Monday, October 9, 2017

Abp. Pozzo wanted Bishop Fellay to interpret the doctrinal preamble with an irrational premise : ignorance or scandal ?






Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of Ecclesia Dei, Vatican wanted the SSPX to sign the doctrinal preamble with a false premise. This would create a non traditional and heretical conclusion.It would make Vatican Council II a rupture with Tradition; the Syllabus of Errors,EENS, past exclusivist ecclesiology  etc.There was a choice but this was not known to Bishop Fellay.

Here is how it works :
False premise (invisible people are visible, unknown people are known in the present times), 
False inference( these invisible but visible people are saved outside the Church, there are known cases of really unknown people who are saved outside the Church)
False and non traditional conclusion (outside the Church there is known salvation with these invisible-visible cases, so the Nicene Creed means 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins, they are desire, blood and invincible ignorance and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
The 'new' dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) says every one needs to enter the Church as a member for salvation except for known cases of those saved with the baptism of desire,blood and in invincible ignorance.
Vatican Council II is interpreted as being a rupture with the past ecclesiology of the Church since now there is known salvation outside the Church and so every one does not need enter for salvation.
Vatican Council II  is a rupture also with the dogma EENS as it was known over the centuries since LG 16 etc refer to known people saved outside the Church.It means ecumenism and salvation for non Christians has also changed.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is interpreted as a rupture with the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionareis in the 16th century, for example.Since now there is known salvation outside the Church. So when CCC 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments it is a reference to a known person saved outside the Church.
When CCC 846 says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church it accomodates being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire of known people saved outside the Church.If it was an invisible and unknown person he or she would not be relevant to the dogma EENS and would not be an exception.
The Syllabus of Errors is rejected since with  known salvation outside the Church there is the new ecumenism replacing an ecumenism of return and there is known salvation in other religions.
The past ecclesiology based on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus saying all need to enter the Church as members with no exception for salvation, has been replaced with the new ecclesiology which teaches that there is salvation outside the Church and so there is the new ecumenism etc.
The Nicene Creed is understood as meaning 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins, they are desire, blood and invincible ignorance and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
So Bishop Fellay had to sign a doctrinal preamble accepting all this.He would have had to accept  Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise, false inference and false conclusion.

Here is the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which Archbishop Guido Pozzo will not affirm in public since there are known exceptions to the dogma for him.He has to use the false premise.For him invisible for us baptism of desire etc are visible exceptions to this dogma, so there is a new understanding of EENS, it is EENS with known exceptions.

They do not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (
Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (
Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

-from the website Catholicism.org

With the false premise he changes the interpretation of Vatican Council II.He does not tell Fellay that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the irrational premise and the conclusion would be different, it would be traditional.
The following eight references in Vatican Council II, for example,  are references to hypothetical cases(LG 16 etc).However they are re-interpreted as being known people saved outside the Church and so are assumed to be exceptions to the dogma EENS cited above. This is done by mixing up what is hypothetical as being objective, what is unknown as being known in personal cases.
So Vatican Council II emerges as a rupture with Tardition.It is a rupture with the old ecclesiology, EENS and the Syllabus of Errors. There is a new ecumenism and a new concept of other religions.
When Bishop Fellay had to sign the doctrinal preamble with the false premise the following eight references in the Council text would be considered exceptions to the dogma EENS. In other words they refer to visible and known people saved outside the Catholic Church for them to be exceptions.

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II
1. 'elements of sanctification and truth'in other religions(LG 8),
2..'good and holy' things in other religions(NA 2),
3..'a ray of that Truth which enlightens' all men(NA 2),
4.'imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3),
5.' people of good will in other religions'(GS 22),
6.' seeds of the Word'(AG 11),
7.'invincible ignorance'(LG 16),
8.'a good conscience'(LG 16) etc.

By agreeing in principle that hypothetical cases are objectively visible in the present times Bishop Bernard Fellay would also be interpreting the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) as a rupture with the dogma EENS and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.There is a choice. He can re-interpret the Catechism without the premise.
Here are hypothetical and theoretical references in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which Archbishop Pozzo assumes are physically visible people in the present times.This is how he makes it relevant to EENS.So the Catechism is interpreted as a rupture with the dogma EENS cited above.It is rupture also with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
1. 'God is not limited to the Sacraments'(CCC 1257)
'2.all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body'(CC(CCC 846).
3. Those 'justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians'(CCC 818).
4. They are 'joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."(CCC 838).
5. 'the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims'(CCC 841).

VATICAN COUNCIL II AND EENS ARE PREMISE-FREE FOR ME
There are no practical exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II for me .Vatican Council II and EENS are premise-free for me.They do not contradict the Syllabus of Errors.

So I am affirming the Syllabus of Errors,Vatican Council II (premise-free) and EENS(premise-free).I am in harmony with the SSPX General Chapter Statement(2012) which affirmed EENS(premise-free).



He wanted the SSPX to sign a doctrinal preamble which would indicate that in principle the SSPX accepts Vatican Council II, EENS and other magisterial documents interpreted with the irrational premise.

