Thursday, August 11, 2016

Archbishop Lefebvre was not obliged to accept Vatican Council II Cushingite instead of Vatican Council II Feeneyite and yet this was expected of him by the magisterium


Comments from the blog 1Peter 5: Abp. Pozzo on SSPX: Disputed 
Vatican II Documents Are Non-Doctrinal
Avatar




He clearly established his own church and secretly established his own commissions that he admitted supplanted the juridical decisions of the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church Jesus established and his secret commissions replaced the authoritative judgements of the Roman Rota and yet I am supposed to ignore all of that?
Lionel : He was faced with 
magisterial heresy. There was
 widespread change in 
doctrine.Rome had left 
the Faith and still has.
___________________________
You demand blind obedience of a schismatic and you call that traditionalism.
Lionel: There cannot be blind 
obedience to a magisterium 
which interprets Vatican Council
 II as a break with Tradition
 and ignores a rational 
and traditional alternative.
___________________________________________
It was the Abbe de Nantes who broke the story of Lefebvre's petit ecclesia to the trad world:
I read virtually everything Lefevbre wrote

_________________________________





Both Pope Saint John Paul II (Ecclesia Dei) and then Cardinal Ratzinger (Address to the Bishops of Chile) publicy declared Lefevere was in schism.
Lionel: They had approved
 the new theology.The new
 theology was irrational.
 It changed Catholic doctrine.
In a sense this was schism,
 except, that they were the 
magisterium.
___________________________________
Those succoring the schism never accept the legitimacy of that decision or the authority of the Pope to do what the did and in that they y'all are like all other schismatics.
You were wise to try and change the subject from facts to emotion because Lefevbre had been caught out as a schismatic who had created his own church as the documentation at the link showed.
Lionel: He was not obliged
 to accept Vatican Council II 
Cushingite instead of Feeneyite.
He was not obliged to accept
 EENS Cushingite instead of 
Feeneyite. He was not obliged 
to accept the Nicene Creed 
Cushingite instead of Feeneyite
 and yet this was what was
 expected of him by Pope John
 Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger.
They still expect this of the
 SSPX today. After so many
 years there is no clarification 
or correction from the Vatican.
____________________________________
The funny things now is that y'all are excited about reconciliation with a Pope and a Church y'all have routinely called heretical.
Lionel: The heresy can
 be eliminated. Theologically
 and doctrinally we can 
return to rationality 
and orthodoxy. The choice
 is still there.
_______________________________________
Why?
Y'all have your own church and in the future y'all be just the western version of the Orthodox schismatics.
Big deal...
_________________________________





Papal Infallibility seems to be the bugbear.
The sspx has now come to reject Infallibility vis a vis Canonisations
Notice that it claims that God has the last word which is a mealy-mouthed way to reject the infallible judgement exorcise by the Catholic Church when it comes to Canonistaions.
Lionel: The magisterium 
rejected the infallibility 
of the pope ex cathedra when 
it eliminated the defined
 dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
 salus which Pope Pius XII 
called 'an infallible teaching'
( Letter of the Holy Office 1949).
Since the dogma EENS
( Feeneyite) was changed into
 the 'the dogma EENS
(Cushingite) the infallibility
 of the pope ex cathedra was
 eliminated.
Image result for Photos of Fr.Hans Kung S.J

Fr.Hans Kung S.J considered 
this a virtue of Vatican Council 
II and praised Fr.John Courtney
 Murray S.J. Since with explicit 
-for us -LG 16 the dogma
 EENS was eliminated. Since
 there was alleged salvation
 outside the Church.
Archbishop Lefebvre knew
 all this was wrong.He could
 also see the praxis of the
 new doctrinal position
 of the Church.Ecclesiastical
 Masonry was in schism.
-Lionel Andrades


http://www.onepeterfive.com/abp-pozzo-on-sspx-disputed-vatican-ii-documents-are-non-doctrinal/


For the CDF/Ecclesia Dei the heretics in Germany are not heretics since like the two popes they interpret Vatican Council II as a break with traditional Catholic doctirine.

