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 - lamentabili sane - 06-05-2009

(06-05-2009, 11:51 AM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 11:45 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:only a correct conscience binds "absolutely and in every circumstrance"

This is key. Man has a duty to follow a correct conscience. There is no duty to follow an erroneous conscience, as it may be set aside (as St. Thomas says).

I know the section.  St. Thomas is referring to the possibility that an erroneous conscience can be either vincible or invincible.  If it is vincible then it does not bind because it can be detected and set aside.  He is not referring to invincible ignorance that cant be detected (as stated above). 

But althought truly invincible ignorance may excuse one from his duty to enter the Church, it cannot be said there is a then a right not to enter the Church.


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

(06-05-2009, 12:03 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 11:51 AM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 11:45 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:only a correct conscience binds "absolutely and in every circumstrance"

This is key. Man has a duty to follow a correct conscience. There is no duty to follow an erroneous conscience, as it may be set aside (as St. Thomas says).

I know the section.  St. Thomas is referring to the possibility that an erroneous conscience can be either vincible or invincible.  If it is vincible then it does not bind because it can be detected and set aside.  He is not referring to invincible ignorance that cant be detected (as stated above). 

But althought truly invincible ignorance may excuse one from his duty to enter the Church, it cannot be said there is a then a right not to enter the Church.

There is no such thing as a moral duty with no corresponding moral right to fulfill the duty.  That is a contradiction.  Man has the moral right to do his moral duty.  That is why it is a sin to compel or coerce someone into joining the Church.


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

(06-05-2009, 12:05 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 12:03 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 11:51 AM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 11:45 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:only a correct conscience binds "absolutely and in every circumstrance"

This is key. Man has a duty to follow a correct conscience. There is no duty to follow an erroneous conscience, as it may be set aside (as St. Thomas says).

I know the section.  St. Thomas is referring to the possibility that an erroneous conscience can be either vincible or invincible.  If it is vincible then it does not bind because it can be detected and set aside.  He is not referring to invincible ignorance that cant be detected (as stated above). 

But althought truly invincible ignorance may excuse one from his duty to enter the Church, it cannot be said there is a then a right not to enter the Church.

There is no such thing as a moral duty with no corresponding moral right to fulfill the duty.  That is a contradiction.  Man has the moral right to do his moral duty.  That is why it is a sin to compel or coerce someone into joining the Church.

Which is why there can be no right to follow an erroneous conscience. Were not even discussing forcing someone to join the Church.

There is no moral duty to follow an erroneous conscience.


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

(06-05-2009, 03:26 AM)GodFirst Wrote:
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.

Oh dear...

The fact that people are fallible is irrelevant as it pertains to the cooperation with the grace of God in this particular discussion. This discussion has a simple concept that is being avoided in favor of these little technical spurs that are not directly relevant. We're talking about being led to the Catholic Faith, the one True Church of God, by a conscience in cooperation with the grace of God, not theological uncertainties of the saints - these saints all had the true Catholic Faith. What is being discussed is religious freedom; or that's what is supposed to be being discussed.


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

(06-05-2009, 12:09 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 12:05 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 12:03 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 11:51 AM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 11:45 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:only a correct conscience binds "absolutely and in every circumstrance"

This is key. Man has a duty to follow a correct conscience. There is no duty to follow an erroneous conscience, as it may be set aside (as St. Thomas says).

I know the section.  St. Thomas is referring to the possibility that an erroneous conscience can be either vincible or invincible.  If it is vincible then it does not bind because it can be detected and set aside.  He is not referring to invincible ignorance that cant be detected (as stated above). 

But althought truly invincible ignorance may excuse one from his duty to enter the Church, it cannot be said there is a then a right not to enter the Church.

There is no such thing as a moral duty with no corresponding moral right to fulfill the duty.  That is a contradiction.  Man has the moral right to do his moral duty.  That is why it is a sin to compel or coerce someone into joining the Church.

