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 - 06-06-2009

(06-06-2009, 08:35 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
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”)

The teachings of independent theologians are not part of the Extraordinary Magisterium. They are only that: teachings. They do not bear the mark on infalliblity. There is no Dogma of Baptism of Desire. The council of Trent implies it's existence, but did not define it as doctrine.

I am not deying that it exists, only that it is a part of the Extraordinary Magisterium.

Quote:From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“According to the Axiom: lex dubia non obligat, a doubtful law does not bind. But a law is doubtful when there is a solidly probable opinion against it. Hence it is lawful to follow a solidly probable opinion in favor of liberty. (cf. Tanquerey, Theologia Fundamentalis, n. 409)”

“In estimating the degree which is required and which suffices for solid probability, moralists lay down the general principle that an opinion is solidly probable which by reason of intrinsic or extrinsic arguments is able to gain the assent of many prudent men."

"All admit that extrinsic authority can have sufficient weight to make an opinion solidly probable; but there is divergence of view in estimating what number of experts is able to give an opinion this solid probability. The prevailing theory amongst Probabilists holds that if five or six theologians, notable for prudence and learning, independently adhere to an opinion their view is solidly probable, if it has not been set aside by authoritative decisions or by intrinsic arguments which they have failed to solve. Even one theologian of very exceptional authority, such as St. Alphonsus Liguori, is able to make an opinion solidly probable, as we know from the official declarations of the Holy See. All moralists agree that mere flimsy reasons are insufficient to give an opinion solid probability, and also that the support of many theologians who are mere collectors of the opinions of others is unable to give solid probability to the view which they maintain."

“If the less safe opinion is speculatively uncertain it is unlawful to follow it in practice, until all reasonable effort has been made to remove the uncertainty, by considering the arguments on both sides and by consulting available authorities. It is unlawful, also, to act on the less safe view unless the speculative uncertainty has been changed into practical certainty that the action to be performed is lawful. The whole question at issue between different moral systems concerns the way in which the speculative uncertainty is changed into practical certainty; each system has what is called a reflex principle of its own, by which practical certainty can be obtained that the action to be performed is lawful.

Baptism of desire is a solidly probable opinion, not Dogma.




Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - lamentabili sane - 06-07-2009

Quote:Baptism of desire is a solidly probable opinion, not Dogma.

I didn't mean it was a defined dogma. It is a truth that is taught by the moral unaniminity of theologians. It may not be heretical to deny it, but it is rash (at a minimum) to deny it.

"Scheeben" Wrote:2. The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth, may be easily gathered from the principles already stated. They are nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX to the Archbishop of Munich. The following are the criteria of a dogma of Faith: (a) Creeds or Symbols of Faith generally received; (b) dogmatic definitions of the Popes or of ecumenical councils, and of particular councils solemnly ratified; © the undoubtedly clear and indisputable sense of Holy Scripture in matters relating to Faith and morals; (d) the universal and constant teaching of the Apostolate, especially the public and permanent tradition of the Roman Church; (e) universal practice, especially in liturgical matters, where it clearly supposes and professes a truth as undoubtedly revealed ; (f) the teaching of the Fathers when manifest and universal; (g) the teaching of Theologians when manifest and universal.




Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - INPEFESS - 06-07-2009

(06-07-2009, 12:10 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:Baptism of desire is a solidly probable opinion, not Dogma.

I didn't mean it was a defined dogma. It is a truth that is taught by the moral unaniminity of theologians. It may not be heretical to deny it, but it is rash (at a minimum) to deny it.

"Scheeben" Wrote:2. The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth, may be easily gathered from the principles already stated. They are nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX to the Archbishop of Munich. The following are the criteria of a dogma of Faith: (a) Creeds or Symbols of Faith generally received; (b) dogmatic definitions of the Popes or of ecumenical councils, and of particular councils solemnly ratified; © the undoubtedly clear and indisputable sense of Holy Scripture in matters relating to Faith and morals; (d) the universal and constant teaching of the Apostolate, especially the public and permanent tradition of the Roman Church; (e) universal practice, especially in liturgical matters, where it clearly supposes and professes a truth as undoubtedly revealed ; (f) the teaching of the Fathers when manifest and universal; (g) the teaching of Theologians when manifest and universal.

