Sunday, May 19, 2013

Fr.Brian Harrison like the other convert apologists on EWTN know that there are no known exceptions to the dogma but they are protecting their interests

Fr.Brian Harrison like the other convert apologists on EWTN know that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, yet they are not affirming it not to displease the liberals and so lose their privileges.
Fr.Harrison like the apologist Patrick Madrid is associated with the Eternal Word Television Network and it would be embarrassing for EWTN if any of its apologists would affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Jewish Left sponsors and censors would not approve of it.
Fr.Harrison knows that we cannot personally meet the dead. We cannot see any one saved in Heaven with the naked eye. We do not know any one in 2013 who has gone to Heaven saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. So if these cases are not known to us, how can they be presumed to be exceptions to the the dogma and the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.How can someone who does not exist for us, be an exception to all needing to convert into the Church for salvation.
Both Fr.Harrison and Patrick Madrid understand! This has been explained to them. However the consequences of choosing this traditional interpretation of the dogma seems too frightening for them,it seems.
What would be the reaction of EWTN or the other forums they are associated with if Fr.Harrison and Patrick Madrid said that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are invisible for us and so - one can also affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church?
 
This was the original position of Mother Angelica. She held the literal interpretation of the dogma according to the popes. Councils and saints. However, when the local liberal bishop took over they projected being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as being an exception to Mother Angelica's understanding of the dogma on salvation.
Gradually EWTN began saying that it was not necessary for every one in the present times to enter the Catholic Church since there could be visible to us cases saved in invincible ignorance etc. It was assumed there were known exceptions.
 
Fr.Brian Harrison, Peter Madrid, Peter Vere and others at EWTN now know there are no known exceptions. Will they accept this in public or just continue with the present falsehood?
 
'Zero cases of something are not exceptions', says the apologist John Martigioni, also a convert-apologist. Martigioni, an American apologist, said in an e-mail message to me,  that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire cannot be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Nor can they be known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 which says 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation. He is honest.
 
To avoid appearing bigoted etc Fr.Brian Harrison is not stating that we do not know any of these cases in 2013 for them to be exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma.Nor is he willing to discuss the issue theologically.
 
If accused of being a sedevacantist or traditionalist these apologists could affirm Vatican Council II (AG 7), and also, invisible to us baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.This is not contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.
 
In the theological papers of Fr.Brian Harrison he assumes that the baptism of desire is an issue and an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus . At the same time he says God wants every one to be a Roman Catholic. Every one ? There are no known exceptions to everyone?
Yes ! God wants every one to be a Roman Catholic and there are no known exceptions in 2013 or during Fr.Harrison's  entire life time.He needs to affirm it in public.

This is being denied by the forum Tradition in Action for which he writes.It was also not understood by Atila S. Guimarães whom Fr. Harrison quotes often.So for Guimaraes and Harrison Vatican Council II is ambigous on the subject of other religions and Christian communities.
The fault is not with Vatican Council II.The error is in their assuming that the dead are visible to us. Ad Gentes 7 is traditional and Lumen Gentium 16 is not an exception.
-Lionel Andrades

http://www.traditioninaction.org/bkreviews/G_006br_MW_Harrison.htm