Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:

Author Topic: Orestes Brownson on theological questions  (Read 1705 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DigitalLogos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7488
  • Reputation: +4246/-743
  • Gender: Male
  • Slave to the Sacred Heart
    • Twitter
Re: Orestes Brownson on theological questions
« Reply #30 on: September 16, 2022, 04:04:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Now, what is the church's understanding of the dogma in question? Surely the first place to go would be the Catechism of the Council of Trent, no? Or perhaps those approved church men who published commentaries on the Council in the centuries following it?
    Most definitely the dogma's meaning which has once been declared by the church cannot first appear almost 500 years later by someone who was not tasked by the church with interpreting the council.
    Yeah, that's the issue I'm seeing here. If it were really such an egregious error, then how does it go uncorrected for 500 years and how is it that the official organs of the Church so severely misinterpret it?
    Surely theologians alive during the period of Trent are far more knowledgeable than lay-theologians, a couple of self-taught monks and a single parish priest? People who have no authority (outside of Fr. Feeney) to teach anyone?

    It again comes back to the realm of BoD being just a theological opinion, not an error, that we are not required to hold de Fide. If you don't believe in BoD or BoB, then you are not a heretic for rejecting it because Trent clearly defined the necessity of water baptism. Yet since it also did not define or condemn BoD and BoB, saying that those who hold such a theological position are heretics is ridiculous as well. Which, it is clear, even the Dimonds just say they are in error, not heretics (otherwise they would have to condemn these Saints who clearly taught it as heretics too).

    The analysis of the controversial definition from Trent by the Dimonds themselves, who seek out a Latin expert, leave the interpretation of "or the desire of it" open to mean either an exclusive or inclusive sense of "or", "aut".

    Therefore, holding to BoD as Tridentine theologians and Scholastics taught it is not heretical.

    Now, it's clear by both reading the Dimonds and Feeney that there is a distinction to be made between what the Catechism taught as BoD/BoB versus what is going around today under the same name with the added modifier of "invincible ignorance." The thing I would like to know is just where the "invincible ignorance" BoD theory came from. As I suspect it developed out of an erroneous understanding of St. Thomas' and St. Alphonsus' teaching of the theory during the neo-Scholastic period in the 19th century. Yet I don't have much proof of that outside of Garrigou-Lagrange.
    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8136
    • Reputation: +8005/-803
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Orestes Brownson on theological questions
    « Reply #31 on: September 17, 2022, 12:27:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • An excerpt of interest from Catholic writer Orestes Brownson on church definitions. I post this in the "ghetto" because it really goes in the face of dogmatic anti-BOD (aka Dimondism), as well as dogmatic sedevacantism and R&R, as to the matters of theological speculation on undefined doctrines:

    For, the Church has never formally condemned or declared BOD to be contrary to the Faith. The same goes for R&R or sedevacantist theories on the current Crisis. Therefore, those who come out decrying one side or the other as heretics are in the wrong. I've done this at times, yet it's also the biggest problem I have with the Dimond position on BOD; and so it is  with the non una cuм position on the Mass and Holy See. While I overall agree with them on the notion that there is no BOD, that water baptism is inherently essential to be saved, that does not mean I can go ahead and declare someone who disagrees with that an outright heretic. It may be imprudent, and dangerous, to hold that Jєωs, Muslims, etc., can be, in rare circuмstances, be saved through desire without baptism (as all traditionalist clerics hold today), but the Church has never formally condemned or declared such a position to be contrary to the Faith. And so I can wholly disagree with the idea, on good principles, but I cannot come out and say someone is not Catholic for holding them. As there is a precedent for the position in the realm of Catholic opinion, Pius IX mentioned it as well as Fr. Frederick Faber.

    Therefore, this idea of the Dimonds, and others, that we should view literally everyone who holds to such a position as heretics damned to hell, is a very un-Catholic way to view their position. And gives me some context as to why I am so bothered by their rash condemnation of everyone.

    This has given me a lot to think about.

    Good find DL.  I tend to agree with you, but the Feeney ghetto is proof many don't.

    The R&R position is open for debate in that it supports the "false throne" as mentioned in Pope Leo XIII"s original St. Michael's prayer. In relation to EENS, I don't see where false religion members can make it, unless they took some true action(s) to become Catholic.  "Wishin & Hopin" won't do it, as the Brit singer, Dusty Springfield once sang.

    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi