In reparation for disobeying St. Peter and his successors

by T. Stanfill Benns | Jan 19, 2025 | New Blog

+Feast of St. Peter’s Chair at Rome+

For years we have advised the use of the prayers HERE to help all obtain that unity in faith so sorely lacking today, but sadly it is impossible to obtain in its fullness without the presence of a canonically elected Roman Pontiff. Because the remaining means to canonically elect a true pope no longer exist — that is, validly consecrated bishops — the only unity possible is that for which we have advocated these many years: strict adherence to the teachings of the Continual Magisterium. And so it seems fitting that, St. Peter’s Chair at Rome having been vacant now for 66 years, we address the particulars of that vacancy, especially because there still seems to be much confusion and misunderstanding regarding what has been presented on this site and the current state of affairs in the Church. First it is helpful to remind all those reading this of their obedience to the Roman Pontiff in ALL things as expressed below by Abp. Amleto Cicognani:

“…All Catholics are subject to the dogmatic canons of Ecumenical Councils and pronouncements of the Holy See. The decisions of the Roman Pontiff condemning propositions contra fidem et mores, the various instructions of the Holy Office, the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, the Congregation for the Oriental Church and the Sacred Penitentiary, the prohibition of books and theories opposed to Catholic faith and morals, all pertain to Catholic doctrine…. All the above pronouncements, although they do not strictly pertain to the divine law, follow, however, as deductions or declarations therefrom, and they concern the doctrine of the Church, and not its discipline properly so-called…” (Canon Law, 1935; Canon 1; pgs. 453-54).

Among these pronouncements would be Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election law Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS). Although it is a complete revision of Pope St. Pius X’s Vacante Sede Apostolica, it agrees with it in almost all its essential points. VAS forbids any episcopal consecrations during an interregnum as a usurpation of papal jurisdiction and nullifies any attempts at such consecrations, rendering them invalid. The same is true of anyone erecting seminaries and attempting ordinations, for this is also a usurpation of papal jurisdiction. Even bishops created during the reign of Pope Pius XII, if they participated in the Novus Ordo, accepted the usurper popes and/or signed Vatican 2 documents cannot validly ordain or consecrate without the lifting of infamy of law attached to Can. 2314 §1 regarding communicatio in sacris.  Since none of the bishops or other prelates among those “electing” and accepting John 23 and Paul 6 called for a new election based on the invalid election of these usurpers, there is no one left to validly elect a true pope.

Who usually elects in the absence of the cardinals?

The protocols to be followed in such a situation are hereby explained by Thomas Cardinal Cajetan, (1469-1534) as quoted by Reverend Charles Journet, (The Church of the Word Incarnate): Journet asks: “In whom does the power to elect the Pope reside?” Cajetan answers: “The Pope can settle who the electors shall be, and change and limit in this way the mode of election.” Journet, in summarizing Cajetan’s arguments writes: “In a case where the settled conditions of validity have become inapplicable, the task of determining new ones falls to the Church by devolution, this last word being taken, as Cajetan notes (Apologia, Chap. xiii, No. 745), not in the strict sense (devolution is strictly to the higher authority in case of default in the lower), but in the wide sense, signifying all trans­mission, even to an inferior. (p. 480.)

“Cajetan affirms through Journet’s reasoned explanation: “…When the provisions of canon law cannot be fulfilled, the right to elect will belong to certain members of the Church of Rome. In default of the Roman clergy, the right will belong to the Church universal, (as with the Council of Constance), of which the Pope is to be bishop…. During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election. However … if the Pope has provided nothing against it, or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true cardinals are, or who the true Pope is…), the power ‘of applying the papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God” (Cajetan: De Comnarata, Cap. xiii, No. 202¬204; also, Apologia, Cap. xiii, No. 736.)

John of St. Thomas says: “…The concrete mode in which the election is to be carried out … has been nowhere indicated in Scripture; it is mere ecclesiastical law which will determine which persons in the Church can validly proceed to election.” It should also be noted that both Card. Cajetan and John of St. Thomas wrote prior to the ruling by Popes Pius X and Pius XII, and as Card. Cajetan states, “During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election” (De Comparata, cap. xiii, no. 202). And this is borne out by Popes Pius X and Pius XII.

