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 - 06-09-2009

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

Yes, someties there is a positive duty to repress error and vice.  Sometimes there is a duty to tolerate it in order to  avoid greater evils.  In other cases there can be a duty to tolerate it for the sake of a superior good -- a superior right (i.e., those following the natural moral law).  Suarez explains each of these scenarios (below):

++++++++++++++++++++++

"It appears as though the religious practices of the unbelievers, notably all of the unbaptized as, e.g., pagans and Mohammedans, may not be tolerated in Christian nations since they involve superstition and injury to the honor that is owed to the true God, whose honor Christian rulers have an obligation to uphold.[12] St. Thomas, however, rightly distinguishes two kinds of religious practices: there are those which go against reason and against God insofar as he can be recognized through nature and through the natural powers of the soul, e.g., the worship of idols, etc. Others are contrary to the Christian religion and to its commands not because they are evil in themselves or contrary to reason as, for example, the practices of Jews and even many of the customs of Mohammedans and such unbelievers who believe in one true God.[13] 

Regarding the first, the Church may not tolerate them on the part of her own unbelieving subjects. But that is merely the general principle. It may happen often that Christian rulers cannot prevent even such practices without causing greater harm to the nation and to the Christian inhabitants. In that case, the ruler may tolerate such evil with a clear conscience on the basis of what Christ said to the servant who asked the master whether they should remove the weeds from the field. He replied, 'No, or perhaps while you are gathering the tares you will root up the wheat with them.' (idid. sect. IV, n. 9)

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.[14]  St. Gregory addressed himself clearly to this problem regarding Jews, and he forbade anyone to deprive them of their synagogues or to prevent them from observing their religious practices therein. (Lib. I Epistol. 34) Elsewhere he reaffirmed that no one should prevent Jews from participating in their religious observances. (Lib. II. Ep. 15) 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. (ibid. n. 10)

http://remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2008-1115-religious_freedom_and_the_cathol.htm



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

(06-09-2009, 11:33 PM)newschoolman Wrote: "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. 

The drafters of DH denied that "error has no rights".



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

(06-09-2009, 11:36 PM)newschoolman Wrote: "There is a DUTY of repressing moral and religious error. In some circumstances it is PERMITTED to tolerate this error."
******************

Yes, someties there is a positive duty to repress error and vice.  Sometimes there is a duty to tolerate it in order to  avoid greater evils.  In other cases there can be a duty to tolerate it for the sake of a superior good -- a superior right.  Suarez explains each of these scenarios (below):

++++++++++++++++++++++

"It appears as though the religious practices of the unbelievers, notably all of the unbaptized as, e.g., pagans and Mohammedans, may not be tolerated in Christian nations since they involve superstition and injury to the honor that is owed to the true God, whose honor Christian rulers have an obligation to uphold.[12] St. Thomas, however, rightly distinguishes two kinds of religious practices: there are those which go against reason and against God insofar as he can be recognized through nature and through the natural powers of the soul, e.g., the worship of idols, etc. Others are contrary to the Christian religion and to its commands not because they are evil in themselves or contrary to reason as, for example, the practices of Jews and even many of the customs of Mohammedans and such unbelievers who believe in one true God.[13] 

Regarding the first, the Church may not tolerate them on the part of her own unbelieving subjects. But that is merely the general principle. It may happen often that Christian rulers cannot prevent even such practices without causing greater harm to the nation and to the Christian inhabitants. In that case, the ruler may tolerate such evil with a clear conscience on the basis of what Christ said to the servant who asked the master whether they should remove the weeds from the field. He replied, 'No, or perhaps while you are gathering the tares you will root up the wheat with them.' (idid. sect. IV, n. 9)

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.[14]  St. Gregory addressed himself clearly to this problem regarding Jews, and he forbade anyone to deprive them of their synagogues or to prevent them from observing their religious practices therein. (Lib. I Epistol. 34) Elsewhere he reaffirmed that no one should prevent Jews from participating in their religious observances. (Lib. II. Ep. 15) 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. (ibid. n. 10)

http://remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2008-1115-religious_freedom_and_the_cathol.htm

Again, this is TOLERATION. DH isn't about toleration...it's about a RIGHT.

