Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
(06-10-2009, 05:43 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 05:34 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 05:04 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 04:33 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 02:29 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Oh, yes, that covers it. There is only a civil right to adhere to error.

No, there is no "right" founded on error.

There is a civil right to adhere to error.

"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."

So God cannot do it...but the civil governments can? DH says that civil governments MUST.

No, rights are never founded on error.  Rights can exist in spite of error -- but never founded on error.

We aren't even talking about being "founded on error". DH demands a civil right to adhere to error.

No, it does not demand "rights for error".  Yet error does not cancel a right founded on another superior good.  I refer you again to the teaching found in the Catechism (CCC# 2108). 
Reply
(06-10-2009, 06:02 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 05:43 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 05:34 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 05:04 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 04:33 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 02:29 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Oh, yes, that covers it. There is only a civil right to adhere to error.

No, there is no "right" founded on error.

There is a civil right to adhere to error.

"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."

So God cannot do it...but the civil governments can? DH says that civil governments MUST.

No, rights are never founded on error.  Rights can exist in spite of error -- but never founded on error.

We aren't even talking about being "founded on error". DH demands a civil right to adhere to error.

No, it does not demand "rights for error".  Yet error does not cancel a right founded on another superior good.  I refer you again to the teaching found in the Catechism (CCC# 2108). 

DH demands a CIVIL right to adhere to error.
Reply
(06-10-2009, 08:38 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 06:02 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 05:43 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 05:34 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 05:04 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 04:33 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 02:29 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Oh, yes, that covers it. There is only a civil right to adhere to error.

No, there is no "right" founded on error.

There is a civil right to adhere to error.

"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."

So God cannot do it...but the civil governments can? DH says that civil governments MUST.

No, rights are never founded on error.  Rights can exist in spite of error -- but never founded on error.

We aren't even talking about being "founded on error". DH demands a civil right to adhere to error.

No, it does not demand "rights for error".  Yet error does not cancel a right founded on another superior good.  I refer you again to the teaching found in the Catechism (CCC# 2108). 

DH demands a CIVIL right to adhere to error.

No, that is only your private interpretation of DH -- an interpretation that has been denounced by the teaching of the Church (CCC #2108).
Reply
By the way, thanks to those making me "fresh".  I finally made it to 12  I thought I was going to have to live with being "stinky" forever.  :)
Reply
(06-10-2009, 08:43 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 08:38 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 06:02 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 05:43 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 05:34 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 05:04 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 04:33 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 02:29 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: Oh, yes, that covers it. There is only a civil right to adhere to error.

No, there is no "right" founded on error.

There is a civil right to adhere to error.

"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."

So God cannot do it...but the civil governments can? DH says that civil governments MUST.

No, rights are never founded on error.  Rights can exist in spite of error -- but never founded on error.

We aren't even talking about being "founded on error". DH demands a civil right to adhere to error.

No, it does not demand "rights for error".  Yet error does not cancel a right founded on another superior good.  I refer you again to the teaching found in the Catechism (CCC# 2108). 

DH demands a CIVIL right to adhere to error.

No, that is only your private interpretation of DH -- an interpretation that has been denounced by the teaching of the Church (CCC #2108).

This IS supposedly the teaching of the Church:

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.

You can't ignore what it actually says, schoolman. But that's your game, isn't it?


Reply
G'donyer Bp. Sanborn!
Reply
(06-10-2009, 09:09 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: You can't ignore what it actually says, schoolman. But that's your game, isn't it?

Oh, he's been doing it and trying to reconcile the irreconcilable at least since I've been on the forum.
Reply
(06-12-2009, 01:20 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(06-10-2009, 09:09 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: You can't ignore what it actually says, schoolman. But that's your game, isn't it?

Oh, he's been doing it and trying to reconcile the irreconcilable at least since I've been on the forum.

Well, Newschoolman did a good job, but I don't think it can be done.

Newschoolman: Were you simply playing devil's advocate?
Reply
Quote:Moral Theology, McHugh and Callan, 1929. Explaining conscience (from the Summa, q. 79, aa. 11-13):

Definition:Conscience is an act of judgment on the part of the practical reason deciding by inference from general principles the moral goodness or malice of a particular act.

(a) It is an act, and as such it differs from moral knowledge and intellectual virtues,which are not transitory but enduring. Moral understanding (synderesis), by which everyone naturally perceives the truth of general and self-evident principles of morality [...] these are preparatory to the act of conscience, in which one makes use of one's knowledge to judge of the lawfullness or unlawfulness of an action in the concrete, as attended by all its circumstances.

(b) Conscience is an act of judgment, and thus it differs from other acts employed by prudence - from council about the right means or ways of action, and from command as to their use. Council inquires what is the right thing to do, conscience gives the dictate or decision, the moral command moves to action.

© Conscience is in the reason - that is, it is a subjective guide, and differs from the law, which is objective.

This is just an FYI...:)
Reply
(06-17-2009, 10:54 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:Moral Theology, McHugh and Callan, 1929. Explaining conscience (from the Summa, q. 79, aa. 11-13):

Definition:Conscience is an act of judgment on the part of the practical reason deciding by inference from general principles the moral goodness or malice of a particular act.

(a) It is an act, and as such it differs from moral knowledge and intellectual virtues,which are not transitory but enduring. Moral understanding (synderesis), by which everyone naturally perceives the truth of general and self-evident principles of morality [...] these are preparatory to the act of conscience, in which one makes use of one's knowledge to judge of the lawfullness or unlawfulness of an action in the concrete, as attended by all its circumstances.

(b) Conscience is an act of judgment, and thus it differs from other acts employed by prudence - from council about the right means or ways of action, and from command as to their use. Council inquires what is the right thing to do, conscience gives the dictate or decision, the moral command moves to action.

© Conscience is in the reason - that is, it is a subjective guide, and differs from the law, which is objective.

This is just an FYI...:)

Thank you, Lamentabili sane; that is very helpful.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)