VATICAN— @Pontifex has appointed Archbishop Arthur Roche as the Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship, replacing @Card_R_Sarah’s vacancy.#CatholicTwitter pic.twitter.com/Mk2kYRCNdL
— Bree A Dail (@breeadail) May 27, 2021
Pope Francis appointed Archbishop Arthur Roche as new prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (liturgy).
— Ines San Martin (@inesanma) May 27, 2021
Secretary of the Congregation until today, he succeeds Cardinal Robert Sarah who had his resignation accepted in February. pic.twitter.com/egcKo0NJKY
Archbishop Roche will be replaced by Bishop Vittorio Francesco Viola O.F.M. of Tortona as Secretary of the Congregation, while Spanish Msgr. Aurelio García Marcías, until now Head of Office at the Congregation, is appointed its Under-Secretary and elevated to the episcopate. pic.twitter.com/rtVzfOVio0
— Edward Pentin (@EdwardPentin) May 27, 2021
Is Pope Francis' new pick to head the Vatican liturgical department a stepping stone to more reform, or is he punting the issue to the next pontificate? Analysis from @canonlawyered https://t.co/REBxmFhfS3
— The Pillar (@PillarCatholic) May 27, 2021
Many see Roche’s appointment, at age of 71, as a stop-gap ahead of an eventual succession by Bishop Vittorio Viola, the CDW's new secretary. Given that Francis will be 89 by the time Roche finishes his term, this is likely just projection by commentators.https://t.co/VBoiBeVKVi
— Ed. Condon (@canonlawyered) May 27, 2021
And does Msgr. Aurelio García Marcías look too polished to be a cleric?
1 comment:
Don Pietro Leone writing on Vatican Council II and other religions on the web blog Rorate Caeili cites Unitatis Redintigratio,the Decree on Ecumenism, as if they are non hypothetical and objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in 1965-2021.This is an error in reasoning. His premise is false. So his conclusion has to be non traditional.
For me the theoretical and speculative lines from Unitatis Redintigratio or Lumen Gentium which he has quoted was a weak attempt by some of the Council Fathers, to eliminate the dogma EENS and the ecumenism of return, of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
Why does Leone still have to interpret Vatican Council II with the confusion of the liberals and Lefebvrists ?
So what if Yves Congar and the others were present at Vatican Council II ? If UR 3 and LG 8, LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 refer to invisible cases in our reality, then they cannot be practical exceptions to EENS and the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
But for Leone they are exceptions.Since he has confused UR 3, LG 8 etc as being objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church. Real people saved without faith and baptism and who are known to us.This is irrational. There are no such known people. If any one was saved outside the Church it would only be known to God.Yet for Leone Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma EENS.
Why don’t the Lefebvrists, like Leone, affirm the strict interpretation of EENS and not the liberal version, which projects UR 3,LG 8 as being practical exceptions to Tradition in general and exclusive salvation in particular ?.
There are no objective cases of non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church and so there cannot be practical exceptions to EENS. There cannot be any mentioned in Vatican Council II, unless of course a false premise continues to be employed.
Why should Catholics use the false premise and interpret Vatican Council II like Don Pietro Leone, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf,Cardinal Raymond Burke and the new Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship ?
Rorate Caeili and Don Leone are really promoting the liberal version of Vatican Council II. They please the Masons who want the Council to be interpreted as a rupture with Catholic Tradition.It is as if Rorate Caeili has to interpet UR 3 as a rupture with an ecumenism of return or the retired Jewish Left profesor at the Angelicum, Rome, will object once again.
The big names at Vatican Council II, who thought they could get rid of the dogma EENS, by employing the error in the Letter of the Holy Ofice 1949, which was overlooked by Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII,did not know that there was a built in error.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance do not refer to objective cases in our time and space.So they never ever were exceptions to EENS or the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
Post a Comment