I haven't read Fr. Feeney's interpretation, so I wouldn't be able to say what it is
Here's Fr. Michael Müller, in the late-19th century:
"As there is", says Pius IX., "but one God the Father, one Christ his Son, one Holy Ghost, so there is
also only one divinely revealed truth, only one divine faith--the beginning of man's salvation and the
foundation of all justification, by which (faith) the just man lives, and without which it is impossible to
please God and to be admitted to the Communion of his children; and there is but one true, holy, Catholic, Roman Church and divine teaching Authority, (cathedra) founded upon Peter by the living voice of
the Lord, out of which (Church) there is neither the TRUE FAITH nor ETERNAL SALVATION, since
no one, can have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his Mother." (Encycl. Letter, March 17,
1856.)
...
It must be remembered that every dogma is exclusive, and admits of no interpretation contrary to that
which it has received from the beginning. To every dogma, therefore, may be added what Pius IX. added to the definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Ever Blessed Virgin Mary, namely: "―Wherefore, if
any persons--which God forbid--shall presume.to think in their hearts otherwise than we have defined,
let them know that they are condemned by their own judgment, that they have suffered shipwreck in
faith, and have fallen away from the unity of the Church"
...
§ 7. INVINCIBLE OR INCULPABLE IGNORANCE NEITHER SAVES NOR DAMNS A PER-
SON.
―But, suppose, some one will say, a person, in his inculpable ignorance, believes that he is on the
right road to heaven, though he is not a Catholic; he tries his best to live up to the dictates of his conscience. Now, should he die in that state of belief, he would, it seems, be condemned without his fault.
We can understand that God is not bound to give heaven to anybody, but, as he is just, he certainly cannot condemn anybody without his fault.
Whatever question may be made still in regard to the great truth in question is sufficiently answered in
the explanation already given of this great truth. For the sake of greater clearness, however, we will answer a few more questions. In the answers to these questions we shall be obliged to repeat what has al-
ready been said.
Now, as to the question just proposed, we answer with St. Thomas and St. Augustine: ―There are
many things which a man is obliged to do, but which he cannot do without the help of divine grace: as,
for instance, to love God and his neighbor, and to believe the articles of faith; but he can do all this with
the help of grace; and ‗to whomsoever God gives his grace he gives it out of divine mercy; and to whom-
soever he does not give it, he refuses it out of divine justice, in punishment of sin committed, or at least
in punishment of original sin, as St. Augustine says. (Lib. de correptione et gratia, c. 5 et 6; Sum. 22. q.
ii. art. v.) ―And the ignorance of those things of salvation, the knowledge of which men did not care to
have is without doubt, a sin for them; but for those who were not able to acquire such knowledge, the
want of it is a punishment for their sins,‖ says St. Augustine; hence both are justly condemned, and nei-
ther the one nor the other has a just excuse for being lost.‖ (Epist. ad Sixtum, Edit. Maur. 194, cap. vi.,
n. 27.)
Moreover, a person who wants to go East, but, by an innocent mistake, gets on a train going West,
will, as soon as he finds out his mistake, get off at the next station, and take a train that goes East. In like
manner, a person who walked on a road that he, in his inculpable ignorance, believed was the true road
to heaven, must leave that road, as soon as he finds out his mistake, and inquire for the true road to
heaven. God, in his infinite mercy, will not fail to make him find out, in due time, the true road to heav-
en, if he corresponds to his grace. Hence we asked the following question in our Familiar Explanation:
―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 to know better?
To this question we give the following answer: ―Their inculpable (invincible) 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.‖ (St. Thomas Aquinas.)
