Other types of ignorance and more on religious debates

by T. Stanfill Benns | Mar 15, 2024 | New Blog

+Passion Week+

Last week we spoke of invincible ignorance, but there is much more to the ignorance equation that we need to understand before we are done with this topic. What follows below is taken from Revs. John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan’s work: Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities (1958).  It explains not only invincible ignorance but vincible and affected ignorance, which must be better understood to know and appreciate the faith.

“27.With reference to the responsibility of the person who is ignorant, there are two kinds of ignorance.

(a) Ignorance is invincible when it cannot be removed, even by the use of all the care that ordinarily prudent and conscientious persons would use in the circumstances. Thus, a person who has no suspicions of his ignorance, or who has tried in vain to acquire instruction about his duties, is invincibly ignorant.

(b) Ignorance is vincible when it can be removed by the exercise of ordinary care. There are various degrees of this species of ignorance: first, it is merely vincible, when some diligence has been exercised, but not enough; secondly, it is crass or supine, when hardly any diligence has been used; thirdly, it is affected, when a person deliberately aims to continue in ignorance.

“29. Effects of Invincible and Vincible Ignorance

(a) Invincible ignorance, even of what pertains to the natural law, makes an act involuntary, since nothing is willed except what is understood. Hence, no matter how wrong an act is in itself, the agent is not guilty of formal sin (see 249), if he is invincibly ignorant of the malice involved.

(b) Vincible ignorance does not make an act involuntary, since the ignorance itself is voluntary; hence, it does not excuse from sin. It does not even make an act less voluntary and less sinful, if the ignorance is affected in order that one may have an excuse; for such a state of mind shows that the person would act the same way, even though he had knowledge.

“31. Vincible ignorance makes an act less voluntary and less sinful:

(a) when the ignorance is not affected, for the voluntariness is measured by the knowledge, and knowledge here is lacking;

(b) when the ignorance, though affected, was fostered only through fear that knowledge might compel a stricter way of life; for such a state of mind seems to show that one would not act the same way if one had knowledge.

“490. Ignorance of ecclesiastical law or of a penalty attached to the law has the following effects determined in the law:

(a) No kind of ignorance excuses from irritating or inhabilitating laws, unless the contrary is expressly provided for in the law itself (Canon 16, Sec. 1). Thus a person who contracts marriage, while ignorant that he and the other person are first cousins, is invalidly married. (b) Affected ignorance of ecclesiastical law or of the penalty alone does not excuse from any penalties latae sententiae (or ipso facto; Canon 2229, Sec.1).

(c) If the law contains the following words: praesumpserit, ausus fuerit, scienter, studiose, temerarie, consulto egerit, or others similar to them which require full knowledge and deliberation, any diminution of imputability on the part of either the intellect or the will exempts the delinquent from penalties latae sententiae (Canon 2229, Sec.2). (d) If the law does not contain such words as crass or supine, ignorance of the law or even of only the penalty does not exempt from any penalty latae sententiae; ignorance that is not crass or supine exempts from medicinal penalties, but not from vindicative penalties latae sententiae (Canon 2229, Sec.3, 1).

“833. Various penalties and inhabilities are incurred through heresy, for example, excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Pope (Canon 2314), loss of the power of suffrage (Canon 167, Sec.1, n.4), irregularity, (Canon 984, n. 5; 985)… etc.

“834. (d) If the heresy was public and notorious (i.e., if the party joined officially an heretical sect), absolution is regularly to be given in both the external and internal forums. The case should be submitted first to the Ordinary, unless there is urgency (Cfr. Canon 2254), or the confessor has special powers from Rome. The Ordinary can absolve in the external forum. Afterwards, the heretic can be absolved by any confessor in the forum of conscience (see Canon 2314, Sec.2.)

“905. Ignorance (as explained in 28 and 249) is a cause of sin — of material sin, if the ignorance is antecedent, of formal sin, if the ignorance is consequent. But ignorance is also a sin itself, in the sense now to be explained.

(a) Ignorance may be considered in itself (i.e., precisely as it is the absence of knowledge), and in this sense it is not called a sin, since under this aspect it is not opposed to moral virtue, but to knowledge, the perfection of the intellect.

(b) Ignorance may be considered in relation to the will (i.e., precisely as it is a voluntary defect), and in this sense it is a sin, since under this aspect it is opposed to the moral virtue of studiosity (i.e., the part of temperance which moderates the desire of learning and keeps the golden mean between curiosity and negligence). This sin of ignorance pertains to neglect, and is twofold; it is called affected ignorance, if the will is strongly desirous of the lack of due knowledge, and is called careless ignorance, if the will is remiss in desiring due knowledge. Affected ignorance is a sin of commission, careless ignorance a sin of omission.

(c) Ignorance may be considered in relation to obligatory acts (i.e., precisely as it makes one voluntarily incapable of fulfilling one’s duties), and in this sense it partakes of various kinds of sinfulness, inasmuch as he who is voluntarily ignorant of his duty is responsible for the mistakes he will make. Thus, he who is sinfully ignorant in matters of faith, will fail against the precepts of that virtue; he who does not know what his state of life as judge, lawyer, physician, etc., requires, will fail against justice; he who does not know what charity demands of him, will sin against charity.

“906. The malice of the sin of ignorance in matters of faith is as follows: (a) Vincible ignorance of the truths one is obliged to know, whether the obligation be of means or of precept (see 360, 786 sqq.), is a grave sin, for faith in these truths is commanded under pain of losing salvation (Mark, xvi. 15, 16). (b) The sin committed is but one sin, regardless of length of time, and is incurred at the time one omits due diligence in acquiring knowledge, as is the case with other sins of omission. Hence, he who remains in culpable ignorance of Christian doctrine for a year commits one sin, but the length of time is an aggravating circumstance” (end of McHugh and Callan quotes).

Comments on the above

Point One: “Ignorance is vincible when it can be removed by the exercise of ordinary care.” So what constitutes ordinary care? In these times only extraordinary effort will suffice for “ordinary care,” since we have no access to the hierarchy and cannot receive the Sacraments. Some are unable to understand the technical points necessary to know the truth and feel that they will only be able to remain Catholic by staying where they are. God will have mercy on them if they are truly unable to make the necessary effort owing to their circumstances. But those with a college education and hence the ability to study and understand, and even those without one who possess this ability are bound to make that effort in order to save their souls and defend the Church! Have we forgotten the early martyrs?

Point 2: “Ignorance: first, it is merely vincible, when some diligence has been exercised, but not enough; secondly, it is crass or supine, when hardly any diligence has been used; thirdly, it is affected, when a person deliberately aims to continue in ignorance.” How many have simply dismissed all need to study and understand in order to tale for granted the propaganda spread by LibTrad clergy, who they assume are valid and have no desire to consider them otherwise?

Point 3: “Nothing is willed except what is understood.” Have those reading the articles on this site and otherwise studying their faith prayed to the Holy Ghost for the gift of understanding?  Have they confirmed for themselves that what has been written is actually the truth? Have they read and followed the rules listed for study by St. Thomas Aquinas and others?

Point 4: “NO KIND OF IGNORANCE excuses from irritating or inhabilitating laws…” McHugh and Callan explain these laws as follows:

“451. An irritant or inhabilitating law is one that expressly or equivalently declares that certain defects make an act void or voidable, or a person incapable. SUCH LAWS ARE JUST, EVEN WHEN MADE BY HUMAN AUTHORITY, SINCE IT IS THE COMMON GOOD THAT MAKES THEM NECESSARY, AND THE NATURAL LAW ITSELF REQUIRES THAT THE COMMON GOOD BE PROMOTED.”

And yet we read EVEN FROM THOSE AMONG THE WELL-EDUCATED, WHO CLAIM TO BE CATHOLICS KEEPING THE FAITH AT HOME, that such laws are not infallible, not binding, since they are only ”human laws.” They question their binding nature and just application to the present situation and thereby impugn the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiffs as well as the necessity of the common good and its promotion under the natural law. Among such laws can be counted Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Pius II’s Execrabilis, Pope St. Pius V’s Quo Primum, Pope Pius VI’s Charitas, Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolica curae and Pope St. Pius X’s Vacante Sede Apostolica, revised and updated by Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, which now prevails. Be warned by the above then and recant your errors, for “NO KIND OF IGNORANCE excuses from irritating or inhabilitating laws…”

Point 5: “Affected ignorance of ecclesiastical law or of the penalty alone does not excuse from any penalties latae sententiae (ipso facto). Various penalties and inhabilities are incurred through heresy, for example, excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Pope (Canon 2314)… If the heresy was public and notorious (i.e., if the party joined officially a heretical sect), absolution is regularly to be given in both the external and internal forums. The case should be submitted first to the Ordinary, unless there is urgency (Cfr. Canon 2254), or the confessor has special powers from Rome. The Ordinary can absolve in the external forum. Afterwards, the heretic can be absolved by any confessor in the forum of conscience (see Canon 2314, Sec.2.)

Anyone who has engaged in the services of the Novus Ordo church or those of Traditionalists has incurred this latae sententiae censure. We have no true bishops to absolve us from any such penalties. And no one but the Roman Pontiff can lift the vindicative penalty attached to Can. 2314 §1, n. 3. The only way to prepare ourselves as best as possible for the forgiveness of these censures and penalties before death is to follow the method explained here.

Point 6: “This sin of ignorance pertains to neglect, and is twofold; it is called affected ignorance, if the will is strongly desirous of the lack of due knowledge, and is called careless ignorance, if the will is remiss in desiring due knowledge…” Whether careless or affected, ignorance in and of itself is mortally sinful, for: “Vincible ignorance of the truths one is obliged to know, whether the obligation be of means or of precept (see 360, 786 sqq.) is a grave sin, for faith in these truths is commanded under pain of losing salvation (Mark, xvi. 15, 16).” Failing to exercise due diligence in learning truths of faith can only lead to eternal damnation.

And now we proceed to another topic already covered at length before but which appears to be insufficiently understood, for it is still being flaunted and ignored.

Religious Discussions (CONFERENCES, DISPUTATIONS, DEBATES) 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05034a.htm

“Religious discussions, as contradistinguished from polemical writings, designate oral dialectical duels, more or less formal and public, between champions of divergent religious beliefs. For the most part, the more celebrated of these discussions have been held at the instigation of the civil authorities; for the Church has rarely shown favour to this method of ventilating revealed truth. This attitude of opposition on the part of the Church is wise and intelligible. A champion of orthodoxy, possessed of all the qualifications essential to a public debater, is not easily to be found. Moreover, it seems highly improper to give the antagonists of the truth an opportunity to assail mysteries and institutions which should be spoken of with reverence. The fact that the Catholic party to the controversy is nearly always obliged to be on the defensive places him at a disadvantage before the public, who, as Demosthenes remarks, “listen eagerly to revilings and accusations”. At any rate, the Church, as custodian of Revelation, cannot abdicate her office and permit a jury of more or less competent individuals to decide upon the truths committed to her care.

“St. Thomas (II-II, Q. x, a. 7) holds that it is lawful to dispute publicly with unbelievers, under certain conditions. To discuss as doubting the truth of the faith, is a sin; to discuss for the purpose of refuting error, is praiseworthy. At the same time the character of the audience must be considered. If they are well instructed and firm in their belief, there is no danger; if they are simple-minded then, where they are solicited by unbelievers to abandon their faith, a public defence is needful, provided it can be undertaken by competent parties. But where the faithful are not exposed to such perverting influences, discussions of the sort are dangerous. It is not, then, surprising that the question of disputations with heretics has been made the subject of ecclesiastical legislation. By a decree of Alexander IV (1254-1261) inserted in “Sextus Decretalium”, Lib. V, c. ii, and still in force, all laymen are forbidden, under threat of excommunication, to dispute publicly or privately with heretics on the Catholic Faith.

“The text reads: “Inhibemus quoque, ne cuiquam laicæ personæ liceat publice vel privatim de fide catholicâ disputare. Qui vero contra fecerit, excommunicationis laqueo innodetur.” (We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication.) This law, like all penal laws, must be very narrowly construed. The terms Catholic Faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological; the latter to disputations more or less formal and engrossing the attention of the public. There are numerous questions, somewhat connected with theology, which many laymen who have received no scientific theological training can treat more intelligently than a priest. In modern life, it frequently happens that an O’Connell or a Montalembert must stand forward as a defender of Catholic interests upon occasions when a theologian would be out of place. But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defence of it to the clergy.

“But the clergy are not free to engage in public disputes on religion without due authorization. In the Collectanea S. Cong. de Prop. Fide” (p. 102, n. 294) we find the following decree, issued 8 March 1625: “The Sacred Congregation has ordered that public discussions shall not be held with heretics, because for the most part, either owing to their loquacity or audacity or to the applause of the audience, error prevails and the truth is crushed. But should it happen that such a discussion is unavoidable, notice must first be given to the S. Congregation, which, after weighing the circumstances of time and persons, will prescribe in detail what is to be done. The Sacred Congregation enforced this decree with such vigour, that the custom of holding public disputes with heretics wellnigh fell into desuetude. [See the decree of 1631 regarding the missionaries in Constantinople; also the decrees of 1645 and 1662, the latter forbidding the General of the Capuchins to authorize such disputes (Collectanea, 1674, n. 302).]

“That this legislation is still in force appears from the letter addressed to the bishops of Italy by Cardinal Rampolla in the name of the Cong. for Ecclesiastical Affairs (27 Jan., 1902) in which it is declared that discussions with Socialists are subject to the decrees of the Holy See regarding public disputes with heretics; and, in accordance with the decree of Propaganda, 7 Feb., 1645, such public disputations are not to be permitted unless there is hope of producing greater good and unless the conditions prescribed by theologians are fulfilled. The Holy See, it is added, considering that these discussions often produce no result at all or even result in harm, has frequently forbidden them and ordered ecclesiastical superiors to prevent them; where this cannot be done, care must be taken that the discussions are not held without the authorization of the Apostolic See; and that only those who are well qualified to secure the triumph of Christian truth shall take part therein.

“It is evident, then, that no Catholic priest is ever permitted to become the aggressor or to issue a challenge to such a debate. If he receives from the other party to the controversy a public challenge under circumstances which make a non-acceptance appear morally impossible, he must refer the case to his canonical superiors and be guided by their counsel. We thus reconcile two apparently contradictory utterances of the Apostles: for according to St. Peter (1 Peter 3:15) you should be “ready always to satisfy everyone that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you”, while St. Paul admonishes Timothy (2 Timothy 2:14), “Contend not in words, for it is to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers”. So the ability to debate at all was restricted to the clergy.”

Under Can. 1325, the canonists Revs. Woywod-Smith note that an 1864 decree forbidding Catholics to participate in the discussions of a certain London group was ordered to be reissued by Pope Benedict XV in 1919 and was then entered into the AAS, (Acta Apostolica Sedis; XI, 309). A similar July 8, 1927, Holy Office decision forbade Catholics to participate in the Lausanne Conference on Christian Unity (AAS XIX, 278). So there can be no doubt that these prohibitions were only further reinforced.

And what do we learn from the above?

1. Those truly qualified to defend the truths of faith in debates with non-Catholics are a rare breed and certainly cannot be found among Catholics today. One presuming to possess such skills when only the Roman Pontiff could determine this is vain and presumptuous, to say the least.
2. Such debates are a grave danger to the faith and not conducive to deterring souls from error.
3. Laymen were long ago forbidden to engage in such debates under pain of excommunication.
4. Even priests cannot enter into such debates without special permission, in urgent cases, from their bishops, and in non-urgent cases, the Holy Office itself.
5. What is envisioned above were debates of a local nature, not video events available to the entire world with all the resulting scandal and harm to souls. And those who view or promote such events contrary to the orders of the Holy See are just as guilty as the one(s) debating.

This is the third or fourth time I have addressed this issue. It applies to forums and podcasts on the Internet and those existing on “Catholic forums” every bit as much as to the video debates themselves. It is not coming from me but straight from the Church. Truth is not up for debate. Orders of the popes are to be obeyed, not questioned and analyzed. And I have an observation to offer on the refusal of those who know the truths of faith and what is expected of them yet fail to adjust their thinking and behavior accordingly.

A relative trained as a counselor noted recently that when a counselor is treating a patient, if three or four months go by and the patient shows little or no progress in recovery, then it is the counselor’s job and duty to sever the relationship with the client. If the counselor DOESN’T do this, s/he faces removal by the state, and can no longer practice. Why? Because the counselor  is enabling the client, or in Church terms, s/he becomes a cooperator in his errors and sins by not refusing to tolerate the client’s behavior. This is similar to the priest whose penitent continues to confess the same mortal sins each week and does not make any progress in rooting them out. The priest is then obligated to refuse him absolution. Holy Scripture tells us that after the first or second admonition, a brother who is erring should be avoided and referred to the Church. And Our Lord told his Apostles to shake the dust from their sandals and move on when those to whom they were preaching showed no signs of repentance and conversion.

Those not obeying the binding teachings of the Church cannot be considered Catholic even though they may be praying at home. Obedience regardless of the cost is the only thing that will save our souls. When online forums warn members not to read the presentation by others of Catholic truth, they stray inro the realm of “Catholic” cults. Allowing those believing themselves to be Catholic to “debate” the truth and viewing or attendance at debates forbidden by the Church is offensive to God. We tell Him in the Act of Faith that we “believe ALL the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches because Thou has revealed them” — but do we? We aver in our Act of Contrition that we detest our sins and will amend our lives — but do we really mean it? This is not a game and I am not the master of ceremonies here. It is now Passion Week, and if we do not do penance for our sins and truly convert, all of us shall perish.

Church teaching on invincible ignorance and implicit desire

by T. Stanfill Benns | Mar 6, 2024 | New Blog

Prayer Society Intention for March, Month of St. Joseph

“Oh blessed Joseph… most watchful guardian of the Holy Family, protect the chosen people of Jesus Christ; keep far from us, most loving father, all blighted error and corruption. Mercifully assist us from heaven, most mighty defender, in this our conflict with the powers of darkness.” (Raccolta)

+St. Thomas Aquinas, Confessor+

“It is charity I want, not learning. I have a great dread of learning, and a boundless love for charity. God grant that learning be not a source of division amongst us! God grant that charity may edify and unite us all in Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom alone be all honour and glory forever.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Letters 242.)

Introduction

It is the purpose of this blog to try and clarify the many misconceptions yet surrounding invincible ignorance and the true meaning of the term “implicit desire.”

The popes speak of individuals who are invincibly ignorant as non-members of the Church. We know those guilty of heresy and schism and or communicatio in sacris, whether Novus Ordo, LibTrads or members of some other non-Catholic sect, are at least material heretics. In other words they are to be considered outside the Church for reasons of external acts of heresy or schism until a true bishop or pope determines otherwise (Canon 2200). This is explained HERE. We judge them only in the external and not the internal forum. Despite their status however we cannot as Pope Pius IX teaches in Singulari quadam and his other encyclicals make any decision on whether they are formally guilty or excused for various reasons. That is to be determined by the Church. It is enough that, sadly, they have lost Church membership and cannot be considered members of the Mystical Body. Their actual guilt before the eyes of God is something He alone can judge.

Many have become confused about the Church’s actual teaching on these matters for two reasons: 1) The Feeney heresy and its fanatical supporters who falsely claim that popes the Holy Office’s teachings in Suprema haec sacra, the Holy Office being headed by Pope Pius XII himself, deny the dogma of no salvation outside the Church and 2) the Novus Ordo sect teachings, which openly declare that a person can be saved with some vague, ineffective act of the will, which was never the intention of the Church. Not only that, but the Novus Ordo teaches that man has an inherent right to choose his own religion and the Catholic Church has no inherent right to teach She is the one, true Church, outside of which no one can be saved. All this in the name of “freedom of religion,” thanks to the efforts of the Jesuit heretic John Courtney Murray and his supporters. These are the men who worked for two decades to engineer what later became Vatican 2 as explained at length in The Phantom Church in Rome.

We cite and obey Can. 2200 not to condemn others; this they do themselves by their own external acts. We simply obey this law in order to protect ourselves and the Church from any least tendency to heresy and from all the teachings of heretics and schismatics. This the Vatican Council ordered us to do in DZ 1820, where it taught: “But since it is not sufficient to shun heretical iniquity unless these errors also are shunned which come more or less close to it,we remind all of the duty of observing also the constitutions and decrees by which base opinions of this sort which are not enumerated explicitly here have been prescribed and prohibited by this Holy See.” This same teaching can be found in Can. 1324, which precedes the actual canon defining heresy, apostasy and schism. We believe, without making the actual judgment, that only by God’s mercy alone and the operation of grace in the individual soul that those outside the Church could be saved, but we do not presume such is the case. Pope Pius XII himself taught in Mystici Corporis that it is a difficult thing to be saved without being in the Church, narrowing the field to a chosen number of souls.

In our times, given the terrible confusion that prevails, the deliberate suppression of the truth and the lack of hierarchy to condemn the many sects that seem to pop up overnight, we do have reason to hope. I think that God, in His infinite mercy, will have pity on souls who really do try their best to know and understand the truth, to lead a Godly life, yet fall short. We cannot forget that the Jews considered themselves superior to the Gentiles and saved by their birthright alone. Yet in the end it was the Gentiles primarily who converted to Christianity. The name Catholic will not save us; only obedience to all that Christ taught, as relayed to us by His Vicars will guarantee our salvation. Those still trapped in non-Catholic sects are hampered mostly by their prejudices and lack of knowledge about how these sects actually came to be.

We can warn them that resisting the known truth, when they find it, is a sin against the Holy Ghost. But God alone can give them the grace to accept it and it is a pure gift from the Holy Ghost to understand it. As explained in our last blog, knowing is one thing; it is understanding and putting into practice what we know and understand that is most important. We must constantly pray for the gifts to know the truth, to understand it and to act accordingly. It takes a great deal more effort today to discern the truth without the Pope to guide us. That is why we must limit our inquiries to papal teachings and the teaching of ecumenical councils, also the precepts of Canon Law, most of which come to us from the ecumenical councils (particularly Trent) and the teachings of the popes themselves.

This is why the 1917 Code is determined to be negatively infallible and the popes have always referred to these laws as the Sacred Cannons. And when the teachings of the Church seem different, difficult or questionable to us then we resort to this explanation of a select few theologians of the past 150 years, especially among them such greats as Henry Cardinal Manning, Rev. E. Sylvester Barry, Louis Cardinal Billot, Msgr. Van Noort, Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey, Rev. Jean Marie Herve and others, including Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton and Rev. Francis J. Connell. These were the theologians most loyal to the magisterium. We invest more trust in them because already in the 1800s, as Pope Gregory XVI noted, evil forces were aligning to topple the papacy and the remaining monarchies.

Invincible ignorance as explained by Fr. Michael Muller

It is not for a lack of searching for the truth on these matters that those truly seeking it have been led astray; it is the misinformation or incomplete explanation of the faith provided them by false guides. Many became derailed in this search when they encountered varying opinions among trustworthy theologians writing before 1950. In that year, by issuing Humani generis, Pope Pius XII laid to rest all these concerns when he directed theologians and all the faithful to the binding decisions recorded in the Acta Apostolica Sedis. But still there were those in Pius XII’s time who chose to ignore his teachings, just as there are those today who dismiss or omit these decisions, choosing to believe as they please and not as the Church teaches. Even renowned catechists taught, in the early 1900s, that we must not consider all those outside the Church as lost. Fr. Michael Muller, C.S.S.R., wrote as follows on that topic: “

The Catholic Dogma, pp. 217-218, 1888:

“Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Savior, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself. ‘Invincible ignorance,’ says St. Thomas, ‘is a punishment for sin.’ (De, Infid. Q. x., art. 1). “It is, then, a curse, but not a blessing or a means of salvation… Hence Pius IX said ‘that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in his infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord who knows the heart and the thoughts of man will, in his infinite goodness, not suffer anyone to be lost forever without his own fault.’ Almighty God, who is just condemns no one without his fault, puts, therefore, such souls as are in invincible ignorance of the truths of salvation, in the way of salvation, either by natural or supernatural means.”

Fr. Michael Müller also wrote a catechism titled Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine. He writes:

Q. What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity of knowing better?

A. Their inculpable ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance.

Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.

Q. What do you mean by this?

A. I mean that God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the truth of the Catholic faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.

Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?

A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved.

Q. What, then, awaits all those who are out of the Catholic Church, and die without having received such an extraordinary grace at the hour of death?