Which is why there can be no right to follow an erroneous conscience. Were not even discussing forcing someone to join the Church.

There is no moral duty to follow an erroneous conscience.

There is no right (or duty) to follow a VINCIBLE erroneous conscience.  An invinvibly erroneous conscience must be obeyed as stated above and as quoted by several authorities.


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

(06-05-2009, 12:18 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 12:09 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 12:05 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 12:03 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 11:51 AM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 11:45 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:only a correct conscience binds "absolutely and in every circumstrance"

This is key. Man has a duty to follow a correct conscience. There is no duty to follow an erroneous conscience, as it may be set aside (as St. Thomas says).

I know the section.  St. Thomas is referring to the possibility that an erroneous conscience can be either vincible or invincible.  If it is vincible then it does not bind because it can be detected and set aside.  He is not referring to invincible ignorance that cant be detected (as stated above). 


But althought truly invincible ignorance may excuse one from his duty to enter the Church, it cannot be said there is a then a right not to enter the Church.

There is no such thing as a moral duty with no corresponding moral right to fulfill the duty.  That is a contradiction.  Man has the moral right to do his moral duty.  That is why it is a sin to compel or coerce someone into joining the Church.

Which is why there can be no right to follow an erroneous conscience. Were not even discussing forcing someone to join the Church.

There is no moral duty to follow an erroneous conscience.

There is no right (or duty) to follow a VINCIBLE erroneous conscience.  An invinvibly erroneous conscience must be obeyed as stated above and as quoted by several authorities.

Quote:vincible
One entry found.

   


Main Entry: vin·ci·ble 
Pronunciation: \ˈvin(t)-sə-bəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin vincibilis, from vincere to conquer — more at victor
Date: 1548
: capable of being overcome or subdued

A vincible conscience is able to be overcome or subdued and thereby properly instructed to seek Objective Truth with the grace of Almighty God. An invincible erroneous conscience is nothing more than the product of the intellect independent of cooperation with God's grace.



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

Here are some sources in case you missed them above:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
A Certain conscience must always be obeyed when it commands or forbids.  This holds for both the right and the erroneous conscience. (Cf. Jone, Moral Theology, TAN, p. 40)

=========================

Everyone is obliged to follow his conscience whether it commands or forbids some action, not only when it is true but also when it is in invincible error. (Cf. Prummer, Handbook of Moral Theology, Roman Catholic Books, p. 60)

=========================

Hence a certain conscience must be obeyed, not only when it is correct, but even when it is invincibly erroneous.  Conscience is the only guide a man has for the performance of concrete actions here and now.  But an invincibly erroneous conscience cannot by distinguished from a correct conscience.  Therefore if one were not obliged to follow a certain but invincibly erroneous conscience, one would not be obliged to follow a certain and correct conscience.  But one is obliged to follow a certain and correct conscience.  Therefore one is also obliged to follow a certain but invincibly erroneous conscience.  
The basic reason for this conclusion is that the will depends on the intellect to present the good to it.  The will act is good if it tends to the good presented by the intellect, bad if it tends to what the intellect judges evil.  Invincible error in the intellect does not change the goodness or badness of the will-act, in which morality essentially consists. (Cf. Fagothey, Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice, TAN, p. 214)  

============================

An invincibly erroneous conscience must be obeyed.
If a man is not obliged to follow an invincibly erroneous conscience; then he is not obliged to follow a correct conscience. Precisely because the error is invincible a man has no means of detecting it. Hence he cannot distinguish between a correct conscience and an invincibly erroneous conscience. Both are the same to him. Hence if he must obey in one case, he must obey in the other.
The same conclusion follows from a consideration of the will act.  The will act becomes good or bad inasmuch as it embraces an object, not as the object is in itself, but as the object is presented by the intellect as good or bad.  (Higgins, Man as Man, The Science and Art of Ethics, 1958, TAN Reprint 1992, p. 135)

