Difficult choice for Fr.Brian Harrison

It is difficult for Fr.Brian Harrison to accept the position of Fr.Leonard Feeney but now he has no choice.

 

Fr.Brian Harrison has been writing on the subject of extra ecclesiam nulla salus but full of confusion.

 

He would affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also endorse exceptions.How can you agree with the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney and at the same time say there are exceptions ? To accommodate this irrationality he created a theory. He says that the exceptions are part of the dogma.Whatever that means!?
 This is false. Since the baptism of desire has nothing to do with the dogma.It is irrelevant to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
 

When the Letter of the Holy Office is critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney( in the final passages) it was for disobedience and not heresy.The earlier passages of the Letter of the Holy Office  supported Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine.

If the Letter was crtical of Fr.Leonard Feeney for heresy,as the leftist media allege, then it means  the Letter has made the same error as Fr.Brian Harrison and Robert Sungenis.It would have been an oversight of the cardinal who issued the Letter.Then of course the Letter and Vatican Council II would contradict Traditon. It would contradict the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.

Fr.Brian Harrison would reject Tradition and he would deny that he held the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation.He would also deny that he was anti-Semitic.
 

In his writings on the Internet he has made the same fundamental error,as Robert Sungenis and other apologists, in assuming that the 'exceptions' are exceptions because they are physically visible to us.

Only because the dead-saved-and-now-in-Heaven are real for him; personally known in Heaven and on earth;physically visible to him in 2013, that there are exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. Now he is in a difficult position. If he accepts that there cannot be known exceptions to the dogma; that we do not know any such case in the present times, then he would have to endorse the literal interpretation of the dogma, on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

He would rather discuss if the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma instead of the real issue : are the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance visible for us, for them to be exceptions ?

 

Here begins the problem for him.With no known exceptions it means the Church; the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, Vatican Council II etc, is affirming the 'rigorous interpretation' of Fr.Leonard Feeney.This he rejects, including any charge of anti-Semitism.So now what is he to do ?

 

Just say that all this is confusing and come across to his community and others, as a liberal, who accepts visible-to-us baptism of desire ? Or does the  theological magazine with which he is associated with now support Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

 

Does he go back  to his politically correct position and not make any big change in his life ? Will he affirm the irrational and the falsehood?

He will claim that he can see the dead -saved. And he is not a 'feeneyite'. Is this what is important for him ?.-Lionel Andrades

Robert Sungenis has no response : errors on his video recorded talks

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/05/robert-sungenis-has-no-response-errors.html#links

Brian Harrison OS (born 1945 in Sydney, Australia) is an Australian-born Roman Catholic priest and theologian. Harrison is a prolific writer on religious issues and an emeritus professor of theology at the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico (1989–2007). He is also an associate editor of "Living Tradition", a publication of the Roman Theological Forum hosted by the Oblates of Wisdom in St Louis, Missouri, United States, where Harrison currently lives at the order's study center. The forum's website contains many articles by Harrison, including one of the very few serious theological analyses carried out so far regarding biblical and Catholic teaching on torture and corporal punishment.-Wikipedia