Doctrinal difficulties exist within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's position on Vatican Council II and Tradition

From Rorate Caeili
Rapprochement between Rome & the SSPX close? Depends on who you ask

We post this for the record, from the FSSPX:

In response to some interview answers made by Archbishop Pozzo of the Ecclesia Dei Commission about the SSPX's relations with the Holy See, DICI has offered the commentary below to clarify the reality of the situation.

The SSPX’s relations with Rome, according to Archbishop Pozzo

After the consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel Faure by Bishop Richard Williamsonon March 19, 2015, at the monastery of Santa Cruz de Nova Friburgo (Brazil), the Roman press agency I.Media questioned Archbishop Guido Pozzo, secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission. The latter took advantage of the opportunity to make a statement on the state of the relations between the Society of St. Pius X and Rome, declaring that beyond the doctrinal difficulties that exist, the problems are “within the Society”.

 

Lionel :

False. Doctrinal difficulties exist within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's position on Vatican Council II and Tradition. 

March 28, 2015
The Magisterium made a mistake at Vatican Council II when it accomodated the Marchetti 1949 error http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/the-magisterium-made-mistake-at-vatican.html

______________________
 

According to the Roman prelate quoted by I.Media: “The pope expects the Society of St. Pius X to decide to enter [the Church—Ed.], and we are ready at any time with a canonical plan that is already known,” namely the creation of a personal prelature.

 

Lionel:

A personal prelature it is said is not the same as an ordinariate. The SSPX  will be under a bishop who interprets Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents with Cardinal Marchetti's objective mistake
__________
 

 

 “It will take a little time for things to be clarified internally and for Bishop Fellay to be able to obtain a broad enough consensus before making this step.”—It is we who put this claim in bold.

 

Lionel:

Why should he accept Vatican Council II interpreted by the Magisterium using an irrational premise and inference?
______________

At the Society of St. Pius X’s General House, they are wondering about Archbishop Pozzo’s intention in the last statement, which does not correspond to reality: Is this his view of the situation? A personal wish? Or an attempt to introduce division within the Society?

Bishop Fellay has already responded to the Ecclesia Dei Commission several times, orally and in writing. What makes canonical recognition in the form of a personal prelature impossible at this time is essentially the “doctrinal difficulties”, namely, Rome’s demand that we accept Vatican Council II and the reforms that followed it in a “hermeneutic of continuity”.

Lionel:

Doctrinal difficulties!

The CDF/Ecclesia Dei interpret Vatican Council II with Marchetti's inference and so the Council emerges as  a break with Tradition it has an hermenutic of rupture.

 

Archbishop Pozzo is not willing to affirm Vatican Council II without the irrational inference for then he would have to affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). This is taboo at the Vatican.

_______________________________

The informal meetings between the members of the Society of St. Pius X and several bishops, requested by the Ecclesia Dei Commission, are taking place within this specific context; they are supposed to help make the Society and its apostolate better known, but above all its doctrinal positions. In fact, these meetings render the doctrinal differences ever more clear. And the Society’s Roman interlocutors are obliged to acknowledge that many questions remain “open”, which is a way of acknowledging that our objections are far from being resolved.

Lionel:

Exactly! The CDF does not want to interpret Vatican Council II in line with the Feeneyite understanding of EENS.

Because of this observation, the Superior General maintains that it is necessary to present to the Roman authorities the Society’s positions in their entirety, and not to waver on these positions, which are merely the positions of all the popes before Vatican II.

Lionel:

None of them before 1949 interpreted magisterial documents with an irrational premise and inference as do the present Magisterium.

The French university professor Luc Perrin shared his thoughts on the matter on the Forum Catholique on March 20, claiming that it is no use “pretending that all is well in the best possible Roman heaven.” He wrote realistically:

(Archbishop Pozzo) has been saying exactly the same thing ever since the illusions of a speedy agreement that the boiling Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos entertained in 2000. John Paul II was just as convinced in 1978-1979 that full communion was right around the corner: we know what came of that, but in Rome, Teilhardian or silly 1962-John XXIII-style optimism seems still to be in style.”
Lionel:

Archbishop Pozzo refuses to comment on some of these blog posts relevant to the reconcilliation including those in which he is cited for making a doctrinal error in his writings.

One must not discourage Billancourt or the different prelates of the Ecclesia Dei Commission—far be it from me to suggest such an idea—and it is good to see that a Roman authority has a faith solid enough to resist the wear of time, but… it is not very useful to play the enraptured insider, levitating above St. Peter’s dome surrounded by smiling little angels playing their lyres…, this heavenly choir chanting an In Paradisum: ‘the agreement, the agreement, soon the agreement, the agreement is here.’

To begin with, if the different stupidities committed in Rome throughout this long affair were pointed out, it would bring us back down to earth. A short list for His Eminence Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Pozzo:

a) thou shalt be distrustful of silly optimism, but with a supernatural hope in the promises of unity in veritate;

b) thou shalt abandon a botched discussion and shalt not count the time: why not resume the discussions brusquely and intemperately interrupted by Rome in 2011? Or at least work towards resuming them;

c) thou shalt construct a full communion step by step: rather than a preconceived and not necessarily very good ‘canonical solution’—a personal prelature has plenty of flaws—today, it seems to me more realistic to solve certain practical problems step by step…, (given) the fragility of the motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum since the election of Pope Francis who, while confirming it, has already made a serious dent in it with the Franciscans of the Immaculate, and is eroding it with little phrases that cannot but arouse worries.”

 

Lionel:

The CDF/Ecclesia Dei must first of all nust address the issue of an irrational premise and inference being used in magisterial documents including Dominus Iesus, Redemptoris Missi and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 etc.

Then he needs to announce that magisterial documents including Vatican Council II can be interpreted without this irrational  premise and inference which has come into the Chruch since 1949.

Then he can announce that those who accept Vatican Council II without this irrationality are accepting an interpretation of Vatican Council II which is acceptable to the CDF/Ecclesia Dei.

This is how the discussion on doctrine should progress.

_________________

 

Regarding these “practical problems” that could be resolved by concrete gestures, allow us to recall that when the teaching Dominicans of Fanjeaux made their pilgrimage to Rome—from February 9 to 14, 2015—200 religious, and 950 students accompanied by a hundred teachers and parents, were not able to have a church in which one of their chaplains could celebrate the traditional Mass… because they belong to the Society of St. Pius X. Soothing words are volatile; the concrete facts are far more eloquent.

 Lionel:

Since the SSPX can accept Vatican Council II without Marchetti's premise they are in a position to affirm Tradition and especially the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So they can have it both ways. They can affirm Vatican Council II (premise-free) and extra ecclesiam nulla salus without exceptions as was mentioned in the General Chapter Statement of 2012.

The onus is with the CDF. They can agree to this and then allow the SSPX to use the churches and chapels.

Since they would not be in schism; they would not be denying Vatican Council II (premise-free).However they would continue to reject Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise , by the present Magisterium.

-Lionel Andrades