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 - 06-09-2009

(06-09-2009, 09:17 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
Quote:You have argued that the "moral good" Pius XII speaks of in Ci Riesce is being obedient to conscience, which includes error of any kind, as long as it is invincible. DH gives a positive authorisation to error. You claim that an erring conscience can contain what is contrary to "religious truth and moral good".

No, you should go back and quote me.  I have said that the moral law commands under pain of sin that a certain conscience be obeyed -- even when honestly erroneous.

You have ignored what conscience actually is...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 cannot lead one to error in "religious truth and moral good" simply because 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".

Quote:"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.


Your understanding of conscience is an erroneous one, at odds with the traditional understanding of conscience. The drafters of DH did not believe that "error has no rights" and this is expressed in the document.

Quote:I  have said that man has a moral right to fulfill his moral duties.  I have also said that this  right is not by virtue of the "error" or founded on "error" -- but exists in spite of it -- for the sake of the superior good of obedience to  the moral law required by man in order to obtain his final end.  Finally, I have  provided  authoritative sources to  back all of this up.

No, you have not. You provided sources that say error must be tolerated and the pagans obeying the natural law should be tolerated. You are saying that a man has a moral duty (and corresponding right) to worship God as he sees fit and he should never be disturbed unless he violates the public order somehow.

DH teaches that error has rights. The drafters of DH admit this...why can't you?





Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - newschoolman - 06-09-2009

(06-09-2009, 10:18 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-09-2009, 09:17 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
Quote:You have argued that the "moral good" Pius XII speaks of in Ci Riesce is being obedient to conscience, which includes error of any kind, as long as it is invincible. DH gives a positive authorisation to error. You claim that an erring conscience can contain what is contrary to "religious truth and moral good".

No, you should go back and quote me.  I have said that the moral law commands under pain of sin that a certain conscience be obeyed -- even when honestly erroneous.

You have ignored what conscience actually is...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 cannot lead one to error in "religious truth and moral good" simply because 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".

Quote:"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.


Your understanding of conscience is an erroneous one, at odds with the traditional understanding of conscience. The drafters of DH did not believe that "error has no rights" and this is expressed in the document.

Quote:I  have said that man has a moral right to fulfill his moral duties.  I have also said that this  right is not by virtue of the "error" or founded on "error" -- but exists in spite of it -- for the sake of the superior good of obedience to  the moral law required by man in order to obtain his final end.  Finally, I have  provided  authoritative sources to  back all of this up.

No, you have not. You provided sources that say error must be tolerated and the pagans obeying the natural law should be tolerated. You are saying that a man has a moral duty (and corresponding right) to worship God as he sees fit and he should never be disturbed unless he violates the public order somehow.

DH teaches that error has rights. The drafters of DH admit this...why can't you?

So, according to your understanding, an  honest conscience can never be erroneous?  In other words, it is always enlighted by God in all of the particulars of the Divine law and of the Faith?  Is that your view?


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - newschoolman - 06-09-2009

Quote:No, you have not. You provided sources that say error must be tolerated and the pagans obeying the natural law should be tolerated.

sure I have...sometimes tolerance is due in justice for the sake of a superior good -- for the sake of  those that have a moral right to do their moral duty -- in spite of honest error:

Quote:...the Church out of regard for those who in good conscience (though erroneous, but invincibly so) are of different opinion has been led to act and has acted with that tolerance, after she became the State Church under Constantine the Great and the other Christian emperors, always for higher and more cogent motives. So she acts today, and also in the future she will be faced with the same necessity. (Pius XII, Ci Riesce)

