The EWTN News portal reports that “Cardinal” Robert Sarah, former prefect of the conciliar Congregation for Divine Worship, criticized the 2021 motu proprio *Traditionis Custodes* in an interview with *Il Giornale*, calling the restriction of the 1962 Missal “neither sensible nor respectful” and claiming the “Church” cannot “declare war” on those attached to the “extraordinary form.” He praised “Pope” Benedict XVI’s 2007 *Summorum Pontificum* as “humble and democratic,” while noting the Society of St. Pius X was “declared to be in schism” in 2026. The article frames the dispute as an internal pastoral disagreement over liturgical forms. **This spectacle of a conciliar cardinal mildly dissenting from his “pope” while accepting the false premises of the conciliar revolution exposes the theological bankruptcy of the entire recognize-and-resist position.**
The Chimera of “Two Forms” and the Denial of Liturgical Truth
The article’s central premise—that there exist two legitimate “forms” of the Roman Rite, an “ordinary” and an “extraordinary”—is a fabrication of the conciliar revolution with zero foundation in Catholic tradition. “Cardinal” Sarah speaks of the 1962 Missal as a “rite” that “dates back to the time of Pope Gregory the Great and earlier,” yet he accepts the novel category of “extraordinary form” invented by Benedict XVI in 2007. This terminology itself is a capitulation to the lie that the Novus Ordo Missae—promulgated by the apostate Paul VI in 1969—is the *lex orandi* of the Catholic Church.
Pius XII, in *Mediator Dei* (1947), taught that the liturgy is not a human construct subject to democratic experimentation: “The Church has no power to change the substance of the sacraments… nor to abolish the rites which Christ Himself instituted.” The very concept of an “ordinary form” fabricated by a Modernist “pope” and an “extraordinary form” tolerated by the same authority reduces the immutable *lex orandi* to a menu of options. Sarah’s praise of Benedict’s “democratic attitude”—”so that the people of God could decide for themselves… which form of living out the faith best suited them”—is pure Modernism condemned by St. Pius X in *Pascendi*: “The Church listening cooperates… that the Church teaching should only approve the common opinions of the Church listening” (*Lamentabili sane exitu*, prop. 6). The liturgy is not a consumer product for “the people of God” to choose; it is the public worship owed to the Most Holy Trinity, handed down by Tradition and guarded by the Magisterium.
The “Recognize-and-Resist” Delusion: Schism Within Schism
The article notes that the SSPX “has twice been declared to be in schism, including in 2026, and its bishops excommunicated.” From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, this is a farce. The SSPX, founded by Archbishop Lefebvre—ordained by the freemason Liénart and consecrated by bishops of dubious validity—has never broken communion with the conciliar sect. Lefebvre’s infamous declaration, “give us the old Mass, that is enough for us,” reveals the movement’s true nature: a controlled opposition designed to absorb traditionalist Catholics into the neo-church while leaving the false “popes” unchallenged.
The “schism” declarations by the conciliar “Vatican” are theatrical. As the *Defense of Sedevacantism* file demonstrates, a manifest heretic loses the papacy *ipso facto* (St. Robert Bellarmine, *De Romano Pontifice*: “A Pope who is a manifest heretic, by that very fact ceases to be Pope and head”). John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis, and now Leo XIV (Robert Prevost) are not popes but usurpers. The SSPX’s recognition of these antipopes as legitimate vicars of Christ makes them schismatics *from the true Church*, not merely “irregular” within the conciliar structure. Sarah’s lament that the “Church” should not “declare war” on Latin Mass devotees ignores the reality: the conciliar sect *is* the war against the Catholic Faith. Its “Mass” is a Protestantized memorial meal; its “sacraments” are invalid due to defective form, matter, and intention; its hierarchy has defected from the Faith.
Sarah’s “Critique”: A Symptom of the Conciliar Sickness
“Cardinal” Sarah’s rhetoric is revealing. He calls *Traditionis Custodes* “shortsighted and entirely ideological… neither pastoral nor Christian.” He complains that Benedict’s “liberalization” was “nullified… while the pope emeritus was still alive,” and that Benedict “allowed himself to be humiliated and thus offered his suffering to God in silence.” This language—pastoral, ideological, democratic, humility as passive acceptance of abuse—is the vocabulary of the conciliar religion, not Catholicism.
