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 - 06-03-2009

The notion that DH contradicts sacred Tradition is nonsense.  This article by Bishop Ketteler (1862) gives the proper perspective on the whole matter and distinguishes between true and false relgious freedom.  It is simply "Rupture Theology" to argue that DH contradicts prior teaching.

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


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - GodFirst - 06-03-2009

lamentabili sane Wrote:
GodFirst Wrote:Religious liberty properly understood with the principle of duties corresponding with right is a Catholic doctrine, namely, the holy Catholic Religion has liberty and no other religion does, because the Catholic Faith is Truth and no other is.That's not what Dignitatus Humanae says.
That's what you say. Please show where it says otherwise.

Quote:Have you ever read it?
Yes, and I can't disagree with this:
On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it.

This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force. The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.

Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.
[/quote]

Quote:
Quote:The teaching of Vatican II is almost verbatim the contrary of what was condemned.
Please explain how that is.
Here, from another thread:

lamentabili sane Wrote:
"McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology, vol. I. pp. 97,98." Wrote:292. Since rights and duties are correlative—there being a duty that corresponds to every right, and vice versa—and since both are regulated by law, the principles given for the apparent collision of laws can be applied to the apparent collision of rights.....

.....However one interprets Dignitatis Humanae, it doesn't say that.
That still doesn't show where or how DH doesn't say that. The contradiction has yet to be shown and explained to me so that I can understand it. I see nowhere DH says that human persons have a positive right to practice a false religion. It says this:
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.
There is a mental problem with people who can get "right to practice a false religion" from "immunity from coercion...to be forced to act contrary to belief".


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - newschoolman - 06-03-2009

Quote:292. Since rights and duties are correlative—there being a duty that corresponds to every right, and vice versa—and since both are regulated by law, the principles given for the apparent collision of laws can be applied to the apparent collision of rights.....

.....However one interprets Dignitatis Humanae, it doesn't say that.

Sure it does when it outlines the [due] limits of religious freedom -- natural rights have natural limits and are never unlimited and unqualified.  Basically, the right to exercise religious freedom ceases when it conflicts with an equivalent or superior right. 


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - lamentabili sane - 06-04-2009

Read post #46. And not you, schoolman...just anybody else who might be following this discussion.


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - newschoolman - 06-04-2009

Here is another traditional moral teaching that helps us to better understand DH:

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



Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - newschoolman - 06-04-2009

What about the teaching that the right to religious freedom can be exercised in private and in public?  Again the right is correlative to duty as noted below by the traditional moral teaching:

Quote:The Natural Law commands each individual to render internal and external worship to God...The obligation of divine worship does not only bind man as an individual; it binds him especially as a social being.  Religion is not confined to the hidden recesses of the soul or the privacy of one's room. It bears a social character and obligation. (Fr. Thomas J. Higgins, S.J., Man as Man: The Science and Art of Ethics, TAN Publishers, 1958, 1992, pp. 183-184)



Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - newschoolman - 06-04-2009

The essense of DH and (true) religious freedom was already noted by the Popes:

Quote:“...that every man in the State may follow the will of God and, from a consciousness of duty and free from every obstacle, obey His commands. This, indeed, is true liberty, a liberty worthy of the sons of God, which nobly maintains the dignity of man and is stronger than all violence or wrong -- a liberty which the Church has always desired and held most dear. This is the kind of liberty the Apostles claimed for themselves…” (Leo XIII, Libertas)

Quote:The believer has an absolute right to profess his faith and live according to its dictates. Laws which impede this profession and practice of faith are against the natural law. (Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, 1937)

Quote:Promote the respect of the fundamental rights of the human person - that is, the right to maintain and develop corporal, intellectual, and moral life, specifically the right to religious formation and education; the right to worship God in public and in private, including charitable religious action. (Pius XII, Radio Message of December 24, 1942)



Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - lamentabili sane - 06-04-2009

(06-04-2009, 10:24 AM)newschoolman Wrote: The essense of DH and (true) religious freedom was already noted by the Popes:

Quote:“...that every man in the State may follow the will of God and, from a consciousness of duty and free from every obstacle, obey His commands. This, indeed, is true liberty, a liberty worthy of the sons of God, which nobly maintains the dignity of man and is stronger than all violence or wrong -- a liberty which the Church has always desired and held most dear. This is the kind of liberty the Apostles claimed for themselves…” (Leo XIII, Libertas)

Quote:The believer has an absolute right to profess his faith and live according to its dictates. Laws which impede this profession and practice of faith are against the natural law. (Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, 1937)

Quote:Promote the respect of the fundamental rights of the human person - that is, the right to maintain and develop corporal, intellectual, and moral life, specifically the right to religious formation and education; the right to worship God in public and in private, including charitable religious action. (Pius XII, Radio Message of December 24, 1942)

The "believer" here is a Catholic. You are delusional.

"Pope Pius XII, Ci Riesce" Wrote:Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above.

First: 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.

Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.





Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - jovan66102 - 06-04-2009

(06-04-2009, 11:00 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 10:24 AM)newschoolman Wrote: The essense of DH and (true) religious freedom was already noted by the Popes:

Quote:“...that every man in the State may follow the will of God and, from a consciousness of duty and free from every obstacle, obey His commands. This, indeed, is true liberty, a liberty worthy of the sons of God, which nobly maintains the dignity of man and is stronger than all violence or wrong -- a liberty which the Church has always desired and held most dear. This is the kind of liberty the Apostles claimed for themselves…” (Leo XIII, Libertas)

Quote:The believer has an absolute right to profess his faith and live according to its dictates. Laws which impede this profession and practice of faith are against the natural law. (Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, 1937)

Quote:Promote the respect of the fundamental rights of the human person - that is, the right to maintain and develop corporal, intellectual, and moral life, specifically the right to religious formation and education; the right to worship God in public and in private, including charitable religious action. (Pius XII, Radio Message of December 24, 1942)

The "believer" here is a Catholic. You are delusional.

"Pope Pius XII, Ci Riesce" Wrote:Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above.

First: 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.

Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.

Nah. newschoolman obviously believes that a 'man ... may follow the will of God' by being a pagan idolater. No other explanation.


Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - GodFirst - 06-04-2009

As far as I'm concerned I cannot see where DH ever says that human persons have the right to practice what is not even religion (namely, a false "religion", that is, one that is not Catholic). All human persons have the right to practice religion freely, that's why God creates human persons, but only the Catholic Religion is truly Religion. DH makes it abundantly clear that knowning the truth obligates the conscience to obey what it dictates to do as well as each and every person's and society's traditional obligation to God and His Church, which is that they are to enter into Her to properly and truly worship God in spirit and in truth. DH is also clear that men have the ability to ignore this obligation until they come to believe the truth of it's necessity, thus providing against invalid baptisms and faithless Christians, or need I remind us here that a forced or coerced (adult) baptism is invalid.
If others, trad or otherwise, can interpret something else from DH's words, then I have to say they are either ignorant or have an agenda.
The words of the document may be rash and/or ambiguous but I believe that is as far as it goes. And that is enough for heresy to be stretched out of it as it was planned.