Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
#13
(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.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - by INPEFESS - 06-02-2009, 11:16 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)