Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
#41
(06-03-2009, 10:15 PM)newschoolman Wrote: 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.”

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
#42
(06-03-2009, 10:12 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(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."

I saw it....but it says nothing.  So he has a beef with DH and GS.  So what?
Reply
#43
(06-03-2009, 10:17 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-03-2009, 10:12 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(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."

I saw it....but it says nothing.  So he has a beef with DH and GS.  So what?

Oh yes, so what?

Vatican II did openly deny defined dogma. Religious liberty was condemned in an ex cathedra definition by Pope Pius IX, as can be read in Quanta Cura, wherein a clear formula of definition is contained (We by Our Apostolic Authority, etc.). The teaching of Vatican II is almost verbatim the contrary of what was condemned.
Reply
#44
lamentabili sane Wrote: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."
This is also true. But the Church can development Her Doctrine on Her own nature. The Church's spiritual scope has and cannot be solemnly defined in this world and time, because the Church is a spiritual organization as well as an visible one, for instance we do not know all the Saints which are in Heaven. Not all theologian opinions concerning ecclesiology were Dogma before Vatican II, right? Vatican II may have developed doctrine. Developing doctrine is not changing Sacred Dogma which is unchangeable by nature.
Reply
#45
(06-03-2009, 10:31 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
lamentabili sane Wrote: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."
This is also true. But the Church can development Her Doctrine on Her own nature.

That's not at issue here. She cannot contradict Herself. That is de fide.

Quote:The Church's spiritual scope has and cannot be solemnly defined in this world and time, because the Church is a spiritual organization as well as an visible one, for instance we do not know all the Saints which are in Heaven. Not all theologian opinions concerning ecclesiology were Dogma before Vatican II, right? Vatican II may have developed doctrine. Developing doctrine is not changing Sacred Dogma which is unchangeable by nature.

All due respect, but you're in over your head here.

Here is Cardinal Ottaviani:

"Jesus Christ, the divine founder of the Church, could indeed have left many things to the decision of men in regard to the social organisation of the Church: nevertheless, in fact He did not so leave them, but He Himself willed to establish all things which regard the fundamental constitution and organisation of the Church in so far as it is a perfect society. Consequently the principal part of the public law is divine, containing the immutable and permanent laws concerning the nature of the church, her authority and teaching office ... Examples of divine public law are: the statutes by which the Church is granted full and independent legislative, judicial, and coercive power in affairs which in any manner pertain to her end; also, the statutes which pertain to the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff over the whole Church, and the constitution of the sacred hierarchy; similarly, those by which the Church is granted the faculty, free and independent from any power, of acquiring, keeping and administering temporal goods in order to achieve ends proper to herself. Examples of human public law are: norms relative to the institution and rights of patriarchal sees; certain rights contained in concordats; certain norms concerning the government of the Church during the vacancy of the Apostolic See and the election of the Roman Pontiff."
Reply
#46
lamentabili sane Wrote:Religious liberty was condemned in an ex cathedra definition by Pope Pius IX, as can be read in Quanta Cura, wherein a clear formula of definition is contained (We by Our Apostolic Authority, etc.).
So we don't have the religious liberty to practice our Holy Catholic Religion then? Well, you just said religious liberty was condamned? Religious liberty properly understood with the principle of duties corresponding with right is a Catholic doctrine, namely, the holy Catholic Religion has liberty and no other religion does, because the Catholic Faith is Truth and no other is.

Quote:The teaching of Vatican II is almost verbatim the contrary of what was condemned.
Please explain how that is.
Reply
#47
(06-03-2009, 10:40 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
lamentabili sane Wrote:Religious liberty was condemned in an ex cathedra definition by Pope Pius IX, as can be read in Quanta Cura, wherein a clear formula of definition is contained (We by Our Apostolic Authority, etc.).
So we don't have the religious liberty to practice our Holy Catholic Religion then? Well, you just said religious liberty was condamned? Religious liberty properly understood with the principle of duties corresponding with right is a Catholic doctrine, namely, the holy Catholic Religion has liberty and no other religion does, because the Catholic Faith is Truth and no other is.

That's not what Dignitatus Humanae says. Have you ever read it?

Quote:
Quote:The teaching of Vatican II is almost verbatim the contrary of what was condemned.
Please explain how that is.

Here, from another thread:

(05-27-2009, 07:46 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: You're a real gentleman, Mike. I think further you must consider what a "right" actually is and how it is traditionally defined.

"McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology, vol. I. pp. 97,98." Wrote:292. Since rights and duties are correlative—there being a duty that corresponds to every right, and vice versa—and since both are regulated by law, the principles given for the apparent collision of laws can be applied to the apparent collision of rights.

(a) Rights of a higher kind have preference over rights of a lower kind. Therefore, the rights that arise from birth itself, or from the fact that one is a human being (e.g., the right to life), are superior to the rights that are acquired through some condition, such as inheritance or contract (e.g., the right to property, etc.). Example: Titus must get his child, who is in danger of death, to a hospital without delay. Balbus is getting ready for a pleasure ride, but Titus takes his car since there is no other ready means of getting to the hospital. Titus acts within his natural rights, if the car is returned safely and as soon as possible to the owner. According to civil law his act would be technical larceny, but in view of the necessity courts and juries would certainly not insist on the letter of the law.

