Friday, July 29, 2016

Sell out by Archbishop Guido Pozzo and the Vatican : they refuse to interpret Vatican Council II without an irrational premise and conclusion

In an interview for the German language publication “Christ und Welt” (on newsstands as of July 28) Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical “Ecclesia Dei” Commission entrusted by Pope Francis to conduct conciliatory talks with the breakaway Catholic traditionalists of the priestly fraternity, “the Society of Saint Pius X” (commonly referred to as “SSPX”) this high Curia official clarifies some key issues regarding the negotiations. No longer excommunicated, but not yet canonically re-integrated, the fraternity has made basic concessions but continues to reject important Vatican II documents. According to the interviewer, Archbishop Pozzo’s report is likely to raise further questions. 
Lionel: This statement by Archbishop Pozzo is a sell out of the Catholic Church by the contemporary magisterium.They are affirming heresy and interpreting Vatican Council II with an irrationality, to create a non traditional conclusion.It is  supported by the Masons and the rest of the Jewish Left.The real questions in this interview  were not asked by the leftist La Stampa daily newspaper in Italy.
The most obvious, unasked and unanswered questions in this interview are: “Regarding what specific points is the Vatican willing to compromise?” and “Will the Vatican be willing to sacrifice the authoritative nature of certain Vatican II documents that are not dogma but have become precious tools for interreligious dialogue”? 
Lionel: The Vatican has compromised a long time back. They refuse to interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are rejecting an ex cathedra teaching on Catholic faith and salvation for political expedience.Not only is the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra being rejected but a dogma defined by three Church Councils and which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible teaching' has been put aside by the Vatican.

Two main issues seem to be at stake. One is Pope Francis’ ardent desire for pastoral unity within the Catholic Church together with the healing of theological rifts. The second concerns the serious implications for the future of key documents in Vatican II such as 1) “Nostra Aetate”- widely celebrated all over the world last year on the 50th anniversary of its publication - which refers to the nature of the Catholic Church’s relations with the Jewish People, with Muslims and with other non-Christian world religions; and 2) Dignitatis Humanae – the Declaration on Religious Freedom. 
Lionel:None of these two documents contradicts Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. Jews and other non Catholics do not have it.Also Nostra Aetate 4 says the Church is the new people of God. Catholics are the new Chosen People.Outside the Church there is no salvation.

Regarding the first issue, Archbishop Pozzo states, “I believe that everything that furthers encounter and unity lies close to the Pope’s heart” Asked what he felt had changed in the Vatican’s attitude towards the fraternity of SSPX under Pope Francis, he replied, ”From 2009 to 2012 the main emphasis was on theological disputes. Doctrinal difficulties had hindered the canonical recognition of the fraternity. But we know that life is more than Doctrine. During the past three years the desire grew to learn more and better understand the concrete reality of this priestly fraternity… Whereas earlier, meetings took place in a lecture hall, so to speak, now we meet in a more easygoing and brotherly atmosphere, even if the discussions remain the same…” 
Lionel: Pope Francis has still said that the SSPX must accept Vatican Council II. So it still is a doctrinal issue.He wants the SSPX, to affirm Vatican Council II in which LG 14( baptism of desire), LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) etc refer to physically visible cases.Then they have to postulate and accept that these physically visible cases, though in Heaven, are known exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So they have to rubber stamp Vatican Council II as being a break with Tradition based on this irrationality.

According to Archbishop Pozzo, the rapprochement with SSPX was facilitated by the expulsion or exile of extremists and Holocaust deniers such as the former SSPX “Bishop”, Richard Williamson. 
Lionel: He still is a Catholic bishop.The Mass he offers is valid. He still can ordain.

Then the excommunication of monsignor Marcel Lefebvre and his followers (decreed in 1988 following his ordaining bishops without papal permission) was lifted by Pope Benedict XVI upon recognition of the Primacy by the Superior General of the Fraternity, Monsignor Bernard Fellay, by himself and on behalf of the remaining bishops. Further evidence of improved relations is evidenced by Fellay’s recent reception by Pope Francis in in private audience.  

Archbishop Pozzo recalled that Benedict XVI had declared the excommunication of the Fraternity was due not to the SSPX’s arguments against Vatican II, but purely to their non-recognition of the Primacy of Rome. And this has now been remedied. 
LionelPope Benedict XVI has said that the issue is doctrinal.He wants the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II with explicit- for- us LG 16 . So this becomes 'a development' with reference to EENS.This is irrational Cushingism which contradicts the SSPX General Chapter Statement of 2012.It affirmed EENS with no exceptions.
It is Pope Benedict who interprets Vatican Council II based on the new theology which is irrational and heretical.It is the cause of the hermeneutic of rupture.

