The truth can be costly even for Michael Voris

There is a controversy going on between Michael Voris and Louie Verrechio and they both are still not addressing the basic question : can there be known exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the present times?

If there cannot be known exceptions to the dogma in the present times , then did the Catholic Church make a mistake in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case ?

They both refuse to even comment or discuss this issue which is related to the SSPX doctrinal issue.

If there cannot be exceptions to the dogma in the present times and if the Church did make a mistake, as I believe they have, then our concept of Vatican Council II changes.

Our concept of the Council of Trent, Mystici Corporis, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore and other traditional documents being an exception to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma changes.

It would mean Vatican Council II does not change the traditional dogmatic teachings. The Council is still pastoral.

If Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong and there are known exceptions to his concept of the dogma, then it means the Council is not just pastoral, but it is also dogmatic. It has changed the dogmatic teaching  according to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Now for Michael Voris and Louie Verrecchio  Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong. This was the position of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

For both of  them there are known cases of people in  the present times saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. Who are these known persons? No one knows.

If Michael Voris does agree that there are no known exceptions to the dogma and that Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct and the Holy Office 1949 was factually wrong, he will be opposing the Jewish Left. He will be opposing the Archbishop of Detroit. He will be opposing Pope Francis.

There could be a financial threat to Church Militant TV.

So is he willing to go through all this.

Louie Verrecchio at least would say No.

The truth, which Michael speaks about often, could be costly.

So in the Mic'd Up program on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, CMTV held the position that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance , mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, were really exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They were exceptions to Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 which Christine Niles quoted on that program.

This is far from the truth. It is far from rationality. It is heresy and if they were really aware of what they were saying, it would be expediency.

-Lionel Andrades