II've been disappointed in Cardinal Sarah's statements criticizing the consecraton of the bishops without a papal mandate. It's not the first time in Church history that a bishop disobeyed the pope. In fact, Pope John Paul II, when he was bishop of Krakow, under the policy of Ostpolitik, was forbidden to ordain priests. He disobeyed Pope Paul VI's order that no above ground or underground ordinations should take place. He disobeyed and suffered no consequences and, in fact, became pope.
Why did he disobey? Because he needed priests to serve the faithful in poor, persecuted Poland. It was for the good of Holy Mother Church and the salvation of souls. Is that not the same situation today? In order to have priests you need bishops to ordain them. Will the Society really be able to get permission in the future for priestly ordinations?
Some claim there is no problem, plenty of bishops could be found who would do it. Is that true? In today's atmosphere, where crushing the Traditional Latin Mass is obviously Rome's intent, would the Vatican allow any bishop to carry out ordinations for the Society? A willing bishops would likely be forbidden. Can any of you armchair critics really believe that scenario isn't true?
Let's get real here. The Society has two purpose as I see it: the salvation of souls and the continued preservation of tradition, i.e., the Traditional Latin Mass and all the sacraments. That can only happen if there are bishops to ordain priests to serve the faithful.
I'm repeating here a slightly edited post I wrote in 2017. Let's pray for Cardinal Sarah and all those faithful members of the hierarchy whom we desperately need to challenge the scandals and errors coming from Rome.
During the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, Cardinal Kasper insulted Africa with a statement reminiscent of the gospel question, "Can anything good come from Galilee (Africa)?" His statement that the African bishops "should not tell us too much what we have to do." was the arrogant kind of talk so typical of liberal dissenters who know better than God how to create a worldly Utopia. Those bishops have brought about a disaster for Holy Mother Church and, perhaps, it's time to turn to the "dark" continent where the light seems to shine more brightly than in the decadent West.
Here are some of the common sense statements from Cardinal Sarah:
Cardinal Robert Sarah:
Desacralizing and Trivializing the Liturgy Causes a Serious Crisis of Faith
Church Pop recently summarized a talk given by African Cardinal Robert Sarah about the liturgy. This is particularly timely since my book club is discussing this month the Vatican II document on the liturgy. The Church is certainly in crisis and degrading the liturgy, which hit a zenith in the '80s. The uglification of churches, clown Masses, jazz Masses, polka Masses, butterfly vestments, silly songs, liturgical dancers, puppet processions, removing crucifixes and tabernacles from the sanctuary, and other idiotic variations have turned full churches into empty spaces in many places. And sadly things continue particularly where bishops are married to the world.
During the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, Cardinal Kasper insulted Africa with a statement reminiscent of the gospel question, "Can anything good come from Galilee (Africa)?" His statement that the African bishops "should not tell us too much what we have to do." was the arrogant kind of talk so typical of liberal dissenters who know better than God how to create a worldly Utopia. Those bishops have brought about a disaster for Holy Mother Church and, perhaps, it's time to turn to the "dark" continent where the light seems to shine more brightly than in the decadent West.
Here are some of the common sense statements from Cardinal Sarah:
“It is necessary to recognize that the serious, profound crisis that has affected the liturgy and the Church itself since the Council is due to the fact that its center is no longer God and the adoration of Him, but rather men and their alleged ability to ‘do’ something to keep themselves busy during the Eucharistic celebrations.”
“Even today, a significant number of Church leaders underestimate the serious crisis that the Church is going through: relativism in doctrinal, moral and disciplinary teaching, grave abuses, the desacralization and trivialization of the Sacred Liturgy, a merely social and horizontal view of the Church’s mission.”
“The serious crisis of faith, not only at the level of the Christian faithful but also and especially among many priests and bishops, has made us incapable of understanding the Eucharistic liturgy as a sacrifice, as identical to the act performed once and for all by Jesus Christ, making present the Sacrifice of the Cross in a non-bloody manner, throughout the Church, through different ages, places, peoples and nations.”So how should Catholics respond to times of "profound crisis?"
There is only one answer and it is An Easy Way to Become a Saint published by TAN books. (Also available at Amazon.) It's short and easy to read. It talks about the BIG saints who did GREAT BIG THINGS, but also the little saints, those "who lead humble, simple lives performing their daily duties well and using the ordinary but abundant means of sanctity given by God to all Christians." The book is filled with stories about little saints, some canonized like St. Therese of Lisieux, but others known only to God.
