Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
(06-05-2009, 04:32 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(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.


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?

No, I do not deny this. But we are not talking about various aspects of religious Truth. We are talking about the recognition of the One True Church of Christ, the discernment of Objective Truth that culminates in a soul's union with the Roman Catholic Church.

Edit (please read): My bold is not intended to be read as emotional shouting. My bold is intended as emphasis on the subject of this debate.

Messages In This Thread
Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - by INPEFESS - 06-05-2009, 04:36 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)