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 - 06-04-2009

(06-04-2009, 01:46 PM)GodFirst Wrote: 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.

"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."

This is NOT the traditional teaching of the Church. You are simply wrong here.





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

We have the freedom to practice any religion but not the right. Error and falsehood has no right.


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

(06-04-2009, 04:08 PM)didishroom Wrote: We have the freedom to practice any religion but not the right. Error and falsehood has no right.

Thank you.


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

lamentabili Wrote:"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."
This is NOT the traditional teaching of the Church. You are simply wrong here.
So are you saying it's not the teaching of the Catholic Church that all men are morally obligated to practice the Catholic Religion because It alone is the only True Religion and thus It alone can give Salvation? Every man has the right to practice True Religion which is the Catholic Religion alone as he chooses. There are many ways to practice the one Catholic Religion, as concerns your vocation and your Rite (or Ritual Particular Church). There is only one way to believe the one holy Catholic Faith.


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

(06-04-2009, 04:08 PM)didishroom Wrote: We have the freedom to practice any religion but not the right. Error and falsehood has no right.

Nobody has a right to this freedom. Error may be tolerated...that is all.

"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 - GodFirst - 06-04-2009

(06-04-2009, 04:08 PM)didishroom Wrote: We have the freedom to practice any religion but not the right. Error and falsehood has no right.
Error and falsehood have no rights, neither does truth in it's nature of mere knowledge. Persons or beings alone have rights, and each and every right they have has equivalent corresponding duty. Hence, since we all have the duty to practice the Catholic Religion, we all have the right to practice It.


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

(06-04-2009, 04:14 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
lamentabili Wrote:"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."
This is NOT the traditional teaching of the Church. You are simply wrong here.
So are you saying it's not the teaching of the Catholic Church that all men are morally obligated to practice the Catholic Religion because It alone is the only True Religion and thus It alone can give Salvation? Every man has the right to practice True Religion which is the Catholic Religion alone as he chooses. There are many ways to practice the one Catholic Religion, as concerns your vocation and your Rite (or Ritual Particular Church). There is only one way to believe the one holy Catholic Faith.

DH says a man has a right to absolute liberty in the practice of his religion...any religion. Unless he disturbs the public order.


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

lamentabili sane Wrote:
didishroom Wrote:We have the freedom to practice any religion but not the right. Error and falsehood has no right.
Nobody has a right to this freedom. Error may be tolerated...that is all.
Yes. But they do have the right "to be immune from coercion...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."

Men have the right to not be coerced into receiving Holy Baptism and thus the right to freely accept It, if they so desire.
There are some evils that MUST be tolerated, even though evil in itself has no right to be tolerated or even to exist. That's a fine distinction but a distinction nonetheless.


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

(06-04-2009, 04:17 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 04:08 PM)didishroom Wrote: We have the freedom to practice any religion but not the right. Error and falsehood has no right.
Error and falsehood have no rights, neither does truth in it's nature of mere knowledge. Persons or beings alone have rights, and each and every right they have has equivalent corresponding duty. Hence, since we all have the duty to practice the Catholic Religion, we all have the right to practice It.

And since there can be no duty to practice a false religion, there can be no right to practice it.

"LS" Wrote:Rights are correlatives of duties, and may be defined as the moral power to do, possess, or require of another, those things which duty makes necessary.

The problem is that if Vatican II (DH) meant anything comprehensible at all, it taught that a man has a natural right not to be interfered with in the exercise of whatever religion he chooses, within certain undefined limits. Now, if this is understood according to traditional terminology, it means that the state would offend against justice if it prohibited a man from practicing a false religion, unless that practice of a false religion also offended against some additional law (e.g. it disturbed the public peace in some way).

Consider that carefully - it is the assertion that the practice of a false religion is, in itself, something which may arise from the duties of man. But that is absurd and has been repeatedly condemned by popes and theologians. Again, here’s Pius XII, Ci Riesce: "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."

And he repeats the oft-repeated saw, "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."

Error, particularly in religious matters, is evil. Therefore it has no right to exist. It can, however, be tolerated for a greater good: "failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good."

The key is to define "right" as it has always been understood by Catholic philosophers and theologians - as a correlative of "duty." It is this which makes completely clear that the doctrine of Dignitatis Humanae is unacceptable and contrary to tradition and even to common sense.

Our opponents resort to a sophism (not intentional, I hope) to disguise this. They essentially assert that the "right" mentioned in Dignitatis Humanae is merely the right not to be interfered with by the state in the pursuit of the true religion, which necessarily implies that the state must grant more leeway than would be granted merely by protecting true worship, because a man needs some measure of liberty within which to discover the truth. This is clever, but it won't reconcile with the absolute principles laid down by traditional morality, and repeated by Pius XII in Ci Riesce:


"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.

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

Quote:But they do have the right "to be immune from coercion...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."

No, they do not, as explained above.





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

lamentabili Wrote:DH says a man has a right to absolute liberty in the practice of his religion...any religion. Unless he disturbs the public order.
Where? Show me the exact quote where the word "absolute" is use? Please!
Because I only read this:
....the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.