The solution to the crisis is always the same. We need to become saints. And how do we become saints? There are two simple ways. First love God. Second, do everything for love of God. Since we were made to love God how hard can that be? Our eyes were made to see. Do we have to think about seeing? Or hearing? Or breathing. God loves us so much that, if we know Him, we can't help but love Him. There's a great little book that can help us. It's called Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence. As our SSPX priests always remind us, everything is in God's Providence.
So let us be busy about the work of transforming the Church and resolving the crisis of faith by our own holy lives. With the help of God, we can do it. Let us pray,
"Adorable Sacred Heart of Jesus which so greatly loved men and has not spared anything for them, unite with the Immaculate Heart of Your loving Mother, so full of merciful love, and together be my help, my comfort, and my salvation."
So let us be busy about the work of transforming the Church and resolving the crisis of faith by our own holy lives. With the help of God, we can do it. Let us pray,
"Adorable Sacred Heart of Jesus which so greatly loved men and has not spared anything for them, unite with the Immaculate Heart of Your loving Mother, so full of merciful love, and together be my help, my comfort, and my salvation."
I have no further illusions about Africa being the answer to Synodal church. God can raise up men to save the church and perhaps He has, the SSPX. Catholicism is no more to be found in Synodal church, which as they admit is a new creation. Yet in the SSPX Catholicism lives.
ReplyDeleteI did not know that about JP II. Isnt that interesting, a saint consecrated bishops without papal permission. How quickly we forget when truth is inconvenient.
JP II did not consecrate bishops; he ordained priests, but Paul VI had ordered bishops in those countries under Communism NOT to ordain any priests because of his policies. Sort of like Pope Leo letting the Communist Chinese government to ordain bishops. The Vatican is supposed to have veto over their choices but if you can find a bishop chosen by the commies who's been refused I'd like to see it.
DeleteLove your posts, Mary Ann. I think you are well on your way to becoming a little saint.
ReplyDeleteI hope we're all on the way to becoming little saints since we're called to that. I think I'm more like a bull in a china shop. LOL! Or, as some have said, "a fat cow."
DeleteMary Ann, you are seeing only what you want to believe. May I remind you that Cardinal Sarah said this in 2018 around the time of the Vigano catastrophe: ""Whoever is against the Pope is ipso facto out of the Church. Providence sees us very well, you know?"
ReplyDeleteAlso, once again you are presenting a false narrative. Yes, Wojtyla did ordain priests in private against the Church's "public" stance. And that is very important. Wojtyla was not acting in defiance of Rome, he was not declaring Rome to have lost the faith as the SSPX is doing. He was actively promoting the faith and authority of Rome. HUGE difference and to compare the two is disingenuous to say the least. Here is the true narrative and here is the link: https://stellamaris.media/f/illicit-ordinationsconsecrations-behind-the-iron-curtain
"These ordinations/consecrations took place at a time when the Holy See adopted a public stance prohibiting ordinations in Soviet regimes. This was owing to its ostpolitik, a strategy adopted in the 1960s of engagement and dialogue with communist countries, avoiding provocation and direct confrontation in order to ensure the survival and protection of Catholics living behind the Iron Curtain.
As Dr. Tamara Grdzelidze noted, ostpolitik sought a "modus non moriendi" (a way of not dying) for local Catholic communities by pursuing pragmatic accommodations with atheist governments, rather than outright opposition that could increase persecution. Some credit the Vatican's ostpolitik with contributing to the eventual "decline of communism and the democratic transformation of East-Central Europe."
Clandestine ordinations and consecrations had in fact been taking place in Eastern Europe since the time of Pius XII, who issued pontifical privileges for bishops living in communist regimes to ordain/consecrate clergy in the underground Church. They were emergency canonical measures designed to ensure the survival of the Church's sacramental life and hierarchical structure amid severe persecution.
They built on wartime faculties but were adapted for peacetime persecution. These faculties were not limited to Eastern Europe, but also extended to Communist China.
George Weigel explained in his biography Witness to Hope:
"Cardinal Wojtyła did not inform the Holy See of these ordinations. He did not regard them as acts in defiance of Vatican policy, but as a duty to suffering fellow believers. And he presumably did not wish to raise an issue that could not be resolved without pain on all sides. He may also have believed that the Holy See and the Pope knew that such things were going on in Kraków, trusted his judgment and discretion, and may have welcomed a kind of safety valve in what was becoming an increasingly desperate situation."
