Michael Voris can continue to affirm the dogma EENS and all magisterial documents/teachings with a rational philosophy and theology : he will not be rejecting BOD, BOB and I.I

Michael Voris correctly says that we must ask non Catholics to convert since, he implies, for me, that all non Catholics are going to Hell, unless they convert into the Catholic Church.Though he contradicts Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j, who at the Placuit Deo Press Conference said that the Catholic Church no more teaches that it has the superiority and exclusiveness in salvation.Michael Voris instead says that there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. It's the opposite.




DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VORIS AND LADARIA

Why is there this difference between Michael Voris and Cardinal Ladaria.

The cause is a small premise.This premise creates the  difference between them.

Both of them use this irrational premise to interpret Vatican Council II.

For both of them invisible baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are visible exceptions to the dogma EENS.

The conclusion is a rupture with Tradition.This is affirmed by Cardinal Luiz Ladaria and it is rejected by Michael Voris.Michael side steps Vatican Council II ( with the premise) and goes back to Tradition( the popes and saints) for support.

So when the CMTV staff affirms the dogma EENS and  the objections come in, since for Catholics in general, invisible BOD, BOB and I.I are 'visible' exceptions what should CMTV do, how should they respond?

For the CMTV Staff to continue to support the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation, they have to understand and make known, two important points.







TWO IMPORTANT POINTS

1.Announce or make it known that they accept BOD, BOB and I.I.They accept them as hypothetical and speculative cases, known only to God.So they can only be theoretical and conceptual for us human beings. There is no other choice.

This is common sense. This is not a theology or a personal view.This is something factual and objective.

2.They have to note that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is traditional in the first part  while the second part is irrational and heretical.It contradicts the first part.So with an irrational philosophy ( visible for us BOD, BOB and I.I) it contradicts the dogma EENS and Vatican Council II(AG 7).The new philosophy creates a new theology( outside the Church there is known salvation). The conclusion is that there is a rupture with Tradition.

VATICAN COUNCIL II AND EENS IN HARMONY 

So when CMTV is criticized for affirming the dogma EENS, they should announce, that they affirm all Magisterial documents/teachings but they interpret them with a rational philosophy and theology.They must announce that they affirm Vatican Council II and EENS and all the Catechisms.However they do it based on the reasoning in the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and not the second part.

So when Cardinal Luiz Ladaria and I affirm all Magisterial documents/teachings, the difference presently between us, is that he uses the false premise and I do not.The CMTV staff can follow me.





BOD, BOB AND I.I ARE COMPATIBLE WITH FEENEYITE EENS

So no one can then say that Michael Voris is in heresy for rejecting BOD,BOB and I.I  when he affirms the dogma EENS.Since he can affirm hypothetical and speculative BOD,BOB and I.I along with the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS. 


They are compatible.We do not have to choose between one or the other.

This is the mistake Cardinal Ladaria made  at the March 1,2018, Press Conference.He assumed Lumen Gentium 8 was a visible and known exception to EENS.

Lumen Gentium 8 is hypothetical always for us.So it could not have been an exception to EENS.Cardinal Ladaria was affirming the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and rejecting the first part of the Letter and traditional EENS.

Michael Voris could ask Cardinal Ladaria the same question he asked Fr. Jonathan Morris : whom does Cardinal Ladaria know who will be saved without being a member of the Catholic Church, whom does he know who will be saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth' in other religions(LG 8)? Whom does he know who will be saved outside the Church where the true Church of Christ allegedly and supposedly  subsists(LG 8) ?

No one.

VATICAN COUNCIL II IN HARMONY WITH PAST EXCLUSIVIST ECCLESIOLOGY

Having cleared this basic issue I come to the next step which is also important for CMTV.

1. CMTV can state that Vatican Council II does not contradict the Church's traditional teaching on it having the superiority and exclusiveness in salvation.I am not referring to an ambiguous Vatican Council II , one with dual meanings.

2.Since there is no known salvation outside the Church we still have the old ecclesiology of the Church. It supports only an ecumenism of return.

3.Since there is no known salvation outside the Church we have the traditional doctrines on mission.We know that all non Catholics who have died are in Hell and those living in the present times, who do not convert into the Church, are also going there.

4.So the New Evangelisation is theologically flawed and has no support in Vatican Council II.How can we evangelize alongside Protestants when they are all oriented to Hell according to the Magisterium of the Church.Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith for salvation.Protestants do not have Catholic Faith, which include the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Church.

So without rejecting Vatican Council II, the Catechisms and Vatican Council II, Michael Voris will support the old philosophy ( invisible people are invisible) and reject the new philosophy( invisible non Catholics saved are visible).

He will have accepted the old theology( outside the Church there is no salvation) and will have rejected, at the same time, the New Theology( outside the church there is no salvation).

He will affirm Tradition and reject the heretical New Evangelisation.He will affirm an ecumenism of return based on the old exclusivist ecclesiology, knowing that the New Ecumenism has no citations in Vatican Council II to support it, unless of course,the false premise is used.


CMTV AFFIRMS ALL MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS RATIONALLY

So no one can call the CMTV Staff heretics. Since they are affirming Magisterial documents/ teachings and they are not using the irrational premise ( invisible people are visible) to create a rupture with Tradition( outside the Church there is known salvation).

So Vatican Council II is no more dogmatic,  when, with a false premise it rejectsthe dogma EENS and traditional doctrines based on the dogma EENS.

CMTV would be affirming Vatican Council II along with EENS. Vatican Council II along with the Syllabus of Errors( ecumenism of return). Vatican Council II along with traditional mission doctrines as it was known in the 16th century.Vatican Council II along with the past exclusivist ecclesiology associated with the Traditional Latin Mass.





















The CMTV Staff would know that Cardinal Ladaria has used a  false premise, which they avoid, and so he is in heresy.According to Canon Law a Prefect of the CDF must be able to affirm de fide teachings of the Catholic Church.-Lionel Andrades 

APRIL 16, 2018

Michael Voris maintains the ambiguity and does not address the points I repeat

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/michael-voris-is-maintaining-ambiguity.html

The Vortex—Just Gotta’ Say It …

https://youtu.be/xBzStS4u9mY

What Did He Just Say?

https://youtu.be/BTMasSYZWRc

APRIL 14, 2018

Michael Voris can still choose the alternative interpretation of Vatican Council II and try to bring the truth out in a way which will not offend the Archdiocese

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/michael-voris-can-still-choose.html

MARCH 4, 2018

The headline of Edward Pentin's report on the National Catholic Register is false.The Vatican has not affirmed the traditional teaching on salvation. Instead it has denied it.  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/the-headline-of-edward-pentins-report.html