The onus for clarifying the doctrinal issues lies with the Vatican/CDF/ Ecclesia Dei.
They have clarified it. 
They have confirmed it.They accept an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. With this interpretation there is a rupture with the traditional teachings on exclusive salvation, religious liberty, an ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed, the dogma EENS and doctrines based on EENS.
This is heresy.The doctrinal position of the contemporary magisterium is a rupture with the pre-Council of Trent magisterium.


Comment from the blog 1Peter5 : Abp. Pozzo on SSPX:
 Disputed Vatican II Documents Are Non-Doctrinal

image3


Avatar


...Finally, you curiously omit the beginning and end of that paragraph from which you quoted: "The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope.
Lionel: True. However in this case the popes want the SSPX to interpret Vatican Council II using an irrational principle to produce a non traditional and heretical conclusion. So they have a right to object.
_________________________
 Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity.
Lionel: It is the magisterium which is in obvious heresy and they do not deny it.It reminds me of the case of Fr. Leonard Feeney.
Image result for Photo Fr. Leonard Feeney


 He was not saying anything new.He was faithful to the teachings of the Church. It was the magisterium which was in heresy with its irrational and non traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It was the cardinals in Rome and the Archbishop of Boston who were technically in heresy and should have been excommunicated for suggesting there were known exceptions to the dogma EENS.How could hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc refer to personally known people when these cases are invisible for us? And if there were no personally known people how could there be exceptions to EENS?
_________________________

 Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. |||...In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."
Lionel: The onus for clarifying the doctrinal issues lies with the Vatican/CDF/ Ecclesia Dei and they have clarified it. They have confirmed that they accept an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. With this irrational, Cushingite interpretation of Vatican Council II there is a rupture with the traditional teachings on exclusive salvation in the Church, religious liberty, an ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed and the dogma EENS and other doctrines based on the dogma EENS.
This is heresy.This is the doctrinal position of the contemporary magisterium. It is a rupture with the pre-Council of Trent magisterium of the Church.
__________________________
 There is talk of return, a rarely used word in neo-Church speech, correct? Now, I'm sure we also agree that this is unfairly applied since the patent heretics running rampant in Germany have been excused from a similar application of these principles. Alas, that is authority's great omission in carrying out the Great Commission. Still, that doesn't excuse the SSPX...
Lionel: For the CDF/Ecclesia Dei the heretics in Germany are not heretics.Since like the two popes they interpret Vatican Council II as a break with traditional Catholic doctrine.
-Lionel Andrades



For the majority of Catholics the Nicene Creed and the EENS has been changed, the Syllabus of Errors rejected, the old ecclesiology based on EENS eliminated so there is no ecumenism of return,there is no more traditional mission since outside the Church there is known salvation
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/for-vast-majority-of-catholics-nicene.html

http://www.onepeterfive.com/abp-pozzo-on-sspx-disputed-vatican-ii-documents-are-non-doctrinal/

For the majority of Catholics the Nicene Creed and the EENS has been changed, the Syllabus of Errors rejected, the old ecclesiology based on EENS eliminated so there is no ecumenism of return,there is no more traditional mission since outside the Church there is known salvation

image3
Comment from the blog 1Peter5 : 
Abp. Pozzo on SSPX: Disputed Vatican II Documents Are 
Non-Doctrinal

