Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Michael Voris is not aware that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the explicit or implicit distinction and like the SSPX he uses the irrational LG 16 is explicit interpretation

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.
Immagine correlata
 For the contemporary Magisterium, for the popes since Pius XII, there is salvation outside the Church and every one does not need to be card carrying members.Since there are allegedly explicit ( and not implicit ) cases of non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I).
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'.

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.
Immagine correlata
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.

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.
Immagine correlata
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.

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.


What constitutes acceptance and adherence to the Catholic religion is actually very narrow — a very thin slice ...
The SSPX holds out that the documents of the Second Vatican Council are riddled with error and heresy. Since the vast majority of bishops signed the documents — including their own original leader, who actually signed them twice — then all these bishops were supportive of heresy. They are heretical, the council promotes heresy, and on and on. 
Here Michael Voris is not aware that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the explicit or implicit distinction and like the SSPX he uses the irrational LG 16 is explicit interpretation.

And if the council was heretical (and that is what SSPX says), then the Church Itself has fallen into heresy, including all the popes since the Council — which means the popes back to John XXIII are all anti-popes.
For him BOD,BOB and I.I are explicit. If they would be implicit his interpretation would change. Vatican Council II would not contradict the old ecclesiology, which is the reason the SSPX rejects Vatican Council II.

 That's the argument of the sedevacantists, and it's actually interesting to watch the SSPX and the sedevacantists hacking away at each other — interesting in a very sad way, that is. 
Sad because Michael is also not aware that he is using the same irrational premise and inference to interpret Vatican Council II.
The SSPX tries ridiculously to stake out some kind of indefensible illogical ground that says the New Mass is "an offense against God" and that Catholics shouldn't attend it while also saying the Council's documents are rife with error, all the while arguing against the sedevacantist crowd, which agrees with the SSPX conclusions. 
They are referring to the theology of the New Mass. They are referring to the new ecclesiology. They do not know the precise cause of the new ecclesiology .Neither does Michael.
I mean, which is it? Is the Council or its documents heretical or not? If they are — like so many SSPX-ers maintain — then the more extreme conclusion of the sedevacantist crowd must be admitted. 
He still is totally in the dark on the exact cause of the hermeneutic of rupture which is the basis for the opposition of the SSPX and the sedevacantists to Vatican Council II. They reject Vatican Council II  since for them the Council is a break with the dogma EENS and the old ecclesiology. They are correct. With the irrational premise Vatican Council II is a break with the past.
The SSPX claims to cling to the Catholic faith — which is mostly true. The problem is part of the Catholic faith is obedience to the papacy and the Church.
The papacy, the contemporary magisterium also assumes implicit cases are explicit. This cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.This is human error.

 Our Blessed Lord didn't establish a faith — He established a Church. And you must embrace that Church in its entirety — no wavering even the slightest bit, regardless of your own personal experiences, opinions or circumstances. 
Explicit cases being implicit is an innovation and was not part of the Church before 1808.
-Lionel Andrades

No comments: