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 - 06-06-2009

I think the discussion on DH is now being confused with questions on grace, salvation, etc.  These are really distinct questions and should not be lumped together.  For example, freedom of conscience (and the right to immunity from coercion) in religious matters does NOT equate to sanctifying grace or salvation.  The two are as distinct as the natural and supernatural orders.  That is why freedom of conscience and religion is a topic of ethics or moral philosophy and not sacramental theology, etc.  In other words, natural rights have nothing directly to do with the supernatural order.  On the other hand, the orders of nature and grace are related and inter-dependent insofar as grace builds on nature.


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

(06-06-2009, 10:41 AM)newschoolman Wrote: I think the discussion on DH is now being confused with questions on grace, salvation, etc.  These are really distinct questions and should not be lumped together.  For example, freedom of conscience (and the right to immunity from coercion) in religious matters does NOT equate to sanctifying grace or salvation.  The two are as distinct as the natural and supernatural orders.  That is why freedom of conscience and religion is a topic of ethics or moral philosophy and not sacramental theology, etc.  In other words, natural rights have nothing directly to do with the supernatural order.  On the other hand, the orders of nature and grace are related and inter-dependent insofar as grace builds on nature.

All due respect, but you have introduced the confusion. Supernatural Faith is required for salvation. This has nothing to do with sacramental theology.

"freedom of conscience (and the right to immunity from coercion) in religious matters" is what is in question here. There is no such right.


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

(06-06-2009, 12:30 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-06-2009, 10:41 AM)newschoolman Wrote: I think the discussion on DH is now being confused with questions on grace, salvation, etc.  These are really distinct questions and should not be lumped together.  For example, freedom of conscience (and the right to immunity from coercion) in religious matters does NOT equate to sanctifying grace or salvation.  The two are as distinct as the natural and supernatural orders.  That is why freedom of conscience and religion is a topic of ethics or moral philosophy and not sacramental theology, etc.  In other words, natural rights have nothing directly to do with the supernatural order.  On the other hand, the orders of nature and grace are related and inter-dependent insofar as grace builds on nature.

All due respect, but you have introduced the confusion. Supernatural Faith is required for salvation. This has nothing to do with sacramental theology.

"freedom of conscience (and the right to immunity from coercion) in religious matters" is what is in question here. There is no such right.

Yes, supernatural faith is required for salvation -- but this has nothing to do with immunity from coercion.  In other words, man has the duty and right to FREELY accept the true religion.  Even if he does not do so the natural right remain.  He may go to Hell but the natural right to self determination remains.  Natural rights are distinct from the order of grace and salvation. 


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

Bishop Ketteler illustrates the distinction between the natural right aspect vs. grace & salvation as follows:

“Christianity accords to man his full right of self-determination and recognizes in this right his fullest dignity and nobility. In fact, Christianity by its doctrine of eternal damnation recognizes the ultimate consequence of this right, because this teaching implies that God will even permit men to eternally contradict Him rather than violate man's sacred right to self-determination." (Cf. Ketteler, Sermon on "The Christian Concept of Human Freedom", December 17, 1848)


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

(06-06-2009, 01:19 PM)newschoolman Wrote: Bishop Ketteler illustrates the distinction between the natural right aspect vs. grace & salvation as follows:

“Christianity accords to man his full right of self-determination and recognizes in this right his fullest dignity and nobility. In fact, Christianity by its doctrine of eternal damnation recognizes the ultimate consequence of this right, because this teaching implies that God will even permit men to eternally contradict Him rather than violate man's sacred right to self-determination." (Cf. Ketteler, Sermon on "The Christian Concept of Human Freedom", December 17, 1848)

I kind of disagree with "God will even permit men to eternally contradict Him rather than violate man's sacred right to self-determination."  on a technical basis.  As I understand it, after death, we have no chance of repentance, no hope of change from heaven or hell, etc.  So, our self-determination ends with our last breath, doesn't it?  That's how I see it.


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

(06-06-2009, 10:30 AM)newschoolman Wrote:
(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.

There is no doctrine for baptism of desire.


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

Quote:There is no doctrine for baptism of desire.

The theologians teach it  and it is certainly a doctrine of the Church. It is a sin of rashness to deny it knowingly. St. Alphonsus gives it the "note" of de fide:

Quote:Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.

Concerning Baptism

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water ["fluminis"], of desire ["flaminis" = wind] and of blood. We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato" and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved "without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it". Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality ["non ita stricte"] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive. It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.


