SSPX Accepts Personal Prelature From Modernist Rome
Accepting the Council and making agreements with the Modernists is COMPROMISE!
Text taken from Vatican Insider
My comments in red
My comments in red
Fr Hesse: Vatican II in Two Minutes
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”?
Two main issues seem to be at stake. One is Pope Francis’ ardent desire for pastoral unity within the Catholic Church (Conciliar Church is not Catholic; Francis is a Universalist not Catholic) 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.
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 (what? Spoken like a true Modernist!). 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…”
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. (Vatican Insider is purely Modernist and heretical) 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 (Society had always recognized authority this is a LIE). And this has now been remedied.
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 (You cant accept Vatican II and be a Catholic) . 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.
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.
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.
However in addition to accepting the Magisterium’s teaching regarding the Jewish People and Judaism (cant do it and be Catholic: Vatican II's teachings on Jews are heretical) , 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 (like mine? Your antisemtic rhetoric is pathetic). 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. ”
See for your own eyes what the PreVatican II Popes said on the Jews & Judiasm
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-pre-vatican-ii-popes-against-jews.html
http://romancatholicism.org/accursed-race.html
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 (yea if you are a FreeMason! Pozzo is CLUELESS).
He is also right in affirming that different types of Council documents hold different degrees of authority.
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.” Furthermore, as Pope Francis has frequently emphasized, dogmatic and pastoral theology can be separated only at their peril.”
(**Lumen Gentium 16 (first half):
16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) 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) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. 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) 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*) 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. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*)
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.” 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 (modernist hermeneutics of continuity is a joke, this is RUPTURE form tradition) . 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.” (Pozzo and those following Vatican II are OUTSIDE the Church)
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.” 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.
Modernist Rome in Apostasy SSPX founder
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.
“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.
Archbishop Pozzo explained that different documents of Vatican II bear different doctrinal weight. “However these are not doctrines regarding belief”, he specified, “nor are they definitive statements. Rather, they are suggestions, instructions, or orientational guidelines for pastoral practice. These pastoral aspects can be discussed for further clarification after the canonical recognition.”
The interviewer asked, “Has the Vatican thus lowered its standards for the sake of reconciliation?”
“No” replied the Archbishop. “In past years we simply sorted out the essential points, separating them from those topics that could be discussed later. Previously we aimed at receiving immediate consensus on all the problematic questions, but unfortunately without success. Now we asked ourselves: what are the truly essential prerequisites for being Catholic? In consultation with the Pope, the abovementioned requirements were inserted into the Doctrinal Declaration to be submitted to the Fraternity.”
Archbishop Pozzo was then asked “How did the Vatican come to decide that different documents of the Council bear different dogmatic weight?”
His reply: “This was not a conclusion on our part, but was already unequivocal at the time of the Council. On November 16, 1964 the Secretary General of the Council, Cardinal Pericle Felici declared, ‘This Holy Synod defines as binding for the Church only that which is specifically stated as such in terms of Faith and morals.’ Only texts which have been explicitly rated as binding by the Council Fathers are to be adopted as such. It is not ‘the Vatican’ that came up with this, it is stated in the Acts of Vatican II.”
Fr. Hesse explains why Vatican II is Not A Council of the Church
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.”
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.”
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.”
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. 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’.
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 (how do modernists interpret properly?)”.
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.
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.”
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:
“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. 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, 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. (grounds for automatic excommunication!!) 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.”
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. 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.
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.
TradCatKnight: Pozzo is a clueless modernist. The Council was diabolical and represents the new cult of man as Pope Paul 6th called it. Bishop Fellay has abandoned Archbishop Lefebvre and his position both practically and in principal. Perhaps now even more priests and faithful will leave the mainstream Society. The Society's leaders are a bunch on inept morons playing with the enemy.
Exposing the New Religion of Vatican II:
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-second-vatican-council-was-not.html
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2015/07/fr-hesse-exposing-worst-statements-of.html
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2016/03/vatican-ii-apostasy-possible.html
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2015/07/those-following-vatican-ii-follow-new.html
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2015/12/vatican-ii-ripoff-religion.html
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2015/05/vatican-ii-ecumenists-are-perverts-of.html
http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2015/09/vatican-ii-misinterpretation-or-denial.html
