Tuesday, March 1, 2016

Video Patrick Latta Bob Sawyer Medjugorje


Abp. Guido Pozzo wants the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II with heresy

Where are we with the SSPX?—Abp. Pozzo

February 26, 2016 

Read what Archbishop Pozzo had to say about the SSPX in Zenit on February 26, 2016.
We here present some extracts of Archbishop Pozzo's interview, given to Luca Marcolivio and published today in the Italian online version of Zenit. Archbishop Pozzo has been working on the reconciliation of the SSPX in the Pontifical Comission Ecclesia Dei for some years, especially after having been appointed Secretary, for a second time, in 2013.
It is not always easy to know exactly what Archbishop Pozzo really means to convey to the press when he speaks about the SSPX.
These comments are to be taken in light of the following elements given by Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta in his January conference published today. 
On July 2015, Rome made another offer to the SSPX.
The SSPX Superior General’s intention before answering this proposal from the Congregation of the Faith was to write an exhaustive explanation to make it very clear how we are and how we act, what we preach, what we do, what we do not do, and what we are not ready to do, in order to find out if the Society really is accepted 'as it is'."

About the status of the Society of St. Pius X

The SSPX is still in an irregular position, because it has not received canonical recognition by the Holy See. As long as the Society has no canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise in a legitimate way the ministry and the celebration of the sacraments. According to the formula endeavored by the then Cardinal Bergoglio in Buenos Aires and confirmed by Pope Francis to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the members of the SSPX are Catholics on the path toward full communion with the Holy See. This full communion will come when there is a canonical recognition of the Society.
The canonical recognition also depends on the SSPX accepting the two errors in Vatican Council II and so interpreting the Council as a break with the SSPX General Chapter Statement (2012) which stated that the SSPX affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions.1
They have to accept that 1) being saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance, as mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office and in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) refer to explicit cases.So they were mentioned in Vatican Council II and that this was not a mistake.The SSPX has to accept this.
2) Since the Lettter of the Holy Office assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance referrred to known cases, these 'known' cases, became objective exceptions to the traditional Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).So every one did not any more need  to enter the Church but only those who 'knew', who were not in invincible ignorance.This new doctrine in LG 14, AG 7 contradicts the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS. It also contradicts the orthodox passages in  Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) which support the dogma EENS.The SSPX has to accept this and not acknowledge it as an error
3) The SSPX has to interpret Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) as referring to explicit cases and so Vatican Council becomes a break with the dogma EENS.
They are not permitted to accept AG 7 and LG 14 as referrring to invisible cases, known only to God.Since then AG 7 and LG 14 will not be a break with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.
Cardinal Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia in an interview with Edward Pentin for the National Catholic Register, when asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus, indicated there were known exceptions. So for them AG 7, LG 14 refer to objective cases, visible in 2016 or some time in the past.This is irrationality.
For me LG 14 and AG 7 refer to invisible cases. Hypothetical cases cannot be explicit, de facto exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
Neither will the SSPX or the CDF discuss my position on this issue or consider it an alternative interpretation.

What steps has the Holy See taken?

Following the lifting of the excommunications in 2009, a series of meetings were initiated between doctrinal experts appointed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which oversees the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, after the motu proprio of Benedict XVI, Unitatem Ecclesiae (2009), and experts of the SSPX to discuss and exchange views on major doctrinal issues underlying the dispute with the Holy See: the relationship between Tradition and the Magisterium, the questions of ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, religious freedom, and of the liturgical reform, in the context of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.
The doctrinal 'experts' on both sides were interpreting Vatican Council II with LG 14 and AG 7 as referring to objectively visible cases. So Vatican Council II was a break with the dogma EENS and the SSPX General Chapter Statement.The Vatican group accepted the Council with this irrationality, while the SSPX  group rejected the Council  (because of the same irrationality of which they were unaware).
We are now at a stage that I believe constructive and oriented to achieve the desired reconciliation. The gesture of Pope Francis to grant to faithful Catholics the opportunity of receiving validly and lawfully the sacraments of reconciliation and anointing of the sick by the bishops and priests of the SSPX during the Holy Year of Mercy is clearly a sign of the will of the Holy Father to favor the path towards a full and stable canonical recognition.

What obstacles remain?