"Finally, Benedict XVI never stated that the issue was solely
 doctrinal..."
On the contrary, that is exactly what he said: "This disciplinary
 level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level.
 The fact that the
 Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical
status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary
 but on doctrinal reasons...." Letter to Bishops
 on Remission of Excommunications (2009).
Finally, to quote the Catholic Encyclopedia re you claim
 about communio: "However, not every disobedience is a
schism; in order to possess this character it must
include besides the transgression
 of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right
 to command."
SSPX has never denied the divine right of the Pope to
 command. 
Lionel:
However they will not accept Vatican
 Council II( Cushingite) as do the 
popes.So doctrinally they disobey
 the popes.They also criticize the 
pastoral results of the popes 
doctrinal position.
So there is doctrinal disobedience
 and disobedience over the praxis
 of the magisterium's doctrinal
 position.
They also will not interpret Vatican
 Council II with Feeneyism nor 
accept the dogma extra ecclesiam
 nulla salus ( Feneyite). So there 
is doctrinal issue here too.
If they did accept Vatican Council II 
and EENS without the false 
premise and conclusion again there
 would be a doctrinal problem 
with the Vatican. Since the
 Vatican's interpretation is 
heretical and irrational. We have
magisterial heresy today.
______________________________
On the contrary, they acknowledge it explicitly. Their
disobedience respecting the survival of their Society,
 so they argue, was motivated by a state of emergency
in the Church. Nor are they under any command today to
 disband the Society. Its right to exist is recognized. And
now they have been offered a plan for its canonical
regularization.
Lionel: The plan includes accepting
 a heretical and irrational version
 of Vatican Council II when a
 traditional version is there.
If they accept the magisterium's
 version of Vatican Council II 
they would be affirming heresy.
_______________________________
Moreover, the Vatican actually designated Bishop Fellay
as the tribunal of first instance in an administrative recourse
involving a priest, and the local bishop, obviously on orders
from the Vatican, has declared that the recent ordinations in
 Germany incur no penalty.
Lionel: Since they want the SSPX 
to accept their heretical 
interpretation of Vatican Council
 II.They will then be in line with 
the Left as are the two popes.
_____________________________
As SSPX is not in schism, they can hardly have "broken
 communion" with Rome. There is no special category of
"broken communion" short of schism that applies only to
 SSPX while the vast majority of Catholics today, who defy
 the most basic and infallible teaching on faith and morals,
 are considered to be "in communion" with Rome.
 Lionel: They 'defy the most basic 
and infallible teaching on faith
 and morals, are considered
 to be "in communion" with 
Rome' since Rome has 
eliminated the dogma extra
 ecclesiam nulla salus in 
doctrine and praxis. They
 did this by intterpreting Vatican
 Council II and other magisterial 
documents with the new 
theology.The theology is based
 on the principle of hypothetical 
cases being explicit and non 
hypothetical in the present times.
 That is imaginary cases are 
objectively seen and known.So the
 conclusion is irrational.
So for the vast majority of 
Catholics the Nicene Creed
 has been changed, the dogma EENS 
rejected, the Syllabus of Errors 
rejected, the old ecclesiology based
 on EENS has been eliminated and so 
there is no more an ecumenism of
 return, is obsolete,there is 
no more traditional mission since 
outside the Church there 
is known salvation....
- Lionel Andrades
http://www.onepeterfive.com/abp-pozzo-on-sspx-disputed-vatican-ii-documents-are-non-doctrinal/

SSPX is not fully Catholic since it does not accept magisterial documents interpreted rationally: instead it assumes hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to EENS,an ecumenism of return etc.





image3


Comments from the blog 1Peter5: Abp. Pozzo on SSPX:

