Yes: They DO Have to Become Catholic!

Michael Voris takes Fox News’ clerical commentator, Fr. Morris, to task for his indifferentist remarks on air. This is a good profession of the dogma, no salvation outside the Church.

“If the comment made by Fr. Morris on Fox News was a sample of what he will say during the conclave, be sure and keep your volume turned down.”

  • Paul Vasilak

    I would love to hear Michael Voris speak at the next SBC conference.

  • Eleonore

    I echo your comment, Paul.

  • aly

    Echo me too.I am unsurprised totally at Fr.Morris.I’ve never heard him talk anything but pap.It figures fox news would have him as the Catholic voice.I didn’t see it.I’m finished with Fox “NEWS”. There is just too much tabloid there,too much unnews,and worse still their policy is Ultra-Zionism.I find it Ultra-Sickening.

  • Thomas Donnelly

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I didn’t notice Voris actually saying that one couldn’t be saved outside the Catholic Church. To me he seemed to be saying that being in the Church gives access to the sacraments, etc., and therefore makes it much easier to be saved. My guess is that he would also support BOD/BOB.

  • le

    My understanding is that the Pope has said there is salvation outside of the church. Also, Vatican II said so as well. Are you saying that the Pope is wrong? Thank you.

  • lewr2: No, the Pope has not said that there is salvation outside the Church. If you think he has, perhaps you could provide the text?

    Vatican II did not say it, either.

    The Church has clearly taught that there is no salvation outside the Church in very lucid and infallible documents, which you can read here: .

    No, we are not saying that the Pope is wrong. We are saying that the Popes who defined this truth have to be believed.

  • le

    Let me be clear or clearer about a couple things.

    1. I like your style! You’re direct and to the point.

    2. I am not here to bash anyone, but to find answers to questions and maybe clear up preconceived judgements.

    3. Maybe I was not clear on what I meant by ‘church’. I am not catholic, but a baptist. So, we probably don’t speak the same language all the time, so bear with me.

    The ‘church’ is the ‘catholic church’, so I made the statement to a friend (not CC) that the CC believes there is no salvation outside the CC. I was told by that person that the CC has changed it’s position and now accepts that there is salvation outside of the CC to a universal church.

    He pointed me to a few documents showing that Vatican II and Pope John Paul II did appear to make statements on salvation outside of the CC.

    Pope John Paul II in his encyclical

    Vatican II Council in 1964 specifically eight and nine in lumen gentium.

    These documents appear to speak about salvation outside the church. In fact, they appear to go further than I would ever dare go on that issue.

    From my reading, and the reading of mystic monks alive and dead, it appears you can be a buddihst, wiccan or any other persuasion and be saved as well. People such as Keating, Rohr, Teasdale and such come to mind.

    Also, my understanding on dogma’s is that these aren’t necessarily dogma’s as one would think of dogma, but pseudo dogma’s?

    Again, I’m not trying to throw stones, but understand how these statements do not. Which would change a preconceived notion of what I thought the CC’s stands are.

    Thank you

  • Thank you for the clarification. I did not think you were bashing anyone.

    We are living in an age of profound confusion, in which people are watering down dogma terribly. Yet, there is in the Catholic Church a clear teaching on infallibility. This guides us through what can sometimes be murky waters.

    Vatican II, it is generally accepted, used ambiguous language in places. While it taught no new doctrine and bound Catholics to nothing but what was previously taught, certain statements in it SEEM to contradict previous teaching. When it is a question of what to believe, we go to our highest sources and most reliable ones. Infallible teachings, in other words, trump non-infallible documents where there is a question of a potential contradiction.

  • le

    You have nowhere to go. I temper Fox w/all the rest and add lots of Internet reading!

  • le

    I do not disagree with the confusion as it’s at all levels. It’s appears in all ‘denominations’ as well including the CC.

    What would be considered infallible document to a catholic if not papal encyclicals, Vatican I, II, and statements by Paul II, etc…? Do you go back to the Vat I & the Council of Trent and earlier?

    If so, doesn’t that make the pope’s and their statements afterwards wrong?

    As a baptist, we are supposed to rest on the bible. We would say, w/o the extra books like Tobit, Maccabees, etc..

    The reason I ask these questions is because you have people like Rick Warren and many others tweeting or making statements like:

    Rick Warren and the many other ‘evangelicals’ AND Catholics such as the Pope, believe that the CC and evangelicals can not only life together, but are brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ.

    You, if I’m reading properly, would say that I am NOT a brother in Christ correct?

    How do you as a priest deal with this issue both inside the church and outside?

    Thanks again

  • lewr2: Let me answer your last question first. All baptized Christians are brothers by virtue of baptism. There is a custom in the Catholic Church of referring to members of non-Catholic denominations as “separated brethren.” It’s a delicate way of acknowledging that heresy and schism separate people from the Church.

    Many nowadays have a very elastic concept of the Church, i.e., that the one true Church of Christ embraces all Christian denominations of whatever sort. We reject that entirely and hold to the traditional — i.e., true — teaching on the identity of Christ’s true Church with the Catholic Church.

    Regarding Infallibility, there are recognized criteria. Here is an article on the subject:

    Here is another article (a bit more involved) explaining some things about non-infallible teachings emanating from the hierarchy:

    In brief, neither Vatican II nor the Encyclicals of JP II were, of themselves, infallible.