However, canonical recognition of the SSPX has still not been granted, the main reason being, precisely, their continued opposition to accepting certain Vatican II documents.
Lionel: The Vatican documents are not the issue. The main issue is that the Vatican Curia is interpreting Vatican Council II with an irrationality.They do it with the new theology.They will not support a Vatican Council II  without the new theology . They will not interpret the Council by  assuming hypothetical cases just hypothetical and not objective. It is the fault of the Curia and not Vatican Council II.It is they who must interpret Vatican Council II without the hermeneutic of rupture.

 This remains the principle topic for ongoing negotiations and is the other main issue discussed in the German interview with the Vatican’s envoy for mediation with the SSPX. 

What immediately meets the eye in this report is the total absence of any contextual reference to the historical background of Vatican II documents – i.e., the reasons why they were considered important by John XXIII, Paul VI, and the Council Fathers.  

A flagrant example is the total absence of discussion (or mention) of the 4th paragraph of “Nostra Aetate” regarding relations of the Catholic Church with the Jewish People. This is all the more significant in light of the past history of the fraternity’s seemingly innate theological anti-Semitism, expressed long before some incriminating posts on their internet site were removed, in the 1980’s and 1990’s, through sermons and a newsletter circulated periodically by the fraternity. 
Lionel: The Jewish Left considers the dogma EENS Anti-Semitic.So now Edward Pentin cannot report on it.Catholics have a conference on this subject.Rorate Caeli has to pull down comments on EENS.Without the confusion over the objective-subjective, explicit-implicit, visible- invisible distinction, Vatican Council II would be Anti-Semitic.Now it is not.

It is significant to recall the origins of “Nostra Aetate”, first conceived purely as a “Document on the Jews”. In the intentions of Pope John XXIII it was a way of finally canceling the distorted inculcation of the “Deicide accusation” by many Churches and parishes, even though this accusation had already been declared false and absurd historically and theologically by the Council of Trent. The decision concerning the necessity of formulating such a document was made by Pope Roncalli, when he realized, after a meeting with Jules Isaac, the historian and Holocaust survivor who presented him with a draft of his book, “The Teaching of Contempt” evidencing that this anti-Semitic trope circulating in Europe had provided the sub-strata for vicious anti-Semitic stereotyping that bred the hatred that had made the Shoah possible. 
Thus, some serious questions would arise should SSPX be canonically regularized before the bi-lateral discussions over SSPX’s “dissent” regarding the validity of this document have been satisfactorily concluded. 
Lionel: The SSPX does not reject the Shoah nor does the SSPX blame the present Jews for the historical event.This is the propaganda of the Jewish Left which is known for its hate for Catholic traditionalists and those who are faithful to the teachings of the Church.

Questioned on this subject, Rabbi David Rosen, AJC’s International Drector for Interreligious Relations, replied: “ I trust the statement of Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, that the acceptance of Nostra Aetate as binding would have to be a requirement for the Society of Saint Pius X before its members could be formally embraced by Holy See; and I find it impossible to believe that Pope Francis would expect anything less.  
Lionel: Nostra Aetate does not state the Jews do not need to convert for salvation.Instead Nostra Aetate says the Church is the new people of God.Catholics still teach outside the Church there is no salvation and all need to be formal members of the Church with 'faith and baptism' to avoid Hell(AG 7, LG 14, NA 4 etc)

However in addition to accepting the Magisterium’s teaching regarding the Jewish People and Judaism, I would hope that the Holy See would insist on a repudiation of the Antisemitism that has been part of the culture of the Society of Saint Pius X. It was not just Bishop Williamson and one or two others, but the websites of the organization in the past have been replete with anti-Jewish rhetoric. I would hope that there would be some formal acknowledgement of Pope Francis’ statement, in keeping with those of his predecessors, that it is impossible to be a true Christian and hold anti-Semitic views.”  
Lionel: According to the Jewish Left ideology imposed upon the Catholic Church, based on the military and political strength of Israel, Jesus could be Anti-Semitic.Since he told some Jews that their father was the devil.He also referred to the synagogue of Satan.

