The Dominican sister I spoke to yesterday on the bus is typical of St. Catherine
Droste op, Dean of Theology and the rest of the faculty at the Angelicum, Rome.
They cannot speak on theology in public because of the political theology, the
political bias, they have to teach, which is not Catholic.
Students know that after they get a degree in theology from the
University of St. Thomas Aquinas and the other pontifical universities, as did
Fr. Francesco Giordano who teaches at the Angelicum, they will be able to teach
and earn and it will be a career.
On the other hand, if they interpret Vatican Council II and the baptism
of desire (BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) rationally, they would be
expelled by the university and may be also their religious community.
Fr. Leonard Feeney said there are no visible cases of the baptism of
desire. This is common sense. This was the interpretation over the centuries.
He was expelled by the Jesuits, removed as a teacher at Boston College and excommunicated.
This was political.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre would not accept Vatican Council II with LG
8, LG 14, LG 16 etc being visible exceptions for the dogma EENS i.e. according
to the Council of Florence 1442 and the
past Catechisms. This would have been irrational. It would be accepting an
irrational version of Vatican Council II. He was correct. But he was
excommunicated. This was political.
Cardinal Ratzinger interpreted the BOD and I.I and Vatican Council II
irrationally. He excommunicated ted Archbishop Lefebvre. He also approved the
irrational interpretation of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office and did not
defend Fr. Leonard Feeney.
Now when the Dominican Sister says that she accepts Vatican Council II
in harmony with Tradition, she means Fr. Leonard Feeney was in heresy and Pope
Pius X was orthodoxy. This was also the narrative of the popes from Paul VI.
When I say that I accept Vatican Council II in harmony with Tradition, I
mean Fr. Leonard Feeney was teaching the same orthodoxy as the Council of
Florence and the old Catechisms. It was Pope Pius XII, the Jesuits and the
Cardinal -Archbishop of Boston who were in heresy. With alleged visible cases of
BOD and I.I they were rejecting the Council of Florence and the Fourth Lateran
Council.
So when Pope Benedict mentioned the hermeneutic of continuity with the
past he was referring to heresy and schism and not the past ecclesiocentrism. There is a continuity with error.
The Dominican Sister officially has to support heresy (visible cases of
BOD etc make the dogma EENS obsolete. It is the same for the Athanasius Creed
and the Syllabus of Errors.) She has to in public, in conversations, support
schism (visible cases of BOD etc produce a rupture with EENS etc according the
past Magisterium over the centuries. In this way she is allowed to remain at the University of St. Thomas Aquinas.
So there is a new Magisterium for her, as Cardinal Arthur Roche
confirmed, which is a break with the past Magisterium, which was
ecclesiocentric and also Christocentric. It is created by confusing what is invisible as being visible.
The Dominicans are only Christocentric and this fits in with the New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology etc. If they did not confuse what is invisible as being visible, there would no more be general heresy and schism and neither the New Ecumenism, New Evangelisation etc.- Lionel Andrades
Domincan Sister on the bus in Rome
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/domincan-sister-on-bus.html
Posts
