Saturday, March 28, 2015

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

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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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

On the 5th Centenary of the Birth of Saint Teresa of Jesus, Catholic Reformer - by Don Pietro Leone

On the 5th Centenary of the Birth of Saint Teresa of Jesus, Catholic Reformer - Guest-post by Don Pietro Leone

I - The Life

St. Teresa was born in Gotarrendura, Avila, Castile, of Alonso Sanchez de Cepeda and Beatrice (Beatriz) de Ahumada on 28th March, 1515, 500 years ago. As a child she ran away from home in search of martyrdom at the hands of the Moslems Her desire was 'to see God', which was later to be realized in her exercise of mental prayer, which particularly in the form of contemplation, is of course nothing else than the knowledge and love of the Most Blessed Trinity as a foretaste of the Beatific Vision.

After a period of a certain levity and frivolity, although in innocence, she was entrusted by her father to the educative care of the Augustinian nuns of Avila, whence she later entered in the order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel.

She was animated with a desire for perfection even if until her forties remained a religious of merely average virtue. One morning as she entered the convent oratory, she was profoundly moved at the sight of the Ecce Homo - the wounds, the blood, the lacerated flesh. In this period she read the Confessions of St. Augustine and felt she had encountered a great spirit, a great heart on fire with the flame with which she also was consumed: love, love to the point of sacrifice, to the point of death.

Exceptional Graces are granted her: the prayer of quiet, of union, and frequent visions. She feels the need to embrace a life of greater austerity and mortification, and receives permission to found a monastery where, in contrast to the laxness and the dissipated spirit of the religious life of her day, the primitive Rule is to be observed in all its severity, where absolute poverty and a prayer-life of great intensity are cultivated.

Another important motive for this foundation is the Lutheran heresy.
'About this time I heard of the miseries of France' she writes in the Way of Perfection (1.2), 'and of the disorders and havoc those Lutherans had committed there, and how rapidly this miserable sect went on increasing. This afflicted me exceedingly; and as if I could have done something, or had been something, I cried to our Lord, and implored Him to remedy so great an evil. It seemed as if I could have laid down a thousand lives, to recover only one of those innumerable souls who are lost in that heresy. But seeing myself only a woman, and so wicked too, and prevented from promoting as I desired the glory of God (and all my care was, and is still, that as He has so many enemies and so few friends – these last at least might continue good), I resolved to do the little which lay in my power, viz. to follow the evangelical counsels with all the perfection I could, and to induce the few nuns who are here to do the same, confiding in the great goodness of God, who never fails to assist those that are determined to leave all things for Him; and hoping (these nuns being such as I had represented them in my desires) that, in the midst of their virtues, my faults and imperfections might have no force, and that thus I might be able in something to please our Lord...'

After the first Monastery dedicated to St. Joseph, many others followed, as the saint undertakes a reform of the Carmelite friars as well. For a while her work is held in check by the Calced, or unreformed, Carmelites, who also detain her collaborator St. John of the Cross in prison, submitting him to scourging and other maltreatments, until at last permission is given to continue the reform. After a long illness she dies on the 4th. October 1582 in profound peace, a smile upon her lips.

II - The Doctrine

On the saint's Feast day, the prayer of the Mass contains the following words: 'caelestis eius doctrinae pabulo nutriamur, et piae devotionis erudiamur affectu'. Her doctrine is called 'celestial' and indeed forms the basis for her later nomination as Doctor of the Church, together, of course, with St. John of the Cross.

St. Teresa teaches with the same St.John, that all are called to the mystic union with God, even in this life.

The means to this end are the perfection in the virtues and the faithful and diligent practice of meditative prayer. Following her mentor St. Peter of Alcantara, she counsels a form of simple meditation consisting of reading devout literature, particularly the Holy Scripture, and that which speaks of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a little at a time, and pausing to meditate upon the words when they strike one, then proceeding with the reading in the same way. The person must persevere in this practice despite temptations and aridity, and the Lord will perhaps reward him with the prayer of recollection of simple affectionate vision of simplicity. This prayer is however not yet contemplative in the strict sense of passive, infused, contemplation, but only in the active, acquired sense.

