FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article (/showthread.php?tid=28035)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - INPEFESS - 06-02-2009

(06-02-2009, 10:27 AM)Borromeo Wrote: No. He is implying that many traditional Catholics think all was well and rosy before Vatican II, as is often found in traditional catholic circles, forums, blogs, at the parishes, etc.    It is an absurd position to hold yet many MANY traditional Catholics cling to it firmly.  Bishop Sanborn is certainly one who clings to it and therefore resides on Fantasy Island.   

No, it was not all well and rosy. However, while it is true that many of these novelties were gaining favor in the eyes of many clergymen, it was not yet a Universal Magisterial teaching as it became after the close of the Second Vatican Council.


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - Borromeo - 06-02-2009

While I admire Dr. McInerny as a professor of philosophy, his general attitude is that of a willfully blind Neo-Catholic.  His book "What went wrong with Vatican II?" came to the basic conclusion that nothing went wrong with Vatican II and we're in the "New Springtime" of the Church.  From his comments, it seems to me that he doesn't see that things are worse than before.  Sure, things weren't good in the time leading up to Vatican 2, but now they are objectively far worse.  
 
But how could we know that if we were not "Objectively" there?  I don't say that to cause confrontation, I am truly inquiring.  Perhaps we could ask someone who WAS there during those times but there is far too much fantasing about the way the Church was WELL before Vatican II, that people could not possibly know other than reading history books and that would depend on which history book you are reading based on that authors perspective if not biasis. 






Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - INPEFESS - 06-02-2009

(06-02-2009, 11:06 AM)Borromeo Wrote: While I admire Dr. McInerny as a professor of philosophy, his general attitude is that of a willfully blind Neo-Catholic.  His book "What went wrong with Vatican II?" came to the basic conclusion that nothing went wrong with Vatican II and we're in the "New Springtime" of the Church.  From his comments, it seems to me that he doesn't see that things are worse than before.  Sure, things weren't good in the time leading up to Vatican 2, but now they are objectively far worse.  
 
But how could we know that if we were not "Objectively" there?  I don't say that to cause confrontation, I am truly inquiring.   Perhaps we could ask someone who WAS there during those times but there is far too much fantasing about the way the Church was WELL before Vatican II, that people could not possibly know other than reading history books and that would depend on which history book you are reading based on that authors perspective if not biasis. 

How do we know that the authors of Scripture were truly inspired by God? How do we know that Church history is as we know it? How do we know anything that we have not seen with our own eyes? While this does not prove anything, to claim that no source is sufficient because we did not witness it with our own eyes is assuming that everything is relative and subjective. This is false.


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - lamentabili sane - 06-02-2009

(06-02-2009, 11:06 AM)Borromeo Wrote: While I admire Dr. McInerny as a professor of philosophy, his general attitude is that of a willfully blind Neo-Catholic.  His book "What went wrong with Vatican II?" came to the basic conclusion that nothing went wrong with Vatican II and we're in the "New Springtime" of the Church.  From his comments, it seems to me that he doesn't see that things are worse than before.  Sure, things weren't good in the time leading up to Vatican 2, but now they are objectively far worse.  
 
But how could we know that if we were not "Objectively" there?  I don't say that to cause confrontation, I am truly inquiring.   Perhaps we could ask someone who WAS there during those times but there is far too much fantasing about the way the Church was WELL before Vatican II, that people could not possibly know other than reading history books and that would depend on which history book you are reading based on that authors perspective if not biasis.

Archbishop Lefebvre was there; here's what he had to say:

Quote:REPLY OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE TO CARDINAL OTTAVIANI ONE YEAR AFTER THE COUNCIL

In response to a query made by Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Holy Office), Archbishop Lefebvre, then Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, made these comments about the immediate and disastrous effects of the Second Vatican Council.


Rome
20 December 1966

Your Eminence,

Your letter of July 24, concerning the questioning of certain truths was communicated through the good offices of our secretariat to all our major superiors.

