When presenting
their defense at future schism-trials, it should be pointed out by the
defendants that 1. Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez interpret Vatican
Council II irrationally. This can be confirmed in public.
2. So they are
in schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries. Again this can be
verified in public.
3.The pope must
interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so be in communion with the popes
of the past, example, Pope Pius X. Now it is common knowledge that he does not
interpret Vatican Council II rationally and is not in communion with Pope Pius
X.
POPE FRANCIS MUST ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL
1. Pope
Francis can be accepted as the pope. It is easy to be in communion
with him when he is in communion with the past popes on the Syllabus of Errors,
the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Church Councils.
He must affirm the Catholic Faith in public on this issue.
THE DDF MUST AFFIRM VATICAN
COUNCIL II BUT ONLY RATIONAL
2. Vatican Council II (rational) has the hermeneutic of
continuity with the past ecclesiocentrism and the rest of Tradition. So it can
be accepted. Morally, the Council can only be interpreted rationally. Pope
Francis must endorse this interpretation of Vatican Council II in public. Then
it will be easy to accept him as a pope who affirms a traditional Vatican
Council II.
DDF MUST AFFIRM AND CLARIFY
THE FAITH
3. So when the Dicastery
for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican can accept these conditions i.e not
being in heresy and schism because of the irrational interpretation of Vatican
Council II, then the pope and Vatican Council II ( rational) can easily be
accepted by all.
But first Pope Francis and the DDF must set an
example and affirm the Catholic Faith and accept all Church Documents, interpreted
only rationally.- Lionel Andrades
JULY 6, 2024
The DDF must also deny
Archbishop Vigano’s charge of heresy and schism against the DDF. They must
admit that they interpret Vatican Council II only rationally and are honest in
the interpretation of the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms.In this way they reject
the evidence against them on social media and in the charges of the defendant
JULY 6, 2024
Archbishop Vigano has a right,
canonically, to reject these public errors. He had a moral duty to reject
Vatican Council II ( irrational) as held by the Vatican.
Translation from the Italian
text by Mike Lewis at the blog Where Peter Is
DICASTERIUM PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI
Prot. No. 194/2024
H.E. Archbishop Carlo Maria VIGANO titular archbishop
of Ulpiana
Extrajudicial criminal process ex can. 1720 CIC coram
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith
Can. 1364 CIC, art. 2 SST
CRIMINAL DECREE
PREMISE
1. H.E. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò was born in Varese on January 16, 1941,
was ordained priest on March 24, 1968 for the Diocese of Pavia and consecrated
bishop by Pope St. John Paul II on April 26, 1992. He has held the following
positions: Apostolic Nuncio to Nigeria, Delegate for Papal Representations,
Secretary General of the Governorate of Vatican City State, Apostolic Nuncio to
the United States of America.
2. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, taking into account the public
statements of H.E. Archbishop Viganò, traceable on the web (statements
published in writing and video recordings), from which it appears that he
rejects submission to the Supreme Pontiff, communion with the members of the
Church subject to him, and the legitimacy and magisterial authority of the
Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in a letter dated March 25, 2024, sent to
the prelate via e-mail ([the mailing address of] Archbishop Viganò is unknown),
invited him to the headquarters of the Dicastery “to deepen his positions.” (Lionel: There are numerous reports on the Internet which state
that there is a rational and irrational interpretation of
Vatican Council II.The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF),
Vatican, has chosen the irrational version whose conclusion is heretical and schismatic. There has been no comment or
denial from the DDF. Also the Vatican Press Office and Department of
Communication has not respond or denied the allegation.
Pope Francis and
Cardinal Fernadez interpret the Council irrationally creating a schism with the Magisterium
over the centuries on doctrine, faith, morals and mission, for example. So
Archbishop Vigano has a right, canonically, to reject these public errors. He
had a moral duty to reject Vatican Council II ( irrational) as held by the
Vatican. Pope Francis has broken communion with the Apostles, the Church
Fathers, the popes of the Middle Ages, the doctors and saints of the Catholic
Church with his irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Creeds,
Catechisms and Church Councils. This has been mentioned often on soical media
but has been ignored by the DDF.
CONCLUSION
1. Archbishop Vigano
rejects the irrational interpretation of
Vatican Council II. This is expected of all cardinals, bishops, priests,
religious sisters and juridical persons in the Catholic Church.
2.Pope Franics accepts the irrational interpretation
of Vatican Council II and rejects the
rational option.
3. Pope Francis is not in
communion with the Magisterium over the centuries. They interpreted Magisterium
Documents ( Creeds, Councils etc) with a
rational premise.Pope Francis chooses an irrational premise to
produce an artificial rupture with
Tradition which Archbishop Vigano rightly rejects.
Archbishop Vigano is in
harmony with the popes over the centuries who are not contradicted by Vatican
Council II, rational.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/07/translation-by-mike-lewis-from-blog.html
Continued
IN LAW
10. Code of Canon Law:
a. can. 209 § 1: “The faithful are bound by the obligation always to preserve,
even in their manner of acting, communion with the Church.”
Lionel.
Catholics are not in communion with the pope and the DDF when they interpret
Magisterial Documents irrationally and not rationally and do not deny it and
then force Catholics to do same with threats of excommunication.The DDF must
interpret Magisterial Documents rationally only.
_______________________
When presenting their defense at future schism-trials, it should be pointed out by the defendants that 1. Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. This can be confirmed in public.
2. So they are in schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries. Again this can be verified in public.
3.The pope must interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so be in communion with the popes of the past, example, Pope Pius X. Now it is common knowledge that he does not interpret Vatican Council II rationally and is not in communion with Pope Pius X.
POPE FRANCIS MUST ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL
1. Pope Francis can be accepted as the pope. It is easy to be in communion with him when he is in communion with the past popes on the Syllabus of Errors, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Church Councils. He must affirm the Catholic Faith in public on this issue.
THE DDF MUST AFFIRM VATICAN COUNCIL II BUT ONLY RATIONAL
2. Vatican Council II (rational) has the hermeneutic of continuity with the past ecclesiocentrism and the rest of Tradition. So it can be accepted. Morally, the Council can only be interpreted rationally. Pope Francis must endorse this interpretation of Vatican Council II in public. Then it will be easy to accept him as a pope who affirms a traditional Vatican Council II.
DDF MUST AFFIRM AND CLARIFY THE FAITH
3. So when the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican can accept these conditions i.e not being in heresy and schism because of the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, then the pope and Vatican Council II ( rational) can easily be accepted by all.
But first Pope Francis and the DDF must set an example and affirm the Catholic Faith and accept all Church Documents, interpreted only rationally.- Lionel Andrades
_____________________
b. can. 750 § 2: “One must also firmly accept and hold firmly
also all and every one of those things which are proposed definitively by the
Magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is,
those things which are required in order to keep holy and faithfully expound
the same deposit of faith; one is therefore opposed to the doctrine of the
Catholic Church who rejects the same propositions to be held definitively.” (Lionel. Yes. Vatican
Council II the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms have to be interpreted only
rationally. The Vatican offices are not doing this.
_________________________
2. So they are in schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries. Again this can be verified in public.
3.The pope must interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so be in communion with the popes of the past, example, Pope Pius X. Now it is common knowledge that he does not interpret Vatican Council II rationally and is not in communion with Pope Pius X.