Quote:“As regards the other religious practices of unbelievers which go contrary to Christian beliefs but not counter to natural reason, there is no doubt but that the unbelievers, even though they are subjects, may not be forced to abandon them. Rather the Church has to tolerate them…The reason is that such observances do not in themselves violate the natural law, and therefore, the temporal power of even a Christian ruler does not confer a right to forbid them. Such action would be based on the fact that what is being done goes contrary to the Christian Faith, but that is not enough to compel those who are not subject to the spiritual authority of the Church. This opinion is also supported by the fact that such a ban would involve, to some extent, forcing people to accept the Faith; and that is never permitted.” (Suarez, Tract. de Fide Disp. 18 Sect. III, n. 10)



Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - lamentabili sane - 06-09-2009

(06-09-2009, 10:25 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-09-2009, 10:18 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-09-2009, 09:17 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
Quote:You have argued that the "moral good" Pius XII speaks of in Ci Riesce is being obedient to conscience, which includes error of any kind, as long as it is invincible. DH gives a positive authorisation to error. You claim that an erring conscience can contain what is contrary to "religious truth and moral good".

No, you should go back and quote me.  I have said that the moral law commands under pain of sin that a certain conscience be obeyed -- even when honestly erroneous.

You have ignored what conscience actually is...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 cannot lead one to error in "religious truth and moral good" simply because 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".

Quote:"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.


Your understanding of conscience is an erroneous one, at odds with the traditional understanding of conscience. The drafters of DH did not believe that "error has no rights" and this is expressed in the document.

Quote:I  have said that man has a moral right to fulfill his moral duties.  I have also said that this  right is not by virtue of the "error" or founded on "error" -- but exists in spite of it -- for the sake of the superior good of obedience to  the moral law required by man in order to obtain his final end.  Finally, I have  provided  authoritative sources to  back all of this up.

No, you have not. You provided sources that say error must be tolerated and the pagans obeying the natural law should be tolerated. You are saying that a man has a moral duty (and corresponding right) to worship God as he sees fit and he should never be disturbed unless he violates the public order somehow.

DH teaches that error has rights. The drafters of DH admit this...why can't you?

So, according to your understanding, an  honest conscience can never be erroneous?  In other words, it is always enlighted by God in all of the particulars of the Divine law and of the Faith?  Is that your view?

No.

Quote:"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.



Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - newschoolman - 06-09-2009

(06-09-2009, 10:49 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-09-2009, 10:25 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-09-2009, 10:18 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-09-2009, 09:17 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
Quote:You have argued that the "moral good" Pius XII speaks of in Ci Riesce is being obedient to conscience, which includes error of any kind, as long as it is invincible. DH gives a positive authorisation to error. You claim that an erring conscience can contain what is contrary to "religious truth and moral good".

No, you should go back and quote me.  I have said that the moral law commands under pain of sin that a certain conscience be obeyed -- even when honestly erroneous.

You have ignored what conscience actually is...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 cannot lead one to error in "religious truth and moral good" simply because 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".

Quote:"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.


Your understanding of conscience is an erroneous one, at odds with the traditional understanding of conscience. The drafters of DH did not believe that "error has no rights" and this is expressed in the document.

Quote:I  have said that man has a moral right to fulfill his moral duties.  I have also said that this  right is not by virtue of the "error" or founded on "error" -- but exists in spite of it -- for the sake of the superior good of obedience to  the moral law required by man in order to obtain his final end.  Finally, I have  provided  authoritative sources to  back all of this up.

No, you have not. You provided sources that say error must be tolerated and the pagans obeying the natural law should be tolerated. You are saying that a man has a moral duty (and corresponding right) to worship God as he sees fit and he should never be disturbed unless he violates the public order somehow.

DH teaches that error has rights. The drafters of DH admit this...why can't you?

So, according to your understanding, an  honest conscience can never be erroneous?  In other words, it is always enlighted by God in all of the particulars of the Divine law and of the Faith?  Is that your view?

No.

Quote:"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.

Good.  Then you should have no trouble with Pius XII who affirms that there are "men of good will" among non-Catholics -- those in "good conscience (though erroneous, but invincibly so)".


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - lamentabili sane - 06-09-2009

(06-09-2009, 10:30 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
Quote:No, you have not. You provided sources that say error must be tolerated and the pagans obeying the natural law should be tolerated.

sure I have...sometimes tolerance is due in justice for the sake of a superior good -- for the sake of  those that have a moral right to do their moral duty -- in spite of honest error:

Quote:...the Church out of regard for those who in good conscience (though erroneous, but invincibly so) are of different opinion has been led to act and has acted with that tolerance, after she became the State Church under Constantine the Great and the other Christian emperors, always for higher and more cogent motives. So she acts today, and also in the future she will be faced with the same necessity. (Pius XII, Ci Riesce)

"Pius XII, Ci Riesce" Wrote:"Above all, it must be clearly stated that no human authority, no state, no community of states, whatever be their religious character, can give a positive command or positive authorisation to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good. Such a command or such an authorization would have no obligatory power and would remain without effect. No authority may give such a command, because it is contrary to nature to oblige the spirit and the will of man to error and evil, or to consider one or the other as indifferent. Not even God could give such a positive command or positive authorisation, because it would be in contradiction to His absolute truth and sanctity."

"that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated."


Quote:“As regards the other religious practices of unbelievers which go contrary to Christian beliefs but not counter to natural reason, there is no doubt but that the unbelievers, even though they are subjects, may not be forced to abandon them. Rather the Church has to tolerate them…The reason is that such observances do not in themselves violate the natural law, and therefore, the temporal power of even a Christian ruler does not confer a right to forbid them. Such action would be based on the fact that what is being done goes contrary to the Christian Faith, but that is not enough to compel those who are not subject to the spiritual authority of the Church. This opinion is also supported by the fact that such a ban would involve, to some extent, forcing people to accept the Faith; and that is never permitted.” (Suarez, Tract. de Fide Disp. 18 Sect. III, n. 10)

Concerning tolerance and the Natural law.

Again, DH teaches that error has rights. The drafters of DH admit this...why can't you?



Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - newschoolman - 06-09-2009

(06-09-2009, 10:57 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-09-2009, 10:30 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
Quote:No, you have not. You provided sources that say error must be tolerated and the pagans obeying the natural law should be tolerated.

sure I have...sometimes tolerance is due in justice for the sake of a superior good -- for the sake of  those that have a moral right to do their moral duty -- in spite of honest error:

Quote:...the Church out of regard for those who in good conscience (though erroneous, but invincibly so) are of different opinion has been led to act and has acted with that tolerance, after she became the State Church under Constantine the Great and the other Christian emperors, always for higher and more cogent motives. So she acts today, and also in the future she will be faced with the same necessity. (Pius XII, Ci Riesce)

"Pius XII, Ci Riesce" Wrote:"Above all, it must be clearly stated that no human authority, no state, no community of states, whatever be their religious character, can give a positive command or positive authorisation to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good. Such a command or such an authorization would have no obligatory power and would remain without effect. No authority may give such a command, because it is contrary to nature to oblige the spirit and the will of man to error and evil, or to consider one or the other as indifferent. Not even God could give such a positive command or positive authorisation, because it would be in contradiction to His absolute truth and sanctity."

"that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated."


Quote:“As regards the other religious practices of unbelievers which go contrary to Christian beliefs but not counter to natural reason, there is no doubt but that the unbelievers, even though they are subjects, may not be forced to abandon them. Rather the Church has to tolerate them…The reason is that such observances do not in themselves violate the natural law, and therefore, the temporal power of even a Christian ruler does not confer a right to forbid them. Such action would be based on the fact that what is being done goes contrary to the Christian Faith, but that is not enough to compel those who are not subject to the spiritual authority of the Church. This opinion is also supported by the fact that such a ban would involve, to some extent, forcing people to accept the Faith; and that is never permitted.” (Suarez, Tract. de Fide Disp. 18 Sect. III, n. 10)

Concerning tolerance and the Natural law.

Again, DH teaches that error has rights. The drafters of DH admit this...why can't you?

Firstly, nobody is arguing that  civil authorities ought to force or coerce people to do things contrary to the moral law.

Secondly, DH does not teach that "error has rights".  That is why you can't produce a quote from DH to back it up.


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - newschoolman - 06-09-2009

Quote:Again, DH teaches that error has rights. The drafters of DH admit this...why can't you?

Again, it teaches no such thing.  In fact, the Catechism explicitly rejects it.  You are simply repeating a falsehood over and over.

Quote:2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.38

37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953, 799.
38 Cf. DH 2.




Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - lamentabili sane - 06-09-2009

(06-09-2009, 11:02 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-09-2009, 10:57 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-09-2009, 10:30 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
Quote:No, you have not. You provided sources that say error must be tolerated and the pagans obeying the natural law should be tolerated.

sure I have...sometimes tolerance is due in justice for the sake of a superior good -- for the sake of  those that have a moral right to do their moral duty -- in spite of honest error:

Quote:...the Church out of regard for those who in good conscience (though erroneous, but invincibly so) are of different opinion has been led to act and has acted with that tolerance, after she became the State Church under Constantine the Great and the other Christian emperors, always for higher and more cogent motives. So she acts today, and also in the future she will be faced with the same necessity. (Pius XII, Ci Riesce)

"Pius XII, Ci Riesce" Wrote:"Above all, it must be clearly stated that no human authority, no state, no community of states, whatever be their religious character, can give a positive command or positive authorisation to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good. Such a command or such an authorization would have no obligatory power and would remain without effect. No authority may give such a command, because it is contrary to nature to oblige the spirit and the will of man to error and evil, or to consider one or the other as indifferent. Not even God could give such a positive command or positive authorisation, because it would be in contradiction to His absolute truth and sanctity."

"that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated."


Quote:“As regards the other religious practices of unbelievers which go contrary to Christian beliefs but not counter to natural reason, there is no doubt but that the unbelievers, even though they are subjects, may not be forced to abandon them. Rather the Church has to tolerate them…The reason is that such observances do not in themselves violate the natural law, and therefore, the temporal power of even a Christian ruler does not confer a right to forbid them. Such action would be based on the fact that what is being done goes contrary to the Christian Faith, but that is not enough to compel those who are not subject to the spiritual authority of the Church. This opinion is also supported by the fact that such a ban would involve, to some extent, forcing people to accept the Faith; and that is never permitted.” (Suarez, Tract. de Fide Disp. 18 Sect. III, n. 10)

Concerning tolerance and the Natural law.

Again, DH teaches that error has rights. The drafters of DH admit this...why can't you?

Firstly, nobody is arguing that  civil authorities ought to force or coerce people to do things contrary to the moral law.

Secondly, DH does not teach that "error has rights".  That is why you can't produce a quote from DH to back it up.

DH declares a right to religious liberty...a freedom from coercion...it give error a right not to be supressed.

Quote:Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, “although the Church deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion, it does not, on that account, condemn those rulers who, for the sake of securing some great good or of hindering some great evil, patiently allow custom or usage to be a kind of sanction for each kind of religion having it’s place in the state” (Acta Leonis XIII, V, 141)

His Holiness Pius XII, confirming the principle expounded by Leo XIII, has said, “The duty of repressing moral and religious error cannot therefore be an ultimate norm of action. It must be subordinate to a higher and more general norms, which, in some circumstances, permit, and even perhaps seem to indicate as the better policy, toleration of error in order to promote a greater good.

There is a DUTY of repressing moral and religious error. In some circumstances it is PERMITTED to tolerate this error.



Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - newschoolman - 06-09-2009

"DH declares a right to religious liberty...a freedom from coercion...it give error a right not to be supressed."
**************************

No, it gives no such "right to error".  It gives a right to do ones moral duty -- in spite of error.