To find God, St Teresa explains in the same Way of Perfection, 'the soul does not require wings to fly and seek Him, but she can compose herself in solitude and behold Him within herself: and let her not separate from so good a Guest, but with great humility speak to Him as a Father, entreat Him as a Father, relate her troubles to Him, and beg a remedy for them, knowing that she is not worthy to be His daughter....This kind of prayer, though it be vocal, recollects the understanding much sooner, and is a prayer that brings with it many benefits. It is called the prayer of recollection, because in it the soul recollects all the faculties, and enters within herself with her God; ... Those that can thus shut themselves up in this little Heaven of our soul, where He abides who created heaven and earth; and they who can also accustom themselves not to behold, or stay where these exterior senses distract them, let them believe that they walk in an excellent way, and that they shall not fail of being able to drink the living water from the fountain...'

At this stage in the ascent of the soul to God, there follows the 'Night of the Senses', with its pain, illnesses, aridity, violent temptations, and contradictions, which serves to detach the subject from creatures, pleasures, and self, to attach him to God in a state of passive recollection, at the beginnings of infused contemplation. In her 'Relation to Father Rodrigo Alvarez' the saint writes: 'The soul seems to desire to withdraw itself from the external tumults retreating into herself; and sensing that they sometimes come after her, feels the need to close the eyes and not see, nor hear, and not understand anything but that with which she is now occupied, that is to to be able alone to treat with God alone.'

Then it is that a deep and delightful peace inundate the soul in a sweet and supernatural sleep which dilates and enormously expands her love. This is the 'prayer of quiet'. It is most of all the will that participates in this joy, happy to be enslaved in this way by God and happy to enjoy this union with Him, like St. Mary Magdalen in the presence of Our Lord.

In the 'prayer of union', not only the will but all the other faculties - intelligence, memory, imagination - are suspended and immersed in God. The soul feels so united with God that it is impossible for her to doubt their interpenetration. She is inundated with an extreme loving tenderness and filled with courage. This is the time for heroic resolutions, and ardent desires, accompanied by a horror for the World and all worldly vanities. This prayer admits of various degrees and can assume an ecstatic quality. Despite the fact that God wounds the soul with arrows of love and inflames her with the most holy desires, He does not cease to purify her with great internal and external trials. This is the 'passive night of the spirit' in the words of St. John of the Cross. 'When I think of these pains', writes the saint in 'The Interior Castle', 'I fear that if we had foreseen them, it would have been very difficult for our natural weakness to have resolved to bear them.'

These trials prepare the soul to enter the 'Seventh Mansion', the state of 'transforming union', or 'spiritual marriage': the highest and most sublime degree of prayer possible on this earth. This prayer too has various phases or stages. the Divine Spouse communicates his invitations of a more and more intimate and delicate nature, and unites Himself to her to such an extent that she forgets all things and has only one thought: how to please Him. He immerses her in a calm and sweet state, usually without raptures and ecstasy, in which she sees the Three Divine Persons of the Most Holy Trinity communicate Themselves to her 'in a representation of the Truth', whereby it is especially the Second Person Who contracts an alliance of affection with her. The soul resolves zealously to pursue the interests of the Beloved, with an immense desire to suffer and to labour therein, while at the same time exclaims with St. Paul: 'Cupio dissolvi et esse cum Christo'.

This then is the mystical doctrine of St. Teresa, always combined with the ascetic doctrine (as we have already seen at the initial stage of the spiritual life): the perfection of the soul notably in the virtues of humility, detachment, abnegation of self, and of Charity.

III - A Message for Us

Sometimes people will ask about Church teaching: 'How is all that relevant to us?' The answer is that the Church teaches the Truth, and the Truth is always relevant, even in its smallest details. But the life and doctrine of St. Teresa do indeed have a particular relevance to-day in that they teach us what is prayer and give witness to the importance of self-sacrifice.