While the above may have applied formerly, when all elected an unworthy candidate to the papacy in the person of Angelo Roncalli (John 23) they were automatically disqualified from electing another pope under Can. 2391 §1. This means that any remaining bishops would need to gather and study the situation, determining how to proceed according to VAS. But no bishops stepped forward to do this; none renounced Roncalli. All became willing members of the Novus Ordo church. And so all not only forfeited the right to elect themselves, but became apostates.

Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis no ecclesiastical law

Certainly with the election laws of Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII, the Church has sufficiently expressed her something against it, since these laws clearly state that nothing can be done during an interregnum, even by the cardinals. At one time perhaps, before its codification by Pope St. Pius X, papal election law was considered ecclesiastical law, but it is now considered special law. Under Title IV — of Ecclesiastical Offices, (which provides laws for other types of elections), according to Can. 160, papal elections are governed exclusively by Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. This removes it from the realm of ecclesiastical law strictly speaking. The first three paragraphs of this constitution speak solely of the inalienable rights and prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Church — especially during an interregnum — and thus these paragraphs treat of the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and the duties, especially of the cardinals, to defend the Church’s rights during the vacancy of the Holy See, when She is most vulnerable to attack.

Pius XII levies penalties for violating papal law and canon law during an interregnum, penalties which can be lifted only by a future pontiff, and these penalties are taken from ancient laws dating back to the Middle Ages. He then seals it in the third paragraph by stating that anything done which violates the penalties he has laid down for usurping papal jurisdiction, violating the rights of the Church, or disobeying or ignoring papal or canon law is null, void and invalid, and this by his “Supreme Authority.” So while the rest of the constitution is mainly about the manner of election by Cardinals, there are certain parts of it that obviously are intended to preserve the Church’s unchangeable nature and integrity and preserve the pope’s supremacy of jurisdiction during an interregnum, both of which are matters of Divine Revelation. So the three paragraphs introducing Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, at least, are infallible.

Fatal errors of the “illicit only” crowd

At one time, I believed the laity could elect a pope, using a wide interpretation of the “devolution principle” and the term “universal Church.” Further study and hard experience proved this was not possible, given the dogmatic definitions by the Council of Trent, VAS and other considerations. Based in part on the idea that VAS was only “an ecclesiastical law” and not binding on the faithful, I also believed Traditional clergy were only questionably valid. But again, the realization that VAS was infallible in its first three paragraphs, at least; also learning that the vindicative penalty incurred by infamy of law invalidated attempts by LibTrad pseudo-clergy to perform ecclesiastical acts proved this belief to be false. Some, however, never questioned the validity of these pseudo-clerics and began praying at home because they believed these men were only illicit (and to be avoided according to the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas).

Those holding this belief maintain they are not obligated to determine if these false clergy are valid or not, and some among them insist invalidity can never be proven. They base this on arguments advanced by Trad pseudo-clergy citing epikeia (a relaxation of the law based on reasonableness) as a sort of suppletory principle. It was for this reason I decided to further investigate this issue several years ago, resulting in the invalidity and epikeia proofs presented HERE and HERE. All these proofs are taken directly from infallible Church teaching and Canon Law, and indisputably prove that the principle of epikeia could never be used by LibTrads to circumvent the Divine Law of juridical mission.  It is the manner in which the continuation of this mission will proceed that is addressed in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, which forbids the cardinal priests and bishops to usurp papal jurisdiction during an interregnum. And it is clear from binding papal documents throughout the centuries that the pope alone has the right to approve bishops prior to their consecration, which cannot proceed without his approval.

Those claiming Traditional clergy possess illicit orders only, then, are upholding validity. They deny that the pope alone has supreme jurisdiction to rule otherwise — the right and power to approve bishops and declare those consecrated without this approval during an interregnum null, void and invalid. They are the fence straddlers Christ has said He will vomit from His mouth. They claim that observing the safer course by not attending Mass and Sacraments is enough, but they are confusing the moral precepts governing conscience formation with the necessary obedience to the dogmatic portion of VAS. They are basing their position on an opinion which LibTrad “experts” claim is probable — that VAS is an ecclesiastical law only and can be dismissed as no longer applying to the current “emergency” situation.