Quote:2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.




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

"The drafters of DH denied that "error has no rights"."
=======================

I  am referring to the text itself and what the Church teaches regarding the text as expressed in the Catechism (see below):


(06-09-2009, 11:07 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
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

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...

A right to do what? The Civil liberty to do what?  To do as one pleases as long as it does not disturb the public order. That's a right to error.


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

"Again, this is TOLERATION. DH isn't about toleration...it's about a RIGHT."
==================================

Its about both -- as these are not opposed.  In the 3rd scenario (below) the Church HAS to tolerate to the extent that the individuals do not violate natural  moral  law.  Individuals have a moral right to do  their moral duty.  



(06-09-2009, 11:36 PM)newschoolman Wrote: "There is a DUTY of repressing moral and religious error. In some circumstances it is PERMITTED to tolerate this error."
******************

Yes, someties there is a positive duty to repress error and vice.  Sometimes there is a duty to tolerate it in order to  avoid greater evils.  In other cases there can be a duty to tolerate it for the sake of a superior good -- a superior right (i.e., those following the natural moral law).  Suarez explains each of these scenarios (below):

++++++++++++++++++++++

"It appears as though the religious practices of the unbelievers, notably all of the unbaptized as, e.g., pagans and Mohammedans, may not be tolerated in Christian nations since they involve superstition and injury to the honor that is owed to the true God, whose honor Christian rulers have an obligation to uphold.[12] St. Thomas, however, rightly distinguishes two kinds of religious practices: there are those which go against reason and against God insofar as he can be recognized through nature and through the natural powers of the soul, e.g., the worship of idols, etc. Others are contrary to the Christian religion and to its commands not because they are evil in themselves or contrary to reason as, for example, the practices of Jews and even many of the customs of Mohammedans and such unbelievers who believe in one true God.[13] 

Regarding the first, the Church may not tolerate them on the part of her own unbelieving subjects. But that is merely the general principle. It may happen often that Christian rulers cannot prevent even such practices without causing greater harm to the nation and to the Christian inhabitants. In that case, the ruler may tolerate such evil with a clear conscience on the basis of what Christ said to the servant who asked the master whether they should remove the weeds from the field. He replied, 'No, or perhaps while you are gathering the tares you will root up the wheat with them.' (idid. sect. IV, n. 9)

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.[14]  St. Gregory addressed himself clearly to this problem regarding Jews, and he forbade anyone to deprive them of their synagogues or to prevent them from observing their religious practices therein. (Lib. I Epistol. 34) Elsewhere he reaffirmed that no one should prevent Jews from participating in their religious observances. (Lib. II. Ep. 15) 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. (ibid. n. 10)

http://remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2008-1115-religious_freedom_and_the_cathol.htm



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

(06-09-2009, 11:49 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
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...

A right to do what? The Civil liberty to do what?  To do as one pleases as long as it does not disturb the public order. That's a right to error.

A right to fulfill their moral duties.


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

(06-09-2009, 11:52 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-09-2009, 11:49 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
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...

A right to do what? The Civil liberty to do what?  To do as one pleases as long as it does not disturb the public order. That's a right to error.

A right to fulfill their moral duties.

Or to to do as one pleases as long as it does not disturb the public order. That's a right to error.


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

Quote:2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

Where is "the duty of repressing moral and religious error" found in DH? This duty has a corresponding right. Where is it?


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - newschoolman - 06-10-2009

(06-09-2009, 11:54 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-09-2009, 11:52 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-09-2009, 11:49 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
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...

A right to do what? The Civil liberty to do what?  To do as one pleases as long as it does not disturb the public order. That's a right to error.

A right to fulfill their moral duties.

Or to to do as one pleases as long as it does not disturb the public order. That's a right to error.

No, I have to refer you back to  CCC #128.