Ok. Just as long as we understand each other.  :)


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - didishroom - 06-07-2009

Hahaha, INPEFESS, how did this come along to BOD?


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - newschoolman - 06-07-2009

(05-31-2009, 01:31 PM)dedalus28 Wrote: While I was impressed by Mr. Gurries' desire to have a scholarly article, I was amazed at the intellectual contortions he underwent in order to reconcile Vatican II with Catholicism.

I forwarded his article to some clerical friends, and Bishop Donald Sanborn responded first...

To get back to the topic at hand:

Stephen, has any other cleric offered a more substantive critique to "Rupture Theology"?  Have any agreed with it?  Are there clear difference in opinion from various quarters:  Sedes, SSPX, FSSP, etc?


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - INPEFESS - 06-07-2009

(06-07-2009, 12:19 PM)didishroom Wrote: Hahaha, INPEFESS, how did this come along to BOD?

;D

I have no clue! It shouldn't have, I know that much. The Truth is not found at the bottom of all this knowledge; the subject of the debate was forfeited many pages ago in favor of this endless red-herring such as: baptism of desire and of blood.




Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - lamentabili sane - 06-07-2009

(06-07-2009, 04:39 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(06-07-2009, 12:19 PM)didishroom Wrote: Hahaha, INPEFESS, how did this come along to BOD?

;D

I have no clue! It shouldn't have, I know that much. The Truth is not found at the bottom of all this knowledge; the subject of the debate was forfeited many pages ago in favor of this endless red-herring such as: baptism of desire and of blood.

This is what caused it to be brought up:

"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?



Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - lamentabili sane - 06-07-2009

(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.

Is this where "the debate was forfeited many pages ago"? :) If so, let's get back to it.

"CE" Wrote:"The natural law," says St. Thomas, "is an impression of the Divine Light in us, a participation of the eternal law in the rational creature." This law, as apprehended in the minds of individual men, is called "conscience"; and though it may suffer refraction in passing into the intellectual medium of each, it is not thereby so affected as to lose its character of being the Divine Law, but still has as such, the prerogative of commanding obedience. "The Divine Law," says Cardinal Gousset, "is the supreme rule of actions; our thoughts, desires, words, acts, all that man is, is subject to the domain of the law of God; and this law is the rule of our conduct by means of our conscience." Hence it is never lawful to go against our conscience; as the Fourth Lateran Council says, "Quidquid fit contra conscientiam, aedificat ad gehennam." . . . The rule and measure of duty is not utility, nor expedience, nor the happiness of the greatest number, nor State convenience, nor fitness, order, and the pulchrum. Conscience is not a long-sighted selfishness, nor a desire to be consistent with oneself; but it is a messenger from Him who both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by His representatives. Conscience is the aborigrinal Vicar of Christ, a prophet in its informations, a monarch in its peremptoriness, a priest in its blessings and anathemas, and even though the eternal priesthood throughout the Church could cease to be, in it the sacerdotal principle would remain and would have a sway.






Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - INPEFESS - 06-08-2009

(06-07-2009, 06:40 PM)lamentabili sane 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.

Is this where "the debate was forfeited many pages ago"? :) If so, let's get back to it.