No probable opinion on validity possible

But they must ask themselves: What proofs have these experts ever presented that support this so-called opinion? Probable opinions can be formulated and considered as reliable only by five or six approved theologians writing before the death of Pope Pius XII, and LibTrad pseudo-clergy have never been approved or commissioned to teach by a canonically elected pope. Even if these probable opinions could be found, all theologians agree, as pointed out on this site many times, from approved works: Probable opinions can never be used to determine sacramental validity. (Revs. Prummer, McHugh and Callan, Abp. Cicognani, Davis, Slater, et al). It seems to matter to no one that Pope Pius XII uses his “Supreme Authority,” added specifically to his revision of Pope St. Pius X’s previous election law, to express his mind in this matter. Or that VAS is entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis and is therefore binding on all for belief, not just the Cardinals as LibTrads also sometimes claim.

If the illicit only crowd yet believe these men are valid, they should also consider what Rev. Gury and others have to say in this matter. For it is not just abstaining from the liturgical functions of the LibTrad sects that remove one from the bane of communicatio in sacris  (cooperation with non-Catholics); it is also abandoning all their so-called doctrines. And primary among these doctrines is their pretended validity. So clearly those still holding these men to be valid, with absolutely no proof of their validity and a mountain of proof offered in the links above to disprove it, are yet guilty of communicatio in sacris. They may pray at home and eschew all else they know to be false that was taught by the LibTrad sects. But if they cling to this one, monumental error, they are guilty of denying a truth infallibly taught by the Church as closely connected to Divine Revelation.

And what is the penalty for holding such beliefs, even if taught only in the pope’s ordinary magisterium (dogma is not just contained only in ex cathedra pronouncements), in order to be classified as a dogma? The following is taken from a chart On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them by Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J., Rome, 1951 — a work which was drafted for use by auditors of the Roman Congregations.

This is not a matter of conscience formation, but of membership in the Catholic Church. In VAS, Pope Pius XII infallibly indicates that any usurpation of those things reserved exclusively to the Pope is forbidden during an interregnum, (and we are 66 years into this interregnum). Approval of bishops prior to their consecration is exclusively reserved to the pope (Council of Trent, Mystici Corporis, Ad sinarum gentum). Ergo, consecration without papal approval is a usurpation of the pope’s supreme jurisdiction, divinely instituted by Christ, and is therefore null, void and invalid. So any objections about the anathemas and warnings posted on this site against LibTrad sects and especially the leaders of these sects is well justified — these leaders are not clerics, and they do not represent the Catholic remnant any more than their Novus Ordo counterparts because they long ago ceased to be members of the Church! They are leading souls astray, and lest we be condemned ourselves, we are obligated to expose them. 

Conclusion

True bishops existing in 1958 were under a grave obligation to challenge Roncalli’s election as invalid, a proven fact according to the laws and teachings of the Church. Had they then declared the papal See vacant, followed the election part of VAS as far as possible and elected a true pope, we would not be writing this today. But through fear, cowardice, or crass and supine ignorance they abandoned the Church to join a non-Catholic sect. Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio and Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis held all the answers and solutions to the problems which arose but they chose to defy these infallible teachings, and none of the faithful rose up to demand they do their bounden duty. This was and is the Great Apostasy. Rev. J. Wilhelm writes in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia under Councils: “…When there was no Pope, or the rightful Pope was indistinguishable from antipopes… In such abnormal times the safety of the Church becomes the supreme law and the first duty of the abandoned flock is to find a new shepherd, under whose direction the existing evils may be remedied.”

The safety of the Church is paramount in such times, and only the Roman Pontiff can guarantee that safety, not the Mass and Sacraments. Without the safety only Christ’s Vicar can offer, we fell prey to the ministrations of men dressed as clerics, promoting the worship of bread idols and misleading souls; hearing confessions with no ability to absolve and no obligation to observe the Seal of the Confessional; pretending to perpetuate themselves with ancient rites devoid of any transmission of power. In short, a cruel mockery of all that was ever holy in the Church, particularly the papacy. We offer this article as a small act of reparation to St. Peter and his successors, who along with Our Lord suffered and died for the faith. Those praying the Unity Octave should understand well what they pray for, for today the only unity we can hope to obtain is by faithful obedience to all papal pronouncements throughout the ages:

That they all may be one as Thou Father in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me.

