Archbishop Pozzo: SSPX Continuing Dialogue With Holy See
by Edward Pentin07/04/2016
Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei".
Archbishop Guido Pozzo, the Vatican’s point-man for regularizing the Society of St. Pius X, has reaffirmed that the Society is continuing dialogue with the Holy See.
Lionel: It is a monologue. The Vatican wants the SSPX to interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of traditional and rational Feeneyism.The SSPX is refusing to accept the heretical Cushingite version,nor will they talk about the Feeneyite version.
In an interview with Vatican Radio's Italian edition on Friday, the Secretary for the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" said a statement the Society issued last week was not a step back from dialogue, nor did the priestly fraternity say anything new about its view of the current situation in the Church.
But he made clear that although the Society said in its statement that canonical recognition is not a priority, for the Vatican it is an “essential condition” if the SSPX is to come into “full ecclesiastical communion” with the Holy See.
Lionel: He means that the SSPX has to interpret Vatican Council II with innovative Cushingism as a theology. Then Vatican Council II is a break with the traditional teachings on other religions, exclusive salvation in the Church, the need for Protestants to convert into the Catholic Church, the separation of Church and State and the theological rejection of the Church's teaching on the Social Reign of Jesus Christ over all political legislation.It is only then that the Left and the Masonic centers will tell the Vatican that they have no objection to the SSPX being given canonical status.
Sources told the Register last week that the Synod on the Family and other confusing signals from Rome led to the Society's statement, but that the SSPX still very much hopes for regularization.
Lionel: Earlier it was understood that the Vatican would grant canonical status to the SSPX without them having to accept Vatican Council II (Cushingite).
Here below is my translation of Archbishop Pozzo’s interview:
Vatican Radio: The Society of St. Pius X today does not primarily seek canonical recognition from the Holy See, according to a statement from the traditionalist community made public on June 29. Is this a setback in the ongoing dialogue?
Archbishop Pozzo: The Commission "Ecclesia Dei" does not consider it to be a step back from dialogue. From the press release it appears not to enter into the merits of the substantive issues that are being considered in the dialogue and confrontation between the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei "and the Society of Saint Pius X. Thus dialogue and debate on such concrete issues will continue.
How do you interpret this statement?
Let's say it does not say anything new with respect to the noted and well known positions of the Society of St. Pius X about the situation of the Church today. I can add, where appropriate, that when it refers to the lack of canonical recognition, which is not the thing they’re considering right now, I can say that canonical recognition by the Holy See is an essential condition for a Catholic organization to be in full ecclesiastical communion, conforming to the law. There is no canonical recognition, we are working on it, but canonical recognition is not something notarial, it is essential!
Lionel: Canonical recognition is essential since it is a manipulative tool. Canonical recognition is only given to those who reject Tradition by interpreting Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and conclusion.
Without the irrational premise and conclusion the ecclesiology of the Church would still be the same as before the Council of Trent.This would be a problem for the Left and the Vatican.
The Pope is not allowing the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate priests to offer the Traditional Latin Mass since he believes they are ideological.They are not accepting Vatican Council II with the Cushingite theology.For them, like the SSPX, the ecclesiology has not changed even though they are not aware of the option of a Feeneyite Vatican Council II which supports their traditional ecclesiology.
You brought up several key points for you, which you’re working together on...
They are always the same questions of doctrinal and disciplinary order: they are questions concerning the Magisterium, tradition, the issues of Vatican II ... So they are all things already known which we do not need to repeat.
Lionel: Precisely. The Vatican is not going to accept Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and the SSPX and the sedevacantists are not asking Ecclesia Dei to do so. So there is nothing new.
The Pope received the superior general of the Fraternity, Bishop Fellay, recently. How frequent are these direct or indirect contacts?
There are no specific deadlines. The meetings take place between us in the Commission "Ecclesia Dei" or our delegates, and the representatives of the Society of St. Pius X. There was, however, this important meeting: a private audience with the Holy Father, in which Bishop Fellay could explain his point of view to the Holy Father. It was a very cordial meeting and certainly falls within the path of dialogue and above all of mutual trust that we are building together. So it is possible that there will be other meetings, but these haven’t yet been scheduled.
Benedict XVI was very keen for this work to achieve unity with the Society. Does Pope Francis have the same perspective?
Yes, I really think so. Pope Francis has at heart the unity of the Church and all that can promote the unity of the Church. He is always mentally very open to this. This was also acknowledged by Bishop Fellay. But evidently we also cannot deny that there are still issues to resolve, to face, to be examined.
Lionel. Pope Benedict like Pope Francis is a Cushingite.He has implemented the new theology in the Catholic Church. Both popes interpret magisterial documents with philosophical subjectivism.The baptism of desire refers to objective cases for them.They can allegedly know of people who will be saved without the baptism of water.So they have changed salvation theology. There is alleged known salvation outside the Church. So this is the basis for the Anonymous Christian of Karl Rahner.Upon this irrational philosophy they have accepted a new theology and a new ecclesiology.We can see the new theology in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which promotes Rahner's Anonymous Christian.It assumes there is known salvation outside the Catholic Church.
Summorum Pontificum was issued with the understanding that Traditional Latin Mass would be offered with the new ecclesiology.This is a rupture with the pre-Council of Trent ecclesiology.
So on the part of the Holy See, there is openness, but steadfastness ...
The steadfastness is on what is essential to being Catholic.
Lionel: False. For the Vatican the steadfastness is there in all having to accept a heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Nicene Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
From this point of view there is no change!
Lionel: These are unprecedented times as the sedevantist bishop Bishop Donald Sanborn observed in his debate with Dr.Robert Fastiggi, professor of theology at the Sacred Heart seminary, Detroit. He is correct.We today have magisterial heresy. Official heresy is being taught by the contemporary magisterium. It is being enforced with the 'canonical status' bait.Or their is the threat of a priest losing his incardination or being suspended. A priest has to interpret hypothetical cases as referring not to hypothetical cases but explicit and personally known persons in the present times.A priest who says there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2016 will get a caution- phone call from the Rome Vicariate or someone at the Vatican.
But I do not think that now it’s a question of steadfastness: it’s just about tackling concrete problems and trying to solve them and solve them together. The opening is in this sense: in the sense that we have identified the issues to be addressed and we are addressing them.
Lionel: The issue has not been addressed.Vatican Council II can be interpreted with hypothetical cases remaining hypothetical. Then the conclusion is different.Archbishop Guido Pozzo will not comment on this.Can he and Bishop Fellay interpret Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases being hypothetical ? LG 16 would refer to an invisible and not visible case.LG 8 would refer to a hypothetical case known only to God and not someone personally known in the present times, who has received salvation outside the Church.
This is the difference between Vatican Council II Cushingite and Feeneyite.
Of course it will take some time, but there must be this mutual readiness [to come to an agreement].
1.I reject Vatican Council II( Cushingite) and accept Vatican Council II( Feeneyite). May be they both could do the same.
2.I accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with Feenyism and not Cushingism.They could do the same.I accept and agree with the SSPX General Chapter Statement (2012) on extra ecclesiam nulla salus without exceptions. Archbishop Guido Pozzo could do the same.
3.I interpret the Nicene Creed as saying there is one known baptism for the forgiveness of sins and not three or more known baptisms, without the baptism of water.
4.I interpret and accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church with Feneeyism i.e hypothetical cases are hypothetical and so are not known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite).
This could be a subject for their talks after summer.-Lionel Andrades