OCTOBER 13, 2017
Maike Hickson could ask Abp.Guido Pozzo and the SSPX the relevant questions : right to canonical status
Coming Out From Under the Asphyxiating Rubble
by Maike Hickson ( blog 1Peter5)
Last but not least, Professor Roberto de Mattei wrote in August of 2017 the following trenchant words about the Second Vatican Council, also in light of the message of Our Lady of Fatima:
On the historical level, however, Vatican II constitutes a non-decomposable block: It has its own unity, its essence, its nature. Considered in its origins, its implementation and consequences, it can be described as a Revolution in mentality and language, which has profoundly changed the life of the Church, initiating a moral and religious crisis without precedent. If the theological judgment may be vague and comprehensive, the judgment of history is merciless and without appeal. The Second Vatican Council was not only unsuccessful or a failure: it was a catastrophe for the Church. [emphasis added]
So now that we have four eminent and loyal Catholics – two clergymen and two lay professors – speaking thus to us, let us open up a full and free debate about what in the recent teaching of the Catholic Church has brought good fruit and what has rendered the Catholic Faith hampered and more lifeless. Here we can even refer to Pope Benedict XVI, who, after his very controversial retirement, himself pointed to the consequences of some of the new teachings when he said, in March of 2016:
The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced that the unbaptized person is lost forever. After the [Second Vatican] Council, this conviction was definitely abandoned. The result was a two-sided, deep crisis. Without this attentiveness to the salvation, the Faith loses its foundation. [emphasis added]
Pope Benedict – who had eight years’ time in his papal office to correct all these deviations with authoritative force, but who also seems, at the same time, to have been himself a major figure during the conduct of that consequential Vatican Council – adds that this “evolution of Dogma” (an impermissible thing in itself) has now manifestly led to a “loss of the missionary zeal” in the Catholic Church.
Lionel: Pope Benedict XVI rejected the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 which affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) with no exceptions.
He said that the SSPX has no canonical status and the issue is doctrinal. He meant that the SSPX has to accept the dogma EENS with invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) as being explicit and objective exceptions. In other words these unknown cases in the present times were practical exceptions to EENS.This is irrational. They were examples of salvation outside the Church for him. In other words he could see them in Heaven or on earth.This is the doctrine he approved as the Prefect of the CDF and the SSPX has to affirm it according to Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of Ecclesia Dei.
Pope Benedict interprets Vatican Council II as a rupture with the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century. Since LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) etc are visible and known cases for him of non Catholics saved outside the Church. This is the new theology with new doctrines.He wants the SSPX to consider them as being the 'authentic magisterium' of the Church.This is heresy created with an irrational premise.
When he was the Prefect of the CDF he could have announced that BOD, BOB and I.I refer to unknown people in our reality and so are not exceptions to the dogma EENS. There are no known people saved outside the Church. So traditional mission must continue. He did not do this as if he wanted to please a lobby.
He put aside the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church with his visible for us cases of unknown people saved with the baptism of desire etc.So theologically he created an opening for the new ecumenism and the anonymous Christian saved in his religion outside the Church. So there was no more an ecumenism of return since there was no more the old ecclesiology based on outside the Church there is no salvation.
In the controversy over the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews he agreed that Jews do not need to convert into the Church in the present times. Once again he was affirming hypothetical cases (BOD, BOB, I.I) were concrete and known exceptions to the dogma EENS. He was also putting aside Jesus teachings and Catholic Tradition. This is all magisterial now and the SSPX has to sign a doctrinal preamble affirming all this.
He rejected the past ecclesiology upon which was based the Syllabus of Errors and yet kept saying that Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of continuity.Really for him the Council could only be interpreted with the hermeneutic of rupture.
This is all a scandal and the stuff of automatic excommunication.
And he then asked the piercing question: “Why should you try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it?” [emphasis added]
Lionel: He will not say still (2016) that there are no practical exceptions to EENS, we cannot meet or see any one saved outside the Church.
But the pope does not stop after posing that question, and he even goes one step further, saying that when there are those people who are able to save their souls without the Christian belief, “why should the Christian be bound to the necessity of the Christian Faith and its morality?” [emphasis added]
Lionel: May be was trying to please some lobby so in public he rejected the dogma EENS.He did not have what was needed to say all non Catholics are on the way to Hell this year and there are no known exceptions. There are no known cases of non Catholics saved with BOD,BOB and I.I in 2016.He could not say that when he meets a non Catholic he knows that he is on the way to Hell since the ordinary means of salvation is Catholic faith which includes the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
Here Pope Benedict, unfortunately, does not continue his candid path of speaking the truth, but he, rather, keeps this challenging discussion somewhat abstractly open to further reflection and dialogue, instead of forcefully calling and requiring the Church to return to her infallible doctrines, among them being that there is no salvation outside the Church.