V. I say unto thee that thou art Peter

R. And upon this rock I will build My Church. 

Let us pray: O Lord Jesus Christ, Who said unto thine Apostles, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, regard not our sins but the faith of Thy Church and grant unto Her that peace and unity WHICH ARE AGREEABLE TO THY WILL. Who livest and reignest God forever and ever. Amen.

(300 days indulgence)

LibTrad pseudo-clergy: We declare you ANATHEMA!

by T. Stanfill Benns | Nov 18, 2024 | New Blog

+Dedication of the Basilicas of Sts. Peter and Paul+

In an effort to be as concise as possible, a more complete canonical evaluation of the invalidity issue is presented below.  We stated in the last blog regarding the validity of LibTrad orders that both Lefebvre and Thuc were guilty of communicatio in sacris under Can. 2314 § 3, first for joining the Novus Ordo sect and participating in Vatican 2 and secondly for founding their own traditionalist sects. Over time, the invalidities piled up, as more research was done and Church teaching was better understood. This preponderance of evidence renders these men and any other “bishops at large” as schismatic non-Catholics unable to receive or convey Orders validly, and as Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII have officially proclaimed, this pertains to the Oriental rites as  well. The following is the final proof needed to decide this issue.

Infamy of law invalidates acts

The first article documenting this invalidity appeared on my website in 2009. Canon 2314 §3 declares that by the commission of heresy, apostasy or schism the offender also incurs infamy of law ipso facto. The canonists Revs. Woywod-Smith explain the effects of infamy of law under Can. 2294 §1: “The person who has incurred… an infamy of law… cannot validly obtain ecclesiastical benefices, pensions, offices and dignities, nor can he validly exercise the rights connected with the same, nor perform a valid, legal ecclesiastical act” (all emph. within quotes in this article is the author’s). When imposed in the form of a penalty attached to law, this sentence takes place immediately. And only the pope can dispense from this vindicative penalty (Can. 2294 §3).

The canonist Rev. Charles Augustine writes under Can. 2294 § 1: “Legal infamy involves irregularity according to Can. 984 n. 5 and therefore no layman affected by it can receive the tonsure or any other order without an Apostolic dispensation… Legal infamy entails disability or disqualification for any ecclesiastical benefits, pension, office, dignity and if conferred the act is invalid (Can. 2391)… An infamous person must be prevented from cooperating in sacred functions…” (Not surprisingly, Peter Cardinal Gasparri notes in his Fontes  that Cum ex… is the parent law of Can. 2294 §1). By Apostolic dispensation is meant dispensation by the pope. Abp. Amleto Cicognani, in his work Canon Law (1935), teaches:

“An inhabilitating law renders a person incapable of performing a valid act. Properly speaking, it is a species of invalidating law for the effect is the same, with this difference only, that an inhabilitating law is not issued directly against a certain act but rather against a certain person, e.g., canons 2294 [on infamy], 2390 §2, 2394 §1and 2395, etcetera.” Canon 2394 §1 reads: “If a person by his own authority takes possession of an ecclesiastical benefice, office, or dignity… before he has received the necessary letters of confirmation, or institution, he incurs the following penalties: (1) he becomes automatically disqualified for the benefice, office or dignity. The canonists Revs. Woywod-Smith, in their commentary, reference the Holy Office’s decision on Can. 147 and the ipso facto excommunications for violating it under Can. 2394. Cardinal Gasparri lists Charitas and Etsi multa as the sources for Can. 2394.

“Those who have been assigned to the divine ministry at least by the first tonsure are called clerics… (Can. 108). “Only clerics can obtain the power of either orders or ecclesiastical jurisdiction…” (Can. 118). Here we see that all those exiting the Novus Ordo and joining traditionalist sects, then later entering SSPX or Thucite “seminaries,” could not receive tonsure validly without the papal dispensation, far less have become priests or bishops at the hands of Lefebvre or Thuc. Not only were the candidates barred from receiving this sacramental, but no valid acts could proceed from Lefebvre, Thuc or any others suffering infamy of law. There is also the invalidity infallibly proclaimed in Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and Pius VI’s Charitas. These traditionalists are NOT Catholic and cannot be successors of the Apostles. Can. 2314 §3 also imposes the deposition of Can. 188 §4, even including degradation, and as Cardinal Gasparri notes in his Fontes, Cum ex… is the parent law or old law from which both these canons originate (see Canon 6 §1-6 on what canons are contained in the Code).

Incapable of valid acts as vitandus

And then there is the matter of the consideration of these men as vitandus, by Pope Pius IX (Etsi multa), Pope St. Pius X (condemnation of Arnold Harris Mathew, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, year III, vol. III, no. 2, February 15, 1911) and, by implication, Pope Pius XII in the official interpretation of Can. 147. A reference is noted beneath Can. 147 directing readers to the condemnation of a Czechoslovakian priest named John Dechet as a vitandus for reception of the office of Administrator from lay authority. Given by the Sacred Consistorial Congregation this condemnation reads: “The Sacred Congregation therefore reminds clerics and the faithful that they must treat the aforesaid priest according to the norm of Can. 2261 §3 of the Code of Canon Law (AAS 42-195).” Beneath this declaration is a reference to the “New Penalty for Occupying or Retaining Office; see C. 147.”

Can. 2261 §3 reads: “From a minister who is an excommunicatus vitandus, or who has been excommunicated by a condemnatory or declaratory sentence, the faithful may ask for sacramental absolution only in danger of death.” Although a declaration from the Holy See is required to determine someone a vitandus, this is now impossible. Because there is a doubt of law about whether Lefebvre and Thuc, also any other bishops exercising orders after Pius XII’s death are to be considered vitandus, the Code refers us to Canon 18 which states: “The 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.”

We have presented above the intended mind of the lawgiver on who must be considered a vitandus. Lefebvre, Thuc and any others acting after Oct. 9, 1958 — all violated the law enacted by the Council of Trent which states that, “In the ordination of bishops, priests and other orders… those who by their own temerity take these offices upon themselves are not ministers of the Church…[but] thieves and robbers…(DZ 960). “If anyone says that those who have been neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority but come from a different source are lawful ministers of the word and of the Sacraments, let him be anathema [cf. 960]” (DZ 967). LibTrads immediately seize on the word lawful and say this does not mean invalid, but they entirely ignore the context of the condemnation. It is anathema to believe they can function as Catholic clergy. As later papal definitions prove, the Church clearly wishes them to be considered as vitandus and for the faithful to avoid them.

Can. 2261 §3, however, renders invalid the acts of not only vitandus, but those under a declaratory sentence.  In his 1947 A Manual of Canon Law, Rev. Matthew Ramstein, S.T. Mag., J.U.D., OFM, writes: “A penalty latae sententiae (of a sentence already pronounced) is a determinate penalty which is so attached to the superior’s precept, that it is incurred immediately upon the commission of the offense, as if the sentence were already passed…The sentence which imposes a ferendae sententiae penalty established by the law is called a condemnatory sentence; that which imposes a penalty latae sententiae established by the law is called a declaratory sentence… But unless the delinquency is notorious, i. e., not only public but inexcusable from the point of imputability in the eyes of the public, [he] need not observe the penalty in the external forum” (p. 679-80). So either way, these men, even if validly ordained and consecrated, (which they definitely were not) could act only in danger of death.

Invalid and incapacitated according to notoriety of law

How can one possibly deny that what Marcel Lefebvre and Peter Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc did publicly was a reckless and deliberate violation of Canon Law? Lefebvre and Thuc were bound to KNOW the law. They both celebrated the Novus Ordo Missae and signed Vatican 2 documents. They later were both publicly known and recognized universally as renegade bishops. Proofs of Lefebvre’s ordination and consecration by a Freemason as well as his involvement in Freemasonry himself, also Thuc’s mental incompetency, have been available for decades. Whether we classify them as acting in obedience to the usurpers as valid popes or as purportedly validly consecrated before Oct. 9, 1958, both suppositions end in excommunication. VAS absolutely invalidates their acts. And even Paul 6 and John Paul 2 excommunicated them for their consecrations. A notorious act must be known as criminal or morally imputable, impossible to conceal and “not to be excused by any excuse admitted in law” (Can. 2197). The constant flux from traditionalist sects and the controversy surrounding them shows that their pseudo-clergy were recognized as doubtful. Lefebvre, Thuc et al never credibly denounced the usurpers or called for a papal election. They were undeniably notorious.

