Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
#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 <A HREF="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm#III" Target="_blank"><A HREF="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm#III" Target="_blank">Modernists</A></A> 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, <A HREF="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm#III" Target="_blank"><A HREF="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm#III" Target="_blank">Modernist</A></A> 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


Messages In This Thread
Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - by newschoolman - 06-03-2009, 10:17 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)