaving behind them, desolation. 

Pope Francis sets his sites on Congregation of Divine Worship - is this the undermining of Cardinal Sarah?

If you needed more indication that the Reform of the Reform is dead, then this is it. The Novus Ordo liturgy is irreformable. There is no saving it. Get out of it and get to the traditional liturgy only or as often as you can. It is what you will need to strengthen you for this storm we are in. It cannot convert, it cannot convict.  

Cardinals Burke, Ranjith, Bagnasco, Pell are out. This is a wholesale change and not with recent precedent. Usually, one or two members are changed at a time providing continuity. Not this time. Every single member has been replaced and Cardinal Sarah has been isolated.

Worse, the Bugnini syocophant, Piero Marini is back.

So what does this mean?

It means that you need to do everything you can to get out of the Novus Ordo Mass and more importantly if you cannot, the novus ordo mentality - novus ordo, the New Order! You need to get to the traditional Mass and away from these devils.


Priests, you must learn the traditional liturgy and prepare to transition to it. They will force upon you something that you cannot accept. It has been prophesied by many mystics and we are now living it.

It is the official and formal death of the Reform of the Reform. It is a repudiation of everything Joseph Ratzinger cared about and attempted to reform. Let him enjoy now the fruits of his horrible renunciation of the papacy. He will suffer with this. Good. Let him repent of his decision and abandoning his flock, abandoning his children to the wolves. 

It means that this Pope is planning something with the Mass and he needs his people to carry it out. It is also curious that it comes immediately before his trip to Lund to praise the heresiarch Martin Luther.

It also means, in my view, a stealth attack on the traditional Mass through some kind of "reform" or an outright and open attack on Summorum Pontificum.

Let them try because to quote Michael Moore, "it will be the biggest "blank you" in the history of the papacy!

From the Tablet...

http://archive.is/L2LXD#selection-687.1-687.20

POPE OVERHAULS CARDINAL SARAH’S DEPARTMENT

28 October 2016 | by Christopher Lamb

The move will be considered an attempt to rein in the Cardinal, Pope overhauls Cardinal Sarah’s department

Pope Francis today appointed a raft of new members to Cardinal Robert Sarah’s liturgy department, choosing a series of pastoral moderates to replace more conservative-minded figures.

The move will be read as the Pope’s attempt to rein in the cardinal who has consistently called for priests to celebrate Mass facing East, something the Pope reprimanded him for earlier this year.

Among the new members of the department – formally known as the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments – are Piero Marini, a long-serving master of papal ceremonies and a key proponent of the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

Others named as members, who will effectively oversee Cardinal Sarah’s work and vote on decisions, include Cardinal Pietro Parolin (Vatican Secretary of State) and New Zealand Cardinal John Dew.

Cardinal Sarah, from Guinea, has consistently called for priests to turn their backs on the congregation while celebrating Mass (Really, how long to we need to put up with these derelict Catholic writers, it's time to drain the swamp. Vox) and has struck a very different tone to the Pope’s merciful approach to families in difficult circumstances. Francis this week spoke at the St John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family in place of the cardinal, where he stressed the importance of priests accompanying families struggling to live up to the

Church’s teaching on family life.

The complete list of department members is as follows:

Rainer Maria Woelki

John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan

Pietro Parolin

Gérald Cyprien Lacroix

Philippe Nakellentuba Ouédraogo

John Atcherley Dew

Ricardo Blázquez Pérez

Arlindo Gomes Furtado

Gianfranco Ravasi

Beniamino Stella

Dominic Jala

Domenico Sorrentino

Denis James Hart

Piero Marini

Bernard-Nicolas Aubertin

Romulo G. Valles

Lorenzo Voltolini Esti

Arthur Joseph Serratelli

Claudio Maniago

Bernt Ivar Eidsvig

Miguel Ángel D'Annibale

José Manuel Garcia Cordeiro

Charles Morerod

Jean-Pierre Kwambamba Masi

Benny Mario Travas

John Bosco Chang Shin-Ho

Pope expels Cardinal Sarah from school

Perhaps Padre Bergoglio has not heard.