No declaratory sentence required

But LibTrads contend that for lack of a declaratory sentence — a hearing in the case regarding their excommunication for heresy and communicatio in sacris and for acting without the papal mandate — there is doubt about both their heresy and their excommunications. This error was condemned as follows by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem fidei: “The proposition which teaches that it is necessary according to the natural and divine law, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should proceed and that therefore sentences called ipso facto have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” (DZ 1547). Of course the canons themselves, VAS and Pope St. Pius X’s election laws removed all doubt. But even aside from that, the very fact of their notoriety removes any need for a declaratory sentence. We read from Abp. Cicognani, quoting the theologian Chelodi, that according to Can. 2232 §1:”The notoriety of an offence is held equivalent to a declaratory sentence” (page 703-704). Commenting on Can. 2232, Rev. Charles Augustine writes:

“It is left to the discretion of the superior to declare a penance has been incurred, that is to issue a declaratory sentence. However this sentence must be issued if the interested party insists or if the public welfare demands it, in the case of a corrupter or briber or a dangerous heretic.” We are then directed to Can. 1935, under the heading “Criminal Trials,” which states: “The faithful may, at all times denounce the offense of another for the purpose of demanding satisfaction or out of zeal for justice to repair some scandal or evil… Even an obligation to denounce an offender exists whenever one is obliged to do so either by LAW or by special legitimate precept or by the natural law in view of the danger to faith or religion or other imminent public evil.” Canon 2223 states it is as a rule left to the discretion of the superior to declare a penalty latae sententiae but he must issue the declaratory sentence if an interested party demands it or if the public welfare requires it.”

From a minister who is an excommunicatus vitandus, or who has been excommunicated by a condemnatory or declaratory sentence, the faithful may ask for sacramental absolution only in danger of death” (Can 2261 §3). There is also Can. 2265, §1 and §2, which states: §1, “Every excommunicated person whatsoever… (1) is forbidden to make use of the right of election, presentation or nomination; (2) is incapable of acquiring dignities, offices, benefices, ecclesiastical pensions, or any position in the Church and (3) cannot be promoted to orders. §2 Acts exercised in violation of the prohibitions in (1) and (2) are not invalid unless they were done by an excommunicatus vitandus or by a person excommunicated by a declaratory or condemnatory sentence.” So not only did Lefebvre and Thuc correspond to the definition of a vitandus, they also were to be considered as excommunicated by a declaratory (latae sententiae) sentence and were deemed by Canon Law as incapable of acting validly, as insisted upon by this author and others for years.

The faithful would be violating Can. 1325 and become heretics themselves for their silence if they failed to admit the violation of these canon laws and denounce the actions of Lefebvre, Thuc, any other bishops — and all whom they invalidly ordained and consecrated — as heretics and schismatics incapable of performing a valid act. Moreover, failure to do so is a denial of the condemnation by Pope Pius VI of the following proposition: “That the Church does not have authority to demand obedience to its decrees otherwise than by means which depend on persuasion, insofar as it intends that the Church has not conferred on it by God the power not only of directing by counsel and persuasion but also of ordering by laws and of constraining and forcing the inconstant and stubborn by exterior judgment and salutary punishments” —  (leading toward a system condemned elsewhere as heretical; Auctorem fidei, 1794, DZ 1511). Not only must we defend the faith, but we must also obey the Sacred Canons.

