Friday, September 13, 2013

Michael Voris could show how Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism,with visible exceptions or without them, irrationally or rationally.

Michael Voris on Church Militant TV asked Fr.Jonathan Morris to name someone who does not need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. So on this point Michael Voris is clear.Every one needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions.Outside the church there is no salvation.He has produced quite a few good videos on this subject.
http://youtu.be/ylVcrYlpOBc


 
In interpreting Vatican Council II however he assumes the Council says there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So for him the Council says every one does not have to enter the Church. The Council is ambiguous for him.For Michael Voris Vatican Council II is saying like Fr.Jonathan Morris that every one does not need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
 
This was the view also of the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing.He assumed every one did not have to enter the Church for salvation since there were known exceptions, saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.This is Cushingism and Michael is interpreting Vatican Council II with this error.He is probably using Cushingism to interpret other magisterial documents, including the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

So the fault is not with Vatican Council II but with Michael Voris.If he interprets the Council with Feeneyism, no known exceptions to the dogma, then Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or Tradition.The Council is no more ambiguous.
 
If Michael Voris assumes that those saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), good conscience (LG 16), seeds of the Word(AG 11), good and holy things in other religions(NA 2), imperfect communion with the Church(UR) etc are visible to us in 2013, then the Council contradicts Tradition, the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.The Council is then ambiguous.
 
If he reasons that these cases are known only to God and are not visible to us on earth, then the Council is traditional and not ambiguous.Since it means that these cases are not exceptions to Outside the Church there is no Salvation.There are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II.So ambiguity, or its absence, depends on whether he chooses Feeneyism or Cushingism for the interpretation.
 
On the issue of other religions and ecumenism, Ad Gentes 7 says all need 'faith and baptism'.Ad Gentes 7 is also mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church(846) under the title Outside the Church No Salvation. Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism and all need to enter the Church 'as through a door'- while LG 16,LG 6,AG 7 etc are not exceptions, known or unknown.So we have a traditional Vatican Council on ecumenism and other religions.Protestants need Catholic Faith for salvation and Jews,Muslims and other non Catholics need Catholic Faith with the baptism of water- and Michael Voris knows that no one can name any exceptions.
 Yet Cardinal Walter Kaspar and Bishop Athanasius Schneider are interpreting Vatican Council II assuming there are exceptions.

It is important that Michael Voris does a program, in which he can show how the same magisterial text can be interpreted in two ways.One is rational (no visible cases of the dead) and the other is irrational (the dead are visible exceptions).One is is in agreement with the dogma on salvation and Tradition the other is a break with Tradition.One is with Bishop Athanasius Schneiders 's concept of a hermeneutic of continuity. The other is with a hermeneutic of rupture.One is in accord with the Syllabus of Errors the other is liberalism and dissent.One has a traditional ecclesiology the other is the basis for a 'theology of religions'. One is the Deposit of the Faith and the other is heresy, denying a defined dogma and changing the Nicene Creed to 'I believe in three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sin(water,desire and blood)', instead of one(water).It is assuming that in principle- cases, hypothetical cases, are considered to be defacto and known to us in the present times.

Premium Subscribers
At Church Militant TV  Premium Subscribers have access to programs on the Roman Forum.About all the members of the Roman Forum interpret Vatican Council II, irrationally, with the false premise, with a hermeneutic of rupture, rank Cushingism, heresy, a break with the Syallbus of Errors and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Using Cushingsim unknowingly they interpret Vatican Council II  with ambiguity, with  a non traditional ecclesiology, contradicting the traditional teaching on ecumenism and other religions.
If Michael could produce a video on this subject it would help many of us in our personal evangelization. -Lionel Andrades
 

Michael Voris is using Cushingism in the interpretation of Vatican Council II like everybody else

 
 
The saints agree with me! http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/05/the-saints-agree-with-me.html#links

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/05/richard-cushing-error-in-ad-gentes-7.html#links
 
When they interpret Vatican Council II according to Cushingism and not Fr. Leonard Feeney it has its influence on the liturgy
Vatican Council II says outside the Church there is no salvation and is in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors, Mystici Corporis,Quanto Conficiamus etc.http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/sspx-can-accept-vatican-council-ii-in.html
 
ASK YOUR PARISH PRIEST FOR MORE INFORMATION ON AD GENTES 7, VATICAN COUNCIL II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/ask-your-parish-priest-for-more.html#links
 
The SSPX was excommunicated because Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops were not aware of the Richard Cushing error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/the-sspx-was-excommunicated-because.html#links
 
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commissions.html#links