POPE FRANCIS MUST ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL
1. Pope Francis can be accepted as the pope. It is easy to be in communion with him when he is in communion with the past popes on the Syllabus of Errors, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Church Councils. He must affirm the Catholic Faith in public on this issue.
THE DDF MUST AFFIRM VATICAN COUNCIL II BUT ONLY RATIONAL
2. Vatican Council II (rational) has the hermeneutic of continuity with the past ecclesiocentrism and the rest of Tradition. So it can be accepted. Morally, the Council can only be interpreted rationally. Pope Francis must endorse this interpretation of Vatican Council II in public. Then it will be easy to accept him as a pope who affirms a traditional Vatican Council II.
DDF MUST AFFIRM AND CLARIFY THE FAITH
3. So when the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican can accept these conditions i.e not being in heresy and schism because of the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, then the pope and Vatican Council II ( rational) can easily be accepted by all.
But first Pope Francis and the DDF must set an example and affirm the Catholic Faith and accept all Church Documents, interpreted only rationally.- Lionel Andrades
__________________
c. can. 751: “There is called heresy, the obstinate
denial, after having received baptism, of some truth which is to be believed by
divine and catholic faith, or obstinate doubt about it; apostasy, the total
repudiation of the Christian faith; schism, the refusal of submission to the
Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to
him.” ( Lionel: The
pope and the DDF have to accept the Athanasius Creed intact. For some reason
they are not doing this. There is no denial on social media. They admit that
they reject this Creed. They are also changing the interpretation of the Nicene
and Apostles Creed. This is first class heresy according to the hierarchy of
truths of Pope John Paul II .
d. can. 1321 § 4: “Post external violation,
imputability is presumed unless it appears otherwise.”;( (Lionel: Agreed . The onus
lies with the DDF to prove it is not heretical and schismatic in the face of so
many reports on social media which they ignore )
e. can. 1322: “Those who do not habitually have the
use of reason, even if they have violated the law or precept while appearing
sane, are presumed incapable of crime.”
f. can. 1323: “He is not liable to any punishment who,
when he violated the law or precept: 1º was not yet 16 years of age; 2º through
no fault of his own was unaware that he was violating a law or precept;
ignorance is equated with inadvertence and error; 3º acted by physical violence
[PAGE 3]:
or by an unfortunate event which he could not foresee
or foresee it could not remedy; 4º he acted out of grave fear, even if only
relatively so, or out of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the
act was intrinsically evil or tome to the harm of souls; 5º he acted out of
legitimate defense against an unjust aggressor of his own or of a third party,
with due restraint; 6º he was deprived of the use of reason, subject to the
provisions of cann. 1324, § 1, n. 2 and 1326, § 1, n. 4; 7th without his fault
believed there to be any of the circumstances of referred to in nos. 4 0
5″;
g. can. 1324: Ҥ 1. The offender is not exempt from
the punishment established by law or by. g precept, but the punishment must be
mitigated or replaced by a penance, if the crime was committed: 1st by a person
who had the use of reason only imperfectly; 2nd by a person who lacked the
use of reason because of drunkenness or other similar perturbation of the mind,
of which he was guilty, subject to the provisions of can. 1326, § 1, no. 4; 3rd
by grave impetus of passion, which, however, did not precede and prevent all
deliberation of the mind and consent of the will and provided that the passion
itself was not voluntarily aroused or fostered; 4th by a minor who had attained
the age of 16 years 5º by a person compelled by grave fear, even if only
comparatively so, or who acts out of necessity or grave inconvenience, if the
crime committed is intrinsically evil or tomes to the harm of souls; 6º by one
who acts in self-defense against an unjust aggressor of his own or of a third
party, but without due restraint; 7″ against someone who has gravely and
unjustly provoked him; 8º by one who by an error, of which he is guilty,
believed there to be any of the circumstances mentioned in can. 1323, nos. 4 or
5; 9º by one who without fault was unaware that a penalty was attached to the
law or precept; 10º by one who acts without full imputability, provided that
this still remains serious, § 2. The court may act in the same manner when
there is some other circumstance mitigating the seriousness of the crime. § 3.
In the circumstances referred to in § 1, the offender does not incur the
punishment latae sententiae, however, milder punishments may be imposed on him
or penances may be applied to him for the purpose of repentance or reparation of
the scandal”;
h. can. 1331: Ҥ 1. The excommunicated person is
forbidden: 1º to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and the other
sacraments; 2º to receive the sacraments; 3º to administer the sacramentals and
to celebrate the other ceremonies of liturgical worship; 4º to have any active
part in the celebrations enumerated above; 5º to exercise ecclesiastical
offices or offices or ministries or functions; 6º to place acts of governance.
§ 2. If excommunication ferendae sententiae was inflicted or excommunication
latae sententiac was declared, the offender: 1º if he wishes to act against the
provisions of § 1, nn. 1-4, must be removed or liturgical action must be
discontinued, unless a grave cause is opposed; 2º invalidly poses acts of
government, which according to § 1, no. 6, are illicit; 3º incurs the
prohibition of making use of privileges previously granted to him; 4º does not
acquire salaries held in a purely ecclesiastical capacity; 5º is incapable of
attaining offices, positions, ministries, functions, rights, privileges and
honorific titles.” (Lionel: This would apply to Pope Francis, Cardinal
Fernandez and Msgr. Kennedy. The must affirm Magisterial Documents interpreted
rationally only. This includes Vatican Council II)
i. can. 1336: Ҥ 1. The expiatory punishments, which
may be applied to a delinquent in perpetuity or for a predetermined or
indefinite time, in addition to others which the law may possibly have
established, are those listed in §§ 2-5. § 2: Injunction: 1º to dwell in a
certain place or territory; 2º to pay a fine or sum of money for the purposes
of the Church, according to the regulations defined by the Bishops’ Conference.
§ 3: Prohibition: 1º to dwell in a certain place or territory; 2° to exercise,
either everywhere or in a certain place or territory or outside of them, all or
some offices, positions, ministries or functions or only some tasks inherent in
the offices or positions; 3º to place all or some acts of power of order; 4º to
place all or some acts of power of government; 5º to exercise some right or
privilege or to use insignia or titles; 6º to enjoy active or passive voice in
canonical elections and to participate with the right to vote in ecclesiastical
councils and colleges; 7º to wear the ecclesiastical or religious habit. § 4
Deprivation: 1º of all or some of the offices, positions, ministries or
functions or only of some duties inherent in the offices or positions; 2º of
the faculty of receiving confessions or the faculty of preaching; 3º of the
delegated power of government; 4º of some rights or privileges or insignia or
titles; 5º of all the
[PAGE 4]:
ecclesiastical remuneration or part thereof, according
to the regulations established by the Episcopal Conference, except as provided
in can. 1350, § 1. § 5. The dismissal from the clerical state.”
j. can. 1345: “Whenever the delinquent either had the
use of reason only imperfectly or committed the crime out of necessity or grave
fear or impetus of passion or, subject to the provision of can. 1326, § 1, no.
