What doth it profit a man to attend Latin Masses, but not live like the Good Samaritan?
Email: torontocatholicwitness@outlook.com

Wednesday, 8 November 2017

Thomas Rosica CSB: Just what is his position on dissent?

Thomas Rosica, CSB, CEO of the "establishment" (yet failing) Salt and Light Catholic Media network has recently been tweeting about "dissent". Very interesting, coming from a man who conducted a scandalous interview with the notorious arch-heretic, Gregory Baum. During that interview, Rosica did not once note Baum's heresies, nor question Baum on his heresies. Rosica ahs also been silent on Baum's heresies, following the heresiarch's death. 

Did you, dear reader, have any idea that Thomas Rosica had any concern about dissent? Indeed, if Rosica had an interest in confronting dissent, would he have not confronted arch-heretic, ex-priest, and self-admitted  practicing homosexual, Gregory Baum?  


Unknown said...

I haven't seen the article, but if Fr. Rosica is siding with dissidents who would not adhere to a hermeneutic of continuity with Sacred Tradition, and against Fr. Weinady's adherence to Sacred Tradition, we now have a clear idea of where he stands. Pope Benedict set the stage for us to discern orthodoxy from heterodoxy, and that was his insistence on continuity with Sacred Tradition. I believe this is the essential lens through which we must evaluate all theological statements currently being pronounced by high ranking clergy and theologians. Is is orthodox - is it continuity with Sacred Tradition? Or is it heterodox and in need of correction - because it breaks with Sacred Tradition? Fr. Weinady's response to AL and Cardinal Sarah's comments on intercommunion clearly point out the break with Sacred Tradition, and do a great service to the faithful in directing them on how to faithfully live, worship and love (in continuity with Sacred Tradition). We owe them our prayers and a debt of gratitude.

Catholic Mission said...

NOVEMBER 10, 2017

No clarification or response from Bishop Robert J.McManus or Brother Thomas Augustine MICM on Catholic doctrine : how did they interpret Vatican Council II and EENS?
The Slaves of the Immaculate have been recognized by the Catholic Church as a religious community with canonical status who follow the magisterium and can teach Catholic doctrine.But there is still no clarification on doctrine and theology from Brother Thomas Augustine MICM, Superior, St.Benedict Center, Still River, Massachusetts or the Chancellery Office at the Diocese of Worcester or Bishop Robert J. McManus, the bishop of Worcester.Posts on this blog have been e-mailed to them.

Here are 10 questions I ask them to please clarify for Catholics.What is the doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church and what has been accepted by the MICM community ? Can one interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation?
For me the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith/Holy Office 1949 in the Letter of the Holy Office made a mistake. The Letter assumedinvisible for us baptism of desire(BOD), baptism, of blood(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are visible and known exceptions to Feeneyite EENS,these being examples of salvation outside the Church.I mentioned this in a previous blog post.1
So for me Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct and the Holy Office was irrational in its philosophy and new theology.Fr. Leonard Feeney was orthodox and the Holy Office was in heresy, with its visible examples of salvation of invisible people.
1) So my question is do the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Center,Still River and Bishop Robert J.McManus interpret invisible for us BOD, BOB and I.I as referring to visible exceptions to EENS? Unknownpeople are known exceptions to EENS?
2) Do they acknowledge that BOD, BOB and I.I refer to unknown people in 2017? We cannot meet or see someone saved as such in 2017, would they agree ?

In the same blog post I mentioned that Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger were wrong to excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre.The central issue was Vatican Council II. He was correct. Vatican Council II,with LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc mistaken as known people saved outside the Church, has to be a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology and the Syllabus of Errors.With an irrational premise there is a non traditional conclusion. Archbishop Lefebvre rejected this interpretation of the Council which was accepted by the CDF Prefect and the pope.
3.For canonical status did Brother Thomas Augustine MICM have to interpret Lumen Gentium 16 etc as referring to known and visible people saved outside the Church?
4.For canonical status can the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary(MICM) in general, interpret Lumen Gentium 16 etc as referring to hypothetical cases, known only to God.So being invisible and unknown in our reality, they cannot be exceptions to EENS, as it was interpreted by the missionaries in the 16th century?
5.Are the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary able to interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS? This would be EENS as the missionaries intepreted in the 16th century.
6.Can they interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, assuming hypothetical cases (BOD, BOB and I.I/ LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2 etc) are simply hypothetical.They are not concrete and personally known people in our reality?

Irenaeus said...

Fr. Rosica's position on dissent? Simple. Angling for a promotion.