The Mass is valid but the priest is in known heresy and so the Mass is a sacrilege for him. : Pope Francis and Archbishop Guido Pozzo

Comment sent to the blog Vox Cantoris -awaiting approval.

Vox, 

To understand me you must understand that the baptism of desire(BOD) , baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

BOD, BOB and I.I were exceptions to EENS for Archbishop Lefebvre and they still are for the SSPX bishops and priests.

This has to be clear. 

Since if BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS you are implying that they refer to known non-Catholics saved outside the Church.They would have to be known and seen. Invisible people cannot be exceptions to EENS for example in 2018.

Similarly possibilities of salvation outside the Church are only theoretical for us. No one could have seen a St. Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water.Possibilities are not real people and we need real people for them to be exceptions.

Thirdly, the ordinary means of salvation is faith and baptism. It is not BOD, BOB and I.I.

So Archbiship Lefebvre and Pope Pius XII made a mistake in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.

The same mistake was repeated by Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits at Vatican Council II. They should not have mentioned BOD, BOB and I.I. Also they should not have mentioned LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc along with orthodox passages on salvation.They put them both together.

LG 8 etc are hypothetical only.They cannot be relevant or exceptions to the orthodox passages in Vatican Council II which support traditional EENS.

Once this is clear in your mind you will realize that Pope Francis and Archbishop Guido Pozzo and numerous others, interpret EENS and Vatican Council II with the error. They assume hypothetical and unknown people are objective exceptions to EENS. They also wrongly assume that LG 8 etc are exceptions to traditional EENS and the past ecclesiology.

So their whole theology is de- railed because of the philosophical mistake( invisible people are visible).

They interpret the Creeds with this irrationality. They misinterpret the Catechisms as a rupture with Tradition. They interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors etc.

The Mass is valid but the priest is in known heresy and so the Mass is a sacrilege for him.

-Lionel Andrades

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=20981956&postID=3997823654706353777&isPopup=true

SSPX bishops and priests have to understand this and then inform the 2800 bishops about it.

Comment from The Eponymous Flower

Peter W said...

Well done Anonymous 8:52 AM. You have clearly identified the shameful lack of transparency, accountability and honesty on the part of the SSPX leadership. Their governance is fundamentally flawed and dysfunctional. All along Fellay and his colleagues have been playing the old North Vietnamese game of continuing hostilities while participating in 'negotiations' They knew that there was never a snowflake's chance in Hell of being integrated into the Catholic Church because of their refusal to accept the magisterial doctrine taught in Dignitais Humanae Nostrae, Nostra Aetate as well as whole sections of Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes and Sacrosanctum Concilium. They were never going to accept way the 2800 bishops of Vatican II interpreted their own Conciliar teachings and applied them including the Vernacular Mass. 

SSPX, at the extreme end of the Trad rejectionist spectrum have resorted to putting up the smoke screen of 'orthodoxy' vs heterodoxy all the while rejecting Vatican II which all the Popes since the Council have affirmed is completely within and even contains the whole Tradition of the Catholic Church.

My prediction is that SSPX will end up being the catholic equivalent of Jonestown. 

__________________

With Comments 

Well done Anonymous 8:52 AM. You have clearly identified the shameful lack of transparency, accountability and honesty on the part of the SSPX leadership.(It is just ignorance ) Their governance is fundamentally flawed and dysfunctional. All along Fellay and his colleagues have been playing the old North Vietnamese game of continuing hostilities while participating in 'negotiations' They knew that there was never a snowflake's chance in Hell of being integrated into the Catholic Church because of their refusal to accept the magisterial doctrine taught in Dignitais Humanae Nostrae, Nostra Aetate as well as whole sections of Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes and Sacrosanctum Concilium. They were never going to accept way the 2800 bishops of Vatican II interpreted their own Conciliar teachings and applied them including the Vernacular Mass. 

Lionel:The issue is ignorance.

