Author Topic: Bp. Donald Sanborn vs. Dr. Robert Fastiggi (Read 18698 times)

Stubborn · « **on:** January 02, 2014, 06:05:12 AM »

From 2004, 2 hour video of Bishop Sanborn debating with a Novus Ordo professor - interesting to note that Dr. Robert Fastiggi is affiliated with Michael Voris. Any way, I have not watched the video but plan to throughout the day - or perhaps the next few days or so.

http://www.novusordowatch.org/v2debate.htm

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #1 on:** January 02, 2014, 08:21:33 AM »

Won't be able to watch the whole thing this morning, but I've started it and Sanborn is very well prepared. Look forward to watching the whole thing.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** January 02, 2014, 12:45:18 PM »

I'll watch when I have a chance, but Bishop Sanborn doesn't have a leg to stand on, since his ecclesiology is the same as that of Vatican II.

Bishop Sanborn has stated that Jews and pagans can be saved.

Consequently, they're formally part of the Church while being materially separated, separated brethren if you will.

Consequently, the notion of a formally united Church seeking material unity (i.e. materially divided) is the Sanborn=Vatican II ecclesiology (the subsistit ecclesiology whereby the formal+material core "subsists in" the Catholic Church, with there being all the while pieces that, while formally united, are yet in varying degrees of material separation from it).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** January 02, 2014, 01:18:31 PM »

30 minutes in (as I just listen to the audio), Fastiggi is mopping up the floor with Bishop Sanborn, based exactly on my exact arguments. Bishop Sanborn admits that grace, salvation, and sanctification can exist outside the Church via "desire", etc. and therefore the V2 "subsistit" definition of the Church is valid.

Vanessa · « **Reply #4 on:** January 02, 2014, 01:30:24 PM »

At one point Sanborn seemed as if he was going to have an emotional breakdown and start crying, you'll see.

The part where he starts asking "What was wrong with the way things were before, with the schools with the theology" and so on.

It was a pitiful performance by Sanborn really. He didn't even mention that subsistit in came from a Protestant!

I don't understand how can novusordowatch present this video as some kind of masterclass refutation and like something that will reassure all the ones on the fence.

Why wasn't it made public all these years? Maybe Sanborn felt ashamed?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** January 02, 2014, 01:39:32 PM »

Fastiggi does an excellent job.

If I believed in (extended) BoD, then I would have to reject the idea that Vatican II contains any substantial error.

Vanessa · « **Reply #6 on:** January 02, 2014, 01:52:00 PM »

The only thing that unsettled me was the claim that Pope St. Gregory VII said that Catholics and Muslims worship and adore the same God, not simply that we are both monotheists.

What's that all about? I have foud some things about that online and if they are true then he did indeed say that.

If that is true, then Vatican 2 has no error when it says the very same thing.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** January 02, 2014, 01:52:50 PM »

He's clearly flustered in the first part of his rebuttal to Fastiggi.

One hour in and the only question Fastiggi hasn't addressed is the V2 notion of the Church of Christ not being equal to the Catholic Church.

Bishp Sanborn is all over the map and making zero sense in his rebuttal.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** January 02, 2014, 01:58:12 PM »

Quote from: Vanessa

The only thing that unsettled me was the claim that Pope St. Gregory VII said that Catholics and Muslims worship and adore the same God, not simply that we are both monotheists.

What's that all about? I have foud some things about that online and if they are true then he did indeed say that.

If that is true, then Vatican 2 has no error when it says the very same thing.

I bet that the key there is in the word used by Gregory VII for "worship". I don't recall the Latin since I'm just listening casually while doing other things.

Vanessa · « **Reply #9 on:** January 02, 2014, 02:05:37 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Vanessa
The only thing that unsettled me was the claim that Pope St. Gregory VII said that Catholics and Muslims worship and adore the same God, not simply that we are both monotheists.

What's that all about? I have foud some things about that online and if they are true then he did indeed say that.

If that is true, then Vatican 2 has no error when it says the very same thing.

I bet that the key there is in the word used by Gregory VII for "worship". I don't recall the Latin since I'm just listening casually while doing other things.

Quote

Nam omnipotens Deus, qui omnes homines vult salvos facere, et neminem perire, nihil est quod in nobis magis approbet quam ut homo post dilectionem suam hominem diligat, et quod sibi non vult fieri, alii non faciat.

Hanc itaque charitatem nos et vos specialibus nobis quam caeteris gentibus debemus, qui unum Deum, licet diverso modo, credimus et confitemur, qui eum Creatorem saeculorum et gubernatorem hujus mundi quotidie laudamus et veneramur.

SJB · « **Reply #10 on:** January 02, 2014, 02:12:14 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

30 minutes in (as I just listen to the audio), Fastiggi is mopping up the floor with Bishop Sanborn, based exactly on my exact arguments. Bishop Sanborn admits that grace, salvation, and sanctification can exist outside the Church via "desire", etc. and therefore the V2 "subsistit" definition of the Church is valid.

Maybe it's the wrong question. The idea coming from Vatican II isn't that "grace, salvation, and sanctification can exist outside the Church," but that individual heretical and schismatic churches are somehow united to the Catholic Church and thus a means of salvation.

This is a direct denial of the Catholic Church as a necessity of means as well as precept.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** January 02, 2014, 02:15:47 PM »

Quote from: Vanessa

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Vanessa
The only thing that unsettled me was the claim that Pope St. Gregory VII said that Catholics and Muslims worship and adore the same God, not simply that we are both monotheists.