On this same point, Rev. Prof. Joseph Sievers of the Pontifical Biblical Institute and a Consultor on the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with Jews commented, “Among the outstanding issues the main ones seem to regard the doctrinal value and interpretation of those documents of the Second Vatican Council dealing with ecumenism, interfaith relations, and religious freedom. Archbishop Pozzo is certainly right that Vatican II has to be seen not in isolation, but in connection with earlier – and later – Church teachings.  
Lionel: I have spoken to Prof. Sievers who says he is a Catholic but does not think Jews need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. This is what he was teaching at the Gregorian Pontifical University, Rome. He rejected the dogma EENS and interpreted Vatican Council II with irrational Cushingism as a theology.He did not choose  traditional Feeneyite theology.It does not consider hypothetical cases as being visible in the flesh in the present times.It is upon this ludicrous reasoning that Prof. Sievers interprets Vatican documents as a break with Tradition and has the approval of the two popes and the liberal rabbis.

He is also right in affirming that different types of Council documents hold different degrees of authority.   
Lionel: It does not make a difference. We have the dogma EENS which we lay people can accept while the popes and the Curia reject it.
EENS is no where contradicted by Nostra Aetate and Lumen Gentium.

Nostra Aetate is a declaration (not a decree!) and holds a lesser standing if compared with the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium and other documents. Yet, the basic points of Nostra Aetate with regard to non-Christian religions were already addressed in Lumen Gentium 16 **(see below) and are therefore not merely “pastoral.”
Lionel: Lumen Gentium 16 refers to hypothetical cases.This is based on the objective error in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.In the Letter, hypothetical baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance  without the baptism of water was misunderstood. They were postulated as not being hypothetical. It was thought that they referred to explicit and personally known cases.Some one seen in Heaven saved without the baptism of water. This irrational reasoning was the basis for the statements in LG 16.However when we are aware of LG 16 being hypothetical it does not contradict EENS as interpreted by the 16th century missionaries.

 Furthermore, as Pope Francis has frequently emphasized, dogmatic and pastoral theology can be separated only at their peril.” 
Lionel: However with the new theology they are separated. The praxis assumes there are known exceptions to EENS(LG 16 etc) and all Jews and other non Christians do not need to convert into the Catholic Church. This new praxis is based on the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, a factual error, which has been incorporated in so many passages of Vatican Council II.

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) 
Lionel: O.K they related. As long as we know that this is a  hypothetical cases.It is pure speculation,expressed with much good will.
We don't have a problem here.

In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126)
Lionel: Yes.

 But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. 
Lionel: The plan of salvation includes those who acknowledge the Creator and also those who do not acknowledge the Creator.Salvation in potential is open to all.However to receive this salvation all (AG 7) need to enter the Church with 'faith and baptism' and to remain in it.Since outside the Church there is no salvation(AG 7, LG 14, NA 2 etc).
In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128)
Lionel: Yes God wills all men to be saved and the plan of salvation is that all enter the Church with faith and baptism, the Church is necessary for salvation.

 Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*)
Lionel: Yes they can one could say speculatively with good will.Of course these are hypothetical cases. There is no one known as such in 2016 or in the past.This line in LG 16 must not be considered an exception to the dogma EENS as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.
We can interpret this passage in LG 16 as referring to visible or invisible cases in 2016 and we will get two different conclusions.One is non traditional( visible) and the other traditional (invisible).The Jewish Left,Prof. Sievers and Archbishop Pozzo make the irrational inference.So does the SSPX and traditionalist bloggers.

 Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. 
Lionel: O.K so there is no such case known personally in 2016.Nor was there any such case in 1960-1965 or in 1949.So one has to be careful when interpreting this line.

Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) 
Lionel: Yes it is a preparation for their entry into the Catholic Church as visible members with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith(AG 7, LG 14).

In replying to questions by “Christ und Welt”, Archbishop Pozzo made the following statements. 
“The Council is not a pastoral Superdogma, but rather part of the entirety of tradition and its permanent teachings.”
Lionel: However Archbishop Guido Pozzo interprets Vatican Council II with irrational Cushingism when the Feeneyite choice is there.This is a sell out.

 In this respect, he explains, “while Church tradition continues to evolve, it is never in the sense of innovation, which would represent a contrast to what exists , but rather a move towards deeper understanding of the Depositum fidei ,the authentic patrimony of faith. 
Lionel: This is false. There is an innovation with Cushingism.The innovation is the premise and conclusion, which is part of the new theology.Eliminate the premise and conclusion and we are back to the old theology, the old ecclesiology.

