by Diane Montagna

Cardinal Robert Sarah says the aversion to Latin and Gregorian chant among some in the Church will die out with the generation that created it.

In a new interview with Italian journalist Nico Spuntoni, published today in Il Giornale, the former prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments argues that opposition to traditional liturgy is confined to "self-referential cultural circles" rooted more in psychology than substance. Once the ’68 generation passes from influence, he predicts, so too will the "baseless, one-sided positions" that have diminished the cultural stature of Latin Catholicism — a shift he sees coming for the Traditional Latin Mass and for tradition more broadly.

The Cardinal also delivers a sharp verdict on Pope Francis’ 2021 restrictions on the old rite. He calls Traditionis Custodesneither wise nor respectful toward Benedict XVI, who he says bore the decision with the meekness of a lamb even as it was imposed while he was still living. Access to ritual forms "recognized and in use for centuries," Cardinal Sarah insists, can never be legitimately restricted by decree. And he condemns hostility toward traditional-minded Catholics outright, calling it "shortsighted," "purely ideological," and ultimately "harmful, and destructive to the Church."

Here is an English translation of the full interview, published with the kind permission of the author.

"But the Old Mass is the one that helps priests celebrate better."

by Nico Spuntoni

Speaking out against excessive liturgical abuses is one of Cardinal Robert Sarah’s signature themes; he formerly served as prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. The Cardinal returns to the subject in his latest book, The Canticle of the Lamb: Sacred Music and Heavenly Liturgy, co-written with Peter Carter and published by Cantagalli.

Your Eminence, do you believe there is an aversion to Latin and Gregorian chant in certain parts of the Church?

It strikes me as an aversion confined to a few self-referential cultural circles — more a matter of psychology than of substance — and I think it’s simply a generational issue: once the ’68 generation has passed, these baseless, one-sided positions, which diminish the very cultural stature of Latin Catholicism, will pass with it.

Benedict XVI was convinced that the extraordinary form — the so-called Latin Mass — could positively influence celebrations in the ordinary form that lacked a sense of the sacred. Was he right?

Among the effects of liberalizing the extraordinary form was a positive influence — I would even call it a correction — on possible abuses in the celebration of the ordinary form. Such abuses are extremely serious acts, but they must never be conflated with the ordinary form itself. Many priests testify that discovering the extraordinary form helped them celebrate better. I believe Benedict XVI’s intention also reflected a deeply humble and democratic instinct: to ensure the widest possible access to it, so that over the decades the people of God could choose for themselves which form better embodied their lived faith. But all of that was cut off by Traditionis Custodes, while the Pope Emeritus was still living.

How do you judge that?

It didn’t strike me as a wise or respectful decision. But Benedict, meek as a lamb, allowed himself to be humbled, and in silence and prayer offered his suffering to God, the better to share in Christ’s own suffering for his Church and to purify it.

What do you make of calls to repeal the restrictions?

Access to ritual forms recognized and in use for centuries can never be artificially restricted by decree. If a rite ceased to serve the faith, it would die out on its own; but if it preserves and nurtures the faith, may we never limit it — because in doing so we would be restricting the preservation and spread of the faith itself.

What would you say to the many faithful drawn to the old liturgy who may have to drive miles just to attend a Mass?

I can only admire this profound expression of love for God. The phenomenon is spreading. If the hierarchy proves capable of truly reading the signs of the present age — rather than those of ’68, arriving late once again — then room can open for a fraternal and peaceful dialogue.

As a Church, we cannot wage war on those who devoutly attend Mass simply because they prefer one form over another. That is a shortsighted, purely ideological stance — not pastoral, not Christian. It is harmful, and destructive to the Church.