#AfricanCardinalsMatter

http://whatisupwiththesynod.com/index.php/2016/10/07/clearing-out-the-riff-raff/

The response to Cardinal Sarah's remarks reveal the evil cabal in the Vatican itself - they can't hide anymore, they have exposed themselves

Phil Lawler has an instructive column at catholicculture.org and an astute observation:

"In the process, the cardinal clearly hit a nerve. The overwrought reaction to his speech showed how very nervous some Catholic leaders are about any possible change to the liturgical status quo. (And by the way, is anyone completely happy with the current state of the Catholic liturgy?) Even the Vatican's response appeared wildly disproportionate.

Cardinal Kasper suggested a dramatic change in Church teaching and sacramental practice, and the Pope offered him a forum at a meeting of cardinals. Cardinal Marx suggested that the German bishops were ready to write their own rules, and drew only a quiet demurrer from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. But Cardinal Sarah makes a suggestion—for a practice that is already allowed under existing liturgical guidelines, and that was championed by Pope Benedict XVI—and immediately the Vatican press office blew the whistle and called a foul."

Father Richard Cipolla, writing at Rorate states in reference to the situation that:

"It seems that there is no limit to the nonsense that Father Lombardi allows himself to spew forth in defense of the indefensible.  We hope that once he lays aside this burden, as he will very soon, he can return to more spiritually profitable endeavors. The ideology that lies behind that repudiation of Cardinal Sarah’s exhortation to return to the Traditional posture of the priest at Mass rang out quite clearly in the Clarification.  It is an ideology that has for so many years prevented the Church from restoring the liturgical life of the Church that is necessary for the mission of the Church to the world.  It is an ideology that has no basis in Tradition and in fact is a break with Tradition.  Anyone who still believes that the Mass of Paul VI is continuous with the Roman Rite of Catholic Tradition needs to get out into the fresh air more."

The other day, I called the Novus Ordo a "bastard rite." I am not the first to use this expression. 

In the same piece at Rorate Caeli blog, Father Cipolla reminds us that:

"The heart of the ideology driving the post-Conciliar reform of the liturgical books is the destruction of  the Traditional understanding of the Mass as a sacrifice, namely, the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary, the offering of the Son to the Father.  Without the Roman Canon, which the reformers tried to get rid of entirely, that the Mass is a sacrifice is not evident in the three new Eucharistic prayers."

If that is not a "bastard rite" then I do not know what is. What will it take to get Catholic to wake up to the fact that Sacrosanctum Concilium was a seriously flawed document; that it was a compromise between radicals and what the Fathers would accept, an error on their part to be sure. What will it take for Catholic to understand that Pope Paul VI, for whatever reason, allowed himself to be manipulated and bamboozled by evil men such as Annibale Bugnini? How can a Catholic sit there, knowing anything about history, about the faith, about what existed in practice and conversions before and after their all powerful Council and say with any conviction that it is good?.

It is a disaster and the world is burning and it is the fault of the Pope, the Bishops, the Priests and John and Mary Catholic who refuse to follow the Faith of Our Fathers!

The Novus Ordo liturgy is "banal." It is a "manufactured.. These were Joseph Ratzinger's words, not mine. It is destructive to the Faith. It is horizontalist and feminised, it is Pelagianism in its fundamental development. It is a Modernist calamity that has cost millions of souls. It cannot be reformed and we have seen that in this topic on "ad orientem" and that is already part of the Missal of Paul VI.

Father Cipolla continues at Rorate:

Furthermore, the very rubrics of the Paul VI missal assume that the priest is celebrating ad orientem.  It is distressing to have to repeat all of this at this time, but the fact is that most of our bishops may have never read the rubrics in English let alone Latin.  At the "Orate fratres", the rubric reads:  Stans postea in medio altaris, versus ad populum….The obvious and easy English translation is:  Then, standing in the middle of the altar, turning  to the people….Why should he turn to the people if he is already facing them?  There are other examples where the rubric calls for the priest to turn to the people.  And again, it is tiresome to have to go through these explanations once again.  But after what happened in the slap down of Cardinal Sarah by the powers that still be, one has to rehearse certain facts and show how it is sheer ideology that has driven and continues to drive the intense hostility to the Traditional understanding of the Mass as the Holy Sacrifice (despite pious talk about the Holy Sacrifice).

How many times does it need to be repeated. Lombardi and his ilk are either plain stupid, or they are evil.

Let this writer not scandalise you, but let this.

