Sarah contra Cupich: The Tragicomic Clash of the Novus Ordo Clanheads

Both acknowledge the same robber council. Both recognize the same authorities… The disagreement is real, but not foundational. One wishes to slow the revolution; the other wishes to accelerate it.  The traditional Catholic watches the drama with a mixture of sorrow and amusement. 

Prologue: A Family Feud in the House of the Revolution

One of the many lessons from history is that every revolution eventually devours its own children.

The French Revolution produced Jacobins and Girondins. The Protestant Revolt produced Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, and countless sects -more that 45,000! 

The modernist revolution within the walls of the Catholic Church has always had its own rival clans.

One faction waves the banner of “synodality,” “inclusion,” and perpetual adaptation.

The other speaks of reverence, tradition, beauty, and continuity.

One side attacks with a sledgehammer or bulldozer.

The other prefers to remove the blocks one by one with a trowel and a smile. 

The recent clash between “Cardinals” Sarah and Cupich over the Latin Mass illustrates this perfectly.

Sarah declares:

“Banning the Latin Mass can only be inspired by the devil.”

Cupich responds:

“Banning the Latin Mass is necessary for Church unity.”

At first glance this appears to be a battle between tradition and progressivism.

It is not.

It is a family argument inside the same modernist-ecumenical-synodal household.

The dispute is not about whether Vatican II is the solution.

Both agree that it is.

The dispute is about how best to manage the consequences of Vatican II.

And therein lies the comedy. 

1. The Conservative Hero Arrives

It is no news that among  conservatives in the Novus Ordo, “Cardinal” Sarah enjoys near legendary status.

• He speaks of silence.
• He speaks of prayer.
• He speaks respectfully of the Latin Mass.
• He criticizes liturgical abuses.
• He quotes saints and Fathers.

Compared with the ecclesiastical circus that often passes for Catholicism today, he appears almost revolutionary. Or does he not?

Many conservatives therefore treat him as their champion. Don’t they?

Whenever progressives advance another novelty, conservatives instinctively point toward Sarah:

“There! That is the real Catholic voice!”

But there is a difficulty.

• Sarah does not reject Vatican II.

He embraces it.

• He does not reject the New Mass.

He celebrates it.

• He does not reject the conciliar hierarchy.

He defends it.

He is not opposing the system.

He is intent on  beautifying it as exquisitely as possible. 

2. Enter Cardinal Cupich

Then enters “Cardinal” Cupich.

Unlike Sarah, Cupich rarely bothers with conservative sensibilities.

He says openly what others imply discreetly.

For him, attachment to the traditional Mass threatens ecclesiastical unity.

The old liturgy must therefore be restricted; perhaps eventually eliminated. 

Of such a stance the conservatives are horrified.

Yet from a consistent traditional Catholic perspective, Cupich is merely drawing conclusions from principles already accepted by the Modernist establishment since its robber council. 

Think on this:

• If authority possesses unlimited power over liturgy…
• If tradition is subordinate to pastoral objectives…
• If ancient rites may be fundamentally restructured…
• If continuity means whatever contemporary authorities declare it means…

Then why should the traditional Mass enjoy immunity?

Cupich is not inventing a new principle.

He is applying existing ones.

The modernist ecumenical service was meant to be the ritual expression of the modernist ecumenism, the face of the desired unity. It is logical to see how the insult trap placating the nostalgia of confused conservatives is a threat to that unity. Or is it not? 

3. The Man Who Hates the Conclusion but Loves the Premises

This is where the drama becomes interesting.

• Sarah detests the conclusion.
• Cupich embraces it.
• Yet both accept the premises.

Sarah says:

“Do not suppress the traditional Mass.”

Cupich says:

“Suppressing the traditional Mass promotes unity.”

The traditional Catholic asks:

“What principle makes one conclusion impossible and the other unacceptable?”

The answer is elusive.

For decades conservatives have defended the very doctrines, reforms, and authorities that made the suppression of tradition conceivable.

Now they are shocked when those same principles are used against tradition.

A man plants thistles and complains when he cannot harvest roses. Shamefully Ridiculous. Isn’t it? 

4. The Conservative Dilemma

The conservative wishes to affirm simultaneously that:

1. Vatican II is entirely legitimate.
2. The post-conciliar reforms are legitimate.
3. The authorities imposing restrictions are legitimate.
4. The traditional Mass should not be restricted.

Yet each point creates pressure on the others.

• If the authorities possess the authority claimed for them, why may they not restrict the old Mass?
• If Vatican II represents authentic development, why may its liturgical consequences be resisted?
• If obedience is the supreme virtue, why complain when obedience becomes inconvenient?

The conservative finds himself attempting a delicate balancing act.

The rope grows thinner every year. Oops!

V. The Revolutionary and the Romantic

Cupich and Sarah represent two temperaments found within the Novus Ordo wonderland.

• Cupich is the revolutionary.
• Sarah is the romantic.

The revolutionary wants the revolution completed.

The romantic wishes the revolution had better manners.

The revolutionary sees tradition as an obstacle.

The romantic sees tradition as a decorative heirloom.

The revolutionary wants the old house demolished.

The romantic wishes to preserve the fireplace while rebuilding everything else.

Neither questions the legitimacy of the reconstruction project itself. How sad. 

 VI. The Question Nobody Wants Asked

Beneath every debate about the Latin Mass lurks a more dangerous question:

By what authority was the immemorial Roman Rite displaced in the first place?

This question is rarely addressed.

It is usually bypassed.

Instead discussions focus on permissions, indults, faculties, accommodations, and ecclesiastical policies.

But traditional Catholics remember a simpler principle.

• The Roman Rite was not the private property of popes, bishops, liturgical experts, commissions, or councils.
• It was the inherited worship of the Catholic Church.

A treasure received.

Not a laboratory experiment.

A patrimony to be handed down.

Not a product to be redesigned.

Once that principle is abandoned, the battle is already lost.

The only remaining argument concerns how rapidly the demolition should proceed.

VII. Why Traditional Catholics Are Unimpressed

When conservatives celebrate Sarah’s statement, traditional Catholics naturally agree with the sentiment.

Indeed, suppressing the traditional Mass is a grave attack upon Catholic tradition.

But then comes the obvious observation:

The attack did not begin with Cupich.

Nor did it begin with the Imitator of Leo, Robert Prevost. 

Nor with modern progressives.

The attack began when the modernist revolution first treated the Church’s liturgical inheritance as something to be revised, reconstructed, and replaced.

Cupich is not the cause.

He is a consequence.

Sarah objects to the consequence while defending the cause. Utterly sad. Isn’t it?

Traditional Catholics object to both.

Summing Up : A Tragicomedy in Scarlet

The spectacle is thoroughly cinematic. 

One “cardinal” cries:

“Banning the Latin Mass is inspired by the devil!”

Another cardinal replies:

“Banning the Latin Mass is necessary for unity!”

• Both wear the same red hat.
• Both acknowledge the same council.
• Both recognize the same authorities.
• Both inhabit the same conciliar structure.

The disagreement is real.

But it is not fundamental.

One wishes to slow the revolution.

The other wishes to accelerate it.

One applies the brakes.

The other presses the accelerator.

Both remain in the same vehicle.

The traditional Catholic, standing by the roadside, watches the argument with a mixture of sorrow and amusement.

For the true issue is not whether the revolution should move faster or slower.

The true issue is whether the revolution should have happened at all.

And that is the question neither clan head can afford to answer. 

Think on it.