SSPX communique on Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò published on the internet the letter from the
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF). It notified him of his summons
to appear at the DDF Palace on June 20, after the opening of an “extrajudicial”
criminal trial against him.
Lionel: The DDF notified Archbishop Carlo Maria
Vigano, that he has to accept Vatican Council II,
interpreted only irrationally and so dishonestly. But every Catholic has the moral
duty to reject Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally and only accept the
Council interpreted rationally.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was correct when
he rejected Vatican Council II irrational which was a fake break with
Tradition.
Every cardinal and bishop must interpret Vatican
Council II in harmony with the ecclesiology of the Apostles, the Church Fathers
and the Magisterium over the centuries. This is possible when LG 8, 14, 15, 16,
UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer to hypothetical cases only. LG 8 etc cannot be
objective exceptions for the dogma extra
ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors, the
Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q,27Q), the Catechism of the Catholic Church
(845,846), the Oath Against Modernism the original interpretation of the Nicene
and Apostles Creed etc.
__________________
A Little Explanation
What is an extrajudicial criminal trial? According to the DDF Vademecum published on
June 5, 2022, the extrajudicial criminal trial, sometimes called an
“administrative trial,” is a form of criminal trial which reduces the
formalities provided for in the judicial trial in order to accelerate the
course of justice. It does not eliminate the procedural guarantees required for
a fair judgment.
Lionel: According to the Code of Canon Law, Cardinal Fernandez is expected to be a Catholic and accept the teachings of the
Catholic Church. It is the same for Pope Francis.
They both interpret Vatican Council II and the
Catechism of the Catholic Church irrationally and not rationally. I choose the
rational version.
The both interpret the Nicene, Apostles and
Athanasius Creed with the false premise whenever there is a reference to the
baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance. I avoid this error.
For them there are exceptions for the Nicene
Creed (baptism of desire etc) for me there are no exceptions. For me there is one
baptism for the forgiveness of sins and not three or more known baptisms, objective cases. (Nicene
Creed). For the DDF the Holy Spirit teaches the Catholic Church today that
outside the Church there is known salvation, for me the Holy Spirit teaches the
Church today there is no known salvation outside the Church, LG 16 etc refer to
hypothetical and unknown cases.
_______________________
For offenses reserved to the DDF, it is up to the DDF alone, on a
case-by-case basis, ex officio or at the request of the Ordinary, to
decide whether to proceed this way. Just like a judicial trial, an
extrajudicial criminal trial can take place at the DDF – which is the case for
Viganò – or be entrusted to a lower authority.
Lionel. Archbishop Vigano can object to Msgr
Kennedy, Archbishop Augustine Di Noia and Cardinal Fernandez at the DDF being
present at a judicial trial. Since they interpret Magisterial Documents (Creeds,
Councils, and Catechisms) with a fake premise and inference to produce a non
traditional conclusion, which Archbishop Vigano opposes.
________________________
The Accusations Made by the DDF
The decree of summons mentions the charge Viganò will face during the
trial. The crime of schism is put forward, because of certain public
affirmations negating the elements necessary to maintain communion with the
Catholic Church: denial of the legitimacy of Pope Francis; rupture of communion
with him; and rejection of the Second Vatican Council.
Lionel: 1. With the false interpretation of Magisterial
Documents cited in hundreds of reports on the Internet the DDF is not in
communion with the Jesus and the Catholic Church.
2. Pope Francis has an obligation to interpret
Magisterial Documents like the popes over the century’s i.e with the rational
premise. Otherwise he continues to be in schism and heresy which is public and
not contested by anyone.
3. As mentioned above the DDF has an obligation
to accept Vatican Council II, which can morally only be interpreted rationally.
They are not doing this even though they have been informed and there are numerous
reports on this issue on the Internet.
_______________________
Following this summons, Viganò published a communiqué, available online, to
respond to these accusations. He defends himself in various ways, invoking the
doctrinal wanderings of the current pontificate; rejecting neo-modernist
errors; and asserting his case compares to that of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre,
also summoned in his time to the Palace of the former Holy Office .
Lionel: With Magisterial Documents interpreted
irrationally there has to be ‘doctrinal wanderings’. I agree with him. The
result has to be ‘neo-modernist errors’. I agree with him. This is something
obvious. When the DDF uses a fake premise to interpret Vatican Council II and
approves the objective error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office, errors must
follow.
