Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
(06-05-2009, 12:24 PM)newschoolman Wrote: Here are some sources in case you missed them above:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
A Certain conscience must always be obeyed when it commands or forbids.  This holds for both the right and the erroneous conscience. (Cf. Jone, Moral Theology, TAN, p. 40)

=========================

Everyone is obliged to follow his conscience whether it commands or forbids some action, not only when it is true but also when it is in invincible error. (Cf. Prummer, Handbook of Moral Theology, Roman Catholic Books, p. 60)

=========================

Hence a certain conscience must be obeyed, not only when it is correct, but even when it is invincibly erroneous.  Conscience is the only guide a man has for the performance of concrete actions here and now.  But an invincibly erroneous conscience cannot by distinguished from a correct conscience.  Therefore if one were not obliged to follow a certain but invincibly erroneous conscience, one would not be obliged to follow a certain and correct conscience.  But one is obliged to follow a certain and correct conscience.  Therefore one is also obliged to follow a certain but invincibly erroneous conscience.  
The basic reason for this conclusion is that the will depends on the intellect to present the good to it.  The will act is good if it tends to the good presented by the intellect, bad if it tends to what the intellect judges evil.  Invincible error in the intellect does not change the goodness or badness of the will-act, in which morality essentially consists. (Cf. Fagothey, Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice, TAN, p. 214)  

============================

An invincibly erroneous conscience must be obeyed.
If a man is not obliged to follow an invincibly erroneous conscience; then he is not obliged to follow a correct conscience. Precisely because the error is invincible a man has no means of detecting it. Hence he cannot distinguish between a correct conscience and an invincibly erroneous conscience. Both are the same to him. Hence if he must obey in one case, he must obey in the other.
The same conclusion follows from a consideration of the will act.  The will act becomes good or bad inasmuch as it embraces an object, not as the object is in itself, but as the object is presented by the intellect as good or bad.  (Higgins, Man as Man, The Science and Art of Ethics, 1958, TAN Reprint 1992, p. 135)

==============================

To act against one's honestly erroneous conscience is to sin. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned, Angelus Press, p. 10)

No, I didn't miss them. I just don't think they support what you are saying.

"Pius XII, 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."

"DH" Wrote: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.

Reply
(06-05-2009, 12:44 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 12:24 PM)newschoolman Wrote: Here are some sources in case you missed them above:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
A Certain conscience must always be obeyed when it commands or forbids.  This holds for both the right and the erroneous conscience. (Cf. Jone, Moral Theology, TAN, p. 40)

=========================

Everyone is obliged to follow his conscience whether it commands or forbids some action, not only when it is true but also when it is in invincible error. (Cf. Prummer, Handbook of Moral Theology, Roman Catholic Books, p. 60)

=========================

Hence a certain conscience must be obeyed, not only when it is correct, but even when it is invincibly erroneous.  Conscience is the only guide a man has for the performance of concrete actions here and now.  But an invincibly erroneous conscience cannot by distinguished from a correct conscience.  Therefore if one were not obliged to follow a certain but invincibly erroneous conscience, one would not be obliged to follow a certain and correct conscience.  But one is obliged to follow a certain and correct conscience.  Therefore one is also obliged to follow a certain but invincibly erroneous conscience.  
The basic reason for this conclusion is that the will depends on the intellect to present the good to it.  The will act is good if it tends to the good presented by the intellect, bad if it tends to what the intellect judges evil.  Invincible error in the intellect does not change the goodness or badness of the will-act, in which morality essentially consists. (Cf. Fagothey, Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice, TAN, p. 214)  

============================

An invincibly erroneous conscience must be obeyed.
If a man is not obliged to follow an invincibly erroneous conscience; then he is not obliged to follow a correct conscience. Precisely because the error is invincible a man has no means of detecting it. Hence he cannot distinguish between a correct conscience and an invincibly erroneous conscience. Both are the same to him. Hence if he must obey in one case, he must obey in the other.
The same conclusion follows from a consideration of the will act.  The will act becomes good or bad inasmuch as it embraces an object, not as the object is in itself, but as the object is presented by the intellect as good or bad.  (Higgins, Man as Man, The Science and Art of Ethics, 1958, TAN Reprint 1992, p. 135)

==============================

To act against one's honestly erroneous conscience is to sin. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned, Angelus Press, p. 10)

No, I didn't miss them. I just don't think they support what you are saying.

"Pius XII, 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."

"DH" Wrote: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.

