Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
#1
While I was impressed by Mr. Gurries' desire to have a scholarly article, I was amazed at the intellectual contortions he underwent in order to reconcile Vatican II with Catholicism.

I forwarded his article to some clerical friends, and Bishop Donald Sanborn responded first.  It is enclosed below:

Dear Stephen,

To me this article is merely a slithery way of promoting evolution of dogma. How do we, for example, consign ecclesiology to the "third category?" It is true that there are things about which the papal magisterium speaks which are not dogmas. The pope in such a case does not intend to bind the faithful, or the matter is not revealed or even directly deduced from revelation. Pius XII, for example, said that scientists should study the sun more. But such are not the stakes in Vatican II. We are dealing with a moral teaching, namely religious liberty, and a dogmatic teaching, namely the nature of the Catholic Church, its government and structure, and the fact that it is the unique means of salvation.

The "hermeneutic of rupture" in the leftward sense, furthermore, has been confirmed by the many official statements and acts of the "popes" since Vatican II. In addition, their silence about the most grotesque doctrinal, liturgical, and disciplinary aberrations confirms the rupture. Just look at the what purports to be the Catholic Church. Can we call this Catholicism? Is it "spotless in the sacraments?"  Is it "spotless in the Faith which it has always preserved inviolate?"

The Modernists succeeded at Vatican II, with Ratzinger in the lead,  by reasserting this same nonsense: "Nothing has changed." By saying this, they managed to win over the votes of many hesitant bishops.  If nothing has changed, why, after nearly fifty years, is this Council still in need of defense?  And why is the Catholic Church in the absolute shambles in which we find it?

In fact the Council seems to be yet more and more in need of defense, as more and more its true meaning, which is rupture, takes effect. 

This article is a futile attempt of the N.O. conservatives to save Vatican II.  It is doomed to failure.  Vatican II was a declaration of war on the Catholic Faith, and the natural splitting into two camps, Modernist and Catholic, is the inevitable outcome of it.

Mr. Gurries' article should be entitled "Hermeneutic of Denial."

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Bishop Sanborn
Reply
#2
Could you post Mr. Gurries' article or is it already on FE?
Reply
#3
(05-31-2009, 04:07 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Could you post Mr. Gurries' article or is it already on FE?

Sure.  You will find it relentlessly promoted (I think 15 times or so) in this week's thread on Bp. W's column.

http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-...ology.html
Reply
#4
(05-31-2009, 05:25 PM)dedalus28 Wrote:
(05-31-2009, 04:07 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: Could you post Mr. Gurries' article or is it already on FE?

Sure.  You will find it relentlessly promoted (I think 15 times or so) in this week's thread on Bp. W's column.

http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-...ology.html

Ok, thank you! I don't think I've ever even been in the Bp. W. column. Perhaps I should explore...
Reply
#5
Mr. Gurries' article should be entitled "Hermeneutic of Denial."

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Bishop Sanborn



I post the following for consideration, written by D.Q. McInerny, Ph.D, in the April FSSP newsletter.  I think Mr. McInerny makes an excellent point.  Many traditional Catholics are guilty of this, and sedevacantist are certainly guilty. 

"...what I have in mind by referring to a nostalgic regard for the past is an attitude which is put in place by the practice of imaginatively doctoring and reshaping the past so that it becomes something which, in fact, it never was. It is a practice which fosters a dreamy, sentimentalized rendition of the past, transforming it into a kind of Never-Never-Land, to which one is constantly appealing, usually as a standing indictiment against every aspect of the present, and the obsessive commitment to which serves to prevent a person from living fully and responsibly in the present. This attitude produces an essentially fictionalized past, into which one can attempt to escape every now and then to elude the pressing demands of the here and now. In the end, a nostaligic regard for the past then turns out to be, ironically, a way of not dealing with the past at all, not the REAL past, at any rate. The "past" being dealt with is a distortion; it is what one supposes the past to have been, or often, simply what one wishes it to have been. Such an attitude can have nothing to do with a healthy understanding of and respect for tradition..."
Reply
#6
(06-01-2009, 10:33 PM)Borromeo Wrote: Mr. Gurries' article should be entitled "Hermeneutic of Denial."

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Bishop Sanborn



I post the following for consideration, written by D.Q. McInerny, Ph.D, in the April FSSP newsletter.  I think Mr. McInerny makes an excellent point.  Many traditional Catholics are guilty of this, and sedevacantist are certainly guilty. 

"...what I have in mind by referring to a nostalgic regard for the past is an attitude which is put in place by the practice of imaginatively doctoring and reshaping the past so that it becomes something which, in fact, it never was. It is a practice which fosters a dreamy, sentimentalized rendition of the past, transforming it into a kind of Never-Never-Land, to which one is constantly appealing, usually as a standing indictiment against every aspect of the present, and the obsessive commitment to which serves to prevent a person from living fully and responsibly in the present. This attitude produces an essentially fictionalized past, into which one can attempt to escape every now and then to elude the pressing demands of the here and now. In the end, a nostaligic regard for the past then turns out to be, ironically, a way of not dealing with the past at all, not the REAL past, at any rate. The "past" being dealt with is a distortion; it is what one supposes the past to have been, or often, simply what one wishes it to have been. Such an attitude can have nothing to do with a healthy understanding of and respect for tradition..."

Many traditional Catholics are guilty of this, but not the way you seem to be implying here. What the Church teaches about Herself, including the infallibility of both the Church and the Pope, are not "dreamy, sentimentalized renditions of the past", but truths. This crisis is unpresidented in the Church and we must deal with it while maintaining proper Catholic principles, a "healthy understanding of and respect for tradition". It is Mr. McInerny who is on Fantasy Island.

Reply
#7
The infaliability of the Pope and the Church is not what Mr. McInerny is questioning.  Surely you see that.  Have you not read the threads on this forum now and in the past?  The threads on AQ?  Talked with a certain sect in tradition parishes?  Some traditional cathoics (including some bishops) have made re-writing history into an new art form. 
Reply
#8
(06-02-2009, 09:45 AM)Borromeo Wrote: The infaliability of the Pope and the Church is not what Mr. McInerny is questioning.  Surely you see that.

He is implying it is overstated and exagerated.

Quote:Have you not read the threads on this forum now and in the past?  The threads on AQ?  Talked with a certain sect in tradition parishes?  Some traditional cathoics (including some bishops) have made re-writing history into an new art form.

I really don't follow you. I've been around quite a while too.
Reply
#9
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. 
Reply
#10
(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.   

Really, I don't think that's the case.  You find Bp Williamson saying things were a disaster before V2, and also Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan talking about how things were.  Bishop Dolan made this comment:

"Bp. Dolan" Wrote:What is different is that the people who come to Mass here WANT to be here. In the old days, it wasn’t usually this way in a parish. So you have this tremendous foundation of good will and piety and devotion.

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.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)