Wars and rumors of wars on the TLM and Summorum Pontificum”?

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/in...m-said-to-exist-be-backed-by-cardinal-parolin

Vatican Document Further Restricting the TLM said to Exist, Backed by Cardinal Parolin

VATICAN CITY, June 25, 2024 — Having made several inquiries regarding recent reports, I have been informed by reliable sources that a new Vatican document more restrictive than Traditionis Custodes does indeed exist, is backed by Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, and has been presented to Pope Francis.

Well-informed sources have confirmed that the new document, if published, would prohibit all priests other than those belonging to approved ex-Ecclesia Dei institutes from offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Vetus Ordo, or old rite as it is commonly called.

It would also prohibit bishops from themselves celebrating or authorizing the celebration of the Vetus Ordo in their dioceses, and suspend existing permissions granted by the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments post-Traditionis Custodes.

Sources note that personal parishes run by ex-Ecclesia Dei institutes (e.g., the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter or Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest) would be allowed to continue. However, it is unclear if and to what extent priests of these institutes would be permitted to administer sacraments such as baptism, confirmation and marriage to the faithful in the traditional form.

While seeming to “save and protect” ex-Ecclesia Dei institutes, it is also unclear whether diaconal and priestly ordinations in the Vetus Ordo would continue to be allowed.

Genesis of the new document

In February 2023, just weeks after the death of Benedict XVI, it was reportedthat a draft-document was under review by Pope Francis that would expand and reinforce his 2021 motu proprio Traditionis Custodes. It would also affirm that the only official liturgy of the Latin Rite is the Novus Ordo, and stringently regulate the ex-Ecclesia Dei communities.

Vatican sources said at the time that the document, an apostolic constitution, had already been presented to Pope Francis at the end of January 2023 by superiors of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, headed by Cardinal Arthur Roche.

The document was said to have been written principally by the dicastery’s secretary, Archbishop Vittorio Francesco Viola, O.F.M.

However, according to that report, Italian Cardinal Gianfranco Ghirlanda, SJ, who is widely regarded in Rome as the Pope’s preferred canonist, was seeking to persuade Francis to promulgate an alternative apostolic constitution that at first glance may have seemed milder but ultimately proven worse by seeking once and for all to bury the traditional Latin liturgy.

With Roche and Ghirlanda vying for the Pope’s imprimatur, the document came to a standstill and one year later was still at an impasse. Pope Francis therefore entrusted Archbishop Viola with supervising the document earlier this year.

Should the document described above be published, it would still be consistent with Pope Francis’ assurances to approved ex-Ecclesia Dei institutes. And while we are told that a date of publication has not been set, the risk of a new document, according to our sources, is serious, real, and potentially imminent.

Support from Cardinal Pietro Parolin

According to sources, Archbishop Viola quietly went to work on a new document, consulting, among others, Cardinal Victor Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.

In drafting the document, Archbishop Viola is also said to have had the support and endorsement of three key Church figures: Vatican Secretary of State and architect of the secret Vatican-China accord, Cardinal Pietro Parolin; Prefect of the Dicastery for Eastern Churches, Cardinal Claudio Gugerotti; and the Pope’s apostolic nuncio to Paris, Italian Archbishop Celestino Migliore.

Readers might recall that Cardinal Parolin, a consultor to the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, was reported to have backed Traditionis Custodes. In fact, at a January 2020 meeting at the then-Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Parolin claimed that traditional priestly institutes refuse to accept change and are unwilling to concelebrate. Parolin also said he shared the concern of other prelates assembled that these groups are popular with young people. (Earlier in the meeting, the prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education at the time, Cardinal Giuseppe Versaldi, had insisted they had to get to the bottom of why the traditional Latin Mass attracts young people, and claimed that many of the young people participating in the Paris-Chartres pilgrimage have “all sorts of psychological and sociological problems.”) Cardinal Parolin therefore recommended that the CDF require traditional priestly groups to provide a concrete sign of communion that would acknowledge the validity of the Novus Ordo and demonstrate clearly that they are “in the Church.”

Cardinal Parolin, along with Cardinal Gugerotti, is also a protégé of the deceased Vatican diplomat, Cardinal Achille Silvestrini (1923-2019), a senior member of the Sankt Gallen group that campaigned to prevent Benedict XVI’s election in 2005.

Parolin’s close ties with Silvestrini date back to 1986 when he joined the Vatican diplomatic corps at the age of 31 and Silvestrini was Secretary for Relations with States. Furthermore, just a year after Silvestrini died, Cardinal Parolin was named president of Villa Nazareth, an educational center that, through Silvestrini’s efforts, became a hub for progressive ecclesial power in Rome. Villa Nazareth has also been regarded as the Italian headquarters of the Sankt Gallen group and as having questionable ties to China.

Cardinal Gugerotti, for his part, served for five years (1997-2001) as Undersecretary of the Congregation for Eastern Churches during Silvestrini’s nine-year tenure as prefect.

