'We must stay in the Barque of Peter for salvation - because it's the only Ark in the Deluge of the world '- Michael Voris

 

We must stay in the Barque of Peter for salvation - because it's the only Ark in the Deluge of the world.

 

Does Vatican Council II also say that we must stay in the Barque of Peter for salvation because it's the only Ark in the Deluge of the World ?

 

For Michael Voris Vatican Council II is ambiguous. This is not a subject of this video.However  he has mentioned an ambigous Vatican Council II in other videos.

 

Can Michael Voris say that Vatican Council II is pro- Fr. Leonard Feeney and affirms the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

 

Some questions and answers could be as follows:

 

1. Vatican Council II is ambigous on the issue of other religions and Christian communities, this is the general view held by Catholics?

Answer: If one assumes all salvation referred to in the Council (LG 8, LG 16 etc) are visible to us on earth, then the Council would be a break with the past. The Council would be ambiguous if this irrational premise is used.

 

2. How can you say that Vatican Council II is pro Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

 

Ad Gentes 7 affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus when it refers to all needing faith and baptism for salvation and all needing to enter the Catholic Church as through a door. Ad Gentes 7 is placed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 under the sub title Outside the Church No Salvation.

There are no known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 or extra ecclesiam nulla salus mentioned in Vatican Council II.

 

3.Why do you say there are no known exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to extra ecclesiamn nulla salus?

 

Since all salvation in Heaven is visible only to God and not visible to us. We do not know any case in 2014 saved in imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3), seeds of the Word (AG 11), invincible ignorance(LG 16) etc.

Vatican Council II just mentions these cases. They are probabilities. The Council does not state that they are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 

4. Fr.Leonard Feeney was condemned for not accepting the baptism of desire etc?

If he was condemned for heresy then it was a mistake, an objective mistake. It would mean that Pope Pius XII assumed that the baptism of desire etc was visible to us in Heaven. It would have to be visible and known for it to be an exception to the dogma on salvation.

 

5.So did Pope Pius XII make a mistake?

 

No, Pope Pius XII supported Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine/dogma in the earlier part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when he referred to 'the dogma', the 'infallible statement' and as the Church knew and taught it for centuries. The text of the dogma does not mention any exceptions.

The latter part of the Letter refers to disobedience/discipline. Fr.Leonard Feeney did not go to Rome when called to defend himself.

The Letter says he was excommunicated for disobedience.

The Letter does not state that there are known exceptions to the dogma or that implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation.

-Lionel Andrades