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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16

Author Topic: Dimond brothers  (Read 13935 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ByzCat3000

Re: Dimond brothers
« Reply #65 on: July 13, 2019, 11:20:48 AM »
Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on July 13, 2019, 11:00:43 AM
This is very good and I agree with all of it except the “privileged path” stuff is not a dereliction of duty, but is blatantly heretical.
Its horribly worded (the privileged path bit) but I'm curious what dogma it explicitly denies.  The closest would seem to be "Outside the Church there is no salvation" but that *could* be parsed with fine distinctions.

Not defending Barron, to be clear.  I think he was way off.
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Dimond brothers
« Reply #66 on: July 13, 2019, 11:42:29 AM »
Quote from: Mithrandylan on July 13, 2019, 10:23:59 AM
The sort of enlarged, elastic approach to EENS common in the Novus Ordo-- describing the Catholic Church as the "privileged path" like Robert Barron did to the Jew Ben Shapiro-- is certainly a complete failing and dereliction of duty. 

No, I'm afraid not.  It's much more than that.  It amounts to an objectively heretical denial of EENS.
Logged

Offline Mithrandylan

Re: Dimond brothers
« Reply #67 on: July 13, 2019, 12:00:08 PM »
Quod and Lad,

I'm quite open to it being heretical; not recalling exactly what was said (but just the tenor and gist of it) I didn't want to overstep my memory.  As Byzcat said, heresy requires a direct doubt or denial of some de fide teaching and in this case I was not sure how direct it was.  Which is a point simply to how one categorizes what Barron said. 
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Dimond brothers
« Reply #68 on: July 13, 2019, 12:06:57 PM »
Quote from: Mithrandylan on July 13, 2019, 12:00:08 PM
Quod and Lad,

I'm quite open to it being heretical; not recalling exactly what was said (but just the tenor and gist of it) I didn't want to overstep my memory.  As Byzcat said, heresy requires a direct doubt or denial of some de fide teaching and in this case I was not sure how direct it was.  Which is a point simply to how one categorizes what Barron said.

That's why I said objectively heretical.  If in point of fact the position articulated guts the dogma of any meaning, then it's heretical.  It reduces EENS to a "meaningless formula" and effectively guts the dogma.  If some atheistic Jew like Shapiro can be saved, then there's no one who can't be.  So EENS becomes a mere tautology.  You can't be saved unless you're in the Church, but if you're saved then it must mean you are in the Church.  But anyone can be saved.  Therefore anyone can be within the Church.  It turns EENS into a pathetic joke.
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Dimond brothers
« Reply #69 on: July 13, 2019, 12:18:39 PM »

Quote
As Byzcat said, heresy requires a direct doubt or denial of some de fide teaching 
You are confusing a heretical statement with a heretical person.   What you describe above is related to a person’s intent or personal understanding of truth.  What Ladislaus describes is the fact of heresy itself, which exists regardless of the person’s intent.  This is why we are OBLIGATED to have a well formed conscience.  Without one, many people are heretics and don’t even know it.  They are OBJECTIVELY in error even if they may not want to be.  They still sin due to ignorance because God will enlighten us if we pray, therefore those in ignorance are so because of a punishment from God.  
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16
« previous next »