4, in a state of drunkenness or other similar perturbation of the mind, the
judge may also refrain from inflicting any punishment, if he thinks it can be
better provided for in some other way; however, the offender must be punished
if justice cannot otherwise be restored and the scandal possibly procured
repaired.”
k. can. 1364: “§ 1. The apostate, heretic, and schismatic incurs excommunication latae sententiae, without prejudice to the provisions of can. 194, § 1, no. 2; he may also be punished with the penalties set forth in can. 1336, § 2-4. § 2. If prolonged contumacy or the gravity of the scandal, other punishments may be added, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.”; (Lionel: This must apply to the clerics of the DDF. They do not interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so honestly. When they are rational they are Magisterial. There would be the hermeneutic of continuity with the Magisterium over the centuries.
_____
When presenting their defense at future schism-trials, it should be pointed out by the defendants that 1. Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. This can be confirmed in public.
2. So they are in schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries. Again this can be verified in public.
3.The pope must interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so be in communion with the popes of the past, example, Pope Pius X. Now it is common knowledge that he does not interpret Vatican Council II rationally and is not in communion with Pope Pius X.
POPE FRANCIS MUST ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL
1. Pope Francis can be accepted as the pope. It is easy to be in communion with him when he is in communion with the past popes on the Syllabus of Errors, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Church Councils. He must affirm the Catholic Faith in public on this issue.
THE DDF MUST AFFIRM VATICAN COUNCIL II BUT ONLY RATIONAL
2. Vatican Council II (rational) has the hermeneutic of continuity with the past ecclesiocentrism and the rest of Tradition. So it can be accepted. Morally, the Council can only be interpreted rationally. Pope Francis must endorse this interpretation of Vatican Council II in public. Then it will be easy to accept him as a pope who affirms a traditional Vatican Council II.
DDF MUST AFFIRM AND CLARIFY THE FAITH
3. So when the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican can accept these conditions i.e not being in heresy and schism because of the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, then the pope and Vatican Council II ( rational) can easily be accepted by all.
But first Pope Francis and the DDF must set an example and affirm the Catholic Faith and accept all Church Documents, interpreted only rationally.- Lionel Andrades
_______________________
l. can. 1608: Ҥ 1. In order to pronounce any
sentence, moral certainty is required in the mind of the judge as to what he
must decide by it. § 2. The judge must draw this certainty 1. From the
acts and from what has been proved. § 3. The judge must then evaluate the
evidence according to his conscience, subject to the provisions of the law on
the efficacy of certain evidence. § 4. The judge who has not been able to
obtain that certainty, shall rule that he does not know of the plaintiff’s
right and acquit the defendant, unless the case is one that enjoys the favor of
law, in which case he must rule in favor of the same.” (Lionel: The evidence against
the DDF is still there on social media.They have a moral duty, for example, to
interpret at least Vatican Council II rationally, since this is their error
which has been well documented )
m. can. 1717 § 1: “Whenever the Ordinary has news, at
least probable, of a crime, he is to investigate with prudence, personally or
through a suitable person, the facts, circumstances and imputability, unless
this investigation seems absolutely superfluous.”
n. can. 1720: “If the Ordinary has deemed it necessary
to proceed by decree extrajudicially: 1º make known to the accused the
accusation and the evidence, giving him an opportunity to defend himself,
unless the accused duly summoned has neglected to appear; 2º carefully evaluate
with two assessors all the evidence and arguments; 3º if he ascertains with
certainty the crime and the criminal action is not extinguished, issue the
decree in accordance with cann. 1342-1350, setting forth at least briefly the
reasons in law and fact.”
_____________________________________________________
When presenting their defense at future schism-trials, it should be pointed out by the defendants that 1. Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. This can be confirmed in public.
2. So they are in schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries. Again this can be verified in public.
3.The pope must interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so be in communion with the popes of the past, example, Pope Pius X. Now it is common knowledge that he does not interpret Vatican Council II rationally and is not in communion with Pope Pius X.
POPE FRANCIS MUST ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL
1. Pope Francis can be accepted as the pope. It is easy to be in communion with him when he is in communion with the past popes on the Syllabus of Errors, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Church Councils. He must affirm the Catholic Faith in public on this issue.
THE DDF MUST AFFIRM VATICAN COUNCIL II BUT ONLY RATIONAL
2. Vatican Council II (rational) has the hermeneutic of continuity with the past ecclesiocentrism and the rest of Tradition. So it can be accepted. Morally, the Council can only be interpreted rationally. Pope Francis must endorse this interpretation of Vatican Council II in public. Then it will be easy to accept him as a pope who affirms a traditional Vatican Council II.
DDF MUST AFFIRM AND CLARIFY THE FAITH
3. So when the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican can accept these conditions i.e not being in heresy and schism because of the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, then the pope and Vatican Council II ( rational) can easily be accepted by all.
But first Pope Francis and the DDF must set an example and affirm the Catholic Faith and accept all Church Documents, interpreted only rationally.- Lionel Andrades
______________________
11. Norms on crimes reserved to the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith:
a. art. 1: Ҥ 1 The Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith, in accordance with art. 52 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor
Bonus, judges, pursuant to art. 2 § 2, crimes against the faith, as well as
more serious crimes committed against morals or in the celebration of the
sacraments and, if necessary, proceeds to declare or impose canonical sanctions
in accordance with the law, whether common or proper, without prejudice to the
competence of the Apostolic Penitentiary and without prejudice to the Agendi
ratio in doctrinarum examine. § 2. In the crimes referred to in § 1, subject to
the mandate of the Roman Pontiff, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith has the right to judge the Cardinal Fathers, Patriarchs, Legates of the
Apostolic See, Bishops, as well as other individuals referred to in can. 1405 §
3 of the Code of Canon Law (CIC) and can. 1061 of the Code of Canons of the
Eastern Churches (CCEO).”
_____________________________________________
POPE FRANCIS AND CARDINAL FERNANDEZ'S 'CRIMES' AGAINST THE FAITH.
When presenting their defense at future schism-trials, it should be pointed out by the defendants that 1. Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. This can be confirmed in public.
2. So they are in schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries. Again this can be verified in public.
3.The pope must interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so be in communion with the popes of the past, example, Pope Pius X. Now it is common knowledge that he does not interpret Vatican Council II rationally and is not in communion with Pope Pius X.
POPE FRANCIS MUST ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL
1. Pope Francis can be accepted as the pope. It is easy to be in communion with him when he is in communion with the past popes on the Syllabus of Errors, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Church Councils. He must affirm the Catholic Faith in public on this issue.
THE DDF MUST AFFIRM VATICAN COUNCIL II BUT ONLY RATIONAL
2. Vatican Council II (rational) has the hermeneutic of continuity with the past ecclesiocentrism and the rest of Tradition. So it can be accepted. Morally, the Council can only be interpreted rationally. Pope Francis must endorse this interpretation of Vatican Council II in public. Then it will be easy to accept him as a pope who affirms a traditional Vatican Council II.
DDF MUST AFFIRM AND CLARIFY THE FAITH
3. So when the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican can accept these conditions i.e not being in heresy and schism because of the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, then the pope and Vatican Council II ( rational) can easily be accepted by all.