Vatican Council II in Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All. The word all is used. We now know that the baptism of desire, the baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance refere to hypothetical cases. and not objectively visible non Catholics saved outside the Church. So BOD, BOB and I. I do not contradict traditional EENS nor Ad Gentes 7.

With EENS intact we are back to the past ecclesiology with Vatican Council II. So there can only be an ecumenism of return. Since there is no known salvation in the present times mentioned in Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate, Gaudium et Specs etc, the priority is being a member of the Catholic Church with faith and baptism(AG 7, LG 14) for salvation. So there is the necessity to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the Kingover all political legislation with the non separation of Church and State.

So Vatican Council II supports Tradition.

The SSPX bishops and priests have to understand this and then inform the 2800 bishops about it.

________________________

SSPX, at the extreme end of the Trad rejectionist spectrum have resorted to putting up the smoke screen of 'orthodoxy' vs heterodoxy all the while rejecting Vatican II which all the Popes since the Council have affirmed is completely within and even contains the whole Tradition of the Catholic Church.

Lionel: Vatican Council II is in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and so encompasses the whole Tradition of the Catholic Church.

However Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise by the present two popes and the Left, is a false Council and must continue to be rejected by the SSPX.This is the Council with the false and irrational interpretation of the CDF, Ecclesia Dei and the cardinals and bishops who offer Mass in the vernacular.

________________________________

My prediction is that SSPX will end up being the catholic equivalent of Jonestown. 

Lionel. The SSPX must interpret Vatican Council II rationally. They would also have to accept EENS without BOD, BOB andI.I being exceptions.Then they must point out to the Vatican, that Vatican Council II is not an issue. They affirm the Council along with the  dogma EENS according to the Magisterium of the 16th century.

The liberals and the Left will then have to reject Vatican Council II.

-Lionel Andrades

Fr.Davide Pagliarani told Cardinal Ladaria and Archbishop Guido Pozzo that there were mistakes in Vatican Council II : There are precise mistakes in Vatican Council II, objective mistakes.They are responsible for the bad philosophy and theology.

Fr.Davide Pagliarani told Cardinal Ladaria and  Archbishop Guido Pozzo that there were mistakes in Vatican Council II. I think they must acknowledge it.
There are precise mistakes.Objective mistakes which are are responsible for the bad philosophy and theology.

Many of the Council Fathers, in principle, assumed hypothetical cases were non hypothetical.Non Catholics who are invisible were considered to be visible.Then around this error they created a new theology. So the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) was eliminated.Vatican Council II became dogmatic in a negative way, with new doctrines being created on salvation.It had its effect for example on ecumenism, mission, liturgy, morals and ecclesiology etc.

The mistake can be seen in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14.The baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) are not exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7).Yet they are mentioned. BOD, BOB and I.I do not exist in our reality.There are no known cases of salvation outside the Church with or without BOD, BOB and I.I.They cannot be personally known to us.If they cannot be personally known then how can they be exceptions to EENS or the orthodox passages on salvation in AG 7 an LG 14 ?
But for the Council Fathers BOD, BOB and I.I were exceptions to EENS. This was their reasoning.

Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr.Joseph Ratzinger, assumed they referred to known people saved outside the Church.Since only if they were known people they could become exceptions or relevant to the dogma EENS.

Similarly along with other orthodox passages on salvation, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are mentioned. Why? Since the Council Fathers did not realize that these are just hypothetical cases,speculative with good will.
So now there are passages in the Council, which are for and against EENS, orthodox passages along with innovation based on a false premise, in a ding dong theology.

