+St. Edward the Confessor+
Introduction
If some basic Catholic principles were better understood, how much easier our life as Catholics would be. We keep returning to the matter of invincible ignorance and the Church’s true meaning regarding this term. In the minds of some, the meaning of this phrase has been unduly expanded as a blanket excuse for the assumed salvation of any and all non-Catholics. Certainly this is the case with the Novus Ordo teaching on the topic and a lax view of invincible ignorance had even come into vogue before the death of Pope Pius XII in some quarters.
The question here is, did what Pope Pius XII taught in this letter issued in the case of Fr. Leonard Feeney differ dogmatically from what had been taught by the Church previously? Fr. Leonard Feeney maintained that the doctrine as taught by Pope Pius XII was unknown as stated prior to the issuance of Mystici Corporis Christi (1943) and Suprema haec sacra (1949). There has even been a question raised regarding the pope’s health and possible mental acuity at the time these documents were written, although Pius XII’s health issues did not manifest themselves until August of 1952 through December of 1953, while Suprema haec sacra was written in 1949. It is true that Feeney was excommunicated in February 1953 during the course of Pope Pius XII’s illness, but this was a natural consequence of his refusal to retract his false interpretation of the salvation doctrine following the release of Suprema haec sacra.
Instead Feeney responded by calling Cardinal Cushing a heretic and accused the Holy Office of scandal and heresy, which implicitly included Pope Pius XII, who was head of the Holy Office. Was Feeney excommunicated solely for his disobedience to the Roman Pontiff? It is assumed that he was, but he actually held as true a heresy which had been condemned by Pope St. Pius V, so it well could be that he also was guilty of heresy. Holy Office proceedings and the full nature of excommunications are protected by secrecy, so it is impossible to know the details of his excommunication. It is enough to know that it is entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis and therefore must be accepted as binding on the faithful.
So let us review below what older catechisms and theologians taught regarding invincible ignorance, which must exist if one is to be considered capable of possessing the desire to be baptized. Hopefully this will help those still struggling with the poison of Feeneyism to finally understand that to champion him as a martyr for truth is to forfeit their membership in the Mystical Body.
Invincible ignorance
Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas
and the Best Modern Authorities, Revs. John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan, 1929
- 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.
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.
356. (b) Christians may be in invincible ignorance of the Law of Christ. For, just as want of a preacher causes a pagan to be invincibly ignorant of the necessity of Baptism, so a lack of instruction in Christian doctrine might leave a baptized person inculpably ignorant.
(b) Subjectively speaking, there may be a just cause for leaving or not entering the Church, namely, the fact that a person, ignorant in this matter but in good faith, believes that the Catholic Church is not the true Church. For one is obliged to follow an erroneous conscience, and, if the error is invincible, one is excused from sin (see 581-583). Examples: A Protestant taught to believe that the teachings of the Church are idolatrous, superstitious and absurd, is not blamed for not accepting them. A Catholic, poorly instructed in religion and thrown in with non-Catholic and anti-Catholic associates, might become really persuaded, and without sinning against faith itself, that it was his duty to become a Protestant.
Instructions on the Commandments and the Sacraments
by St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, 1846
“So then, in reality, can he who has not received baptism reach heaven? To this I reply that he also can be saved if he has conceived an ardent desire to be baptized and believes in Jesus Christ as happened to many who when unable to receive baptism supplied its place by their desires… If he is an adult and in the possession of reason, he must have the intention of being baptized and feel sorrow for the sins he has committed.”
“Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptized by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things ACCOMPANIED BY AN EXPLICIT OR IMPLICIT DESIRE FOR TRUE BAPTISM OF WATER, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character OR AS TO THE REMOVAL OF ALL DEBT OF PUNISHMENT. It is called ‘of wind’ [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, ‘de presbytero non baptizato’ and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it” (St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7).
TSB comment: Those reading the above must not forget that the Church ascribes to St. Alphonsus a place in moral theology similar to that which She grants to St. Thomas Aquinas. If he pronounces that the belief in Baptism of desire is de fide, it is without doubt this is the case. Also, it is noted by St. Alphonsus that those thus saved may well be consigned to purgatory. What in this explanation of Baptism of desire differs in any way from the teachings of Pope Pius XII on this matter?
The Sincere Christian, Rt. Rev. Dr. George Hay, 1871
“For invincible ignorance to exist, three things are necessarily required:
“1) That a person have 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 take no note 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…
“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.”
Rev. 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.”
TSB comment: The means of truly knowing if the Catholic Church is the one true Church today are so complicated and interspersed with rabbit holes, speculation and error, it makes it impossible for many to separate the flyspeck from the pepper, despite their best endeavors.