But first Pope Francis and the DDF must set an example and affirm the Catholic Faith and accept all Church Documents, interpreted only rationally.- Lionel Andrades
_____________________
b. art. 2: Ҥ 1. The crimes against the faith,
referred to in art. 1, are heresy, apostasy and schism, in accordance with
canons 751 and 1364 CIC and canons 1436 and 1437 CCEO. § 2. In the cases
mentioned in § 1 it is the duty of the Ordinary or Hierarch, according to law,
to conduct the judicial process in the first instance or extrajudicial by
decree, without prejudice to the right of appeal or recourse to the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. § 3. In the cases referred to in §
1 it is the responsibility of the Ordinary or the Hierarch, in accordance with
the law, to remit to the external forum, respectively, the excommunication
latae sententiae or the major excommunication;
c. art. 7: “He who commits the crimes referred to in
articles 2-6, let him be punished, if appropriate, in addition to what is
provided for individual crimes in the C/C and CCEO, as well as in the present
Norms, with a just punishment according to the gravity of the crime; if a
cleric he may also be punished by resignation or deposition from the clerical
state.”
[PAGE 5]:
d. art. 9: Ҥ 3. Crimes reserved to this Supreme
Tribunal are to be prosecuted in judicial trial or by extrajudicial decree. §
4. 1 pronouncements of this Supreme Tribunal, issued within the limits of its
competence, are not subject to the approval of the Supreme Pontiff.”(Lionel. All the judges of
the Supreme Tribunal would agree that LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in
Vatican Council II refer to hypothetical cases only and so are not practical
objective examples of salvation outside the Church and so do not contradict the
Athanasius Creed which is still valid today.)
e. art. 19: Ҥ 1. When the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith has decided that an extrajudicial process should be
initiated, cann. 1720 CIC 0 1486 CCEO must be applied. § 2. Subject to the
mandate of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, perpetual expiatory
penalties may be imposed.”
f. art. 20 § 1. “The extrajudicial process may be
carried out by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or by the
Ordinary or the Hierarch or their Delegate. (…) § 7. The offender must always
avail himself of an Advocate or Procurator who must be a member of the faithful
who has a doctorate or at least a license in canon law, admitted by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or by the Ordinary or the Hierarch
or their Delegate. If the offender fails to do so, the competent Authority
shall appoint one, who shall remain in the office until the offender has
constituted one of his own.”
g. art. 24: Ҥ 1. Against the singular administrative
acts of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the cases of
reserved crimes, the Promoter of Justice of the Dicastery and the accused have
the right to appeal within the peremptory term of sixty useful days, to the
same Congregation, which shall judge the merits and legitimacy, eliminating any
further recourse referred to in Article 123 of the Apostolic Constitution
Pastor Bonus. § 2. The accused, in order to present the appeal referred to in §
1 must, under penalty of inadmissibility of the appeal, always avail himself of
a Lawyer who is a faithful person, equipped with the appropriate mandate and
possessing a doctorate or at least a license in canon law. § 3. The appeal
referred to in § 1, for the purpose of its admissibility, must clearly state
the petitum and contain the reasons in iure and in facto on which it is based.”
h. art. 25: “The extrajudicial penal decree becomes
final: 1st if the time limit provided for in can. 1734 § 2 CIC or that provided
for in can. 1737 § 2 CIC has elapsed unnecessarily; 2nd if the time limit
provided for in can. 1487 § 1 CCEO has elapsed unnecessarily; 3rd if the time
limit provided for in art. 24 § 1 of the present Norms has elapsed
unnecessarily; 4th if it has been issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith ex art. 24 § 1 of the present Norms.”
IN FACT
Allegations
12. The charges brought against H.E. Archbishop Viganò
concern the crime of schism: these are the prelate’s public statements from
which it appears that he refuses submission to the Supreme Pontiff or communion
with members of the Church subject to him.
Evidence
13. Some statements of the accused confirm his refusal of
submission to the Supreme Pontiff and refusal of communion with the members of
the Church subject to him:
a. “We must confront a painful and terrible reality:
Bergoglio poses himself as hostile to Catholics faithful to the Magisterium
that he mocks, condemns and marginalizes and complicit with chỉ openly
contradicts what the Church has been teaching immutably for two thousand years.
Not only: he wants to lead good Catholics, and with them the few bishops
and priests who still profess the Faith in its integrity, to separate
themselves from the sect that has infiltrated and invaded the Church, provoking
them with shameless arrogance so that they feel scandalized and offended. The
inclusiveness that Bergoglio is inspired by in his demolition work is the exact
opposite of what Our Lord taught us” (Nov. 9, 2023,
https://exsurgedomine.it/231109- statement/);
__________________________
When presenting their defense at future schism-trials, it should be pointed out by the defendants that 1. Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. This can be confirmed in public.
2. So they are in schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries. Again this can be verified in public.
3.The pope must interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so be in communion with the popes of the past, example, Pope Pius X. Now it is common knowledge that he does not interpret Vatican Council II rationally and is not in communion with Pope Pius X.
POPE FRANCIS MUST ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL
1. Pope Francis can be accepted as the pope. It is easy to be in communion with him when he is in communion with the past popes on the Syllabus of Errors, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Church Councils. He must affirm the Catholic Faith in public on this issue.
THE DDF MUST AFFIRM VATICAN COUNCIL II BUT ONLY RATIONAL
2. Vatican Council II (rational) has the hermeneutic of continuity with the past ecclesiocentrism and the rest of Tradition. So it can be accepted. Morally, the Council can only be interpreted rationally. Pope Francis must endorse this interpretation of Vatican Council II in public. Then it will be easy to accept him as a pope who affirms a traditional Vatican Council II.
DDF MUST AFFIRM AND CLARIFY THE FAITH
3. So when the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican can accept these conditions i.e not being in heresy and schism because of the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, then the pope and Vatican Council II ( rational) can easily be accepted by all.
