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 - 06-05-2009

(06-05-2009, 04:32 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 04:27 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 04:05 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 03:52 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 02:17 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 02:01 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
"schoolman" Wrote:Of course they support exactly what I am saying:

1) Man has a moral duty under pain of sin to obey the dictates of conscience -- even when honestly erroneous
2) The moral law confers the moral right (due freedom of conscience) to fulfill ones moral duties (the duties of conscience)
3) The right to freedom of conscience is not unlimited or unqualified -- but subject to due limits (as stated below).

I don't think it supports you. Ci Riesce does not, at least.

I think the problem here may be a misunderstanding of invincible ignorance. Invincible ignorance is not a virtue, it merely excuses a breach of the law. Those truly invincibly of their duty to join the Catholic Church must somehow be within the Church to be saved. The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means and while invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the necessary means.

Well, you are simply wrong insofar as you deny that an honestly erroneous conscience binds under pain of sin (see again the quotes provided above) -- and insofar as obedience to the certain dictates of conscience is a virtue -- in spite of honest error. 

I have shown that this is not so. I mean no offense and do not intend to attack you, but you consistently ignore the requirement of every soul to respond to God's grace. I made this distinction in my last post. This is not to say that someone is not morally obligated to follow an "invincibly erroneous conscience"; rather, this is to say that the consience cannot be in error when led by grace accepted by the soul. And we also know that we are all obliged to accept the grace of God to seek Objective Truth.

A conscience can only be in error when it, devoid of sufficient grace, is substantiated by the honest, yet fallible, intellect. God will continuously send this person grace. He is justified in seeking the Truth with his intellect, but not in ignoring the grace which actively compels all men to find Truth.

Consider: 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. The intellect is meant to cooperate with the grace given to the soul, not to act against it. Furthermore, rejecting grace to follow the "invincibly erroneous conscience" of the honest intellect is never a legitimate defense before the throne of God.

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

Edit: Grace does not settle on untruth; only the independent intellect can settle on untruth. There is no justification for the intellect to remain independent in matters of discerning Truth. The intellect must cooperate with the acceptance of grace.

I have news for you.  There are people in the state of grace that are in [innocent] error regarding a great number of things -- in spite of the assistance of divine grace.  The acceptance of grace does not equate to full enlightenment or infallibility.

Newschoolman:

Please, I'm trying to remain patient, and I apologize if I'm sounding rude, but I don't understand how you can actually believe what you are saying.

This is not news. We are not talking about "a great number of things". We are talking about religious Truth - the One True Church, the Catholic Church - as it relates to religious liberty. What we cannot know from grace will be disclosed to us through the Church.

Quote: The acceptance of grace does not equate to full enlightenment or infallibility.

You know that I did not say or imply this. I have repeatedly stressed that human intellect, by its very nature, is fallible. The instructions of grace are not as they come directly from God. Full enlightment is not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is religious Truth.

I was talking about religious truth.  Many in the state of grace remain honestly ignorant concerning various aspects of religious truth.  Do you deny it?

No, I do not deny this. But we are not talking about various aspects of religious Truth. We are talking about the recognition of the One True Church of Christ, the discernment of Objective Truth that culminates in a soul's union with the Roman Catholic Church.

Edit (please read): My bold is not intended to be read as emotional shouting. My bold is intended as emphasis on the subject of this debate.


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

(06-05-2009, 02:41 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 02:29 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: I might be wrong about a few things here but Ci Riesce does not support your view. The last quote speaks of tolerance of error, not a right to be tolerated.

Tolerance and right are not necessarily opposed -- they can both co-exist.  Here is the necessary distinction -- we tolerate for 1 of 2 reasons:

1) Toleration in order to avoid greater evils (here there is no right for the erring person insofar as his error is vincible)
2) Toleration for the sake of a superior good which the erring person has a claim to in justice (e.g., the right to fulfill his moral duty as a means to his last end).

In this second case, the [error] is tolerated for the sake of a superior good and tolerance and right are not opposed.

"the right to fulfill his moral duty as a means to his last end"

Here we have something interesting. Adherence to a false religion or sect as a means to his last end? This is why the DH teaching on religious liberty must be worked with the "modern" definition of the Church (contrary to the definition found in Mystici Corporis). They go together.

The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means. Invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the want of a necessary means. That necessary means IS the Catholic Church.




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

(06-05-2009, 08:29 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 02:41 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 02:29 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: I might be wrong about a few things here but Ci Riesce does not support your view. The last quote speaks of tolerance of error, not a right to be tolerated.

Tolerance and right are not necessarily opposed -- they can both co-exist.  Here is the necessary distinction -- we tolerate for 1 of 2 reasons:

1) Toleration in order to avoid greater evils (here there is no right for the erring person insofar as his error is vincible)
2) Toleration for the sake of a superior good which the erring person has a claim to in justice (e.g., the right to fulfill his moral duty as a means to his last end).

In this second case, the [error] is tolerated for the sake of a superior good and tolerance and right are not opposed.

