"Cardinal" Arinze: His Formula for Confusion.

 Preamble 

"Material Cardinal" Arinze affirming that "
...the wrong answers are as many as the students
who do not know arithmetic, the correct answer is only one..."
- a topnotch analogy: an informed Catholic Common Sense
can imagine the good that could come from him 
applying this same analogy to "interreligious dialogue"
and his slippery 'both and/or' regarding the so-called
 "ordinary" and "extraordinary" form of the Mass... 

A few days ago an inquirer sent me a video clip which was a source of confusion for him: the video had Francis "Cardinal" Arinze on the spotlight commenting on a question concerning the sacred liturgy. After making a few comments on the clip, I told him I would write an article on it. A day after that, as if by a coincidence, but indeed providentially, I saw another clip on Facebook featuring "Cardinal" Arinze again. It was from this later clip that I was inspired to derive the title of my article, using his own expression "formula for confusion". 

Commenting on the controversy surrounding the so-called "synod of synodality" and arguing for he said 

...if a synod is studying our faith and following tradition and Church teaching, correct; but if it is meant to be free for all where every individual comes out, that is individual opinion: - then we are not talking of our faith anymore. It is a formula for confusion.

There you have it! 

But, what is "Cardinal" Arinze's 'formula for confusion'?  This present article is a feeble attempt to underline just that.  

Summary from the Video Clip.

The video clip which serves as the point of departure for our purposes is attached below:

While much is left to be desired of my summary skills, I am of the persuasion that the whole video can be summarized thus:

1. In the Catholic Church there is an "ordinary" and "extraordinary" form of the sacrifice of the Mass.
2. Both forms can, and should be left to, co-exist: and there should be freedom to celebrate one form or the other, with none imposing his preference, nor condemning another's preference.
3. The elements stressed in either forms can be exaggerated - direct relationship with God; adoration, transcendence of God (for the extraordinary form); and the community and the congregation, (for the ordinary form).
4. In the controversy surrounding "ordinary form" and "extraordinary form" the problem has nothing to do with Latin.

Many volumes can be written in developing each of these points. As Fr. Cekada of blessed memory would tease during lectures, someone may want to pick up any of them for a doctoral thesis. For our purposes, it would suffice to scheme through a few key points. 

Is there an "Ordinary Form" And "Extraordinary Form" Of the Mass In The One, Holy, Apostolic Roman Catholic Church? 

To an informed Catholic Common Sense, the answer is obviously in the negative: to affirm otherwise can stem either from lack of due knowledge (i.e. Ignorance) or malice.

The fact is that in the One, Holy, Apostolic Roman Catholic Church there simply is the Traditional Rite of the Sacrifice of the Mass: to say that there are two forms, one ordinary and the other extraordinary, can only be from the father of lies.

Meanwhile, anyone slightly deep in recent history knows with certainly that even when the Modernist liturgical wrecknovators concocted the ecumenical mess falsely called the 'new order of the Mass' it was meant to displace and substitute the traditional Catholic Mass all over the world and those who wanted the Old Mass were treated by the impostor Modernist hierarchy as outcasts and misfits between 1964-1684. 

However, by an indult in 1984 and then the establishment of the 'Ecclesia Dei Commission of 1988, something of the stigma was removed as a stripped version of the Old Mass according to the Missal of Papal pretender John XXIII was permitted to be celebrated following a set of restrictions. This indulgence had to be granted since modernist Vatican could not do away with the ongoing traditionalist resistance to the New Mass that began in the 1960s. The indult was to satisfy the nostalgia of those who were attached to the bells and smells of the Old Rite but have no qualms concerning the new doctrines characteristic of the Modernist impostor religion. It was to satisfy their "religious sense" with Catholic rituals, while they adhere to Modernist doctrines with tranquility. 

The tags, "ordinary" and "extraordinary" form never existed until 2007 when the Papal pretender Benedict XVI issued a pretended Motu Proprior (Summum Pontificum) in which he allowed a more widespread use of the 1962 stripped-down version of the Old Mass within the Modernist impostor church occupying Catholic buildings. 

Well, it seems he is forced to 'save his baby', his legacy, as it were, for, the terms "ordinary form" and "extraordinary form" were coined by the then modernist papal impostor, Benedict XVI when he, "Cardinal" Arinze was the incumbent modernist "Prefect for the Congregation for Divine worship and Discipline of Sacraments". 

Both Forms Express The Catholic "Law of Prayer" and "Law of Faith"?

"Cardinal" Arinze says that both forms can, and should be left to, co-exist: and there should be freedom to celebrate one form or the other, with none imposing his preference, nor condemning another's preference. From this it is clear that for him both forms are expressions of the Catholic law of prayer and of Faith. Here again he is sorely wrong. 