All Church documents are to be interpreted in this manner, including those of the Council. This premise together with a commitment to the profession of faith, recognition of the Sacraments and the Papal Primacy is the basis of the doctrinal declaration which will be submitted to the Fraternity for signature. These are the prerequisites for a Catholic to be in full communion with the Catholic Church.” 
Lionel: They will also have to interpret Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases being explicit in 2016.This is obligatory.
This is a  break with the pre-Council of Trent magisterium. It also testing  the intelligence of the average Catholic.
Asked whether the Fraternity is no longer expected to acknowledge all Council declarations including the texts regarding ecumenism and interreligious dialogue, the Curia official replied, “The Fraternity commits to the defined doctrines and the Catholic truths that were confirmed by the Council documents.”
Lumen Gentium 14 and Ad Gentes 7 indicate all Jews need to convert for salvation. This is not affirmed by the CDF or Ecclesia Dei. Instead the opposite is taught.
Nostra Aetate 4 says Catholics are the new people of God instead the Jewish-Catholic declaration issued by Cardinal Koch and the Vatican Press Office indicated that the Jews are still the Chosen People.It contradicted Nostra Aetate 4.

 As examples, he points to “the sacramental nature of the episcopacy … as well as the primacy of the Pope and the College of Bishops together with their Chairman, as was set out in the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium and interpreted by the Nota Explicative Praevia, requested by the highest authority. 
Lionel: They are all interpreting magisterial documents with an irrational premise and conclusion which comes from the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Archbishop Pozzo will not discuss this issue and the leftist journalists will not ask him about it.

The stumbling block however lies precisely in the documents dealing specifically with the Church’s relations with the surrounding, non-Catholic world, that have become the most important reference points for post Vatican II interfaith dialogue. 
Lionel: They are traditional when interpreted with Feeneyism.It's a stumbling block for Archbishop Pozzo and the two popes.It's an embarassment for them.Something which is there before their face but they did not want to see it and still do not want to talk about it.
“The Fraternity finds difficulties with several aspects of Nostra Aetate, regarding interreligious dialogue, the Unitatis Redintegratio decree regarding Ecumenism, and the Dignitatis humanae Declaration on Religious Freedom, or with questions regarding the relationship of Christianity to modernity” he said... 
Lionel: There is difficulty only because Ecclesia Dei will not interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism for political reasons.If they would do so and make a clear announcements there could be a reconciliation with the SSPX.It's also the fault of the SSPX supporters who do not discuss this issue and admit that they made a doctrinal error all these years.Archbishop Lefebvre overlooked this error.

Asked how he would respond to criticism that the value and authoritativeness of such an important conciliar document as Nostra Aetate is thus denied, the Archbishop pointed out that “on November 18, 1964, the Secretary for Christian Unity had said that his Secretariat had no intention of making a dogmatic statement on non-Christian religions but rather only practical, pastoral norms.” 
Lionel: Based on the theology of Cushingism, the new theology of Rahner and Ratzinger.
He then affirmed: “Nostra Aetate carries no dogmatic obligations. Therefore one cannot expect anyone to accept this Declaration as binding dogma. The Declaration is to be fully understood only in the light of tradition and the permanent teachings.” 
Lionel: Yes.It does not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS or the Syllabus of Errors.However this is not said by the Vatican or the Left. They will vaguely talk about Nostra Aetate but not the strict interpretation of EENS, which really decides if one is a traditionalist or liberal.

Archbishop Pozzo also referred to “another unfortunately widely held view in contrast to the Catholic faith – that there is a path to salvation independent of Christ and his Church. This was recorded recently in the Declaration Dominus Iesus by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Any interpretation of Nostra Aetate in this sense is completely unfounded and must be rejected.” 
Lionel:However the Curia accepts the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which suggests there is salvation outside the Church.So theologically for Ecclesia Dei not every one needs to enter the the Church for salvation. So the dogma EENS has been rejected.LG 14 (catechumen who is known) and LG 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance) refer to cases who do not need to be baptised with water and will be saved without faith.This is their theological interpretation.
Hypothetical but real cases,real exceptions exist to the path of salvation which calls for formal entry into the Church..This was the reasoning also in Dominus Iesus.It was a Cushingite document issued by Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger.Dominus Iesus did not affirm the old Feeneyite ecclesiology.The baptism of desire etc were considered explicit and so relevant to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENs.