But despite their connection, the two cardinals are said to be competitors in another important respect: they both have their sights set on the papacy.

Archbishop Migliore, 71, an ally of Cardinal Parolin and seasoned diplomat, has served in several senior roles including the Holy See’s Permanent Observer to the United Nations and the Council of Europe, Undersecretary for Relations with States, and apostolic nuncio to Russia. Pope Francis named him apostolic nuncio to Paris in January 2020.

Earlier this month, the French traditional site Pax Liturgique reported that Archbishop Migliore is “doing everything possible to ensure that Traditionis custodes is applied in full” and “is fanning the anti-traditional liturgy flames of the French bishops, insisting in particular that the traditional Mass should be tolerated as little as possible, and that the other sacraments, notably baptisms, marriages and confirmations, should never be given in the traditional form.”

Should the document described above be published, it would still be consistent with Pope Francis’ assurances to approved ex-Ecclesia Dei institutes. And while we are told that a date of publication has not been set, the risk of a new document, according to our sources, is serious, real, and potentially imminent.



Sent from my iPhone

 

A usurper. A man not validly elected assuming the Chair of Peter.

You can catch up on the various theories here:

https://www.barnhardt.biz/the-bergoglian-antipapcy/

0:04:51 The reason people are confused and scandalized is because they are trying to reconcile reality to an objectively false premise. What is that false premise? It is nothing less than this: Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the Pope. No, see, that’s wrong. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not now, and never has been, the Pope. And this isn’t some whack-a-doodle conspiracy theory. I’m going to talk for the next two hours explaining this, in lurid detail. Objective reality. All kinds of evidence. Clear, objective evidence. He’s not the Pope. He never has been the Pope. If you take a false premise, namely, that this man who is not Peter, and you try to look at life and parse reality through the prism of that false premise, you’re going to lose your faith, you’re going to go bonkers, something is going to have to give; because you cannot hold a false premise like this, and expect anything else but a chaotic series of corollaries off of that logical truth table when your base premise is false. We have to get this right, we have to correct it, and we have to correct it now. Now. This has gone on for five and a half years, and you all can see that events are escalating, and it is only going to get worse, and it is going to get worse on an exponential curve. We have to get this corrected. Corrected at the root, at the true base premise, and do it now, because if we don’t, it is going to be abject chaos. Abject chaos. And we have the ability to do it, and it’s so simple. It is so, so simple. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not now the Pope, and never has been.

0:06:48 Why? Why isn’t he the Pope? What happened? Here’s what happened, in a nutshell: Pope Benedict XVI attempted to partially abdicate the papacy, and we’ll talk about why he tried to do that and so on and so forth. In his attempt to only partially abdicate the papacy, that rendered his entire attempted resignation invalid, per canon law, which we will tear apart here in a few minutes. OK? You’re either the Pope, or you’re not. You either resign, or you don’t. You’re either occupying the See, or you’re not occupying the See. Period. This business of fundamentally transforming it, bifurcating it, turning it into a collegial, synodal office…no, no, no, no, no. No. This is substantially erroneous, and that renders his attempt at abdicating wholly invalid, which means that he never actually abdicated, and he is still the one and only living Pope, whether he likes it, you like it, I like it, anyone likes it. That has nothing to do with it. What we want is not germane. What matters is the ontological reality, and we’ll go through the proof of this.

0:08:15 When a juridical act is invalid according to the law itself, what happens is that the situation reverts to the status quo. This is a foundational concept of jurisprudence. Think about it this way: Most of you out there have probably done some sort of a real estate transaction in your life. What did you have to do? You have to go to a title company and you have to get an abstract, right? You have to get a history of the chain of ownership and custody of that piece of real estate all the way back to, where I’m from, in the central U.S., you go back to the Indians. Whether it was seized, whether it was purchased, whatever it is, you’re tracing things back to the Indians. In some parts of the world it’s back to the Spanish, back to the French, you know, whatever it is, but you have to produce a document that shows a chain of ownership and custody, that’s all squared away, until you can close on a real estate deal, right? Why? Why do you need to know who owned the piece of land that your house that you’re looking to buy is sitting on a hundred years ago? Why do you need to know that? Because if some defect, if some legal defect, is found in some transaction, or juridical act, that happened in the last hundred years, everybody needs to be able to look at that title abstract and find out, where did the situation go haywire, and who owned it. What was the situation, one second before the situation went haywire?


​

 

An “antipope” historically requires a valid pope making a claim to be the legitimate occupant of the Chair of Peter. Pope Benedict never made any such claim, so if these theories are true that would make the current occupant a usurper, not an antipope.

None of us will know except in hindsight.

 

Yes, after he resigned and PF was elected, PBXVI never made any public counter claim to still be the valid occupant of the Chair of Peter. So PF couldn’t be an antipope in the traditional sense. If his election was illicit he could only be a usurper, not an antipope per se. (But I’m no expert on the matter so I could be wrong.)