Quote:St. Robert Bellarmine, Of The Church Militant, III, 3, “Of those who are not baptized
*“Martyrdom is rightly called, and is, a certain baptism.” (On the Sacrament of Baptism, Bk. I, Ch. VI, (Tom. 3, p. 120A)) “Concerning catechumens there is a greater difficulty, because they are faithful [have the faith] and can be saved if they die in this state, and yet outside the Church no one is saved, as outside the ark of Noah. […] I answer therefore that, when it is said outside the Church no one is saved, it must be understood of those who belong to her neither in actual fact nor in desire [desiderio], as theologians commonly speak on baptism. Because the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution [voto], therefore they can be saved. (Of The Church Militant, III, 3, “Of those who are not baptized”)



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

(06-06-2009, 08:23 AM)GodFirst Wrote:
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?

What is the nature of the act of faith made by a person who is invincibly ignorant of the divine authority of the Catholic Church? There is only one virtue of faith: supernaturally firm belief in all that God has revealed. Of course, a Catholic knows what God has revealed, at least in outline, but one who is invincibly ignorant of the Church does not. In this case, his faith must contain the disposition to believe whatever God has revealed, as soon as he shall become aware of it, and must be explicit as to the four essential articles of faith:

(i)  The existence of a single God
(ii)  That God will reward the just and punish the wicked
(iii) The triune nature of God
(iv) The Incarnation of God the Son for man's salvation.

(My understanding is that a minority of more recent theologians hold that only the first two articles suffice and this view is not condemned, though the contrary doctrine is preferred.)

God will make known His revelation of the necessary articles to anyone who is faithful to conscience, so that the necessary means of salvation may not be wanting to him. The statement that there is no salvation outside the Church is, therefore, absolutely true and admits of no exception whatsoever. For the purposes of eligibility for salvation, the Church includes not only recognized Catholics, but also catechumens and all those who, being invincibly ignorant of the duty to join her, possess true supernatural faith, explicit as to the necessary articles, allowing them to be counted Catholics in voto - by desire.

The faith which is absolutely necessary for salvation is a supernatural virtue moving one to believe firmly all that God has revealed, and is explicit as to the essential articles listed above. It cannot be replaced by Protestant "faith" meaning the impious and unjustified conviction that one's sins are forgiven (Dz. 802), or by natural knowledge of God's existence, or by mere opinion as to supernatural truths; nor can it be a faith having no object - it is necessary to believe what God has in fact revealed. What is necessary for salvation by necessity of means admits of no substitute, excuse or exception. Ignorance thereof is always either sinful in itself or permitted by God in consequence of other sins against one's conscience. What is necessary by precept, but not by necessity of means, admits exceptions in the case of invincible ignorance. God may allow exceptions to positive law, but not to dogma.

Thus it is not in every case absolutely necessary for salvation to be within the visible communion of the Catholic Church, but it is absolutely necessary to share the Church's faith and to be united with her at least in voto.






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

(06-06-2009, 02:43 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(06-06-2009, 01:19 PM)newschoolman Wrote: Bishop Ketteler illustrates the distinction between the natural right aspect vs. grace & salvation as follows:

“Christianity accords to man his full right of self-determination and recognizes in this right his fullest dignity and nobility. In fact, Christianity by its doctrine of eternal damnation recognizes the ultimate consequence of this right, because this teaching implies that God will even permit men to eternally contradict Him rather than violate man's sacred right to self-determination." (Cf. Ketteler, Sermon on "The Christian Concept of Human Freedom", December 17, 1848)

I kind of disagree with "God will even permit men to eternally contradict Him rather than violate man's sacred right to self-determination."  on a technical basis.  As I understand it, after death, we have no chance of repentance, no hope of change from heaven or hell, etc.  So, our self-determination ends with our last breath, doesn't it?  That's how I see it.

I understand it as self determination in this life -- even if it leads to eternal contradition in the next.


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

(06-06-2009, 10:13 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-06-2009, 02:43 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(06-06-2009, 01:19 PM)newschoolman Wrote: Bishop Ketteler illustrates the distinction between the natural right aspect vs. grace & salvation as follows:

“Christianity accords to man his full right of self-determination and recognizes in this right his fullest dignity and nobility. In fact, Christianity by its doctrine of eternal damnation recognizes the ultimate consequence of this right, because this teaching implies that God will even permit men to eternally contradict Him rather than violate man's sacred right to self-determination." (Cf. Ketteler, Sermon on "The Christian Concept of Human Freedom", December 17, 1848)

I kind of disagree with "God will even permit men to eternally contradict Him rather than violate man's sacred right to self-determination."  on a technical basis.  As I understand it, after death, we have no chance of repentance, no hope of change from heaven or hell, etc.  So, our self-determination ends with our last breath, doesn't it?  That's how I see it.

I understand it as self determination in this life -- even if it leads to eternal contradition in the next.

So Bp. Ketteler thought that "self-determination" was man's last end and true purpose? It sounds that way. I though man's fulfillment (reaching his fullest dignity and nobility) was the beatific vision?

Seems to contradict the penny catechism: "God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next."