I would distinguish two levels. The proper doctrinal level concerns some differences about individual topics proposed by the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium relating to ecumenism, the relationship between Christianity and the world religions, religious freedom, especially in the relationship between Church and State, and some aspects of liturgical reform.
Archbishop Guido Pozzo is still avoiding the issue. Inspite of so many of my  blogposts over such a long time, on the Internet. I have also e-mailed him and other members of the CDF/Ecclesia Dei.
When the magisterium assumes hypothetical cases mentioned in Vatican Council II refer to explicit cases, visible in 2016, personally known to us by name, then it is a factual error, it is a magisterial error. There must be an irrational conclusion, a new doctrine and a non traditional teaching when an irrational inference is made.
 There is also the level of mental and psychological attitudes, which is to move from a position of polemical and antagonistic confrontation, to a position of listening and mutual respect, esteem and confidence, as it should be between members of the same Body of Christ, which is the Church. We need to work on both of these levels. I think the rapprochement undertaken has borne some fruit, especially for this change in attitude by both parties and it is worth pursuing that.
For so long I have been writing on this issue and no one at the CDF or the SSPX would want to comment.I think it is because they already understand what I am saying and they are aware of the error,and its implications and political consequeces.
Even on the issue of the Second Vatican Council, I think that the SSPX must reflect on the distinction ...between the authentic mens of Vatican II, itsintentio docendi, as shown by the official Acts of the Council, 
There is a factual mistake in the text of Vatican Council II.We do not know the name of any one saved with the baptism of desire or blood or in invincible ignorance, without or with the baptism of water. No one in the past also could have seen or known any such case.Also no pope or saint has said that these cases are explicit for us. The Council of Trent refers to 'the the desiretherof' but does not state that these cases are personally known to us to be exceptions to EENS. All this has to be wrongly inferred and the wrong inference was made by the magisterium with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and also in Vatican Council II.
I accept Vatican Council II but without the irrational inference. So there is no change in the traditional ecclesiology and the traditional salvation theology for me.Without the inference we are back to the old theology.
This is not the theology promoted by the International Theological Commission(ITC), whose members use the irrational inference to interpret Vatican Council II. Members of the ITC have included Archbishop Pozzo, Archbishop Di Noia, Cardinal Muller,Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J , the present Secretary of the CDF ....
and that I would call the "para-council", i.e., the set of theological guidelines and practical attitudes which accompanied the course of the Council itself, then pretending to cover themselves with its name, and that the public, thanks to the influence of the media, overlapped often as the true thought of the Council.
 The secular media is interpreting Vatican Council II with the irrational inference and so is the present magisterium of the Church.
Also as regards the Lefebvrian criticism on religious freedom, at the bottom of the discussion it seems to me that the SSPX position is characterized by the defense of traditional Catholic doctrine against the agnostic secularism of the State and against secularism and ideological relativism but not against the right of the person not to be constricted or obstructed by the State in the exercise of the profession of religious faith. However, these are issues that will be a topic for discussion and clarification even after the full reconciliation.
What appears crucial is to find a full convergence on what is required to be in full communion with the Apostolic See, namely the integrity of the Catholic Creed,
The integrity of the Nicene Creed is at issue. For the present magisterium there is known salvation outside the Church. There is salvation ouside the Church. For them the baptism of desire etc refer  to known cases of salvation without the baptism of water. So there is no more one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but three or more known baptisms, water, desire and blood.They would also be including the hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II as baptisms without the baptism of water e.g 'imperfect ,communion with the Church (UR 3) , seeds of the Word (AG 11) etc.
 the bond of the sacraments and the acceptance of the Supreme Magisterium of the Church. 
There is also the issue of the present magisterium being a break with the Supreme Magisterium, the pre-Council of Trent magisterium of the Church.The magisterium which St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis Xavier and St. Francis of Assisi knew - did not claim there were people visible on earth saved without the baptism of water, who were exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation.
The Magisterium, which is not above the Word of God written and transmitted, 
Agreed it is not above the Word of God.It cannot contradict Mat 3:5 and Mark 16;16.
However this error has been made by the magisterium.  There is a factual error in the Baltimore Catechism,the Letter of the Holy Office and then in Vatican Council II.It could have been something they overlooked-However it heretical, it is magisterial heresy.
but serves it, is the authentic interpreter also of previous texts of the Magisterium, including those of the Second Vatican Council, in the light of the perennial Tradition,
The pre-Council of Trent Magisterium did not make an objective error. It did not claim that there were people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water and that these people were visible and known exceptions on earth, to all needing to formally enter the Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.
They did not consider being saved with the desire for the baptism of water by a catechuman who dies before receiving it, as referring to an objective case, someone personally known who is in Heaven in this state.For them obviously this would be an invisible case, a hypothetical case,accepted and hoped for with plenty of goodwill.
 which develops in the Church with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, not with a novelty contrary (which would deny Catholic dogma),
The Holy Spirit cannot say that invisible cases are visible and so are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Yet this is how Archbishop Pozzo interprets Vatican Council II with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Holy Spirit cannot teach that the baptism of desire is the same as the baptism of water, it is repeatable, visible. The Baltimore Catechism considered the desire for the baptism of water as being a baptism like the baptism of water as if someone in Baltimore knew of somebody saved with the baptism of desire, without the baptism of water.There are no known cases. So how could the Holy Spirit imply that the baptism of desire must exclude the baptism of water and so contradict the traditional teaching on salvation also inspired by the Holy Spirit ?