Now, after the Papal impostor, Paul VI promulgated the Novus Ordo Missae and it's General Instruction on 3rd April, 1969, came the famed Ottaviani Intervention" whose principal point was that 

...the Novus Ordo Missae...represents, both as a whole and in it's details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent... (As quoted in Fr. Cekada's "Work of Human Hands, 135)

It is superfluous to underline that what constitutes "a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass" cannot be at the same time an expression of the Catholic law of prayer and law of Faith.

Now, although the so-called extraordinary form is a stripped version of the integral traditional Catholic liturgy, it retains some vestiges of the Old Mass to summarily show that, in comparison, the so-called ordinary form represents a new religion, a "man-centered" religion as one of its creators is quoted to have proudly proclaimed. 

"Cardinal" Arinze himself attests to this by his own attempt to compare the two but fails to draw the logical conclusion. He words are:

....you see, what we call the extraordinary form or Missa Tridentina in general is stressing more relationship with God direct -it stresses more adoration...it stress more... God is 'super', 'above', 'transcendental', and that is an important element we need very much in the world today... The present form stresses more the community, the congregation, that is also an important element...

Obviously: the former, from his own words, is "God-centered" and the later "man-centered", but the overpowering influence of conservative modernism in him compels him to affirm that both have equal rights as expressions of Catholic law of prayer and Faith, and that both must be let to co-exist with the hope of exerting mutual influence, one on the other... How are the valiant fallen in battle, and the weapons of war perished?! 

A Humorous Defender, Indeed! 

Papal impostor, "Paul VI", with the six protestant ministers
who inspired him and his cohorts with the wisdom needed
to concoct a fitting ecumenical service.
 This man-centered ecumenical mess
'Material Cardinal' Arinze affirms to be an expression
of the Catholic law of worship and of believing:
what a formula for spiritual confusion... 

"Cardinal" Arinze is acclaimed a 'humorous defender of orthodoxy' by the neo-trads stuck in the rut of the modernist impostor church. He did not fail to impress his fans in this instance; says he: 

  ...the Church is alive, the Catholic Church does not live in the Vatican Museum, the liturgy is sacred and the essentials are fixed, nevertheless, the manner of celebrating can be retouched by Holy Mother Church. when Christ came, He did not tell us "when you start the Mass, start at the foot of the altar, say kyrie, say gloria, don't say gloria during lent, say credo on Sunday"; the Church works out all that, and we must trust the Church. so every good Catholic will remain flexible and open to what Holy Mother Church says, know that the Church is much wiser than you or me... 

Here we have an example of the modernist tactic of saying one truth so as to defend a host of errors. Now, it is true that

"since the Church has received from her Founder, Christ, the duty of guarding the holiness of divine worship, surely it is part of the same, of course after preserving the substance of the Sacrifice and the sacraments, to prescribe the following: ceremonies, rites, formulas, prayers, chant - by which that august and public ministry is best controlled, whose special name is Liturgy, as if an exceedingly sacred action... Therefore Celestine I proposed and expressed a canon of faith in the venerated formulas of the Liturgy: "Let the law of supplication establish the law of believing..." [Pope Pius XI, Denz. 2200]

 However, saying that Christ  "did not tell us "when you start the Mass, start at the foot of the altar, say kyrie, say gloria, don't say gloria during lent, say credo on Sunday" exuding a comic appeal, he slyly radicles the revered traditional rite of the Sacrifice of the Mass in defense of the ecumenical mess falsely called the ordinary form, manifesting himself a 'humorous defender' of the mass of the new order...  

 A Woeful Failure

According to "Cardinal" Arinze, the elements stressed in either form can be exaggerated - direct relationship with God; adoration, transcendence of God (for the extraordinary form); and the community and the congregation, (for the ordinary form). 

However, in attempting to exemplify such exaggeration, he failed woefully to show how stress on the "direct relationship with God; adoration, transcendence of God" can be exaggerated. His only case against what he called the 'extraordinary form' is the bad pronunciation of Latin words by priests and this has nothing to do with 'exaggerating' stress on relationship with God, adoration etc...

Meanwhile, what he affirms to be 'exaggerations' in the new form are actually things intrinsic to the people-centeredness of the ecumenical mess: the presiding lay-robed man looking at the celebrating lay congregation as radio announcers do, attracting their attention with gesticulations, stealing a few smiles with some of the people he knows; clapping and applauding each other, dancing... 

Latin, Not The Problem

Once again, "Cardinal" Arinze affirms something true: in the controversy surrounding "ordinary form" and "extraordinary form" the problem has nothing to do with Latin. Put differently, when those still with some vestiges of Catholic Common Sense reject the "Novus Ordo Missae" their rejection has nothing to do with Latin as the starting point. 

He is correct to say that the so-called "ordinary form can be celebrated in Latin, a whole lot in Latin, so Latin is not the problem". However, he, again, affirms this in the attempt to patronize the ecumenical mess in saying that "the main fault [i.e. what he calls exaggerations] is not in the extra-ordinary form or the ordinary form". 

On the other hand, someone attending the Traditional Catholic Mass and has a Missal would also have the whole text of the Mass in English beside the Latin text: so, the creation of the so-called New order of Mass had nothing to do with Latin. Everyone with an informed Catholic Common Sense knows that modernist ecumenical project was the driving force. 

"Cardinal" Arinze, then a young Bishop, could not be numbered among the few uncompromising Catholics -Bishops, Priests and Laity- in the 1960s who rejected the so-called "New order of Mass" on doctrinal and moral grounds: he could not see, and still fails to see, that the new mass is Protestant, non-Catholic, destructive of Catholic Faith, a vehicle for doctrinal revolution and represents a new religion. He could not see, and still fails to see, that the new mass is grossly irreverent and sacrilegious and even invalid [as the meaning of the sacramental form had be changed back and forth...] 

Yes, he still cannot see it, and sadly so... 

"Material Cardinal" Arinze with his colorful miter
which some take to represents his sympathy for the LGTBQ+ community;
but others insist that it represents "African Culture"
since African often wear beautiful and colorful things... 

Summing Up

• Ordained a Priest [9/12/1958] few months after the first in the line of modernist papal impostors began his pretended and apostate papacy [the first Pope according to the wants of militant Judeo-Masonry with his little finger engaged in the plot to carry out a revolution in Tiarra and cope, a religious version of the French Revolution, within the four walls of the Catholic Church considered the arch enemy by that synagogue of Satan]; - see "Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita" here
• consecrated a Bishop [at 32; -23/11/1965] while the modernist robber council was still in session and called up to be numbered among the modernist "Council Fathers" during its last session;  
• created a modernist [some would add, Material] "Cardinal" [25/5/1985] 
• made the prefect of the secretariat for Non-Christians [1948] later renamed Pontifical council for interreligious dialogue [1985-2002]
• made a modernist prefect of the Congregation for Divine worship and Discipline of Sacraments".

"Cardinal" Arinze's entire career has been one of marching zealously under the Judeo-Masonic banner, at the forefront of the Great apostasy, always believing himself to be marching under the  banner of the Apostolic Keys.  

Still very much committed to the modernist project, he promotes the "Ordinary form" and "Extra-ordinary form" myth, this a formula for confusion for those attempting to examine the questions surrounding the famed glories of Vatican II vis á vis the doctrine of the infallibility and indefectibility of the One, Holy an Apostolic Roman Catholic Church. 

Like a student who do not know arithmetic, he affirms that a 'God-centered' rite and a 'man-centered' rite are both expressions of the same Catholic law of worship and law of faith, obviously a wrong answer, showing he does not know Catholic law of worship and law of Faith -following his analogy that  "the wrong answers are as many as the students who do not know arithmetic, the correct answer is only one..."

Given that modernist doctrine and practice of inter-religious dialogue stems from the condemned propositions that: "everyman is free to embrace and profess that religion which he, led by the light of reason, thinks to be the true religion" and  "in the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way to eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation", he, having been a key player in the Modernist inter-religious dialogue project, shows that he does not know that there is only one True Religion, the Catholic Religion, and that all others are false, and that inter-religious dialogue is, on the one hand, akin to a teacher dialoguing  with the students who give a wrong answer in an Arithmetic class when the correct answer is only one, and on the other hand, a rejection of the divine institution of the Catholic Religion: placing her on equal footings with the products of the malice of the father of lies and the figment of men's weak imaginations.

His failure in the 1960s, as well his fellow Bishops then in Nigeria, to see that the Novus Ordo Missae "...represents, both as a whole and in it's details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent..." accounts for the easy-going institutionalization of the modernist new religion in Catholic buildings in Nigeria while retaining Catholic names. 

Catholic charity urges us to pray that 

• he be granted that grace to realize that his entire career since his priestly ordination has been one of marching zealously under the Judeo-Masonic banner always believing himself to be marching under the banner of the Apostolic Keys, 
• and that, collaborating with that grace, he rejects the whole of the modernist project and stand up for integral Catholic Faith, the Faith he professed when the saintly Fr. Michael Tansi baptized him [1/11/1941]. 

Hope is not hope if one were not to be hoping against hope, is it not? 

Until that happens, the same Catholic Charity urges that people of good will be warned of his formula for spiritual confusion. No hard feelings.