Lionel: Neither of the two popes affirm the dogma no salvation outside the Church.They also want all religious communities and Catholics in general to interpret the dogma EENS like it was done in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The Letter made an objective mistake. It was the magisterium violating the Principle of Non Contradicition. The Letter assumed BOD, BOB and I.I were visible and known exeptions to EENS.So they criticized Fr.Leonard Feeney.
So a new doctrine was created i.e EENS with exceptions. There was also a new theology created i.e every one does not need to enter the Church as members for salvation but only those who are not in invincible ignorance.Since those who are in invincible ignorance are known exceptions is their 'reasoning'(LG 14).
At the same time, he points to the moral consequences of an “ecumenism” of “openness” and “plurality” which have had adverse effects, not only with regard to the missionary zeal of the Church, but also with regard to the specific conduct of the Catholic faithful themselves.
Lionel: We need to be aware that BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions to EENS as it was knwon to the missionaries in the 16th century. So there is no rupture with Tradition.There is no rupture with the old ecclesiology of the Church and the Syllabus of Errors.We can now undo the life long work of Rahner, Ratzinger and the others.
We also know that LG 16, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases and so Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as it was known to the magisterium in the 16th century. So there is no rupture with the past.We can affirm an ecumenism of return since theologically and practically we do not know of any Protestant saved outside the Catholic Church.There are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS and there are none mentioned in Vatican Council II,interpreted without the false premise.
When a Protestant can save his soul even while his own denomination teaches him that one may break one’s marriage, why, then, should a Catholic hold himself to a higher standard? Thus, the doctrinal, historical, and cultural relativism with regard to ecumenism and ecclesiology has also had an effect upon the moral teaching of the Church.
Lionel: Only when we wrongly assume invisible people are visible exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation there is this confusion. If we avoid this false premise the ecclesiology of the Church before and after Vatican Council II would be the same.
As I wrote recently:
Here, I would like to add one last question. How is it that, in 2000, the Vatican would declare that the Protestant and Orthodox churches are still, somehow, members of the Catholic Church, while these same churches do not abide by Our Lord’s specific teaching on marriage? Neither its indissolubility nor its sacramentality, for instance?
Lionel: This is possible since theologically it is accepted that there is known salvation outside the Church. This comes from the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office.This was the new theology of Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits at Vatican Council II. It was supported by Cardinal Ratzinger in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus and the International Theological Commission papers.
So with an irrational premise a new theology was created and the result was new doctrines.
Now if avoid that premise we can automatically go back to the old ecclesiology of the Church.Upon the old ecclesiology depended exclusive salvation, the old ecumenism, the Syllabus of Errors, the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King, traditional Mission etc.
Brother Andre Marie, M.I.C.M., recently made a similar point, putting it in much better words, in view of his own theological learning:
The attack on marriage and the family is a mystical unfolding of the attack on the exclusive relationship of fidelity between Jesus Christ and His Spouse, the Catholic Church.
Terrestrial marriage — even as a Christian Sacrament — is an image of this greater relationship between the Divine Bridegroom and his mystical Bride, as Saint Paul shows us (Eph. 5:22-33; cf. Also, Cant. 6:8 and the way this passage is employed by Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam).
When the faithful are lied to and assured that Jesus Christ can have “multiple wives” in all the heretical Christian sects (some of whose anniversary is wickedly being celebrated by Catholics now), and that even the unbaptized are “God’s children,” then it is logical and reasonable that Christian marriage cannot be long protected. [emphasis added]
Lionel: Brother Andre Marie MICM affirms the dogma EENS with no exceptions, for them at the St. Benedict Centers, BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions to EENS.
However the St. Benedict Centers in Worcester and Manchester,USA interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS. For them LG 16 would be rejected as being an exception to EENS and so Vatican Council II would also be rejected on this point. So in other words like Pope Benedict they wrongly interpret LG 16 etc as referring to known people saved outside the Church. This is irrational.It is part of the problem.
They do not say that Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma EENS as they have been correctly interpreting it all these years.They do not say that Vatican Council II is Feeneyite.