Few replies have reached us. Those which have come to us from Africa do not deny that there is great confusion of mind at the present time. Even if these truths do not appear to be called in question, we are witnessing in practice a diminution of fervor and of regularity in receiving the sacraments, above all the Sacrament of Penance. A greatly diminished respect for the Holy Eucharist is found, above all on the part of priests, and a scarcity of priestly vocations in French-speaking missions: vocations in the English and Portuguese-speaking missions are less affected by the new spirit, but already the magazines and newspapers are spreading the most advanced theories.

It would seem that the reason for the small number of replies received is due to the difficulty in grasping these errors which are diffused everywhere. The seat of the evil lies chiefly in a literature which sows confusion in the mind by descriptions which are ambiguous and equivocal, but under the cloak of which one discovers a new religion.

I believe it my duty to put before you fully and clearly what is evident from my conversations with numerous bishops, priests and laymen in Europe and in Africa and which emerges also from what I have read in English and French territories.

I would willingly follow the order of the truths listed in your letter, but I venture to say that the present evil appears to be much more serious than the denial or calling in question of some truth of our faith. In these times it shows itself in an extreme confusion of ideas, in the breaking up of the Church's institutions, religious foundations, seminaries, Catholic schools—in short, of what has been the permanent support of the Church. It is nothing less than the logical continuation of the heresies and errors which have been undermining the Church in recent centuries, especially since the Liberalism of the last century which has striven at all costs to reconcile the Church with the ideas that led to the French Revolution.

To the measure in which the Church has opposed these ideas, which run counter to sound philosophy and theology, she has made progress. On the other hand, any compromise with these subversive ideas has brought about an alignment of the Church with civil law with the attendant danger of enslaving her to civil society.

Moreover, every time that groups of Catholics have allowed themselves to be attracted by these myths, the Popes have courageously called them to order, enlightening, and if necessary condemning them. Catholic Liberalism was condemned by Pope Pius IX, Modernism by Pope Leo XIII, the Sillon Movement by Pope St. Pius X, Communism by Pope Pius XI and Neo-Modernism by Pope Pius XII.

Thanks to this admirable vigilance, the Church grew firm and spread; conversions of pagans and Protestants were very numerous; heresy was completely routed; states accepted a more Catholic legislation.

Groups of religious imbued with these false ideas, however, succeeded in infiltrating them into Catholic Action and into the seminaries, thanks to a certain indulgence on the part of the bishops and the tolerance of certain Roman authorities. Soon it would be among such priests that the bishops would be chosen. This was the point at which the Council found itself while preparing, by preliminary commissions, to proclaim the truth in the face of such errors in order to banish them from the midst of the Church for a long time to come. This would have been the end of Protestantism and the beginning of a new and fruitful era for the Church.

Now this preparation was odiously rejected in order to make way for the gravest tragedy the Church has ever suffered. We have lived to see the marriage of the Catholic Church with Liberal ideas. It would be to deny the evidence, to be willfully blind, not to state courageously that the Council has allowed those who profess the errors and tendencies condemned by the Popes named above, legitimately to believe that their doctrines were approved and sanctioned.

Whereas the Council was preparing itself to be a shining light in today's world (if those pre-conciliar documents in which we find a solemn profession of safe doctrine with regard to today's problems, had been accepted), we can and we must unfortunately state that:

In a more or less general way, when the Council has introduced innovations, it has unsettled the certainty of truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as unquestionably belonging to the treasure of Tradition.

The transmission of the jurisdiction of the bishops, the two sources of Revelation, the inspiration of Scripture, the necessity of grace for justification, the necessity of Catholic baptism, the life of grace among heretics, schismatics and pagans, the ends of marriage, religious liberty, the last ends, etc. On all these fundamental points the traditional doctrine was clear and unanimously taught in Catholic universities. Now, numerous texts of the Council on these truths will henceforward permit doubt to be cast upon them.

The consequences of this have rapidly been drawn and applied in the life of the Church:


doubts about the necessity of the Church and the sacraments lead to the disappearance of priestly vocations,

doubts on the necessity for and nature of the "conversion" of every soul involve the disappearance of religious vocations, the destruction of traditional spirituality in the novitiates, and the uselessness of the missions,

doubts on the lawfulness of authority and the need for obedience, caused by the exaltation of human dignity, the autonomy of conscience and liberty, are unsettling all societies beginning with the Church—religious societies, dioceses, secular society, the family.

