I mentioned in the previous blog post that Archbishop Pio Vito Pinto has said that the four cardinals may lose their cardinalate who asked Pope Francis to clarify heretical points in Amoris Laetitia.
I am thinking of the fear there must be in priests to say in public that there is an objective mistake in Vatican Council II and that they support the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
A priest with whom I have been in communication with over the week said that there are obviously no known cases of the baptism of desire. We cannot see or meet someone in the present times or the past saved, as such.
So the baptism of desire is not an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for you, I asked him? He would not answer.It was a simple question.
If he says that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus then it would also suggest that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 are also hypothetical cases and so are not exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation, as it was interpretated by the 16th century missionaries.
Now Michael Voris on the CMTV website says outside of this faith salvation is not possible.But he doesn't mean it.He doesn't mean it!
Obviously he is not affirming the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Neither is he saying that Vatican Council II was never a rupture with the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
For the Archdiocese of Detroit and the theological and philosophical faculty at the Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit there is salvation outside the Church. According to the new theology salvation outside the Church is a possibility.
So is CMTV saying that Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma which says all Jews , Protestants and Orthodox Christians and others need to be incorporated as members into the Church for salvation ? I don't expect an answer.Once again I'm probably up against the usual worldly prudence.
It also means that when Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation there are no passages in the Council to contradict it.LG 14 does not contradict it. Since it too refers to a hypothetical case.I've never heard Michael Voris say this.
If only MIchael Voris would say in public that the baptism of desire- case is obviously an imaginary case in the present or the past then this would be an important step at least to end the doctrinal problem of the SSPX. Vatican Council II would support the SSPX and sedevacantist position on ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue and the Social Reign of Christ the King.Since all these teachings of the Church are based on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The one with no exceptions.It is not based on Cushingite extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is the new innovative version of the dogma which says there are explicit exceptions to all needing to enter the Church.
Outside of this faith salvation is not possible says CMTV. I can't believe that they are suggesting that they have done away with the New Theology!Got rid of it for good.
What would happen to CMTV if Michael Voris actually said that he affirmed the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Since he did not and could not personally know of any case of the baptism of desire this year or through out his life.Would the Archbishop announce that CMTV is not Catholic?
What if he said that since hypothetical cases cannot be defacto exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church as members ? So hypothetical references in Vatican Council II should not be projected as explicit exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma.He would be saying that the present magisterium, the liberal cardinals and the traditionalists, SSPX included, have been interpretating Vatican Council II wrongly! I cannot imagine what would happen to CMTV.
What if Michael Voris said that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is the foundational basis of other teachings of the Church including ecumenism, outside the Church Jews and Muslims are on the way to Hell and the need for the Social Reign of Christ the King ? All of which have not changed after Vatican Council II? All of which have not changed after Vatican Council II .Unthinkable!-Lionel Andrades