A. Eternal damnation. https://cathexcerpts.blogspot.com/2020/02/fr-muller-on-invincible-ignorance-and.html

The reference by Fr. Muller above to “the soul of the Church,” however, is a term that can no longer be used since the issuance of Mystici Corporis and  Suprema haec sacra. This is yet another example of why catechisms alone are not sufficient to know what the Church teaches. Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton explains why this term should no longer be used below:

“The most important and the most widely employed of all the inadequate explanations of the Church’s necessity for salvation was the one that centered around a distinction between the ” body” and the ” soul ” of the Catholic Church. The individual who tried to explain the dogma in this fashion generally designated the visible Church itself as the ” body ” of the Church and applied the term ” soul of the Church ” either to grace and the supernatural virtues or to some fancied ” invisible Church.” Prior to the appearance of the encyclical Mystici Corporis there were several books and articles claiming that, while the “soul” of the Church was in some way not separated from the “body,” it was actually more extensive than this “body.” Explanations of the Church’s necessity drawn up in terms of this distinction were at best inadequate and confusing and all too frequently infected with serious error. When the expression “soul of the Church” was applied to sanctifying grace and the organism of supernatural virtues that accompany it, the explanation was confusing in that it stressed the fact that a man must be in the state of grace, and that he must have faith and charity if he is to attain to eternal salvation, but it tended to obscure the truth that a man must in some manner be ” within ” the true and visible Catholic Church at the moment of his death if he is ever to reach the Beatific Vision. When, on the other hand, some imaginary ” invisible Church,” some assembly of all the good people in the world, was designated as the ” soul of the Church,” these explanations lapsed into doctrinal inaccuracy” (The Catholic Church and Salvation, pgs. 126-127, nos. 3 and 4).

Meaning of implicit desire

Where people also become confused is the term “implicit desire,” which Msgr. Fenton explains in his book as follows:

“The Catholic Church and its theologians had likewise taught that a sincere desire to enter and to remain within the Church could be effective for the attainment of eternal salvation even when that desire was merely implicit, that is, not based on a clear and distinct notion of the Church itself… It is absolutely imperative to remember that being “within” the Church is not exactly the same thing as being a member of this social unit. A man is a member of the Church when he is baptized, and when he has neither publicly renounced his baptismal profession of the true faith nor withdrawn from the fellowship of the Church, and when he has not been expelled from the company of the disciples by having received the fullness of excommunication. But a man is “within” the Church to the extent that he can be saved ” within ” it when he is a member or even when he sincerely, albeit perhaps only implicitly, desires to enter it. The condition requisite for profiting from the reception of the sacraments or from the performance of acts which should be salutary is being “within” the Church.

“Now, while it is possible to have a desire to be within the Church, and, indeed even to be a member of the Church, without having the love of charity for God, it is quite impossible to have charity without being within the true Church, at least by an implicit desire to dwell in it. The love of charity is, by its very nature, a sovereign affection. It is definable in terms of intention rather than of mere velleity; and it necessarily embodies an intention, rather than a mere velleity, to do what Our Lord actually wills we should do. And Our Lord wills that all men should enter and remain within the one society of Mis disciples, His Kingdom and His Mystical Body in this world” (pgs. 25, 39). And Msgr. Fenton continues:

“(8b) The Suprema haec sacra then brings out the fact that, in the merciful designs of God’s providence, such realities as the Church itself and the sacraments of baptism and penance can, under certain circumstances, bring about the effects which they are meant to produce as means necessary for the attainment or eternal salvation when a man possesses them only in the sense that he desires or intends or wills to have or to use them. Obviously the text cannot be understood unless we realize what the ” certain circumstances” mentioned in the text really are.

“Basic among these circumstances is the genuine impossibility or receiving the sacraments of baptism or of penance or of entering the Church as a member. It is quite clear that if it is possible for a man to be baptized, to go to confession and to receive sacramental absolution, or really to become a member or the true Church, the man for whom this is possible will not attain to eternal salvation unless he actually avails himself of these means. But, on the other hand, should the actual employment or these means be genuinely impossible, then the man can attain to eternal life by a will or desire to employ them.

“Here, of course, we must distinguish sedulously between the order of intention and the order of mere velleity. What is required here is an effective desire, an effective act of the will, as distinct from a mere complacency or approval. A non-member of the Church can be saved if he genuinely wants or desires to enter the Church. With that genuine and active desire or intention, he will really become a member of the Church if this is at all possible. If it is not possible, then the force of his intention or desire will bring him ” within ” the Church in such a way that he can attain eternal salvation in this company. An inherently ineffective act of the will, a mere velleity, will definitely not sufficefor the attainment of eternal salvation” (p. 111).

Where error crept in

How many poor people today, seeing the disarray in the church in Rome and in general among the entire “Christian” denominations, really want to be a member of Christ’s true Church — or believe they are such a member and truly love and serve Him —  but either don’t know where to turn or truly doubt that the church they think is Catholic today could be the true Church? And they are right in doubting this! Does anyone really think that God, in His infinite mercy, would visit this punishment on the Church and the world in general then throw them to the wolves?!

Summarizing a passage from De Ecclesia Christi by Louis Cardinal Billot, Rome, 1921, Msgr. Charles Journet, in his 1952 work The Church of the Word Incarnate, writes:

“THEOLOGICAL FAITH IS MORE NECESSARY STILL THAN THE SACRAMENTS, SINCE NOTHING CAN REPLACE IT, WHEREAS THOSE WHO POSSESS IT IN CHARITY ALREADY POSSESS THE SACRAMENTS AS BY DESIRE, VOTO. If then the Sacraments can in some sense be had ‘outside’ the Church, to those who receive them in uprightness of heart, it is still more necessary that a sufficient proposal of the faith should be made outside the Church, and that true believers in the true faith should be found even amongst those whose ecclesiastical rulers hold doctrines that are contrary to orthodoxy or erroneous…The way of justification remains open ‘outside’ the Church to men of good will, who are ready at heart to believe all that God has revealed. It can even be opened to them by the message proposed by schismatics and heretics, provided, of course, that this message still contains that minimum of truth without which no adult in any event can be saved — namely the supernatural mystery of the existence and providence of God. So that the sects separated from the legitimate Bride of Christ see, in these circumstances, to become Her servants to aid her to engender new children to grace, not solely by the ministration of the Sacraments but also by proposing a doctrine, tainted with error though it may be.”

WE cannot countenance error; we are members of the Church by our Baptism and Profession of Faith. Those not born into the faith and now genuinely struggling to seek the truth will be saved if they genuinely wish to be members of the Church and love God with their whole heart, soul, mind and strength; we simply are not allowed to presume who they may be. In Traditionalist circles, much sway is given to works such as The Little Number of Those Who Are Saved by St. Leonard of Port Maurice, and certainly works by the saints should be read and respected. But few realize that this is one of the matters on which the Church has never officially rendered an opinion, one of those areas where later decisions of the Holy See such as Mystici Corporis and Suprema haec sacra have a direct bearing. In other words, it is the development of dogma that forces us to view this in a different light, now that the Church has clarified certain points of doctrine.

One Jesuit advocate of the milder opinion, Rev. Nicholas Walsh S.J., in his 1908 work, The Saved and the Lost,describes it as a swinging pendulum, at first resting in favor of the stricter view and then later swinging to the opposite side, in favor of the milder opinion. As all devices of this nature, when it comes to rest, it stops halfway between the two unless dialed back altogether by the Holy See.

According to Rev. Walsh, “Whether there be few or many that are saved [is] an open question… There is no authoritative decision of the Church or unanimous opinion of her Fathers or theologians: [it is therefore] an open question about which we may speculate as a ‘doubtful law’ (St. Augustine).” Walsh’s work is available for free download HERE.  So the insistence by some that we must consider the majority lost is not accurate in light of Pope Pius XII’s later decisions. For the truth is, as Rev. Walsh states, that: “If the upholders of the severe rigorous opinions ask me in what way God weaves his ‘web of love’ about every soul He has created, even about souls which look to the human eye outcast, I answer at once: ‘It is his secret; I do not know.’ But if they ask me why I believe He does I answer without fear: Because His character as Creator of all men clearly revealed in Scripture and formulated by eminent theologians obliges me to think so.

“I would then be tempted to ask them what reasons they have for thinking and saying plainly, ‘All infidels are damned on account of their infidelity. The great majority of mankind is lost because infidels heretics etc. always made the majority.’ That in a word the Creator as well as Judge will say, ‘Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire.’ to the whole mass of unbelievers — as well, as according to some, the majority of Catholics. I can only find two reasons. Some text types are parables of Scripture which do not in any way prove their most dismal views and the external bad aspect of the world which is at best misleading and which certainly cannot limit or interfere with the universal secret action of God by grace in the souls which He has created. ‘We may depend upon it, writes Fr. [Frederick] Faber, that in 1,000 spots which look desert, waste, fire-blackened, God’s mercy is finding pasture for His glory.” While I do not agree with Rev. Walsh that the majority of mankind will be saved, I do not necessarily disagree with him, either. For as he said, God alone knows, and it is not something any of us can determine.