But first Pope Francis and the DDF must set an example and affirm the Catholic Faith and accept all Church Documents, interpreted only rationally.- Lionel Andrades
____________________________
[PAGE 6]:
b. “In these ten years of “pontificate” we have seen
Bergoglio do everything that one would never expect from a Pope, and vice versa
everything that a heresiarch or an apostate would do. (…) The silence of the
Episcopate in the face of Bergoglian enormities confirms that the
self-referential authoritarianism of the Jesuit Bergoglio has found servile
obedience in almost all of the bishops, terrified by the idea of being made the
object of retaliation by the vindictive and despotic satrap of Santa Marta. (…)
Bergoglio is heretical and blatantly hostile to the Church of Christ. (…)
Having therefore taken note that Bergoglio is heretical (…) we must ask
ourselves whether the 2013 election was in any way tainted by a flaw of
consensus. (…) I believe instead that the acceptance of the Papacy is vitiated
because he considers the Papacy to be something other than what it is, like the
spouse who marries in the church excluding the specific purposes of Marriage
and thus making the nuptials null and void due to a vice of consent, precisely”
(Oct. 1, 2023, https://exsurgedomine.it/230930-CIC-ita/, the video was published
under the title “Resist The Bergoglian Fury” with the date of Nov. 17, 2023);
c. “Hearing Jorge Mario Bergoglio speak today and
comparing his words with those of Pastor angelicus makes us understand the
abyss that separates a Pope from his grotesque parody, the chasm that divides
the Vicar of Christ from the simia Pontificis. (…) His heterogeneity to the
Papacy is now obvious. (…) The intention to harm the Church by acting on behalf
of an enemy power is not compatible with the ACCEPTATION assumption of the
Papacy, and there is therefore a flaw of consent given by the will confirmed by
the words and deeds of these last ten years of wanting to act in fraudem legis,
circumventing canon law and dissimulating one’s intentions. (…) The Lord is
outraged, the Church is humiliated and souls are lost because of the stay on
the Throne of a usurper, whose actions of government and magisterium can be
judged in the light of the words of Our Lord: Beware of false prophets who come
to you in sheep’s clothing, but inside are ravening wolves. By their fruits you
will know them. Does one gather grapes from thorns, u figs from brambles? So
every good tree produces good fruit and every bad tree produces bad fruit; a
good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor a bad tree produce good fruit. Every
tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire, By
their fruit therefore you will be able to recognize them (Mt 7:15-20). You
heard correctly. a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree
produce good fruit, which means that Bergoglio’s uninterrupted behavior before,
during and after his election stands alone as evidence of his inherent
iniquity. Can we therefore be morally certain that the tenant of Santa Marta is
a false prophet? My answer is: Yes. Are we therefore authorized in conscience
to revoke our obedience to one who, presenting himself as Pope, actually acts
like the biblical boar in the Lord’s Vineyard, or like the hireling, qui non
est pastor, cujus non sunt oves propriæ (Jn. 10:12), et non pertinet ad eum de
ovibus (ibid., 13)? Si.” (Dec. 9, 2023,
https://exsurgedomine.it/231209-aspicite- ita/): d.
d. “The delirious Declaration Fiducia supplicans,
recently published by the parody of the former Holy Office renamed Dicaster
opposed to the Petrine Mandate or, definitively rips open the blanket of
hypocrisy and deception of the Bergoglian Hierarchy, showing these false
pastors for what they are: servants of Satan and his zealous allies, beginning
with the usurper who sits abomination of desolation on the Throne of Peter (…).
What does Bergoglio want to achieve? Nothing good, nothing true, nothing holy. He
does not want souls to be saved; he does not proclaim the opportune,
importunate Gospel to call souls back to Christ; he does not show them the
scourged and bloodied Savior to spur them to change their lives. No. Bergoglio
wants their damnation, as an infernal tribute to Satan and shameless defiance
to God. (…) The mark of the conciliar and synodal church, of this sect of
rebels and perverts, is falsehood and hypocrisy. (…) Those in the Bergoglian
church who continue to follow the doctrine and precepts of the Catholic Church
are out of place and sooner or later will end up separating from it or giving
in (Dec. 20, 2023, https://exsurgedomine.it/231220-fiducia-supplicans/);
e. “Jorge Mario Bergoglio was put on the Throne to
demolish the Church of Christ. (…) While waiting for this unworthy parody of
the Catholic Hierarchy to be replaced by holy bishops and holy priests” (Dec.
30, 2023, https://exsurgedomine.it/231230-caldart-ita/);
[PAGE 7]:
f. [The thesis] “formulated by me on the vice of
consent that would render null and void Bergoglio’s assumption of the Papacy
because of a deliberate willful desire to appropriate it in order to use it in
a manner opposed to the ends given it by the divine Founder of the Church. (…)
The paradox-c the Luciferian cunning-of this ecclesial coup has consisted in
maintaining the appearances of the Papacy for the sole purpose of being able to
demand obedience from those who still believe that he who sits on the Throne of
Peter is the Vicar of Christ chosen by the Holy Spirit, while in reality he is
a mercenary who abuses the trust and respect of the faithful in order to
disperse them. (… ) We are not in a Church whose Hierarchy is Catholic and you
find a Pope who professes heresy but at the same time is sincerely intent on
shepherding the Lord’s flock, but rather before a Church eclipsed by a coup
d’état, in which every Dicastery, every Athenaeum, every seminary, every
diocese, every parish, every convent are directed and managed by the deep
church, in ostracism and open persecution of anyone who dissents even limiting
themselves to the recent Magisterium without questioning the Council” (Feb. 5,
2024, https: //exsurgedomine. it/240205-habemus-papam/).
_____________________________________________________
When presenting their defense at future schism-trials, it should be pointed out by the defendants that 1. Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. This can be confirmed in public.
2. So they are in schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries. Again this can be verified in public.
3.The pope must interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so be in communion with the popes of the past, example, Pope Pius X. Now it is common knowledge that he does not interpret Vatican Council II rationally and is not in communion with Pope Pius X.
POPE FRANCIS MUST ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL
1. Pope Francis can be accepted as the pope. It is easy to be in communion with him when he is in communion with the past popes on the Syllabus of Errors, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Church Councils. He must affirm the Catholic Faith in public on this issue.
THE DDF MUST AFFIRM VATICAN COUNCIL II BUT ONLY RATIONAL
2. Vatican Council II (rational) has the hermeneutic of continuity with the past ecclesiocentrism and the rest of Tradition. So it can be accepted. Morally, the Council can only be interpreted rationally. Pope Francis must endorse this interpretation of Vatican Council II in public. Then it will be easy to accept him as a pope who affirms a traditional Vatican Council II.
DDF MUST AFFIRM AND CLARIFY THE FAITH
3. So when the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican can accept these conditions i.e not being in heresy and schism because of the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, then the pope and Vatican Council II ( rational) can easily be accepted by all.
But first Pope Francis and the DDF must set an example and affirm the Catholic Faith and accept all Church Documents, interpreted only rationally.- Lionel Andrades
_____________________________________
g. “I repudiate, reject and condemn the scandals,
errors and heresies of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who manifests an absolutely
tyrannical management of power, exercised against the purpose that legitimizes
Authority in the Church: an authority that is vicarious to that of Christ, and
as such must obey Him alone. This separation of the Papacy from its
legitimizing principle which is Christ the Pontiff transforms the ministerium
into a self-referential tyranny. With this “Bergoglian church,” no Catholic
worthy of the name can be in communion, because it acts in blatant
discontinuity and rupture with all the Popes in history and with the Church of
Christ (June 20, 2024,
https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2024/06/20/monsignor-vigano-convocato- by
the-dicastery-for-the-doctrine-of-the-faith-to-respond-to-delict-of-schism-the-response-of-arcivescovo/);
h. “Bergoglio’s “church is not the Catholic Church,
but that “conciliar church born of the Second Vatican Council and recently
rebranded under the no less heretical name of ‘synodal church.’” If it is from
this ‘church’ that I am declared separated by schism, I make it my reason for
honor and boasting” (June 21, 2024,
https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2024/06/21/vigano-non-ho-alcuna-intenzione-di-recarmi-al-
sanctuary-and-submit-me-to-a-process-farce/);
i. “These words would be enough to make one understand
the gulf that separates the Catholic Church from the one that replaced it with
the Second Vatican Council, (Lionel: False. This is a reference to Vatican Council
II interpreted irrationally. The DDF has a moral duty to interpret the Council
rationally and then the conclusion would be traditional . With Vatican Council
II (traditional) and Pope Francis accepting it, Archbishop Vigano would no more
have reason to reject the Council and the pope. ) when the Protestant winds finally invaded the
Catholic body. (…) I wonder, then: what continuity can be given between two
realities that oppose and contradict each other? Between Bergoglio’s conciliar
and synodal church and the one blocked by Counter-Reformation fear” from which
he ostentatiously distances himself? And from which “church” would I be in a
state of schism, if the one that claims to be Catholic differs from the true
Church precisely in its preaching of what that one condemned and in its
condemnation of what it preached? (…) Two churches, certainly: each with its
doctrines and liturgies and saints; but for the Catholic the Church is One,
Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, for Bergoglio the church is conciliar,
ecumenical, synodal, inclusive, immigrant, eco-friendly, gay-friendly. (…) the
Conciliar Hierarchy, which proclaims itself Catholic but embraces a different
faith from that consistently taught for two thousand years by the Catholic
Church, belongs to another entity and therefore does not represent the true
Church of Christ. (…) From what do we understand that the Synod Church” and its
leader Bergoglio do not profess the Catholic Faith? By the total and
unconditional adherence of all its members to a multiplicity of errors and
heresies already condemned by the infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church
and by the ostentatious rejection of any doctrine, moral precept, act of
worship and religious practice that is not sanctioned by the “golden” council.