This is a specific error in Vatican Council II.It is there in the text and comes from the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and the Baltimore Catechism placed the unknown case of a hypothetical catechumen in the Baptism Section, as if it was aknown and visible baptism like the baptism of water.So when Catholics read Vatican Council II they interpret LG 8 etc as examples of known salvation outside the Catholic Church.
This error was maintained by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.On March 1, 2018 Cardinal Ladaria repeated it at the Placuet Deo Press Conference.Then in March 2016 Pope Benedict in Avvenire , said EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century.There was a development with Vatican Council II.
He meant that Vatican Council II says there is known salvation outside the Church( for him). LG 8, LG 15 etc are exceptions to EENS for him so he infers that there are known people saved outside the Church.This is a false reasoning.
He also questioned the need for mission, according to his interpretation of Vatican Council II. He cover up the error in the next.He never exposed it. Neither would he interpret the Council without the error.
He never considered hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II not being exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.He refused to announce that EENS  according to the missionaries of the 16th century is not contradicted by hypothetical cases mentioned in the Council. Possibilities of salvation are theoretical.
He did not say that there was an objective error in the text of the Council.He refused to say that we physically cannot see non Catholics in Heaven saved without faith and baptism.
In March 2016 he could have said that Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the strict interpretation of EENS.He said nothing on this point.
In March 2018 he could have announced that LG 8 was not an exception to the strict interpretation of EENS and so Cardinal Ladaria was wrong. He said nothing.
It was similar in 1949-1952 when Pope Pius XII could have said that the Holy Office 1949  was wrong and Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct.He kept quiet.
So there is a specific mistake in Vatican Council II which cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. So this aspect of the Council cannot be magisterial but is human error on doctrine and theology.
The SSPX shold be permitted to reject it.So mixing up hypothetical cases as being objective is a major mistake in Vatican Council II.The violats the Principle of Non Contradiction.
-Lionel Andrades

The spiritual disease will spread among the SSPX -lay faithful , who are being encouraged to interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with the strict interpretation of EENS.

Archbishop Guido Pozzo interprets Vatican Council II irrationally and so it is a rupture with the Tradition.He would also be willing to officiate at an inter-faith wedding since the non Catholic would be saved outside the Church for him.

He interprets Vatican Council II as saying there is salvation outside the Church and so would give the Eucharist to a Protestant maried to a Catholic, or to a Catholic  who has a non Catholic spouse.This is approved for example by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops(USCCB) and Archbishop Pozzo does not object.

Once the SSPX is recognised unconditionally these non Catholic spouses  will come to the SSPX Mass for the Eucharist.They do not realize that receiving the Eucharist un-worthily brings condemnation on themselves.They consider their marriage valid since it was permitted in Church by a liberal priest or leftist bishop.

Archbishop Pozzo offers the traditional Mass irregularly as a liberal 1. So those couples who choose to get married by him at the Latin Mass must know that he rejects the traditional on outside the Church there is no salvation.He would use a false premise and inference to defend his new politically correct teaching.

With the false premise and inference he also interprets the past popes of the previous centuries, as contradicting themselves.

Pope Pius X in his catechism mentions invincible ignorance which for Archbishop Pozzo  refers to personally known people saved outside the church. So this is a rupture for him with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on an ecumenism of return. It also contradict Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 on EENS.

MARRIAGE OFFICIATED BY A HERETIC  AT MASS IN LATIN

So this liberal Archbishop, who is a consultor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will officiate at a wedding Mass in Latin.Are Catholics willing to be married by him?

Since he was a liberal he was employed by Cardinal Ratzinger, at the CDF and the International Theological Commission.So being a liberal like Cardinal Ruini and Pope Benedict, if a a Catholic women marries a Muslim or Jew he will only tell the woman of her secular rights after marriage, if the marriage does not 'work out'.He will not tell her that she is living in adultery and is automatically excommunicated.Since for him too there is known salvation outside the Church.

Such marriages would have to validated by the SSPX, once the SSPX has canonical status, without Rome coming back to the Faith.This is without Rome interpreting Vatican Council II as not being an exception to EENS since there is no known salvation outside the Church.

APPROVED VATICAN DOCUMENT ON LIMBO

Archbishop Pozzo approved the Vatican document on Limbo based on outside the Church there is known salvation.

