Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Bishop Donald Sanborn, Dr.Robert Fastiggi debate : tables are turned

The Ecclesiology Debate:
Did Vatican II Teach Heresy?


Bp. Donald Sanborn vs. Dr. Robert Fastiggi

Robert Fastiggi kept repeating it.  Bishop Donald Sanborn was in schism for him.As a sedevacantist he should affirm the Magisterium of the Church.Are you saying that you know more than the  Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit ? the bishop was asked in the debate on ecclesiology. 

Bishop Sanborn replied that Vatican Council II contradicted the magisterium of the past. If there was a way to show him how to reconcile the Council with the magisterium of the past he would go the next the day to meet the local bishop.

This was a few years back.
Image result for Photos tables are turned
Now with reports on this blog and e-mail exchanges Dr. Robert Fastiggi knows that invisibile people are not visible at the same time. An invisible case of the baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignoranc(I.I) is not visible in 2017. He did not know this during the debate with Bishop Sanborn.
He knows that the present magisterium of the Church teaches this irrationality. For the two popes BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to the Feeneyite interpetation of the dogma EENS.This is irrational and cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. It contradicts the magisterium of the past.
He and Ralph Martin teach this reasoning at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit.So what does Robert Fastiggi do ? 
Does he tell Bishiop Sanborn that he now knows that the present magisterium has made an objective error? No.
Does he tell Bishiop Sanborn that Vatican COuncil II ( LG 16) is being interpreted with an irrationality? No.
He knows that he is teaching this irrationality at the seminary and does he announce that he will not do so in future? No.
He does nothing.
It seems as if he always wanted to please the magisterium, right or wrong.Even when invisible for us baptism of desire is not a visible exception to the dogma EENS, as interpreted by the magisterium in the 16th century.
In a way the tables are turned. Bishop Sanborn could ask Prof. Fastiggi to affirm the magisterium of the past, interpret the dogma EENS as did the missionaries in the 16th century and reject the irrational logic of the present magisterium, even if it will cost him his job.
Bishop Sanborn was correct Vatican Council II ( Cushingism) interpreted with the irrational premise, was a rupture with the magisterium of the past.
Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite), without the use of the irrational premise is in harmony with Tradition but neither Prof. Fastiggi or Bishop Sanborn knew about it at the time of the debate.
Now they know.
So Prof. Fastiggi can now ask Bishop Sanborn to accept Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).Make an appointment with the local bishop. Announce that he is no more a sedevacantist who rejects Vatican Council II (Feeneyite).Announce that he will continue to reject Vatican Council II ( Cushingite).
The  tables are turned on both of them.
The story though can still have a happy ending.-Lionel Andrades


No comments: