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 - Historian - 06-04-2009

(06-04-2009, 08:48 PM)newschoolman Wrote: 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.

You will notice I'm not referring to Bishop Kettler's text, but to the "guest" who provided the introduction and footnotes.  In fact, he is engaging in theological gymnastics by, IMO, misapplying Bishop Kettler's letter and distorting it.


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

The problem with this entire discussion is that schoolman and GodFirst are proposing things incompatible with the clear teaching of Pope Pius XII. This was all hashed out in The American Ecclesistical Review and Fr. John Courtney Murray was silenced (unfortunately, only to be resurrected in Vatican II).

"Ci Riesce" Wrote:]Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above.

First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated.

Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.







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

(06-04-2009, 09:35 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: The problem with this entire discussion is that schoolman and GodFirst are proposing things incompatible with the clear teaching of Pope Pius XII. This was all hashed out in The American Ecclesistical Review and Fr. John Courtney Murray was silenced (unfortunately, only to be resurrected in Vatican II).

"Ci Riesce" Wrote:]Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above.

First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated.

Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.

Right, we are talking about a norm of morality.  As I said above:

Quote: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 moral right to fulfill his moral duties in order to avoid sin. 



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

All of you do realize how ridiculous this discussion is don't you? It's a complete waste of time... DH, GS, NS, etc.  ain't goin' nowhere....Vatican II is here to stay.  Or....do none of you read/listen to the Pope's talks/audiences? 


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

(06-04-2009, 09:40 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 09:35 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: The problem with this entire discussion is that schoolman and GodFirst are proposing things incompatible with the clear teaching of Pope Pius XII. This was all hashed out in The American Ecclesistical Review and Fr. John Courtney Murray was silenced (unfortunately, only to be resurrected in Vatican II).

"Ci Riesce" Wrote:]Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above.

First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated.

Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.

Right, we are talking about a norm of morality.  As I said above:

Quote: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 moral right to fulfill his moral duties in order to avoid sin. 

LS, here is a simple way to put it -- that I think can help you see it in perfect conformity with Pius XII (above).  

The right is NOT founded on error as error, per se, has no right to exist.  The right is founded on the "superior good" of obeying the moral law and the dictates of conscience -- in spite of the error.  The mere fact of the error does not cancel the right associated with the superior good.


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

(06-04-2009, 09:40 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 09:35 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: The problem with this entire discussion is that schoolman and GodFirst are proposing things incompatible with the clear teaching of Pope Pius XII. This was all hashed out in The American Ecclesistical Review and Fr. John Courtney Murray was silenced (unfortunately, only to be resurrected in Vatican II).

"Ci Riesce" Wrote:]Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above.

First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated.

Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.

Right, we are talking about a norm of morality.  As I said above:

Quote: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 moral right to fulfill his moral duties in order to avoid sin. 

The above statement is false.

The problem is that if Vatican II (DH) meant anything comprehensible at all, it taught that a man has a natural right not to be interfered with in the exercise of whatever religion he chooses, within certain undefined limits. Now, if this is understood according to traditional terminology, it means that the state would offend against justice if it prohibited a man from practicing a false religion, unless that practice of a false religion also offended against some additional law (e.g. it disturbed the public peace in some way).

Consider that carefully - it is the assertion that the practice of a false religion is, in itself, something which may arise from the duties of man. But that is absurd and has been repeatedly condemned by popes and theologians. Again, here’s Pius XII, Ci Riesce: "Above all, it must be clearly stated that no human authority, no state, no community of states, whatever be their religious character, can give a positive command or positive authorisation to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good. Such a command or such an authorization would have no obligatory power and would remain without effect. No authority may give such a command, because it is contrary to nature to oblige the spirit and the will of man to error and evil, or to consider one or the other as indifferent. Not even God could give such a positive command or positive authorisation, because it would be in contradiction to His absolute truth and sanctity."

And he repeats the oft-repeated saw, "that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated."

Error, particularly in religious matters, is evil. Therefore it has no right to exist. It can, however, be tolerated for a greater good: "failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good."

The key is to define "right" as it has always been understood by Catholic philosophers and theologians - as a correlative of "duty." It is this which makes completely clear that the doctrine of Dignitatis Humanae is unacceptable and contrary to tradition and even to common sense.