The bishops in Worcester and Manchester interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS, for them too, like Pope Benedict said last March 2016, it is 'a development'.
Brother Andre Marie points out here that the doctrinal crisis precedes the current moral crisis (the latter of which, as Josef Seifert highlights in his First Things article, also goes back now for some decades).
It is my experience in many conversations with well-meaning, courteous and generous high-ranking Catholics with influence over Catholic discourse – clergymen and laymen alike – that when one starts asking such questions to them as were put here above, they often softly agree or at least do not really know how to respond amply and honestly. It is a sign for me that they, too, have been caught in this sort of skewed or attenuated teaching that is not fully based on Catholic truth and reality.
Lionel: There is a problem. How do you respond to a magisterium which is in unprecedented heresy.? We have a magisterium which interprets invisible and unknown BOD. BOB and I.I as being visible and known exceptions to traditional EENS. Then the pope actually confirms it in public(2016).
So to be a priest-professor of theology or philosophy the mandatum requires heresy and irrationality be taught to the students.
Similarly in Catechism classes throughout the world it is obligatory to teach that there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS. No one is allowed to say that all non Catholics in 2017 are on the way to Hell unless they convert into the Church as members.Instead all have to pretend officially that there are known exceptions.
As with every ideology, however, it will not abide and persevere for long – as our friends and acquaintances from former communist countries can confirm – because an ideology is contradicted by reality and because Grace is not attached to it. (I for myself have experienced in my own lifetime the point where ideologies fell off my soul, as it were, as soon as I came in touch with grace-filled truth. That has occurred in many areas!)
I am thus encouraged also by OnePeterFive‘s 5 October 2017 article written by Aaron Seng about the parallels between Lumen Gentium and Amoris Laetitia.
Lionel: Philosophical subjectivism is there in Lumen Gentium 14 when it states those who know about Jesus and the Church and do not enter are on the way to Hell. It does not state that all people in general are on the way to Hell.The Council Fathers assumed that we could know of people saved in invincible ignorance and so were exceptions to traditional EENS. This is a mistake in Vatican Council II.
Also mentioning BOD, BOB and I.I in Lumen Gentium 14 alongside an orthodox passage which says all need faith and baptism for salvation was a mistake. This was the new theology from the 1949 error. The Council Fathers, Pope Benedict included, thought BOD, BOB and I.I were relevant to EENS.
The same philosophical subjectivism is there in Amoris Laetitia when it is supposed that we can know when someone in manifest mortal sin will be saved and will not be going to Hell and so could also be given the Eucharist and it would not be a sacrilege.
So many Catholics, from so many directions, are starting to ask clear questions, to express criticism and thus to contribute to an honest, loyal and well-reasoned discourse within the Faith. We may not fear that such discourse would undermine the Catholic Church’s authority. On the contrary, only if we return to the fullness of her teaching – as taught infallibly by many popes over the centuries (also in the form of the ordinary universal magisterium, as Father John Hardon, S.J., used to highlight*) – will we gratefully gain the fitting fruits and the fullness of the Faith and help increase the radiant life of the Faith.
Lionel: Fr. John Hardon was a good apologist like Mons.Joseph Clifford Fenton and Fr.William Most but they all assumed that invisible for us BOD, BOB and I.I were visible exceptions to the dogma EENS. So they did not correct Cardinal Ratzinger.
This form of free and disciplined discourse should not shun someone’s speaking out about the recent popes and about some of their own confusing or erroneous statements. While I well understand that some conservative Catholics have considered it wrong in any way to criticize their popes publicly at a time of cultural upheaval, I do think that the same principle is to be applied to them as it is to be applied to Pope Francis: the truth, as well as our loyalty toward Christ’s teaching, comes first. The basis for unity is truth.
Lionel: Agreed. The 'basis for unity is truth'.
It is, for example, in this context, to be discussed why certain progressivists who are now taking the lead under Pope Francis were ever made cardinals in the first place. Why did Walter Kasper and Karl Lehmann, for example, receive the “red hat” from Pope John Paul II in spite of their known and public heterodoxies?
Lionel: During the pontificate of Pope John Paul the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century was rejected. If the pope had affirmed the dogma EENS without the irrationality then Kasper and Lehmann could be corrected.
There are so many aspects that could still be discussed...- -Maike Hickson
Lionel: Dr. Maike Hickson could discuss the following points with Archbishop Guido Pozzo.