Today there is, in the first place, much ignorance about prayer, and, in the second place, a spirit of activism which either supplants prayer or attempts to insinuate itself within it. When one speaks to the faithful of prayer to-day, they will probably think immediately of vocal prayer such as the Rosaryf, or prayers of petition in general. If they know anything about mental prayer, they will think of meditation, the type of mental prayer that involves the exercise of the mind. Who thinks of contemplation, where the mind is completely passive, the type of prayer to which Our Lord is calling us all?

As for self-sacrifice, this virtue essential for the Christian life is but seldom preached by the contemporary men of the Church, while they have done their best to suppress that great model and teacher of self-sacrifice which is the Holy Mass according to the venerable Roman rite: this rite about which St. Teresa said that she would have gladly given her life for the least of its rubrics. This is the virtue, then, that resonates from every page of her writings: essential for progress in prayer and for the work of perfection of oneself: that is for our sanctification, for the attainment of that degree of Glory in Heaven for which God has created us.

So, dear reader, take courage after the example of this great saint: dedicate yourself to prayer with greater seriousness, and any-one contemplating a religious vocation, dare to follow the example of St. Teresa and her first communities: 'True cenacles of souls thirsting for perfection, desirous to repair with their love the innumerable offenses against God, longing for a life of cordial intimacy with Him' (Fr. M.N. Morando, Introduction to the 'Opere di Santa Teresa di Gesù' on which this short treatment is principally based). We have only one life, and there follows Eternity.

So if we want to celebrate the fifth centenary of a famous figure and their Reform, let us not turn to Martin Luther along with certain of our more muddleheaded contemporaries, but to St. Teresa, inspired, not to praise him or to 'clamber up mirrors' trying to reconcile Truth and Falsehood, but to repair the damage he caused to Our Holy Mother the Church with all the strength of her soul. Let us follow in her footsteps in a life of self-sacrifice: to console His Divine Majesty as much as lies in our power, and to sanctify our souls for the love of His Most Holy Name. Amen.

Saint Teresa of Avila, Pray for us!

[Image: Juan Martin Cabezalero, The Communion of Saint Teresa, Museo Lazaro Galdiano, Madrid]

Time to PAUSE - Michael Voris

Time to PAUSE

Cardinal Nichols' criticism of faithful priests is deeply disturbing

Cardinal Nichols conducting dialogue on the Synod via the press

I am deeply disturbed by Cardinal Nichols' criticism of the 461 brave priests who signed a letter upholding the unchangeable teachings of the Catholic Church on marriage and Holy Communion.

In the letter, which was published in the Catholic Herald yesterday, priests from all over England and Wales pledged to remain faithful to Catholic teaching and to offer true pastoral care to all those who find themselves in difficult situations.

A statement made by Cardinal Nichols' spokesman said:

“Every priest in England and Wales has been asked to reflect on the Synod discussion. It is my understanding that this has been taken up in every diocese, and that channels of communication have been established.”
It continued:

“The pastoral experience and concern of all priests in these matters are of great importance and are welcomed by the Bishops. Pope Francis has asked for a period of spiritual discernment. This dialogue, between a priest and his bishop, is not best conducted through the press.”
I find this statement astonishing for a number of reasons.

Firstly, Cardinal Nichols has himself used the press to indicate sympathy for views being promoted by the "radical elements" (to use Cardinal Pell's phrase) who want to dismantle Catholic teaching on marriage and the family.

I drew attention yesterday to the
press conference at which Cardinal Nichols undermined Catholic teaching on the reception of Holy Communion by the divorced and "remarried".

The Cardinal also used the press to express his disappointment that the final report of the synod did not include controversial phrases originally placed in the notorious interim report. He told BBC Radio 4’s Sunday programme:

“I didn’t think it went far enough, there were three key words as far as I was concerned … ‘respect’, ‘welcome’ and ‘value’. I was looking for those words and they weren’t there and so I didn’t think that was a good paragraph.”
He added:

“I didn’t think it was a good text because it didn’t include those words strongly enough so I wasn’t satisfied with it.”
Secondly, it is hardly surprising that priests faithful to Catholic teaching would lack confidence in the "channels of communication" that are claimed to "have been established." I also mentioned yesterday that the official document produced by Bishops' Conference of England and Wales for clergy seemed nothing other than an instrument for intimidating priests who wish to remain faithful to the Church's traditional doctrine and discipline.

Is it any surprise that these brave priests would wish to speak directly to the Catholic faithful rather than trust "channels of communication" established by the same people responsible for this truly disgraceful document?

Indeed, in their press statement an anonymous priest was quoted who alleged that priests involved in the project had been intimidated by "senior churchmen."

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, how can any Catholic bishop object to priests using the media to express their loyalty to the teaching of Christ and their desire to give true pastoral care to all who need it?

Catholics should be very disturbed by the Cardinal's comments; very disturbed indeed.


Featured Image


Fr. Pfeiffer Sermons and Conference in England & Ireland for Lent

Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer Sermons and Conference in England & Ireland


The Magisterium made a mistake at Vatican Council II when it accomodated the Marchetti 1949 error

The Magisterium made a mistake at Vatican Council II when it accomodated the Marchetti 1949 error.
We can still interpret the Council in accord with the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Cardinal Kasper, Bishop Schneider,Bruno Gherardini are using the Marchetti error so the Council is ambigous.
Cardinal Marchetti assumed there is salvation outside the Church and that being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) and the baptism of desire (BOD) , were examples of such salvation, which were exceptions to traditional EENS.
This was false. It was factually and objectively incorrect but it was not corrected by the popes, since Pope Pius XII.
If these cases are exceptions to EENS it would mean we can see the dead who are in Heaven.
It is not humanly possible to know of any person saved outside the Church i.e without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.We cannot see or know such a case on March 28,2015. So there is no exception to the dogma.There cannot be an exception for us human beings.
 At Vatican Council II, Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits,were active.They had still maintained the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney. This was made  known world wide by the secular media. He was also still expelled from the Jesuit community.Under these conditions which they created in Boston, Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits incorporated the Marchetti error in the text of Vatican Council II (LG 14,AG 7 etc).
So Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentes 14 could contradict itself.However it would contradict itself only for those who are not aware of  Marchetti's mistake.
For those who infer that the dead , who are now in Heaven can be explicit exceptions to the dogma there emerge exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II. This was the Cushing-Jesuit(John Courtney Murray,Karl Rahner, Hans Kung etc) line of thinking.
For those of us who know that the deceased saved in Heaven with the BOD or or I.I ( followed by the baptism of water) are not visible to us on earth and they are known only to God, there are no exceptions to EENS. AG7 and LG 14 do not contradict itself.
Cardinal Marchetti was dead before Vatican Council II.It is also believed that he did not make the original mistake but that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (which carries his name) was 'tampered with'. Additions were made.It was made public by the Archdiocese of Boston after Marchetti died. The Letter an inter-office communication, from one bishop to another, was made public three years after it was originally issued.It did not carry the seal and signature of the responsible Holy Office officials.It was placed in the Denzinger by Fr.Karl Rahner S.J and referenced in the Catechism by Cardinal Ratzinger.
The concept of BOD and I.I being exceptions to EENS was accepted sadly in Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus , Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257, 846, Balamand Declaration etc.It was approved in two papers of the International Theological Commission.
Now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith, Vatican wants the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) and the Franciscans of the Immaculate to accept Vatican Council II interpreted with Marchetti's irrational premise, inference and conclusion.
To receive canonical status the SSPX have to endorse an irrational ecclesiology.This irrational ecclesiology( with the visible dead inference) is wrongly attributed to the Novus Ordo Mass by Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX and by many traditionalists.
The new ecclesiology really comes from Cardinal Marchetti's premise and inference.When this error is detected and avoided, even priests who offer Mass in Italian can affirm an exclusivist ecclesiology and endorse traditional EENS.It would not be in conflict with Vatican Council II. Even lay movements like the Neocatechumenal Way , Catholic Charismatic Renewal, Focolares etc can affirm the centuries old interpretation of EENS along with Vatican Council II, interpreted without Marchetti's premise, inference and conclusion.-Lionel Andrades