Pride has as its normal consequence the concupiscence of the eyes and the flesh. It is perhaps one of the most appalling signs of our age to see to what moral decadence the majority of Catholic publications have fallen. They speak without any restraint of sexuality, of birth control by every method, of the lawfulness of divorce, of mixed education, of flirtation, of dances as a necessary means of Christian upbringing, of the celibacy of the clergy, etc.

Doubts on the necessity of grace in order to be saved cause baptism to be held in low esteem, so that for the future it is to be put off until later, and occasion the neglect of the sacrament of Penance. Moreover, this is particularly an attitude of the clergy and not the faithful. It is the same with regard to the Real Presence: it is the clergy who act as though they no longer believe by hiding away the Blessed Sacrament, by suppressing all marks of respect towards the Sacred Species and all ceremonies in Its honour.

Doubts on the necessity of the Church, the sole source of salvation, on the Catholic Church as the only true religion, emanating from the declarations on ecumenism and religious liberty are destroying the authority of the Church's Magisterium. In fact, Rome is no longer the unique and necessary Magistra Veritatis.

Thus, driven to this by the facts, we are forced to conclude that the Council has encouraged, in an inconceivable manner, the spreading of Liberal errors. Faith, morals and ecclesiastical discipline are shaken to their foundations, fulfilling the predictions of all the Popes.

The destruction of the Church is advancing at a rapid pace. By giving an exaggerated authority to the episcopal conferences, the Sovereign Pontiff has rendered himself powerless. What painful lessons in one single year! Yet the Successor of Peter and he alone can save the Church.

Let the Holy Father surround himself with strong defenders of the faith: let him appoint them to the important dioceses. Let him by documents of outstanding importance proclaim the truth, search out error without fear of contradictions, without fear of schisms, without fear of calling in question the pastoral dispositions of the Council.

Let the Holy Father deign: to encourage the bishops to correct faith and morals, each individually in his respective diocese as it behoves every good pastor to uphold the courageous bishops, to urge them to reform their seminaries and to restore them to the study of St. Thomas; to encourage Superiors General to maintain in novitiates and communities the fundamental principles of all Christian asceticism, and above all, obedience; to encourage the development of Catholic schools, a press informed by sound doctrine, associations of Christian families; and finally, to rebuke the instigators of errors and reduce them to silence. The Wednesday allocutions cannot replace encyclicals, decrees and letters to the bishops.

Doubtless I am reckless in expressing myself in this manner! But it is with ardent love that I compose these lines, love of God's glory, love of Jesus, love of Mary, of the Church, of the Successor of Peter, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ.

May the Holy Ghost, to Whom our Congregation is dedicated, deign to come to the assistance of the Pastor of the Universal Church. May Your Eminence deign to accept the assurance of my most respectful devotion in Our Lord.

Marcel Lefebvre,

Titular Archbishop of Synnada in Phrygia,
Superior General of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost.



Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - Borromeo - 06-02-2009

Inpefess,

I would answer that as a Catholic I am bound to believe the Scriptures are inspired by God.  I am not bound to believe that my next door neighbor who lived in the 1930s as a Catholic is inspired by God or any other history book for that matter. 

My argument here is the same argument I had with a professor of physics.  To some extent, objective "truth" whether that be scientific truths or spiritual truths, will be tinged with subjectivity because the lens we are viewing from is tainted by our on perspectives and these perspectives are formed from our own lived experience, environment, conditioning.  I don't see any way around that.  Archbishop Lefebvre is a perfect example of this.  He was formed by his environment, post French Revolution, not to mention the "French" culture itself.  (If anyone has spent time in France with the French they will understand my meaning.)  That is not to demean him, it is merely to place his words into context. 

Having said that, this argument can be applied to Progressives in the Catholic Church today as much as Traditionalists.  Both are far too extreme, in my opinion, and need to find a balance. But since it doesn't seem likely they either side will do that anytime soon, I think it is up to each individual Catholic to form that balance within him or herself.  That is all I am trying to do. 