 Disputed Vatican II Documents Are Non-Doctrinal


Chris Ferrara  jpaYMCA  15 hours ago

You quote Benedict as follows: "Consequently the
 Church must react by employing her most
severe punishment – excommunication – with the
aim of calling those thus punished to repent and
to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations
, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. |||...In
order to make this clear once again: until the
 DOCTRINAL questions are clarified, the Society
 has no canonical status in the Church, and its
 ministers – even though they have been freed
 of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately
 exercise any ministry in the Church."
Lionel:Yes. There is doctrinal
 disagreement between 
the SSPX and the Vatican.
1.The SSPX does not accept
 Vatican Council II.
2.The SSPX does not accept 
ecumenism, inter religious
 dialogue and religious 
liberty as does the
 Vatican.
3.The SSPX's position on
extra ecclesiam nulla 
salus is ambivalent while 
the Vatican rejects the 
dogma.
So these are doctrinal
differencs.
____________________________
The quotation merely proves my case: Once
 again Benedict pins "unity" on doctrinal
questions, not disciplinary ones. But there
 are really no doctrinal questions preventing
regularization, as we now know from Pozzo/
Francis.
Lionel: They have said 
that the SSPX must 
accept Vatican Council
 II and they mean a Vatican
 Council II which is a break
 with Tradition.
_____________________________
Therefore, doctrine not being an issue, the
 only thing now necessary for SSPX's
"return to unity" is simply to give their
seminaries, churches and schools
formal canonical approval---a mere
 technicality Francis could implement
 with a stroke of his pen.
Lionel : Doctrine not being 
an issue?
_____________________________
Meanwhile, no one has any right to say
 that the adherents of the Society are no
t in union with Rome when they are not
 excommunicated and can receive the
 Sacraments in any Catholic church
 whatsoever, like any other Catholic
 (including hundreds of millions
 of pew-sitters who reject basic
 teachings on faith and morals).
Lionel: They are in 
union with Rome 
which interprets 
Vatican Council II
 with an innovation
 and expects the 
SSPX to accept the 
non traditional 
conclusion? It is
 the SSPX and 
Ferrara who 
have to remove 
the confusion.
Archbishop Lefebvre
 made a doctrinal 
mistake, I have 
pointed out many
 times.The SSPX 
needs to admit 
this. Instead they
 do not contradict me
 and nor do they
 admit that SSPX 
made a doctrinal error.
________________________________
You cannot simply invent, just for the
 Society, what you call a "third state"
 that is neither schism nor full
membership in the Church in order
 to make sense of Benedict's claim
that Catholics who are under no
 sentence of excommunication
 have not "returned" to unity.
Lionel: They are not in 
unity since they will not
 accept Vatican Council
 II ( Cushingite).Vatican 
Council II (Cushingite)
 is heretical.It is a 
rupture with the past.
_______________________________
It is absurd, moreover, that the "return
 to unity" has been abandoned as to
Protestants whose decadent sects are
highways to Hell but maintained only
 as to the Society, which is fully Catholic.
 Come on.
Lionel: The Society is not
 fully Catholic since
 it does not accept 
magisterial documents
 interpreted 
rationally.It assumes
 hypothetical cases are
 explicit in the present
 times and then 
concludes there are 
exceptions to the 
dogma extra 
ecclesiam nulla 
salus, the ecumenism
 of return, the 
Syllabus of Errors etc.
-Lionel Andrades

Pope Benedict's new theology

 was a rupture with the 

Faith.If we avoid his new 

theology in the interpretation

 of magisterial documents 

there is a continuity with 

Tradition. There is then

 no doctrinal problem

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/pope-benedicts-new-theology-was-rupture.html


http://www.onepeterfive.com/abp-pozzo-on-sspx-disputed-vatican-ii-documents-are-non-doctrinal/

Pope Benedict's new theology was a rupture with the Faith.If we avoid his new theology in the interpretation of magisterial documents there is a continuity with Tradition. There is then no doctrinal problem

image3
Comments from the blog 1Peter5 : Abp. Pozzo on SSPX: Disputed
 Vatican II Documents Are Non-Doctrinal




    • Avatar



      Some of us have argued, on the contrary, that communion means what it meant to the Fathers and Medievals - obedience to the Faith AND to those who "sit on the seat" - and thus Benedict was the arch-theologian of a certain nouvelle theologie when he claimed that the problem [was] merely doctrinal.
      Otherwise, many of our favorite canonist Cardinals (e.g. Ottaviani, Stickler, et al.) would have been in error. Let's not forget what our Lord said precisely about obedience to those who sit on the seat of Moses...Pharisees and doctors of the law after all.


