October 9, 2017
Abp. Pozzo wanted Bishop Fellay to interpret the doctrinal preamble with an irrational premise : ignorance or scandal ?
Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of Ecclesia Dei, Vatican wanted the SSPX to sign the doctrinal preamble with a false premise. This would create a non traditional and heretical conclusion.It would make Vatican Council II a rupture with Tradition; the Syllabus of Errors,EENS, past exclusivist ecclesiology etc.There was a choice but this was not known to Bishop Fellay.
Here is how it works :
False premise (invisible people are visible, unknown people are known in the present times),
False inference( these invisible but visible people are saved outside the Church, there are known cases of really unknown people who are saved outside the Church)
False and non traditional conclusion (outside the Church there is known salvation with these invisible-visible cases, so the Nicene Creed means 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins, they are desire, blood and invincible ignorance and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
The 'new' dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) says every one needs to enter the Church as a member for salvation except for known cases of those saved with the baptism of desire,blood and in invincible ignorance.
Vatican Council II is interpreted as being a rupture with the past ecclesiology of the Church since now there is known salvation outside the Church and so every one does not need enter for salvation.
Vatican Council II is a rupture also with the dogma EENS as it was known over the centuries since LG 16 etc refer to known people saved outside the Church.It means ecumenism and salvation for non Christians has also changed.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is interpreted as a rupture with the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionareis in the 16th century, for example.Since now there is known salvation outside the Church. So when CCC 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments it is a reference to a known person saved outside the Church.
When CCC 846 says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church it accomodates being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire of known people saved outside the Church.If it was an invisible and unknown person he or she would not be relevant to the dogma EENS and would not be an exception.
The Syllabus of Errors is rejected since with known salvation outside the Church there is the new ecumenism replacing an ecumenism of return and there is known salvation in other religions.
The past ecclesiology based on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus saying all need to enter the Church as members with no exception for salvation, has been replaced with the new ecclesiology which teaches that there is salvation outside the Church and so there is the new ecumenism etc.
The Nicene Creed is understood as meaning 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins, they are desire, blood and invincible ignorance and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
So Bishop Fellay had to sign a doctrinal preamble accepting all this.He would have had to accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise, false inference and false conclusion.
Here is the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which Archbishop Guido Pozzo will not affirm in public since there are known exceptions to the dogma for him.He has to use the false premise.For him invisible for us baptism of desire etc are visible exceptions to this dogma, so there is a new understanding of EENS, it is EENS with known exceptions.
They do not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
-from the website Catholicism.org
With the false premise he changes the interpretation of Vatican Council II.He does not tell Fellay that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the irrational premise and the conclusion would be different, it would be traditional.
The following eight references in Vatican Council II, for example, are references to hypothetical cases(LG 16 etc).However they are re-interpreted as being known people saved outside the Church and so are assumed to be exceptions to the dogma EENS cited above. This is done by mixing up what is hypothetical as being objective, what is unknown as being known in personal cases.
So Vatican Council II emerges as a rupture with Tardition.It is a rupture with the old ecclesiology, EENS and the Syllabus of Errors. There is a new ecumenism and a new concept of other religions.
When Bishop Fellay had to sign the doctrinal preamble with the false premise the following eight references in the Council text would be considered exceptions to the dogma EENS. In other words they refer to visible and known people saved outside the Catholic Church for them to be exceptions.
EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II
1. 'elements of sanctification and truth'in other religions(LG 8),
2..'good and holy' things in other religions(NA 2),
3..'a ray of that Truth which enlightens' all men(NA 2),
4.'imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3),
5.' people of good will in other religions'(GS 22),
6.' seeds of the Word'(AG 11),
7.'invincible ignorance'(LG 16),
8.'a good conscience'(LG 16) etc.
By agreeing in principle that hypothetical cases are objectively visible in the present times Bishop Bernard Fellay would also be interpreting the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) as a rupture with the dogma EENS and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.There is a choice. He can re-interpret the Catechism without the premise.
Here are hypothetical and theoretical references in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which Archbishop Pozzo assumes are physically visible people in the present times.This is how he makes it relevant to EENS.So the Catechism is interpreted as a rupture with the dogma EENS cited above.It is rupture also with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
1. 'God is not limited to the Sacraments'(CCC 1257)
'2.all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body'(CC(CCC 846).
3. Those 'justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians'(CCC 818).
4. They are 'joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."(CCC 838).
5. 'the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims'(CCC 841).
VATICAN COUNCIL II AND EENS ARE PREMISE-FREE FOR ME
There are no practical exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II for me .Vatican Council II and EENS are premise-free for me.They do not contradict the Syllabus of Errors.
So I am affirming the Syllabus of Errors,Vatican Council II (premise-free) and EENS(premise-free).I am in harmony with the SSPX General Chapter Statement(2012) which affirmed EENS(premise-free).
He wanted the SSPX to sign a doctrinal preamble which would indicate that in principle the SSPX accepts Vatican Council II, EENS and other magisterial documents interpreted with the irrational premise.
Archbishop Guido Pozzo violates the Principle of Non Contradiction by supporting a Vatican Council II in which hypothetical cases are considered practical exceptions to traditional EENS.There are no practical exceptions for us humans.Invisible people in Heaven are not also visible on earth.
He also violates the Principle of Non Contradiction by supporting an EENS in which hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance( I.I ) are considered practical exceptions. We cannot see or meet someone saved with BOD, BOB and I.I.
Now it is possible for individual SSPX priests to go to the Vatican or the local bishop and tell them that they affirm Vatican Council II(without the premise).Religious from other communities and lay people can do the same.
The Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) must immediately open contacts with the Vatican for their canonical status.The SSPX could cite the reports on this blog Eucharist and Mission and ask the CDF/Ecclesia Dei if Vatican Council II( premise-free) is acceptable to them.They could ask Ecclesia Dei if it is permitted to interpret Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical.Would this be approved by the Vatican and the Bishops' Conferences?
The doctrinal issue to be approved is simple.Here are the two points.
1.Can the SSPX interpret the baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I)as referring to hypothetical and theoretical cases and not practical exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS),for example, in 2017?
2.Can the SSPX interpret LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22, AG 7, AG 11 etc as being hypothetical cases known only to God? They are not references to known people saved outside the Church,without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.So they are not practical exceptions to EENS as it was interpreted by the magisterium of the 16th century.
So the SSPX would be affirming Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS, in which BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions.
If Ecclesia Dei agrees with these two points then Vatican Council II is no more an issue for the SSPX. It is not an impediment for reconciliation.
The SSPX must begin negotiations immediately for its canonical status and cite the doctrinal and theological explanations given on this blog, as a reference.-Lionel Andrades
OCTOBER 9, 2017
Abp.Pozzo wanted the SSPX to sign the doctrinal preamble with an irrational premise : it's unethical