S. O. remarks about this answer, ―that the author is not theologically correct, for no one will ever be
punished through, by, or because of inculpable ignorance.‖ In these words, S. O. impudently imputes to
us what we never have asserted, namely, that a man will be damned on account of his inculpable ignorance..From the fact that a person tries to live up to the dictates of his conscience, and cannot sin
against the true religion on account of being invincibly ignorant of it, many have drawn the false conclu-
sion that such a person is saved, or, in other words, is in the state of sanctifying grace, making thus invincible ignorance a means of salvation. This conclusion is contralatius hos quam praemissae.‖ To
give an example. The Rev. Nicholas Russo, S. J., professor of philosophy in Boston College, says in his
book, The true Religion and its dogmas:--
―This good faith being supposed, we say that such a Christian (he means a baptized Protestant) is in a
way a member of the Catholic Church. Ignorance alone is the cause of his not acknowledging the au-
thority of his true mother. The Catholic Church does not look upon him as wholly a stranger; she calls
him her child; she presses him to her maternal heart; through other hands she prepares him to shine in
the kingdom of heaven. Yes, the profession of a creed different from the true one will not, of itself, bar
the gates of heaven before this Christian; invincible ignorance will, before the tribunal of the just God, ensure the pardon of his errors against faith; and, if nothing else be wanting, heaven will be, his home
for eternity.‖ We have already sufficiently refuted these false assertions, and we have quoted them, not
for the purpose of refuting them, but for the purpose of denying emphatically what follows after these
false assertions, namely: ―This is the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and has received the sanc-
tion of our late Pope Pius IX.. In his Allocution of December 9, 1854, we read the following words: ―It
is indeed of faith that no one can be saved outside the Apostolic Roman Church; that this Church is the
one ark of salvation; that he who has not entered it will perish in the deluge. But, on the other hand, it is
equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, he would not be held
guilty in the sight of God for not professing it.‖
Now, in which of these words of Pope Pius IX. is any of the above false assertions of the Rev. N. Rus-
so, S. J., sanctioned? In which words does Pius IX. say that a Protestant in good faith is in a way a
member of the Catholic Church? Does not Pius IX. teach quite the contrary in the following words,
which the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., quotes pp. 163-166?
―Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious socie-
ties, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church--which, from the days of Our
Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles, has ever exercised, by its lawful pastors, and still does exercise, the
divine power committed to it by this same Lord--will easily satisfy himself that none of these societies,
singly nor all together, are in any way or form that one Catholic Church which our Lord founded and
built, and which he chose should be; and that he cannot by any means say that these societies are mem-
bers or parts of that Church, since they are visibly separated from Catholic unity………
―Let all those, then, who do not profess the unity and truth of the Catholic Church, avail themselves of
the opportunity of this (Vatican) Council, in which the Catholic Church, to which their forefathers be-
longed, affords a new proof of her close unity and her invincible vitality, and let them satisfy the long-
ings of their hearts, and liberate themselves from that state in which they cannot have any assurance of
their own salvation. Let them unceasingly offer fervent prayers to the God of Mercy, that he will throw
down the wall of separation, that he will scatter the darkness of error, and that he will lead them back to
the Holy Mother Church, in whose bosom their fathers found the salutary pastures of life, in whom
alone the whole doctrine of Jesus Christ is preserved and handed down, and the mysteries of heavenly
grace dispensed.‖
Now does not Pius IX. say in these words, very plainly and distinctly, that the members of all other re-
ligious societies are visibly separated from Catholic unity; that in this state of separation they cannot
have salvation; that by fervent prayer, they should beseech God to throw down the wall of separation, to
scatter the darkness of error, and lead them to the Mother Church, in which alone salvation is found.‖
And in his Allocution to the Cardinals held Dec. 17, 1847, Pius IX. says: ―Let those, therefore, who wish
to be saved, come to the pillar and the ground of faith, which is the Church; let them come to the true
Church of Christ, which, in her Bishops, and in the Roman Pontiff, the Chief Head of all, has the succes-
sion of apostolical Authority, which has never been interrupted, which has never counted anything of
greater importance than to preach, and by all means to keep, and defend the doctrine proclaimed by the
Apostles at Christ's command . . . . . . We shall never at any time abstain from any cares or labors that,
by the grace of Christ himself, we may bring those who are ignorant, and who are going astray, to THIS
ONLY ROAD OF TRUTH AND SALVATION.‖ Now does not Pius IX. teach most clearly in these
words that the ignorant cannot be saved by their ignorance, but that, in order to be saved, they must
come to the only road of truth and salvation, which is the Roman Catholic Church?