(…) The heterodox teachings conveyed by the so-called “conciliares church and
the “popes of the Council” since Paul VI constitute an anomaly that seriously
questions the legitimacy of their magisterial and governing authority. (…) I
believe that the errors and heresies to which Bergoglio adhered before, during
and after his election and the intention placed in the alleged acceptance of
the Papacy render his elevation to the Throne null and void. (…) On the day
when I should appear to defend myself before the
[PAGE 8]:
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, I have
decided to make public this statement of mine, to which I join a denunciation
of my accusers, their “council” and their “pope.” I pray to the Holy Apostles
Peter and Paul, who consecrated the land of the Alma Urbe with their own blood,
to intercede with the throne of the divine Majesty, so that they may obtain for
the Holy Church to be finally liberated from the siege that eclipses her and
from the usurpers who humiliate her, making the Domina gentium the handmaiden
of the anti-heretical plan of the New World Order. (…) In order to separate
myself from ecclesial communion with Jorge Mario Bergoglio, I would have to
have first been in communion with him, which is not possible since Bergoglio
himself cannot be considered a member of the Church, because of his multiple
heresies and his manifest alienation and incompatibility with the role that he
invalidly and illicitly holds. (…) Before my Confreres in the Episcopate and
the entire ecclesial body, I accuse Jorge Mario Bergoglio of herest and schism,
and as a heretic and schismatic I demand that he be judged and removed from the
Throne he has unworthily occupied for over eleven years. This in no way
contradicts the adage Prima Sedes a nemine judicatur, because it is clear that
a heretic, insofar as he is unable to assume the Papacy, is not above the
Prelates who judge him” (June 28, 2024,
https://exsurgedomine.it/240628-jaccuse-ita/).
14. Some statements by the accused confirm his rejection
of the Second Vatican Council and its magisterial authority ( Lionel: It needed to be
clarified that he is referring to Vatican Council II irrational only)
a. “The Council has been used to legitimize, in the
silence of Authority, the most aberrant doctrinal deviations, the most daring
liturgical innovations and the most unscrupulous abuses. This Council was so
exalted that it was referred to as the only legitimate reference for Catholics.
clerics and bishops, obscuring and connoting with a sense of contempt the
doctrine that the Church had always authoritatively taught, and forbidding the
perennial liturgy that for millennia had nourished the faith of an unbroken
generation of faithful, martyrs and saints. Incidentally, this Council has
proven to be the only one that poses so many interpretive problems and so many
contradictions to the previous Magisterium, while there is not one from the
Council of Jerusalem to Vatican I that does not harmonize perfectly with the
entire Magisterium or that needs any interpretation” (June 9, 2020,
http://www.unavox.it/ArtDiversi/DIV3627_Mons-Vigano_Siamo_al_redde_rationem.html);
b. “[T]he Innovators maliciously managed to put the
label “Sacrosanct Ecumenical Council on b their ideological manifesto, just as,
at a local level, the Jansenists who maneuvered the Synod of Pistoia had
managed to cloak with authority their heretical theses, which were later
condemned by Pius VI. (…) If the evidence shows that some propositions
contained in the Council documents (and similarly, in the acts of Bergoglio’s
magisterium) are heterodox, and if doctrine teaches us that the acts of the
Magisterium do not contain error, the conclusion is not that these propositions
are erroneous, but that they cannot be part of the Magisterium. Period”
(September 21, 2020,
https://onepeterfive.com/archbishop-vigano-is-vatican-ii-untouchable/);
c. “The cancer of Vatican II confirms that it is at
the origin of the Bergoglian metastasis” (26) October 2020,
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5124-archbishop-
vigano-addresses-the-catholic-identity-conference-2020-francis-the-new-world-order);
d. “All of this stems from a postulate that almost
everyone takes for granted: that Vatican II can claim the authority of an
Ecumenical Council, before which the faithful should suspend all judgment and
humbly bow their heads to the will of Christ, expressed infallibly by the
Sacred Pastors, albeit in a pastoral and not dogmatic form. But this is not the
case, because the Sacred Pastors can be misled by a colossal conspiracy aimed
at the subversive use of a Council. (…) If, therefore, Vatican II was, as is
evident, an instrument whose authority and authority was fraudulently used to
impose heterodox doctrines and Protestantized rites, we can hope that sooner or
later the return to the Throne of a holy and orthodox Pontiff will heal this
situation by declaring it illegitimate, invalid,
[PAGE 9]:
null and void, on a par with the Council of Pistoia”
(Jan. 21, 2023, https://exsurgedomine.it/230121- pro-Council/);
e. “The Council represents the ideological,
theological, moral or liturgical cancer of which the Bergoglian “synodal
church” is necessary metastasis. (…) I repudiate the neo-modernist errors
inherent in the Second Vatican Council and in the so-called “postconciliar
magisterium, particularly in matters of collegiality, ecumenism, religious
freedom, the secularity of the state and liturgy” (June 20, 2024,
https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2024/06/20/monsignor-vigano-convocato-
by-dicastery-for-the-doctrine-of-the-faith-to-respond-to-the-delict-of-schism-the-response-of-arcivescovo/);
________________________
When presenting their defense at future schism-trials, it should be pointed out by the defendants that 1. Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. This can be confirmed in public.
2. So they are in schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries. Again this can be verified in public.
3.The pope must interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so be in communion with the popes of the past, example, Pope Pius X. Now it is common knowledge that he does not interpret Vatican Council II rationally and is not in communion with Pope Pius X.
POPE FRANCIS MUST ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL
1. Pope Francis can be accepted as the pope. It is easy to be in communion with him when he is in communion with the past popes on the Syllabus of Errors, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Church Councils. He must affirm the Catholic Faith in public on this issue.
THE DDF MUST AFFIRM VATICAN COUNCIL II BUT ONLY RATIONAL
2. Vatican Council II (rational) has the hermeneutic of continuity with the past ecclesiocentrism and the rest of Tradition. So it can be accepted. Morally, the Council can only be interpreted rationally. Pope Francis must endorse this interpretation of Vatican Council II in public. Then it will be easy to accept him as a pope who affirms a traditional Vatican Council II.