Regarding this statement, Rev. Prof. Sievers said the following: “As to the proposal of different ways to salvation, Nostra Aetate 2 specifically states that the Church “proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14:6),” although it leaves open the question of how Christ may be the way for people of different faiths or of no faith.
Lionel: It leaves this open for liberals like Prof. Sievers who assume there is known salvation outside the Church and that LG 14( BOD ) etc refer to known persons saved without the baptism of water.He means with known salvation outside the Church, non Catholics do not need 'faith and baptism', there can be exceptions.
 The same question is treated in an entire chapter of the recent document of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews entitled ‘The universality of salvation in Jesus Christ and God’s unrevoked covenant with Israel’.  
Lionel: It reflects Jewish Left propaganda imposed upon the Church. It is also theologically based on irrational Cushingism and so is not Catholic. It should be rejected because of its irrational philosophical reasoning.

I find encouraging the words attributed to Bp. Fellay: “ There are ambiguous points in that Council but it is not up to us to clarify them. We can expose the problem, but the authority to clarify it, that authority is in Rome”.  
Lionel: I agree with him too. It is for Archbishop Pozzo to announce that Cushingism is responsible for the ambigous statements.It can be corrected.
This can be changed simply by interpreting those very passages as referring to hypothetical cases,as I have done above with Lumen Gentium 16.
We are then back to the old ecclesiology which will not be permitted for the Catholic Church by the Jewish Left rabbis.

If Fellay is willing to have Rome clarify issues, it should not be impossible for him and the members of the Fraternity to accept the explanations of Nostra Aetate, given in “The Gifts and the Calling of God are Irrevocable” (Rom 11:29) A Reflection on Theological Questions Pertaining to Catholic–Jewish Relations on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of “Nostra Aetate” (no.4) by the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. 
Lionel: This is a political statement by the Jewish Left( ADL etc) the same people who support pro-Satanic values.....This is bad theology since it is based on an irrational premise and conclusion.

In the final analysis, the key question may be, as indicated by Archbishop Pozzo, one of hermeneutics, that is not of individual statements, but of suitable approaches to the interpretation of the Council texts.   

Here, as in many matters, strong elements of continuity have to be read in conjunction with important elements of newness, that must be recognized especially in Nostra Aetate.”  
Lionel: There is nothing new in Nostra Aetate except for the political propaganda of the Left.Doctrinally Nostra Aetate is not a rupture with the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.

And finally, regarding the paragraphs on interreligious dialogue with Islam and other non-Christian religions contained in “Nostra Aetate” with which the SSPX representatives find difficulty, and Archbishop Pozzo’s warning against a possible imprecise use and misinterpretation of “the spirit of Assisi” as expressed in his interview, Imam Yahya Pallavicini, Vice President of the COREIS association in Italy and a well known international representative of “moderate”, traditional Islam, made the following observations:  
Lionel: Imam Yahya Pallavicini interprets Vatican Council II with the theology of Cushingism.He represents the Sufi sect. The other Muslims communities say that there is exclusive salvation in Islam and so they have mission in Italy(dawah).

“The international Islamic community is attentively following the developments in this process of rapprochement with the Fraternity of St. Pius X towards reintegration in the Catholic Church. … In the interview with Archbishop Pozzo published by “Christ und Welt” yesterday (July 28), sensitivity for seeking coherence in the pastoral implications of the fruits of the Council and the ‘Nostra Aetate’ document emerge.
Lionel: According to Vatican Council II Islam is not a path to salvation.Their members need faith and baptism to avoid Hell(AG 7. LG 14).
 While Pope Francis and the Catholic Church together celebrate the spiritual authority of many religious confessions and the prophetic value of this Council which providentially launched the historic cycle of 50 intense years of interreligious dialogue and ecumenism,
Lionel: The popes reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and interpret Vatican Council II with the innovation which comes from the magisterial heresy in 1949, approved by Rome and the Archbishop of Boston.

 the Fraternity of St. Pius X seems to be downsizing the importance of this process and this orientation, in order to preserve a traditionalist interpretation which in reality denies the spiritual opportunity for respect and brotherhood with believers of other faiths, in the One God.
Lionel: As Catholics we respect and love all people  as Jesus asks of us. Jesus also asks us to speak the truth. This truth is expressed also in Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and conclusion.This is the interpretation, with the traditional theology of Feeneyism.It does not mix up objective and hypothetical cases to create a new conclusion.