Again, does not Pius IX. most emphatically declare, in the words quoted above by the Rev. N. Russo,
S. J., that ―It is indeed of faith, that NO ONE can be saved out of the Apostolic Roman Church?‖ How,
then, we ask, can the Rev. N. Russo, S. J. say in truth, that a Protestant in good faith, such as he de-
scribed, is in a way a member of the Catholic Church? that the Catholic Church does not look upon him
as wholly a stranger? that she calls him her child, presses him to her maternal heart, prepares him,
through other hands, to shine in the kingdom of God? that the profession of a creed different from the
true one will not, of itself, bar the gates of heaven before this Christian, etc.? How can this professor of philosophy at the Boston College assert all this, whilst Pius IX. teaches the very contrary? And mark
especially the scandalous assertion of the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., namely: ―This our opinion is the doctrine
which has received the sanction of our late Pope Pius IX.‖ To prove his scandalous assertion, he quotes
the following words of Pius IX: ―It is equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the
true religion, he would not be held guilty in the sight of God for not professing it.‖ If, in these words,
Pius IX. says what no one calls in question, that invincible ignorance of the true religion excuses a
Protestant from the sin of heresy, does Pius IX. thereby teach that such invincibly ignorance saves such
a Protestant? Does he teach that invincible ignorance supplies all that is necessary for salvation--all that
you can have only in the true faith? How could the Professor of philosophy at the Jesuit College in Bos-
ton draw such a false and scandalous conclusion from premises in which it is not contained? Pius IX.
has, on many occasions, condemned such liberal opinions. Read his Allocution to the Cardinals, held
Dec. 17, 1847, in which he expresses his indignation against all those who had said that he had sanc-
tioned such perverse opinions. ―In our times,‖ says he, ―many of the enemies of the Catholic Faith direct
their efforts towards placing every monstrous opinion on the same level with the doctrine of Christ, or
confounding it therewith; and so they try more and more to propagate that impious system of the indif-
ference of religions. But quite recently -- we shudder to say it, certain men have not hesitated to slander
us by saying that we share in their folly, favor that most wicked system, and think so benevolently of
every class of mankind as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, however
alienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at ever-
lasting life. We are at a loss from horror, to find words to express our detestation of this new and atro-
cious injustice that is done to us.‖
Mark well, Pius IX. uttered these solemn words against ―certain men,‖ whom he calls the enemies of
the Catholic Faith,--he means liberal minded Catholics and priests, as is evident from other Allocutions,
in which he says that he has condemned not less than forty times their perverse opinions about religion.
Is it not, for instance, a perverse and monstrous opinion, when the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., says: ―The spir-
itual element (of the Church) comprises all the graces and virtues that are the foundation of the spiritual
life; it includes the gifts of the Holy Ghost; in other words, it is what theologians call the soul of the
Church. (Now follows the monstrous opinion) This mysterious soul is not limited by the bounds of the
exterior organization (of the Church); it can go far beyond; exist even in the midst of schism and heresy
unconsciously professed, and bind to our Lord hearts that are connected by no exterior ties with the visi-
ble Body of the Church. This union with the soul of the Church is essential to salvation; so essential that
without it none can be saved. But the necessity of belonging likewise to the Body of the Church, though
a real one, may in certain cases offer no obstacle to salvation. This happens whenever invincible igno-
rance so shrouds a man's intellectual vision, that he ceases to be responsible before God for the light
which he does not see‖? The refutation of this monstrous opinion is sufficiently given in all we have said
before. The very Allocution of Pius IX., from which the Rev. N. Russo quotes, is a direct condemnation
of such monstrous opinions. (See Preface) Now these modern would-be theologians are not ashamed to assure us most solemnly that their opin-
ions are the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and yet they cannot quote one proof from Holy
Scripture, or from the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, to give the least support to their
opinions. The Rev. N. Russo and S. O. seem not to see the difference between saying: Inculpable ignorance will not save a man, and inculpable ignorance will not damn a man. Each assertion is correct, and yet there is a great difference between the two. It will be an act of charity to enlighten them on the point in question. 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 sanctifying 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 Saviour, 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 Aquinas, ―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.But if we say that inculpable ignorance cannot save a man, we thereby do not say that invincible ignorance damns a man. Far from it. To say, invincible ignorance is no means of salvation, is one thing; and to say, invincible ignorance is the cause of damnation is another. To maintain the latter, would be wrong, for inculpable ignorance of the fundamental principles of faith excuses a heathen from the sin of
infidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy; because such invincible ignorance, being only a simple involuntary privation, is no sin.
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 thoughts of man will, in his infinite goodness, not suffer any one to be lost forever without his own fault.‖
Topic: Possible strict-EENS chapel (Read 39429 times)