Thursday, February 23, 2023
Why is Cardinal Arthur Roche in the Rescript making reference to Canon Law? The Dicastery is not following Canon Law.It does not affirm Vatican Council II (rational), the Athanasius Creed (rational), the Nicene Creed (rational), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (rational) : this is not permitted by Canon Law
The Rescript: Press Release from the LMS and FIUV
On Tuesday 21st February the Holy See Press Office
published a Rescript confirming, for the Dicastery for Divine Worship, certain
legal points in relation to the interpretation of Pope Francis’ Apostolic
Letter Traditionis Custodes.
The key point is that from now on permission for the use of a
parish church for celebrations of the 1962 Missal may only be granted by the
Dicastery. The Rescript makes reference to Canon 87.1 which states that bishops
may lift the obligations of universal law for the good of souls in their
diocese: this no longer applies, as the matter is ‘reserved to the Holy See’.
The effect of this ruling will depend on the degree to
which current provision for the celebration of the 1962 Missal depends on the
use of parish churches in a particular locality; the willingness of bishops to
seek permission from the Dicastery for celebrations in such churches to
continue; and the response of the Dicastery to these requests.
If bishops all over the world seek permission for all
the celebrations of the 1962 Mass taking place in parish churches in their
dioceses, the Dicastery will be faced with many hundreds of cases to consider,
raising the question of the practicability of them discharging their role.
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-rescript-press-release-from-lms-and.html#more
The Dicastery under Cardinal Arthur Roche is to only
give permission to those priests, bishops and cardinals, to offer Holy Mass in Latin
who interpret Vatican Council II with the common false premise and inference. Those
who announce that they will interpret Vatican Council II rationally, in harmony
with the exclusivist ecclesiology of the 16th century Mass or the Greek
Mass of the Patristic period will not be welcomed.
So the priests who are given permission have to change
the understanding of the Nicene Creed, as does Pope Francis. The pope prays, ‘
I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins’ and at the same time,
says outside the Catholic Church there is known salvation, visible cases of non Catholics saved
without the baptism of water and Catholic faith.
For the Jesuits in the Middle Ages, all needed the
baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation and there were no known
exceptions. This was their understanding of the Nicene Creed.
But for the Americanists, Masons and Pope Francis,
there are three or more known baptisms which exclude the baptism of water. They
would have to be 1) known in personal cases and they would have to 2) exclude the baptism
of water, for them to be practical exceptions for Feeneyite EENS.
If there was only the baptism of water needed for
salvation and no known cases of the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible
ignorance, then it would mean that Vatican Council II does not contradict
Feeneyite EENS.
But affirming Feenyite EENS is triumphalism for Pope
Francis. It is to be rejected. So there are visible cases for him in 1965-2023.
Pope Francis would be traditional on EENS like the
popes before 1949 if the Nicene Creed referred to only one visible and
repeatable baptism, the baptism of water.
So now we have a heretical and schismatic pope and
there is no denial from the Vatican. The Dicastery will only accept priests who
are heretical and schismatic when they choose the False Premise to interpret
Vatican Council II, the Catechism, EENS etc.Their Latin Mass will not be the
Latin Mass of the 15th century irrespective of the 1962 Missal.
Since they will be re-interpreting the Missals irrationally to produce a
political break with Tradition which is approved by the pope.
According to Canon Law a bishop and cardinal must be
Catholic and they must affirm all the teachings of the Catholic Church. The
College of Cardinals do not affirm Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.They do not affirm the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed in their original meaning,
when the premise and inference is rational.
They re-interpret all the Catechisms irrationally,
which mention the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. For example, the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24 Q, 27Q and 29Q) is interpreted in two ways, rational and irrational. The dogma EENS is
supported by 24 Q and 27 Q, while 29 Q is interpreted with the common False
Premise.So it contradicts EENS.But with the rational premise 29 Q does not contradict EENS.
The same confusion is there with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257- The Necessity of Baptism).We do not know of anyone who is saved outside the Church because God is not limited to the Sacraments (CCC 1257). So it depends upon which of two ways we interpret ' God is not limited to the Sacraments'.
Pope Francis and Cardinal Roche have denied Vatican Council II (rational) and have chosen Vatican Council II (irrational) to produce a break with the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition. This is not permitted by Canon Law. So why is Cardinal Arthur Roche in the Rescript making reference to Canon Law? The Dicastery is not following Canon Law.It does not affirm Vatican Council II (rational), the Athanasius Creed (rational), the Nicene Creed (rational), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (rational) etc.- Lionel Andrades
FEBRUARY 22, 2023
But if there are exceptions for EENS then the Nicene Creed is saying 1) there are three or more baptisms, 2) they are physically visible for them to be exceptions for EENS, and 3) they exclude the baptism of water and so are practical exceptions for EENS. 4) So EENS is obsolete since there are known exceptions
This is an issue Don Pietro Leone, perhaps for political reasons, has refused to touch over the last two years
B. Conclusion to the Book
The conclusion to the book as a whole is as follows: The Council has deposed Our Lord Jesus Christ from His Divine Throne, and elected man as God-Man in His place. Man, a body which of itself gives forth no light, but is destined to shine forever in Heaven by reflecting the Uncreated Light of God, has eclipsed that primordial and essential Light of God and shrouded the Heavens and the whole earth in darkness.
Lionel: I have been following the reports/installments from this book over the last two years on Rorate Caeili and have been responding to them. I have also e-mailed the web blog owner. None of my comments posted on my blog and e-mailed to the writer have been acknoweldged or answered.Primarly, Don Pietro Leone interprets Vatican Council II with a Fake Premise like the liberals and Masons. So his book will be appreciated and even allowed to be published. This may not be possible for someone who interprets Vatican Council II with a Rational Premise and returns automatically to Tradition.
Don Petro Leone would also be taking care of his reputation and position in the parish house.They would not ask him to leave.
The book will be appreciated by Cardinal Raymond Burke, Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Prof. Roberto dei Mattei. The ecclesiastics and Lefebvrists, like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre have to interpret the Council irrationally. They know that the Fake Premise and Inference produces a schismatic and hertical conclusion. This is wrongly attributed to the Council, when the fault lies with the False Premise.But in this way Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider will not be cancelled by Pope Francis.
I choose to interpret the Council rationally and so there is a hermeneutic of continuuity with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century and the Church Fathers and saints of the Patristic period.
It is the same Vatican Council II before Don Leone and me but our conclusions are radically different since our premise and inferences are different.
1.We can interpret LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as referring to invisible or visible people in 2023 and our conclusiion will be different. If they refer to hypothetical cases only then they do not contradict Feeneyie extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This would be the interpretation of Brother Andre Marie micm and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, traditionalists, at the St.Benedict Center, New Hamsphire.
2.If LG 8 etc refer to physically visible cases in 2013 then they contradict Feeneyite EENS. This would be the interpretation of Brother Thomas Augustine micm, Superior, of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, traditionalists, at the St.Benedict Center, Still River, MA, USA.
This is an issue Don Pietro Leone, perhaps for political reasons, has refused to touch over the last two years. -Lionel Andrades
Posts
