Repost : Abp.Guido Pozzo cannot affirm the Syllabus of Errors nor the past exclusivist ecclesiology since Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of rupture for him with invisible cases being visible : SSPX priests must correct his error
OCTOBER 12, 2017
Abp.Guido Pozzo cannot affirm the Syllabus of Errors nor the past exclusivist ecclesiology since Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of rupture for him with invisible cases being visible : SSPX priests must correct his error
Recently there was a conference at the University of St. Thomas Aquinas(Angelicum) Rome where Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of Ecclesia Dei was present and no one asked him why had the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) have to sign a doctrinal preamble affirming Vatican Council II with an irrational premise instead of without the premise? He was not asked why was the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 not accepted by Ecclesia Dei when it affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) without the premise( there are no known possibilities of salvation outside the Church)?
Why cannot the Vatican affirm Vatican Council II and EENS without the invisible- people- are- visible premise and the these- visible- people- are- examples- of- salvation- outside -the- Church conclusion.
No one asked him about this since they do not know what I am talking about or, for political or other reasons they kept quiet just as Archbishop Pozzo will not take the initiative and comment on this issue.
Bishop Bernard Fellay has signed the Filial Correction of Pope Francis on Amoris Laetitiasince he understands the new moral theology and new doctrines being put forth in that document.But he does not understand yet, it seems, that Vatican Council II and EENS can be interpreted with or without the irrational premise and non traditional conclusion.The result is different.
He has never affirmed EENS and Vatican Council II without the premise,which of course would be opposed by the political Left but this is the direction all religious communities(Carmelities,Dominicans etc) must move, if they want to be honest and faithful to the Truth.
Superiors of religious communities cannot fake it and say every one does not need to enter the Church for salvation since invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation in 2017.
They cannot say that the cardinals at Vatican Council II(1960-65) did not make a mistake when they believed that invisible cases of the baptism of desire etc were visible and personally known.They did make a mistake! They were confused with the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney which was still not lifted at that time.
Similarly Religious Superiors and bishops cannot pretend that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 did not make a mistake when it assumed hypothetical and theoretical casesof the baptism of desire etc were explicit and objective examples to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So now when Archbishop Pozzo wants the SSPX to sign a doctrinal statement with these errors in theology ( invisible-visible exceptions to EENS) and doctrine ( no more exclusivist ecclesiology but a new ecclesiology with a new ecumenism etc) he should be asked to discuss this issue. ASK HIM TO AFFIRM EENS AND HE WILL REFUSE Ask him to affirm in public the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS, without the baptism of desire etc being a known possibility of salvation in the present times, without practical exceptions to EENS. He will refuse to do so. If he says he cannot since invisible cases of the baptism of desire etc are visible exceptions we know he is choosing to be irrational, non traditional, heretical and politically correct with the Left.Vatican Council II does not have the hermeneutic of continuity for him.
ASK HIM TO AFFIRM THE EXCLUSIVIST ECCLESIOLOGY AND HE WILL REFUSE Ask him to affirm the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.If he says he will not, since there is known salvation outside the Church with visible cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, then we know that Vatican Council II has the hermeneutic of rupture with the past for him, it contradicts EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.This is how he chooses to interpret Vatican Council.It does not have the hermeneutic of continuity for him.It is always with the irrational premise of invisible cases are visible examples of salvation outside the Church. Now he is unloading it on the SSPX. ASK HIM TO AFFIRM THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS AND HE WILL NOT Ask him to affirm the Syllabus of Errors and he will not do so.Since he has rejected the past exclusivist ecclesiology.He has changed the understanding of EENS. For him EENS has exceptions i.e known cases of the baptism of desire etc which are examples of salvation outside the Church.So there is a breach with the Syllabus. Vatican Council II does not have the hermeneutic of continuity for him. This is all a doctrinal mess and they want the SSPX to rubber stamp it, as if it is normal. CARDINAL RAYMOND BURKE, CMTV, MICM HAVE COMPROMISED It is normal and acceptable for Cardinal Raymond Burke, the USCCB and the bishops conferences including those in Polish and Hungary.The compromise has been made by Michael Voris at CMTV, the Catholic religious communities in general, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary(MICM) at the St. Benedict Centers and lay Catholics at large.They are all comfortable with Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise(hypothetical cases are physically visible in the present times) and non traditional conclusion( they are examples of salvation outside the Church and so are exceptions to EENS). They will not affirm EENS and Vatican Council II without the premise. PAUL VI, JOHN PAUL II WANTED ABP.LEFEBVRE TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH THE FALSE PREMISE SSPX bishops and priests must understand the precise theological and doctrinal injustice done to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. He had to approve a Vatican Council II, de jure and de facto, based on the 1949 irrational premise which creates a non traditional conclusion. It was approved from Pope Pius XII to Pope John Paul II.It was heretical and they made it magisterial, official and obligatory for all Catholics. Archbishop Lefebvre did not comply so they excommunicated him. SIMPLE The SSPX can now overturn all those errors from the past.They can return to the past exclusivist ecclesiology and simultaneously also affirm Vatican Council II, without the irrational premise. The SSPX simply has to announce that they support Vatican Council II (premise-free) in harmony with EENS( premise-free).Everything else is explainable and falls in line.The loose ends are automatically tied up.
