FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article (/showthread.php?tid=28035)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - GodFirst - 06-04-2009

INPEFESS Wrote:A conscience that is subject to teachings is not objective which defeats the whole purpose of the conscience. It has been created to oppose wrong teaching even if one does not understand why it is wrong. The consience guides teaching; teaching does not guide the conscience. The conscience is always objective in order to discern the evil in false teaching. The subjective conscience is that conscience which is being ignored.
huh? What? Please explain? Are you saying an person's conscience cannot be invincibly ignorant?


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - lamentabili sane - 06-04-2009

GodFirst,

Please stop, you are just further embarrassing youself. And I don't mean "stop" in a threatening nor intimidating manner. :)

LS


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - INPEFESS - 06-04-2009

(06-04-2009, 07:30 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
INPEFESS Wrote:A conscience that is subject to teachings is not objective which defeats the whole purpose of the conscience. It has been created to oppose wrong teaching even if one does not understand why it is wrong. The consience guides teaching; teaching does not guide the conscience. The conscience is always objective in order to discern the evil in false teaching. The subjective conscience is that conscience which is being ignored.
huh? What? Please explain? Are you saying an person's conscience cannot be invincibly ignorant?

My post explained itself. I'm sorry that you do not understand.


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - GodFirst - 06-04-2009

lamentabili sane Wrote:
GodFirst Wrote:
lamentabili sane Wrote:I didn't say threaten or intimidate.
I never said you did but you did said COERCE and that is what coerce can means. See the above definition.
As I've said before, this is why English is a bad language to use for theological discussion.
I used the English word STOP, not intimidate or threaten. English seems only to be a problem to you.
Yes, it is a problem for me. I don't like English but sadly it's the only language I know. If you meant "stop" only, then why did you type "coerce" in parenthesis along with "stop". "Coercion" has more than one meaning, and DH (to me anyways) implies "threats/intimidation" and not just "force". But anyway even if DH does mean merely "force", there is still the "within due limits" clause, which is enough to me to imply that an erroneous conscience may not have the right to such freedom as the document mentions. It doesn't even mention what kind of conscience anyway.


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - GodFirst - 06-04-2009

(06-04-2009, 07:37 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 07:30 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
INPEFESS Wrote:A conscience that is subject to teachings is not objective which defeats the whole purpose of the conscience. It has been created to oppose wrong teaching even if one does not understand why it is wrong. The consience guides teaching; teaching does not guide the conscience. The conscience is always objective in order to discern the evil in false teaching. The subjective conscience is that conscience which is being ignored.
huh? What? Please explain? Are you saying an person's conscience cannot be invincibly ignorant?
My post explained itself. I'm sorry that you do not understand.
Please, help me. How are you helping this thread if you won't explain yourself.
Just because the conscience was created to oppose evil, does not mean that it will always recongnize evil. Hence the reason why a person can sin objectively but not subjectively. No? Is the conscience not to be guided by law (or teaching)?
I think your moral theology might be a little twisted, but then I'm only human like you and could be wrong. That is why I so wish you would explain.


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - INPEFESS - 06-04-2009

(06-04-2009, 07:40 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
lamentabili sane Wrote:
GodFirst Wrote:
lamentabili sane Wrote:I didn't say threaten or intimidate.
I never said you did but you did said COERCE and that is what coerce can means. See the above definition.
As I've said before, this is why English is a bad language to use for theological discussion.
I used the English word STOP, not intimidate or threaten. English seems only to be a problem to you.
Yes, it is a problem for me. I don't like English but sadly it's the only language I know. If you meant "stop" only, then why did you type "coerce" in parenthesis along with "stop". "Coercion" has more than one meaning, and DH (to me anyways) implies "threats/intimidation" and not just "force". But anyway even if DH does mean merely "force", there is still the "within due limits" clause, which is enough to me to imply that an erroneous conscience may not have the right to such freedom as the document mentions. It doesn't even mention what kind of conscience anyway.

No offense to anyone, but debating the word choice in this situation is semantics and misses the point made by the post. Regardless of what word was employed, the point made is the same.


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - Borromeo - 06-04-2009

:blah: :blah: :blah:

Sell it to somebody who is buyin'




Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - newschoolman - 06-04-2009

(06-04-2009, 06:54 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: All men have a duty to profess the true religion (The Catholic Religion), therefore they have a right to do so and may not lawfully stopped from doing so.

No man has a duty to profess a false religion (it is evil), therefore they have no right to do so and may be stopped (coerced) from doing so. However, the common good also requires that at times they be tolerated.

