Author Topic: Resignation of B16 live interview with Bp Sanborn (Read 4150 times)

Rosemary · « **on:** February 11, 2013, 05:18:25 PM »

The following article is from this website.
http://www.traditionalmass.org/

The Resignation of Benedict XVI: Live Interview with Bp. Sanborn

The world was shocked today to awake to the news that Benedict XVI resigned.

Though it has been almost 1000 years since a claimant to the papacy has resigned, and the reasons given match reasons given in the past, the real story for us to discuss is Benedict XVI's tenure and legacy, and what is on the horizon.

Joining us for this discussion will be H.E. Bishop Donald Sanborn, Rector of Most Holy Trinity Seminary in Brooksville, Florida. He has studied Joseph Ratzinger extensively, and knows a lot about his theology and worldview.

We will be taking calls on twitter (@truerestoration) and live on phone at (949) 272-9417. Something new we are also introducing for this show is allowing tape-recorded questions. If you have a question but cannot join us live tonight, simply call (949) 436-4698 anytime today and leave us a message. Your call may be played on the air so keep that in mind when you leave it.
•Monday, Feb. 11, 2013
•8:00 PM, EST
•Click here to listen on your computer.
•(949) 272-9417 is the live call-in number
•@truerestoration for calls on Twitter
•(949) 436-4698 to pre-record questions today.

Here is the site to listen to the show either live or archived.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/restorationradio/2013/02/12/restoration-radio-xviii-the-resignation-of-benedict-xvi

Matto · « **Reply #1 on:** February 11, 2013, 05:39:21 PM »

I am looking forward to hearing this. Thank you for posting.

Rosemary · « **Reply #2 on:** February 11, 2013, 05:48:41 PM »

You're welcome.

drivocek · « **Reply #3 on:** February 11, 2013, 06:59:34 PM »

Despite the question of apostolic succession (McKenna from a Thuc bishop), I will listen to get his perspectives.
This day is a day not soon forgotten.

Tantum Aude!

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #4 on:** February 11, 2013, 09:10:03 PM »

I was just listening to the last hour of the show. It was interesting.

SJB · « **Reply #5 on:** February 12, 2013, 06:59:23 AM »

Quote from: Kephapaulos

I was just listening to the last hour of the show. It was interesting.

I listened to a part of it live. What did you find interesting about it?

I noticed a lot of stammering around issues and failed to see the point of the discussion.

Ambrose · « **Reply #6 on:** February 12, 2013, 07:15:13 AM »

Quote from: drivocek

Despite the question of apostolic succession (McKenna from a Thuc bishop), I will listen to get his perspectives.
This day is a day not soon forgotten.

Tantum Aude!

There is no apostolic succession with the traditional bishops. There are valid episcopal lines, but they are not successors to the apostles. The issue of Archbishop Thuc's sacramental line is irrelevant. The sacramental line is intact, but they lack the succession.

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #7 on:** February 12, 2013, 09:45:11 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Kephapaulos
I was just listening to the last hour of the show. It was interesting.

I listened to a part of it live. What did you find interesting about it?

I noticed a lot of stammering around issues and failed to see the point of the discussion.

I found it interesting where Bp. Sanborn talked about how the resignation could give the false impression that the Papacy is merely a job or a human function.

I found it amusing when Fr. Cekada made a joke about always giving a bishop an A+ when he gave a comment on something Bp. Sanborn said.

I think there would have seemed to have been stammering around issues because they had limited time and a lot of callers who had questions they needed to answer. They probably would have gone deeper into each issue otherwise more than likely.

SJB · « **Reply #8 on:** February 13, 2013, 08:06:16 AM »

Quote from: Kephapaulos

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Kephapaulos
I was just listening to the last hour of the show. It was interesting.

I listened to a part of it live. What did you find interesting about it?

I noticed a lot of stammering around issues and failed to see the point of the discussion.

I found it interesting where Bp. Sanborn talked about how the resignation could give the false impression that the Papacy is merely a job or a human function.

There are many other ways Benedict has shown a humanistic type of worldview. The fact is that the pope is able to resign and his resignation need not be accepted by anybody to be official.

Quote

I found it amusing when Fr. Cekada made a joke about always giving a bishop an A+ when he gave a comment on something Bp. Sanborn said.

I don't find Cekada amusing at all. I don't think he's a serious person when the issues are serious. I say that because I know the man.

Quote

I think there would have seemed to have been stammering around issues because they had limited time and a lot of callers who had questions they needed to answer. They probably would have gone deeper into each issue otherwise more than likely.

Stephen Heiner is sympathetic to these men (not too sure why he's so enamoured with the trio) and gave them plenty of time. I'd say in the first ten minutes Sanborn covered all the possible angles (he was surprized but expected it, etc.)

What do you think somebody who wasn't a "friend" would glean from this "interview?"

Ambrose · « **Reply #9 on:** February 13, 2013, 12:32:40 PM »

I found the talk useful in that he (Bp. Sanborn), gave some useful evidence of public heresy from Ratzinger.

The part I found problematic is his conclusion of what that evidence leads too. He follows what appears to be the C-thesis, a novel system with no basis in the theology of the Church.

If a man is the Pope, then he is the Pope. If a man is not the Pope, he is nothing. He is not a "pope-elect." I do not find his analogy to the United States President convincing. The Divine Constitution of the Church differs from any human constitution so it is very difficult to equate them. Secondly, as Catholics we look to approved sources to form our mind on theology. The C-thesis lacks any basis in theology. Catholic theology answers the current dilemma we are in, we do not need create a baseless and in my view dangerous system to answer the questions of our day.