DDF MUST AFFIRM AND CLARIFY THE FAITH
3. So when the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican can accept these conditions i.e not being in heresy and schism because of the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, then the pope and Vatican Council II ( rational) can easily be accepted by all.
But first Pope Francis and the DDF must set an example and affirm the Catholic Faith and accept all Church Documents, interpreted only rationally.- Lionel Andrades
______________________________________________________
f. “I make it a point of honor to be “accused” of
rejecting the errors and deviations implied by the so-called Second Vatican
Ecumenical Council, which I consider to be completely devoid of magisterial
authority because of its heterogeneity with respect to all the true Councils of
the Church, which I fully recognize and accept, as well as all the magisterial
acts of the Roman Pontiffs. I firmly reject the heterodox doctrines contained
in the documents of Vatican II and which have been condemned by the Popes up to
Pius XII, or which contradict in any way the Catholic Magisterium” (June 28,
2024, https://exsurgedominc.it/240628-jaccusc-ita/).
Defense of the public defender
15. The public defender highlighted the following issues:
a. although the objective evidence of schism is clear,
subjectively the accused is not chargeable with the reserved crime. Moreover,
the imposition of any censure or sanction would not serve the purposes outlined
by the Supreme Lawgiver in the provisions of the CIC, nor would it benefit the
salvation of Archbishop Viganò’s soul; ( Lionel : There cannot be an
objective evidence of schism based upon Vatican Council II irrational. This is
a fundamental point that has to be understood )
When presenting their defense at future schism-trials, it should be pointed out by the defendants that 1. Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. This can be confirmed in public.
2. So they are in schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries. Again this can be verified in public.
3.The pope must interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so be in communion with the popes of the past, example, Pope Pius X. Now it is common knowledge that he does not interpret Vatican Council II rationally and is not in communion with Pope Pius X.
POPE FRANCIS MUST ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL
1. Pope Francis can be accepted as the pope. It is easy to be in communion with him when he is in communion with the past popes on the Syllabus of Errors, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Church Councils. He must affirm the Catholic Faith in public on this issue.
THE DDF MUST AFFIRM VATICAN COUNCIL II BUT ONLY RATIONAL
2. Vatican Council II (rational) has the hermeneutic of continuity with the past ecclesiocentrism and the rest of Tradition. So it can be accepted. Morally, the Council can only be interpreted rationally. Pope Francis must endorse this interpretation of Vatican Council II in public. Then it will be easy to accept him as a pope who affirms a traditional Vatican Council II.
DDF MUST AFFIRM AND CLARIFY THE FAITH
3. So when the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican can accept these conditions i.e not being in heresy and schism because of the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, then the pope and Vatican Council II ( rational) can easily be accepted by all.
But first Pope Francis and the DDF must set an example and affirm the Catholic Faith and accept all Church Documents, interpreted only rationally.- Lionel Andrades
________________
b. for several decades, H.E. Archbishop Viganò has
enjoyed an established reputation for dedication to his work and devotion to
the Successors of St. Peter. As a result of his diligence, in 2009 the
defendant was appointed Secretary General of the Governorate of Vatican City
and later Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America,(Lionel. He is correct when
he rejects Vatican Council II, irrational. All Catholics have the moral
duty to do the same)
c. the lawyer argues that Archbishop Viganò does not
habitually lack the use of reason (his intelligence is not in question).
However, based on the statements of the accused, how can the Dicastery obtain
the necessary moral certainty that His Excellency is fully imputable? If the
imputability issues could be established despite Archbishop Viganò’s refusal to
participate in his own defense, how can a canonical criminal trial overcome
them to declare a decision of guilt?
d. the lawyer also points out that the latae
sententiae censure of excommunication for the reserved crime of schism, if it
were declared, would have no medicinal effect toward the person of His
Excellency, who according to the mens rea of the Supreme Lawgiver is the basis
of such canonical censure. By its very nature, a censure exists to urge a person
to reconciliation with the Church. When a request for remission of censure is
made and the requirements have been met, Mother Church revokes it so as to
effect the healing that this measure was supposed to bring. However, Archbishop
Viganò has already stated that the declaration of the censure of
excommunication would be a badge of honor for him;
e. the reality is that imposing such a censure on H.E.
Archbishop Viganó would be a fruitless act and would only serve to inflame an
already divided public opinion,
Evaluation of the evidence and
the defense
16. The assessors, after reviewing all the evidence,
together with the defense of the public defender, came to the conclusion that
the statements of H.E. Archbishop Viganò are more than sufficient to integrate
the extremes of the crime of schism under CIC can. 751. In particular, the
words and actions of the prelate highlight his rejection of submission to the
Successor of Peter and his rejection of communion with the members of the Church
subject to the Supreme Pontiff. At the basis
When presenting their defense at future schism-trials, it should be pointed out by the defendants that 1. Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. This can be confirmed in public.
2. So they are in schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries. Again this can be verified in public.
3.The pope must interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so be in communion with the popes of the past, example, Pope Pius X. Now it is common knowledge that he does not interpret Vatican Council II rationally and is not in communion with Pope Pius X.
POPE FRANCIS MUST ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL
1. Pope Francis can be accepted as the pope. It is easy to be in communion with him when he is in communion with the past popes on the Syllabus of Errors, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Church Councils. He must affirm the Catholic Faith in public on this issue.
THE DDF MUST AFFIRM VATICAN COUNCIL II BUT ONLY RATIONAL
2. Vatican Council II (rational) has the hermeneutic of continuity with the past ecclesiocentrism and the rest of Tradition. So it can be accepted. Morally, the Council can only be interpreted rationally. Pope Francis must endorse this interpretation of Vatican Council II in public. Then it will be easy to accept him as a pope who affirms a traditional Vatican Council II.
DDF MUST AFFIRM AND CLARIFY THE FAITH
3. So when the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican can accept these conditions i.e not being in heresy and schism because of the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, then the pope and Vatican Council II ( rational) can easily be accepted by all.
But first Pope Francis and the DDF must set an example and affirm the Catholic Faith and accept all Church Documents, interpreted only rationally.- Lionel Andrades
[PAGE 10]:
of the accused’s teaching, the assessors reached
certainty about the rejection of the legitimacy and magisterial authority of
the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council as clear evidence of the Prelate’s schismatic
disposition. Regarding imputability, the assessors believe that the accused
cannot be presumed to be under the influence of a psychological factor that
would mitigate his imputability. From the acts, one perceives a person who is
mostly serene, rational, free and intentional in making his statements, and
there are no well-founded indications to be able to consider him not imputable
(cf. can. 1321 § 4 CIC). The assessors therefore find it necessary to declare
excommunication latae sententiae.
