If anyone will just read the excerpted pages of Sullivan's book, provided by Tradman (above in this thread), you can see one thing very clearly: the precise formulation and understanding of the EENS dogma has been debated for many centuries by prominent Catholic theologians (many of whom were canonized saints).
So the fact that canonized saints cannot agree on the precise formulation should give pause to people on this forum who think they CAN give a precise formulation and that anyone who doesn't agree with their formulation is a heretic.
Please just accept that there is some element of mystery in the EENS dogma. That doesn't mean that the dogma is not valid or true. It simply means that our limited human minds cannot completely grasp the thought of God that the dogma attempts to express. Cut people some slack.
Differences of opinion, within limits, should be acceptable, unless the stated opinion has been specifically anathematized. Formulations of BoD that are not heretical, then, would have to be stated to avoid anathemas. Any of those formulations, should be considered open for discussion/debate. Formulations of BoD that are truly "heretical" could be proved to be as heretical by showing contradiction of that exact formulation with some anathema. If you cannot prove it is heretical, stop claiming that it is.
The only people being called heretics or being warned there is heresy in their opinions on here are people who formulate BoD in a Pelagian manner. In my whole time here I have only seen potentially materially heretical formulations of BoD from people who probably don't obsesses over BoD/EENS a handful of times. I don't think anyone in this thread particularly has an axe to grind in this regard.
Topic: Did EENS Undergo a Development of Understanding? (Read 6336 times)