http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31988
Particularly this comment.
Blog comment by me
At Mr. Schütz's blog:
Cardinal Pole
June 9, 2010 at 4:54 am
“To accept the “so when” part, on which the rest depends, is entirely outside of following Natural Law”
No, not entirely; as I said, the natural law commands us to believe/accept whatever God deigns to reveal to us. The content–”God assumes a human nature [and] founds His Church as the historical continuation of His Incarnation”–of the command cannot be known by unaided reason, but the fact that the relevant command would exist can. In other words, the command’s matter is not of natural law, but its efficiency is.
“So when one accepts Christian Revelation, and in fact, more specific than that, when one accepts the Roman Catholic version of Christian Revelation, [my] “then” follows.”
True, but that needlessly omits mentioning that that acceptance is natural-law obligatory.
“However, since accepting Christian Revelation in any version, including Concordia, is not from Natural Law but by faith which is the gift of God, it is false to say the Social Reign of Christ is established by Natural Law reasoning.”
Yet the person to whom the Gospel has been adequately announced yet formally rejects it sins against both natural law and Divine positive law. What you have written here is no disproof of my case for the natural-law obligation requiring societies to which the Gospel has been announced to make Christianity the State religion etc.
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/simon-shama-on-the-snares-of-history-for-the-secular-humanist/#comment-15194]
Feast of St. Columba, Abbot, A.D. 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment