Is Salvation Possible for Non-Catholics? : Trent Horn at Catholic Answers assumes Lumen Gentium 16 is not a hypothetical case but refers to someone personally known

https://youtu.be/VpeE_GmEVL8



In a previous post I had mentioned that :

'Heresy is not believing in the teachings  of the Catholic Church, which are obligatory.However  heresy results also when we assume hypothetical cases are personally known in the present times,example the baptism of desire.

Since by mixing up what is imaginary as being objective there results a different belief.There is a new doctrine a different conclusion.With a new premise a new conclusion is created.

The result is non traditional and heretical.In this case the heresy is not intentional and may also be unknown.'

Trent Horn, the Apologist at Catholic Answers in the video above also assumes that Lumen Gentium 16 is not a hypothetical case but that it refers to someone personally known.

In the blog post I mentioned:

'The Baltimore Catechism(1891) brought heresy into the Church with the subtle reference to the hypothetical catechumen being explicit like the baptism of water.Catholics have accepted the baptism of desire of an unknown catechumen as being a concrete case,presently visible.This was inferred by the magisterium at that time. They referred to the new baptism, the baptism of desire, as a Sacrament like the baptism of water.This was even though it could not be seen or administered like the baptism of water.

Q. 653. Is Baptism of desire or of blood sufficient to produce the effects of Baptism of water?
A. Baptism of desire or of blood is sufficient to produce the effects of the Baptism of water, if it is impossible to receive the Baptism of water. (How did they know? Who saw or met someone saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church?They assume these are objective cases. They mix up what is invisible as being visible, hypothetical as being objectively seen)

Q. 654. How do we know that the baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water?

A. We know that baptism of desire or of blood will save us when it is impossible to receive the baptism of water, from Holy Scripture, which teaches that love of God and perfect contrition can secure the remission of sins ; and also that Our Lord promises salvation to those who lay down their life for His sake or for His teaching.

(Yes, theoretically, hypothetically, as a possibility known only to God.So why is it mentioned here with reference to all needing the baptism of water with no exceptions?

It is mentioned here since it is inferred that the baptism of desire refers to a known case.)

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/the-baltimore-catechism-error-is-not.html

Catholic Answers has also assumed that the baptism of desire refers to an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

The blog post says:

Then in 1949  it was stated clearly that there were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known over the centuries.

' That is why for a person to obtain his salvation, it is not always required that he be de facto incorporated into the Church as a member'. -Letter of the Holy Office 1949

So again over Church history the  invisible was considered visible.

The Church had always taught that every one needs to enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. Every one.So the native American in 1000 A.D was oriented to the fires of Hell.

However with the New Theology based on the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 the Native American would be an exception since he was in ignorance.

1.Being saved in invincible ignorance refers to known cases, personally known exceptions to the dogma EENS.

2.Also a case of invincible ignorance in 1000 A.D is an exception to the dogma EENS in 2016!

This is the reasoning of Catholic Answers above. They are trying to adapt the dogma EENS to the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology approved by the Left.

The blog post states:

'Subjectivism was brought into salvation theology.It is similar to the subjectivism in moral theology.It is there in the work of Fr.Charles Curran and can be read also in Pope Francis' Amoris Laeitia.

'Subjectivism in moral theology is being able to judge an exception to objective mortal sin( as if one can read the soul)  and in salvation theology it is being able to see an explicit baptism of desire case,which is an exception to the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus. The  dogma EENS suggests that it is  always required that a person be  de facto incorporated into the Church as a member for salvation.'

If 'someone did not have a chance to know Jesus and was saved' it would only be known to Jesus.A possibility cannot be subjectively known to us human beings.

Catholic Answers is here teaching a new doctrine on salvation, based on the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The error was carried over into Vatican Council II.

I would affirm the dogma EENS first.Then point out that there are no exceptions.There cannot be any known exception.So if there are no known exceptions to the dogma 'the man in the forest' or 'the native American in 1000 A.D' is not relevant or an exception to the dogma EENS.It is simple this way. Explaining Catholic salvation does not become complicated.

The post stated:

Without the Baltimore Catechism error, the Jesuits and the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Cushing were in heresy and not Fr. Leonard Feeney.Now all the Catholic Encyclopedias irrationally assume Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy.

The Vatican Council Fathers also accepted that hypothetical cases are objectively known. So they mention the baptism of desire etc which are zero cases in our reality.None of them knew of any person saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water. Yet they mentioned these 'exceptions'(AG 7, LG 14). This error is all over Vatican Council II and it should be enough for any one to reject the Council if they wanted to.

Catholic Answers is not aware of this error. The Principle of Non Contradiction is violated with the theology.The new theology is based on hypothetical cases being practically known and then becoming practical exceptions to the traditional interpretion of the dogma EENS.

I have mentioned in the previous blog post that the  Letter of the Holy Office 1949 has heresy and upon this heresy so much of Vatican Council II is based.Also Bishop Fellay's understanding and interpretation of Vatican Council II is heretical.There is a choice. We can interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and conclusion.

Catholic Answers is not aware, like Ralph Martin who is recommended, that we can interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and conclusion.

The apologists use the irrational premise and conclusion in their theology.

The blog post stated:

So much of Vatican Council II is based upon an irrational reasoning.This is the heretical reasoning used by Bishop Fellay and no one from the SSPX has been able to deny it over the years.

The laws of nature, like the laws of reasoning, apply to all I  mentioned in a previous post.The laws of gravity apply to the two popes and all the cardinals and so does the Principle of Non Contradiction.Bishop Fellay like the Vatican Curia violates the Principle of Non Contradiction.

The laws of reasoning also apply to the apologists at Catholic Answers. Here we see them violated.

-Lionel Andrades