Video No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church? (Catholic Answers)
Trent Horn in this video indicates that his understanding of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is Cushingite and not Feeneyite.Like the Protestant caller he would have a problem with the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.
The Feeneyite interpretation of EENS according to me, says there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS. While the Cushingite interpretation of EENS says there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS.
Since Trent Horn holds the Cushingite interpretation of the dogma EENS he interprets being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire with two conditions. 1)They exclude the baptism of water and 2) they are physically visible, that is personally known in the present times.
So he quotes passages from the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a Cushingite. He cites the references to being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.Then he assumes they refer to cases without the baptism of water and are personally known in the present times. So these passages, for him, would contradict the Feeneyite intepretation of the dogma EENS.They would have to be visible and known to contradict the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.
I would accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church passages on being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire or blood. I would however assume that they are a reference to being saved 1) with also the baptism of water in a manner known only to God and 2) it is an invisible case.
That it is an invisible case is the important point. Since even if there was a baptism of case, with or without, the baptism of water, it would still be invisible. So it would not be relevant or an exception to the Feeneyite intepretation of the dogma EENS as it is presntly for Trent Horn and the apologists at Catholic Answers.
So I would affirm the dogma EENS, as it was interpreted over the centuries, and then say that the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846, quoted by Trent, is not an exception to it.Since it refers to a hypothetical and invisible case. A possibility is not a defacto case in 2016, for example. It is not an exception to the interpreation of the dogma EENS according to the Church Fathers.
In CCC 846 cardinals Ratzinger and Schonborn were trying to accomodate the New Theology which makes allowances for invisible cases being visible. This violates the Principles of Non Contradiction.Yet this is the acceptable theology at Catholic Answers.They have a choice. They could interpret CCC 826 and CCC 1257 with Feeneyism.Hypothetical cases could just be accepted as being hypothetical. The wrong inference must not be made here by them.