Of course they support exactly what I am saying:

1) Man has a moral duty under pain of sin to obey the dictates of conscience -- even when honestly erroneous
2) The moral law confers the moral right (due freedom of conscience) to fulfill ones moral duties (the duties of conscience)
3) The right to freedom of conscience is not unlimited or unqualified -- but subject to due limits (as stated below).

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)
Reply
"schoolman" Wrote:Of course they support exactly what I am saying:

1) Man has a moral duty under pain of sin to obey the dictates of conscience -- even when honestly erroneous
2) The moral law confers the moral right (due freedom of conscience) to fulfill ones moral duties (the duties of conscience)
3) The right to freedom of conscience is not unlimited or unqualified -- but subject to due limits (as stated below).

I don't think it supports you. Ci Riesce does not, at least.

I think the problem here may be a misunderstanding of invincible ignorance. Invincible ignorance is not a virtue, it merely excuses a breach of the law. Those truly invincibly of their duty to join the Catholic Church must somehow be within the Church to be saved. The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means and while invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the necessary means.

I also think there is some confusion between natural liberty and moral liberty.




Reply
(06-05-2009, 02:01 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
"schoolman" Wrote:Of course they support exactly what I am saying:

1) Man has a moral duty under pain of sin to obey the dictates of conscience -- even when honestly erroneous
2) The moral law confers the moral right (due freedom of conscience) to fulfill ones moral duties (the duties of conscience)
3) The right to freedom of conscience is not unlimited or unqualified -- but subject to due limits (as stated below).

I don't think it supports you. Ci Riesce does not, at least.

I think the problem here may be a misunderstanding of invincible ignorance. Invincible ignorance is not a virtue, it merely excuses a breach of the law. Those truly invincibly of their duty to join the Catholic Church must somehow be within the Church to be saved. The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means and while invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the necessary means.

Well, you are simply wrong insofar as you deny that an honestly erroneous conscience binds under pain of sin (see again the quotes provided above) -- and insofar as obedience to the certain dictates of conscience is a virtue -- in spite of honest error.  This does not conflict with Ci Riesce but agrees perfectly with it.  The corresponding right is not by virtue of the [honest error] -- rather, the right is confered in order to fulfill the moral duty.  In other words, we [tolerate] the error for the sake of a superior good -- that man can fulfill his moral duty in obedience to conscience as a means to his last end -- in spite of his invincible error.  As Pius XII says later in Ci Riesce:

Quote:...the Church out of regard for those who in good conscience (though erroneous, but invincibly so) are of different opinion has been led to act and has acted with that tolerance, after she became the State Church under Constantine the Great and the other Christian emperors, always for higher and more cogent motives. So she acts today, and also in the future she will be faced with the same necessity. (Pius XII, Ci Riesce)
Reply
(06-05-2009, 02:17 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 02:01 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
"schoolman" Wrote:Of course they support exactly what I am saying:

1) Man has a moral duty under pain of sin to obey the dictates of conscience -- even when honestly erroneous
2) The moral law confers the moral right (due freedom of conscience) to fulfill ones moral duties (the duties of conscience)
3) The right to freedom of conscience is not unlimited or unqualified -- but subject to due limits (as stated below).

I don't think it supports you. Ci Riesce does not, at least.

I think the problem here may be a misunderstanding of invincible ignorance. Invincible ignorance is not a virtue, it merely excuses a breach of the law. Those truly invincibly of their duty to join the Catholic Church must somehow be within the Church to be saved. The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means and while invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the necessary means.

Well, you are simply wrong insofar as you deny that an honestly erroneous conscience binds under pain of sin (see again the quotes provided above).  This does not conflict with Ci Riesce but agrees perfectly with it.  The corresponding right is not by virtue of the [honest error] -- rather, the right is confered in order to fulfill the moral duty.  In other words, we [tolerate] the error for the sake of a superior good -- that man can fulfill his moral duty in obedience to conscience as a means to his last end -- in spite of his invincible error.  As Pius XII says later in Ci Riesce:

Quote:...the Church out of regard for those who in good conscience (though erroneous, but invincibly so) are of different opinion has been led to act and has acted with that tolerance, after she became the State Church under Constantine the Great and the other Christian emperors, always for higher and more cogent motives. So she acts today, and also in the future she will be faced with the same necessity. (Pius XII, Ci Riesce)

I might be wrong about a few things here but Ci Riesce does not support your view. The last quote speaks of tolerance of error, not a right to be tolerated.
Reply
(06-05-2009, 02:29 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: I might be wrong about a few things here but Ci Riesce does not support your view. The last quote speaks of tolerance of error, not a right to be tolerated.