Archbishop Guido Pozzo violates the Principle of Non Contradiction by supporting a Vatican Council II in which hypothetical cases are considered practical exceptions to traditional EENS.There are no practical exceptions for us humans.Invisible people in Heaven are not also visible on earth.

He also violates the Principle of Non Contradiction by supporting an EENS in which hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance( I.I ) are considered practical exceptions. We cannot see or meet someone saved with BOD, BOB and I.I.

Now it is possible for individual SSPX priests to go to the Vatican or the local bishop and tell them that they affirm Vatican Council II(without the premise).Religious from other communities and lay people can do the same.

The Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) must immediately open contacts with the Vatican for their canonical status.The SSPX could cite the reports on this blog Eucharist and Mission and ask the CDF/Ecclesia Dei if Vatican Council II( premise-free) is acceptable to them.They could ask Ecclesia Dei if it is permitted to interpret Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical.Would this be approved by the Vatican and the Bishops' Conferences?
The doctrinal issue to be approved is simple.Here are the two points.
1.Can the SSPX interpret the baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I)as referring to hypothetical and theoretical cases and not practical exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS),for example, in 2017?
2.Can the SSPX interpret LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22, AG 7, AG 11 etc as being hypothetical cases known only to God? They are not references to known people saved outside the Church,without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.So they are not practical exceptions to EENS as it was interpreted by the magisterium of the 16th century.
So the SSPX would be affirming Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS, in which BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions.

If Ecclesia Dei agrees with these two points then Vatican Council II is no more an issue for the SSPX. It is not an impediment for reconciliation.


The SSPX must begin negotiations immediately for its canonical status and cite the doctrinal and theological explanations given on this blog, as a reference.-Lionel Andrades

OCTOBER 9, 2017

Abp.Pozzo wanted the SSPX to sign the doctrinal preamble with an irrational premise : it's unethical
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/abppozzo-wanted-sspx-to-sign-doctrinal_9.html


TERMS EXPLAINED


Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.It affirms traditional EENS like the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century.
Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS.There are exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church for salvation.It wronly assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.So it uses the false premise to reject the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Irrational premise: It is assuming hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but instead are objective cases in the present times.
It assumes invisible and unknown people are visible and unknown in our reality.
Baptism of Desire ( premise-free): It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it, the baptism of desire, is not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Baptism of Desire (with the false premise): It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved.A known person is assumed to be known.
Invincible Ignorance ( premise-free): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is a hypothetical case it is not an exception to the dogma EENS.The false premise was not used.
Invincible Ignorance (with the false premise): This refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.
Council of Florence: One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exception.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was premise-free.
Liberal theologians: They re-interpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They used the false premise.
Vatican Council II (with the premise): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II ( premise-free):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( premise-free),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston:(with the false premise) It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.It used the false premise.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( premise-free). It means interpreting the first part of the  the Letter without the false premise.Only the first part.It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.However the second part of the Letter contradicts the first part since it uses the false premise.
Letter of the Holy Office ( with the false premise).The second part of the Letter rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( with the premise) as being exceptions to EENS (premise-free). In other words they are mistaken for being visible and known cases when they really are invisible for us.It wrongly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.
Baltimore Catechism: It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with the confusion.It can be interpreted premise-free.
Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted as being premise -free. The references to invincible ignorance etc have to be interpreted without the false premise. So it does not contradict the dogma EENS( premise-free).
Nicene Creed ( with the premise): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms when the false premise is used in the interpretation. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.This is an irrational but common understanding.
Nicene Creed ( premise-free): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.

New Theology: : (with the premise) It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.It is of course based on the false premise.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( with the false premise).It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.The baptism of desire( with the premise), baptism of blood( with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance( with the premise) are exceptions to dogma as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free): It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.Invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not visible exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church for salvation.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( with the premise): CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( premise-free). So this is an interpretation of the Catechism with the false premise.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( premise-free): CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known cases in the present times of God not being not limited to the Sacraments(CCC1257).
When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needing to formally enter the Church.It is a reference to a hypothetical case and not somebody known. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.
________________________
Massimo Faggioli like Cardinal Raymond Burke does not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (
Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (
Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
Instead they assume  hypothetical references in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 are non hypothetical and are examples of objective cases, known people saved outside the Church.So these documents become a rupture with Tradition when they really are not.

EXAMPLES OF THE HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE CATECHISM FOR THEM WHICH ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
1. 'God is not limited to the Sacraments'(CCC 1257)
'2.all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body'(CC(CCC 846).
3. Those 'justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians'(CCC 818).
4. They are 'joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."(CCC 838).
5. 'the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims'(CCC 841).

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II FOR THEM WHICH ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
1. 'elements of sanctification and truth'in other religions(LG 8),
2..'good and holy' things in other religions(NA 2),
3..'a ray of that Truth which enlightens' all men(NA 2),
4.'imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3),
5.' people of good will in other religions'(GS 22),
6.' seeds of the Word'(AG 11),
7.'invincible ignorance'(LG 16),
8.'a good conscience'(LG 16) etc.

HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON WHICH FOR THEM ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.

1.Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.(we do not know who this person is in particular so it is a hypothetical case.)

2.In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.(we do not know any one in particular as such so this is a hypothetical case.)

3.Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.( if there is any such person he or she would only be known to God. So this passage is irrelevant to the dogma EENS. It cannot be an exception.Since it is a reference to an invisible person for us.)

4.However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.(it is a reference to an unknown catechumen)

 5.For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.( and we do not know any in particular.So this is a theoretical and hypothetical reference) -Lionel Andrades
___________________________________


The Boniface problem

The Boniface problem is a real problem among educated Catholics today especially traditionalists. Since I am asking them to affirm a Vatican Council II ( premise-free) and extra ecclesiam nulla salus(premise-free).All these years, for a few generations, they were taught to affirm both with the irrational premise.This was the norm in the Catholic Church, among liberals and conservative Catholics.
This is tough for Boniface at the blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam.Since he was taught that the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). Now I am saying they never were.
So how is he going to make the change?
He was taught probably that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for denying the baptism of desire etc as being an exception to the dogma EENS. Now I am saying that the excommunication was wrong since BOD, BOB and I.I never were exceptions to the dogma EENS. 
How is Boniface going to make the switich?
He was taught that Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition, it is a break with the Syllabus of Errors etc. Now I am saying that if hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II are interpreted as just being hypothetical, then the Council does not contradict the old ecclesiology, EENS or the Syllabus of Errors. This is new information and he does not know any one else who says the same thing.
Then the whole Church interprets BOD, BOB and I.I as being visible exceptions to EENS so why should he listen to a lay man like me? 
Why make the transition even though it is rational and traditional?
This is the Boniface problem thousands of Catholics face with what I write.Then there those who do not want to contradict their superiors or lose some privilege they have so they do not affirm magisterial documents without the irrational premise.
Even the traditionalist blogger Louie Verrecchio has the Boniface problem.So does Cardinal Burke, Chris Ferrara....-Lionel Andrades

OCTOBER 8, 2017


Boniface at Unam Sanctam Catholicam -tough order!

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/boniface-at-unam-sanctam-catholicam.html

PICS: Thousands of Poles Pray on the Border Against ‘Islamisation of Europe’

rosary





http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/10/08/thousands-poles-pray-border-islamisation-europe/

Abp.Pozzo wanted the SSPX to sign the doctrinal preamble with an irrational premise : it's unethical


The Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) must note that Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of Ecclesia Dei, Vatican wanted them to sign the doctrinal preamble while accepting LG 16, UR 3,NA 2 etc in Vatican Council II as referring to known people in 2017 saved outside the Church.He wanted them to contradict the Syllabus of Errors by assuming invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance referred to visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and were examples of salvation outside the Church.This is the interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS accepted by Cardinal Raymond Burke, Massimo Faggioli,Fr.James Martin s.j...
The two popes use a false premise (invisible people are visible), false inference( these invisible but visible people are saved outside the Church) and non traditional conclusion (outside the Church there is known salvation with these invisible-visible cases, so there is a new understanding of the Nicene Creed, EENS,Vatican Council II and the Catechisms).


ABP.POZZO MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THERE ARE NO PRACTICAL EXCEPTIONS TO EENS IN 2017
So Archbishop Pozzo must be asked to acknowledge that there are no practical exceptions to EENS in 2017.Also the references to BOB, BOB and I.I in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and LG 16, LG 8,UR 3, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are to theoretical cases, possibilities known only to God and not to personally known people.
The Council of Trent, Catechism of Pius X and Baltimore, Mystici Corporis, the popes in the ordinary and extra ordinary magisterium and Vatican Council II do not state that we have to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I etc as referring to known people saved outside the Church.Yet this was wrongly inferred to by the liberal theologians and is accepted by cardinals and bishops today at the CDF/Ecclesia Dei, Vatican.

ASK ABP.POZZO TO REINTERPRET EENS AND VATICAN COUNCIL II
The SSPX can ask Archbishop Guido Pozzo to, like me, interpret Vatican Council II as being in harmony with EENS.This would be the EENS as it was interpreted by the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century and not EENS as having visible for us BOD, BOB and I.l as its exceptions.

ASK HIM TO AFFIRM VATICAN COUNCIL II(PREMISE-FREE) AND EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SAUS(PREMISE-FREE)
So he must affirm a Vatican Council II( premise-free) and EENS(premise-free).
He cannot expect the SSPX to sign a doctrinal preamble with an irrational interpretation of magisterial documents when a rational alternative is available.Also to know that LG 16 etc refers to unknown people in the present times, and then to continue with the confusion, is unethical, deceptive and not Catholic.-Lionel Andrades
October 8, 2017
Archbishop Guido Pozzo rejects the Syllabus of Errors with Vatican Council II and EENS interpreted with the false premise : SSPX must note the doctrinal error