Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
(06-09-2009, 10:03 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-09-2009, 09:48 AM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-09-2009, 07:04 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-08-2009, 09:41 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-08-2009, 09:29 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-08-2009, 09:06 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-08-2009, 08:23 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-08-2009, 07:48 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
(06-08-2009, 07:24 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(06-08-2009, 06:34 PM)newschoolman Wrote: LS, take a look at the following teaching from Suarez.  Do you find any (apparent) contradiction here?  If so, how is it reconciled? 

Quote:“As regards the other religious practices of unbelievers which go contrary to Christian beliefs but not counter to natural reason, there is no doubt but that the unbelievers, even though they are subjects, may not be forced to abandon them. Rather the Church has to tolerate themThe reason is that such observances do not in themselves violate the natural law, and therefore, the temporal power of even a Christian ruler does not confer a right to forbid them. Such action would be based on the fact that what is being done goes contrary to the Christian Faith, but that is not enough to compel those who are not subject to the spiritual authority of the Church. This opinion is also supported by the fact that such a ban would involve, to some extent, forcing people to accept the Faith; and that is never permitted.” (Suarez, Tract. de Fide Disp. 18 Sect. III, n. 10)

No, I do not see any contradiction here. Evil must be tolerated at times. What does this have to do with conscience?

Again, what we do not agree on is what conscience actually is. This has been pointed out to you several times and you have ignored it.

I have never spoken about "what conscience actually is" --  other than to assert the duty and corresponding right of a certain conscience -- and providing sources as reference.  If I "ignore" a quote provided by you it should not be interpreted as disagreement with the quote.  Again, if I have contradicted anything then the burden falls to you to demonstrate it.   

What you think is conscience is a defective understanding of conscience. If you want to say, "assert the duty and corresponding right of a certain conscience" we must understand what conscience actually is...you think this is self-evident, I presume?

What specifically have I said that is "defective" in connection with conscience?

You are attributing to conscience what is not really conscience.  Can you tell us what you think conscience is (and where you learned it)?

Specifically, what have I attributed to conscience that does not belong to it?

"newschoolman" Wrote:I have never spoken about "what conscience actually is" --  other than to assert the duty and corresponding right of a certain conscience -- and providing sources as reference.

Exactly. Why don't we discuss "what conscience actually is"...otherwise the statement above is rendered meaningless.

In other words, I have NOT said anything "defective" in connection with conscience nor have I attributed to conscience what does not belong to it.   

Yes, you have.

"CE, Cardinal Newman" Wrote:"The natural law," says St. Thomas, "is an impression of the Divine Light in us, a participation of the eternal law in the rational creature." This law, as apprehended in the minds of individual men, is called "conscience"; and though it may suffer refraction in passing into the intellectual medium of each, it is not thereby so affected as to lose its character of being the Divine Law, but still has as such, the prerogative of commanding obedience. "The Divine Law," says Cardinal Gousset, "is the supreme rule of actions; our thoughts, desires, words, acts, all that man is, is subject to the domain of the law of God; and this law is the rule of our conduct by means of our conscience." Hence it is never lawful to go against our conscience; as the Fourth Lateran Council says, "Quidquid fit contra conscientiam, aedificat ad gehennam." . . . The rule and measure of duty is not utility, nor expedience, nor the happiness of the greatest number, nor State convenience, nor fitness, order, and the pulchrum. Conscience is not a long-sighted selfishness, nor a desire to be consistent with oneself; but it is a messenger from Him who both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by His representatives. Conscience is the aborigrinal Vicar of Christ, a prophet in its informations, a monarch in its peremptoriness, a priest in its blessings and anathemas, and even though the eternal priesthood throughout the Church could cease to be, in it the sacerdotal principle would remain and would have a sway.

Specifically, what have I said contrary to Cardinal Newman?  Quote me.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - by newschoolman - 06-09-2009, 10:41 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)