Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article

[GodFirst]

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.