« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2015, 04:08:48 PM »

Wasn't it Lenin who said, "We will sell them the rope with which they will hang themselves"?

Thanks M.A. for the explanation re: the Doctrinal Preamble and what it entails. This is the noose of which Bishop Fellay & Company so eagerly wish to partake. So they sow, so shall they reap.

Ladislaus

« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2015, 08:05:11 PM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

I'm sorry, but this is TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. There's nothing here not to sign. Do you guys even know what "religious submission" means? Catholics are absolutely required to give religious submission to all teachings of the authentic Magisterium, whether infallible or not.

Ladislaus

http://catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2015, 08:33:07 PM »

Quote from: Msgr. Fenton

Despite the comparative inadequacy of the treatment they give to the papal encyclicals, however, all the theological works dealing with this subject make it perfectly clear that all Catholics are bound seriously in conscience to accept the teaching contained in these documents with a true internal religious assent. It is the common teaching of the theologians who have written on this subject that the internal assent due to a great number of the doctrines proposed in the papal encyclicals is something distinct from and inferior to both the act of divine Catholic faith and the act most frequently designated as fides ecclesiastica. Most theologians hold that, while there is nothing to prevent an infallible definition of truth contained in or connected with the deposit of revelation in papal encyclicals, and while de facto it is quite probable that at least some infallible pronouncements have been made in this way, the Holy Father has not chosen to use the complete plenitude of his apostolic doctrinal authority in presenting most of the truths contained in his encyclical letters. Nevertheless they all insist that even in this portion of his ordinary magisterium the Holy Father has the right to demand, and actually has demanded, a definite and unswerving internal assent to his teaching from all Catholics.
...
This authority (of the papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great. It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church.

Ultimately, however, this assent is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith. Strictly speaking, it is possible that this teaching (proposed in the encyclical letter) is subject to error. There are a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be. But, absolutely speaking, it could be, because God does not guarantee it as He guarantees the teaching formulated by way of definition’.
...
Lercher teaches that the internal assent due to these pronouncements cannot be called certain according to the strictest philosophical meaning of the term. The assent given to such propositions is interpretative condicionatus, including the tacit condition that the teaching is accepted as true “unless the Church should at some time peremptorially define otherwise or unless the decision should be discovered to be erroneous.” Lyons and Phillips use the same approach in describing the assent Catholics are in conscience bound to give to the Church’s non-infallible teachings. Fr. Yves de la Brière speaks of the “submission and hierarchical obedience” due to these pronouncements.
...
Franzelin holds that the Roman Pontiff can command all Catholics to assent to a given proposition (either directly or by condemning the contradictory statement), for either one of two different reasons. First the Holy Father can intend to define this proposition infallibly as true or as de fide. Again he can will merely to look after the security of Catholic doctrine. The magisterium of the Church has been equipped with help from God by reason of which the first sort of teaching gives infallible truth, while the second affords infallible security. Employing the plentitude of its power, the teaching Church operates as the auctoritas infallibilitatis. Working, not to define, but merely to take those steps it deems necessary to safeguard the faith, it is the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis. To this auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis and to the teachings it sets forth, the faithful owe the obedience of respectful silence and of an internal mental assent according to which the proposition thus presented is accepted, not as infallibly true, but as safe, as guaranteed by that authority which is divinely commissioned to care for the Christian faith.
...
Despite the divergent views about the existence of the infallible pontifical teaching in the encyclical letters, there is one point on which all theologians are manifestly in agreement. They are all convinced that all Catholics are bound in conscience to give a definite internal religious assent to those doctrines which the Holy Father teaches when he speaks to the universal Church of God on earth without employing his God-given charism of infallibility. Thus, prescinding from the question as to whether any individual encyclical or group of encyclicals may be said to contain specifically infallible teaching, all theologians are in agreement that this religious assent must be accorded the teachings which the Sovereign Pontiff includes in these documents. This assent is due, as Lercher has noted, until the Church might choose to modify the teaching previously presented or until proportionately serious reasons for abandoning the non-infallible teaching contained in a pontifical document might appear. It goes without saying that any reason which would justify the relinquishing of a position taken in a pontifical statement would have to be very serious indeed.
[my note: contradiction of previous Magisterium would clearly meet this condition]

It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.

Religious submission means a grave respect and presumption of truth in receiving any authentic teaching of the Holy Father to the Universal Church (here the context is Encyclicals but the docs of V2 clearly also fall into this category). This does not mean an absolute guarantee of truth when proportionately grave reasons arise that would warrant rejecting a teaching (and the contradiction of previous Magisterium would clearly suffice).

So what exactly is the problem here?

« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2015, 08:59:46 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Please read the critique closely that was sent by Fr. Waters to Archbishop Di Noia at the CDF.

http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/
OPEN%20LETTERS/WATERS_SULLIVAN_CHAPUT_EXCHANGE/
13_A_LUMEN%20GENTIUM_1989%20Profession%20of%20Faith_Authentic%20Magisterium.pdf

The submission on the “mind and will” or as Lumen Gentium calls it, submission of the “soul” as defined by the Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the CDF is of a different order, an entirely different kind from which theologians formerly understood the term including Fr. Fenton. It is no longer what theologians once called a “prudent” or “conditional” submission but an unconditional submission of the soul which can only be given to God alone.

Fr. Waters’ last letter to Cardinal Muller also addressed the difference between the religious submission of Pius XII in Humani Generis and that demanded in the 1989 Profession of Faith that was improperly equated by Archbishop Pozzo.

There is a reason that the 1989 Profession of Faith with its non-dogmatic third paragraph is the only absolutely unconditional non-negotiable demand for regularizing the SSPX. It is the means to impose the new religion with its canonical penalities.

The old Angelqueen debate on this question is also worth reading and is posted on Ss. Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Mission web page. The link is provided in the abbreviated summary sent to the CDF:

http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/
Catholic%20Controversies/LG,X1989ProfessionFaith;AuthenticMagisterium.htm

AJNC

« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2015, 11:16:14 PM »

In November 2013 Bishop de Gallareta told some of us in India that the SSPX would never sign a deal with the Conciliar Church as long as Vatican II was in place. I believe that he said something quite similar in Britain recently. Would he say such had he not been told this by Bp Fellay himself? Maybe Bishop de Mallerais has also been given a similar assurance.

But the writing on the wall for some years now is that Bp Fellay and his team want a deal. And it seems that such is not far away.

How can Bps dG and dM stay with the Society after this?

« Reply #10 on: August 14, 2015, 05:25:11 AM »

AJNC,

+Fellay has been dishonest even with the religious orders (Dominicans of Avrille, Braz. Benedictines and the German Carmelites. He was caught on many lies). So, he has totally discredited himself. I think +de Galarreta would have to go with +Fellay to Rome because he is the one that handled the talks with the Romans. My assumption is that if the two assistants are eager to go to Rome, so is +dG. If he has objections to it, he should have spoken after Fr. Pfluger made it clear the train to Rome is leaving. As far as +TM, my impression is that they are not leveling with him but is clear from his last talk that he is not going to Rome. He calls those who advise going to Rome "bad friends" and warns about them.

+TM may be the reason why the SSPX is coming to Rome through the back door (Argentina), as someone who has something to hide but from his last interview, he has gone the whole hog. I was delighted to hear Fr. Cyprian's June sermon. After listening to it, it is clear to me that he will not go to Rome. His speaking so emphatically at this time when +Fellay is showing his reform of the reform colors is no coincidence and very encouraging. MO.

Ladislaus

« Reply #11 on: August 14, 2015, 09:36:44 AM »

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

I DID read the response from Father Waters. Father Waters is off base.

Referring to the submission being "internal" and of the "mind and will" simply distinguishes this type of submission from mere external lip service.

Quote from: Msgr. Fenton

Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded.

This is nothing other than Traditional Catholic teaching.

In the discussions with Bishop Fellay, Rome acknowledges that the SSPX has a right to RESPECTFULLY question the teachings of Vatican II while maintaining the "religious submission".

John Steven

« Reply #13 on: August 14, 2015, 11:41:34 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Apparently you are at odds with ABL on the matter:

http://archives.sspx.org/archbishop_lefebvre/one_year_after_the_consecrations.htm

14: Oath of fidelity

Question: What do you think of the instruction of Cardinal Ratzinger setting up the Oath of Fidelity which includes a Profession of Faith?

Archbishop Lefebvre: Firstly, there is the Credo which poses no problems. The Credo has remained intact. And, so the first and second sections raise no difficulties either. They are well-known things from a theological point of view. It is the third section which is very bad. What it means in practice is lining up on what the bishops of the world today think. In the preamble, besides, it is clearly indicated that this third section has been added because of the spirit of the Council. It refers to the Council and the so-called Magisterium of today, which, of course, is the Magisterium of the followers of the Council. To get rid of the error, they should have added, "...insofar as this Magisterium is in full conformity with Tradition."

As it stands this formula is dangerous. It demonstrates clearly the spirit of these people with whom it is impossible to come to an agreement. It is absolutely ridiculous and false, as certain people have done, to present this Oath of Fidelity as a renewal of the Anti-Modernist Oath suppressed in the wake of the Council. All the poison in this third section which seems to have been made expressly in order to oblige those who have rallied to Rome to sign this profession of Faith and to state their full agreement with the bishops. It is as if in the times of Arianism one had said, "Now you are in agreement with everything that all the Arian bishops think."