==============================

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



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

(06-05-2009, 12:24 PM)newschoolman Wrote: Here are some sources in case you missed them above:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
A Certain conscience must always be obeyed when it commands or forbids.  This holds for both the right and the erroneous conscience. (Cf. Jone, Moral Theology, TAN, p. 40)

=========================

Everyone is obliged to follow his conscience whether it commands or forbids some action, not only when it is true but also when it is in invincible error. (Cf. Prummer, Handbook of Moral Theology, Roman Catholic Books, p. 60)

=========================

Hence a certain conscience must be obeyed, not only when it is correct, but even when it is invincibly erroneous.  Conscience is the only guide a man has for the performance of concrete actions here and now.  But an invincibly erroneous conscience cannot by distinguished from a correct conscience.  Therefore if one were not obliged to follow a certain but invincibly erroneous conscience, one would not be obliged to follow a certain and correct conscience.  But one is obliged to follow a certain and correct conscience.  Therefore one is also obliged to follow a certain but invincibly erroneous conscience.  
The basic reason for this conclusion is that the will depends on the intellect to present the good to it.  The will act is good if it tends to the good presented by the intellect, bad if it tends to what the intellect judges evil.  Invincible error in the intellect does not change the goodness or badness of the will-act, in which morality essentially consists. (Cf. Fagothey, Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice, TAN, p. 214)  

============================

An invincibly erroneous conscience must be obeyed.
If a man is not obliged to follow an invincibly erroneous conscience; then he is not obliged to follow a correct conscience. Precisely because the error is invincible a man has no means of detecting it. Hence he cannot distinguish between a correct conscience and an invincibly erroneous conscience. Both are the same to him. Hence if he must obey in one case, he must obey in the other.
The same conclusion follows from a consideration of the will act.  The will act becomes good or bad inasmuch as it embraces an object, not as the object is in itself, but as the object is presented by the intellect as good or bad.  (Higgins, Man as Man, The Science and Art of Ethics, 1958, TAN Reprint 1992, p. 135)

==============================

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

Those do not address the distinction made. Invincible: unable to be overcome or subdued.

God's grace can and does overcome and subdue untruth and error. All is vincible to God's grace. The invincible erroneous conscience is invincible only to the intellect. To say that the intellect cannot be overcome by grace is false.


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

(06-05-2009, 12:30 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 12:24 PM)newschoolman Wrote: Here are some sources in case you missed them above:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
A Certain conscience must always be obeyed when it commands or forbids.  This holds for both the right and the erroneous conscience. (Cf. Jone, Moral Theology, TAN, p. 40)

=========================

Everyone is obliged to follow his conscience whether it commands or forbids some action, not only when it is true but also when it is in invincible error. (Cf. Prummer, Handbook of Moral Theology, Roman Catholic Books, p. 60)

=========================

Hence a certain conscience must be obeyed, not only when it is correct, but even when it is invincibly erroneous.  Conscience is the only guide a man has for the performance of concrete actions here and now.  But an invincibly erroneous conscience cannot by distinguished from a correct conscience.  Therefore if one were not obliged to follow a certain but invincibly erroneous conscience, one would not be obliged to follow a certain and correct conscience.  But one is obliged to follow a certain and correct conscience.  Therefore one is also obliged to follow a certain but invincibly erroneous conscience.  
The basic reason for this conclusion is that the will depends on the intellect to present the good to it.  The will act is good if it tends to the good presented by the intellect, bad if it tends to what the intellect judges evil.  Invincible error in the intellect does not change the goodness or badness of the will-act, in which morality essentially consists. (Cf. Fagothey, Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice, TAN, p. 214)  

============================

An invincibly erroneous conscience must be obeyed.
If a man is not obliged to follow an invincibly erroneous conscience; then he is not obliged to follow a correct conscience. Precisely because the error is invincible a man has no means of detecting it. Hence he cannot distinguish between a correct conscience and an invincibly erroneous conscience. Both are the same to him. Hence if he must obey in one case, he must obey in the other.
The same conclusion follows from a consideration of the will act.  The will act becomes good or bad inasmuch as it embraces an object, not as the object is in itself, but as the object is presented by the intellect as good or bad.  (Higgins, Man as Man, The Science and Art of Ethics, 1958, TAN Reprint 1992, p. 135)

==============================

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

Those do not address the distinction made. Invincible: unable to be overcome or subdued.

God's grace can and does overcome and subdue untruth and error. All is vincible to God's grace. The invincible erroneous conscience is invincible only to the intellect. To say that the intellect cannot be overcome by grace is false.

You are in ERROR on this point -- denying that error can be invincible and blameless.  According to you, does that mean that you are guilty of rejecting God's grace and going to hell for your culpable error? 


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

(06-05-2009, 12:34 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 12:30 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 12:24 PM)newschoolman Wrote: Here are some sources in case you missed them above:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
A Certain conscience must always be obeyed when it commands or forbids.  This holds for both the right and the erroneous conscience. (Cf. Jone, Moral Theology, TAN, p. 40)

=========================

Everyone is obliged to follow his conscience whether it commands or forbids some action, not only when it is true but also when it is in invincible error. (Cf. Prummer, Handbook of Moral Theology, Roman Catholic Books, p. 60)

=========================

Hence a certain conscience must be obeyed, not only when it is correct, but even when it is invincibly erroneous.  Conscience is the only guide a man has for the performance of concrete actions here and now.  But an invincibly erroneous conscience cannot by distinguished from a correct conscience.  Therefore if one were not obliged to follow a certain but invincibly erroneous conscience, one would not be obliged to follow a certain and correct conscience.  But one is obliged to follow a certain and correct conscience.  Therefore one is also obliged to follow a certain but invincibly erroneous conscience.  
The basic reason for this conclusion is that the will depends on the intellect to present the good to it.  The will act is good if it tends to the good presented by the intellect, bad if it tends to what the intellect judges evil.  Invincible error in the intellect does not change the goodness or badness of the will-act, in which morality essentially consists. (Cf. Fagothey, Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice, TAN, p. 214)  

============================

An invincibly erroneous conscience must be obeyed.
If a man is not obliged to follow an invincibly erroneous conscience; then he is not obliged to follow a correct conscience. Precisely because the error is invincible a man has no means of detecting it. Hence he cannot distinguish between a correct conscience and an invincibly erroneous conscience. Both are the same to him. Hence if he must obey in one case, he must obey in the other.
The same conclusion follows from a consideration of the will act.  The will act becomes good or bad inasmuch as it embraces an object, not as the object is in itself, but as the object is presented by the intellect as good or bad.  (Higgins, Man as Man, The Science and Art of Ethics, 1958, TAN Reprint 1992, p. 135)

==============================

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

Those do not address the distinction made. Invincible: unable to be overcome or subdued.

God's grace can and does overcome and subdue untruth and error. All is vincible to God's grace. The invincible erroneous conscience is invincible only to the intellect. To say that the intellect cannot be overcome by grace is false.

You are in ERROR on this point -- denying that error can be invincible and blameless.  According to you, does that mean that you are guilty of rejecting God's grace and going to hell for your culpable error? 

Anyone who rejects God's grace supplied by Him to seek and discern the Truth is in error and anyone who subjects God's gift of grace in favor of his own fallible intellect, the product of which is an "invincibly" erroneous conscience, will be judged accordingly. If God supplies grace to a soul and the soul uses his own intellect in an attempt to apply it to the Truth, his conscience may err in that he never actually finds the Truth. But this conscience, guided by God yet hindered by the fallible intellect of man, does not rest content on that which is against Truth because God would not let this be so. This conscience cannot be led by grace to something untrue; it may never attain a complete understanding of Objective Truth, but it will actively seek and subject the intellect to the continuous instructions of the conscience.

Seek and you shall find.
It is a basic concept of Christianity. Only the independent intellect can be in error, not grace.

Edit: Haste makes waste.