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski criticizes Weigel's reasoning, calling it "gobbledygook," asking, "[I]f a Cardinal who knew he was acting against the will and law of the pope did not inform the pope, can one truthfully say 'he did not regard them as acts of defiance of Vatican policy,' when that is precisely what they were?"
PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE STANCE
What Kwasniewski fails to understand is that the Church's prohibition on ordaining priests was merely its public stance — the one adopted in the face of communist persecution — and not its true private wish, which is better reflected in the pontifical privileges under Pius XII, and continued under subsequent pontificates.
The main purpose of ostpolitik was to ensure the survival of the Church behind the Iron Curtain. It was not the ideal; if the Church had the freedom to make more priests and bishops, that is certainly what She would have done. That was Her actual desire, suppressed only to protect Her children living under brutal occupation.
The Church recognized, in both Cdl. Wojtyła and Cdl. Slipjy's cases, that a true state of necessity existed, as clergy lived under the threat of being captured, imprisoned, tortured and killed.
So if the SSPX had consecrated the bishops in a clandestine service all would be well. I'm aware of all the politics going on at the time. We still have that today as we see with the Vatican allowing the Communist Chinese to publicly consecrate bishops. Oh...but the Vatican has veto power, right?
DeleteHere's what you wrote about JP II's act of disobedience:
"The main purpose of ostpolitik was to ensure the survival of the Church behind the Iron Curtain. It was not the ideal; if the Church had the freedom to make more priests and bishops, that is certainly what She would have done. That was Her actual desire, suppressed only to protect Her children living under brutal occupation." Substitute "consecration of traditional bishops" for "ostopolitik" and you could say the same thing about the SSPX.
The sacraments were restricted during covid. I live in ohio, and in our area the sspx also found a way to provide the sacraments. sacraments,
DeleteThought for today from St. Catherine of Siena: "“Even if [the Pope is an incarnate devil], we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom... He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope.”
ReplyDeleteThe SSPX does not dishonor the pope. All the contacts to Pope Leo by Fr. Pagliarani show exactly how much the SSPX honors him. On the other hand, he and Cardinal Fernandez have treated the pope's spiritual sons like lepers whom he will not touch. The last minute appeal just illustrated what I can only see as bad faith. The goal is the canonization of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo and the elimination of the traditional Latin Mass. These goals line up with Freemasonry's attack on the faith.
Deletehttps://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2026/07/are-we-rebels-no-no-no.html
Comments like these always come across to me as hopefully ignorant or possibly dishonest, given what other great Saints have said about opposing a bad pope. Such as Robert Bellarmine: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will.”
DeleteWhy do very few people ignore the warnings of Our Lady. "Rome will lose the Faith" If people watched the signs of the times, what is happening is no surprise.
ReplyDeleteThis Pontificate will not accept any approved messages, that speak badly of the hierarchy. That is a telling sign. I believe people are not willing to believe that the warnings of Fatima, Quito, LaSallete, Akita and others are happening now. The ticking timebomb started when John XXlll refused to reveal the Third secret a Fatima. Observations of an old lady. Our Lady CoRedemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces, Pray for us.
I have wondered the same thing, and I believe we are in those times as well. Many talk and believe in these apparitions, but will not come to a decision we are living in those times now. It is if they are waiting for a green light from the authorities to officially believe it. It is not going to happen that way.
DeleteAlso, I lean towards Tyconius on the end times, as this also applies to our times. Benedict XVI wrote an essay on him, and also talked about during a general audience in 2009.
Ratzinger, Tyconius, and Fatima: An Interpretive Key for the End Times.
Deletehttps://marcotosatti.com/2022/09/08/ratzinger-tyconius-and-fatima-an-interpretive-key-for-the-end-times/
The Church today is PREACHING A DIFFERENT GOSPEL. It is our DUTY to disobey them in this circumstance. All the criticism of JPII and those consecrations, but not peep about the Pope allowing the CCP to consecrate Bishops. Also, requiring a Papal Mandate to consecrate Bishops is not based on Tradition or Scripture but seriously came about after VII.
ReplyDeleteThis is just an opinion. The majority of Jews did not see the sign of the times at the time of Christ. The hierarchy persecuted Jesus. The hierarchy would also expel people from the Synagogue if they followed Jesus. And did not the Lord thunder against the Pharisees, scribes and lawyers; who manipulated the law only for their own preservation and power.
ReplyDeleteIs not the same thing happening in the Church today?