(b) Inalienable rights (i.e., those which one may not renounce, because they are also duties), such as the right to serve God, the right to live, etc., are superior to alienable rights (i.e., those which one may renounce), such as the right to marry, the right to own property, etc. Example: One may surrender the right to drink intoxicants in order to serve God or preserve one’s life.



"Right" as a generic concept is not defined anywhere, but it is sufficiently clear from the foregoing. Rights are correlatives of duties, and may be defined as the moral power to do, possess, or require of another, those things which duty makes necessary.

The problem is that if Vatican II (DH) meant anything comprehensible at all, it taught that a man has a natural right not to be interfered with in the exercise of whatever religion he chooses, within certain undefined limits. Now, if this is understood according to traditional terminology, it means that the state would offend against justice if it prohibited a man from practicing a false religion, unless that practice of a false religion also offended against some additional law (e.g. it disturbed the public peace in some way).

Consider that carefully - it is the assertion that the practice of a false religion is, in itself, something which may arise from the duties of man. But that is absurd and has been repeatedly condemned by popes and theologians. Again, here’s Pius XII, Ci Riesce: "Above all, it must be clearly stated that no human authority, no state, no community of states, whatever be their religious character, can give a positive command or positive authorisation to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good. Such a command or such an authorization would have no obligatory power and would remain without effect. No authority may give such a command, because it is contrary to nature to oblige the spirit and the will of man to error and evil, or to consider one or the other as indifferent. Not even God could give such a positive command or positive authorisation, because it would be in contradiction to His absolute truth and sanctity."

And he repeats the oft-repeated saw, "that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated."

Error, particularly in religious matters, is evil. Therefore it has no right to exist. It can, however, be tolerated for a greater good: "failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good."

The key is to define "right" as it has always been understood by Catholic philosophers and theologians - as a correlative of "duty." It is this which makes completely clear that the doctrine of Dignitatis Humanae is unacceptable and contrary to tradition and even to common sense.

Our opponents resort to a sophism (not intentional, I hope) to disguise this. They essentially assert that the "right" mentioned in Dignitatis Humanae is merely the right not to be interfered with by the state in the pursuit of the true religion, which necessarily implies that the state must grant more leeway than would be granted merely by protecting true worship, because a man needs some measure of liberty within which to discover the truth. This is clever, but it won't reconcile with the absolute principles laid down by traditional morality, and repeated by Pius XII in Ci Riesce:

"Ci Riesce" Wrote:]Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above. First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated. Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.

However one interprets Dignitatis Humanae, it doesn't say that.
Reply
#48
lamentabili sane Wrote:
GodFirst Wrote:But the Church can development Her Doctrine on Her own nature.
That's not at issue here.
That is only what you say? What is your authority to say that? None whatsoever.

Quote:She cannot contradict Herself.
Of course, in Sacred Dogma She cannot. Practice is another thing for She has a human element as well as a Divine.

Quote:That is de fide.
What exactly is de fide?

Quote:
Quote:The Church's spiritual scope has and cannot be solemnly defined in this world and time, because the Church is a spiritual organization as well as an visible one, for instance we do not know all the Saints which are in Heaven. Not all theologian opinions concerning ecclesiology were Dogma before Vatican II, right? Vatican II may have developed doctrine. Developing doctrine is not changing Sacred Dogma which is unchangeable by nature.
All due respect, but you're in over your head here.
How so? It's great that you can say that without any explaination. You are being sophistic, whether intentional or not. You're not even making an argument, just like Bp/Fr Sanborn. You are hurting Tradition.
Reply
#49
(06-03-2009, 10:22 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Vatican II did openly deny defined dogma. Religious liberty was condemned in an ex cathedra definition by Pope Pius IX, as can be read in Quanta Cura, wherein a clear formula of definition is contained (We by Our Apostolic Authority, etc.). The teaching of Vatican II is almost verbatim the contrary of what was condemned.

It is only a contradiction according to ones private judgement.  There is no contradiction when understood correctly and in the proper sense.
Reply
#50
(06-03-2009, 10:46 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
lamentabili sane Wrote:
GodFirst Wrote:But the Church can development Her Doctrine on Her own nature.
That's not at issue here.
That is only what you say? What is your authority to say that? None whatsoever.

Quote:She cannot contradict Herself.
Of course, in Sacred Dogma She cannot. Practice is another thing for She has a human element as well as a Divine.

Quote:That is de fide.
What exactly is de fide?

Quote:
Quote:The Church's spiritual scope has and cannot be solemnly defined in this world and time, because the Church is a spiritual organization as well as an visible one, for instance we do not know all the Saints which are in Heaven. Not all theologian opinions concerning ecclesiology were Dogma before Vatican II, right? Vatican II may have developed doctrine. Developing doctrine is not changing Sacred Dogma which is unchangeable by nature.
All due respect, but you're in over your head here.
How so? It's great that you can say that without any explaination. You are being sophistic, whether intentional or not. You're not even making an argument, just like Bp/Fr Sanborn. You are hurting Tradition.

Like I said, you're in over your head. Read post #46. Goodnight.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)