On 2 August Ad Vaticanum published the remarks of Card. Sarah about the Traditional Latin Liturgy of the Roman, Latin Church. Read it there, but here’s a summary of the piece with my added emphases and comments (aka “zisking”).
Essentially, Card. Sarah describes the Church’s present crisis as one of doctrinal confusion, weakened preaching, liturgical disorder, and inadequate formation. [In short, everything fundamental for a sound Catholic identity.] Renewal, he argues, must begin with prayer, silence, reverence, and faithful transmission of the Gospel rather than accommodation to secular culture. [Notable absence: synodality (aka “walking together”)]
His strongest criticism concerns the conflict between Catholics attached to the older Roman rite and defenders of the reformed liturgy. He calls this division “a true and proper sin” because the liturgy should be the “source of the Church’s communion,” not an ideological weapon. Catholics must not treat one another as enemies over ritual forms. [When someone is kicking you in the gut while you are down, it is hard to view them as your ally.]
Sarah insists that “no one has authority over the rites” as though they were personal or bureaucratic property. “The liturgy belongs to God.” Priests, bishops, and cardinals receive the Church’s worship; they do not own it. An inherited rite cannot simply be treated as nonexistent by administrative decree.
He therefore favors Benedict XVI’s “balanced, pastoral and theologically well-founded” approach, permitting the older and newer forms to coexist peacefully within the Church. Such coexistence would allow each to enrich the other and would give the faithful access to the silence, depth, and continuity they seek. [That doesn’t sound like synodality to me. Allow for personal choices?!?]
Sarah also acknowledges excesses among traditionalists, while noting that many reactions arise from abuses in celebrations of the newer rite. The faithful have a right to the Church’s liturgy, not to ceremonies reshaped according to a celebrant’s “caprice.” [One which side of things does THAT usually occur?]
The broader remedy is “formation, and again formation” for bishops, priests, and laity. True unity will come through doctrinal fidelity, reverent worship, correction of abuses, and an end to coercive liturgical factionalism. [Again we return to the concept of Catholic identity. If you don’t know your faith, your liturgical rites by which you fulfill the virtue of Religion, you don’t have a sound Catholic identity.]
On the other hand, also at Ad Vaticanum, The Windy Cardinal, had his own divergent views on the TLM, etc. (Really, about the people who want the TLM, I think.)
Card. Cupich argues that disputes over the Traditional Latin Mass and other ecclesial controversies weaken the Church’s credibility in addressing war, environmental problems, and global concerns. Internal forces that “tear apart unity,” [There’s the current all-important shiboleth] he says, diminish the authority of the Church’s witness. Outsiders may reasonably question why they should heed an institution marked by “discord and division” within its own household. [Of course we were being marginalized in the public square before because our identity is so eroded, Catholics today are so unaware of the Faith that they have no way to articulate it in the public square. It is NOT the liturgical issues. Cupich, for example, considers Sen Durbin someone deserving an award.]
Cupich links this appeal for unity with synodality. Resistance to synodal processes, he suggests, often reflects fear that engagement with contemporary questions will sever the Church from tradition. Catholics should trust that “the Spirit of Christ is at work” and that the sensus fidelium enables the faithful to address new problems without abandoning the faith. Synodality promotes “shared responsibility” through greater lay participation in evangelization, catechesis, pastoral planning, and consultation. [The problem with that flimsy appeal to the sensus fidelium is that you have to be a member of the FIDELES to have it! And that is NOT the current situation. See my remarks above. But wait… “walking together” will be the remedy for unity.]
He identifies three priorities for the coming decade: continuing the renewal begun by the Second Vatican Council, maintaining environmental advocacy, and promoting peace. [Notable absence? How about salvation of souls? We can consider the Church’s messaging ad intra and ad extra, for within the Church to her members and outward to the world But both of those have to be rooted in the Great Commission, which was not for environmental advocacy or “world peace”, but salvation in Jesus Christ mediated through the one, holy and apostolic Catholic Church which He founded and which, batterd and buffeted from without and from within, perdures today.] He also warns that just-war doctrine, originally intended to restrain conflict, can be misused as “a licence to act.” [I suspect that those who say that JWT has to be revisited today could not, if pressed, articulate what it is.]
The article argues, however, that Cupich’s own governance conflicts with his condemnation of division. His implementation of Traditionis custodes prohibited the older Mass on first Sundays and major feasts and imposed conditions concerning the postconciliar liturgy. The Institute of Christ the King consequently suspended public Masses and confessions at its Chicago shrine rather than accept those conditions. The article maintains that such restrictions increased alienation and may have driven some Catholics toward the Society of St Pius X.
It also cites Cupich’s proposed award to Senator Dick Durbin, despite Durbin’s support for legal abortion and Bishop Thomas Paprocki’s prohibition against his receiving Holy Communion. Durbin declined the award after episcopal protests. The article concludes that Cupich applies his concern for unity selectively, condemning conflict over the Latin Mass while pursuing policies that themselves generate serious ecclesial division.
So, in summary:
Sarah and Cupich both think that conflict over the Traditional Latin Mass harms ecclesial unity, but they propose very different remedies.
Sarah approaches the problem through reconciliation and liturgical continuity. He regards hostility between supporters of the older and newer forms as “a true and proper sin” because the liturgy should create communion. Since “the liturgy belongs to God,” no ecclesiastical authority should treat an inherited rite as disposable property. His solution is peaceful coexistence. Unity is achieved by protecting legitimate diversity within a common faith and hierarchy.
Cupich approaches the issue principally through institutional discipline and conformity to authority dressed in the guise the reforms following the Council. He argues that internal “discord and division” weaken the Church’s public credibility and distract from wider over arching priorities such as synodality, peace, and environmental responsibility. His response is therefore regulatory: the imposition of will. The older rite is restricted in order to force a single liturgical direction and prevent it from becoming a focal point of resistance to the all-important Second Vatican Council.
Sarah calls for differences within unity. Cupich would impose uniformity as a means of securing unity.
PLEASE use the sharing buttons! Thanks!
waalaw on Daily Rome Shot 1674: “My dear Watson: 1. . . . . . . N-b4+ 2. K-a3 . . N-c2+ If 3. K×a2 .…”
