CathInfo.com

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:

The definitions of the church have something of the character of criminal jurisprudence. They are not a part of the revelation,—are not necessary to her positive enunciation of the word, or essential to its life and operation; but they are required to vindicate it from error, as criminal courts pass sentences to vindicate the law which has been violated. Nobody who comprehends any thing of the matter restricts the word to the definitions of the church, or supposes that the definitions either make the faith or cover the whole of the revealed word. It is not to be supposed that nothing is believed, or to be believed that is not formally defined by the church, for her definitions touch only so much of the faith as has been controverted or denied. But all theological questions, however unsound they may be, that have not been condemned or declared to be contrary to the faith, may be held without incurring the note of heresy, and be freely discussed, pro and con. according to the judgment or prejudices of theologians.
-Brownson, Complete Works, vol. VIII., Faith and Theology, p. 8.

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.

To my knowledge MHFM has never condemned Fr Feeney as a heretic.  Fr Feeney affirmed the existence of BOD and also that it was possible to be justifed by BOD.  And although MHFM has written that Fr Feeney was in error on that point, to my knowledge, they have never written or said that he was a heretic.  I think they said once that they believe that probably (or maybe they hoped) he would have agreed with them if he had heard their position.  But not only do they not claim Fr Feeney was a heretic but neither do they accuse St Benedict Center of heresy ON THAT PARTICULAR POINT.  They do accuse SBC of heresy on the heretic pope question.  They are dogmatic on points concerning dogmas.  Which is what we all should be.  When a Catholic says there is salvation outside the Church and refuses correction on that point, it is fair to call them out as heretics.

The only point I would want to disagree with MHFM on is at what point can we assume that someone is a formal heretic and outside the Church?  We can only assume because the hierarchy of the Church is the final arbiter of guilt in this regard.  Only a cleric possessing jurisdiction can make a definitive judgment in such a case.  But the rest of us laymen and clergy who do not possess jurisdiction are required to make a judgment about these matters before a definitive ruling in order to protect ourselves.  I like to point to the historic case of Nestorius where St Hypatius judged Nestorius to be a formal heretic and Bishop Eulalius (who agreed that Nestorius was a heretic) rebuked Hypatius for breaking communion with Nestorius (who was Hypatius' ordinary) before judgment from Rome.  When the pope finally did rule, he ruled that Nestorius was in fact a heretic and he praised Hypatius for breaking communion immediately.  But I know of no evidence of the pope rebuking Eulalius publicly.  So not breaking communion before a definitive judgment was not seen as an act deserving of punishment.  But breaking communion was the better choice.  But what if it turned out that after speaking with the pope, Nestorius admitted his error and apologized?  I'm not sure.  That's where things get really complicated in my mind.  Was a repentent heretic a formal heretic BEFORE the ruling by the pope?  What if the heretic convinced the pope that he was merely mistaken about a point of theology?  What if he didn't take correction from his inferiors nor from his peers but only gave in when his superior, the pope, corrected him?  I'm trying to keep an open mind.  I'm not ready to condemn everyone who is clearly in error of formal heresy just because they got corrected by a few laymen.

I do condemn Novus Ordo clerics as formal heretics because they no longer worship in the Catholic Church.  They don't have Catholic sacraments.  They don't use Catholic Liturgy or laws.  They don't use Catholic catechisms.  They are completely lost.  I don't care if they are sincere in their belief that their non-Catholic sect is actually the Church of Christ.  It isn't.  The Novus Ordo is no more the Church of Christ than the Anglican Church.  I believe the next pope, if there is one, will condemn the Novus Ordo as a non-Catholic sect.  So I've broken communion just like St. Hypatius.

But for traditional Catholics who have made some serious errors regarding Catholic theology, I don't hold them to be formal heretics and I don't think a future pope will either.  I think they just have made a mistake and refuse correction because they feel justified by 19th and 20th century theologians who also had made serious errors and who were never condemned by any pope.

The other problem I see here is that those who hold to invincible ignorance BOD, while in error, never actually deny the defined dogma of the necessity of baptism. Rather, they hold to this opinion as a possibility for those who they think may merit salvation. It's definitely an error, and bad theology, but it's difficult to say it's an outright heresy as it doesn't seek to deny a dogma, but merely to expound upon it.

Because if that is the case, then Pope Pius IX is a heretic and an anti-Pope for mentioning the possibility in his address on Austria, Singulari Quidem:

Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.
-Singulari Quidem, 7.