Actually, man has a moral duty and corresponding right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience -- even when honestly erroneous.  The (right) in question is not founded on "error" -- rather it is founded on the moral duty to obey conscience.  This duty is not cancelled merely by honest error -- and to disobey an honestly erroneous conscience is to SIN.  Now, man has a right to fulfill his moral duties in order to avoid sin.


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - newschoolman - 06-04-2009

(06-04-2009, 06:55 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 05:47 PM)newschoolman Wrote: Like I said, this best article on this subject [DH] is linked below.  If you want real understanding (in continuity with Tradition) then give it a serious read.  Warning: it deals with a complex subject matter and may not be easy reading for some.

(06-03-2009, 10:57 PM)newschoolman Wrote: The notion that DH contradicts sacred Tradition is nonsense.  This article by Bishop Ketteler (1862) gives the proper perspective on the whole matter and distinguishes between true and false relgious freedom.  It is simply "Rupture Theology" to argue that DH contradicts prior teaching.

http://remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2008-1115-religious_freedom_and_the_cathol.htm

Well, it seems to me this guy engages in "Gymnastic Theology" where he goes through all kinds of contortions and gyrations to invent continuity.  He doesn't even address the Syllabus, except to use selective quoting from the CE where he says:

"Gymnastic Theologian" Wrote:Other laws that presuppose religious unity also begin to lack foundation once that basic unity has been shattered. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912) states: “…the coexistence of the most varied religious beliefs in every land have imposed the principle of state tolerance and freedom of belief upon rulers and parliaments as a dire necessity and as the starting-point of political wisdom and justice. The mixture of races and peoples, the immigration into all lands, the adoption of international laws concerning colonization and choice of abode, the economic necessity of calling upon the workers of other lands, etc., have so largely changed the religious map of the world during the last fifty years that propositions 77-79 of the Syllabus published by Pius IX in 1864 (cf. Denzinger, op. cit., 1777-79)…do not now apply even to Spain or the South American republics to say nothing of countries which even then possessed a greatly mixed population (e.g. Germany).”

Now, let's continue in the CE where he conveniently left off:

"The rest of the story" Wrote:Since the requisite conditions for the erection of new theocratic states, whether Catholic or Protestant, are lacking today and will probably not be realized in the future, it is evident on the basis of hard facts that religious liberty is the only possible, and thus the only reasonable, state principle. If, in those lands where she still enjoys a privileged position as state Church (e.g. Italy and Spain), the Catholic Church would not allow herself to be driven from this position without a protest, she has not only a right, but is even under obligation to offer this protest. For a justly acquired right should not be surrendered in silence.


[/quote]

I don't see how you can say that Bishop Kettler contorts anything.  Yes, there are some complex concepts to follow -- but his writing is very clear.


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - INPEFESS - 06-04-2009

(06-04-2009, 07:47 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 07:37 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 07:30 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
INPEFESS Wrote:A conscience that is subject to teachings is not objective which defeats the whole purpose of the conscience. It has been created to oppose wrong teaching even if one does not understand why it is wrong. The conscience guides teaching; teaching does not guide the conscience. The conscience is always objective in order to discern the evil in false teaching. The subjective conscience is that conscience which is being ignored.
huh? What? Please explain? Are you saying an person's conscience cannot be invincibly ignorant?
My post explained itself. I'm sorry that you do not understand.

Please, help me. How are you helping this thread if you won't explain yourself.
Just because the conscience was created to oppose evil, does not mean that it will always recognize evil. Hence the reason why a person can sin objectively but not subjectively. No? Is the conscience not to be guided by law (or teaching)?
I think your moral theology might be a little twisted, but then I'm only human like you and could be wrong. That is why I so wish you would explain.

I apologize if I am a hindrance to this thread; I don't mean to be.

But allow me to explain what I mean...

You said:

"It's not OBJECTIVELY opposed to any RIGHTFUL IMFORMED conscience. But consciences can be misinformed or taught error and believe those errors as truth."

I simply do not agree. Maybe I am wrong, but if a truly objective (having no bias to any condition) conscience is allowed by God Himself to believe that which offends Him, then God would cease to send that person the grace to seek the Truth which He has bound us to seek. One may be honestly mistaken about the Truth (using false reason and logic or be honestly misinformed), but the conscience is a gift from God and cannot be led astray by the teachings of false religion. This is false ecumenism. A conscience in cooperation with grace always seeks Truth and does not rest content until it finds it.

If this were not so, then there would be no such thing as Objective Truth, only moral conviction. We would then be permitted to define Truth according to our cultural influences and religious backgrounds. An objective conscience does not subject (subjective: opposite of objective) itself to the influence of teaching. If one's conscience does not strongly compel one to seek Truth then this is the proximate result of the soul's rejection of God's grace - this is hardly an excuse for error.

Does this make sense?

Edit: My deplorable spelling.