Conclusion

It is my firm belief, both from personal experience and the testimony of theologians, that the Jansenist heresy and its rigorism — a rigorism which extends to teaching that only a limited number will be saved — is responsible for much of the confusion regarding the salvation of those not officially members of the Church, but who are “within it” in a way only God understands. We must adjust our Catholic beliefs according to the documents of the magisterium whenever it overrides the writing of the saints or theologians and their opinions. And this regardless of the strident insistence of those who may presume to claim otherwise and even threaten those not adopting their rigorist stance with eternal damnation.  I cannot repeat often enough that we must flee from all those who will not adhere to papal teaching and refuse to allow them to lead or instruct us. For these are the very hirelings and false shepherds, the wolves in sheepskins, Christ warned us to avoid.

(P.S. And BTW, those who complain about the length of these blogs and the articles referenced here and the time it takes to read them, but who dedicate endless hours to viewing “Catholic” videos, are not being sincere in discerning the truth or obedient to the popes and ecumenical councils.)

IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE for cardinals and bishops accepting Roncalli

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jun 29, 2023 | New Blog

+Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul+

+Prayer Society intentions for the Month of July,

Dedicated to the Precious Blood of Jesus+  

Eternal Father, I offer Thee the merits of the Most Precious Blood of Jesus, Thy beloved Son and my Divine Redeemer, for the conversion of the enemies of our holy Faith.

In response to accusations by certain parties that the premises on which the book The Phantom Church in Rome are based must inevitably result in the conclusion that Pope Pius XII was an heretical pope, I offer the following. The objections of these critics will appear as OBJ and my response as ANS.

OBJ. 1: The crime of apostasy, heresy or schism must be manifested externally, either in words, writings or acts that reveal desertion from the Christian Church, denial of any article of faith or separation from the unity of the Church, according to Can. 2195, §1. Saint Thomas says in Summa Theologica Part II-IIae – Question 39 “Therefore, those who spontaneously and intentionally depart from the unity of the Church, which is the main unity, will be considered as schismatics in the strict sense.”

ANS: In last week’s blog I demonstrated beyond any doubt that such heresy was manifested in word, writing and acts by these bishops under orders of Roncalli and/or his unHoly Office. This only three months following his invalid election. Were all the bishops parties to this? Even if they were not, and we know they later proved their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they were OBLIGATED to know that what they were promoting was heresy. It occurred in sufficient numbers that it could not be denied or ignored (Can. 2197) and anyone who remained silent regarding said heresy and schism from the Church and teachings of Pope Pius XII and all his predecessors also incurred guilt under Can. 1325. And here I would like to add further proof of this willful and intentional disobedience and rebellion, issued only three months before Pope Pius XII’s death:

OBJ. 2: You state: “I have proven he was both [a usurper and a Masonic agent] and a heretic pre-election. It was the electing cardinals who designated Roncalli as their “pope,” uncanonically placing a heretic in Peter’s Chair.” Are you saying that Pope Pius XII was a formal heretic, by electing as a potential candidate for the papacy a heretic, Modernist and Freemason known to all the Cardinals and the Episcopal Body on October 28, 1958, making him a Cardinal on January 2, 1953 and keeping him until October 9, 1958, and therefore Pope Pius XII was not Pope?

ANS: Pope Innocent III and Canon Law teach that NO ONE may judge the pope. And as one reader pointed out, this applies especially to a pope who was ill and in a most precarious situation, at the mercy of Antichrist himself and his False Prophet! As I explained in my last blog, Roncalli was nominated as a cardinal by Montini, who had not yet shown his true colors to Pope Pius XII. The pope cannot be judged for committing heresy while in office given the Vatican Council definitions which did not yet exist in Pope Paul IV’s time. One would need to prove beyond any doubt that Pope Pius XII, then, was invalidly elected or that he was a heretic pre-election (Can. 2233 and St. Paul: “But PROVE all things; hold fast that which is good” 1 Thess. 5:2). This is something only a future ecumenical council and/or a canonically elected pope could determine.

OBJ. 3: Are you suggesting that before the “election” of Roncalli, the Cardinals chosen by His Holiness Pope Pius XII and His Holiness Pope Pius XI were not legitimate, and it was because of them that the “election” was invalid, and not that it was invalid by the apostate person of Roncalli himself, who, we insist again, was elevated to the Cardinalate by Pope Pius XII?

ANS: No; I am only saying that because the cardinals must designate the man to become pope, they are responsible for first investigating his character. The cardinals electing Roncalli were occult heretics prior to Pope Pius XII’s death who then openly and freely manifested their heresy by electing Roncalli at the behest of the American government/CIA, thereby violating Pope Pius XII’s infallible election law Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) in this and in numerous other ways, deposing themselves and invalidating the election. This is the very “obstinacy and rebellion” referred to in your communique (see below). I never said that ALL the cardinals defected, only those who voted for Roncalli (35 out of 51 or thereabouts.) The cardinals rebelled first of all by failing to follow the commands of Pope Pius XII contained in VAS.

Violations of VAS by paragraph

1) Without a two-thirds plus one vote by CATHOLIC cardinals who have not tacitly resigned from their offices by heresy (Can. 188 n. 4, VAS para. 35), the election is “ipso iure null and void,” (para. 68).

2) Roncalli promoted himself for election prior to Pius XII’s death, a fact proven from several different sources, contrary to the excommunication in para. 93 and Can. 2330 n. 6. If the cardinals attempted to absolve him from that excommunication, this is a usurpation of papal jurisdiction (para. 1), since this excommunication is reserved in a most special manner to the Roman Pontiff. That absolution therefore was invalid under VAS and Roncalli was invalidly elected, since Can. 2265 §1, n. 2, which VAS teaches must be followed along with all the other canons, states: “Every excommunicated person whatsoever is incapable of acquiring dignities offices, benefices ecclesiastical pensions or any position in the Church.” Number one of this same canon would also deprive them of the right to vote, but VAS allows excommunicates (for everything but heresy governed under para. 35) to vote.

3) Any lay interference automatically incurs excommunication reserved in a most special manner to the Roman Pontiff, (paras. 94, 95, also para. 3; Can. 2330, n. 7,8), and there are numerous sources of great import documenting the fact that this actually occurred.

4) Any act violating any of the provisions of VAS itself, especially, or of the Sacred Canons in general is null and void. These would include:

• any attempt to usurp papal jurisdiction (para.1);
• all the canons decreeing excommunication of the cardinals, if not observed;
• any usurpation of papal jurisdiction or unopposed attempts to subvert the election (para. 2).
• The election of one not yet absolved by the Roman Pontiff himself from those censures in VAS especially reserved to him, for this would be a usurpation of papal jurisdiction.

OBJ. 4: We quote from The Communication of Catholics with Non-Catholics, Catholic University of America dissertation on canon law, 1948, on schism: “One must withdraw directly (expressly) or indirectly (by his actions) from obedience to the Roman Pontiff and separate from ecclesiastical communion with the other faithful; the withdrawal must be done with obstinacy and rebellion; in relation to those things by which the unity of the Church is constituted.”

ANS: As already stated above, that withdrawal WAS made with obstinacy and rebellion by a) disobeying the binding decrees of Pope Pius XII, especially VAS in electing an unworthy candidate; b) accepting the authority and “papacy” of John 23 by distributing the 1959 mass booklets, c) preparing for and attending the first session of the false Vatican 2 council, and d) by observing the 1962 missal changes and other calendar changes.

OBJ. 5: Canon 2229 §2. Canon 2316: “A person who knowingly and on his own account helps in any way to propagate heresy, or who communicates in sacred rites (in divinis) with heretics in violation of the prohibition of Canon 1258 incurs suspicion of heresy.” If the law uses the words: “He has the audacity, dares, knowingly, intently, recklessly, on purpose” or other similar words that require full knowledge and full deliberation, any reduction of imputability by the understanding or by part of the will exempts from the penalties ‘latae sententiae’.

ANS: It is presumed that cardinals and bishops act knowingly and on purpose, with full knowledge and deliberation, since they have been educated in the teachings of the Church and Canon Law. This was already stated above. You will notice that Can. 2314 §1 (3) does not use this wording, so they are not exempt. Moreover it cites Can. 188 n. 4 which REMOVES THEM FROM THEIR OFFICES AS BISHOPS FOR RECOGNIZING RONCALLI AS A LEGITIMATE POPE AND FAILING TO DEPART FROM HIM TO ELECT A TRUE POPE. This happened in 1958-59, NOT in 1965! Furthermore, the Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac, S.S, D.D., D.C.L., in his Penal Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law writes under Can. 2316: “under the former legislation those who helped the spread of heresy were among the fautores hereticorum who incurred the same excommunication as the heretics themselves. The penalty now is suspicion of heresy and the law more explicitly defines the circumstances under which is it is incurred. The assistance must be given not simply to heretics personally but to the heresy so as to contribute to its propagation.”

