Ann Barnhardt interprets magisterial documents with Cushingism

 

If I find myself in a situation where I am being killed together with an unbaptized person, I would beg them to tell God that they desired to be baptized. (Let all the Feeneyite heads explode now! Saint Emeretiana, pray for us!)  -Ann Barnhardt  http://www.barnhardt.biz/2015/12/17/boston-speech-transcript/

Lionel:

Why mention the baptism of desire with reference to the Feeneyite version of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Where is the connection?

If someone died with the baptism of desire ( with or without the baptism of water) Ann Barnhardt would not know of it. It would only be known to God. So the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma EENS, since physically she could not know of any case.Assuming there was a case in the past, it would not be an exception to the dogma in 2015. So why mention it?

Does she assume that these cases are physically known and visible in December 2015 or does she infer that a case in the past is explicit today ?

In both cases she is wrong. She has used a false premise and a false inference.It is an error in reasoning.

This was the mistake made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney. It was an objective mistake. A factual mistake. Objectively we cannot see or a know a baptism of desire case. It is a fact of life that persons in Heaven are not visible and known on earth, in a personal way, the way we see and know each other.

Similarly when Ann assumes that all the natives in the Americas, who were born before the missionaries went there were saved,she is using Cushingism as a theology.

So she would be interpreting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church with Cushingism. She has a choice, which is Feeneyism but is unaware of it.

If she used Feeneyism ( LG 16 refers to an invisible and not a visible case) then Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) would affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite version) and LG 16 etc would not be explicit and so would not be exceptions to the dogma.It would mean Vatican Council II says all Jews and Muslims in Boston and the rest of the world need 'faith and baptism' to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.It would mean Catholics are the new people of God. Vatican Council II (Nostra Aetate 4) says 'the church is the new people of God.'

Ann believes outside the Church there is no salvation and that all non Catholics need to convert into the Church in 2015 to go to Heaven and avoid Hell but there is confusion when she uses Cushingism instead of Feeneyism as a theology.May be she is not aware of it.

-Lionel Andrades

Who saw St.Emerentiana or St. Victor of St. XYZ in Heaven without the baptism of water? Is this a dogmatic teaching? Do we have to believe that St. Emerentians is in Heaven since someone had first hand knowledge that she went was not baptised before or after, she died?

So where are the exceptions today ? Those who do not need to be card carrying members of the Church for salvation? Who today can go to Heaven without having his name on the Parish Baptism Register ?

There is not a single person known, past or present who is in  Heaven without the baptism of water and whose case was seen and known on earth. Not a single person.

Does any one know if the Good Thief  was not baptised before he died ?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/popes-since-time-of-pius-xii-have-been.html

^{The traditional teaching was that all need to formally enter the Church for salvation;to go to Heaven and avoid Hell. Now it is being said only those who know, as if we can know who is in invincible ignorance and will be saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.It is as if some one in the past knew who knew and did not know and was going to be saved outside the Church.}

^{Those who know or do not know and will be saved or not saved is known only to God. So it has nothing to do with the strict interpretation of the dogma. So why was it mentioned in Vatican Council II and the Catechisms? This was an error. It was overlooked by the popes.}

^{With Feeneyism, the baptism of desire, the baptism of blood  and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since they are not known cases and they would be followed with the baptism of water as the dogma teaches. So there is nothing in Vatican Council II, for me, to contradict the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma on exclusive salvation.Vatican Council II is Feeneyite.The saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine were Feeneyites.The saints who mentioned the baptism of desire were Feeneyites.
I affirm the baptism of desire along with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is not contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.
I reject explicit- for- us baptism of desire and accept implicit- for -us- baptism of desire.
I reject  visible- for- us- being saved in invincible ignorance and accept invisible -for- us- being saved in invincible ignorance which of course would be followed with the baptism of water.
I accept Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church. I reject Vatican Council II with explicit exceptions and which allegedly is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,the Syllabus of Errors. etc.
I am affirming the traditional teachings of the Church, all the dogmas and doctrines and also Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted with Feeneyism as a theology.
I accept the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office which is traditional and supports Feeneyism and I reject the second part of the Letter which contradicts the first part ,and the pre 1949 Magisterium.}

^{So it is the same Vatican Council II but I am interpretating it different from the popes. I am rational and they are irrational with their  Cushingism theology.}

^{http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/popes-since-time-of-pius-xii-have-in.html}