Card. Sarah – @Card_R_Sarah – calls for reversal of the St. Peter’s Suppression of daily Masses

At the National Catholic Register (never to be confused with the Fishwrap), we read that Robert Card. Sarah has joined his voice to those of Cards. Raymond L. Burke, Gerhard L. Müller and Walter Brandmüller, who have objected to the St. Peter’s Suppression (SPS) of individual morning Masses.

Since the SPS, the Basilica has been pretty much lifeless.

Sandro Magister posted seven point from Card. Sarah.

In Sarah’s point #2 on concelebration, I suggest a look at what Fr. John Hunwicke has written recently.  Look at 23 March and the following days for additional entries.

Sarah makes an ironic point: according to the SPS, a priest who wishes to celebrated Mass individually and not be forced to concelebrate, is now forced to say the Extraordinary Form without the freedom of choosing the Novus Ordo.

Another good point: The altars of the Basilica have the relics of saints, some of them very well-known saints.  By suppressing daily individual Masses,  “such altars are almost condemned to death.”  Instead of being tombs of saints, they are “mere works of art”. “Those altars, instead, must live, and their life is the daily celebration of the Holy Mass.”

Sarah also points out something that I was truly horrified by.  When writing about the limitation of the Extraordinary Form, the Traditional Latin Mass, the Cardinal raises the issue of priests of non-Roman, non-Latin Catholic Churches.  If a priest of an Eastern Rite comes to the Basilica, must be forced to concelebrate in the Latin Rite, in Italian?

This whole thing reeks.

You should all take careful note of those who have cheered the Suppression.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Cri de Coeur, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Priests and Priesthood, The Drill and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Comments

  1. Fr. Timothy Ferguson says:

    The SPS is abominable! delenda est!

  2. ajf1984 says:

    Our esteemed host notes “Sarah also points out something that I was truly horrified by. When writing about the limitation of the Extraordinary Form, the Traditional Latin Mass, the Cardinal raises the issue of priests of non-Roman, non-Latin Catholic Churches. If a priest of an Eastern Rite comes to the Basilica, must be forced to concelebrate in the Latin Rite, in Italian?”

    That was precisely my question and concern when first hearing about this. Has anyone seen statements from any of the Eastern Catholic Eparchs concerning this? It seems to fly in the face of Orientale Lumen, too, if it’s true that an Eastern-rite priest would have to concelebrate the Novus Ordo when visiting St. Peter’s…

  3. Dan says:

    If this wasn’t so sad it would be almost comical. In order to enforce greater unity, all priests are to be forced to concelebrate the Mass in a language they don’t know and can’t understand. :-/ hmmmm if only the church could agree on one single language that all priests could learn to say Mass in? Then you could say Mass for anyone anywhere in the world and they could understand!. Imagine the unity then!!!.

    I always thought it was a great work of the devil that the vernacular was implemented when it was. To borrow a line from Paul Harvey, “If I were the Devil’ when the world was on the brink of communication breakthrough that would enable instant communication around the world, I would convince everyone to say Mass (the greatest unifying weapon available) only in their own language, so that remembrance of the common tongue is completely lost, and they become confused in their understanding so as not be able to unite at Holy Mass.

  4. Cameron466 says:

    “ Sarah makes an ironic point: according to the SPS, a priest who wishes to celebrated Mass individually and not be forced to concelebrate, is now forced to say the Extraordinary Form without the freedom of choosing the Novus Ordo.”

    Wouldn’t it be just delicious if one of the fruits of this whole mess was a whole bunch of priests turning trad, precisely for this reason?

  5. JustaSinner says:

    But the pachadutrious was okay on the Altar of St Peter, right? Got a sinking feeling I crossed into Star Trek: The Original Series: Season 2, Episode 4…

  6. iamlucky13 says:

    Do non-Roman priests celebrate their liturgy in Saint Peter’s? I had not even thought of this question before.

    If this is the case, then it seems like quite a severe act against the unity of the Catholic Church to marginalize their liturgy in such an unnecessary manner in the very location that should most be associated with said unity.

  7. Pingback: TVESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  8. kurtmasur says:

    So now it’s practically only Novus Ordo Holy Mass concelebration and in the vernacular? You can’t get more Vatican II than that….ha!

    Is there some sort of petition that can be signed by both clergy and laity? In addition to the appeal by the key cardinals like Sarah and Burke, we also need a general appeal to be heard by the powers that be.

  9. Sportsfan says:

    What’s the penalty for saying a solo mass?

  10. TonyO says:

    Here is what troubles me most about this: the theoretical reason offered for this new tyrannical rule is so patently absurd that it is virtually impossible to believe that even the person who issued it believes it. Indeed, the idea stands so oxymoronic that it is difficult to believe ANYONE believes it, no matter how stupid.

    That presents the question: what motive did they actually have in mind to present this rule? Obviously, one possible reason was to help suppress priests saying the TLM. While this may be one reason, I strongly doubt it is the primary reason, because the main effect is actually on Novus Ordo priests saying Ordinary Form masses: by far the majority of masses being said were (I believe) OF masses.

    If the primary objective (as is the main EFFECT) was to target OF masses, what was the specific purpose? So far as I have been able to imagine, the only purpose I have come up with so far is simply to reduce the number of masses being said and the number of masses lay folk assist at, and communions received, and (incidentally) the number of confessions sought so a person could receive communion. I would like to come up with some sort of at least SEMI-innocuous blathering quasi-purpose that could, in some liberal official’s mind, constituted a seemingly sound reason for the new rule, but I haven’t found one. And while I can well believe that the demons successfully working their “patient” (using Screwtape’s term in C.S. Lewis) intended the sheer reduction of masses and holy communions and confessions, I shudder to think that this was the express, explicit intention of the man who decided the new rule, what HE thought he was about. That implied level of malice in the ranks of officials of the Vatican chills the soul.

    I also wonder at the shocking stupidity of Vatican officials who, on the one hand, declaim loudly at the horrific state of Vatican’s finances, and on the other hand shut down activities that (a) cost the Vatican no expenses to allow to continue, and (b) certainly induce a certain level of contribution rate from visitors. I know bureaucracies often generate cases where the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing, but the Vatican’s bureaucracy isn’t really all that large, and it isn’t hard for a finance official to walk over to a St. Peter’s official and say “hey, did you really want to drain our last source of revenue on petty shenanigans?”

  11. AutoLos says:

    From Card. Sarah’s letter: “Why deny the saints of today – who thank God exist, are among us, and VISIT ROME AT LEAST FROM TIME TO TIME – as well as all the other priests such an experience…”

    Not a lot of saints walking around Rome I guess. Zing!

Comments are closed.