 but with a better understanding of the Deposit of Faith, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and in the same judgment (in eodem scilicet dogmate, eodem sensu et eademque sententiacf. Vatican Council I, Const. Dogm. Dei Filius, 4). I believe that on these points the agreement with the SSPX is not only possible, but necessary.
How can there be an agreement on an irrational inference?
This is a novelty in the Church.The SSPX must accept heresy to receive canonical status?
How can the SSPX state hypothetical cases are explicit and personally known and so Vatican Council II is a break with the SSPX  General Chapter Statement (2012) on salvation for non Christians? 
I do not think that the SSPX has denied a doctrine of faith or the truth of the Catholic doctrine taught by the Magisterium.
The SSPX presently rejects Vatican Council II interpreted with the irrational premise.
While Archbishop Guido Pozzo presently interprets Vatican Council II assuming LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to not invisible but visible cases. So the Council is doctrinally a break with the SSPX General Chapter Statement which says outside the Church there is no salvation and there are no exceptions.

 The criticisms concern instead statements or claims regarding the renewed pastoral care and ecumenical relations with other religions, and some issues of prudential order in the relationship between Church and society, Church and State.
According to Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) all need faith and baptism for salvation. Jews and Muslims do not have faith and baptism.Protestants and Orthodox Christians do not have Catholic Faith which include the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church needed to preserve Sanctifying Grace, to avoid Hell.Archbishop Guido Pozzo still needs to affirm Vatican Council II.
Vatican Council II can be interprted according to Feneyism ( there are no known exceptions to EENS) or, with irrational Cushingism( there are known exceptions to EENS they include the baptism of desire etc).The CDF uses irrational Cushingism which is a novelty.

 On liturgical reform, I will only mention a statement that Archbishop Lefebvre wrote to Pope John Paul II in a letter dated March 8, 1980:
About the Mass of the Novus Ordo, despite all the reservations that one has to do about it, I never claimed that it is invalid or heretical."
The Novus Ordo Mass or the Traditional Latin Mass offered with the new ecclesiology based on the irrational inference, is a break with Tradition. It is offering Mass with heresy. The Nicene Creed has been changed, the Athanasius Creed ( outside the Church there is no salvation) has been rejected and Vatican Council II is interpreted with irrational Cushingism which makes the Council a break with the Syllabus of Errors and the dogma EENS. It is also a rejection of the necessity of the Social Kingship of Christ the King over all political systems, for it is inferred,that there is known salvation outside the Church.
The SSPX must ask Archbishop Pozzo to affirm the old ecclesiology, interpret Vatican Council II without the irrationality, interpret the Nicene Creed without the irrationality and affirm the strict interpretation of EENS and then offer the Traditional Latin Mass as a gesture towards reconciliation.
Therefore the reservations about the rite of the Novus Ordo, which are obviously not to be underestimated, do not refer either to the validity of the celebration of the sacrament nor the line of the Catholic Faith.
The issue is Catholic Faith, Catholic doctrine.
When Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated he privately offered the Tarditional Latin Mass with the old ecclesiology.
Today the FSSP offers the TLM in Rome with the new ecclesiology.The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate are not allowed to offer the TLM or the Novus Ordo Mass, with the old ecclesiology.

 It would therefore be appropriate to continue the discussion and clarification of these reservations.
The CDF could clarify the points mentioned here.

Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson says there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Archbishop Pozzo could clarify if he agrees with him.

Fr.S.Visintin osb. Dean of Theology at the Pontifical University of St. Anselm, Rome says the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance do not refer to known cases.There are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Archbishop Guido Pozzo could clarify if being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire refer to known exceptions, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.2

Similarly the Catholic apologist John Martignoni says zero cases of something cannot be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Archbishop Pozzo could clarify if he considers Lumen Gentium 16 (saved in invincible ignorance) a zero- case with reference to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

He could also clarify if the magisterium made a mistake in the 1949 Boston Case and an injustice was done to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center.He could also ask the Jesuits to issue a clarification, or rather an apology, on this issue.

About the gesture of Pope Francis

The Holy Father encouraged the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei from the start of his pontificate to pursue a less official and less formal [dialogue] with the SSPX. In this context, the soothing and magnanimous gesture of Pope Francis on the occasion of the Year of Mercy has undoubtedly helped to calm further the state of relations with the Society, showing that the Holy See has at heart the rapprochement and reconciliation which will also need a canonical form. I hope and wish that the SSPX shares the same feeling and the same will.
There is still an injustice being done to the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate and their founder Fr.Stefano Manelli F.I.In what way will the SSPX position be different from that of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate who until today are not allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass or affirm the old ecclesiology?
-Lionel Andrades

For this reason it seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation our faith in its monarchical constitution, desired by Our Lord Himself, by which the supreme power of government over the universal Church belongs only to the Pope, Vicar of Christ on earth; our faith in the universal Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Creator of both the natural and the supernatural orders, to Whom every man and every society must submit.

DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/10/dean-of-theology-at-st-anselm-says.html

 Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors

Related image

How can zero cases of something be considered exceptions ?- John Martignoni http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/sspx-only-way-out-now.html#links 


Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martignoni http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/implicit-intention-invincible-ignorance.html#links