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 - INPEFESS - 06-04-2009

(06-04-2009, 10:56 PM)Borromeo Wrote: LS

The link I gave to INPEFESS makes your point as well.  I suggest reading it. 

Give it up LS, you aint gonna win this one or any fight regarding Vatican II documents.  They have been thoroughly "vetted" by better theologians than you, me, newschoolman, Quis...How about this?  Instead of obsessing with what is WRONG with the Catholic Church why not try possessing what is RIGHT about it?  Live the Faith LS, don't argue it. 

???


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

(06-04-2009, 10:56 PM)Borromeo Wrote: LS

The link I gave to INPEFESS makes your point as well.  I suggest reading it. 

Give it up LS, you aint gonna win this one or any fight regarding Vatican II documents.  They have been thoroughly "vetted" by better theologians than you, me, newschoolman, Quis...How about this?  Instead of obsessing with what is WRONG with the Catholic Church why not try possessing what is RIGHT about it?  Live the Faith LS, don't argue it. 

What arrogance.

Nobody here is a theologian. Pius XII was a theologian and Pope and he clearly laid down the proper Catholic principles with respect to religious toleration in Ci Riesce. That's why I keep quoting him.


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

(06-04-2009, 11:11 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 10:56 PM)Borromeo Wrote: LS

The link I gave to INPEFESS makes your point as well.  I suggest reading it. 

Give it up LS, you ain't gonna win this one or any fight regarding Vatican II documents.  They have been thoroughly "vetted" by better theologians than you, me, newschoolman, Quis...How about this?  Instead of obsessing with what is WRONG with the Catholic Church why not try possessing what is RIGHT about it?  Live the Faith LS, don't argue it. 

What arrogance.

That's funny LS coming from you!  :laughing:  I'm just trying to match you "rad-trads!"  (Just kidding!)

In all seriousness though, with so much beauty in the Catholic Faith why focus on the negative?  How are we suppose to convert people if all we talk about is how "bad" the Church is?  Walking' around with these  sour faces.  Who would want to join a Church like that? 



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

You're the one bumpin' down my Fish Factor aren't you LS!?  :laughing:  That's funny! 


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

(06-04-2009, 11:21 PM)Borromeo Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 11:11 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 10:56 PM)Borromeo Wrote: LS

The link I gave to INPEFESS makes your point as well.  I suggest reading it. 

Give it up LS, you ain't gonna win this one or any fight regarding Vatican II documents.  They have been thoroughly "vetted" by better theologians than you, me, newschoolman, Quis...How about this?  Instead of obsessing with what is WRONG with the Catholic Church why not try possessing what is RIGHT about it?  Live the Faith LS, don't argue it. 

What arrogance.

That's funny LS coming from you!  :laughing:  I'm just trying to match you "rad-trads!"  (Just kidding!)

In all seriousness though, with so much beauty in the Catholic Faith why focus on the negative?  How are we suppose to convert people if all we talk about is how "bad" the Church is?  Walking' around with these  sour faces.  Who would want to join a Church like that? 

And then more arrogance... :)


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

(06-04-2009, 10:43 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: What schoolman is trying to claim (I think) is that the norm of morality can be contrary to truth in the case of a man who has an improperly formed conscience. What he fails to consider is that all men are bound by divine law to enter the Catholic Church.

You think?  I said it clearly.  The moral law commands that an honestly erroneous conscience be obeyed under pain of sin.  Look it up.  The moral duty has a corresponding right.  Nobody forgets the divine law -- and, we are talking about those who God holds morally blameless for their honest error.  God does not contradict Himself by commanding and forbidding the same thing.  Man is morally obliged to adhere to the Catholic faith in conformity to his conscience.  In fact, if one joins the Catholic Church against his conscience (certain that it is evil, for example) then he violates the moral law and commits a sin.   


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

(06-04-2009, 11:22 PM)Borromeo Wrote: You're the one bumpin' down my Fish Factor aren't you LS!?   :laughing:  That's funny! 

Oh, is that what it's for.  I guess we are in the same boat -- or bark.


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

(06-04-2009, 11:32 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 10:43 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: What schoolman is trying to claim (I think) is that the norm of morality can be contrary to truth in the case of a man who has an improperly formed conscience. What he fails to consider is that all men are bound by divine law to enter the Catholic Church.

You think?  I said it clearly.  The moral law commands that an honestly erroneous conscience be obeyed under pain of sin.  Look it up.  The moral duty has a corresponding right.  Nobody forgets the divine law -- and, we are talking about those who God holds morally blameless for their honest error.  God does not contradict Himself by commanding and forbidding the same thing.  Man is morally obliged to adhere to the Catholic faith in conformity to his conscience.  In fact, if one joins the Catholic Church against his conscience (certain that it is evil, for example) then he violates the moral law and commits a sin.   

I have looked it up. It is wrong. And it can't be squared with Ci Riesce.


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - newschoolman - 06-05-2009

(06-04-2009, 11:58 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 11:32 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 10:43 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: What schoolman is trying to claim (I think) is that the norm of morality can be contrary to truth in the case of a man who has an improperly formed conscience. What he fails to consider is that all men are bound by divine law to enter the Catholic Church.

You think?  I said it clearly.  The moral law commands that an honestly erroneous conscience be obeyed under pain of sin.  Look it up.  The moral duty has a corresponding right.  Nobody forgets the divine law -- and, we are talking about those who God holds morally blameless for their honest error.  God does not contradict Himself by commanding and forbidding the same thing.  Man is morally obliged to adhere to the Catholic faith in conformity to his conscience.  In fact, if one joins the Catholic Church against his conscience (certain that it is evil, for example) then he violates the moral law and commits a sin.   

I have looked it up. It is wrong. And it can't be squared with Ci Riesce.

LS, you are turning a blind eye on the facts.  Moral theology has been clear and consistent on this point for ever.  I think you wilfully choose not to see it. 


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - lamentabili sane - 06-05-2009

(06-05-2009, 12:04 AM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 11:58 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 11:32 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 10:43 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: What schoolman is trying to claim (I think) is that the norm of morality can be contrary to truth in the case of a man who has an improperly formed conscience. What he fails to consider is that all men are bound by divine law to enter the Catholic Church.

You think?  I said it clearly.  The moral law commands that an honestly erroneous conscience be obeyed under pain of sin.  Look it up.  The moral duty has a corresponding right.  Nobody forgets the divine law -- and, we are talking about those who God holds morally blameless for their honest error.  God does not contradict Himself by commanding and forbidding the same thing.  Man is morally obliged to adhere to the Catholic faith in conformity to his conscience.  In fact, if one joins the Catholic Church against his conscience (certain that it is evil, for example) then he violates the moral law and commits a sin.   

I have looked it up. It is wrong. And it can't be squared with Ci Rice.

LS, you are turning a blind eye on the facts.  Moral theology has been clear and consistent on this point for ever.  I think you wilfully choose not to see it.   

It is false. Conscience is not a little voice in your head that tells you what you should do.

A man has a moral right to act in conformity with the moral law. He has no right, in the strict sense of the term, to violate that law. A divine precept revealed to man constitutes a divine positive law. It is not possible to speak of a man's moral right to disregard or disobey such a divine precept.

"Ci Riesce" Wrote:"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."