Author Topic: Bp. Donald Sanborn vs. Dr. Robert Fastiggi (Read 18774 times)

SJB · « **Reply #30 on:** January 02, 2014, 04:15:15 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: SJB
The truth is that the language used by the council was a novelty in itself and it's interpretation is not something than can be nailed down. This is by design.

I disagree. V2's teaching is very clear. And the reason it's unclear to you is because you personally hold to the same core premises. So you're confused by it. And ambiguity or inopportuneness or whatever simply isn't sufficient reason to break communion with the Vicar of Christ. Fastiggi rightly points out that the burden of proof is on Traditional Catholics to PROVE the heresy; otherwise they're in schism.

Those who have studied the Council docuмents disagree. The docuмents are voluminous and employ entirely different language than previous councils.

Anyway, I think you and Fastiggi are wrong to demand that Catholics prove heresy as a condition for avoiding obvious unorthodoxy.

Alcuin · « **Reply #31 on:** January 02, 2014, 05:12:38 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Those who have studied the Council docuмents disagree. The docuмents are voluminous and employ entirely different language than previous councils.

Please be consistent and state your approved theologian who agrees with what you are saying.

Alcuin · « **Reply #32 on:** January 02, 2014, 05:36:52 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Bishop Sanborn won a few of the peripheral points, but he clearly lost the debate on whether Vatican II ecclesiology is heretical.

Would you say that it's heretical?

SJB · « **Reply #33 on:** January 02, 2014, 05:47:20 PM »

Quote from: Alcuin

Quote from: SJB
Those who have studied the Council docuмents disagree. The docuмents are voluminous and employ entirely different language than previous councils.

Please be consistent and state your approved theologian who agrees with what you are saying.

This is merely the statement of a fact.

songbird · « **Reply #34 on:** January 02, 2014, 05:51:07 PM »

I read somewhere that Ratzinger's bunch who took over the council was asked to define what the bunch was saying suggesting and such. The bunch said nothing. The observers stated that "if that radical bunch were to define, they would show their heresy. Defining is of the utmost importance. The way I see it, is vatican was never finished. The true church was afraid, that if a council was opened, that the take over would take place. I am of the opinion that VAT II holds nothing of importance, for things were suggested, terminology was modernism. So, it was a dog and pony show with no definites. But to the enemies, it was a show to the world, that the church that Christ found was indeed, infiltrated enough for take over. As my grandmother said when vat. II came in, "There goes the church!" My family was well educated by our priest in the family of the Precious Blood Society, during 1907-1944. I am sure that they were told that the crash was coming. And it did!

Alcuin · « **Reply #35 on:** January 02, 2014, 05:51:39 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Alcuin
Quote from: SJB
Those who have studied the Council docuмents disagree. The docuмents are voluminous and employ entirely different language than previous councils.

Please be consistent and state your approved theologian who agrees with what you are saying.

This is merely the statement of a fact.

By your own authority - tisk tisk!

Alcuin · « **Reply #36 on:** January 02, 2014, 05:57:33 PM »

Quote from: SJB

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.

So you say.

bowler · « **Reply #37 on:** January 02, 2014, 06:11:15 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: SJB
The truth is that the language used by the council was a novelty in itself and it's interpretation is not something than can be nailed down. This is by design.

I disagree. V2's teaching is very clear. And the reason it's unclear to you is because you personally hold to the same core premises. So you're confused by it. And ambiguity or inopportuneness or whatever simply isn't sufficient reason to break communion with the Vicar of Christ. Fastiggi rightly points out that the burden of proof is on Traditional Catholics to PROVE the heresy; otherwise they're in schism.

Quote

Bowler wrote to Nishant: All you are saying is that the theological opinion of Heroin BOD is permitted today. That's no news. That it is permitted does not make it the truth, nor lessen its destruction upon the Church. Sound familiar? Just like Vatican II, (which you defend in the same exact way) they are identical.

Words have no defined final meaning to the Heroin BODers, as well as Progressivists, therefore, they haven't decided exactly what Vatican II is saying , in now almost 50 years.

SJB · « **Reply #38 on:** January 02, 2014, 06:20:02 PM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: SJB
The truth is that the language used by the council was a novelty in itself and it's interpretation is not something than can be nailed down. This is by design.

I disagree. V2's teaching is very clear. And the reason it's unclear to you is because you personally hold to the same core premises. So you're confused by it. And ambiguity or inopportuneness or whatever simply isn't sufficient reason to break communion with the Vicar of Christ. Fastiggi rightly points out that the burden of proof is on Traditional Catholics to PROVE the heresy; otherwise they're in schism.