 At this dramatic moment of international crises when the manipulation of religion seems to be in the hands of a few fundamentalist groups who aim to legitimize a ‘justicialist’ violence against Muslims, Christians and Jews, it is troubling to find the anachronism and insensitivity of certain movements who insist on wanting to impose on society and even teach the Church a different hierarchy of values than those which the Council, the Saints and Popes foresee.”  
Lionel: A different hierarchy of values is being imposed by the Left on the Catholic Church and they want Catholics to interpret the Council with a fantasy theology.It suggests that we humans can physically see people in Heaven who have died with the baptism of desire etc  and these persons are explicit exceptions on earth to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.This is being proposed by adult men in the Vatican Curia supported by adults in other religions. Pope Benedict recently called this strange theology a development in our interpretation of the the dogma EENS.

Archbishop Pozzo reports that there are 600 SSPX priests, 200 seminarians and other congregational members present in 70 countries with 750 churches celebrating mass, and “one cannot close one’s eyes to such a significant reality”. The concessions to be made in order to legitimize this “reality” may appear miniscule when confronted with the huge Catholic world surrounding, which dwarfs it into a comparatively tiny sphere of influence.
Lionel: There are non SSPX Catholics who interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.Some of them are priests. They are persecuted. Some Catholic priests cannot be incardinated.Since this heresy is being monitored and implemented by the Jewish Left.

 But nothing that happens in this world is inconsequential and concessions have a way of spreading, mouth to ear, ear to mouth, and could easily wear away the already thinning fabric of resistance to pressures for returning to age-old prejudices against the ways of celebrating one’s faith outside the Christian belief, which could again be reinforced in a kind of belligerent conviction of possessing the only true path towards God, with consequent disdain for all others.  
Lionel: This is the issue.According to Vatican Council II, it is the Catholic Church which possesses the only true path towards salvation.It's there in the text.This is not just an SSPX or sedevacantist position.

This would be one further step towards denigrating and delegitimizing John XXIII’s ardent desire of an “aggiornamento” of the Catholic Church, while resuscitating pseudo-religious anti-Semitic and other stereotypes that for too many hundreds of years caused immense suffering and ultimately the diabolic persecutions and genocides of the 20th century. 
Lionel: The Vatican needs to put aside the intimidation from the Left and spare us the fantasy theology which really stretches the imagination with nonsense.
-Lionel Andrades

David Domet a dissenter?

From David Domet's blog Vox Cantoris
Vox Cantoris:
I find it interesting.

When I was a young lad, the dissenters in the Church were all the rage. It was so bad, I eventually left. I never really lost my faith, but the Church was enough of a mess that I lost interest. I was typical of someone growing up in the 1960's.
So was I.

After a rather hedonistic period of life, I returned to the Church and to the Faith as it was taught to me by my parents and the good priests of my parish.
Vox here is the cut off point. Even I was following the faith taught to me by good priests and my parents and relatives.I was born in 1954 and there was the influence of my good grandmother and I remember the solemn Latin Mass as a kid and the teachings on Hell and sin and exclusive salvation in the Church.
But as a teenager the good priests stopping talking about Hell and they were interpreting Vatican Council and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with hypothetical cases being explicit .So the conclusion was a break with the traditional teachings of my grandmother and other good priests.I was not aware of any of this at that time.

It was a long road of return, including a long period of time in the cafeteria line.
Same here.I was an ultra liberal. I was interested in theology and would subscribe(actually pay for it)  to a Jesuit theological magazine issued from Delhi, India(Vidyajyoti).

I had forgotten about the traditional Mass but came back to it and then became convicted by it for what I had become.
But you would attend the traditional and the Novus Ordo Mass interpreting Vatican Council II and the dogma EENS with an irrationality. I do not.
So when Fr.Rosica criticizes you for not accepting Vatican Council II and being a traditionalist I know he cannot say the same thing for me.Since I affirm the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church,with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical.So there is no change in the Church's teachings in 2016 as compared to the time when you and I were kids.
This is the difference between you and me.
You are allowing Fr.Rosica to call you a dissenter since you will not affirm Vatican Council II with LG 16 being invisible and not invisible and then asking him to do the same.
With LG 16 being visible instead of invisible it is Fr. Rosica who is really the dissenter.But you do not know about it still.