Tolerance and right are not necessarily opposed -- they can both co-exist.  Here is the necessary distinction -- we tolerate for 1 of 2 reasons:

1) Toleration in order to avoid greater evils (here there is no right for the erring person insofar as his error is vincible)
2) Toleration for the sake of a superior good which the erring person has a claim to in justice (e.g., the right to fulfill his moral duty as a means to his last end).

In this second case, the [error] is tolerated for the sake of a superior good and tolerance and right are not opposed.
Reply
(06-05-2009, 02:17 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 02:01 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
"schoolman" Wrote:Of course they support exactly what I am saying:

1) Man has a moral duty under pain of sin to obey the dictates of conscience -- even when honestly erroneous
2) The moral law confers the moral right (due freedom of conscience) to fulfill ones moral duties (the duties of conscience)
3) The right to freedom of conscience is not unlimited or unqualified -- but subject to due limits (as stated below).

I don't think it supports you. Ci Riesce does not, at least.

I think the problem here may be a misunderstanding of invincible ignorance. Invincible ignorance is not a virtue, it merely excuses a breach of the law. Those truly invincibly of their duty to join the Catholic Church must somehow be within the Church to be saved. The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means and while invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the necessary means.

Well, you are simply wrong insofar as you deny that an honestly erroneous conscience binds under pain of sin (see again the quotes provided above) -- and insofar as obedience to the certain dictates of conscience is a virtue -- in spite of honest error. 

I have shown that this is not so. I mean no offense and do not intend to attack you, but you consistently ignore the requirement of every soul to respond to God's grace. I made this distinction in my last post. This is not to say that someone is not morally obligated to follow an "invincibly erroneous conscience"; rather, this is to say that the consience cannot be in error when led by grace accepted by the soul. And we also know that we are all obliged to accept the grace of God to seek Objective Truth.

A conscience can only be in error when it, devoid of sufficient grace, is substantiated by the honest, yet fallible, intellect. God will continuously send this person grace. He is justified in seeking the Truth with his intellect, but not in ignoring the grace which actively compels all men to find Truth.

Consider: Anyone who rejects God's grace supplied by Him to seek and discern the Truth is in error and anyone who subjects God's gift of grace in favor of his own fallible intellect, the product of which is an "invincibly" erroneous conscience, will be judged accordingly. If God supplies grace to a soul and the soul uses his own intellect in an attempt to apply it to the Truth, his conscience may err in that he never actually finds the Truth. But this conscience, guided by God yet hindered by the fallible intellect of man, does not rest content on that which is against Truth because God would not let this be so. This conscience cannot be led by grace to something untrue; it may never attain a complete understanding of Objective Truth, but it will actively seek and subject the intellect to the continuous instructions of the conscience. The intellect is meant to cooperate with the grace given to the soul, not to act against it. Furthermore, rejecting grace to follow the "invincibly erroneous conscience" of the honest intellect is never a legitimate defense before the throne of God.

Seek and you shall find. It is a basic concept of Christianity. Only the independent intellect can be in error, not grace.

Edit: Grace does not settle on untruth; only the independent intellect can settle on untruth. There is no justification for the intellect to remain independent in matters of discerning Truth. The intellect must cooperate with the acceptance of grace.
Reply
(06-05-2009, 03:52 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 02:17 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 02:01 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
"schoolman" Wrote:Of course they support exactly what I am saying:

1) Man has a moral duty under pain of sin to obey the dictates of conscience -- even when honestly erroneous
2) The moral law confers the moral right (due freedom of conscience) to fulfill ones moral duties (the duties of conscience)
3) The right to freedom of conscience is not unlimited or unqualified -- but subject to due limits (as stated below).

I don't think it supports you. Ci Riesce does not, at least.

I think the problem here may be a misunderstanding of invincible ignorance. Invincible ignorance is not a virtue, it merely excuses a breach of the law. Those truly invincibly of their duty to join the Catholic Church must somehow be within the Church to be saved. The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means and while invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the necessary means.

Well, you are simply wrong insofar as you deny that an honestly erroneous conscience binds under pain of sin (see again the quotes provided above) -- and insofar as obedience to the certain dictates of conscience is a virtue -- in spite of honest error. 

I have shown that this is not so. I mean no offense and do not intend to attack you, but you consistently ignore the requirement of every soul to respond to God's grace. I made this distinction in my last post. This is not to say that someone is not morally obligated to follow an "invincibly erroneous conscience"; rather, this is to say that the consience cannot be in error when led by grace accepted by the soul. And we also know that we are all obliged to accept the grace of God to seek Objective Truth.