If you cannot be scandalised by a Bishop of Rome who refuses to genuflect to Our Lord on the Altar at Mass but can grovel to wash the feet of a Mohammedan woman on Holy Thursday and literally hundreds of others over the years in violation of liturgical law, thus bastardising the ancient ritual, then you should surely not be scandalised by my words.


Look, if the Pope wants to give example of visiting the poor and washing their wounds or their feet, this is a wonderful thing. Let him do it. Let every bishop and priest and ourselves take up the work. But not on Holy Thursday! Frankly, Jorge Bergoglio, in this regard, is nothing more than a narcissistic, egoist. What man would do such work in front of world-wide media rather than to let his good works be done in secret, that he not receive the praise and adulation of the world. It is hypocrisy of the worst kind. There is no humility in it. Just as there is no humility in living at the Casa Santa Marta versus the Apostolic Palace. It costs more to keep him in the hotel! Where is the humility in this. It is all a show.

It is a lie.

Nor should my Sedevacantist friends rejoice that I am ready to jump into the deep and join in their error, but I love them just the same.

Habemus Papam! For better or worse.

What we have is exactly what Popes and Doctors, Saints and Prophets and Holy Scripture with Holy Tradition and various apparitions of Our Blessed Mother have told us. What we have is exactly what St. Pius X warned us about in Pascendi. What we have is exactly what the tin-foiled-hat Catholic has been saying for years: Freemasons and communists and sodomites have infiltrated the Church of Christ and are now at Her highest levels in order to destroy the faith from within and create a new cult of man that will aid in the globalist agenda of world domination.  That is exactly what we have!

That Federico Lombardi, S.J., James Martin, S.J., Anthony Spadaro, S.J., (development of theme, here) along with Cardinals such as Nichols and other priests, press and commentators would ignore the obvious from Kasper and Marx but would condemn the actual truth expressed by Cardinal Sarah of the reality of the Missal of Paul VI, today, right now, without any change whatsoever and with no so-called. "reform of the reform" is indeed, instructive. It is more than that, it is revealing. 

It reveals that these men are evil. That they do not understand the Holy Mass. That in all of their education, they are nothing more than Modernists. They have no supernatural faith. They have lost all belief. They are malefactors and swine, they are filthy bastards who must repent or they will go to Hell for what they have done not just to their own souls but to millions of others.

Let me add this comment from my good friend at The Eye-Witness, Aged Parent, who writes:

The fast track to oblivion is in full swing thanks to all the incoherent ramblings of an unstable man and his proclamations, the most damaging of which is without question Amoris Laetitia, brilliantly dissected by Mr James Larson here and in the writings of others.  With that exhortation all Hell is about to break loose.  Indeed the results are already before us.  Francis has unleashed a runaway train.

 

Many have valiantly tried to get it through the Pope's head that he is leading the Church to schism, heresy and disaster.  His autocratic stubbornness has made their pleas, so far, fall upon deaf ears.  He is a child of the Society of Judas, of Teilhard, of de Lubac and Rahner and as such is not open to an Aquinas or a Chrysostum or certainly not an Athanasius.  As H Reed Armstrong recently noted in Christian Order:

Pope Francis has caused this. He has allowed it. It matters not what he told Cardinal Sarah before. what matters is what he has done, or at least permitted, now. 

Do not focus on what they say. Focus on what they do.

National Catholic Reporter has racist view of Cardinal Sarah. Don't #AfricanCardinalsMatter?

If Francis does nothing to make such structural and juridical changes, it is not inconceivable that when the overwhelmingly conservative College of Cardinals elects his successor -- and most likely in the not too distant future -- the new pope would reverse the movement for reform that's currently underway.

And if it were a Pope Cyprian I or Pius XIII (also known as Cardinal Robert Sarah), the reversal would be swift and uncompromising. Of course, they'd have to tear down the walls of our churches to prevent people from crushing each other in the mass exodus that might cause.

https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/roman-observer/pontificate-might-be-stuck-mud

In support of Cardinal Sarah - #AfricanCardinalsMatter

#AfricanCardinalsMatter

The "ad orientem" fight in the Nervous Disorder, is on! Who will win? -- UPDATE - Not Cardinal Sarah, he's now been thrown under the Vatican bus!

This past week, I decided, in consultation with the Pastor where I have been singing the Ordinary Form on Saturday for the past eight years, to resign. My frustration has been building for a while now. I have come to the conclusion that no matter how faithful the priest, the people are just so distracting and so disrespectful and so utterly stupid, that I could no longer bear it. The actions against Cardinal Sarah now have affirmed my decision.

The contrast between the Novus Ordo in general and the Mass on Sundays two dioceses away where I direct the music in the traditional Rite is like night and day. It has become, for me, simply too much to bear.

Dysfunction of the liturgy is embedded

The inherent dysfunction of the Novus Ordo, is impossible to reform. Priests who have tried to do it have been, and continue to be, persecuted.  Cardinal Sarah is now open to being persecuted already by Federico Lombardi!

I have given it 30 years. I was once denounced publicly from the Ambo on Good Friday by the Pastor of the parish I grew up in for delivering a Good Friday liturgy in accord with the Novus Ordo Roman Missal. He was a priest of the Polish Congregation of St. Michael the Archangel, and even denied my mother's funeral in her parish church because the request was for it to be in Latin, and according to the Novus Ordo! Another, a "baby priest" at 27, wagged his finger after Mass in front of the parishioners at me and said, "I told you never to sing in Latin, I am the priest and you must obey!" To which I responded, "No Father, you told me not to sing that which was not in Catholic Book of Worship II and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops have put it in the hymnbook, perhaps you should take it up with them." Fortunately, that effeminate and rageful clericalist is no longer in Toronto but now in the Archdiocese of Detroit and is a Pastor. Keep him away from you boys, he was once also from the CSMA.

I will give the Novus Ordo, no more of my time. It is a useless exercise. It is a liturgy which was an error and remains so. It was and remains, an abomination. It cannot be reformed, it will not be reformed until the Pope and Bishops find the determination to do it. Nice words from Cardinals are not enough as we have no seen.

"Person" centered worship

It was not from the Holy Spirit. It is simply not possible. It is a cult of man, not of God. It is illogical and blasphemous to think that it could be from the Holy Spirit. 

Look at the fruits!

God knows all things. Sees all things. He knows the future. Father, Son and Holy Spirit know all, see all. This great God could see the damage to souls and the faith that the new order of the Mass has produced. He saw it all. Why would He cause it? He permitted it, to be sure, but the Novus Ordo and the theology that formed it has caused the literal collapse of the faith because it is the point at which most Catholics come together. Why would God debase a liturgy that is meant to worship Him and sanctify us? It is simply not possible that this was from the Holy Spirit, it simply defies logic.

Valid? 

Yes. That is a different matter.

Yet it remains a liturgical abomination, I am convinced of it. After 30 years, of labour, there is no fruit, there are no seeds sprouted, the ground is barren. My time and talents will now be spent exclusively with the traditional Latin Mass. Week by week, we see the fruit, the growth, the faith.

Cardinal Sarah himself has stated that the "faithful are now unfaithful." He also knows why.

I raise the possibility of looking again at the Constitution and at the reform which followed its promulgation because I do not think that we can honestly read even the first article of Sacrosanctum Concilium today and be content that we have achieved its aims. My brothers and sisters, where are the faithful of whom the Council Fathers spoke? Many of the faithful are now unfaithful: they do not come to the liturgy at all. To use the words of Pope Saint John Paul II: many Christians are living in a state of “silent apostasy;” they “live as if God does not exist” (Apostolic Exhortation, Ecclesia in Europa, 28 June 2003, 9). Where is the unity the Council hoped to achieve? We have not yet reached it. Have we made real progress in calling the whole of mankind into the household of the Church? I do not think so. And yet we have done very much to the liturgy!

The Novus Ordo and any reform of the reform is a dead letter. Unless it is put in the Missal and ordered by the Pope, it will not be carried out. It will not be fixed, not by this Pope. Leave it. If you wish to remain Catholic, get yourself to the traditional Mass.

The proof is for all to see

Anthony Spadaro's little tweet is evidence of this. It may also disclose what Francis thinks as Spadaro is a confidant. Cardinal Sarah's recent talk in Rome was just that, talk, and his views, virtually alone.

Spadaro is also wrong. He is not only wrong, he is manipulative. The paragraph in the GIRM appears again at the Pax Vobiscum. Why? Because it is presumed that one is actually, not "FACING THE PEOPLE" or the direction would not be there.