Pope Benedict XVI said it nicely in his book Credo.  He said (and I am paraphrasing) that both sides want to form their own church suitable to how they think she should be and that in doing so both sides merely want to prove they are "right."    The man is extremely wise and has tremendous insight into human nature.  We, as Catholics, are quite lucky to have him as Pope. 


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - lamentabili sane - 06-02-2009

(06-02-2009, 12:36 PM)Borromeo Wrote: Inpefess,

I would answer that as a Catholic I am bound to believe the Scriptures are inspired by God.  I am not bound to believe that my next door neighbor who lived in the 1930s as a Catholic is inspired by God or any other history book for that matter. 

My argument here is the same argument I had with a professor of physics.  To some extent, objective "truth" whether that be scientific truths or spiritual truths, will be tinged with subjectivity because the lens we are viewing from is tainted by our on perspectives and these perspectives are formed from our own lived experience, environment, conditioning.  I don't see any way around that.  Archbishop Lefebvre is a perfect example of this.  He was formed by his environment, post French Revolution, not to mention the "French" culture itself.  (If anyone has spent time in France with the French they will understand my meaning.)  That is not to demean him, it is merely to place his words into context. 

Having said that, this argument can be applied to Progressives in the Catholic Church today as much as Traditionalists.  Both are far too extreme, in my opinion, and need to find a balance. But since it doesn't seem likely they either side will do that anytime soon, I think it is up to each individual Catholic to form that balance within him or herself.  That is all I am trying to do. 

Pope Benedict XVI said it nicely in his book Credo.  He said (and I am paraphrasing) that both sides want to form their own church suitable to how they think she should be and that in doing so both sides merely want to prove they are "right."    The man is extremely wise and has tremendous insight into human nature.   We, as Catholics, are quite lucky to have him as Pope. 

You are really lost,  Borromeo. Btw, what was Fr. Joseph Ratzinger's "context"?


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - lamentabili sane - 06-02-2009

The following is a result of that "context" as a liberal theologian at the Council:

Quote:Date: 2006-04-16
Pope's Easter Vigil Homily
"I Live, But I Am No Longer I"

VATICAN CITY, APRIL 16, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the homily delivered by Benedict XVI during the Easter Vigil Mass over which he presided in St. Peter's Basilica.

* * *

"You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here" (Mark 16:6). With these words, God's messenger, robed in light, spoke to the women who were looking for the body of Jesus in the tomb. But the Evangelist says the same thing to us on this holy night: Jesus is not a character from the past. He lives, and he walks before us as one who is alive, he calls us to follow him, the living one, and in this way to discover for ourselves too the path of life.

"He has risen, he is not here." When Jesus spoke for the first time to the disciples about the cross and the resurrection, as they were coming down from the Mount of the Transfiguration, they questioned what "rising from the dead" meant (Mark 9:10).

At Easter we rejoice because Christ did not remain in the tomb, his body did not see corruption; he belongs to the world of the living, not to the world of the dead; we rejoice because he is the Alpha and also the Omega, as we proclaim in the rite of the paschal candle; he lives not only yesterday, but today and for eternity (cf. Hebrews 13-8 ). But somehow the Resurrection is situated so far beyond our horizon, so far outside all our experience that, returning to ourselves, we find ourselves continuing the argument of the disciples: Of what exactly does this "rising" consist? What does it mean for us, for the whole world and the whole of history?

A German theologian once said ironically that the miracle of a corpse returning to life -- if it really happened, which he did not actually believe -- would be ultimately irrelevant precisely because it would not concern us. In fact, if it were simply that somebody was once brought back to life, and no more than that, in what way should this concern us?

But the point is that Christ's resurrection is something more, something different. If we may borrow the language of the theory of evolution, it is the greatest "mutation," absolutely the most crucial leap into a totally new dimension that there has ever been in the long history of life and its development: a leap into a completely new order which does concern us, and concerns the whole of history.





Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - INPEFESS - 06-02-2009

(06-02-2009, 12:36 PM)Borromeo Wrote: Inpefess,

I would answer that as a Catholic I am bound to believe the Scriptures are inspired by God.  I am not bound to believe that my next door neighbor who lived in the 1930s as a Catholic is inspired by God or any other history book for that matter. 