"the right to fulfill his moral duty as a means to his last end"

Here we have something interesting. Adherence to a false religion or sect as a means to his last end? This is why the DH teaching on religious liberty must be worked with the "modern" definition of the Church (contrary to the definition found in Mystici Corporis). They go together.

The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means. Invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the want of a necessary means. That necessary means IS the Catholic Church.

No, the duty and corresponding right has do do with obeying a certain conscience -- whether correct or honestly erring.  The right is not founded on the error insofar as error has no rights -- but it exists even in spite of it by virtue of the superior good.  Yes, to deny due freedom of conscience is to deny man a means to his last end... 

Man’s right to moral integrity is violated in the following ways:
By refusing him due freedom of conscience.  The right to be free to follow conscience has first a negative aspect.  No one may be compelled to do what his conscience says is wrong, not even when conscience is invincibly erroneous.  The right is inalienable; no one may surrender it since it is necessary in order to fulfill the absolute obligation of avoiding evil.  It is indefeasible and may not be taken away by any authority.  To do so would deprive the individual of an essential means to his last end…But must a man always be free to do what conscience says must be done?  He should be so free except when the act would militate against the common good or the equivalent good of another person.  (Fr. Thomas J. Higgins, S.J., Man as Man: The Science and Art of Ethics, TAN Publishers, 1958, 1992, pp. 353-354)


   


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

lamentabili sane Wrote:Here we have something interesting. Adherence to a false religion or sect as a means to his last end? This is why the DH teaching on religious liberty must be worked with the "modern" definition of the Church (contrary to the definition found in Mystici Corporis). They go together.

The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means. Invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the want of a necessary means. That necessary means IS the Catholic Church.
So are you trying to say that salvation is impossible to all non-Catholics who are in invincible ignorance over the Catholic Church being the one and only true Church and way of salvation?
Are you a follower of Fr. Feeney?


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

(06-05-2009, 11:49 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
lamentabili sane Wrote:Here we have something interesting. Adherence to a false religion or sect as a means to his last end? This is why the DH teaching on religious liberty must be worked with the "modern" definition of the Church (contrary to the definition found in Mystici Corporis). They go together.

The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means. Invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the want of a necessary means. That necessary means IS the Catholic Church.
So are you trying to say that salvation is impossible to all non-Catholics who are in invincible ignorance over the Catholic Church being the one and only true Church and way of salvation?
Are you a follower of Fr. Feeney?

The CE notes the following:

Pius IX, in a letter to the bishops of Italy (10 Aug., 1863), restates this Catholic doctrine: 'It is known to Us and to You that they who are in invincible ignorance concerning our religion but observe the natural law . . . and are ready to obey God and lead an honest and righteous life, can, with the help of Divine light and grace, attain to eternal life . . . for God . . . will not allow any one to be eternally punished who is not willfully guilty' (Denzinger, "Enchir.", n. 1529).


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

(06-05-2009, 11:49 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
lamentabili sane Wrote:Here we have something interesting. Adherence to a false religion or sect as a means to his last end? This is why the DH teaching on religious liberty must be worked with the "modern" definition of the Church (contrary to the definition found in Mystici Corporis). They go together.

The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means. Invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the want of a necessary means. That necessary means IS the Catholic Church.
So are you trying to say that salvation is impossible to all non-Catholics who are in invincible ignorance over the Catholic Church being the one and only true Church and way of salvation?
Are you a follower of Fr. Feeney?

No. Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are teachings of the Church. St. Alphonsus gives them the theological note of de fide.

Without supernatural Faith one cannot be saved. A man who hasn't the Faith, whether he is guilty for that or not, cannot be saved.  This is de fide.  If he is innocent, God will send him further graces so that he may be enlightened and brought to salvation.  Which is all that Pope Pius IX is saying.  In that place he is merely cutting off accusations of injustice or "unfairness" against God, having just laid down that there isn't any salvation outside the Church.  In other words, "Don't worry about the invincibly ignorant - they won't be left to die in that state.  If they are truly innocent they will be brought to salvation by God's light and grace."  That is, by His LIGHT - which means, by being granted the light of true Faith.  None of this was controversial when everybody followed St. Thomas, but between the liberals (or those deceived by them, like schoolman) and the Feeneyites, it has all gotten tangled up.






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

(06-06-2009, 12:13 AM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 11:49 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
lamentabili sane Wrote:Here we have something interesting. Adherence to a false religion or sect as a means to his last end? This is why the DH teaching on religious liberty must be worked with the "modern" definition of the Church (contrary to the definition found in Mystici Corporis). They go together.

The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means. Invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the want of a necessary means. That necessary means IS the Catholic Church.
So are you trying to say that salvation is impossible to all non-Catholics who are in invincible ignorance over the Catholic Church being the one and only true Church and way of salvation?
Are you a follower of Fr. Feeney?

The CE notes the following:

Pius IX, in a letter to the bishops of Italy (10 Aug., 1863), restates this Catholic doctrine: 'It is known to Us and to You that they who are in invincible ignorance concerning our religion but observe the natural law . . . and are ready to obey God and lead an honest and righteous life, can, with the help of Divine light and grace, attain to eternal life . . . for God . . . will not allow any one to be eternally punished who is not willfully guilty' (Denzinger, "Enchir.", n. 1529).

"Pius IX" Wrote:QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS IX, AUGUST 10, 1863

7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;"[5] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;"[6] "He who does not believe will be condemned;"[7] "He who does not believe is already condemned;"[8] "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;"[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."[11]

9. God forbid that the children of the Catholic Church should even in any way be unfriendly to those who are not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith and love. On the contrary, let them be eager always to attend to their needs with all the kind services of Christian charity, whether they are poor or sick or suffering any other kind of visitation. First of all, let them rescue them from the darkness of the errors into which they have unhappily fallen and strive to guide them back to Catholic truth and to their most loving Mother who is ever holding out her maternal arms to receive them lovingly back into her fold. Thus, firmly founded in faith, hope, and charity and fruitful in every good work, they will gain eternal salvation.



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

newschoolman Wrote:
GodFirst Wrote:
lamentabili sane Wrote:Here we have something interesting. Adherence to a false religion or sect as a means to his last end? This is why the DH teaching on religious liberty must be worked with the "modern" definition of the Church (contrary to the definition found in Mystici Corporis). They go together.

The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means. Invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the want of a necessary means. That necessary means IS the Catholic Church.
So are you trying to say that salvation is impossible to all non-Catholics who are in invincible ignorance over the Catholic Church being the one and only true Church and way of salvation?
Are you a follower of Fr. Feeney?
The CE notes the following:

Pius IX, in a letter to the bishops of Italy (10 Aug., 1863), restates this Catholic doctrine: 'It is known to Us and to You that they who are in invincible ignorance concerning our religion but observe the natural law . . . and are ready to obey God and lead an honest and righteous life, can, with the help of Divine light and grace, attain to eternal life . . . for God . . . will not allow any one to be eternally punished who is not willfully guilty' (Denzinger, "Enchir.", n. 1529).
I wonder about such statements like these though, newschoolman. They don't exactly say that for such persons to "attain to eternal life" that visible and formal enterance into the Roman Catholic Church is not necessary. Do you have a magisterial quote that says such exactly?


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

lamentabili sane Wrote:No. Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are teachings of the Church. St. Alphonsus gives them the theological note of de fide.

Without supernatural Faith one cannot be saved. A man who hasn't the Faith, whether he is guilty for that or not, cannot be saved.  This is de fide.  If he is innocent, God will send him further graces so that he may be enlightened and brought to salvation.  Which is all that Pope Pius IX is saying.  In that place he is merely cutting off accusations of injustice or "unfairness" against God, having just laid down that there isn't any salvation outside the Church.  In other words, "Don't worry about the invincibly ignorant - they won't be left to die in that state.  If they are truly innocent they will be brought to salvation by God's light and grace."  That is, by His LIGHT - which means, by being granted the light of true Faith.  None of this was controversial when everybody followed St. Thomas, but between the liberals (or those deceived by them, like schoolman) and the Feeneyites, it has all gotten tangled up.
So are you saying that Supernatural Faith is equivalent with the articles of the Catholic Faith, that is, Catholic Dogmas? Can a such persons be saved by a Supernatural Faith which does not included an explicit belief in God's Triune Divine Nature? If not, then how did all the Old Testament Saints attain salvation? Or is God more demanding now after His Incarnation? I'm asking honestly.
I guess my overwhole question is: What is absolutely necessary to possess the Theoloogical (Supernatural) Virtue of Faith for adults, that is?


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

(06-06-2009, 08:15 AM)GodFirst Wrote:
newschoolman Wrote:
GodFirst Wrote:
lamentabili sane Wrote:Here we have something interesting. Adherence to a false religion or sect as a means to his last end? This is why the DH teaching on religious liberty must be worked with the "modern" definition of the Church (contrary to the definition found in Mystici Corporis). They go together.

The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means. Invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the want of a necessary means. That necessary means IS the Catholic Church.
So are you trying to say that salvation is impossible to all non-Catholics who are in invincible ignorance over the Catholic Church being the one and only true Church and way of salvation?
Are you a follower of Fr. Feeney?
The CE notes the following:

Pius IX, in a letter to the bishops of Italy (10 Aug., 1863), restates this Catholic doctrine: 'It is known to Us and to You that they who are in invincible ignorance concerning our religion but observe the natural law . . . and are ready to obey God and lead an honest and righteous life, can, with the help of Divine light and grace, attain to eternal life . . . for God . . . will not allow any one to be eternally punished who is not willfully guilty' (Denzinger, "Enchir.", n. 1529).
I wonder about such statements like these though, newschoolman. They don't exactly say that for such persons to "attain to eternal life" that visible and formal enterance into the Roman Catholic Church is not necessary. Do you have a magisterial quote that says such exactly?

For that you can refer to all of the doctrine regarding babtism of desire.  Basically, this has to do with God working grace in an extraordinary manner -- since He is not confined to the sacraments as means.  In any case, such souls can be part of the Catholic Church -- but not visibly or in a formally sacramental way.  Pius XII (Mystici Corporis) speaks of those "related" to the Church in such a manner.