Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
#91
(06-04-2009, 06:58 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
INPEFESS Wrote:
GodFirst Wrote:Exactly what it says it is giving a right to, which is, the right to be free from being forced or coerced into doing something that is against your conscience.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I can't imagine how joining the Catholic Church could ever be objectively opposed to someone's conscience. I never really thought about it I guess. But considering we are required to love and seek Truth, and we know that God wants to lead everyone to Truth, I don't know how union with the True Church of Christ could ever be objectively opposed to the conscience. No, we can't force someone to forfeit his free will (this would be robbing him of his gift from God), but... Well, I think you know what I'm saying.

It's not OBJECTIVELY opposed to any RIGHTFUL IMFORMED conscience. But consciences can be misinformed or taught error and believe those errors as truth.

A conscience that is subject to teachings is not objective which defeats the whole purpose of the conscience. It has been created to oppose wrong teaching even if one does not understand why it is wrong. The consience guides teaching; teaching does not guide the conscience. The conscience is always objective in order to discern the evil in false teaching. The subjective conscience is that conscience which is being ignored.
Reply
#92
(06-04-2009, 07:03 PM)Borromeo Wrote: It is easy to sit here some 40 odd years later in the comfort of the grand ol' US of A where "freedom rings" behind a keyboard, having no concept of what it is like to be under a communist government.  For those of you against DH and Vatican II, I say to you, how short sighted and exceedingly arrogant you are. 

For those of you who think DH did a single thing to improve the state of the Church in those oppressive countries, I say to you, how naive you are.  All DH did was get the notion of a Catholic State written out of Constitutions to the detriment of the Church and the souls in those formerly Catholic countries.  The Church has always taught Religious Tolerance - that is different than Religious Freedom rooted in the "rights of man".  The apparent expansion of the concept has resulted in no good as the Church has always foreseen when it warned against it in the past.

Quote:God Bless our Pope and God bless the Catholic Church. 

Agreed.  But that has nothing to do with the Modernists who architected DH and the fallout from it.

Edit: for clarity
Reply
#93
(06-04-2009, 07:03 PM)Borromeo Wrote: I guess I don't understand why a key element is always missed or passed over in the debate/argument over DH.  At the time it was written the Catholic Church and her members were being persecuted and denied worship by the Communist in Eastern Europe, particularly Poland.  There was a very influential Polish archbishop who had a GREAT influence in the writing and pushing forth of DH.  That certain archbishop is a hero to many in Poland because he put his neck on the line, literally. 

It is easy to sit here some 40 odd years later in the comfort of the grand ol' US of A where "freedom rings" behind a keyboard, having no concept of what it is like to be under a communist government.  For those of you against DH and Vatican II, I say to you, how short sighted and exceedingly arrogant you are. 

God Bless our Pope and God bless the Catholic Church. 

"how short sighted and exceedingly arrogant you are"

Yes, I see. Was Pope Pius XII also "short sighted and exceedingly arrogant" ... well, since he wasn't from "the US of A" I guess he was just stupid for teaching what he taught 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.
Reply
#94
(06-04-2009, 07:03 PM)Borromeo Wrote: I guess I don't understand why a key element is always missed or passed over in the debate/argument over DH.  At the time it was written the Catholic Church and her members were being persecuted and denied worship by the Communist in Eastern Europe, particularly Poland.  There was a very influential Polish archbishop who had a GREAT influence in the writing and pushing forth of DH.  That certain archbishop is a hero to many in Poland because he put his neck on the line, literally. 

It is easy to sit here some 40 odd years later in the comfort of the grand ol' US of A where "freedom rings" behind a keyboard, having no concept of what it is like to be under a communist government.  For those of you against DH and Vatican II, I say to you, how short sighted and exceedingly arrogant you are.  . 

I should have put this in my first comment...

