A common and dangerous error advanced these days is to label certain theological opinions as heretical propositions.
Theological opinions are free opinions concerning doctrines on Faith and morals. Their value depends on facts and reasons adduced in their favor. There are different degrees of opinions ranging from probable, more probable, well-founded, pious, and tolerated. According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, a theological opinion ceases to be a free opinion once the Church pronounces a judgment on the matter.
At times, popes will advance a theological opinion. Theologian Fr. Joachim Salaverri gives us an example with jurisdiction, when he taught, “On the mediate or immediate origin from God of the jurisdiction of Bishops. This question was raised in the Councils of Trent and Vatican, but it was not decided. Several authors with Victoria and Vasquez held that the jurisdiction was given immediately by God to the individual Bishops; but generally Catholic authors with St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, St. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez hold that jurisdiction is given to the Bishops immediately not by God but mediated through the Roman Pontiff. Pius XII teaches this opinion positively in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis, when he says: ‘But Bishops so far as their own diocese is concerned…are not completely independent but are subject to the Roman Pontiff, although they enjoy ordinary power of jurisdiction received directly from the Sovereign Pontiff himself.’ We think that his opinion is to be preferred.” [1]
What’s most fascinating about this example is that not everything advanced in encyclicals are binding teachings of the faith. This doesn’t mean an encyclical may contain a potential error against the faith. Popes can’t err against the faith, but they may err on something not yet settled by the Church. The Fathers of the First Vatican Council discovered 40 papal errors of the past.
An opinion is an opinion. Twice this year, Feeneyites have accused me of heresy for spreading the following theological opinions on what type of faith is needed to be saved, which St. Alphonsus Liguori taught in his Moral Theology:
1. Which mysteries must be believed by a necessity of means?
Of those things which the faithful are bound to believe explicitly, some must be believed by a necessity of means, or end; without which, even if inculpably unknown, no one can obtain the ultimate end; others, by a necessity of precept, without which, if they be inculpably omitted, the ultimate end may be obtained. — Sanchez, Azor, Valentia.
Resp. I. By a necessity of means these two things are necessary: (1) To believe explicitly that God is, and is a rewarder of the good; according to that of the Apostle to the Hebrews, xi. 6: One must believe. Council of Trent. (2) After the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel, to believe explicitly, as says Molina; or at least implicitly, as some teach as probable with Coninck and Laymann, in Christ and the Most Holy Trinity. See Escobar, where from Vasquez he teaches that culpable ignorance of these mysteries, or negligence in learning them, is a grave sin, distinct from that which is its cause. See Diana.
Faith is thus defined: It is a theological virtue, infused by God, inclining us to firmly assent, on account of the divine veracity, to all that God has revealed, and by the Church has proposed to our belief. It is said (1) A theological virtue, that is, which has God for its object; for faith, as also hope and charity, is aimed directly at God, and thus differs from the moral virtues, which refer to Him indirectly. (2) Infused by God; because faith is a supernatural gift of God. (3) Inclining us to firmly believe; for the assent of faith cannot be joined with fear, as was wrongly said in proposition 21 proscribed by Innocent XI, but must be absolutely firm. (4) On account of the divine veracity. For the infallible truth (which is God Himself) is the formal object of faith. (5) To all that God has revealed; for everything revealed by God is the material object of faith. (6) And by the Church has proposed to our belief; for the divine revelation would not be made known to us, except by the Church, which proposes the things revealed; as it is otherwise evident, on account of the signs of credibility (among which are prophecies, miracles, the constancy of the Martyrs, and such like), that the Church can neither deceive nor be deceived. Apart from which St. Augustine famously uttered the saying: I would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church so moved me.
2. Whether the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation must be believed explicitly?
It is asked: whether the Mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, after the promulgation of the Gospel, must be believed with an explicit faith by necessity of means or of precept?
The first opinion, which is more common and seems more probable, teaches that they are to be believed by a necessity of means. Thus hold Sanchez, Valentia, Molin, Continuator Tournely, Juenin, Antoine, Wigandt, Concina with Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc.; also Salmant., Cuniliati and Roncaglia. But these last three say, that accidentally and in a rare case one may be justified with a faith that is only implicit. — This they prove from the Scriptures, from which they say is clearly proved the necessity of means. They prove it also from reason: for, granting that before the promulgation of the Gospel an implicit faith in Christ was sufficient, yet after the promulgation, because the state of grace is more perfect, a more perfect knowledge is required, indeed an explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity.
The second opinion, which is also sufficiently probable, says, that by necessity of precept all are bound to believe these Mysteries explicitly; but by necessity of means, it suffices if they be believed implicitly. — Thus Dominicus Soto, where he says: Although the precept of explicit faith (that is, in the Trinity and the Incarnation) is absolutely obligatory upon the whole world, nevertheless many may be excused from this obligation on account of invincible ignorance. Franciscus Sylvius writes: After the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel, explicit faith in the Incarnation is necessary for all for salvation by a necessity of precept, and indeed also (as is probable) by a necessity of means. And in the conclusion that follows, he says the same about the mystery of the Trinity. Cardinal Gotti says: I say (1) The opinion which denies that explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity is so necessary, that without it no one can be justified, or be able to be saved, is very probable. And he asserts that Scotus holds this opinion. Eusebius Amort, the recent and most learned writer, defends absolutely the same opinion. Elbel writes, that today this opinion is held by the illustrious Doctors Castropalao, Viva, Sporer, Laymann, who says this (second opinion) is not less probable than the first, with Richardo, Medina, Vega, Sa, and Turriano. — Cardinal de Lugo calls the first opinion speculatively probable [footnote: Or more correctly: Lugo n. 90, calls the first opinion fairly common], but defends absolutely and in great detail this second one as more probable, with Javello, Zumel, and Suarez; and de Lugo writes, that this same opinion appears to be that of St. Thomas, where the Holy Doctor says: Before Baptism, Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues, through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit. From which Lugo argues: as Cornelius obtained grace through implicit faith, because the Gospel was not yet perfectly promulgated in that region, likewise he can obtain it who is invincibly ignorant of these mysteries; for likewise to these the Gospel is not sufficiently promulgated.
