1.Michael Voris says outside the Church there is no salvation but then like the liberal magisterium at the Vatican he suggests that the baptism of desire is a practical exception.So he contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS-Feeneyite).He will not say that Cardinal Ratzinger made this same mistake.The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) was wrong.
2.So on one of CMTV programs, with this irrational reasoning he has said that everyone does not need to be a card carrying member of the Church .Like many traditionalists he speaks from both sides of the mouth.There is no salvation outside the Church and every one needs to be a member of the Church in 2017 to avoid Hell but some do not.
This was the original error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The first part of the Letter supports the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS (Feeneyite) and the second part contradicts the first part with alleged exceptions.It is Cushingite.
3.School children at Detroit are being taught not every one needs to enter the Church since there can be non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance etc( as possibilities) and this contradicts the dogma EENS.This is magisterial in Detroit and Michael Voris accepts this.For him the magisterium has not made an error in theology and doctrine.He does not want to say that the Archbishop of Detroit and the Curia are teaching irrationality and heresy which is magisterial and approved by the Jewish Left.
4.So with this theology based on the baptism of desire (possibility) being an exception( defacto, practical) to the dogma EENS he wants the SSPX to come into the Church.He says the SSPX must accept the doctrines of the Church.He means the new doctrines created with Cushingite Vatican Council II and EENS.
With Vatican Council II (Cushingite-known exceptions to EENS) and EENS( Cushingite-known exceptions to EENS Feeneyite) there is heresy.It is magisterial and he wants the SSPX to accept this.
5.This is a doctrinal error being made by the present magisterium which is supported by Michael Voris and he does not identify the issue.
It is with this same error that Samuel Freedman in the New York Times report interpreted Vatican Council II.There was no comment on this point from CMTV.He simply had to announce that there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.LG 16 is not an exception it is not explicit for us.So with Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) there is no change in ecclesiology in the Church on Jews and Muslims.
6.He is unable to say that the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake and Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct.There still is magisterial heresy. Pope Francis is waiting for the SSPX to come into the Church accepting Vatican Council II as a break with the old ecclesiology.Fpr Pope Francis and the Jesuits Lumen Gentium 16 refers to an invisible and not visible case and so it is not an exception to EENS (Feeneyite).
7.Michael Voris is unable to say that it was a mistake to excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre since with LG 16 etc being explicit Vatican Council II is really a rupture with Tradition and the Archbishop's conclusion was correct.It was the Prefect of the CDF who should have said that Vatican Council II, without the invisible-confusion was not a rupture with Tradition.Michael Voris does not say that Pope John Paul II made a mistake.
8.The two popes will not say that Vatican Council II is in harmony with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.Neither will Michael Voris.Instead they all will assume that hypothetical cases are objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is also the position of the traditionalists and sedevacantists.For CMTV too LG 16 is not a hypothetical case but a 'practical exception' to the dogma EENS.
Pope Benedict confirmed it a few months back. He said the dogma EENS was no more like it was in the 16th century. So this is official.There is a rupture with the past magisterium.The present magisterium officially supports this rupture with the teachings of the Holy Spirit.There was not criticism from Michael Voris and the CMTV.
Michael Voris has said in a recent Vortex program that he would like to have a serious discussion or debate on this issue. He could begin by responding to these eight points mentioned above.1
Basically, I am saying that like the now-magisterial Letter of the Holy Office 1949 he supports the dogma EENS(Feeneyite) and also contradicts it.This is heresy and irrationality and it is magisterial.
Since there are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS for him, he infers that LG 16 (invincible ignorance) and LG 14 ( catechumen saved with the desire for the baptism of water) refer to visible and personally known cases in the present times for them to be exceptions to the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).So with this irrationality Vatican Council II emerges as a rupture with the past.
If he did not interpret Vatican Council II with this false premise, as do the faculty at the Sacred Seminary in Detroit, then Vatican Council II ( without the false premise) would not contradict EENS ( without the false premise).-Lionel Andrades