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.
.
I pretty squarely had just the proposition in mind-- ergo my response focused on whether the proposition was directly in denial or doubt of a dogma. I said nothing about intention, and don't really care about the intention since the question I was responding to was about the proverbial limits of baptism of desire, and Barron's relevance to the question was quite ancillary.
.
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.
.
Heresy is a
direct doubt or denial of some
de fide proposition. Something that is objectively heretical would, then, directly doubt or deny some
de fide proposition. I am not defending Barron since as 2VT pointed out he is rather famously Balthasarian in his soteriology, which for my money is ultimately irreconcilable with the necessity of the Church for salvation. But heresy has a specific meaning and I think, especially given its relevance today, we should be ready to distinguish an heretical proposition from one that is a different category of error.
Topic: Dimond brothers (Read 13929 times)