Quote
Bowler wrote to Nishant: All you are saying is that the theological opinion of Heroin BOD is permitted today. That's no news. That it is permitted does not make it the truth, nor lessen its destruction upon the Church. Sound familiar? Just like Vatican II, (which you defend in the same exact way) they are identical.

Words have no defined final meaning to the Heroin BODers, as well as Progressivists, therefore, they haven't decided exactly what Vatican II is saying , in now almost 50 years.

You and Fastiggi are not such strange bedfellows, I see.

Stubborn · « **Reply #39 on:** January 03, 2014, 06:11:43 AM »

In +Sanborn's opening statements, he wholeheartedly affirms the dogma as well as anyone I've ever heard, but then by about 3:28, he is done echoing Church teaching as he concludes his opening affirmation with:
"...if you are outside it [the Church] you are a withered branch, as one pope said, that you have no possibility of salvation and, so forth."

In the next breath, at 3:34, he completely blows it when he begins:

"Now, here we must make the distinction that if you are outside the Church through no fault of your own, and you belong to the Church by desire - that is where you want to be part of it but for some reason, through no fault of your own you cannot become a part of it but you want to become a part of it - that type of belonging is sufficient for salvation. The Church teaches that."

This certainly applies:

Quote from: Fr. Wathen

15. Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject
explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on.
He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc.,
and ends by denying it....

Now......let's see....... the NOer said at least a few times that SVs would go to hell because of their schism, ergo they are outside the church.
Therefore, the SVist is without a doubt, outside the church while the NOer is without a doubt, *not* outside the church.

Meanwhile, +Sanborn is arguing the exact opposite about the NOers accusing them of being willfully guilty of heresy and apostasy which necessarily puts them outside the Church but +Sanborn inside the Church.
Therefore, +Sanborn is without a doubt, *not* outside the church.

Since according to +Sanborn (and all those who believe as he does), they both want to be a part of the Church, they both certainly desire to belong to the Church hence they both belong to the Church by desire - so what's all the fuss REALLY about?

If the Church teaches as +Sanborn stated: "that type of belonging is sufficient for salvation. The Church teaches that." then except for the sake of arguing, why argue about it at all?

This most definitely applies:

Quote from: Fr. Wathen

...."Traditionalists", for want of a better word, insisting the
while that their stand is necessary for the sake of salvation, do so on
the basis of this [EENS] doctrine, even if they do not realize it. Yes, of course,
they say that they believe it. But we emphasize once again, they do
not unless they accept it absolutely. Their only argument for their
"Traditionalism" is this doctrine in its absolute and uncompromising
affirmation. If they qualify it in any way, their whole position
becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #40 on:** January 03, 2014, 06:25:32 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

In +Sanborn's opening statements, he wholeheartedly affirms the dogma as well as anyone I've ever heard, but then by about 3:28, he is done echoing Church teaching as he concludes his opening affirmation with:
"...if you are outside it [the Church] you are a withered branch, as one pope said, that you have no possibility of salvation and, so forth."

In the next breath, at 3:34, he completely blows it when he begins:

"Now, here we must make the distinction that if you are outside the Church through no fault of your own, and you belong to the Church by desire - that is where you want to be part of it but for some reason, through no fault of your own you cannot become a part of it but you want to become a part of it - that type of belonging is sufficient for salvation. The Church teaches that."

Thank you for quoting that. I was going to get into it but didn't have time to take notes. Yes, his main objection to V2 ecclesiology (correctly) is EENS, and, accordingly, he makes a ton of citations reaffirming EENS. Then, as I noticed and you point out here, he basically denies EENS and undercuts his entire objection to the V2 ecclesiology. That's why Fastiggi wins hands down. Fastiggi then goes on to show how V2 makes sense based on this exact statement from +Sanborn (on which they both agree without hesitation). +Sanborn's statement is heretical. He explicitly states that if "you are outside the Church", "...[desire] is sufficient for salvation." Come on, at least don't be stupid and WORD FOR WORD deny EENS. You have to say that if you "want to become a part of [the Church]" then you are in fact INSIDE the Church. This formula "outside the Church through no fault of their own" so often used by Traditionalists is heretical.