If the next man who is elected by the Conciliar cardinals becomes a Pope, then it has nothing to do with those cardinals. The only part they would have to play would be putting a man forward, who, if he had the Catholic Faith, would be acclaimed by remaining world bishops and the clergy of Rome who have kept the Faith.

drivocek · « **Reply #10 on:** February 13, 2013, 12:51:47 PM »

Sanborn is NOT a bishop and his interview was a waste. "They're not popes and this conclave will not elect a pope, etc." There were several callers who couldn't make it through the queue and hung up. Big ol fat man acting like a pompous know-it-all. I am sorry that I even bothered to listen. He apparently garners respect from some few people but not from me.

Tantum Aude!

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #11 on:** February 13, 2013, 02:44:05 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Kephapaulos
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Kephapaulos
I was just listening to the last hour of the show. It was interesting.

I listened to a part of it live. What did you find interesting about it?

I noticed a lot of stammering around issues and failed to see the point of the discussion.

I found it interesting where Bp. Sanborn talked about how the resignation could give the false impression that the Papacy is merely a job or a human function.

There are many other ways Benedict has shown a humanistic type of worldview. The fact is that the pope is able to resign and his resignation need not be accepted by anybody to be official.

Quote
I found it amusing when Fr. Cekada made a joke about always giving a bishop an A+ when he gave a comment on something Bp. Sanborn said.

I don't find Cekada amusing at all. I don't think he's a serious person when the issues are serious. I say that because I know the man.

Quote
I think there would have seemed to have been stammering around issues because they had limited time and a lot of callers who had questions they needed to answer. They probably would have gone deeper into each issue otherwise more than likely.

Stephen Heiner is sympathetic to these men (not too sure why he's so enamoured with the trio) and gave them plenty of time. I'd say in the first ten minutes Sanborn covered all the possible angles (he was surprized but expected it, etc.)

What do you think somebody who wasn't a "friend" would glean from this "interview?"

Please give me some examples of how Fr. Cekada is not serious when he faces serious issues. If he wasn't serious enough though, what are to we make of his serious work on various theological issues, like concerning the New Mass?

Honestly, SJB, I find it unusual that you ask me questions because people usually have not quoted me or responded to my posts (save threads I've started) on Cathinfo.

People who do not share the same position as Fr. Cekada and Bp. Sanborn would have probably not understood too much or would have been opposed to what they were talking about anyway if they heard the radio show, but they at least said something about the basic ideas concerning the current situation in light of their theological position and conclusion of sedevacantism.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #12 on:** February 13, 2013, 08:20:33 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

He follows what appears to be the C-thesis, a novel system with no basis in the theology of the Church.

While it is fine to disagree with the C-Thesis, claiming that it has no basis in theology is both contrary to fact and justice. Guerard des Lauriers was a theologian of a high order (higher than anyone presently within Traddieland) and did not just construct his thesis out of nothing. Disagree all you want, but why not do so in a way that also gives credit where it is due and manifests due respect for those who were better-trained and forgot far more than most of us will ever know?

Ambrose · « **Reply #13 on:** February 13, 2013, 09:05:57 PM »

I do think well of Bp. Guerard des Lauriers, just not his thesis. If it has theologians who ever taught it you would think they would have used them.

The theory in my mind was made with a good motivation, it was to find a solution to the problem of the visibility of the Church and the apostolic succession.

But, the fact remains, it has no basis in theology. It was made from whole cloth and is a novelty. By saying that I mean no disrespect. I believe many hold it in good faith.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #14 on:** February 14, 2013, 07:49:06 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

I do think well of Bp. Guerard des Lauriers, just not his thesis. If it has theologians who ever taught it you would think they would have used them.

Why would anyone have taught it? Is theology a science, or just a collection of words written by men long since dead? Is a theological article illegitimate unless it is full of quotations from St. Thomas?

The present crisis is different as to kind, not just degree, when compared with all that has come before. Is it not fitting, or at least understandable that no one had discussed such things before they came to pass?

Quote

The theory in my mind was made with a good motivation, it was to find a solution to the problem of the visibility of the Church and the apostolic succession.

Of course it was and I am happy to see you say so.

Quote

But, the fact remains, it has no basis in theology. It was made from whole cloth and is a novelty. By saying that I mean no disrespect. I believe many hold it in good faith.

Saying it "has no basis in theology" and pointing out that no previous theologians discussed such a thing in any kind of detail are very different things. Material succession without formal succession is a fact with 1000 years of experience supporting it. It can happen; it has happened; it will continue to happen until the Eastern schismatics die off or return to Rome. Whether or not it has happened in Rome itself during this era is a separate question. Surely something of incomprehensible gravity and magnitude has occurred.

The Thesis, which could be rightly called "novel" -- just as this entire crisis could be called novel -- is entirely founded upon the sciences of philosophy and theology. I readily grant that it may be wrong, even profoundly so, or it may not adequately address the present situation, but it most certainly IS a philosophical and theological attempt to explain what has happened. Think what you will, but the fact that no long-since-dead theologians addressed a situation they never lived to see or even imagined means little (at most) when discussing the Thesis or its contents.

FWIW, I do not necessarily adhere to the Thesis in its entirety, but I do believe it is a much more sensible and coherent explanation than most seem to grasp or admit. I tend to think that, once the dust has settled and normalcy has returned, we will all be surprised to learn what really took place during this lamentable era. God bless and keep you and yours.