17. Conclusions:
a. given that:
·
§ the evidence of the crime consists of the public
statements of the prelate;
§ there is no doubt that H.E. Archbishop Viganò is the
author of these statements:
➤ regarding the statements published in writing:
they bear his name, surname and the bishop’s coat of arms; they are enriched by
his photos; for the most part they are published on the website
exsurgedomine.it, which is connected with the prelate and his activities; the
prelate has never denied being the author of them;
➤ there are video recordings of his statements in
which the Prelate is recognized;
·
§ the Prelate:
➤ presents his theses consistently, with use of
reason, motivating them amply (though in the wrong way) theologically and
legally,
➤ acts voluntarily: there is no evidence or clues
that could confirm that the Prelate acts out of physical violence or compelled
by grave fear,
➤ acts knowingly: he is not unaware that he is
violating canon law, since he knows that he has been accused of the crime
of schism;
➤ turns out to be Patron of the Exsurge Domine
Foundation and undertakes various activities in society;
·
§ the prelate directly rejects attempts to seredict him
regarding his mental status, and there is no medical documentation of his
possible mental illness;
it does not appear that H.E. Archbishop Viganò is a
person who:
·
§ does not habitually have the use of reason (can. 1322
CIC);
§ is without the use of reason (can. 1323, п. 6 CIC);
§ has the use of reason only imperfectly (can. 1324 § 1.
n. 1 СІС);
§ acts without full imputability (can. 1324 § 1, no. 10
CIC);
b. taking into account the above, the arguments
presented by the assessors and the provisions of can. 1321 § 4 CIC, i.e.,
“Given the external violation, imputability is presumed unless it appears
otherwise.”
it clearly appears that in the present case the circumstances
of schismatic conduct referred to in can. 751 C/C (refusal of submission to the
Supreme Pontiff and refusal of communion with members of the Church subject to
him) have occurred;
·
§ the Prelate directly, explicitly and consistently denies
the legitimacy of Pope Francis, claiming that his election is invalid;
§ he does not consider himself in communion with Pope
Francis and those in communion with him;
§ he believes that the Church at the head of which Pope
Francis stands is not the Catholic Church; he rejects the Second Vatican
Ecumenical Council, believing it lacks magisterial authority;
[PAGE 11]:
c. the circumstances indicated in can. 1324 § 1, nos.
1-10 CIC have not occurred and, as a result, moral certainty is reached that
the offender has incurred the penalty latae sententiae (cf. can. 1324 § 3 CIC).
DECISION
18. Having carefully considered the laws applicable to the
case at hand, taking into account all the evidence and arguments in the case
(can. 1720, no. 2 CIC) and referring to the arguments presented above, this
Dicastery, for the public good of the People of God, declares that:
a. H.E. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is guilty of the
reserved crime of schism;
b. the offender has incurred excommunication latae
sententiae ex can. 1364 § 1 CIC.
19. The removal of the censure in this case is reserved to
the Apostolic See.
20. The offender is
warned that, in accordance with can. 1364 § 2 CIC, if prolonged contumacy or
the gravity of the scandal so requires, he may be punished with other
penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.(Lionel : There has been no
denial from the DDF that Vatican Council II can be interpreted rationally or irrationally depending upon how one
looks at LG 8,14,15,16 etc. Does one see them as visible or invisible cases in 2024 ? In this
case the DDF is heretical and schismatic for interpreting LG 8 etc as
being visible
and so exceptions for Tradition.The evidence on social media has
not been denied by Msgr Kennedy or Cardinal Fernandez. This is a scandal ).
21. Pursuant to Article 24 SS7,
the cleric may interpose an Appeal against this decision to the Dicastery for
the Doctrine of the Faith within the peremptory term of sixty (60) useful days
from the notification of this Decree. The Appeal, for the purposes of its
admissibility, must be presented with the assistance of a Patron, provided with
the appropriate mandate, and clearly determine the petitum and contain the
reasons in iure and in facto on which it is based.(Lionel
: The DDF must also deny Archbishop Vigano’s charge of heresy and schism
against the DDF. They must admit that they interpret Vatican Council II only
rationally and are honest in the interpretation of
the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms.In this way they reject the evidence
against them on social media and in the charges of the defendant.) –Lionel Andrades
From the Palace of the Dicastery, July 4, 2024
+ Victor Fernández
Victor M. Card. FERNÁNDEZ
Prefect
John J. Kennedy
Msgr. John J. KENNEDY
Secretary for the Disciplinary Section
https://wherepeteris.com/english-translation-of-viganos-excommunication-decree/
______________________________
2. So they are in schism with the past Magisterium over the centuries. Again this can be verified in public.
3.The pope must interpret Vatican Council II rationally and so be in communion with the popes of the past, example, Pope Pius X. Now it is common knowledge that he does not interpret Vatican Council II rationally and is not in communion with Pope Pius X.
POPE FRANCIS MUST ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL
1. Pope Francis can be accepted as the pope. It is easy to be in communion with him when he is in communion with the past popes on the Syllabus of Errors, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Church Councils. He must affirm the Catholic Faith in public on this issue.
THE DDF MUST AFFIRM VATICAN COUNCIL II BUT ONLY RATIONAL
2. Vatican Council II (rational) has the hermeneutic of continuity with the past ecclesiocentrism and the rest of Tradition. So it can be accepted. Morally, the Council can only be interpreted rationally. Pope Francis must endorse this interpretation of Vatican Council II in public. Then it will be easy to accept him as a pope who affirms a traditional Vatican Council II.
DDF MUST AFFIRM AND CLARIFY THE FAITH
3. So when the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican can accept these conditions i.e not being in heresy and schism because of the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, then the pope and Vatican Council II ( rational) can easily be accepted by all.
But first Pope Francis and the DDF must set an example and affirm the Catholic Faith and accept all Church Documents, interpreted only rationally.- Lionel Andrades
_________
JUNE 29, 2024
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.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/06/archbishop-carlo-maria-vigano-published.html
JUNE 28, 2024
Do you accept Vatican Council II, Lionel?
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/06/do-you-accept-vatican-council-ii-lionel.html
JUNE 27, 2024
Vigano must ask Msgr.Kennedy at the DDF to respond
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/06/vigano-must-ask-msgrkennedy-at-ddf-to.html
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.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/06/work-in-progress-gerard-oconnell.html
EVIDENCE OF HERESY AND SCHISM AGAINST POPE
FRANCIS AND CARDINAL FERNANDEZ ON SOCIAL MEDIA WHICH THE DDF HAS NOT DENIED.
JUNE 26, 2024
Even John Allen at Crux, Edward Pentin at the National
Catholic Register, Nicole Winfield at the Associated Press and Heidi Schlumpf
and Joshua McElwee at the National Catholic Reporter agree that Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez
interpret the Council irrationally and unethically like President Biden : the result is heresy on the
Creeds and schism with the Magisterium over the centuries.CNA and CNS have no
denial.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/06/even-john-allen-at-crux-edward-pentin.html
JUNE 26, 2024
The Italian Bishops Conference (CEI) and the United
States Conference of Bishops (USCCB) did not come to the support of President
Joseph Biden a Catholic, who interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and not
rationally and continues with the dishonesty. They are not expected to deny that Pope Francis,
Cardinal Fernandez and the U.S cardinals are also interpreting the Council
heretically and schismatically.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/06/june-16-2024-italian-bishops-conference.html
JUNE
26, 2024
The Rector of the Pontifical North American
College(seminary) Rome agrees that the interpretation of Vatican Council II by
President Biden is irrational and unethical. However this is the same heretical and
schismatic interpretation of the Council by Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/06/15-2024-president-joe-biden-catholic.html
No comments:
Post a Comment