Canon 104: Error invalidates acts

Canon 104 reads: “Error annuls an action, when the error concerns the substance of the action or amounts to a conditio sine qua non — that is to say, if the action would not have been done except for the error; otherwise the action is valid, unless the law states otherwise…” The canonists T. Lincoln Bouscaren and Adam Ellis comment: “Substantial error invalidates an act according to Canon 104. Error means a false judgment of the mind. Ignorance and inadvertence, though not identical with error, have the same juridical effect… Error is of law if it concerns existence or meaning of the law; of fact if it concerns any other fact. Error of law or a fact, if it is substantial, renders an act null and void.” And certainly the error of invalidity and illiciety is substantial; the acts of Trad pseudo-clergy null and void.

Rev. Charles Augustine states under Can. 104: “Whether deceit is committed by hiding the truth or telling a lie or by some machinations employing both words and deeds is immaterial. But it is important to ascertain whether the deceit practiced is the cause of one’s acting in such a way… Deceit generally causes error and therefore the canon speaks of error. Error is a state of mind in which one approves falsehood for truth. It differs from ignorance which is a lack of due knowledge” (A Commentary on Canon Law, 1931). The deceit practiced — hiding the true teachings of the popes and Canon Law to make it appear that they possessed orders and epikeia could replace jurisdiction; that they could represent the Church without the pope — this subterfuge definitely caused those involved in traditionalist sects to act as they did. But now that they know better, Catholics must do better.

Conclusion

As stated here repeatedly, to refute the teachings of the above Canons and prove only illiciety, while maintaining validity, LibTrads would need to disprove the most recent decisions of the Holy Office, the Code itself, VAS, and many other binding papal documents. In truth this cannot be done because the Church does not contradict Herself. They had the answer to what should be done in the absence of the Pope in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis — elect a true pope according to the Sacred Canons. But all the cardinals, all the bishops failed to act. Cardinals lost the right to elect in voting in Roncalli, known to be a suspected heretic; the silence and inaction of the bishops on whom the election devolved ended any hope of ever again being able to elect a true pope.

In the latter days of his papacy, Pope Pius XII granted the faithful the following commission, in a document entered into the AAS: “Especially in countries where contacts with the hierarchy are difficult or practically impossible Christians…MUST, with God’s grace, assume all their responsibilities. Even so nothing can be undertaken against the explicit and implicit will of the Church or contrary in any way to the rules of faith or morals or ecclesiastical discipline.” It would be AGAINST  the rules of faith and morals, of ecclesiastical discipline were the faithful NOT to invoke their right to publicly declare these imposters INVALID, NULL and VOID under Can. 1935. And that is why it matters that those praying at home acknowledge LibTrads not as just illicit, but undeniably invalid.

So the proofs above are Q.E.D. — quod erat demonstrandum. Or short and sweet, what has just been demonstrated cannot be refuted.

More comments from our readers

From Anon.

“I am now convinced that the orders after Pope Pius XII died are invalid. Thank you for directing me to Canon 2294.”

From D.M.

“To me the liciety v. validity is a not an issue as none are even now or ever were Catholic.  Had one stood up in 1958 and said ‘we need another Conclave to get rid of this Modernist’ it would be different but seeing they all fell into line, Paul IV and Pope Pius XII in VAS takes over. End of story.”

From M.L.

“I’ve been thinking over some points on the validity of ordinations after Pope Pius XII, especially regarding the Church’s requirements for proper intention and for ministers to be “duly promoted.” Pope Leo XIII emphasized in Apostolicae Curae that, “In the ordination of bishops and priests, there is required besides the matter and the form, the minister, who is a duly promoted person, and the intention of doing what the Church does.”

“With this in mind, could ordinations performed without papal authority lack the necessary intention and legitimacy, if the minister’s intention is not aligned with the Church’s requirement for apostolic succession, and if they themselves are not “duly promoted” as the Church demands? Can’t it be said that what the so-called traditionalist spokespeople after Pius XII—empowered by the devil—were really able to do was craft a deceptive narrative that buried the truth known by true Catholics today and offered to souls seeking to enter the Ark. Rites done by valid ministers don’t guarantee validity if their so-called ‘ministers’ were not ‘duly promoted’ under a pope, as Apostolicae Curae outlines. Without the proper intention to do what the Church does in conferring the apostolic succession the way that the Church does, and without due promotion, validity is in very serious doubt—and their illicit rebellion, placing them outside the true Church, only underscores their lack of authority.

