Christine Niles and Michael Voris do not accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) quoted here.Since for them invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to the dogma EENS.They use the irrational premise to interpret EENS.
Christine Niles uses the false premise to interpret magisterial documents
Christine Niles may say 'Of course we accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.We also had a special progma on EENS on the Mic'd Up program which you appreciated'.
On the Mic'd Up program Christine brought out the point well that the dogma EENS has been rejected or neglected.It was a de fide teaching of the Church approved by three Church Councils.The issue is saving souls. So it should be taught by the Bishops.
But in that program Christine quoted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.So to be in harmony with the present magisterium, she contradicted the text of Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 which she quoted.While reading the text of Cantate Dominio she also left out the word 'Jews'.
So for her there is only Vatican Council II with the premise.That is invisible people are visible exceptions in the present times to traditional EENS. Like the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and the magisterium in Detroit she says invisible- for- us- cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church for salvation.
She accepts the reasoning of the 1949 Letter to the Archbishop of Boston by the Holy Office which states
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
This is heresy based on an irrationality but for CMTV it is magisterial.So Michael Voris says every one needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member for salvation but leaves this blind spot alone.
However this reasoning affects Christine Niles' interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Vatican Council II has to be a rupture with the dogma EENS as it was known to the three Church Councils, which did not mention any exceptions.
Since for Christine Niles invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are visible for them to be exceptions to the dogma EENS, she also assumes that Lumen Gentium 16(LG 16)etc also refer to known people.So it is really invisible cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and with a good conscience (LG 16) are visible exceptions in the present times to the dogma EENS.
Since unknown cases of BOD, BOB and I.I for her refer to known people saved outside the Catholic Church and also personally unknown cases of LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to known people saved outside the Church there is the hermeneutic of rupture.In logic if you change the premise you change the conclusion.
So since there are known people saved outside the Church, even though in reality there are no such cases, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is a rupture with the dogma EENS and CMTV has accepted it.
So for CMTV Vatican Council II with unknown cases of LG 16 etc referring to known people saved outside the Church is a rupture with the dogma EENS as it was interpreted over the centuries.It is this interpretation of the Council which CMTV wants the SSPX to accept.Otherwise CMTV will say that they are in schism.
Vatican Council II for Christine is also a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.Vatican Council II also becomes a rupture for her with the old ecclesiology of the Church.Vatican Council II becomes a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors.
When Unitatis Redintigratio 3 mentions Christians in imperfect communion with the Church would interpret this as Protestants saved outside the Church. For her UR 3 would refer to a known person saved outside the Church. For me UR 3 refers to an invisible person in our reality, it is speculation, a hypothetical case. So it does not contradict EENS according to the missionaries in the 16th century.It does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors for me on an ecumenism of return and non Catholics needing to be members of the Catholic Church with faith and baptism to avoid Hell.It does not contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
With one small false premise which Christine accepts in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 not only has her interpretation of Vatican Council II changed but so also her interpretation of the Nicene Creed.
This is all heresy which she follows un-knowingly but it is magisterial and obligatory for CMTV if they still want to be called Catholics by the Archbishop of Detroit.
Michael Voris once told Michael Sean Winters that CMTV was magisterial. Of course, so is the National Catholic Reporter which interprets BOD,BOB and I.I as exceptions to EENS with the invisible people are visible premise. CMTV is as magisterial as Michael Sean Winters who interprets LG 16 as referring to known people saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance. So Vatican Council II is a rupture with the past for both of them. CMTV is as magisterial as Massimo Faggioli....
Michael Voris and Christine Niles say there is only one true Church but with this small theological lie; with the false premise, which they may not be aware of, they have chamged the entire ecclesiology of the Church and are in harmony with the liberals and the Left.
So on that Mic'd Up program on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, Christine Niles did not state that every one needs to enter the Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions; BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions. If she said this she would be clear theologically on the tradtional teaching on EENS.
This would not be rejecting BOD, BOB and I.I. She would be only accepting them as hypothetical cases, theoretical possibilities.They can only be this for us humans. Since if they happened these cases would only be known to God.
This point is the first step. Once this is clear she could then see the false reasoning on Vatican Council II. Presently even the St.Benedict Centers, communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney in the diocese of Worcester and Manchester,USA, interpret LG 16 etc are referring to known salvation outside the Church and so they reject this aspect of Vatican Council II.
Once she is clear on the irrational premise she could re-interpret the magisterial documents mentioned here, without the premise.-Lionel Andrades
Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.It affirms traditional EENS like the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century.
Irrational premise: It is assuming hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but instead are objective cases in the present times.It assumes invisible and unknown people are visible and unknown in our reality.
Baptism of Desire ( premise-free): It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it, the baptism of desire, is not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Invincible Ignorance ( premise-free): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is a hypothetical case it is not an exception to the dogma EENS.The false premise was not used.
Council of Florence: One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exception.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was premise-free.
Vatican Council II ( premise-free):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( premise-free),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( premise-free): It means interpreting the first part of the the Letter without the false premise.Only the first part.It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.However the second part of the Letter contradicts the first part since it uses the false premise.
Baltimore Catechism: It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with the confusion.It can be interpreted premise-free.
Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted as being premise -free. The references to invincible ignorance etc have to be interpreted without the false premise. So it does not contradict the dogma EENS( premise-free).
Nicene Creed ( premise-free): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.
New Theology (with the premise) : It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.It is of course based on the false premise.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free): It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.Invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not visible exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church for salvation.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( premise-free): CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known cases in the present times of God not being not limited to the Sacraments(CCC1257).When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needing to formally enter the Church.It is a reference to a hypothetical case and not somebody known. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.
Christine Niles and Michael Voris can interpret Church documents with Feeneyism.
They can avoid the Irrational Premise.
They can choose the Baptism of Desire (without the false premise) and Invincible Ignorance (without the false premise).
They can choose Vatican Council II (premise-free).
It is the same with the Letter of the Holy Office ( premise- free) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( premise-free).
They can choose the Nicene Creed ( premise-free).
It has to be Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free).
Without the irrational premise the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Pope Pius X are not a rupture with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free).
When they affirm the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(premise-free) they would be in harmony with Vatican Council II(premise-free). They would also be in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus (premise-free).They would be supporting the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.There would be no change in the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II for them anymore. The Council would no more be a problem.
Without the premise they will have rejected the New Theology.
They must choose extra ecclesiam nulla salus premise-free, for all this good to happen.Vatican Council II( premise-free) was never a rupture with EENS( premise-free) for CMTV.- Lionel Andrades