But they say it is repugnant to the divine goodness and providence, to damn adults who are invincibly ignorant, who live honestly according to the light of nature, against which there is: In every nation, he who fears Him, and works justice, is acceptable to Him? (Acts x. 35) — Indeed they respond that all Scriptures, and testimonies of the Holy Fathers that are opposed to this view, can easily be explained as of necessity of precept: either because ordinarily almost no one can be saved without explicit faith in these Mysteries, because after the promulgation of the Gospel almost no one labors under invincible ignorance of them; or because, says Lugo, they may be explained as referring to implicit faith, or explicit in desire. — Furthermore, says Laymann, an adult, if mute and deaf from birth, though he be baptized, could not receive the other Sacraments, although he so desired; indeed he could not be saved, because it is unbelievable that such a man could rightly apprehend and explicitly believe the mystery of the Incarnation, and especially of the Trinity.
It is noted by Tannerus, Silvius, Azor and Valentia, with Gulielmo Parisiensi according to Sanchez, that if one were so very untaught, that he could not grasp these mysteries, then he would be excused on account of inability, and compared to infants, and dunces. — But Sanchez says, that it is one thing to believe, another to know the mysteries, and to give an explanation of them. Thus he thinks that all adults are bound by a necessity of means, to eventually believe such mysteries, but by a necessity of precept to know them; from which precept to know the slow of mind are excused; and he says that the authors cited are to be understood in this way. And he concludes with Gabriele, who says: It is sufficient … for them (that is, the untaught), that … they explicitly believe individual [articles] when proposed to them.
However, propositions 64 and 65 condemned by Innocent XI, say: A man is capable of being absolved, however ignorant he may be of the mysteries of faith, and even if through negligence, even culpable, he does not know the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ — It suffices that he should have believed them once; but Viva says with Marchant, that it is probably not necessary to repeat Confessions made in ignorance of the aforesaid Mysteries; since by the aforementioned opinion it is quite probable that they were valid, if the ignorance was inculpable. For it is certain, that such ignorance, if it be vincible, is a mortal sin. But the aforesaid proposition was justly condemned, because it said that even he is capable of being absolved, who at the time of confession suffers from ignorance of the aforesaid mysteries. — But the opinion of Father Viva is not sufficiently probable in my view. For although the penitent probably made a valid confession, so that afterwards he appears exempt from repeating his confession, because he confessed in good faith before; yet out of respect for him who certainly sinned gravely, it should always be urged that above all one is obliged to make a confession, not only probably, but certainly valid. On which account, when one becomes aware that his confession was possibly valid, but also possibly null, because of ignorance of the mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity or the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, he is obliged, after he has been instructed in these Mysteries, to repeat his confession.
Moreover, he is said to believe implicitly, who believes something explicitly, in which another thing is implicit; for example, if you believe what the Church believes. See the Scholastics and Laymann. [2]
St. Alphonsus’ work won the high praise of the very learned Pope Benedict XIV.
In 1831, Pope Gregory XVI decreed it safe to follow all of St. Alphonsus’ opinions. No other saint has been given this approbation.
One Feeneyite refused to call St. Alphonsus a heretic for his teaching, but he labeled me as a heretic for agreeing with St. Alphonsus. The other Feeneyite denied St. Alphonsus wrote this section of his study despite the fact that it’s in all the translations.
Not only do Feeneyites make dogmas out of opinions, but we’ve seen how pseudo-Catholics general who make the universal acceptance opinion a dogma. See The Universal Acceptance Doctrine Not Universally Accepted – How We Can Know a True Pope Rules
They also like to make a dogma out of the rare and extreme minority opinion that a public heretical pope remains pope until warned, declared, or deposed by authorities. Even if they don’t force this opinion on others, they inevitably force it upon themselves. Besides, it appears this opinion has been shot down by the Church by implication. See The First Vatican Council and the Pope.
More and more, we see well-intended Catholics making dogmas out of opinions, whether it’s the Cassiciacum Thesis, home-aloneism, or what’s absolutely necessary to maintain apostolicity.
We want to be very careful not to make dogmas out of opinions. We must be level-headed in this great apostasy and stay focused. God tells us through our first Pope, “Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour” (I Peter 5:8). Satan is trying to rip the last of us apart. Be on guard!
Footnotes
[1] Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB, [1955], pp. 144-145
[2] Theologia Moralis, Lib. II, tract. 1, cap. 1
https://archive.org/details/theologiamoralis01ligu_0/page/212/mode/2up
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 