A Conservative Modernist Nominal Cardinal’s Ironic Pose

...the nominal cardinal’s condemnation lands on the very heart of the modernist project he himself cannot disown... A hollow lament: he warns of the smoke while refusing to look at the fire!

Prologue 

For the observant, there are moments in the  life of the modernist impostor church occupying Catholic buildings where the truth about its very  essence is seen not by argument, but by the stark contrast between word and reality of its own agents.  

An instance of such a moment is when a conservative modernist nominal “cardinal”, Robert Sarah,  solemnly declares:

“Widespread communion in the hand is part of Satan’s attack on the Eucharist”

The statement is bold, dramatic, even stirring and edifying to the neo-conservatives to whom he is an icon of orthodoxy. But it is also—whether he intends it or not—profoundly ironic. 

Why? He condemns a practice that his own liturgical age, his own committees, his own theological milieu, and often his own predecessors and mentors, not only introduced, but promoted, defended, normalized, and entrenched. 

Indeed, as the so-called “prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments”, his involvement in the preservation of the modernist liturgical revolution has a peculiar significance: he condemns what he inherited and enabled and continues to uphold.

To the traditionally formed Catholic mind—trained by saints, councils, catechisms, and centuries of Eucharistic devotion—this irony is not merely humorous; it is instructive.

It reveals the deepest tensions in the modernist era and the strange rhetorical gymnastics demanded of the top henchmen to assure its revolution in permanence.

Let us unfold this ugly picture.

 The Drama of the Irony

The nominal cardinal stands robed in scarlet—the colour of martyrs, the colour of defenders of the faith—yet his words rise against a practice that grew precisely under the authority of cardinals just like him.

Communion in the hand, as every informed Catholic knows, did not erupt spontaneously like a stray flame from dry leaves.

It was not a grassroots rebellion, nor a medieval custom resurrected by zealous peasants.

It was a structured policy decision, processed through committees, approved through indults, and rolled out through episcopal conferences.

It was, in other words:

• officially permitted by 1969 legislation (Memoriale Domini 1969) which urged episcopal conferences to request the practice,
  
  
• energetically adopted by bishops,
  
  
• catechetically justified with modern theological language,
  
  
• and promoted as part of the “renewal” of worship.
  
  

For a cardinal steeped in this very liturgical culture to now lament, with prophetic intensity, that the practice is “satanic” is rather like a man complaining that the house is flooded—while standing beside the water tap he helped turn on.

Yet the remark is not simply amusing.

It is tragic.

It reveals an inner contradiction that runs through the impostor Church like a fault line beneath a city.

Why Communion in the Hand Was No Accident

Informed uncompromising Catholics know that reverence is not created by sentiment, nor destroyed by accident.

It is shaped by gesture, symbol, hierarchy, and sacred order.

And the modern practice of Communion in the hand fits seamlessly into the liturgical revolution philosophy that:

• exalts the community over the sacred under the mask of “active participation “;
  
  
• replaces awe with casual familiarity;
  
  
• dissolves the distinction between priest and people;
  
  
• seeks “ancient authenticity” without medieval piety;
  
  
• simplifies what was once solemn and majestic.
  
  

The ecumenical service was architecturally built to support such a gesture:

• lines instead of kneeling;
  
  
• standing instead of adoring;
  
  
• ministers bustling instead of angels trembling;
  
  
• the sanctuary opened to traffic like a public square.
  
  

Communion in the hand was not an abuse that slipped through the cracks.

It was the deliberate consequence of a new liturgical mentality:

a mentality that, intentionally or not, reduced the Eucharist from a Sacrifice offered to God to a meal shared among equals.

Thus, the nominal cardinal’s condemnation lands on the very heart of the modernist project he himself cannot disown.

 Why Putative Conservative Modern Church Leaders Speak in Contradictions

Here we enter the realm of rhetoric and psychology.

Nominal modern churchmen inhabit a world their forefathers created systematically, from the very idea of convoking  the so called Vatican II to its pretended solemn promulgation; world in which they must be:

• modernist at heart yet Catholic in external,
  
  
• open to novelty yet traditional in appearance,
  
  
• pastoral yet authoritative,
  
  
• innovators yet guardians,
  
  
• defenders of reform yet mourners of its consequences.
  
  

This impossible balancing act breeds contradiction.

1. They must safeguard the modernist reform, yet acknowledge the crisis.

To admit the full damage of Communion in the hand would require questioning the reform that authorized it.

But they are not ready for that.

2. They must speak to many audiences at once.

• Radical Progressives want symbolic democracy.
• Traditionalist conservatives want reverence.
• The moderate middle wants peace.

Thus their speeches become verbal patchwork—half lament, half congratulations. How pitiful. 

3. They sense the loss of faith, but cannot name its cause.

• Eucharistic belief declines.
• Reverence collapses.
• Abuses multiply.

Yet they cannot ask whether the changes they promoted—or inherited—played a role.

So they describe symptoms, but never diagnoses, and those who hint at he diagnoses fall short of reaching logical conclusions.

4. They use vague spiritual language to avoid institutional accountability.

“Satan attacks the Eucharist” is a dramatic phrase. It is true. But it is also convenient.

It allows the speaker to sound prophetic without naming the human factors that opened the door.

5. Pastoral rhetoric clashes with liturgical policy.

They warn against irreverence while maintaining practices that naturally breed irreverence.

This tension, perhaps, is not hypocrisy in the moral sense.

It is the unavoidable consequence of trying to defend two incompatible visions at once.

The Traditional Catholic Response:

The traditional Catholic mind, formed by the ancient liturgy and the perennial Magisterium, sees no contradiction.

• It simply recognizes that reverence flows from form,
• that gesture protects doctrine,
• and that the Church’s lex orandi shapes her lex credendi.

The old Mass taught, and continues to teach, ordinary Catholics more theology in silence than modern documents teach with thousands of words.

• A single genuflection spoke louder than a committee of experts.
• A paten held under the chin proclaimed the Real Presence more strongly than a homily on “Eucharistic fraternity.”
• Kneeling communicated what standing obscured.
• Receiving on the tongue protected the Sacred Species from profanation—and the soul from pride.

Traditional Catholics understand instinctively what the modernist establishment struggles to articulate:

• where reverence is weakened, belief soon follows;
• where gestures are flattened, mysteries collapse;
• where proclamation replaces adoration, faith becomes sentiment.

This is why the nominal  cardinal’s complaint rings hollow:

• he warns of the smoke while refusing to look at the fire.

The Real Lesson: A House Built on Sand Will Tremble

The nominal cardinal’s ironic statement is not merely a curious contradiction.

It is a symbol of the deeper instability of the modernist wonderland. 

• You cannot remove the rails of tradition and then blame the train for swaying.
• You cannot remove the guardrails of reverence and then lament irreverence.
• You cannot desacralize the gestures and then wonder why the sense of the sacred has evaporated.
• You cannot create a liturgy designed for casual reception and then weep when the faithful receive casually.

If Communion in the hand is “part of Satan’s attack,” then the true question is:

• Who opened the gates through which that attack entered?

This is the question a nominal cardinal cannot ask—but an uncompromising traditional Catholic not only must, he knows the answer: the most pernicious of the adversaries of the Church, as Pope St. Pius X called them; precursors of the Antichrist signed up in his agency of operation of error! 

Summing Up:

The scandal is not that a nominal cardinal spoke dramatically.

The scandal is that he spoke truth only halfway.

• Communion in the hand has weakened belief.
• It has eroded reverence.
• It has prepared the way for countless sacrileges.
• Uncompromising Catholics have seen it, said it, and continue still. 

The irony lies in this: only now that the ruins are undeniable do some of the builders begin to complain of the cracks—yet still refuse to acknowledge their blueprint.

If they are to  regain the Church’s Eucharistic faith, which they have lost and seem to be nostalgic about, they must do more than lament.

They reject the modernist liturgical revolution and its entire revolutionary agenda and must return—humbly, courageously, gratefully—to the Catholic reverence that built the ages of faith.

And when they do,  the ironic poses of nominal prelates will fade, and the clear voice of the Tradition now whispered in the modern day catacombs  will once again be heard in Catholic buildings presently under modernist occupation:

“At the Name of Jesus, every knee shall bow.”