In questioning the culpability of the cardinals and bishops, we have a doubt regarding the application of this law. What does the Code of Canon Law tell us to do whenever there is a doubt regarding the application of a law? It tells us to return to the old law under Canon 6 n. 4. What is the old law? Well Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac has just told us what the old law was — heretics who cooperate with the principal agent in the spread of heresy. incur the same excommunication. And guess what the old law governing Can. 2316 is? It is no less than Cum ex Apostolates Officio and we know what that law says — these bishops lose all offices for publicly pronouncing heresy. So there we’ve solved our problem. Now we will examine whether or not under Can. 2316 bishops would be presumed to know or could be considered ignorant (invincibly or otherwise) of the fact that they were committing heresy.

Rev. MacKenzie comments: “The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity. There may be excusing circumstances which excuse from grave responsibility in the external forum and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given eyes to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of proof all such excuses are PRESUMED not to exist” and here MacKenzie refers obliquely to Canon 2200 of the Code, for later he writes: “…Ignorance must be proved. By virtue of Can. 2200 §2 the fact that a delict has been committed establishes a PRESUMPTION that the delinquent was fully responsible.  A mere assertion of ignorance will not suffice. Laypersons will be able to prove this claim more easily than clerics…”

Regarding the election of a future pope, Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis also sheds further light on this matter: “We command those individuals to whom it pertains and will pertain for the time being to vote, that the ordinances must be respectively and inviolably observed by them, and if anyone should happen to try otherwise relative to these things, by whatever authority, KNOWINGLY OR UNKNOWINGLY, the attempt is null and void” (para. 108). Below I will provide lengthy quotes from theologians well versed in this subject. We must remember that clerics as referred to by Rev. MacKenzie  would more likely refer to those who are deacons and priests. Bishops are much higher on the chain than what is assumed here.

Teaching on ignorance and heresy

We must first remember that from the very beginning of his usurpation, John 23 made it very clear that he intended to modernize the Church. This should have served as a grave warning to the bishops. In his 1935 work Canon Law, Abp. Amleto Cicognani quotes Pope Celestine, who said: “No priest may be ignorant of the canons;” and Pope Leo I: “If ignorance is hardly tolerable in laymen, how much more so in those who are over them; such ignorance is inexcusable and intolerable.” Another pope, whose Bull is the basis for nearly every Canon governing heresy in the Code, taught:

“We likewise consider it fitting that those who do not refrain from evil through love of virtue should be deterred therefrom through fear of penalties. Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals [etc.]…, who must teach others and give them good example to keep them in the Catholic Faith — when these prevaricate, they sin more gravely than others; for they not only lose themselves, but drag down with them to perdition and the pit of death countless other peoples entrusted to their care and government or otherwise subject to them… All and sundry Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals…WHO, IN THE FUTURE, SHALL STRAY OR FALL INTO HERESY OR SHALL INCUR, INCITE OR COMMIT SCHISM… being less excusable than others in such matters… (all these persons) are also automatically AND WITHOUT ANY RECOURSE TO LAW OR ACTION, completely and entirely, forever deprived of, and furthermore disqualified from and incapacitated for their rank” (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, para. 3). But our critics are attempting to excuse these cardinals and bishops  by having recourse to Can. 2316, when Cum ex… governs this very canon?

In his work, Ignorance in Relation to the Imputability of Delicts (1941), Rev. Innocent Swoboda, O.F.M., J.C.L. observes: “One who is well versed in the law, or one who holds an office in regard to the things pertaining to the office,” is PRESUMED to be unable to claim ignorance of the law or its penalty or ignorance of some fact concerning the delict. Swoboda explains that in priests, (far less bishops), a knowledge of the law is so strongly presumed that even if ignorance is claimed, it would most likely be considered crass by an ecclesiastical court, or culpable, (meaning the offender is at fault). Crass ignorance is subjectively defined by Swoboda as: “A complete lack of diligence when it is known that the truth could be easily discovered… A complete and total failure to use any effort to fulfill the obligation of knowing the law or the pertinent facts surrounding the law. The failure itself may arise from mere sloth or from a sinful habit of acting without due consideration of the results of one’s own conduct… Only the ignorance of those things which can be easily learned can be considered crass or supine.” 

And Rev. Eric MacKenzie writes in his 1932 Canon Law dissertation, The Delict of Heresy, p. 48: “Mere ignorance of the penalty does not remove all imputability from the delict but only diminishes it… If the delinquent making this claim be a cleric his plea for mitigation must be dismissed either as untrue or else as indicating ignorance which is affected or at least crass and supine. His ecclesiastical training in the seminary with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its Canon Law — all ensured that the Church’s attitude toward heresy was imparted to him. Thereafter his professional associations and his contacts with Church affairs offer further guarantee that HE HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW ABOUT HERESY. Hence his present ignorance is unreal or if it be real, it can only be explained as deliberately fostered.”  But our critics would excuse these men?

Can. 2200 states that: “…Given the external violation of a law, the evil will is PRESUMED in the external forum until the contrary is proved.” Rev. Chas. Augustine (Bachofen) concurs with Rev. MacKenzie, stating that, “The text adds that if the fact of the violation of the law is certain, the intention or dolus is presumed until the contrary is proved. Hence the proof of ignorance rests on the perpetrator. This is also recognized by civil law.” He adds: “For any culpable act there is required under Canon 2228: (a) knowledge that what the offender is doing is criminal (meaning knowledge that a censure is attached to the delict); (b) culpa(bility), as distinguished from dolus which can arise from ignorance, carelessness or thoughtlessness… (c) [Also], the evil effect must be foreseen at least in a general or confused way, and (d) [there must have been] an obligation to avoid the evil effect. And according to Pope Paul IV and Revs. MacKenzie and Swoboda above, it will be practically impossible for anyone who holds an office in the Church to prove their innocence.

Let’s analyze these point by point:

1. a) Knowledge of the crime. Even a good Protestant would admit that it is a terrible thing to change words in the Bible, and if one examines ANY Bible, Catholic or Protestant, it will become clear that nowhere can be found the words “for all men.”
2. b) Lack of culpability cannot be granted to those who have received a commission as a successor of the apostles and taken an episcopal oath to preserve the faith and protect the faithful from all error.
3. c) The evil effect, Modernism, had been well outlined by Pius XII as well as Pope St. Pius X and these bishops had studied such things in the seminary and the pontifical universities.
4. d) These men were strictly obliged to avoid such evils.

The Holy See has clarified the above in regard to both the laity and the clergy in the following decision from the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, July 20, 1859. As Revs. Woywod-Smith report in A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law: “Formal heresy only is punished with Canon 2314; wherefore, as Cerato remarks, persons born and educated in an heretical sect without knowing the true faith, cannot be said to have stubbornly denied the Catholic faith, and thus, do not incur the penalties of Canon 2314 §1 (3)” [as these critics being addressed here say of the bishops]. “NEVERTHELESS, in the external forum, they are not free from them, for according to Canon 2200, when there is an external violation of Church law, malice is PRESUMED in the external forum until its absence is proven. The Holy See insists that converts from heretical or schismatic sects be not received into the Church until they have first abjured the heresy or schism and been absolved from the censure” (p. 511). The cardinals and bishops later proved their guilt by proceeding to convene the false Vatican 2 council and establish the Novus Ordo religion. Any further questions?

And when exactly did these bishops renounce their heresies and obtain absolution and abjuration if they only just became formal heretics or apostates in 1965? If the Holy See requires this abjuration and absolution of converts, how much more so a CARDINAL OR BISHOP who once held the faith, whole and entire; whereas, a baptized convert is most likely to have been ignorant. This ruling is obviously in place so that the faithful are protected from ANY person who has ever been publicly outside the Church, by requiring a public act or submission to the Church and Her authority before admitting them to the communion of the faithful. Both the canonists Revs. E. J. Mahoney and Adolphe Tanquerey teach the same on this subject.

