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 - lamentabili sane - 06-02-2009

(06-02-2009, 02:49 PM)Borromeo Wrote: 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.

What a strange thing to speak about. I wonder if it's the same reason Nancy Pelosi still calls herself Catholic?


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

(06-02-2009, 03:01 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-02-2009, 02:49 PM)Borromeo Wrote: 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.

What a strange thing to speak about. I wonder if it's the same reason Nancy Pelosi still calls herself Catholic?

It is not strange if you read the book.  My paraphrasing is by no means doing his words justice, so please read the book.


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

(06-02-2009, 02:55 PM)Borromeo Wrote:
(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

The fact that you consider the above brilliant speaks volumes. It is scandalous at best, as it allows one to think the physical resurrection of Christ is irrelevant.


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

The fact that you consider the above brilliant speaks volumes. It is scandalous at best, as it allows one to think the physical resurrection of Christ is irrelevant.

We are obviously interpreting this in 2 different ways, (again, perspective based on conditioning).  What leads you to believe the Pope thinks the resurrection is irrelevant? He said a "german theologian" said that.  He didn't say HE said it. 


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

LS,

Your  last post is indicative of one of the many dangers of the traditional mindset today.  You see only what you WANT TO SEE.  You have conditioned yourself to see the negative in the Pope, (and other non-traditional bishops, priests, etc) and therefore nothing they say will ever meet your satisfaction.  Therefore it seems to me your very faith is based on self-satisfaction, not truth. 


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

(06-02-2009, 03:35 PM)Borromeo Wrote: LS,

Your  last post is indicative of one of the many dangers of the traditional mindset today.  You see only what you WANT TO SEE.  You have conditioned yourself to see the negative in the Pope, (and other non-traditional bishops, priests, etc) and therefore nothing they say will ever meet your satisfaction.  Therefore it seems to me your very faith is based on self-satisfaction, not truth. 

No, I think you need to look at the totality of what is being said. You are telling us that "He didn't say that directly", so by hook or by crook he is still orthodox. I said it was scandalous as stated as it does not confirm the dogma.


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

(06-02-2009, 03:56 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-02-2009, 03:35 PM)Borromeo Wrote: LS,

Your  last post is indicative of one of the many dangers of the traditional mindset today.  You see only what you WANT TO SEE.  You have conditioned yourself to see the negative in the Pope, (and other non-traditional bishops, priests, etc) and therefore nothing they say will ever meet your satisfaction.  Therefore it seems to me your very faith is based on self-satisfaction, not truth. 

No, I think you need to look at the totality of what is being said. You are telling us that "He didn't say that directly", so by hook or by crook he is still orthodox. I said it was scandalous as stated as it does not confirm the dogma.

Of course you left out a HUGE portion of the homily (no surprise!)  Please.  Read the entire homily

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20060415_veglia-pasquale_en.html






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

(06-02-2009, 04:13 PM)Borromeo Wrote:
(06-02-2009, 03:56 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-02-2009, 03:35 PM)Borromeo Wrote: LS,

Your  last post is indicative of one of the many dangers of the traditional mindset today.  You see only what you WANT TO SEE.  You have conditioned yourself to see the negative in the Pope, (and other non-traditional bishops, priests, etc) and therefore nothing they say will ever meet your satisfaction.  Therefore it seems to me your very faith is based on self-satisfaction, not truth. 

No, I think you need to look at the totality of what is being said. You are telling us that "He didn't say that directly", so by hook or by crook he is still orthodox. I said it was scandalous as stated as it does not confirm the dogma.

Of course you left out a HUGE portion of the homily (no surprise!)  Please.  Read the entire homily

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20060415_veglia-pasquale_en.html

I did. What is your point?


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

I did. What is your point?

That you "see" only what you want to see.  That is tragic but all too common. 


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

(06-02-2009, 05:07 PM)Borromeo Wrote: I did. What is your point?

That you "see" only what you want to see.   That is tragic but all too common.   

Well, you've provided us some proof of how common it is. :)