Where is the mention of *dogma*? Of the *propitiatory Sacrifice*? Of the *Real Presence*? Of the *Council of Trent’s* anathemas against those who deny the Mass is a true sacrifice? Sarah speaks of “abuses in the celebration of the ordinary form” but insists “we must never equate the ordinary form itself with them.” This is the classic conciliar sleight of hand: the Novus Ordo is *intrinsically* defective because it was crafted by the freemason Bugnini to express a Protestant theology of the Lord’s Supper. As Pius XII warned in *Mediator Dei*, “The liturgy is not a mere human institution… it is the worship of the Church.” A rite that omits the Offertory, the Roman Canon, the explicit language of sacrifice, and the priest’s orientation *ad orientem* is not a “form” of the Roman Rite—it is a new religion.
Sarah’s statement—”If a rite did not serve the faith, it would disappear on its own; if, conversely, it preserves and fosters the faith, we must by no means restrict it”—is a pragmatic, utilitarian criterion alien to Catholic theology. The true Mass does not “serve the faith” as a tool; it *is* the faith in action. The Novus Ordo has not “disappeared on its own” because it is enforced by a paramasonic structure occupying the Vatican, not because it fosters the faith. The *Syllabus of Errors* (Pius IX, 1864) condemns the proposition: “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (Error 80). Sarah’s entire posture is an attempt to reconcile Tradition with the revolution.
The Silence on the Essentials: No Supernatural Vision
The article—and Sarah’s interview—is utterly silent on the supernatural crisis. No mention of:
– The invalidity of the new “sacraments” (new “ordination” rite, new “episcopal consecration” rite)
– The heresies of Vatican II (religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality)
– The duty to reject the false “popes” as manifest heretics (Canon 188.4, 1917 Code; *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio*)
– The Social Kingship of Christ (*Quas Primas*: “His reign encompasses also all non-Christians… the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ”)
– The necessity of the Catholic confessional State (*Syllabus*, Error 55: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church”—condemned)
– The condemnation of Modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies” (*Pascendi*)
This silence is the gravest accusation. Sarah operates entirely within the naturalistic framework of the conciliar sect: “pastoral” concerns, “ideological” disputes, “democratic” dissemination, “humiliation” of a “pope emeritus.” He does not speak as a successor of the Apostles guarding the deposit of faith; he speaks as a functionary of a human institution managing liturgical preferences.
The EWTN/ACI Apparatus: Propaganda for the Neo-Church
The source—ACI Digital, “the Portuguese-language sister service of EWTN News,” founded by the German Comboni missionary Adalberto Maria Mohn—is part of the massive media apparatus sustaining the conciliar illusion. EWTN, founded by the pseudo-mystic Mother Angelica, has long served as the “conservative” face of the neo-church, channeling traditionalist sentiment into safe recognition of the antipopes. The article’s framing—”Cardinal Sarah says,” “Pope Benedict’s decision,” “Pope Francis’ decision,” “Pope emeritus”—normalizes the usurpation. The mention of the SSPX’s 2026 “schism” declaration is timed to reinforce the narrative that resistance *within* the structure is the only option.
Conclusion: The Only Way Out Is the Way In—To the Catacombs
“Cardinal” Sarah’s lament is the whimper of a man who has spent his career legitimizing the very revolution he now mildly critiques. He cannot “declare war” on the Latin Mass devotees because he *is* the army of the antichurch occupying the citadel. The true Catholic response is not to beg for “access” to the 1962 Missal from a false hierarchy, but to reject the entire conciliar edifice as the “abomination of desolation” (Matt. 24:15) foretold by Our Lord.
As Pius XI taught in *Quas Primas*: “When God and Jesus Christ… were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed.” The conciliar sect derives its authority from men—from the “democratic” will of the “people of God,” from the “collegiality” of bishops, from the “signs of the times.” It has no authority from God. The true Church endures in the catacombs, among bishops and priests who maintain valid orders and the unadulterated Faith, awaiting the restoration of all things in Christ. *Traditionis Custodes* and *Summorum Pontificum* are two sides of the same counterfeit coin. The only “sensible” and “respectful” act is to reject both—and the antipopes who issued them.
Source:
The Church cannot declare war on Latin Mass devotees, Cardinal Robert Sarah says (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 31.08.2026