A conscience can only be in error when it, devoid of sufficient grace, is substantiated by the honest, yet fallible, intellect. God will continuously send this person grace. He is justified in seeking the Truth with his intellect, but not in ignoring the grace which actively compels all men to find Truth.

Consider: Anyone who rejects God's grace supplied by Him to seek and discern the Truth is in error and anyone who subjects God's gift of grace in favor of his own fallible intellect, the product of which is an "invincibly" erroneous conscience, will be judged accordingly. If God supplies grace to a soul and the soul uses his own intellect in an attempt to apply it to the Truth, his conscience may err in that he never actually finds the Truth. But this conscience, guided by God yet hindered by the fallible intellect of man, does not rest content on that which is against Truth because God would not let this be so. This conscience cannot be led by grace to something untrue; it may never attain a complete understanding of Objective Truth, but it will actively seek and subject the intellect to the continuous instructions of the conscience. The intellect is meant to cooperate with the grace given to the soul, not to act against it. Furthermore, rejecting grace to follow the "invincibly erroneous conscience" of the honest intellect is never a legitimate defense before the throne of God.

Seek and you shall find. It is a basic concept of Christianity. Only the independent intellect can be in error, not grace.

Edit: Grace does not settle on untruth; only the independent intellect can settle on untruth. There is no justification for the intellect to remain independent in matters of discerning Truth. The intellect must cooperate with the acceptance of grace.

I have news for you.  There are people in the state of grace that are in [innocent] error regarding a great number of things -- in spite of the assistance of divine grace.  The acceptance of grace does not equate to full enlightenment or infallibility.
Reply
(06-05-2009, 04:05 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 03:52 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 02:17 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 02:01 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
"schoolman" Wrote:Of course they support exactly what I am saying:

1) Man has a moral duty under pain of sin to obey the dictates of conscience -- even when honestly erroneous
2) The moral law confers the moral right (due freedom of conscience) to fulfill ones moral duties (the duties of conscience)
3) The right to freedom of conscience is not unlimited or unqualified -- but subject to due limits (as stated below).

I don't think it supports you. Ci Riesce does not, at least.

I think the problem here may be a misunderstanding of invincible ignorance. Invincible ignorance is not a virtue, it merely excuses a breach of the law. Those truly invincibly of their duty to join the Catholic Church must somehow be within the Church to be saved. The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means and while invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the necessary means.

Well, you are simply wrong insofar as you deny that an honestly erroneous conscience binds under pain of sin (see again the quotes provided above) -- and insofar as obedience to the certain dictates of conscience is a virtue -- in spite of honest error. 

I have shown that this is not so. I mean no offense and do not intend to attack you, but you consistently ignore the requirement of every soul to respond to God's grace. I made this distinction in my last post. This is not to say that someone is not morally obligated to follow an "invincibly erroneous conscience"; rather, this is to say that the consience cannot be in error when led by grace accepted by the soul. And we also know that we are all obliged to accept the grace of God to seek Objective Truth.

A conscience can only be in error when it, devoid of sufficient grace, is substantiated by the honest, yet fallible, intellect. God will continuously send this person grace. He is justified in seeking the Truth with his intellect, but not in ignoring the grace which actively compels all men to find Truth.

Consider: Anyone who rejects God's grace supplied by Him to seek and discern the Truth is in error and anyone who subjects God's gift of grace in favor of his own fallible intellect, the product of which is an "invincibly" erroneous conscience, will be judged accordingly. If God supplies grace to a soul and the soul uses his own intellect in an attempt to apply it to the Truth, his conscience may err in that he never actually finds the Truth. But this conscience, guided by God yet hindered by the fallible intellect of man, does not rest content on that which is against Truth because God would not let this be so. This conscience cannot be led by grace to something untrue; it may never attain a complete understanding of Objective Truth, but it will actively seek and subject the intellect to the continuous instructions of the conscience. The intellect is meant to cooperate with the grace given to the soul, not to act against it. Furthermore, rejecting grace to follow the "invincibly erroneous conscience" of the honest intellect is never a legitimate defense before the throne of God.

Seek and you shall find. It is a basic concept of Christianity. Only the independent intellect can be in error, not grace.

Edit: Grace does not settle on untruth; only the independent intellect can settle on untruth. There is no justification for the intellect to remain independent in matters of discerning Truth. The intellect must cooperate with the acceptance of grace.

I have news for you.  There are people in the state of grace that are in [innocent] error regarding a great number of things -- in spite of the assistance of divine grace.  The acceptance of grace does not equate to full enlightenment or infallibility.

Newschoolman:

Please, I'm trying to remain patient, and I apologize if I'm sounding rude, but I don't understand how you can actually believe what you are saying.

This is not news. We are not talking about "a great number of things". We are talking about religious Truth - the One True Church, the Catholic Church - as it relates to religious liberty. What we cannot know from grace will be disclosed to us through the Church.

Quote: The acceptance of grace does not equate to full enlightenment or infallibility.

You know that I did not say or imply this. I have repeatedly stressed that human intellect, by its very nature, is fallible. The instructions of grace are not as they come directly from God. Full enlightment is not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is religious Truth.
Reply
(06-05-2009, 04:27 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 04:05 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 03:52 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 02:17 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-05-2009, 02:01 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
"schoolman" Wrote:Of course they support exactly what I am saying:

1) Man has a moral duty under pain of sin to obey the dictates of conscience -- even when honestly erroneous
2) The moral law confers the moral right (due freedom of conscience) to fulfill ones moral duties (the duties of conscience)
3) The right to freedom of conscience is not unlimited or unqualified -- but subject to due limits (as stated below).

I don't think it supports you. Ci Riesce does not, at least.

I think the problem here may be a misunderstanding of invincible ignorance. Invincible ignorance is not a virtue, it merely excuses a breach of the law. Those truly invincibly of their duty to join the Catholic Church must somehow be within the Church to be saved. The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means and while invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the necessary means.

Well, you are simply wrong insofar as you deny that an honestly erroneous conscience binds under pain of sin (see again the quotes provided above) -- and insofar as obedience to the certain dictates of conscience is a virtue -- in spite of honest error. 

I have shown that this is not so. I mean no offense and do not intend to attack you, but you consistently ignore the requirement of every soul to respond to God's grace. I made this distinction in my last post. This is not to say that someone is not morally obligated to follow an "invincibly erroneous conscience"; rather, this is to say that the consience cannot be in error when led by grace accepted by the soul. And we also know that we are all obliged to accept the grace of God to seek Objective Truth.

A conscience can only be in error when it, devoid of sufficient grace, is substantiated by the honest, yet fallible, intellect. God will continuously send this person grace. He is justified in seeking the Truth with his intellect, but not in ignoring the grace which actively compels all men to find Truth.

Consider: Anyone who rejects God's grace supplied by Him to seek and discern the Truth is in error and anyone who subjects God's gift of grace in favor of his own fallible intellect, the product of which is an "invincibly" erroneous conscience, will be judged accordingly. If God supplies grace to a soul and the soul uses his own intellect in an attempt to apply it to the Truth, his conscience may err in that he never actually finds the Truth. But this conscience, guided by God yet hindered by the fallible intellect of man, does not rest content on that which is against Truth because God would not let this be so. This conscience cannot be led by grace to something untrue; it may never attain a complete understanding of Objective Truth, but it will actively seek and subject the intellect to the continuous instructions of the conscience. The intellect is meant to cooperate with the grace given to the soul, not to act against it. Furthermore, rejecting grace to follow the "invincibly erroneous conscience" of the honest intellect is never a legitimate defense before the throne of God.

Seek and you shall find. It is a basic concept of Christianity. Only the independent intellect can be in error, not grace.

Edit: Grace does not settle on untruth; only the independent intellect can settle on untruth. There is no justification for the intellect to remain independent in matters of discerning Truth. The intellect must cooperate with the acceptance of grace.

I have news for you.  There are people in the state of grace that are in [innocent] error regarding a great number of things -- in spite of the assistance of divine grace.  The acceptance of grace does not equate to full enlightenment or infallibility.

Newschoolman:

Please, I'm trying to remain patient, and I apologize if I'm sounding rude, but I don't understand how you can actually believe what you are saying.

This is not news. We are not talking about "a great number of things". We are talking about religious Truth - the One True Church, the Catholic Church - as it relates to religious liberty. What we cannot know from grace will be disclosed to us through the Church.

Quote: The acceptance of grace does not equate to full enlightenment or infallibility.

You know that I did not say or imply this. I have repeatedly stressed that human intellect, by its very nature, is fallible. The instructions of grace are not as they come directly from God. Full enlightment is not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is religious Truth.

I was talking about religious truth.  Many in the state of grace remain honestly ignorant concerning various aspects of religious truth.  Do you deny it?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)