In the original Latin, the GIRM, presuming the priest has just incensed the altar and performed the Lavabo, states:

146. Ad medium altaris deinde reversus, sacerdos, stans versus populum, extendens et iungens manus, populum ad orandum invitat, dicens: Oráte, fratres, etc. Populus surgit et responsionem dat Suscípiat Dominus. Deinde sacerdos, manibus extensis, dicit orationem super oblata. In fine populus acclamat: Amen. 146. Upon returning to the middle of the altar , the priest , facing the people , extending and then joining his hands, invites the people to pray , saying : Pray, brothers and sisters, etc. The people rise and make their response May the Lord accept . Then the Priest, with hands extended , says the Prayer over the offerings. In the end, the people make the acclamation, Amen.

Why would it say, "facing the people" it it were not the norm? It specifically instructs him to face the people thereby presuming that he was not, previously!

Not only Spadaro, but now Cardinal Nichols of Westminster has ordered his priests to ignore the Cardinal's request; saying that is not for priest to “exercise personal preference or taste,” citing GIRM 299. 

Again, like Spadaro, Nichols displays his twisted logic and in fact, discloses his bias.

GIRM 299 states:

The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. The altar should, moreover, be so placed as to be truly the centre toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns. The altar is usually fixed and is dedicated.’”

Note that? 

"Can" not must. 

"Desirable" not mandatory.

Father Z addresses the matter at his blog.

It seems that that this Cardinal Nichols knows how to pray to pagan gods but he won't permit his priests to face the True God?

Is he even Catholic?

The Congregation for the Liturgy and Discipline of the Sacraments has already address this in  Prot. No 2086/00/L

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has been asked whether the expression in n. 299 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani constitutes a norm according to which the position of the priest versus absidem [facing the apse] is to be excluded.
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, after mature reflection and in light of liturgical precedents, responds:
Negatively, and in accordance with the following explanation.The explanation includes different elements which must be taken into account. First, the word expedit does not constitute a strict obligation but a suggestion that refers to theconstruction of the altar a pariete sejunctum (detached from the wall). It does not require, for example, that existing altars be pulled away from the wall. The phrase ubi possibile sit (where it is possible) refers to, for example, the topography of the place, the availability of space, the artistic value of the existing altar, the sensibility of the people participating in the celebrations in a particular church, etc.

Benedict XVI wrote in the Spirit of the Liturgy that Mass facing the people was a community "turned inwards on itself." He had the opportunity to order this change. He did not. Now Cardinal Sarah voices the desire and immediately, it is rejected by a prominent Cardinal and a confidant of the Bishop or Rome.

Lombardi contradicts

Just after the announcement that he is being replaced by a layman, professional journalist Greg Burke, Federico Lombardi said:

"There are therefore no new liturgical directives foreseen from next Advent, as some have wrongly inferred from some of the words of Cardinal Sarah, and it is best to avoid using the expression ‘reform of the reform’ when referring to the liturgy, as it's sometimes been a source of misunderstandings.”

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/father-lombardi-cardinal-sarahs-ad-orientem-suggestion-misinterpreted

Exactly padre, they're already there!

How much longer do we need to keep repeating the same thing over and over again whilst expecting a different result? That is insanity!

What will happen in Toronto?

This photo is of then Archbishop and now Cardinal Thomas Collins celebrating a Latin Ordinary Form Mass at the Toronto Oratory, he is celebrating "ad orientem." After the Mass, which I attended, I greeted him downstairs. I kissed his ring and thanked him for what he did at Mass. His response? "I think I should do this in the Cathedral some time."

Yes, he said that to me.

Those writing last week with effervescent enthusiasm were premature. Until Rome orders it and authorises it in writing and prohibits the persecution of priests by bishops for doing it, nothing will change.

Mass facing the people is illogical. It is the single worst problem with the Novus Ordo and it is not even mandated! It is against 1,935 years of liturgical history. It is against the practice of our Jewish forefathers in faith. It points to man, not God. 

The Reform of the Reform of the Novus Ordo is a dead letter. Spadaro and Nicholls prove it.

There is only one option.

Take it.

Vigil of Pentecost, June 7, 2014, Solemn Mass in the Presence of a Greater Prelate

Thomas Cardinal Collins, Archbishop of Toronto together with Diocesan priests and seminarians at St. Lawrence the Martyr Parish in Scarborough, Ontario