Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
(06-06-2009, 12:30 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-06-2009, 10:41 AM)newschoolman Wrote: I think the discussion on DH is now being confused with questions on grace, salvation, etc.  These are really distinct questions and should not be lumped together.  For example, freedom of conscience (and the right to immunity from coercion) in religious matters does NOT equate to sanctifying grace or salvation.  The two are as distinct as the natural and supernatural orders.  That is why freedom of conscience and religion is a topic of ethics or moral philosophy and not sacramental theology, etc.  In other words, natural rights have nothing directly to do with the supernatural order.  On the other hand, the orders of nature and grace are related and inter-dependent insofar as grace builds on nature.

All due respect, but you have introduced the confusion. Supernatural Faith is required for salvation. This has nothing to do with sacramental theology.

"freedom of conscience (and the right to immunity from coercion) in religious matters" is what is in question here. There is no such right.

Yes, supernatural faith is required for salvation -- but this has nothing to do with immunity from coercion.  In other words, man has the duty and right to FREELY accept the true religion.  Even if he does not do so the natural right remain.  He may go to Hell but the natural right to self determination remains.  Natural rights are distinct from the order of grace and salvation. 
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - by newschoolman - 06-06-2009, 01:16 PM



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)