Fastiggi in his rebuttal uses this as a premise to show how V2 ecclesiology does NOT contradict traditional theology (the EENS theology of Bishop Sanborn).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #41 on:** January 03, 2014, 06:34:58 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

This certainly applies:
Quote from: Fr. Wathen

15. Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject
explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on.
He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc.,
and ends by denying it....

Father Wathen understood the crisis perfectly. Not only do BoDers explain EENS away immediately, but they explain the dogma away so much so that they even accuse those of us (like Father Feeney) who accept EENS as heretics for upholding the dogma. They have turned EENS into teaching the EXACT OPPOSITE of what it actually says.

I see it as providential that this video was posted now.

Father Wathen points out that the Traditional movement, the sum of Traditional theological objections to V2, is rooted in EENS. In fact, to prove Father Wathen's statement true, +Sanborn uses EENS quotes to attack Vatican II. But then then makes EENS exceptions which Fastiggi exploits to show how Vatican II doe not contradict tradition.

EENS is the key, and Traditionalists who reject Vatican II but hold to extended BoD are in fact dishonest, as Fastiggi says. Their rejection of Vatican II can be reduced to a visceral reacton against and revulsion to clown Masses and similar liturgical abuses.

Stubborn · « **Reply #42 on:** January 03, 2014, 06:43:48 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Stubborn
This certainly applies:
Quote from: Fr. Wathen

15. Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject
explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on.
He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc.,
and ends by denying it....

Father Wathen understood the crisis perfectly. Not only do BoDers explain EENS away immediately, but they explain the dogma away so much so that they even accuse those of us (like Father Feeney) who accept EENS as heretics for upholding the dogma. They have turned EENS into teaching the EXACT OPPOSITE of what it actually says.

I see it as providential that this video was posted now.

Father Wathen points out that the Traditional movement, the sum of Traditional theological objections to V2, is rooted in EENS. In fact, to prove Father Wathen's statement true, +Sanborn uses EENS quotes to attack Vatican II. But then makes EENS exceptions which Fastiggi exploits to show how Vatican II does not contradict tradition.

EENS is the key, and Traditionalists who reject Vatican II but hold to extended BoD are in fact dishonest, as Fastiggi says. Their rejection of Vatican II can be reduced to a visceral reacton against and revulsion to clown Masses and similar liturgical abuses.

The part I made bold in your quote completely nails it squarely on the head.

Well said!

bowler · « **Reply #43 on:** January 03, 2014, 08:23:08 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

EENS is the key, and Traditionalists who reject Vatican II but hold to extended BoD are in fact dishonest, as Fastiggi says. Their rejection of Vatican II can be reduced to a visceral reacton against and revulsion to clown Masses and similar liturgical abuses.

BINGO!

SJB · « **Reply #44 on:** January 03, 2014, 09:42:30 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Stubborn
In +Sanborn's opening statements, he wholeheartedly affirms the dogma as well as anyone I've ever heard, but then by about 3:28, he is done echoing Church teaching as he concludes his opening affirmation with:
"...if you are outside it [the Church] you are a withered branch, as one pope said, that you have no possibility of salvation and, so forth."

In the next breath, at 3:34, he completely blows it when he begins:

"Now, here we must make the distinction that if you are outside the Church through no fault of your own, and you belong to the Church by desire - that is where you want to be part of it but for some reason, through no fault of your own you cannot become a part of it but you want to become a part of it - that type of belonging is sufficient for salvation. The Church teaches that."

Thank you for quoting that. I was going to get into it but didn't have time to take notes. Yes, his main objection to V2 ecclesiology (correctly) is EENS, and, accordingly, he makes a ton of citations reaffirming EENS. Then, as I noticed and you point out here, he basically denies EENS and undercuts his entire objection to the V2 ecclesiology. That's why Fastiggi wins hands down. Fastiggi then goes on to show how V2 makes sense based on this exact statement from +Sanborn (on which they both agree without hesitation). +Sanborn's statement is heretical. He explicitly states that if "you are outside the Church", "...[desire] is sufficient for salvation." Come on, at least don't be stupid and WORD FOR WORD deny EENS. You have to say that if you "want to become a part of [the Church]" then you are in fact INSIDE the Church. This formula "outside the Church through no fault of their own" so often used by Traditionalists is heretical.

Fastiggi in his rebuttal uses this as a premise to show how V2 ecclesiology does NOT contradict traditional theology (the EENS theology of Bishop Sanborn).

That just shows how imprecise Sanborn can be, as he is likely referring to membership, which should be stated very clearly. Instead, he uses the language the wrecks the dogma.