Cardinal Roche interpreted Vatican Council II unethically and deceptively : Traditionis Custode is obsolete with the Irrational Premise
14.01.202From Gloria TV with comments:
Cardinal Roche’s Paper against the Mass in the Roman Rite
Cardinal Arthur Roche distributed at Leo XIV’s consistory last week a text on liturgy. Journalist Nico Spuntoni published the two-page report (facsimile below). It is a strong defence of Traditionis Custodes.
Lionel: We can interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise and the conclusion is traditional and orthodox. Pope Francis wrongly interpreted Vatican Council II with the Irrational Premise to produce a liberal conclusion and the result was Traditionis Custode etc.
Catholics are obliged to interpret Vatican Council II only rationally.
_________________________
The report was one of four texts distributed to the cardinals. The others were written by Cardinals Tucho (Faith), Grech (Synod) and Baggio (Human development).
Lionel: Similarly on Faith, Synod and Human Development Vatican Council II has to be interpreted with only the Rational Premise.
________________________
The strongest ideological rejection of the Mass in the Roman rite is in four quotations taken from Francis in the report's points 9, 10 and 11:
- “For this reason we cannot go back to that ritual form which the Council Fathers, cum Petro et sub Petro, felt the need to reform.”
Lionel: We are not obligated to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally as did Pope Paul VI, Rahner, Ratzinger and Balthazar. We have a rational and honest choice and it supports the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Roman Missal at the Latin Mass.
With the Rational Premise, used in the interpretation, Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric at every liturgy and rite.
_________________________
- “The use of liturgical books that the Council sought to reform was… a concession that in no way envisaged their promotion.”
Lionel: There cannot be reforms with the use of the Irrational Premise and Inference to interpret Vatican Council II.
This is deception.
_______________________
- “The liturgical books promulgated by the holy Popes Paul VI and John Paul II… are the sole expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”
- “I do not see how it is possible to say that one recognizes the validity of the Council and at the same time not accept the liturgical reform born out of Sacrosanctum Concilium.”…
Lionel: Pope Paul VI interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally and so dishonestly, now that we know that there is a rational and traditional choice. So the liturgical books are not ecclesiocentric like the Roman Missal but only Christocentric. This is a limitation. The lex orandi over the centuries was ecclesiocentric and Christocentric. So the New Missal has a shortcoming. It does not affirm the traditional faith, since the False Premise was used in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office and then it was repeated at Vatican Council II (1965).
1. In the life of the Church, the Liturgy has always undergone reforms. From the Didachè to the Traditio Apostolica; from the use of Greek to that of Latin; from the libelli precum to the Sacramentaries and the Ordines; from the Pontificals to the Franco-Germanic reforms; from the Liturgia secundum usum romanae curiae to the Tridentine reform; from the partial post-Tridentine reforms to the general reform of the Second Vatican Council.
(Lionel: There cannot be a reform in the name of Vatican Council II when what is implicit is confused as being explicit and then it is concluded wrongly that Vatican Council II, is a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition. )The history of the Liturgy, we might say, is the history of its continuous “reforming” in a process of organic development.
(Lionel: There cannot be a development with the use of an Irrational Premise to produce a liberal and non traditional conclusion. This is not development. It is dishonesty).
2. Saint Pius V, in facing the reform of the liturgical books in observance of the mandate of the Council of Trent (cf. Session XXV, General Decree, chap. XXI), was moved by the will to preserve the unity of the Church. The bull Quo primum (14 July 1570), with which was promulgated the Roman Missal, affirms that “as in the Church of God there is only one way of reciting the psalms, so there ought to be only one rite for celebrating the Mass” (cum unum in Ecclesia Dei psallendi modum, unum Missae celebrandae ritum esse maxime deceat).
(Lionel: Pope Pius V did not interpret the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms with the common irrational premise, as is being done by Pope Leo XIV).
3. The need to reform the Liturgy is strictly tied to the ritual component, through which — per ritus et preces (SC 48) — we participate in the paschal mystery: the rite is in itself characterised by cultural elements that change in time and places.
Lionel: With the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is rejected; there is a new understanding of the Nicene Creed. The original interpretation of the Athanasius Creed has been changed at every rite and liturgy).
__________________
4. Besides, since “Tradition is not the transmission of things or words, a collection of dead things” but “the living river that links us to the origins, the living river in which the origins are ever present” (Benedict XVI, General Audience, 26 April 2006), we can certainly affirm that the reform of the Liturgy wanted by the Second Vatican Council is not only in full synergy with the true meaning of the Tradition, but constitutes a singular way of putting itself at the service of the Tradition, because the latter is like a great river that leads us to the gates of eternity (ibid.).
(Lionel: The blue orthodox passages in Vatican Council II are not contradicted by the red passages which refer to hypothetical and invisible cases in 1965-2025. So the blue passages are in harmony with Tradition. They are aligned with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the Council of Florence 1442 and the rest of Tradition. Vatican Council II is orthodox and ecclesiocentric like the Roman Missal at the Latin Mass.)
_________________________
5. In this dynamic vision, “maintaining solid tradition” and “opening the way to legitimate progress” (SC 23) cannot be understood as two separable actions: without a “legitimate progress” the tradition would be reduced to a “collection of dead things” not always all healthy; without the “sound tradition” progress risks becoming a pathological search for novelty, that cannot generate life, like a river whose path is blocked separating it from its sources.
