Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
(06-05-2009, 02:41 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(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.

"the right to fulfill his moral duty as a means to his last end"

Here we have something interesting. Adherence to a false religion or sect as a means to his last end? This is why the DH teaching on religious liberty must be worked with the "modern" definition of the Church (contrary to the definition found in Mystici Corporis). They go together.

The necessity for salvation of belonging to the Church is a necessity of means. Invincible ignorance excuses from guilt, it does not supply the want of a necessary means. That necessary means IS the Catholic Church.

Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - by lamentabili sane - 06-05-2009, 08:29 PM



Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)