News

Cardinal Roche issues Fraudulent Rescript regarding his Feb. 20, 2023 meeting with Pope Francis

11 Comments

Commentary and Evaluation by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

En Français

Here it pays to know Canon Law. For a rescript is an official written confirmation of the decisions made by a superior in a private meeting. It serves as a documentary evidence of what was decided. — The inferior who attends the meeting asks for a rescript from the superior with whom he met.

But here, Cardinal Roche, of the Congregation for Divine Worship, issues a rescript claiming that Pope Francis made certain decisions regarding the interpretation of Traditionis Custodes.

It really cannot get more laughable than that. Because Cardinal Roche is already accused by canonists for arrogating to himself the right to interpret Traditionis Custodes, which only a Pope Can do. Now he has arrogated to himself the right to issue a Papal Rescript. — He even has the gall to give it a Latin title, to make it appear to be legit.

Hopefully, some Cardinal will inform Pope Francis of what Cardinal Roche has done, which is truly outrageous.

Canonically, if a superior refuses to issue a rescript, then it is as if nothing at all has been said during the meeting. However, Traddies are regarding this as a papal rescript binding in law, in the most ridiculous turn of events. Because just 2 months ago, they regarded the wrong man as pope, and now when they only have one pope, they are regarding curial Cardinal as the pope! This is truly pathetic. I do not know whether to burst out laughing or crying.

Here we have a decisive proof of the intervention of Christ’s Priestly Prayer. Roche wanted Pope Francis to use his papal authority to interpret the document strictly.  But Pope Francis did not do that. He omitted to act.

Just as I predicted the day before the meeting of Pope Francis and Cardinal Roch, here.

True Catholics believe in the words of Jesus, the deeds of St. Peter, and the actual meaning of Canon Law. That is why we can anticipate the future, since Truth comes from Heaven which is outside of time.

UPDATE:

After initially claiming falsely that Pope Francis authored the rescript, the National Catholic Register has corrected their story — still omitting, however, the fact that the Cardinal has no authority to issue it. In fact, the assertion that a dispensation is required, even though there is no textual mention in Traditionis Custodes of such a thing, is an attempt not only at the arrogation, on the Part of the Cardinal, of the right of the Pope to issue a rescript, but the usurpation of the authority of the Holy Father to issue a new law.

With Globalist Censorship growing daily, No one will ever know about the above article, if you do not share it.

11 thoughts on “Cardinal Roche issues Fraudulent Rescript regarding his Feb. 20, 2023 meeting with Pope Francis”

  1. Rvmo Cardinal Roche, what Is the the name of your “Il Santo Padre”?. What Is his name?

  3. 1. L’unico “rescritto” nel dicastero è questo.
    https://www.vatican.va/content/romancuria/it/dicasteri/dicastero-culto-divino-e-disciplina-sacramenti/documenti.html
    2. In cui non si trova il nome del Papahttps://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20230220_rescriptum-traditioniscustodes_it.html
    3. Senza la data di publicazione
    4. Don’t make me travel all around the existing “rescripta” to produce the material prove. It’s a formal act tha implies the person, not only the charge. There must be at least two names, and many times two signatures besides the name of the superior hwo IS the authority (received as a grace but personaly received)

  4. Ordinary Catholics do not know canon law. Until this moment I had never heard of a rescript. It’s no wonder if we make mistakes in understanding.

  5. This is further confirmation that Cdl Roche bears some if not all of the nefarious characteristics of one of his infamous predecessors in the Vatican’s liturgical offices, Abp Bugnini.

    Here in the Bishops Conference of England & Wales, it is common knowledge that the former Bishop of Leeds, a certain Arthur Roche, was thoroughly disliked by many for his autocratic ‘style’ and his obvious desire for further episcopal promotion……and once he was established in the Vatican and it became clear that he was to be appointed as successor to the humble, dignified & learned Cdl Sarah, many feared the worst in a liturgical sense!

    As for all the ‘traddies’ assuming this Rescript has the approval of Pope Francis, yes indeed it is laughable as well as pathetic that they are “blinded by their own ignorance”!!

      1. Probably!?
        Any man in such a lofty clerical position with such obvious hatred of the TLM is ‘Roman Catholic’ in name only……

        Here is an interesting piece, written from Argentina, just published at Rorate Caeli, which draws many of the same conclusions that you have already expressed, Brother Alexis:-
        https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2023/02/mediocre-roche-came-in-for-apostolic.html#more

        I laughed out loud at the suggestion in point no. 2: “…it would not be strange that at any moment he would end up as the first archbishop on the island of St. Helena.”

        And I am most heartened to note that Pope Francis appears not to approve of this particular English Cardinal……so, maybe, history will repeat itself as I recall that Pope Paul VI got so frustrated with the machinations of Abp Bugnini that he sent him to Iran as Apostolic Nuncio!
        LOL!!

    1. The Wikipedia page on Cdl Roche reveals some ‘interesting’ details…..I note that he had close links with the late Cdl Murphy-O’Connor who, as we know well, was one of the infamous “St Gallen Mafia”.

      Whilst that is not proof of any masonic involvement, it does arouse suspicion, and certainly helps to explain his antipathy towards the TLM which became manifest when he was Bishop of Leeds.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Roche

    2. “He is of the episcopal intelligentsia……which means he has been ordained & promoted beyond his competence & intelligence!”
      [Paraphrase of a 1949 quote from Bishop Fulton Sheen]

Comments are closed.