One of the main architects of DH was a Modernist American Jesuit who had been scolded by the Holy Office and his writings suppressed by his superior before V2.  The source of this line of thinking is deeply rooted in the U.S. system, not in those suffering under a Communist system.  If you read Fr. Murray's comments, you will see his line of thinking and his goals in working on DH speak for themselves.
Reply
#95
(06-04-2009, 07:06 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
lamentabili sane Wrote:No man has a duty to profess a false religion (it is evil), therefore they have no right to do so and may be stopped (coerced) from doing so. However, the common good also requires that at times they be tolerated.
To coerce is not always to merely stop someone from doing something.
Quote:co·erce  
TRANSITIVE VERB:
co·erced , co·erc·ing , co·erc·es
To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.
To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.
----------------------------
ETYMOLOGY:
Latin coercre, to control, restrain : co-, co- + arcre, to enclose, confine
They may be stopped from doing so but not by not coercion, that is, threats or intimidation.

I didn't say threaten or intimidate.

[size=10pt]Latin coercre, to control, restrain : co-, co- + arcre, to enclose, confine[/size]
Reply
#96
lamentabili sane Wrote:
"GodFirst" Wrote:Exactly what it says it is giving a right to, which is, the right to be free from being forced or coerced into doing something that is against your conscience.
Which means you have a right to do what your conscience says, like practice a false religion. That right must be tied to some duty to practice a false religion.
No. To say you have the right to freely find and accept the truth and not to be treatened into believing it, is not at all to say that you have the right to do whatever your conscience says. You are truly delusional if you can say that. Do you not see your illogical here. What you say above is like saying that just because the Church has the right to can stop people from practicing their false religion, that therefore, She has the right to force people to practice the True Religion, which as we know is not true for non-baptized souls.

Quote:
Quote:Tell me where the Church has ever taught that She has the right to force men to be baptized against their wills.
She does not. But that is not what the issue is here.
Yes, it is.
Reply
#97
(06-04-2009, 07:19 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(06-04-2009, 07:03 PM)Borromeo Wrote: I guess I don't understand why a key element is always missed or passed over in the debate/argument over DH.  At the time it was written the Catholic Church and her members were being persecuted and denied worship by the Communist in Eastern Europe, particularly Poland.  There was a very influential Polish archbishop who had a GREAT influence in the writing and pushing forth of DH.  That certain archbishop is a hero to many in Poland because he put his neck on the line, literally. 

It is easy to sit here some 40 odd years later in the comfort of the grand ol' US of A where "freedom rings" behind a keyboard, having no concept of what it is like to be under a communist government.  For those of you against DH and Vatican II, I say to you, how short sighted and exceedingly arrogant you are.  . 

I should have put this in my first comment...

One of the main architects of DH was a Modernist American Jesuit who had been scolded by the Holy Office and his writings suppressed by his superior before V2.  The source of this line of thinking is deeply rooted in the U.S. system, not in those suffering under a Communist system. If you read Fr. Murray's comments, you will see his line of thinking and his goals in working on DH speak for themselves.

Yes, and this battle was fought out in the 1950's in The American Ecclesiastical Review under Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton.
Reply
#98
lamentabili sane Wrote:
GodFirst Wrote:
Quote:TRANSITIVE VERB:
co·erced , co·erc·ing , co·erc·es
To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.
To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.
----------------------------
ETYMOLOGY:
Latin coercre, to control, restrain : co-, co- + arcre, to enclose, confine
They may be stopped from doing so but not by not coercion, that is, threats or intimidation.
I didn't say threaten or intimidate.
I never said you did but you did said COERCE and that is what coerce can means. See the above definition.
As I've said before, this is why English is a bad language to use for theological discussion.
Reply
#99
"GodFirst" Wrote:She has the right to force people to practice the True Religion, which as we know is not true for non-baptized souls.

Oh dear...
Reply
(06-04-2009, 07:25 PM)GodFirst Wrote:
lamentabili sane Wrote:
GodFirst Wrote:
Quote:TRANSITIVE VERB:
co·erced , co·erc·ing , co·erc·es
To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.
To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.
----------------------------
ETYMOLOGY:
Latin coercre, to control, restrain : co-, co- + arcre, to enclose, confine
They may be stopped from doing so but not by not coercion, that is, threats or intimidation.
I didn't say threaten or intimidate.
I never said you did but you did said COERCE and that is what coerce can means. See the above definition.
As I've said before, this is why English is a bad language to use for theological discussion.

I used the English word STOP, not intimidate or threaten. English seems only to be a problem to you.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)