What's that all about? I have foud some things about that online and if they are true then he did indeed say that.

If that is true, then Vatican 2 has no error when it says the very same thing.

I bet that the key there is in the word used by Gregory VII for "worship". I don't recall the Latin since I'm just listening casually while doing other things.

Quote
Nam omnipotens Deus, qui omnes homines vult salvos facere, et neminem perire, nihil est quod in nobis magis approbet quam ut homo post dilectionem suam hominem diligat, et quod sibi non vult fieri, alii non faciat.

Hanc itaque charitatem nos et vos specialibus nobis quam caeteris gentibus debemus, qui unum Deum, licet diverso modo, credimus et confitemur, qui eum Creatorem saeculorum et gubernatorem hujus mundi quotidie laudamus et veneramur.

Thank you.

OK, praise and venerate AS Creator of the world. This is quite alright. What he's saying is the NATURAL praise and veneration God in a natural state (i.e. in His condition as Creator, which can be known through natural reason) ... as opposed to revealed supernatural state of God.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** January 02, 2014, 02:24:19 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Ladislaus
30 minutes in (as I just listen to the audio), Fastiggi is mopping up the floor with Bishop Sanborn, based exactly on my exact arguments. Bishop Sanborn admits that grace, salvation, and sanctification can exist outside the Church via "desire", etc. and therefore the V2 "subsistit" definition of the Church is valid.

Maybe it's the wrong question. The idea coming from Vatican II isn't that "grace, salvation, and sanctification can exist outside the Church," but that individual heretical and schismatic churches are somehow united to the Catholic Church and thus a means of salvation.

This is a direct denial of the Catholic Church as a necessity of means as well as precept.

Fastiggi cites Vatican II and explains this very well. It's not that the schismatic churches save but, rather, that the Holy Spirit uses ELEMENTS of the Church Herself to sanctify outside her visible boundaries. That clearly does not undermine the Church as instrumental cause of salvation. It's the same ecclesiology that Traditional Catholic who believe in extended BoD have, including Bishop Sanborn. So, for instance, the Church's Sacred Scriptures might cause a Protestant to have supernatural faith. So, for instance, the Sacrament of Baptism conferred by a schismatic on an infant who dies, brings salvation.

Fastiggi explains V2 "subsistit" ecclesiology is all about people who are saved being outside the visible boundaries on the Church.

He's saying the same thing that I have said over and over and over on this board. If I believed in extended BoD, I would have to concede that there's no substantial error in Vatican II.

SJB · « **Reply #13 on:** January 02, 2014, 02:40:39 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Ladislaus
30 minutes in (as I just listen to the audio), Fastiggi is mopping up the floor with Bishop Sanborn, based exactly on my exact arguments. Bishop Sanborn admits that grace, salvation, and sanctification can exist outside the Church via "desire", etc. and therefore the V2 "subsistit" definition of the Church is valid.

Maybe it's the wrong question. The idea coming from Vatican II isn't that "grace, salvation, and sanctification can exist outside the Church," but that individual heretical and schismatic churches are somehow united to the Catholic Church and thus a means of salvation.

This is a direct denial of the Catholic Church as a necessity of means as well as precept.

Fastiggi cites Vatican II and explains this very well. It's not that the schismatic churches save but, rather, that the Holy Spirit uses ELEMENTS of the Church Herself to sanctify outside her visible boundaries. That clearly does not undermine the Church as instrumental cause of salvation. It's the same ecclesiology that Traditional Catholic who believe in extended BoD have, including Bishop Sanborn. So, for instance, the Church's Sacred Scriptures might cause a Protestant to have supernatural faith. So, for instance, the Sacrament of Baptism conferred by a schismatic on an infant who dies, brings salvation.

Fastiggi explains V2 "subsistit" ecclesiology is all about people who are saved being outside the visible boundaries on the Church.

He's saying the same thing that I have said over and over and over on this board. If I believed in extended BoD, I would have to concede that there's no substantial error in Vatican II.

No, it's a denial of the Church as a necessity of means when one adopts a stance that also eliminates conversion as a necessary goal. That cannot be explained away.

Quote from: Ladislaus

So, for instance, the Church's Sacred Scriptures might cause a Protestant to have supernatural faith. So, for instance, the Sacrament of Baptism conferred by a schismatic on an infant who dies, brings salvation.

Why then is the Sacrament valid when performed by anybody available to perform the ritual? Do you not believe this? Baptism can only be received once and it can be administered by any adult whatsoever, even a heretic, even a pagan, so long as he does what the Church intends.

Stubborn · « **Reply #14 on:** January 02, 2014, 02:55:04 PM »

I'm up to 1:12:00 where the audience is about to ask questions and it looks like the NO Professor learned his NO lessons well, he just doesn't see what is right in front of him.

He keeps saying things like: "V2 sites the Council of Florence and Trent and etc. - more traditional than any other council over cited etc." but he flat out don't get that V2 said one thing and did something completely contrary.

How is it that someone so intelligent can be so blind? - I think people who go through the NO education / indoctrination process are brainwashed, and brainwashed permanently. He is the third NOer I knew who is an educated NOer - nothing worse than an educated NOer - impossible to get through to those folks.

And I agree with:

Quote from: Ladislaus

30 minutes in (as I just listen to the audio), Fastiggi is mopping up the floor with Bishop Sanborn, based exactly on my exact arguments. Bishop Sanborn admits that grace, salvation, and sanctification can exist outside the Church via "desire", etc. and therefore the V2 "subsistit" definition of the Church is valid.