Archbishop Lefebvre was correct when he rejected
Vatican Council II (irrational). Even I reject Vatican Council II (irrational). The onus lay
with Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, to inform Lefebvre. He had a rational option. He could interpret the Council rationally and there would be harmony
with Tradition. There would be the absence of liberalism.They did not inform him. Instead they excommunicated him.
Similarly the popes from Pius XII to Paul VI could have announced that there are no visible cases of the baptism of desire. They did not do this. Instead they excommunicated Fr. Leonard Feeney.
The responsibility today lies with the
DDF. They must interpret Vatican Council II rationally only. The Council will then
be in harmony with Tradition. This will be acceptable for Archbishop Vigano.
Pope Francis would emerge as a traditionalist in line with the ecclesiology of
Pope Pius X and other popes. He would no more be in schism and heresy.
___________________
There is, however, one point which significantly differentiates him from
the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X: Archbishop Viganò makes a clear
declaration of sedevacantism in his text. In other words, according to him,
Pope Francis is not pope.
Lionel: His sedevacantism, if it is that, is
based upon the DDF and the popes', rejection of Vatican Council II, rational. If the Council is
interpreted rationally, the Church returns to Tradition and there is no need
for sedevacantism.
___________________________
How does he explain this? Because of a “defect of consent” from Cardinal
Jorge Bergoglio when accepting the papacy. That is, according to Viganò,
Cardinal Bergoglio considered the papacy as something other than what it really
is. He accepted the pontifical office without fully consenting, and this error
resulted in the nullity of his acceptance. His pontificate would therefore be
that of a place-holder.
Lionel: Every pope must interpret Vatican
Council II rationally and so be a traditionalist. It is the same for every
cardinal and bishop. This has to be clear.
____________________________
Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society he founded have not ventured down that
perilous road.
Lionel: The SSPX bishops do not accept
homosexual unions, the Novus Ordo Mass, the Eucharist being given
to the re-married and other other innovations in faith and morals in the name of Vatican Council II ( irrational). They reject the innovative Vatican
Council II ( irrational ) and are schismatic for the DDF. They too are on the list for a trial. - Lionel Andrades
(Sources : Exsurge Domine/Saint-Siège –
FSSPX.Actualités)
https://fsspx.news/en/news/vatican-activates-extrajudicial-proceedings-against-archbishop-vigano-45902
JUNE 26, 2024
Gerard O’Connell writing in the Jesuit magazine America, has not clarified that Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano has to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally, otherwise he will face charges of schism or be excommunicated.
Gerard O’Connell writing in the Jesuit magazine America, has not clarified that Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano has to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally, otherwise he will face charges of schism or be excommunicated.
Neither has this been denied by Msgr. John Kennedy, secretary of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, which is officially interpreting the Council with a fake premise to produce a rupture with Catholic Tradition. 1
How can Msgr. Kennedy and Cardinal Fernandez be in communion with the Church when they interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise and inference and do not deny it.2
According to Canon Law Cardinal Fernandez would be in schism when he interprets Vatican Council II ( LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS etc) as physically visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church and so practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Council of Florence 1442).3
Fernandez also accepts the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (LOHO). It confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So the interpretation of the Nicene, Apostles and Athanasius Creed has been changed.This is first class heresy according to Ad Tuendem Fidem of Pope John Paul II. So my interpretation of Vatican Council II with the rational premise has a different conclusion. My interpretation of the Creeds with the rational premise also has a traditional conclusion.Msgr. Kennedy cannot say the same.- Lionel Andrades
1
The decree is dated June 11 and is signed by Msgr. John Kennedy, secretary of the doctrinal office's disciplinary section, requesting that Viganò present himself on June 20 at 15:30 to formally receive the accusation and evidence against him.
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2024/06/24/vigano-schism-response-trial-248207
2
On June 20, the archbishop posted on his own website a two-page decree from the Vatican's Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith ordering him to appear for a trial regarding "public statements that show a denial of points necessary for the preservation of communion with the Catholic Church."
3.
According to the church's Code of Canon Law, the charge of schism is punishable by excommunication.
APRIL 15, 2021
Pope Francis and Pope Benedict's interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( CCC 846, 1257) are non magisterial since they use a false premise to interpret CCC 846 (Outside the Church No Salvation) and CCC 1257 ( The Necessity of Baptism ).They have a rational and traditional choice which they avoid
______________________________________
Posts
NO COMMENTS:
Post a Comment