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 - newschoolman - 06-05-2009

(06-05-2009, 01:00 AM)GodFirst Wrote:
newschoolman Wrote:...and one of my personal favorites:

"To act against one's honestly erroneous conscience is to sin." (Archbishop Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned, Angelus Press, p. 10)
WOW!

Does this mean if I believe that the Novus Ordo is evil I cannot attain it in conscience?

No, that may be a problem for non-Catholics -- but as a Catholic you are obliged to form your conscience by the teaching of the Church (magisterium) and the certainty that the sacraments are Holy and spotless -- its indefectibility.


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

Ok, I left the discussion for a while and, coming back, it is completely off topic. What is being discussed (or should be being discussed) is a conscience that is in cooperation with the grace of God to do objective good, to seek objective Truth, and to follow that Truth. We are not talking about our intellect's independent role in justifying the conscience of a soul non-responsive to the grace of God. Without grace, our intellect can form an "honestly erroneous conscience" because our intellects are, by their very nature, imperfect. However, a conscience in constant cooperation with grace cannot command something that is contrary to God's own law because a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand - God does not fight Himself with Himself. This "erroneous conscience" is impossible with the grace of God because God would never lead one away from the Truth. God only justifies the conscience of one who's "good willed" intellect substantiates an "honestly erroneous conscience."

Thank you all so far for this insightful debate and God bless you!


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

newschoolman Wrote:
GodFirst Wrote:Does this mean if I believe that the Novus Ordo is evil I cannot attain it in conscience?
No, that may be a problem for non-Catholics -- but as a Catholic you are obliged to form your conscience by the teaching of the Church (magisterium) and the certainty that the sacraments are Holy and spotless -- its indefectibility.
But we as Catholics though believe that they are not the Sacraments themselves but only forms of the sacraments. I can see that the new sacramental forms are at least apparently not holy and spotless. Yes, the Sacraments are and only can be Holy and Spotless. Where does the Church say that all the forms of the Sacraments are going to be holy and spotless. The new sacramental FORMS (NOT THE SACRAMENTS THEMSELVES NOR EVEN A PARTICULAR RITE) have lead to impiety and almost the whole sale destruction of our Holy Mother the Church. This is what my conscience tells me, for surely there is a cause to this Crisis and these present heresies. As well I see the fruits of the Holy Ghost being produced by the Society of Saint Pius X, but many others (but especially those who accept the new forms and most of all those who accept only the new forms) are devoid of the fruits of the Holy Ghosts, if not full of heresy and/or indifferentism.
I believe the Holy Ghost was guiding the mind of our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI when he wrote in his Motu Proprio "...sunt enim duo usus unici ritus romani.", that is, "They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.". Thus the new sacramental usages or forms are not a Rite itself and thus not protected by the Council of Trent's canon nor the Church's indefectibility concerning the Rites used in the administration of the Sacraments. Tell me, has the Church ever declared that mere usages or forms are protected by the Church's indefectibility? And please give your source.


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

INPEFESS Wrote:Without grace, our intellect can form an "honestly erroneous conscience" because our intellects are, by their very nature, imperfect. However, a conscience in constant cooperation with grace cannot command something that is contrary to God's own law because a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand - God does not fight Himself with Himself. This "erroneous conscience" is impossible with the grace of God because God would never lead one away from the Truth.
I'd disagree because we have many infallibly canonized Saints that differ with each other on the objective truth. Like during the Great Western Schism in which we had three different claimants to St. Peter's Chair, many Saints of that time supported different claimants (from what I've read anyway). Not to mention that many of the Saints were wrong on the objective truth at times. Like the Angelic Doctor, etc. Saints are human even with Sanctifying Grace. Sanctifying Grace does not prevent your humanity, that is, honest human ignorance. I would think there are many Saints who were very holy but knew just enough of the Faith. I try to remember that Faith and Charity are to be Theological not intellectual. Not that intellectual knowledge of the Faith is wrong or evil, far from it. Knowledge is a gift of the Holy Ghost.

Quote:God only justifies the conscience of one who's "good willed" intellect substantiates an "honestly erroneous conscience.
What do you mean "only justifies". I think God ignores honest ignorance. It's nothing to Him, because only sin is something to Him. Sin alone offends God, not ignorance of or being misinformed on some truth.


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

(06-05-2009, 01:00 AM)GodFirst Wrote:
newschoolman Wrote:...and one of my personal favorites:

"To act against one's honestly erroneous conscience is to sin." (Archbishop Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned, Angelus Press, p. 10)
WOW!

Does this mean if I believe that the Novus Ordo is evil I cannot attain it in conscience?

Yes, actually.  To knowingly violate one's conscience is a sin.


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

(06-05-2009, 02:15 AM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 01:00 AM)GodFirst Wrote:
newschoolman Wrote:...and one of my personal favorites:

"To act against one's honestly erroneous conscience is to sin." (Archbishop Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned, Angelus Press, p. 10)
WOW!

Does this mean if I believe that the Novus Ordo is evil I cannot attain it in conscience?

No, that may be a problem for non-Catholics -- but as a Catholic you are obliged to form your conscience by the teaching of the Church (magisterium) and the certainty that the sacraments are Holy and spotless -- its indefectibility.

We are bound to correct it, but we still cannot act against it when it is in error.  If I believe Communion-in-hand is sinful even though the Church says it is not, and I receive Communion-in-hand, I've placed myself in a bad position.  Well, that's a question of discipline not doctrine, but you understand my meaning.


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

(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. 

The V2 documents have not been "vetted" by theologians as one can clearly see from the fact that both JP2 and B16 have asked theologians to discern how they can be reconciled properly with tradition.  They were architected by Modernists and rushed through the Council after they hijacked it.  If they were thoroughly vetted before, the Popes wouldn't be asking for theological discernment after the fact.  Which is one thing that makes V2 different than say Trent - 50 years after Trent people weren't trying to reconcile that council with the Council of Nicea.

In any case, this is the "theological debate" subforum, so this type of discussion is appropriate here.  People learn things from debate if they keep an open mind.  If nothing else, researching to defend their position causes them to read so they learn more.  At the end of the day, while we may not convince each other, we hopefully learn something and sharpen our skills that we can mutually turn and point at Protestants, etc., who debate trying to destroy the Faith - everyone here, believe it or not, is trying to defend the Faith in their own way.

If it bothers you, or if you have nothing to contribute in the form of serious discussion, please enjoy the other subfora and avoid this one.


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

In any case, this is the "theological debate" subforum, so this type of discussion is appropriate here.  People learn things from debate if they keep an open mind

That's the key don't you think?  You're right, we can learn. 




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

I think we have established that man has a moral duty to obey conscience under pain of sin -- even when honestly erroneous.  Now the moral law does not issue duties without confering the corresponding right to fulfill our duty.  In other words, man has the moral right to fulfill his moral duties.  Does this conflict with the teaching of Pius XII that "error has no right to exist"?  Not at all as stated above:

Quote: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 - 06-05-2009

(06-05-2009, 04:10 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 01:00 AM)GodFirst Wrote:
newschoolman Wrote:...and one of my personal favorites:

"To act against one's honestly erroneous conscience is to sin." (Archbishop Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned, Angelus Press, p. 10)
WOW!

Does this mean if I believe that the Novus Ordo is evil I cannot attain it in conscience?

Yes, actually.  To knowingly violate one's conscience is a sin.

But I don't think that one can say that there is a right to follow one’s "conscience", if it involves a transgression of the moral law. Schoolman is saying there is a duty to follow one’s "conscience", even if it is in error…and it matters not what that error might be.

The proper definition of conscience is needed here.