      • Avatar





        One obeys those who sit in the seat not merely because they sit in the seat. That would be nominalism, which simply equates the exercise of authority with truth.
        What is said from the seat must actually bind one to an assent of faith because it is true. "Ecumenism," for example, is neither true nor false because it is not a doctrine of the faith. Likewise with "dialogue."
        Our Lord was not counseling blind obedience to everything the Pharisees said from their seats of authority. Quite the contrary!
    • http://www.onepeterfive.com/abp-pozzo-on-sspx-disputed-vatican-ii-documents
    • -are-non-doctrinal/
    • ___________________________________________


    Some of us have argued, on the contrary, that communion
     means what it meant to the Fathers and Medievals - obedience
     to the Faith AND to those who "sit on the seat" - and
    thus Benedict was the arch-theologian of a certain
    nouvelle theologie when he claimed that the problem
     [was] merely doctrinal.
    Lionel: Pope Benedict's new theology was
     a rupture with the Faith.If we avoid his 
    new theology in the interpretation of 
    magisterial documents there is a 
    continuity with Tradition. There
     is then no doctrinal problem.
    _________________________________
    Otherwise, many of our favorite canonist Cardinals (e.g.
     Ottaviani, Stickler, et al.) would have been in error.
    Lionel. Cardinal Ottaviani was in 
    error since he accepted the new
     theology in the Fr. Leonard Feeney
     case.
    ________________________________

     Let's not forget what our Lord said precisely about obedience
     to those who sit on the seat of Moses...Pharisees and doctors
    of the law after all.
    Lionel: The contemporary 
    magisterium with the new 
    theology is supporting an innovation
     in doctrine. They have discarded 
    the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla 
    salus in doctrine and praxis and 
    are interpreting Vatican Council 
    II assuming it is a rupture with 
    the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
     salus.The SSPX is doing the same.
    _________________________________

    One obeys those who sit in the seat not merely because
     they sit in the seat. That would be nominalism, which
     simply equates the exercise of authority with truth.
    Lionel: Would it be nominalism
     to assume hypothetical cases 
    are explicit in the present times 
    simply the popes since Pius XII
     supported this error?
    _____________________________
    What is said from the seat must actually bind one
     to an assent of faith because it is true. 
    Lionel: Exactly but this is not
     so now.
    ______________________________

    "Ecumenism," for example, is neither true nor false
    because it is not a doctrine of the faith. Likewise with "dialogue."
    Lionel: Yes but when UR 3 is
     assumed to refer to an explicit 
    case in the present times then
     it would mean there are known
     cases of Christians, who are 
    saved outside the Church,
     they are saved without 
    being formal members of 
    the Church. So there is
     no more an excumenism 
    of return.With the new
     theology based upon
     this irrationality, ecumenism
     in particular and the faith in
     general has been changed.
    _____________________________
    Our Lord was not counseling blind obedience
     to everything the Pharisees said from their seats
     of authority. Quite the contrary!
    Lionel: So we can question
     those who interpret Vatican
     Council II with an irrationality
     and then expect the SSPX 
    to do the same for canonical
     acceptance.We can also
     question Archbishop Lefebvre's
     mistake in assuming LG 16,
     UR 3 etc referred to explicit
     cases and so Vatican Council
     II was break with Tradition.
    -Lionel Andrades



    There needs to be an agreement between the SSPX and the Vatican, simply saying hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance cannot be exceptions to Tradition

    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/there-needs-to-be-agreement-between.html


    If the Vatican regularises the SSPX and they could do so, it will not have cleared up the doctrinal issue.It will be also be assumed that the SSPX accepts Vatican Council II with the doctrinal error, with heresy
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/if-vatican-regularises-sspx-and-they.html



    The next time you hear Bishop Fellay criticize Vatican Council II know it is for the liberal lobby he indirectly supports them : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake in principle and was not aware of it
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/the-next-time-you-hear-bishop-fellay.html