In light of our discussions and your articles, I felt compelled to reply, especially given the relentless spread of flawed reasoning and deceptive arguments among traditionalist circles. These opponents falsely claim that mere external adherence to the rites of the Church ensures validity, ignoring the critical necessity of papal unity and sacramental intention as the Church has always understood it. Their distorted narrative has led many to confusion and even despair, as they downplay God’s providence and misconstrue the role of His Holy Church. Few of us remain today who see through these deceptions and can articulate the truth that answers and dismantles their fallacies. And yet, we are equipped with a powerful defense: the Rosary, our great weapon, and true devotion to the Blessed Mother, who strengthens our faith and guards our fidelity.

As Christ Himself questioned, “When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8). We must hold fast, in this sense, to the true faith — the faith unwaveringly loyal to the Church as He established it. In this small remnant of the faithful, we find ourselves defending the apostolic continuity, purity of sacramental intention, and unity under Christ’s Vicar, keeping watch for His return and the restoration of His Church.

Your article provides a powerful exposition on the implications of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) for understanding valid episcopal authority during a papal interregnum. The constitution’s infallible assertion, specifically through Pope Pius XII’s directive, highlights that consecrations without a papal mandate are “null, void, and invalid.” This decree confirms that apostolic succession cannot be sustained without unity under a canonically elected Pope, rendering “traditionalist” consecrations invalid, not merely illicit. Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae also underscores that a valid sacrament requires the intent to “do what the Church does,” which is incompatible with rejecting the Church’s teaching on the necessity of papal primacy. Your detailed treatment of these sources refutes the Gallicanist-like argument that bishops can perpetuate apostolic succession without the head bishop, the Pope.

Your second article offers a compelling and comprehensive defense of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) and its crucial role in preserving the Church’s integrity during interregna. I appreciate how thoroughly you addressed the necessity of papal authority in ensuring apostolic succession, pointing out that consecrations without the papal mandate are “null and void” by decree of Pope Pius XII. Your arguments against the notion that bishops could perpetuate apostolic succession independently are especially powerful. It resonates with what we’ve discussed about Apostolicae Curae and Pope Leo XIII’s insistence on the need for sacramental intention aligned with the Church’s understanding of unity under the Pope. I think this analysis beautifully clarifies how VAS refutes traditionalist claims and makes a clear distinction between lawful sacramental intention and invalid acts separated from papal authority. Thank you for sharing such a precise and valuable piece.

Your reflections make it clear that these so-called traditionalists have fallen into a grave error, misled as “children of the devil,” who have manipulated narratives to exploit the fears and vulnerabilities of the faithful. It was their initial lack of trust in God’s providence and love, and a failure to lean on the Blessed Virgin’s intercession, that opened the path to apostasy. This same distrust continues to sway those who, even after the great apostasy, are unable to muster the courage to truly live by faith, rather than seeking the security of what they can see or control. As Pope Pius XII reminded us in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, any attempt to act outside papal authority is “null and void,” making clear that sacramental validity requires a true and obedient intention to serve within the structure Christ established through His Church.

Trads often dismiss key ecclesiastical rulings as “merely disciplinary” without recognizing the significance of their binding nature, particularly when set forth in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. I absolutely agree with you on the infallibility of Humani generis and the tragic missteps made by those who choose to downplay it. Your point about the visible and tangible aspects of faith really resonates, and it’s a valuable reminder of St. Paul’s teaching on the unseen essence of faith. The contrast you draw with Protestantism is poignant—modern Trads do risk reducing the Church’s mysteries to a mere formalism that lacks the true essence of faith.

Who could have foreseen that we would be born into a time such as this, where in these dark latter days we are called to endure the absence of the Eucharist and the guiding hand of a true Vicar? Our plight bears a suffering scarcely imaginable. The early pilgrims, though they often could not partake directly, at least knew these sacraments and offices were present in the world. But now, we find ourselves in a desolate landscape, clinging to faith amid profound loss. Were it not for the grace of Almighty God, poured forth through the loving hands of the Blessed Mother, how could we endure?

Thank you again for allowing me to reflect on these matters, and may God bless you in your work to clarify the faith for those striving to follow it faithfully.

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.)