(Lionel: The interpretation of Vatican Council II with a False Premise is not part of Tradition. Over the centuries, tradition, interpreted the Creeds, Councils and Catechisms with only the Rational Premise).
_____________________
6. In the discourse to the participants in the Plenary of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (8 February 2024), Pope Francis expressed himself thus: “Sixty years on from the promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the words we read in its introduction, with which the Fathers declared the Council’s purpose, do not cease to enthuse. They are objectives that describe a precise desire to reform the Church in her fundamental dimensions: to make the Christian life of the faithful grow more and more every day; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to reinvigorate that which serves to call all to the bosom of the Church (cf. SC 1). It is a task of spiritual, pastoral, ecumenical, and missionary renewal. And in order to accomplish it, the Council Fathers knew where they had to begin, they knew there were particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy” (Ibid.). It is like saying: without liturgical reform, there is no reform of the Church.”
(Lionel: The liturgy cannot be reformed with a New Theology based upon an irrational premise, inference and non traditional conclusion. It cannot be reformed with a New Philosophy which projects what is invisible as being visible. This is an empirical mistake. It is an objective mistake. It is not Catholic philosophy.)
________________________
(Lionel: There cannot be a new theology by interpreting Vatican Council II dishonestly in public. This is a scandal. People now know about it. They know that they have a choice. They can interpret the Council rationally and the conclusion is traditional It is the end of liberalism and alleged ‘reforms’.)
_____________________
8. We ought to also recognize that the application of the Reform suffered and continues to suffer from a lack of formation, and this urgency of addressing, beginning with Seminars to “bring to life the kind of formation of the faithful and ministry of pastors that will have their summit and source in the liturgy” (Instruction Inter ecumenici, 26 September 1964, 5).
(Lionel: The formation at the Liturgical Department at the University of St.Anselm in Rome is being done with the dishonest interpretation of Vatican Council II and Cardinal Roche is a part of this cover up).
9. The primary good of the unity of the Church is not achieved by freezing division but by finding ourselves in the sharing of what cannot but be shared, as Pope Francis said in Desiderio desideravi 61: “We are called continually to rediscover the richness of the general principles exposed in the first numbers of Sacrosanctum Concilium, grasping the intimate bond between this first of the Council’s constitutions and all the others. For this reason we cannot go back to that ritual form which the Council Fathers, cum Petro et sub Petro, felt the need to reform, approving, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and following their conscience as pastors, the principles from which was born the reform. The holy pontiffs St. Paul VI and St. John Paul II, approving the reformed liturgical books ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II, have guaranteed the fidelity of the reform of the Council. For this reason I wrote Traditionis custodes, so that the Church may lift up, in the variety of so many languages, one and the same prayer capable of expressing her unity. [Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969) in AAS 61 (1969) 222]. As I have already written, I intend that this unity be re-established in the whole Church of the Roman Rite.”
(Lionel : There is nothing in Sacroscnatum Concilium to contradict Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation, while LG 8, 14, 16 etc are not explicit exceptions for AG 7 and the rest of Tradition. This is not being affirmed by Cardinal Roche and this is heresy and schism. )
____________________
10. The use of liturgical books that the Council sought to reform was, from St. John Paul II to Francis, a concession that in no way envisaged their promotion. Pope Francis — while granting, in accordance with Traditionis Custodes, the use of the 1962 Missale Romanum — pointed the way to unity in the use of the liturgical books promulgated by the holy Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, in accordance with the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, the sole expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.
(Lionel: The popes from Paul VI to Leo have interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally and not rationally. So the New Missal of 1962 does not have the ecclesiocentric theology of the Roman Missal. The Roman Missal is aligned with Vatican Council II interpreted rationally and not the New Missal which does not say outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation).
11. Pope Francis summarised the issue as follows (Desiderio desideravi 31): “[…] If the liturgy is ‘the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed, and at the same time the font from which all her power flows,’ (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 10), well then, we can understand what is at stake in the liturgical question. It would be trivial to read the tensions, unfortunately present around the celebration, as a simple divergence between different tastes concerning a particular ritual form. The problematic is primarily ecclesiological. I do not see how it is possible to say that one recognizes the validity of the Council — though it amazes me that a Catholic might presume not to do so — and at the same time not accept the liturgical reform born out of Sacrosanctum Concilium, a document that expresses the reality of the Liturgy intimately joined to the vision of Church so admirably described in Lumen gentium. […]”
(Lionel: The Council interpreted irrationally and so dishonestly is not apostolic or magisterial. It is schism with the pre-1949 Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The Council has to be interpreted rationally and this is the only moral option we have. The Council is then apostolic and magisterial and not a rupture with Tradition. Pope Francis’ interpretation of Vatican Council II was schismatic and not apostolic. He had a traditional choice but did not want to take it.)- Lionel Andrades
Rome, 8.01.2026
Cardinal Roche’s Paper against the Mass in the …
14.01.2026
VATICAN COUNCIL II HAS A REALITY OF ITS OWN ON ECUMENISM, DIALOGUE, COLLEGIALITY, CHRIST THE KING, ECCLESIOCENTRIC MISSION ETC : POPE LEO, FISCHELLA AND SPADARO MUST CHOOSE THE RATIONAL PREMISE
VATICAN COUNCIL II HAS A REALITY OF ITS OWN ON …
13.01.2026
VATICAN COUNCIL II HAS A REALITY OF ITS OWN : INDEPENDENT OF POPE LEO XIV
VATICAN COUNCIL II HAS A REALITY OF ITS OWN : …