My argument here is the same argument I had with a professor of physics.  To some extent, objective "truth" whether that be scientific truths or spiritual truths, will be tinged with subjectivity because the lens we are viewing from is tainted by our on perspectives and these perspectives are formed from our own lived experience, environment, conditioning.  I don't see any way around that.  Archbishop Lefebvre is a perfect example of this.  He was formed by his environment, post French Revolution, not to mention the "French" culture itself.  (If anyone has spent time in France with the French they will understand my meaning.)  That is not to demean him, it is merely to place his words into context. 

Having said that, this argument can be applied to Progressives in the Catholic Church today as much as Traditionalists.  Both are far too extreme, in my opinion, and need to find a balance. But since it doesn't seem likely they either side will do that anytime soon, I think it is up to each individual Catholic to form that balance within him or herself.  That is all I am trying to do. 

Pope Benedict XVI said it nicely in his book Credo.  He said (and I am paraphrasing) that both sides want to form their own church suitable to how they think she should be and that in doing so both sides merely want to prove they are "right."    The man is extremely wise and has tremendous insight into human nature.   We, as Catholics, are quite lucky to have him as Pope. 

I'm sorry but...

*sigh*


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - Borromeo - 06-02-2009

Btw, what was Fr. Joseph Ratzinger's "context"?

The last chapter of the book he speaks about why he is still in the Church, why he is still a Christian despite all the scandals and human foibles in the Church.  I have not read the entire book but I plan to.  I just finished Faith and the Future by him.  Now I am reading Introduction to Christianity.  What makes his thought unique among Catholic theologians, particularly when you read his books, is because he is not afraid to ask questions about the Faith.  Why do we believe what we believe?  I think that question must be answered by every Catholic.  We are not puppets, we are not robots.  If the Truth is the Truth than it can withstand questions by someone like me and even someone as wise as our Pope. 

I believe, Ratzinger's context, the manner in which he asks questions, was and perhaps still is, heavily influenced by the great German physicists who came out of the early 20th century.


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - Borromeo - 06-02-2009

(06-02-2009, 01:16 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: The following is a result of that "context" as a liberal theologian at the Council:

Quote:Date: 2006-04-16
Pope's Easter Vigil Homily
"I Live, But I Am No Longer I"

VATICAN CITY, APRIL 16, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the homily delivered by Benedict XVI during the Easter Vigil Mass over which he presided in St. Peter's Basilica.

* * *

"You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here" (Mark 16:6). With these words, God's messenger, robed in light, spoke to the women who were looking for the body of Jesus in the tomb. But the Evangelist says the same thing to us on this holy night: Jesus is not a character from the past. He lives, and he walks before us as one who is alive, he calls us to follow him, the living one, and in this way to discover for ourselves too the path of life.

"He has risen, he is not here." When Jesus spoke for the first time to the disciples about the cross and the resurrection, as they were coming down from the Mount of the Transfiguration, they questioned what "rising from the dead" meant (Mark 9:10).

At Easter we rejoice because Christ did not remain in the tomb, his body did not see corruption; he belongs to the world of the living, not to the world of the dead; we rejoice because he is the Alpha and also the Omega, as we proclaim in the rite of the paschal candle; he lives not only yesterday, but today and for eternity (cf. Hebrews 13-8 ). But somehow the Resurrection is situated so far beyond our horizon, so far outside all our experience that, returning to ourselves, we find ourselves continuing the argument of the disciples: Of what exactly does this "rising" consist? What does it mean for us, for the whole world and the whole of history?

A German theologian once said ironically that the miracle of a corpse returning to life -- if it really happened, which he did not actually believe -- would be ultimately irrelevant precisely because it would not concern us. In fact, if it were simply that somebody was once brought back to life, and no more than that, in what way should this concern us?

But the point is that Christ's resurrection is something more, something different. If we may borrow the language of the theory of evolution, it is the greatest "mutation," absolutely the most crucial leap into a totally new dimension that there has ever been in the long history of life and its development: a leap into a completely new order which does concern us, and concerns the whole of history.

Brillant.  See my comment above