Why did St. Alphonsus hold Suarez and De Lugo in such high esteem after many of their propositions were condemned by a Pope?  He practically touted them as the greatest theologians since St. Thomas.

St. Alphonsus did maintain the correct position on EENS, unlike these Jesuits, but their idea that you can be saved by invincible ignorance was said by him to be "sufficiently probable" when it is actually a heresy.  Because of this, Ibranyi calls him a heretic.  But how can you call someone a heretic who believes the right way?  

Due to Marrano infiltration -- most likely -- St. Alphonsus was living in a time when the EENS dogma seemed a little bit ambiguous.  By way of comparison, trying to put myself in his shoes, I'm living in a time where because of various controversies the status of BoD seems a little ambiguous to me.  I waver on whether it's merely an allowed opinion or de fide.  If it turns out that BoD really was de fide, and Trent really did teach it, then I may be judged harshly for not coming out strongly enough against the Feeneyites.  I am saying they have an allowable opinion when they really might be heretics.
Would that make me a heretic to a future generation who solidly knows that BoD is dogma?

Deeming a heresy to be "allowable" or even "probable" is not enough to convict someone of being a heretic.  That being said, St. Alphonsus' great admiration for De Lugo and Suarez is bothersome, but he was an intellectual and was probably enamored of the appearance of great erudition these men had.

well....time to throw him out and as he was canonized by Pope Gregory XVI...so, obviously Gregory was a heretic........

He too likely was a MK ultra expreiment..

By the way, alleging he was semi-pelagian is a common tag Calvinists label Catholics.. :scratchchin:


or, perhaps Raoul the Theologian and friends are wrong......no, that cannot happen, they have ruled on ignorance, invincibility,etc and Alphonsus does not measure up, so he obviously is a heretic then.....any dibs how long raoul and co. have left to claim the name Catholic? I predict, less than a year.......

St. Alphonsus did maintain the correct position on EENS, unlike these Jesuits, but their idea that you can be saved by invincible ignorance was said by him to be "sufficiently probable" when it is actually a heresy.

Invincible ignorance is an inculpable lack of a due good -- not a positive quality.  It cannot DO anything; a fortiori, one cannot be saved BY it.

Invincible ignorance is an inculpable lack of a due good -- not a positive quality.  It cannot DO anything; a fortiori, one cannot be saved BY it.

As someone wrote,

It is a mistake to say they were saved by their ignorance. Rather they were saved by the truth that God plants on all men's souls and the truth that he gives them the grace to understand. They are simply not culpable for what they are ignornant of.

Romans 2:15:


[13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
[14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
[15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them
[16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Pius IX interprets for the deaf: "There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."---QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE (On Promotion Of False Doctrines, 1863)

"Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. Your sin remaineth."---Jn 9:41

The footnote of the Douay:  "If you were blind "... If you were invincibly ignorant, and had neither read the scriptures, nor seen my miracles, you would not be guilty of the sin of infidelity: but now, as you boast of your knowledge of the scriptures, you are inexcusable."

Watch out then all we who boast of our salvation or "your knowledge" and who work to put up gates where the Church opens them.

The Church and her theologians has clarified the statements of the earlier Popes in this matter. Judge none but ourselves.

There is no twister of doctrine like a Feeneyite twister of doctrine.

...Erat lux vera quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum...

"That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. "---Jn 1

Yea and Amen