I practice the Faith today as my parents did, and as we did together, as a family.
No you don't.You are a liberal.You interpret Vatican Council II as a break with EENS. I do not. You do not interpret Vatican Council II and EENS as I do. So my faith is a break with the teachings of my parents(1960's) but not a break with the teachings of the Church, when my grandmother had her religious formation(1930's and 1940's).
I hope you understand what I am saying.
From my perspective it is both you and Fr. Rosica, who are using an irrationality ( visible-dead cases of BOD in 2016) to reject Catholic dogma and doctrines and this is acceptable to the contemporary magisterium.You both have a rational and traditional choice like me.But may be you both are still unaware of it.

Today, I am a dissenter.
Yes since you consider LG 16 as being visible for us and so it is a break with the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors and so you reject Vatican Council II( Cushingite).For me this is heresy.It is the same with Fr.Rosica.He  wants you to accept Vatican Council II (Cushingite) and be a dissenter like him.It would also be heresy.You have an option.But you are not taking it.
You are already using his philosophical reasoning. You only have to reject his irrational premise and  heretical conclusion and you will not be a dissenter, for him.Since then he cannot fault you for rejecting Vatican Council II(Cushingite).Instead you would be accepting Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) and asking him to do the same.

If I have not changed, and I am the dissenter, what does it say about them?
You have changed.Your interpretation of the dogma EENS and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is not the teaching of the Church from pre Council of Trent times. You have come in line with the new theology.The new theology is dissent from Catholic orthodoxy and you use it to interpret magisterial documents.
-Lionel Andrades

No response from David Domet, Louie Verrecchio and Boniface when I say that they can interpret Vatican Council II with invisible for us LG 16, LG 14 etc being just invisible.That's all.

See there  is no response from Boniface, Louie Verrecchio and David Domet when I say that they can make the transition from their interpretation of Vatican Council II with invisible for us LG 16, LG 14 etc being just invisible.That's all.They could make the correction on these following points:-
 1. Interpret explicit for us baptism of desire(LG 14) and invincible ignorance ( LG 16) as being implicit for us. They are not seen in the flesh in 2016.
2.All hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II could be considered just hypothetical(UR3 etc)
 3.They could acknowledge that a mistake was made in Vatican Council II when it mentioned the baptism of desire( BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) in LG 14 and LG 16 respectively.
Since there cannot be any such case for us, in the past or present. This is a classic strawman.
BOD and I.I are irrelevant to the orthodox passages in AG 7 and LG 14 which say all need faith and baptism, the Church is necessary for salvation.
4.The BOD and I.I are superflous  passages in Vatican Council II and come from the mistake in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The Marchetti Letter assumed hypothetical cases( BOD and I.I) were explicit. Then it concluded that these 'explicit' cases were exceptions to the traditional Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
So now there are so many hypothetical cases in Vatican Council which are being confused as  explicit exceptions to the exclusivist ecclesiology based on EENS.For example, consider UR 3(imperfect communion with the Church), NA 2( a ray of that truth which enlightens), AG 11( seeds of the Word),LG 8( elements of sanctification and truth).These are all hypothetical references.They are not exceptions to the traditional teaching on an ecumenism of return and the need for all non Catholics and non Christians to formally convert into the Church with faith and baptism.
5.So these bloggers could affirm the strict interpretation of EENS and a Vatican Council II which has no exceptions to EENS in LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc.
6.They could affirm EENS according to the 16th century missionaries, there being no 'development' with Vatican Council II.So they would be opposing the interpretation of EENS according to Pope Benedict XVI in the interview with Avvenire. They would also be opposing Pope Benedict's interpretation of Vatican Council II as having exceptions to EENS, so there is a development of dogma and doctrine for the pope.

Boniface( blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam), Louie Verrecchio ( AKA Catholic) and David Domet ( Vox Cantoris) could change their interpretation of Vatican Council II from Cushingism ( there are known exceptions to EENS e.g BOD and I.I which are physically visible) to Feeneyism( there are no known exceptions to EENS e.g BOD and I.I refer to invisible cases in our reality).

So based on the strict interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation they can affirm the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation with the non separation of Church and State and the necessary separation of State and secularism, especially so these days, when one considers the millions of babies being cruelly killed in abortion.

Boniface,Louie Verrecchio and David Domet would still be traditionalists. They would be traditionalists who attend the Tradtional Latin Mass but do not reject Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors all which are interpreted with hypothetical cases being just hypothetical.
-Lionel Andrades