I linked a big paragraph that did not show up in my previous post for reference.  Too bad it did not link.  You can see it on this wiki link under the section title probabilism.  It shows how they use this 24 collective of theologians. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lettres_provinciales

 I've read it. B. Pascal was an heretic, a strong adherent to Jansenism. I'd search elsewhere for Catholic doctrine.

This Pascal?

http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2017/10/24/the-showstopper-for-a-jesuit-pope-to-beatify-pascal-the-archenemy/?refresh_ce

They also say that St. Therese of the little flower was poisoned by jansenism in her early days.  But we know that is not true.  And, after reading pascal personally, I can say that this book is not a defense of jansenism at all.   It is a criticism of the jesuits, which I find convincing.  

As I am finishing reading the book, he discusses this.  And, he explains how it is not a heresy to hold that these condemnations are not found in jansensius.  And, he argues by Bellarmine and another authorities that popes are not infallible even in councils when it comes to fact, only faith.  So, the pope would not be infallible when he states that these errors are found in jansenius.  He is infallible in condemning errors.  Just not that they are contained in jansenius.  That is all he argues in defense of jansenius.  

Read the book.  I am not saying that I am a pascalist, but the book has opened my eyes to a reality that has a lot of facts supporting it.  And, it explains a lot of errors and problems in the church going way back.

No, the Catholic Enyclopedia entry re: Pascal makes a number of references to Pascal's Jansenism.  But we've already determined in your other thread about the infallibility of canonizations that you don't care what a truly Catholic source says about Catholic matters.

Your book was written by Peter Kreeft, a "conservative Novus Ordo theologian".  No traditional Catholic would give it the time of day, so no, I won't be reading it.  

Are you a conciliarist?

2vermont - No, I just need someone like you to correct me when I am mistaken , and we all make mistakes.  None the less, I recommend the book.  And, there is nothing heretical in the book.  He may have convinced his family to reject the morals of the jesuits which was at the time and even perhaps currently equated to be jansenist.  But, he also argues against jesuit calumny(I wonder why).  His arguments for rejecting jesuit casuistry are strong, especially in light of the total collapse of the church(likely due to such).  

Now back to my OP, is there really a four and twenty jesuit fathers?

lighthouse - that is why you should read the book.  The laxity and variety of the early jesuits astounds me.  It is really like the beginning of the NO catholic pantheon structure.  They developed a moral pantheon among their 24 fathers, and from that foundation sought to please all men rigid or lax.  And, the more I look into it, the more it is confirmed.  

My last post was perhaps confusing.  But, I will say this.  Something developed during this period.  And, that development was the dominance of probabiliorism over rigid morality.  The jesuits were the probabilists(which means they were favorable of less safe morality meaning medium to lax morality so long as one or a few of their many moralists approved of it making it therefore probable).  The dominicans were probabiliorists which means they erred on the side of rigidity, but would consider laxism so long as it was in the majority(sound familiar? collegiality anyone?).  Whereas it seems that if pascal is representative of them, the augustinians(labelled jansensists) were solely morally rigid.  And, he argues the dominicans made a political decision to favor jesuits over augustinians(labelled jansenists) in the jansenists theology despite disagreeing over meaning of the essential work/subject with jesuits because they had more in common with them(jesuits) when it came to morality(willingness to be lax).

Correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I have gathered.  And, it was the augustinian factions who were labelled jansenists.  However, there is a conflict of interest here.  And, that conflict is the movement towards being approved of by the world(as we can see today).  It seems to me that is has its roots all the way back in this debate.  And, as we can see from today, morality is what is sacrificed when it comes to the one world religion.  For that reason I will for the time being take pascal seriously.  He book is quite good.  It pieces much of the puzzle together for me, and I am grateful.  Probability is the father of collegiality.  And, probability is the child of the jesuits unrestrained by the dominicans.

So, is there really a four and twenty?  Pascal names them.  Perhaps I will name them in my next post, and see if it begins to make more sense.