Ask him (Archbishop Guido Pozzo) to affirm the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.If he says he will not, since there is known salvation outside the Church with visible cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, then we know that Vatican Council II has the hermeneutic of rupture with the past for him, it contradicts EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.This is how he chooses to interpret Vatican Council.It does not have the hermeneutic of continuity for him.It is always with the irrational premise of invisible cases are visible examples of salvation outside the Church. Now he is unloading it on the SSPX.
ASK HIM TO AFFIRM THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS AND HE WILL NOT
Ask him to affirm the Syllabus of Errors and he will not do so.Since he has rejected the past exclusivist ecclesiology.He has changed the understanding of EENS. For him EENS has exceptions i.e known cases of the baptism of desire etc which are examples of salvation outside the Church.So there is a breach with the Syllabus. Vatican Council II does not have the hermeneutic of continuity for him.
This is all a doctrinal mess and they want the SSPX to rubber stamp it, as if it is normal.1
She could Maike Hickson affirm these points and then ask the SSPX to also do so? Could it be said of them that :-
1.They affirm the Nicene Creed (premise-free).
2.They affirm the Athanasius Creed (premise-free).
3.They affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(premise-free).
4.They affirm Vatican Council II( premise-free).
5.They affirm the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church( premise-free).
6.They affirm invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism blood and being saved in invincible ignorance which are not explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS(premise-free).
7.They affirm that the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church which is not in conflict with Vatican Council II(premise-free) and is supported by Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441,
8.They affirm the Syllabus of Errors which is supported by the past exclusivist ecclesiology which has not changed with Vatican Council II .
9.They affirm an ecumenism of return (Ut Unum Sint, Ad Gentes 7 etc) since there is no known salvation outside the Church.Practically and theologically BOD,BOB and I.I refer to unknown people in 2017.
10.They affirm the dogma on Hell. 2
This could help with the SSPX-Vatican reconciliation.The SSPX has a right to canonical status since there can be a Vatican Council II(premise-free) which is traditional.
Abp.Guido Pozzo cannot affirm the Syllabus of Errors nor the past exclusivist ecclesiology since Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of rupture for him with invisible cases being visible : SSPX priests must correct his error
SSPX has to show Abp.Guido Pozzo that 'the dogma of the faith' has not been lost : it's in harmony with Vatican Council II (premise-free)
False Premise : It is created by assuming hypothetical cases are explicit.
It is assuming that there are known cases of people saved outside the Church when there are no such cases.
It is made by assuming that invisible for us baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) refers to known cases in the present times.
It assumes people in Heaven are visible.
It assumes visible people in Heaven are also visible on earth.
False Conclusion: It is created by assuming that there are known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I which are examples of salvation outside the Church and so Vatican Council II becomes a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS-premise free).
Also a new EENS is created which has to be interpreted with the irrational premise i.e BOD, BOB and I.I refer to known cases of people saved outside the Church.So they are exceptions to EENS as it was interpreted over the centuries. This is EENS with exceptions.
Past Ecclesiology: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma EENS.There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.
New Ecclesiology: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.
Baptism of Desire (premise-free): It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it is not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Baptism of Desire (with the premise): It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is a visible case or the SSPX it is relevant to the dogma EENS.
Invincible Ignorance ( premise-free): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.
Invincible Ignorance (with the premise): This refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.
Council of Florence(premise-free): One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.It did not mention the baptism of desire.
Liberal theologians: They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They used the irrational premise.
Vatican Council II (with the premise): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the irrational premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II (premise-free): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite-one baptism),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston: It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times.This was the false premise.
So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology..
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( premise-free). It means accepting the Letter as Feeneyite based on the first part,only.It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.
Letter of the Holy Office ( with the false premise). It is based on the second part of the Letter.It rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( Cushingite-explicit) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( Cushingite-explicit cases) as being exceptions to EENS ( Feeneyite).It wrongly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.
Baltimore Catechism: It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with the confusion.It can be interpreted with the false premise and without it.
Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted with the false premise or without it.
Nicene Creed ( with the premise) ; It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.
Nicene Creed ( premise-free): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.It is Feeneyite.
New Theology( with the irrational premise) : It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.It's basis is Cushingism.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( with the irrational premise): .It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free): It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( with the irrational premise):CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( premise-free): CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known exceptions, since God is not limited to the Sacraments.
When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needin to formally enter the Church. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.