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

(06-04-2009, 09:53 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 09:40 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 09:35 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: The problem with this entire discussion is that schoolman and GodFirst are proposing things incompatible with the clear teaching of Pope Pius XII. This was all hashed out in The American Ecclesistical Review and Fr. John Courtney Murray was silenced (unfortunately, only to be resurrected in Vatican II).

"Ci Riesce" Wrote:]Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above.

First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated.

Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.

Right, we are talking about a norm of morality.  As I said above:

Quote: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 moral right to fulfill his moral duties in order to avoid sin. 

The above statement is false.

The problem is that if Vatican II (DH) meant anything comprehensible at all, it taught that a man has a natural right not to be interfered with in the exercise of whatever religion he chooses, within certain undefined limits. Now, if this is understood according to traditional terminology, it means that the state would offend against justice if it prohibited a man from practicing a false religion, unless that practice of a false religion also offended against some additional law (e.g. it disturbed the public peace in some way).

Consider that carefully - it is the assertion that the practice of a false religion is, in itself, something which may arise from the duties of man. But that is absurd and has been repeatedly condemned by popes and theologians. Again, here’s Pius XII, Ci Riesce: "Above all, it must be clearly stated that no human authority, no state, no community of states, whatever be their religious character, can give a positive command or positive authorisation to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good. Such a command or such an authorization would have no obligatory power and would remain without effect. No authority may give such a command, because it is contrary to nature to oblige the spirit and the will of man to error and evil, or to consider one or the other as indifferent. Not even God could give such a positive command or positive authorisation, because it would be in contradiction to His absolute truth and sanctity."

And he repeats the oft-repeated saw, "that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated."

Error, particularly in religious matters, is evil. Therefore it has no right to exist. It can, however, be tolerated for a greater good: "failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good."

The key is to define "right" as it has always been understood by Catholic philosophers and theologians - as a correlative of "duty." It is this which makes completely clear that the doctrine of Dignitatis Humanae is unacceptable and contrary to tradition and even to common sense.

DH does not give rights to error.  The rights have a different foundation as stated above:

The right is NOT founded on error as error, per se, has no right to exist.  The right is founded on the "superior good" of obeying the moral law and the dictates of conscience -- in spite of the error.  The mere fact of the error does not cancel the right associated with the superior good. 




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

(06-04-2009, 09:53 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 09:40 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 09:35 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: The problem with this entire discussion is that schoolman and GodFirst are proposing things incompatible with the clear teaching of Pope Pius XII. This was all hashed out in The American Ecclesistical Review and Fr. John Courtney Murray was silenced (unfortunately, only to be resurrected in Vatican II).

"Ci Riesce" Wrote:]Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above.

First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated.

Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.

Right, we are talking about a norm of morality.  As I said above:

Quote: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 moral right to fulfill his moral duties in order to avoid sin. 

LS, here is a simple way to put it -- that I think can help you see it in perfect conformity with Pius XII (above).  

The right is NOT founded on error as error, per se, has no right to exist.  The right is founded on the "superior good" of obeying the moral law and the dictates of conscience -- in spite of the error.  The mere fact of the error does not cancel the right associated with the superior good.

"obeying the moral law" CANNOT include practicing a false religion.


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

Quote:"obeying the moral law" CANNOT include practicing a false religion.

That's not correct.  Even an honestly erroneous conscience is binding under pain of sin.  The moral law commands that we obey it -- and failure to do so is a sin.  Now, the law cannot command and forbid the same thing -- and that is why there is a correlative right to do our moral duty. 





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

(06-04-2009, 10:19 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
Quote:"obeying the moral law" CANNOT include practicing a false religion.

That's not correct.  Even an honestly erroneous conscience is binding under pain of sin.  The moral law commands that we obey it -- and failure to do so is a sin.  Now, the law cannot command and forbid the same thing -- and that is why there is a correlative right to do our moral duty. 

I must be mistaken. I'm not asking this sarcastically or cynically; I'm asking this seriously: how can a conscience be "erronious"? Where is this in Catholic theology? The conscience is directed by God to always seek Objective Truth. If a conscience is misled, it is the product of the rejection of grace.