There is also further consideration of this point under Canons 2207.This canon reads: “Besides other aggravating circumstances, an offense is made worse by the greater dignity of the person who commits the offence or … by the abuse of authority or office for the purpose of committing an offense.” Rev. Charles Augustine comments on this canon as follows: “The higher the dignitary who commits a crime or against whom a crime is committed the greater the crime itself. For not only is the scandal greater but the law itself surrounds these persons with greater protection and inflicts severer penalties for crimes committed against them. Consequently clergymen are more severely punished than laymen… Heresy is more severely punishable in clerics than in laymen. Authority and office may be abused and such abuse is the more detestable the higher the office and being an abuse of a public trust also enhances imputability.”

Finally, as reported in my previous blog, the cardinals could easily have had access to the truth regarding Roncalli’s suspected heresy, which would have disqualified him from election. They were required to have been aware of the laws regarding heresy and the election of a pope. The cardinals are members of the Sacred Congregations and the proof of Roncalli’s suspected heresy issued from one of those congregations. They had a strict obligation to investigate the worthiness of the candidates; in fact they took an oath to do so. Canon 16 § 1 and §2 state: “No ignorance of invalidating or disqualifying laws excuses from their observance unless the law expressly declares otherwise (1). Ignorance or error as a rule is not presumed when it concerns a law or its penalty or one’s own act or when it concernsthe generally known acts of third persons.  Concerning the acts of third persons which are not generally known, ignorance is presumed until the contrary is proved (2).”

Therefore there IS NO EXCUSE for the ignorance of the cardinals or the bishops regarding their lack of due diligence in discerning those laws or acts that disqualified Roncalli from election. Abp. Amleto Cicognani comments on this canon: “Wherefore an act performed even in ignorance or error contrary to the prescriptions of an invalidating or disqualifying law, unless it be given as a penalty for an offense, is invalid just as if a person performed the act with full knowledge. Hence the legislator decreed no ignorance of invalidating or disqualifying laws excuses from their observance; namely no ignorance of the aforementioned laws can make acts valid which they have rendered invalid nor can it make persons capable of acting whom they have declared incapacitated from acting.” Rev. Bernard Wuellner S. J. states the same in his Summary of Scholastic Principles (1957): “Laws justly declaring an incapacity to act or to receive benefits invalidate the attempted act or reception even if they are inculpably unknown or facts pertaining to their application in a concrete instance are unknown.”

OBJ. 6: If Roncalli introduced 47 false cardinals, more than half, to the false conclave of 1963, is it not evident that election was anti-canonical by the members of the conclave and by the person elected of Montini himself?

ANS: Roncalli may have remained only suspect of heresy all the years preceding his election, though in retrospect we know that his heresy was more than proven by his subsequent written works and actions. That suspicion was enough to disqualify him, just as it disqualified Cardinal Morone from being elected following the death of Pope Paul IV. I demonstrated that the “elections” of both Roncalli and Montini were uncanonical over 30 years ago in my first published work, Will the Catholic Church Survive…? This according to the method advised under Can. 18 when there arises a doubt about some fact not covered in the law. Canon 18 reads: “Ecclesiastical laws are to be interpreted according to the proper meaning of the terms of the law considered in their context. If the meaning of the terms remains doubtful or obscure one must have recourse to parallel passages of the Code, if there are any, or to the purpose of the law and its circumstances and the intention of the legislator.”

In his dissertation Canonical Elections, (Catholic University of America Press, 1939), Rev. Anscar Parsons states that, “The election of the Holy Father has been the prototype for the election of inferior prelates.”  As both Rev. Parsons and Rev. Timothy Mock (Disqualification of Electors in Ecclesiastical Elections, Catholic University of America Press, 1958) explain, the election of an unworthy candidate is null and void from the beginning, because QUALIFIED ELECTORS are bound to know that the one they elect is duly qualified. By unworthy is meant a person branded by infamy of law or fact or a notorious apostate, heretic, schismatic or public sinner. Canon 2391 §1 provides the parallel passage of the Code mentioned in Can. 18: “A college which knowingly elects an unworthy person is automatically deprived, for that particular election, of the right to hold a new election.” The fact that this election was based on the wishes and desires of the U.S. government alone, in violation of VAS — not to mention all the other violations noted above — indicates the intent to deliberately act contrary to the commands of Pope Pius XII, i.e., knowingly.

This takes us back to the election of Roncalli himself, which not only disqualifies him as a candidate but voids the election of Montini and all who followed him. Rev. Parsons comments that those considered unfit or unworthy of election are “…those who are legally infamous or laboring under censure [also] notorious apostates, schismatics… public sinners and persons whose conduct is sinful or scandalous… In normal cases it is PRESUMED that the chapter made its choice with full deliberation and knowledge, because it is their duty to investigate the qualities of the person whom they elect … If the majority elect someone who is unworthy, all the voters, even those who are innocent are deprived of the right to vote in this instance” (p. 197).

Rev. Mock agrees with Parsons, writing: “…The burden of proof …will be upon the electors to show that they did not know of the defect in the candidate. The electors are PRESUMED to know the qualifications required by law” (p. 137). Parsons poses the question: “Is the election of an unworthy person void from the beginning? It seems that it is. For the law says that the chapter is deprived of the right to proceed ‘…to a new election.’ In making this disposition, the legislator seems to suppose that the original choice was null and void” (p. 197.)” The electors showed their true intent by the subsequent election of Montini, the CIA’s star operative in the Vatican, and the eventual devastation he wreaked upon the Church. What further damning evidence could anyone possibly hope for to prove this case?!

Conclusion

In the end, we have the principle of St. Robert Bellarmine confirmed by the practice of the Church Herself: “A DOUBTFUL POPE IS NO POPE,  and there is plenty of doubt to go around regarding Roncalli’s election. So what is this hoorah posed by these objectors REALLY all about? These critics have accused me of deliberately refusing to answer their claims. I have answered them at length here, and the burden of proving their own case — that these cardinals and  bishops can be held invincibly ignorant and free of censure — now rests with them. Those cardinals and bishops electing and recognizing Roncalli as a true pope are PRESUMED to have known the law and to have acted with full knowledge and deliberation; they are PRESUMED to have been fully aware of the qualifications of Roncalli. Most importantly, Canon 2200 PRESUMES malice until the contrary is proven. And all those miscreant cardinals and bishops not only did not prove their innocence, but they also did everything necessary to prove their guilt!

These presumptions are crucial, for Canon 1827 reads: “He who has a PRESUMPTION of law in his favor is freed from the burden of proof which has thus shifted to his opponent. If the latter cannot prove that the presumption failed in the case, the judge must render sentence in favor of the one on whose side the presumption stands.” My 1958 designation of the beginning of the end of the Great Apostasy with the election of Angelo Roncalli STANDS.

Ignorance Among Traditionalists: Both Culpable and Damning

by T. Stanfill Benns | Apr 5, 2020 | New Blog

+Palm Sunday+

It has come to my attention that many Traditionalists are under the impression they are not “allowed” to judge the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs, the Ecumenical Councils or approved theologians and must instead rely solely on whatever is fed to them by their so-called priests and bishops. Some may think these deluded souls can be excused owing to invincible ignorance, but unfortunately it seems most of them will not fall into that category.

Of all the theologians writing on invincible ignorance, the Scottish Bishop George Hay provides one of the best descriptions of this unfortunate state available. Hay is commended by Henry Cardinal Manning as “one of the most energetic and learned…Vicars Apostolic of Scotland in the last century,” (from Manning’s Miscellanies, 1870, “The Bishop of Rome.”). To quote Hay at length is not necessary. He states quite clearly in his The Sincere Christian that no one — not Turks, heathens or Jews; not sincere Protestants living where there are no Catholics and especially not non-Catholics living amongst Catholics (which describes Traditionalists with access to these and other articles, and most importantly, papal encyclicals) can plead invincible ignorance and expect to be saved. The reason is simple: God died for all men although all did not take advantage of the graces He made available to them, (Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Ch. 3). No one who is truly invincibly ignorant will be condemned for his ignorance per se, but the question is more complicated than just this one consideration.

“Although this invincible ignorance will certainly save a man from sin, in wanting that of which he is invincibly ignorant, yet it is plainly impossible and childish to suppose that this invincible ignorance in one point will make up for the want of all the other conditions required,” Hay wrote. Even validly baptized, sincere Protestant adults having no acquaintance with Catholics cannot retain their baptismal innocence without Confession and therefore cannot be saved unless they manage to make a Perfect Act of Contrition or its equivalent before death, Hay explains, (although their children dying before the age of reason can gain heaven). Owing to the absence of the Church today as a visible juridic Body, and the many deliberate obfuscations and misrepresentations of the faith by Her enemies, this author prays that God is more lenient in this regard than in the past, especially in certain cases. Nevertheless, Bp. Hay comments, “For invincible ignorance to exist, three things are necessarily required:

1) “That a person has a real and sincere desire of knowing the truth. For if he be cold and indifferent about an affair of so great concern as his eternal salvation; if he be careless whether he be in the right way or not; if being enslaved to this present life, he takes no care about the next, it is manifest that an ignorance arising from this disposition is a voluntary ignorance and therefore highly culpable in the sight of God…

2) “For one to be in invincible ignorance it is required that he be sincerely resolved to embrace the truth wherever he may find it and whatever it may cost him.  For if he be not fully resolved to follow the will of God, wherever it shall appear to him, in all things necessary to salvation; if on the contrary, he be so disposed that he would rather neglect his duty and hazard his soul than correct an ill custom, or disoblige his friends, or expose himself to some temporal loss or disadvantage…Such a disposition must be highly displeasing to God and an ignorance arising from it can never excuse him before his Creator…(all emphasis in bold throughout this work is the author’s unless stated otherwise).

3) “He must sincerely use his best endeavors to know his duty, and particularly that he recommend that matter earnestly to Almighty God, and pray for light and direction.

For whatever desire he may pretend of knowing the truth, if he do not use the proper means for finding it, it is manifest that his ignorance is not invincible but voluntary; for ignorance is only invincible when one has a sincere desire to know the truth with a full resolution to embrace it, but either has no possible means of knowing it or, after using his best endeavors to know it, yet cannot find it.” (Nor does a formal doubt excuse, for all are expected to resolve such doubts.) “A person brought up in a false faith, which the Scripture calls sects of perdition, doctrines of devils, perverse things, lies and hypocrisy; and who has heard of the true Church of Christ, which condemns all these sects, and sees the divisions and dissensions which they constantly have among themselves, has always before his eyes the most cogent reasons to doubt of the way he is in.” And the dissension among Traditionalists who claim the name Catholic but deny truths of the Catholic faith should be a red flag for all.

Bp. Hay goes on to remind his readers that many are called and few are chosen, and that broad is the path to destruction and narrow is the way to salvation. When asked if he is saying that none who are in heresy and invincible ignorance can be saved, he answers, “God forbid that we should say so! All the above reasons only prove that if they live and die in that state they will not be saved…No man knows or can know what may have passed between God and the soul in his last minutes.” Many attempt to appeal to the various exceptions cited in Canon Law to justify their ignorance in matters of faith. But Canon Law does not generally excuse one from observing the law for reasons of ignorance, the general rule being “Ignorance of the law is no excuse…”

Those now in Traditionalists sects should be advised that Can. 16 tells us NO ONE can plead ignorance when it comes to invalidating and incapacitating laws. In other words, followers of Traditionalist “priests,” once the question has been raised concerning their validity or (even their liceity) cannot neglect or refuse to investigate the matter. The law clearly states that a mere doubt regarding sacramental validity or the validity of any given ordination or consecration is sufficient to absent themselves from all contact with Traditionalists. (This will be addressed fully in the next blog on epikeia.) Affected or pretended ignorance “is never admitted as an excuse from latae sentenetiaecensures” (Can. 2229), and this sort of ignorance is often the kind exhibited by Traditionalists.  Referring to this canon, Abp. Amleto Cicognani writes under Can. 16: “In law, affected ignorance is held equivalent to fraud, so much so that it does not excuse from any penalty.” It should be further noted that grave fear does not exempt from latae sententiaepenalties either, whenever a specific act would constitute contempt of faith or of ecclesiastic authority, or public injury to souls (Can. 2229 §3).

Traditionalists are instructed by their “clergy” that they are to obey without question and cannot make any judgments regarding what they are “taught” by these men. They also are warned against even the casual reading of any literature that questions their leaders’ authority or the correctness of what they teach. This might have some traction were these men truly priests and bishops educated in papally approved Catholic seminaries, but we know this is not the case. As bishop Hay warns above, no one can claim even invincible ignorance if they do not make such inquiry and the necessary judgments that inquiry requires! Any sect operating on the premise that such inquiry is forbidden or even strongly discouraged is operating as a cult, not a sect.

Michael de la Bedoyere commented on this tendency to blind obedience in his Christianity in the Marketplace, noting that the training necessary to execute the high standards of Catholic existence was available to Catholics then (the 1940s), and by extension it is still available to Catholics today in all the papal documents online. Bedoyere nailed the real problem to the wall when he wrote:  “What too often is lacking is the interest and training in APPLYING those standards and knowledge to every circumstance in life. The man of the world HAS to think for himself if he wants to act intelligently at all, for there is no one to think for him; THE CHRISTIAN IS IN DANGER OF NEVER THINKING FOR HIMSELF BECAUSE HE EXPECTS ALL HIS THINKING TO BE DONE FOR HIM…” (The ideal of action) “is not to act just BECAUSE someone else tells one to, but to act for oneself BECAUSE ONE SEES FOR ONESELF, in the light of God’s will and the teaching of the Church or one’s lawful superior [who today can only be past popes], that the action IS right…”

Peter Michaels also states, in his work This Perverse Generation (1949): “If all Catholics have a moral duty to understand the faith at their level of secular education, few of us are going to be saved… How much longer are Catholics going to pretend that if our hearts are in the right place, we can safely continue to live in an intellectual void?” Traditionalists may obey their (unlawful) “superiors” and refrain from making the required judgments, but they do not and cannot escape the Church’s latae sententiae, ipso facto censures for heresy, schism, and communicatio in sacris. That is something they will never hear from their erstwhile “clergy,” but it is the absolute reality that constitutes the Catholic Church. And so these unfortunates, who willfully choose not to educate themselves, will go to the end thinking they are members of the Church, only to find at their private judgment they left Her long ago, and God expected them to put forth far more effort to discover the truth than they were willing to expend. It is a terrifying thought, one not many will be willing to entertain. But it is not just a thought or an opinion — it is Church teaching, Church law, and they are bound by it. In fact the Church condemns this practice of Traditionalists under the titles of Fideism and Traditionalism.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states that Fideism teaches there is no need of intellectual assent based on objective evidence and the only thing expected of Catholics is to make an act of faith. The article explains that Fideists falsely teach: “The supreme criterion of certitude is authority…,” noting that, “An act of faith cannot be the primary form of human knowledge. Authority, indeed, in order to be a motive of assent, must be previously acknowledged as being certainly valid; before we believe in a proposition as revealed by God we must first know with certitude that God exists, that He reveals such and such a proposition, and that His teaching is worthy of assent, all of which questions can and must be ultimately decided only by an act of intellectual assent based on objective evidence. Thus, fideism not only denies intellectual knowledge but logically ruins faith itself… As to the opinion of those who maintain that our supernatural assent is prepared for by motives of credibility merely probable, it is evident that it logically destroys the certitude of such an assent. This opinion was condemned by Bd. Innocent XI in the decree of 2 March 1679 (DZ 1171), and by Pope St. Pius X in the Lamentabili sane.”

And here we see mirrored the very assent the followers of these Traditionalists are expected to give contrary to the teachings of these holy popes and the unanimous opinion of theologians: acceptance of the orders and the sacraments these self-appointed “clerics” dispense as valid. Not only are their claims based on the thinnest possible evidence, which cannot even be said to amount to a probable opinion, their teachings and actions have been proven over and over again to be in direct contradiction of the constant teachings of the continual magisterium.

Pascal Parente and other authors define Traditionalism as: “A philosophico-religious system, which depreciates human reason and establishes the tradition of mankind, which is bound up with language, as the criterion of truth and certainty,” (Dictionary of Theology; many Traditionalists experience this as the teachings offered them on the “sensus catholicus”). This error was condemned by Pope Pius IX in Qui pluribus and by the Sacred Congregation in 1855 (DZ 1649) So it must be understood, as explained elsewhere, that the choice of the name Traditionalism was not a random one. Those selecting this name for their sect in the 1970s following the cessation of the Latin Mass, did not necessarily intend for it to reflect the Traditions of faith as most Traditionalists innocently assume. For true Tradition is bound up with the deposit of faith Christ entrusted to His Apostles and the transmission of that same deposit by the Roman Pontiffs, unchanged, throughout the centuries. This is definitely something not transmitted by Traditionalists.

By leading those wishing to be Catholic away from the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs and exerting a false authority they insist must be obeyed, Traditionalist “clergy” falsify the Catholic faith and drag souls with them into hell. Those who prefer lies to truth should be scrambling to discover what it really means to be a Catholic or be prepared to give an accounting to Truth itself when they leave this world.