Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7

Author Topic: Orestes Brownson on theological questions  (Read 8421 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Clemens Maria

Re: Orestes Brownson on theological questions
« Reply #5 on: September 14, 2022, 09:53:44 AM »
Quote from: DigitalLogos on September 13, 2022, 11:10:49 PM
Yes, and you're seeing the conundrum here. It's not as simple as pointing to theological position A and then saying those who hold B are definite heretics even though neither Pope nor Council has made a condemnation or definition in favor of A or B.

MHFM's position is that position A (take your pick from a handful of dogmas, e.g. EENS, necessity of baptism, necessity of sacraments, etc) is dogmatically defined.  They also include the definition of the impossibility of justification apart from the water of baptism.  So while BOD has never been specifically condemned/anathematized, it is impossible to affirm it without running afoul of one of those dogmas.  Ladislaus begs to differ but MHFM doesn't think it is debatable.  But Ladislaus should recognize that he is the only person who thinks BOD can be defined without contradicting or making an exception to existing dogmas.  Everyone else on the BOD side inevitably makes exceptions to the defined dogmas.  If they don't boldly deny EENS, they at least will say "yes, eens is true but in the case of a good-willed Jew, he can be saved outside the Church".  Or they say a good-willed Jew is in the Church which is a contradiction of the Church's ecclesiology as defined by the popes.

Go view the debate between Br Peter and Pinesap.  Pinesap was a very good debater even if he was not very well prepared.  There were a couple of times where it was obvious that he didn't know the material as well as he ought to have.  He did score a point when Br Peter corrected him on the name of the docuмent, Singulari Quadam.  It turned out that Pinesap knew the difference between that docuмent and Singulari Quidem.  Br Peter knew the difference too but that exchange made Br Peter look awkward and condescending.  Pinesap dodged all the jabs for close to two hours until about 10 minutes before the end Br Peter finally cornered him and made him look like a fool.  Br Peter absolutely destroyed Steven Speray years ago.  I don't doubt that John Daly or Robert Sungenis or any other traditional Catholic heavyweight would likewise get destroyed in a debate over BOD.  There is no way to defend it.  Ladislaus thinks he can defend it but in reality he is only defending the idea that it isn't blatant heresy.  That it is actually true is impossible to defend.  At most it is a speculation that hasn't yet been formally condemned.  The best case scenario for BOD people is that the position of Fr Feeney is deemed to be acceptable speculation.  I think MHFM has the correct position.  After the Resurrection it is impossible to be justified apart from the water of baptism.
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Orestes Brownson on theological questions
« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2022, 11:20:15 AM »
Quote from: DigitalLogos on September 13, 2022, 07:42:59 PM
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:

Quote
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.

Focus on the part I bolded.

With the bolded in mind, he is saying that Trent vindicates the necessity of the sacrament through it's teachings, canons and definitions.

True, the Church has not come out and explicitly condemned a BOD as heresy, but in as far as it is contrary to Trent, that is what makes it heresy, or at least error. After all, if something is contrary to what the Church teaches, it's heresy. Were it otherwise then there would be little or no need for Councils, either that or the Councils would need to condemn each and every possible contrary opinion, and every possible combinations of opinions - but she doesn't do that. She says what is and we must not stray from what She says.

Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Orestes Brownson on theological questions
« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2022, 11:28:37 AM »
Quote from: Clemens Maria on September 14, 2022, 09:53:44 AM
But Ladislaus should recognize that he is the only person who thinks BOD can be defined without contradicting or making an exception to existing dogmas.  Everyone else on the BOD side inevitably makes exceptions to the defined dogmas.  If they don't boldly deny EENS, they at least will say "yes, eens is true but in the case of a good-willed Jєω, he can be saved outside the Church".  Or they say a good-willed Jєω is in the Church which is a contradiction of the Church's ecclesiology as defined by the popes.

See, this is another example of "BoD" just being a phrase or a term.  It means different things to different people to use it.  "Baptism" was applied analogically to Baptism of Blood by some of the Church Fathers, so that they used the expression even for martyrs who were already baptized in water.  In its etymological sense, baptism just means a "washing" and those martyrs would be washed of sin by martyrdom.  But this does NOT mean that they viewed Baptism as a substitute the Sacrament.  Lots of word soup going on here, and that's actually solid evidence to demonstrate that the Church has never "defined" BoD, as many pro-BoDers hold.

No, I don't believe that BoD can be defined, because there's no evidence that it's part of the Deposit of Revelation.  Of course, other people thought that about Papal Infallibility and even the Immaculate Conception.  So, if the Church were to decide otherwise, of course I would submit.

Those Doctors who believed in BoD did NOT view BoD as an "exception" to the defined dogmas, but, rather, were making distinctions to the defined dogmas.

So, for instance, the Church teaches dogmatically that the Sacrament of Baptim is necessary for salvation, but the Church fell a hair short of declaring that the "actual reception of" the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.  So that's the distinction St. Robert makes.  In his view, the Sacrament remains necessary for salvation, and its necessity remains even in scenarios where people might receive it in voto.

I fully expect these distinctions to be eventually condemned, but to this point they haven't been and they are not absolutely precluded by the dogmatic definitions.

BoD for justification, IMO, is a possibility, but then one really has to define the terms, since words are being tossed about here.  Justification would have to be defined, in terms of whether there's a type of natural justification possible, etc.

Logged

Offline Ferdi

Re: Orestes Brownson on theological questions
« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2022, 11:33:07 AM »
Quote from: Clemens Maria on September 14, 2022, 09:53:44 AM
But Ladislaus should recognize that he is the only person who thinks BOD can be defined without contradicting or making an exception to existing dogmas.
What about St. Thomas, St. Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus, Billot, Capello, Merkelbach, Ott, Prümmer, etc. pp.?
They seemed to think that BoD can be defined without contradicting existing dogmas. Or were they unaware of these dogmas?
Certainly Ladislaus is not alone in his opinion.
Logged

Offline DigitalLogos

Re: Orestes Brownson on theological questions
« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2022, 11:49:58 AM »
Just for the sake of clarity, the focus here is not on whether or not BoD is an error (I believe it is), but whether those who hold to the theological opinion of such are either obstinate, hell bound heretics (as the Dimonds hold, unless you're a canonized saint); or that they are Catholics in error.

On the basis of Brownson's distinctions, I'm arguing for the latter. Fr. Feeney appears to have been of the latter camp as well.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
« previous next »