The power of silence.
Pope Francis' correctio of Cardinal Sarah.
As Fr. Z might say - it's a dust up, not to worry. Although it is sure to to become a big storm within the 'remnant'. I picked up the story from Fr. Martin:
Breaking: In an extraordinary public correction, Pope Francis has corrected Cardinal Robert Sarah on a statement that Sarah recently made contradicting the Pope on the liturgy.Works for me.
In what Massimo Faggioli calls a "paternal correction," the Pope reaffirms that, as he said in his motu proprio, authority for liturgical translations rests with local bishops conferences. (Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, had recently said that what the Pope said does not apply.) - Fr. Martin
The Ordinary Form is Holy.
This weekend another priest from the seminary had Mass at my parish. He's one of my favorite priests in the Archdiocese. Wonderful guy. His homily was 'firey' - all about the love of God and our rendering to God what is God's in and through Holy Mass. I can tell this priest prays, and prays the Mass. I won't say anything more on that however.
It is a scandal to me how Catholics not only malign the Holy Father, but denigrate the Mass as well. Especially the Ordinary Form - which is the ordinary form for Holy Mass in the Latin rite. Some even suggesting it is a diabolic deception. So now, I am certain, they will say the Holy Father, in his correction of Cardinal Sarah is bent upon destruction of the Sacred Liturgy. Their 'teeth are on edge'.
I came across a post from Michael Matt of The Remnant. He is descendant from The Wanderer newspaper which has pretty much always been a stronghold of conservatism and resistance to the 'spirit of Vatican II'. 'They' were not wrong about that, but they were frequently without 'charity' in their 'resistance'. Only recently has that segment turned hostile and vindictive, at times, resisting Peter to his face. Readers know what I'm talking about here. I think a 'correctio' for these groups would be fitting.
To see how far they have come in their resistance astonished me. I knew individuals formed themselves on private revelations and spurious interpretations of apparitions and mystical writings such as those from Bl. Catherine Emmerich, but I didn't think they could be as literal about it as they seem to be. I came upon the following from Michael Matt in an introduction to a post suggesting Cardinal Burke as the 'new apologist for sedevacantists'. (LOL!) The criticism of the Ordinary Form of Mass is shameful, to say the least.
We were warned that these days were forthcoming. Well now they’ve arrived, and the question is: Are we up to the challenge to keep the faith in spite of them? For us it is important to recall that the forces of darkness have tried and failed to crush the Bride of Christ outright, and that out of that failure a new and even more diabolically clever strategy seems to be emerging—to leave the Church standing but to infiltrate her, as Pope Pius X predicted they’d do. “The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church,” predicted Our Lady of Akita, as well. And so gathered here behind enemy lines, in occupied territory, we’re up against Luciferian deception where there are no easy answers and no easy way out.
So rather than outlawing the Catholic Mass (as they did so often in history), for example, they "reformed" it this time. And their New Mass is a disastrous novelty that may nevertheless retain its technical validity—with Christ truly present to be reviled, ignored, effectively mocked on Novus tables just as He was on Calvary’s Cross. It may be tempting in the face of such devastating sacrilege to stand up and denounce all New Masses as “invalid”. But are they? Sacrilege does not guarantee invalidity, and to suggest that it does may well be to miss the more horrific point of what’s really going on here. (Nor does mere technical validity translate to mean that we have a moral right to expose ourselves or our children to something that has done so much documented damage throughout the world to the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.) Retaining technical validity may well be Satan’s masterstroke, for if the abuse-ridden New Mass is invalid then only mere bread and wine are being ignored, abused, reviled or in some other way disrespected. Would the Father of Lies settle for that?
And so too with the Pope—if only it were true that Francis is not the pope! But what if the diabolical nature of the crisis at hand is to be found in the very fact that he is, despite the myriad scandals? In the face of the growing scandal, it’s understandable that some want to proclaim Peter’s chair empty but, again, would the Father of Lies settle for that, or would he demand the real thing to hold up in triumph before the Face of Christ Crucified? In his pride, would Lucifer settle for some harlot imposter, propped up in the place of Christ’s spotless bride? These are the questions that must be discussed. And, of course, since diabolical disorientation impacts each and every one of us, we could certainly be wrong in how we see it all. But what is not up for debate is this: When we “defend” Pope Francis as a valid pope (as John Salza does in the following article) we are not defending his multitudinous scandals. In fact, it would be so much easier for us to simply announce he’s lost his office. But we believe that he has not, and that's the problem! - Michael Matt
Michael Matt is getting as strange as Ann Barnhardt. They use 'Biblical prophetic' language and private revelation quite well to support their claims, but the Pope is the final authority.
The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." - CCC 832