In this dialogue between Dr. Brian Besong and Steven Nemes (and myself), we discuss the topic of whether theology can be done — or even should be done — without anathemas. Leading up, however, is a winding discussion of phenomenology, epistemology, eating racoons, and a whole bunch else aside. Good luck to anybody who gets through this episode, it’s long (3+ hours), weird (talk of orgies and eating racoons), and abstract (lots of epistemology), but tons of fun!
Dialogue: Eating Racoons, Phenomenology, and Theology without Anathemas?
Related Episodes
Dr. Brian Besong on Traditional Natural Law, Trolley Problems, and President Trump
Steven Nemes on 2 Ways to God in Thomas Aquinas and Michel Henry
The Pat Flynn Show
If you enjoyed this episode, it would mean the world to me if you could subscribe to, and leave a review for, The Pat Flynn show on iTunes HERE or Stitcher HERE.
Reading your reviews and hearing your feedback is what keeps me fired up to make The Pat Flynn Show happen. Thank you!
Pat, this conversation was amazing. By far my favorite episode of yours I have ever listened to and you podcast is already one of my favorites. I was so impressed how hard everyone tried to understand each other’s positions and then test them out against the best objections each could make. This is a perfect model for how ecumenical dialogue should be.
I am a convert to Catholicism from the LCMS Lutheran tradition and almost everything you guys were talking about in the last half of the episode were things that resonated exactly with what I went through in coming to believe in the Catholic Church.
Please, continue this discussion as I would love to hear more!
That is great feedback to hear, Chris, and thank you! Conversations like these are only as good as the guests, so major kudos to Brian and Steven for their intellectual honesty and charity throughout the exchange. Glad to hear you found the conversation stimulating enough to make it through all 3 hours. Hope we can get a part 2 in the works sooner than later!
Glad to hear that more with these two is in the works!
Quick follow up question. I really like how Dr. Besong summed up the “Law of the Gospel” as a “mode of life” that either helps us grow in grace or destroys our grace. Without the systematic theology of the Church, (especially including a teleological view of morality) we have no way to know with any certainty what are the modes of life that please God or possibly destroy our relationship with God.
Do you know where he was pulling that phrase “modes of life” from? It sounds like an idea that he has either formalized in writing in himself or was pulling it from somewhere. I would really like to know as I am always trying to figure out the best way to share with my non-Catholic friends and family how transformative life becomes in a beautiful way when you come under the teachings of the Catholic Church. That idea of “modes of life” seems like a very appealing approach.
Thanks and God bless!
Checked with, Brian. He hasn’t written anything on that subject specifically, but it’s something we could explore further in a conversation. Always good to hear what aspects of a conversation resonated, so thanks for pointing that out!
Sincere thanks for the follow up!
I will keep an eye out for more on this from you two and continue to meditate on it in the meantime.
God bless!
And I forgot to mention that I think this “modes of living” motif is so powerful for talking with anyone who holds to sola fide view of the gospel, because it cuts to heart of the reason why the debate is important. I have studied deeply on the technical differences of an imputation model of justification vs. an infused grace model of justification (“the formal cause” of justification according Council of Trent Session 6, Ch. 7). Pointing out to people where the error lies doesn’t often get much traction. Instead, to point out what the payoff is when you start to see things in the light of God pouring his grace into us at justification (Romans 5:5, Ezk. 36:25-27) and us then living and growing in this grace on our way to beatitude with him seems like it may have much more impact. And again, this idea of “modes of living”, especially as it comes to the spiritual life and the moral life, seems like an excellent way to frame a conversation.
Thanks again and God bless!