The Catholic Dogma, Rev. Michael Mueller, pgs. 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.”
Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, on Ignorance
So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible. Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable. On the other hand, ignorance is termed vincible if it can be dispelled by the use of “moral diligence”. This certainly does not mean all possible effort; otherwise, as Ballerini naively says, we should have to have recourse to the pope in every instance…
Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or of the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludes sin. The evident reason is that neither this state nor the act resulting therefrom is voluntary. It is undeniable that a man cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law, so far as its first principles are concerned, and the inferences easily drawn therefrom. This, however, according to the teaching of St. Thomas, is not true of those remoter conclusions, which are deducible only by a process of laborious and sometimes intricate reasoning. Of these a person may be invincibly ignorant. Even when the invincible ignorance is concomitant, it prevents the act which it accompanies from being regarded as sinful. (Taunton, The Law of the Church (London, 1906); Joseph Rickaby, Ethics and Natural Law (London, 1908); Slater, Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908); Ballerini, Opus Theologicum Morale (Prato, 1898); Tapparelli, Dritto naturale (Rome, 1900); Zigliara, Summa Philosophica (Paris, 1891).
What most of those questioning Pope Pius XII’s teaching in Suprema haec sacra are saying is that he added implicit desire to the formula for obtaining salvation, when even St. Alphonsus mentions it in his writings above. They also seem to think that Pius XII is contradicting the constant teaching of the Church by teaching that one can be saved OUTSIDE the Church. But that is not what the pope is teaching either. While insisting that those saved without water baptism are not Church members, so per se are “outside” the Church, the authors above and Pius XII also are quick to note that they belong to the Church in some other way. Yet they are considered to be within Her fold by desire, owing to invincible, ignorance, IF that ignorance is also joined to belief in the primary truths of faith and a sincere love of God obedience to his will.
Documents contained in the Sources of Catholic Dogma cited below further prove that the teaching on Baptism of desire issues from ancient sources. Please remember that their listing there qualifies them as DOGMA, to be believed without any quibbling, not picked apart as though they were never listed there. Coming from the popes and the councils approved by the popes, they need no further comment. These documents are quoted here to demonstrate the Church’s own sense and understanding regarding Baptism of either desire or blood.
-
Council of Trent, 1545-1563
Canons on the Sacraments in General: – (Canon 4):
“If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them (sine eis aut eorum voto), through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema.” (Author’s note:Notice this is not limited only to catechumens.)
Decree on Justification – (Session 6, Chapter 4):
“In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the Sons’ (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto) as it is written: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God” (John 3:5) (Editor’s note: Feeneyites argue that the translation of the Trent documents was badly made or falsified, a ruse often used also by heretics past and present. I personally own a copy of the first reliable English translation of the Council of Trent decrees published to correct a previous anonymous translation, “…unfaithful and even ludicrously absurd.” The translator promises in his preface to correct any errors pointed out to him in this second translation attempt, noting: “The edition of the Council used is Le Plat’s copy of the authentic edition published in Rome 1564. Neither time nor labor has been spared to render the translation as faithful a transcript as possible” (J. Waterworth, translator; published May 22, 1848).
-
Pope Innocent III, Apostolicum Sedem
“[Regarding] the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) who had died without the water of baptism: Because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, he was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned” (Denzinger 388).
De baptismo flaminis (presbyteri non baptizati) ‘. [Ex ep. “Apostolicam Sedem» ad episc. Cremonensem,” temp. incerti.]
Inquisitioni tuae taliter respondemus: Presbyterum, quem sine unda baptismatis extremum diem clausisse (litteris tuis) significasti, quia in sanctae matris Ecclesiae fide et Christi nominis confessione perseveravit, ab originaU peccato solutum, et coelestis patriae gaudium esse adeptum (ex auctoritate sanctorum Patrum Augustini atque Ambrosii) asserimus incunc- tanter. Lege (frater) super octavo hbro Augustini de civitate Dei, ubi inter cetera legitur: «Baptismus invisibihter ministratur, quem non contemptus rehgionis, sed terminus necessitatis excludit.» Librum etiam beati Ambrosii de obitu Valentiniani idem asserentis revolve.Sopitis igitur quaestionibus doctorum Patrum sententias teneas, et in ecclesia tua iuges preces hostiasque Deo offerri iubeas pro presbytero memorato. (Denzinger/Bannwart edition of the Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1911).
COELESTINUS II 1143-1144. LUCIUS II 1144-1145
(Editor’s note: Did the two popes mentioned here also confirm this dogma? This is the de fide teaching mentioned above by St. Alphonsus. One Feeneyite site denounces this teaching, claiming that all men becoming priests must be confirmed as validly baptized and denies that St. Augustine or St. Ambrose ever taught baptism of desire. But what if this priest’s parents lied about his baptism and he only learned of it later before he could be baptized? Other explanations are also possible. This site even states the letter is a forgery. So if that was truly the case, and a dogma was presented as early as St. Alphonsus’ time and even before as de fide, should we assume that nothing in the Sources of Catholic Dogma can be trusted and simply choose what we wish to believe? Would that not mean the gates of hell had long ago prevailed against the Church?!)
-
Pope St. Pius V 1566-1572
Ex omnibus afflictionibus, October 1, 1567: Condemned the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:
– Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.
– That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.
– A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained” (DZ 1031, 1032, 1033). Editor’s Note: This is the condemnation by St. Pius V that Feeney violated, with his “water baptism only” take on salvation.)
4. Pope Pius IX
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 1863:
“…We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.” Editor’s Note: How could they “know” this about invincible ignorance unless it was the result of constant Church teaching?)
5. Catechism of St. Pius X, 1911, Father John Hagan
But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.
-
Pope Pius XII
…Those who do not belong to the visible organization of the Catholic Church… even though unsuspectingly they are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer in desire and resolution, still remain deprived of so many precious gifts and helps from heaven, which one can only enjoy in the Catholic Church.” (Editor’s note: Three things must be fully understood here: 1) Pius XII excludes such people from Church membership; 2) He identifies them as unsuspecting, i.e., invincibly ignorant and 3) he says they are related to the Mystical Body by desire and resolution but does not explain the exact nature of this relationship.)
Conclusion
If the Trent documents on justification were read clear through, it would soon be evident that the main problem with Feeney’s false doctrine on no salvation outside the Church was basically grounded in the nature of grace and how it is received. This is apparent from the condemnation of Michael du Bay by St. Pius V but also is reflected in the dogmatic Bull Unigenitus. There Pope Clement XI in 1713 condemned the proposition by the Jansenist Quesnel which falsely stated that: ‘Outside the Church, no grace is granted,’ (DZ 1379).
In 1690, Pope Alexander VIII had already condemned the Jansenistic proposition of Arnauld that “Pagans, Jews, heretics, and other people of the sort, receive no influx [of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ,” (DZ 1295). And of course this is the very grace that Feeney would deny could ever be obtained in sufficient amounts for salvation by those outside the Church. Feeney was denying that God would provide those graces sufficient for the remission of sins to non-Catholics. He was denying the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, that “(A) man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of “faith that worketh by charity,” whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly” (Summa Theologica, Part IIIa, Q. 68).
How many Church teachings and authorities must we dismiss to make Feeney the martyr for “Outside the Church, no salvation” his fawning devotees claim him to be? Clearly enough has been presented here (and even more could be provided) to satisfy the rational man regarding the sense in which the Church intended us to understand the requirements for obtaining baptism of desire. And it is that very sense, reiterated by Pope St. Pius X in his oath against Modernism that we must adopt as our own: “Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same sense. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.”
Feeney was a Modernist. His teaching was that the sense of what the Church taught had changed over time, that it had never taught but now taught that one could be saved by implicit or explicit desire. The Council of Trent and St. Alphonsus Liguori prove him a liar. St. Thomas contradicts him. But we are supposed to abandon the teachings we are bound to believe and follow those who champion him, men never even trained or approved by the Church? What sort of madness is this?
Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton references an article he terms as excellent, Opinions Concerning Doctrinal Development, by Rev. Charles Sheedy, C.S.C., published in the January 1949 edition of The American Ecclesiastical Review. Rev. Sheedy wrote: “Thus it is clear that there has been progress, development in the dogmatic teaching of the Church, not merely in precision of terms but in actual content and subject matter. Doctrines are taught today as divinely revealed which were not explicitly taught 100 years ago and after the Council of Trent, a whole galaxy of truths entered into the dogmatic teaching of the Church, proposed to the faith of Catholics, not as new dogmas, BUT AS CONTAINED IN THE ANCIENT DEPOSIT.” This was the case with implicit desire and Church membership, as clarified by Pope Pius XII.
“May understanding, knowledge and wisdom progress as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.” — St. Vincent of Lerin. Msgr. Joseph. C. Fenton, commenting on this statement by St. Vincent points out: “The Vatican Council has used the words of Saint Vincent of Lerin to declare as a matter of faith that the understanding of one man as well as that of the Church as a whole can progress and grow in its grasp of the revealed truth and that this growth always takes place in one and the same sense and meaning (DZ 1800).” It never evolved, nor did Pope Pius XII ever intend it to grow to include any hint of ecumenism; that was the work of the Modernists. And Feeney the excommunicated Jesuit, the founder of modern-day Traditionalism, was one of them.