This month there will be the Catholic Identityand Voice of the Family Conference where they are not expected to discuss this issue. Since the organizers still don't understand that the magisterium made an objective error, they violated the Principle of Non Contradiction, in the censure of Fr. Leonard Feeney and then Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.There could also have been numerous Catholics who refused to interpret magisterial documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and so were penalised in some way.The organizers of these conferences still unknowingly utilize the irrational premise, in the interpretation especially of Vatican Council II.It becomes a break with Tradition when it is not. Lay Catholics tell your bishop that you affirm Vatican Council II(premise-free).It's rational, simple and traditional.Now it is also possible for individual priests to tell Archbishop Guido Pozzo that they affirm Vatican Council II( premise-free) and also EENS( premise-free) and they do not reject hypothetical for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance. -Lionel Andrades _____________________________________
(Paris) Father Alain Lorans, spokesman for the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X. in France, according to AFP press agency, said: "Dialogue continues without timetable." There is no specific date. The FSSPX spokesman thus confirms what Guido Pozzo, the secretary of the Pontifical Commission, Ecclesia Dei, and the Vatican representativr for talks with the Society, said yesterday in an interview with Rome Reports.
Both sides thus indirectly denied speculation that the erection of the Society as a personal prelature could be announced by Pope Francis tomorrow, May 13, the 100th anniversary of the first apparition of the Virgin Mary in Fatima.
Archbishop Pozzo said yesterday that Monsignor Fellay would first have to sign the doctrinal preamble before the canonical recognition could be passed as a personal prelature.
In the end, seven of the Society's French district and three heads of aligned religious communities had very clearly spoken out against an agreement with Rome at the present time. AFP therefore headlined yesterday: "The Lefebvrian integralists between the road to Rome and an internal crisis."
(Rome) What Rome expects from the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) said Curial Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei . The interview was held by Luca Marcolivio for the press Zenit .
About two weeks ago Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX was received by Pope Francis at the Vatican. The private audience caused quite a stir since it is known that Francis has no strong sympathies for tradition.
New "Doctrinal Preamble"?
Curial Archbishop Pozzo described the meeting as "useful" on the "path" of the SSPX, "towards a full reconciliation" that "will be made a canonical recognition of the institute." Currently it is "primarily" about creating a more trusting and respectful air, "to overcome hardening and distrust".
When asked which "basic requirements" Rome is urging of the SSPX for recognition, Pozzo said that the SSPX would submit a "doctrinal statement" which "at the appropriate moment," is one that will contain all the "essential and necessary points". Pozzo described such points as: "the approval of the creed, the sacramental bond and hierarchical communion with the Roman Pontiff, the head of the episcopal college united with him."
Specifically the Curial Archbishop explained, "that the SSPX is asked to recognize that only the Magisterium of the Church is entrusted with the preservation, defense and interpretation of the deposit of faith, and the Magisterium is not higher than the Word of God, but this serves only to hand down doctrine." The supreme Magisterium is the "authentic interpreter" even of the previous texts of the Magisterium "in the light of the everlasting tradition," including those of the Second Vatican Council. So there is no place for "opposing novelties", but only for a deeper understanding of the Depositum fidei, "always in the same doctrine, the same sense and in the same tradition."
Discussions have "led to a significant clarification" of Vatican II
As for the Second Vatican Council, the trodden path of the "recent years" have "led to a significant clarification," said Pozzo. "The 2nd Vatican Council can only be understood in the context of the entire tradition of the Church and her constant magisterium in an appropriate manner." In addition, a different weighting and thus binding of each document is observed. The person in charge ofEcclesia Dei emphasized that there even after "the canonical recognition" the conciliar documents can continue to be discussed. The aim of the "discussion, deepening" must be to "avoid any misunderstandings and contradictions" that "to our knowledge are currently spread throughout the Church".
Outstanding issues such as religious freedom, ecumenism are not "an obstacle to recognition"
The open questions about the relationship between church and state, freedom of religion, practice of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue as well as "some aspects of liturgical reform and their actual use" would "be discussed and remain points to be clarified." but however, "they are not an obstacle for the canonical and legal recognition" of the SSPX.
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