Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
#31
(06-02-2009, 05:09 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(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. Smile

Okay...sure LS. 

Rolling eyes
Reply
#32
Lamentabili Sane, will you read all the words of the Pope and hence in context. He clearly says our Lord is risen as he has many other times:
Quote: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 ).

The Holy Father is clearly trying to say that Christ's Resurrection is more than just a man coming back to life from the dead. Christ's Resurrection is so much more than merely that because Christ is God the Son Second Divine Person of the Blessed Trinity. Our Lord as man can die no more and that is, I believe, what Pope Benedict XVI was saying, that the Resurrection of the Body is more than just coming back from death but that death will be no more in our resurrected and gloried bodies. Christ's physical body transcends time and space as it known and hopefully believed from the Dogma of Transubstantiation and the Blessed Sacrament of His Body and Blood.
Reply
#33
(06-03-2009, 06:18 AM)GodFirst Wrote: Lamentabili Sane, will you read all the words of the Pope and hence in context. He clearly says our Lord is risen as he has many other times:
Quote: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 ).

I commented on something that was scandalous as presented. That is all I said.

"Benedict XVI" Wrote: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.




Reply
#34
(05-31-2009, 01:31 PM)dedalus28 Wrote: 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

So, it's considered "slithery" because he can't actually point out any defects or contradict it with real facts?  He makes an empty claim that the article promotes "evolution of dogma" (nonsense!) with absolutely nothing to back it up.  His ultimate response is to beg the question to his devoted fans: "...it is just self evident that Vatican II was a rupture -- because look at so and so and such and such..."  No evidence....no proof...just opinions and empty claims.  Nice try... 
Reply
#35
lamentabili sane Wrote:I commented on something that was scandalous as presented. That is all I said.
"Benedict XVI" Wrote: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.
And just how is that scandalous? I just don't see. For the very ignorant, I can see, but the average person meditated on his words they would understand what he's trying to say. It's quite clear. Christ's Resurrection is not just Christ coming back to life, that is,. the Glorious Resurrection of the Just is to an eternal Supernatural Life. How that is scandalous I don't understand. It's our Catholic Faith.

The scandal was/is not excommunicating theologians (German or whatever) that deny the Dogmas of Christ's Resurrection and the Resurrection of all men at the end of the world.
Reply
#36
(06-03-2009, 10:04 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(05-31-2009, 01:31 PM)dedalus28 Wrote: 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

So, it's considered "slithery" because he can't actually point out any defects or contradict it with real facts?  He makes an empty claim that the article promotes "evolution of dogma" (nonsense!) with absolutely nothing to back it up.  His ultimate response is to beg the question to his devoted fans: "...it is just self evident that Vatican II was a rupture -- because look at so and so and such and such..."  No evidence....no proof...just opinions and empty claims.  Nice try... 

Did you miss this?

"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."
Reply
#37
newschoolman Wrote:So, it's considered "slithery" because he can't actually point out any defects or contradict it with real facts?  He makes an empty claim that the article promotes "evolution of dogma" (nonsense!) with absolutely nothing to back it up.  His ultimate response is to beg the question to his devoted fans: "...it is just self evident that Vatican II was a rupture -- because look at so and so and such and such..."  No evidence....no proof...just opinions and empty claims.  Nice try...
I agree. This ignoring the substance of the discussion hurts Sacred Tradition.
Reply
#38
(06-03-2009, 10:11 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
lamentabili sane Wrote:I commented on something that was scandalous as presented. That is all I said.
"Benedict XVI" Wrote: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.
And just how is that scandalous? I just don't see. For the very ignorant, I can see, but the average person meditated on his words they would understand what he's trying to say. It's quite clear. Christ's Resurrection is not just Christ coming back to life, that is,. the Glorious Resurrection of the Just is to an eternal Supernatural Life. How that is scandalous I don't understand. It's our Catholic Faith.

The scandal was/is not excommunicating theologians (German or whatever) that deny the Dogmas of Christ's Resurrection and the Resurrection of all men at the end of the world.

And quoting them?  Using evolution terminology? A mutation?
Reply
#39
Here is the section from "Rupture Theology" dealing with docrinal development.  I don't see anything that remotely promotes evolution of dogma.  On the contrary, it is directly contradicted.

Quote:Tradition and Doctrinal Development

Characteristics that divide “progressive” and “reactionary” rupture theologians can also be noted in their understanding and approach to sacred Tradition and the development of doctrine.  The former tendency seeks “progress” by creating artificial novelties that more or less deliberately and explicitly reject the past (i.e., sacred Tradition and doctrinal development admit substantial change according to this view).  In this sense, progressive rupture theologians “need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church.  Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries…”

The tendency for reactionary rupture theologians, on the other hand, is to seek a past state while rejecting a present state that has not been recognized or appreciated as an organic development of the same substantial reality.  Tradition, according to this view, is understood in a limited or narrow sense that corresponds to an “inert” conception of the deposit of faith rather than a living and organic deposit.  Therefore, the risk inherent in this view is to confuse accidental change with substantial change.  

Each variety of rupture theology, therefore, carries its own risks and dangers.  The progressive, for example, will seek progress by cutting down and uprooting the oak tree in order to pave the way for new designs and the man-made structures of the future.  The reactionary, on the other hand, not recognizing the oak tree for what it really is, will cut it down and uproot it while searching for the acorn of the past.  In either case the result is practically the same insofar as each will “sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.”
Reply
#40
(06-03-2009, 10:14 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
newschoolman Wrote:So, it's considered "slithery" because he can't actually point out any defects or contradict it with real facts?  He makes an empty claim that the article promotes "evolution of dogma" (nonsense!) with absolutely nothing to back it up.  His ultimate response is to beg the question to his devoted fans: "...it is just self evident that Vatican II was a rupture -- because look at so and so and such and such..."  No evidence....no proof...just opinions and empty claims.  Nice try...
I agree. This ignoring the substance of the discussion hurts Sacred Tradition.

Did you miss this?

"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."
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)