He approved the Balamand Declaration and the Joint Statement with the Lutherans since there was known salvation outside the Church.

He would interpret UR 3 in Vatican Council II as referring to known Catholics saved outside the Church.This is how Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr. Luiz Ladaria sj reasoned , when they approved the theological papers of the ITC.

To reject the dogma EENS, change the Creed, re-interpret Vatican Council II and all the Catechisms irrationally and give the Eucharist at Mass sacrilegeously are mortal sins of faith and morals. They are mortal sins of doctrine and discipline- and yet you would want to be married by Archbishop Pozzo or receive the Eucharist from him?

Catholics who go up to receive the Eucharist from him must know that they are cooperating in sacrilegeous reception of the Eucharist.If there was no other priest, or no other Mass available it would be a different issue.But to knowingly go up to receive the Eucharist from Archbishop Pozzo at a Summorum Pontificum Mass or event for example, would not be an act of charity according to St. Alphonsus Liguori.

Since the priest or bishop in mortal sin is oriented to Hell and you are telling him that all is well.

Archbishop Pozzo supports deception and heresy among Catholics and like Cardinal Ladaria  will officiate at weddings and prop a false church.

His spiritual disease will spread among the SSPX lay faithful , who are not being encouraged to interpret Vatican Council II as a continuity with the strict interpretation of EENS.

-Lionel Andrades


1

NOVEMBER 24, 2018

Traditional Latin Mass is valid even when the priest offering it is in manifest mortal sin : Guido Pozzo in scandal

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/traditional-latin-mass-is-valid-even.html

 NOVEMBER 25, 2018
Vatican-SSPX doctrinal talks second round : clarification on two points needed https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/vatican-sspx-doctrinal-talks-second.html

NOVEMBER 22, 2018

St.Alphonsus Liguori says that if a priest is in mortal sin do not go up to receive the Eucharist from him - but what about a pope ?

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/stalphonsus-liguori-says-that-if-priest.html

NOVEMBER 23, 2018

Should not the cardinals and bishops also interpret BOD, BOB and I.I rationally and set an example for the pope?

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/should-not-cardinals-and-bishops-also.html

NOVEMBER 23, 2018

Pope Francis simply has to interpret the BOD, BOB and I.I as not being exceptions to EENS : heresy and sacrilege end (Graphics )

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/pope-francis-sumply-has-to-interpret.html

After the Council Catholics were expected to believe, according to the common interpretation, that there was salvation outside the Church.

Comments from The Eponymous Flower
Gerald May said...
The SSPX never invented the phrase "pastoral council" but have taken it from the Popes themselves who described the nature and essence of the council. But, if I may clarify your position, what exactly new doctrine or dogma must a Catholic have believed a day after Vatican II ended, which was not required the day before the council started?

Lionel:

After the Council Catholics were expected to believe, according to the common interpretation, that there was salvation outside the Church.

Before the Council, or before the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, Catholics believed outside the Church there is no salvation.

Since outside the Church there was salvation for Fr. Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre, after the Council Catholics were expected to believe in a new ecumenism. There was the Anonymous Christian and 'known' salvation in the Protestant religion.

After the Council, since there was known salvation outside the Church, with now  a new doctrine on salvation and faith having been created, mixed marriages were no more considered a mortal sin. Pope Paul VI permitted them with dispensation citing UR 3 in Vatican Council II. In other words there were known non Catholics saved outside the Church. 

So the non Catholic spouse in a mixed marriage could be saved in his religion was the new understanding also of marriage.

After the Council, since there was known salvation outside the Church for Cardinal Ratzinger, and the other ecclesiastics, there was no more the need for traditional mission programs. Since non Catholics were allegedly being saved in their religion.

So there was also no need to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King etc.

The understanding of Church(ecclesiology) had changed. There was also a new theology based on the baptism of desire etc being known exceptions to the traditional, but obsolete, understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

-Lionel Andrades

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4404498638452030181&postID=5857132224611326041