CathInfo.com

So you're saying there is no sin at all to believe contrary to the teachings of the Church if you do not know the Church's teachings are contrary to your belief. I do not believe that is always the case. Certainly sometimes yes, but not always.

And it certainly isn't always the case, especially pertaining to individuals who have been directly confronted on the matter and still refuse to change their erroneous position. So, for example, those whom the Dimonds have directly confronted and even debated on the matter would then be culpably ignorant, as they should know and teach the true dogmas; and yet they do not. Clemens makes the example of the Pinesap debate here, where he was boxed into a corner by Br. Peter, despite having good points of his own, and ultimately denied the dogma. He would, therefore, be culpable for that error and is a heretic because of it.

In that sense, it would be fair to say that the vast majority of traditionalists, and clerics, are ignorant of the fact that BoD is contrary to Catholic teaching because they mistakenly believe that it is Catholic teaching. All thanks to the Fr. Feeney tragedy, the assertions in the Tridentine Catechism, or the failures of priestly formation in the 20th and 21st centuries. So, to dismiss them all as heretics would be untrue and could only be determined on a case-by-case basis, as a friend of mine proposed last night on this point.

Hence why, relating to the Pinesap debate again, it appears as though the Dimonds "pick and choose" who is and is not a heretic on the basis of the rejection of EENS, as those whom they have taken the time to study do clearly preach a doctrine contrary to the Faith, and would be, at least, undeclared heretics.

Man DL, you are probing deep, I mean to the very depths into this whole thing with truly excellent points. For as good as these forums are to communicate with, this is not a good format to go so deep into such matters without having posts that are 20 paragraphs and a thousand reply thread ha ha! Ah well, so it goes....

And it certainly isn't always the case, especially pertaining to individuals who have been directly confronted on the matter and still refuse to change their erroneous position. So, for example, those whom the Dimonds have directly confronted and even debated on the matter would then be culpably ignorant, as they should know and teach the true dogmas; and yet they do not. Clemens makes the example of the Pinesap debate here, where he was boxed into a corner by Br. Peter, despite having good points of his own, and ultimately denied the dogma. He would, therefore, be culpable for that error and is a heretic because of it.

In that sense, it would be fair to say that the vast majority of traditionalists, and clerics, are ignorant of the fact that BoD is contrary to Catholic teaching because they mistakenly believe that it is Catholic teaching. All thanks to the Fr. Feeney tragedy, the assertions in the Tridentine Catechism, or the failures of priestly formation in the 20th and 21st centuries. So, to dismiss them all as heretics would be untrue and could only be determined on a case-by-case basis, as a friend of mine proposed last night on this point.

Hence why, relating to the Pinesap debate again, it appears as though the Dimonds "pick and choose" who is and is not a heretic on the basis of the rejection of EENS, as those whom they have taken the time to study do clearly preach a doctrine contrary to the Faith, and would be, at least, undeclared heretics.

Based on the definition of heresy as the denial of a single doctrine, to go contrary to any defined doctrine is a sin and is usually condemned explicitly with anathema. Being dependent upon culpability, the thing that we cannot know is the gravity of the sin, so imo there is no sense in arguing that point. Suffice to know we are bound to believe it under pain of sin.

When we lay people / arm chair theologians / Dimonds etc., correct someone, that person is *not* bound to believe us because we have no authority, which is to say that person is not obligated to believe us / correct themselves according do our say so. On that account alone we should not insist they are heretics - this is where the Dimonds (and us lay folk) often go off the deep end in this matter. 

I believe getting to the root of it will help us to understand why it is to widespread today. As it is a very subtle error, to such a degree that those teaching it honestly believe it to be Catholic teaching.

Liberalism is undoubtedly at the center of this, sure, as the Archbishop states. I have my own suspicions that it may have emerged from the neo-Thomistic/scholastic movement of the 19th to 20th century. As we see this same idea of an invincible ignorance BoD emerge in the writings of Garrigou-Lagrange. And it would make sense, given that St. Thomas proposed the catechumenate variation of BoD prior to Trent, with Ss. Alphonsus and Bellarmine, both Thomists, continuing the same theory. And this includes those scholastic theologians who wrote BoB/BoD into the catechism.

Yet, as lesser philosophies, like Cartesianism and Kantianism, served to undermine Scholastic thought; this BoD theory was "buried" for a few centuries. Only to re-emerge alongside the neo-Scholastic movement in the 19th century, this time tainted with the growing religious indifferentism of the time; resulting in this new idea that the may consist of not just those in visible communion, but those outside of such, as virtually all trad clerics hold today.

I came across a quote from Fr. Faber in his Spiritual Conferences which shows that this idea was present in the mid-19th century as well:

"Were there ever any consistenly kind heathens? If so they are in heaven now, for they must have been under the dominion of grace on earth." p. 24, published 1859

Not to mention Pope Pius IX's reference to the error in Singulari Quidem, circa 1856; right around the same time.


What we do not have is an individual, group, or sect from which it originates before that era. Leading me to add those within the neo-Scholastics as a possible root of the widespread error today.

When we lay people / arm chair theologians / Dimonds etc., correct someone, that person is *not* bound to believe us because we have no authority, which is to say that person is not obligated to believe us / correct themselves according do our say so. On that account alone we should not insist they are heretics - this is where the Dimonds (and us lay folk) often go off the deep end in this matter.

I very much agree. This is why I've been so bothered by this issue as of late. As it is clearly an error, and we have every obligation to correct Catholics, but no authority whatsoever to condemn them as formal heretics. Hence why I keep reiterating there being no formal condemnation from the Church in the 500 years since Trent where the theory became more widespread.