Michael Voris cannot affirm the truth and also the contemporary magisterium on the issue of salvation. Since the contemporary magisterium has rejected the magisterial teachings on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
So not to long ago Michael Voris said not every one needs to be a card carrying member of the Catholic Church.This contradicts his earlier statements on outside the Church there is no salvation.
There can be no Mission for him since there really is salvation outside the Church.
The popes before 1808, when the Baltimore Catechism was issued, interpreted BOD, BOB and I.I as being implicit and not explicit,invisible and not visible.
So there are two magisterial positions on this issue. They are pre and post 1808.
Micael Voris chooses the post 1808 magisterial position so BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to all needing to be card carrying members of the Church; all needing to convert into the Church. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus!.
This is how the contemporary magisterium, Pope Benedict and Pope Francis, interpret Vatican Council II. LG 16,LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are explicit and not implicit.They refer to known cases and so they are a break with the Syllabus of Errors and the dogma EENS.They are a break with Tradition.They also contradict Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.This is the irrationality of the Archdiocese of Detroit too where Church Militant TV is located.
There is an alternative.It is a simple rational alternative but for Michael Voris it may not be 'magisterial'.
NO CONFLICT FOR ME
For me, Lionel, there is no conflict.I consider myself affirming the magisterium according to the magisterial texts of the Church ( Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church etc).
I affirm Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I affirm Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II which is in agreement with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma EENS ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 etc).
I affirm the possibility (theoretical) of being saved with LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc .These hypothetical possibilities when they happen, unknown to me, would include the baptism of water, since this is magisterial (AG 7, LG 14, CCC 1257 etc).
For me Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14) is not a break with the Syllabus of Errors and the dogma EENs.It is not a break with the Council of Trent.Nor is it a break with the Baltimore Catechism which refers to BOD, BOB and I.I as 'baptisms'.Yes they are baptisms followed by the baptism of water.There is no dogma which says otherwise.
I am in agreement with the Catechism of Pope Pius X which mentions BOD and BOB along with the necessity of baptism.O.K I accept BOD and BOB theoretically and it will include the baptism of water.
No one can tell me that the BOD and BOB must exclude the Baptism of water since he would not know of any such case, and so personally could not name such a case.
Michael Voris asked Fr.Jonathan Morris to tell him who did Fr.Jonathan know who did not need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation? He could ask this same question to the Archbishop of Detroit, Allen Vignon.Who will Archbishop Vignon know who will be saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) and with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water in 2015? Who will be saved with BOD, BOB and I.I and without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7) ? Who does not need to enter the Church in 2015? Where are these exceptions? What are their names?
Even if it did exclude the baptism of water, we would not know of this case.So it would not be relevant to EENS or an exception.Hold on to your speculative theory if you must but don't connect it with EENS.Don't link these invisible cases with all needing to be visible members of the Catholic Church for salvation.
No one could say that in the past, BOD and BOB excluded the baptism of water.They cannot- since in the past there could not be any precedent.No one could have humanly known of a case of someone saved without the baptism of water.
INNOVATION IN THE CHURCH
So when the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Bishop of Boston issued by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani suggested that BOD,BOB and I.I were exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma EENs, this was an innovation. Cardinal Marchetti did not know of any such case; i.e of someone saved outside the Church, without faith and baptism.He did not know of a BOD or BOB case which excluded the baptism of water.So it was all speculation and irrationality in the Boston Case.
I affirm the magisterium too.I affirm Vatican Council II and the pre-1808 interpretation of EENS.This is magisterial.
Michael Voris could do the same otherwise his position on Vatican Council II is irrational, non traditional, confusing and heretical.
We can speculate on the Baltimore Catechism entry but in Vatican Council II the issue is concrete.
We can speculate about the Baltimore Catechism. Did it refer to implicit or explicit baptism but in the case of the Franciscans of the Immaculate the issue is concrete and painful.
FRANCISCANS OF THE IMMACULATE
Pope Francis wants Fr.Stefano Manelli F.I's religious community to accept Vatican Council II in which LG 16 is explicit and not implicit.The pope wants them to accept BOD, BOB and I.I as being explicit and not implicit, visible and not invisible. This is contrary to common sense and common knowledge.
But with this irrationality Vatican Council II becomes an exception to EENs, the Syllabus of Erros and the the old ecclesiology. Based on the explicit-implicit confusion he wants the Franciscans of the Immaculate to reject the old ecclesiology associated with the Traditional Latin Mass.
Without the explicit-implicit confusion there is no New Theology, new ecclesiology and no ecumenism of non -return.
It was based on the New Theology that Fr.Jonathan Morris once said that not every one need to enter the Church. He meant not every one need to be a card carrying member of the Church. Now Michael Voris is saying the same thing.
The Archbishop could say there are no exceptions.Since for us humans there cannot be an exception. This is common knowledge.It is not theology.
So just like me Michael Voris could be magisterial and accept BOD, BOB and I.I .It would not be 'anti-Catholic'.At the same time he could accept the pre-1808 interpretation of EENS according to the saints, popes and Church Councils.
What I have said here is magisterial and according to the teaching of the perennial magisterium and according to magisterial texts including Vatican Council II. It may not be magisterial according to the persons who make up the present magisterium and consider implicit cases as being explicit.
They have a theology in which Lumen Gentium 16 is explicit in 2015 and I have the traditional theology in which LG 16 is implicit for me and can only be explicit for God.They have an irrationality which is the basis of their theology.
Here we can see Michael Voris following the irrational theology, in a recent Vortex program.