Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
(06-09-2009, 10:30 PM)newschoolman Wrote:
Quote:No, you have not. You provided sources that say error must be tolerated and the pagans obeying the natural law should be tolerated.

sure I have...sometimes tolerance is due in justice for the sake of a superior good -- for the sake of  those that have a moral right to do their moral duty -- in spite of honest error:

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)

"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."

"that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated."


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 them…The 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)

Concerning tolerance and the Natural law.

Again, DH teaches that error has rights. The drafters of DH admit this...why can't you?
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article - by lamentabili sane - 06-09-2009, 10:57 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)