Ann Barnhardt refers to the true premise four times in her last blog post.1
Again, back to the whole true premise/false premise thing...
Again, we’re back to the essential nature of the TRUE PREMISE...
Once again, all of this depends on operating from a TRUE PREMISE...
But the key to this is the private and public insistence upon operating from a true premise...
But see the false premise which she uses.
1.For her the saints referred to a visible baptism of desire and so there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).So she is not a Feeneyite because of this false premise.
2.The Letter of the Holy Office assumed that the baptism of desire was visible. This is the false premise that Ann Barnhardt accepts. So the result is that she does not support Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
3.Since she uses the false premise Lumen Gentium 16 would be a rupture with the dogma EENS. Vatican Council II would be non traditional and would contradict EENS.So with the false premise there is a non traditional conclusion. She does not know of any alternative.Since she is not a Feeneyite.
4.We cannot physically see a baptism of desire case in 2016. However she can.This is her premise. So she is not a Feeneyite.Her position is irrational and non traditional.She is really opposing the old ecclesiology of the Traditional Latin Mass which was based on Feeneyite EENS.
For me all Muslims and other non Catholics would need 'faith and baptism' (AG 7, LG 14) to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. Since there are no visible exceptions in 2016.Neither could there have been any known exceptions to the dogma EENS, over the centuries. Since human beings cannot see people in Heaven or on earth saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.We cannot say that any particular person would be going to Heaven who is visibly outside the Catholic Church.
VATICAN COUNCIL II IS TRADITIONAL FOR A FEENEYITE
So as a Feeneyite Vatican Council II is traditional and does not contradict the dogma EENS, as it was interpreted by the 16th century missionaries.There cannot be any exceptions to EENS, in Vatican Council II for me.
LIBERAL CUSHINGITE ANN
For Ann this is not the case.She is a Cushingite. She interprets magisterial documents with an irrational premise and conclusion as do the liberals.So there are known exceptions in 2016 to all non Catholics needing to formally convert into the Catholic Church to avoid the fires of Hell.She is a modernist on this point and is in agreement with the new theology of the two popes.
She cannot say that according to the Catholic Faith ( Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14), Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Dominus Iesus 20, the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257, 845,846 etc, the Athanasius Creed, the Nicene Creed's 'I believe in one (known) baptism for the forgiveness of sins' etc) all Muslims ( Hindus, Buddhists,Jews,Protestants and Orthodox Christians) are on the way to Hell in 2016 unless they convert into the Catholic Church before death.
Instead she says she believes all the Native Americans who did not know the Catholic Faith, who were born before the missionaries went there, are saved.This is Cushingism. For her being in invincible ignorance refers to a known case, and a known exception to the dogma EENS. Then she irrationally reasons out that she can know in general that all the Native Americans were in ignorance and were saved since no one preached to them.Her premise and conclusion are wrong.
The dogma EENS refers to all needing 'faith and baptism' for salvation. All.Her premise is that there are visible exceptions of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance. So all do not need to enter the Church but only those who know.She has picked up the mistake of Lumen Gentium 14 from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.-Lionel Andrades