"CE" Wrote:"The natural law," says St. Thomas, "is an impression of the Divine Light in us, a participation of the eternal law in the rational creature." This law, as apprehended in the minds of individual men, is called "conscience"; and though it may suffer refraction in passing into the intellectual medium of each, it is not thereby so affected as to lose its character of being the Divine Law, but still has as such, the prerogative of commanding obedience. "The Divine Law," says Cardinal Gousset, "is the supreme rule of actions; our thoughts, desires, words, acts, all that man is, is subject to the domain of the law of God; and this law is the rule of our conduct by means of our conscience." Hence it is never lawful to go against our conscience; as the Fourth Lateran Council says, "Quidquid fit contra conscientiam, aedificat ad gehennam." . . . The rule and measure of duty is not utility, nor expedience, nor the happiness of the greatest number, nor State convenience, nor fitness, order, and the pulchrum. Conscience is not a long-sighted selfishness, nor a desire to be consistent with oneself; but it is a messenger from Him who both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by His representatives. Conscience is the aborigrinal Vicar of Christ, a prophet in its informations, a monarch in its peremptoriness, a priest in its blessings and anathemas, and even though the eternal priesthood throughout the Church could cease to be, in it the sacerdotal principle would remain and would have a sway.

I mean no offense to anyone and am not referring to anyone specifically, but this debate is never going to reach a conclusion so long as the principle issues are consistently ignored.

The role of God’s grace in the conscience of every soul is not being considered, and my posts stating that this is so have been repeatedly ignored. It is an oversight absolutely detrimental to the conclusion of the debate.

Unfortunately, there was no single post that threw the debate off course; I’m afraid the point has been repeatedly sacrificed in favor of distractions since its beginning. Rather than address the trunk, we’re debating the twigs. 

Thank you for the citation from the CE. Hopefully, it clears things up. 



Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - lamentabili sane - 06-08-2009

(06-08-2009, 06:22 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(06-07-2009, 06:40 PM)lamentabili sane 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.

Is this where "the debate was forfeited many pages ago"? :) If so, let's get back to it.

"CE" Wrote:"The natural law," says St. Thomas, "is an impression of the Divine Light in us, a participation of the eternal law in the rational creature." This law, as apprehended in the minds of individual men, is called "conscience"; and though it may suffer refraction in passing into the intellectual medium of each, it is not thereby so affected as to lose its character of being the Divine Law, but still has as such, the prerogative of commanding obedience. "The Divine Law," says Cardinal Gousset, "is the supreme rule of actions; our thoughts, desires, words, acts, all that man is, is subject to the domain of the law of God; and this law is the rule of our conduct by means of our conscience." Hence it is never lawful to go against our conscience; as the Fourth Lateran Council says, "Quidquid fit contra conscientiam, aedificat ad gehennam." . . . The rule and measure of duty is not utility, nor expedience, nor the happiness of the greatest number, nor State convenience, nor fitness, order, and the pulchrum. Conscience is not a long-sighted selfishness, nor a desire to be consistent with oneself; but it is a messenger from Him who both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by His representatives. Conscience is the aborigrinal Vicar of Christ, a prophet in its informations, a monarch in its peremptoriness, a priest in its blessings and anathemas, and even though the eternal priesthood throughout the Church could cease to be, in it the sacerdotal principle would remain and would have a sway.

I mean no offense to anyone and am not referring to anyone specifically, but this debate is never going to reach a conclusion so long as the principle issues are consistently ignored.

The role of God’s grace in the conscience of every soul is not being considered, and my posts stating that this is so have been repeatedly ignored. It is an oversight absolutely detrimental to the conclusion of the debate.

Unfortunately, there was no single post that threw the debate off course; I’m afraid the point has been repeatedly sacrificed in favor of distractions since its beginning. Rather than address the trunk, we’re debating the twigs. 

Thank you for the citation from the CE. Hopefully, it clears things up. 

No offense taken here. Now if I seemed to ignore your posts, it is because I was looking for some sources to very specifically back it up. I thought you were correct but I don't trust myself all that much.

I said earlier that what is needed is a correct understanding of conscience. I am working on that right now. Also, one of the principles that cannot be ignored here is that error has no rights and can only be tolerated, with toleration being understood as a permission of an evil.

I also realize that schoolman is trying dearly to save his beloved council document (DH) and will not be convinced (at least not by me) that he has been deceived by the novelties of John Courtney Murray and all the rest.