No, I am not exaggerating. It is clearly expressed in the introduction. It is sheer trickery. One may ask oneself if in Rome they didn't mean in this way to correct the text of the protocol. Although that protocol is not satisfactory to us, it still seems too much in our favor in Article III of the Doctrinal Declaration because it does not sufficiently express the need to submit to the Council.

And so, I think now they are regaining lost ground. They are no doubt going to have these texts signed by the seminarians of the Fraternity of St. Peter before their ordination and by the priests of the Fraternity, who will then find themselves in the obligation of making an official act of joining the Conciliar Church.

Differently from in the Protocol, in these new texts there is a submission to the Council and all the Conciliar bishops. That is their spirit and no one will change them.

« Reply #14 on: August 14, 2015, 12:44:20 PM »

This is the link I meant to post at the bottom of my last reply:

http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/
OPEN%20LETTERS/WATERS_SULLIVAN_CHAPUT_EXCHANGE/
13_A_LUMEN%20GENTIUM_1989%20Profession%20of%20Faith_Authentic%20Magisterium.pdf

Mod edit:
People will have to put the link together -- without the carriage return(s).

Because when you post it as-is, it destroys the formatting of the site.

Ladislaus

« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2015, 01:13:47 PM »

Quote from: John Steven

Quote from: ABL

To get rid of the error, they should have added, "...insofar as this Magisterium is in full conformity with Tradition."

Yes, indeed, ABL wasn't infallible. ABL is quite mistaken here. It is the MAGISTERIUM and the MAGISTERIUM ALONE that is the authentic interpreter of Tradition. As many priests have since pointed out, we cannot say that we oppose Tradition to the Magisterium without essentially becoming Protestants. Where we have issues is where MAGISTERIUM OPPOSES MAGISTERIUM. It is absolutely Catholic to give religious submission to the entire teaching of the Magisterium. Period. End of story. If anyone says otherwise, then either they do not understand the term "religious submission" or they're not Catholic.

drew

« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2015, 04:32:56 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: John Steven

Quote from: ABL

To get rid of the error, they should have added, "...insofar as this Magisterium is in full conformity with Tradition."

The word “magisterium” is being used equivocally. There is really only one Magisterium and that is the authority derived from the attribute of infallibility which Jesus Christ endowed His Church. That is always and everywhere infallible either in its Ordinary and Universal or its Extra-ordinary mode of expression. Tradition is never “opposed” to this Magisterium because both have the same author, GOD. It has been rarely used from the time of Vatican II until the present inclusively, such as when Pope John Paul II declared the impossibility of women ordination which was an exercise of the “Universal and Ordinary” magisterium of the Church and therefore the decree was an infallible judgment of the revelation of God.

The personal magisterium of the pope, called his ordinary magisterium or ordinary authentic magisterium, is the teaching of the pope grounded in his grace of state. This can be opposed to the Magisterium of the Church and to Tradition. And to say this is not “essentially becoming Protestants.” The essential difference between a Catholic and a Protestant concerns the principles used in making judgments of conscience. Every Catholic is morally required to do his best to form a true and certain conscience before every act and then his obliged to conform his acts to that conscience even if it should ultimately prove to be erroneous. The Catholic conscience is based upon objectively known criteria. The Protestant conscience is based upon whatever criteria the Protestant chooses which are neither objective nor consistent.

When you say, that “It is absolutely Catholic to give religious submission to the entire teaching of the Magisterium,” you can only be speaking about the qualified and conditional religious submission to the ordinary magisterium of the person of the pope based upon his grace of state. It must be qualified because it is not necessarily free from error. This is exactly what Fr. Fenton and the other pre-Vatican II theologians cited in the document sent by Fr. Waters to the CDF confirm.

The submission of the mind and will, (i.e.: the soul), to revelation of God is submission to God on the authority of God and this is done without any qualification whatsoever. Every other submission is always and necessarily qualified. This is the Protestant position which claims the rights of conscience to qualify the revelation of God. It is nothing be an earlier edition of Religious Liberty.

The 1989 Profession of Faith is a creedal profession in which every single proposition is a dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, except for this specific addendum in question. This non-dogmatic proposition demands submission in a Catholic Creed of the “mind and will,” or as Lumen Gentium says, submission of the “soul,” without qualification whatsoever to man as man. This is just another false god.

Drew

Ladislaus

« Reply #22 on: August 14, 2015, 08:41:18 PM »

Quote from: drew

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: John Steven

Quote from: ABL

To get rid of the error, they should have added, "...insofar as this Magisterium is in full conformity with Tradition."

Drew, you've simply restated the entire false R&R theological narrative.

Theologians have ALWAYS made the distinction between the infallible Magisterium and the non-infallible (aka merely authentic) Magisterium. There's nothing "equivocal" about this. Catholic theologians clearly distinguish between the two ... as did I in my post. So I honestly have no earthly idea what you're talking about.

To the former is due the assent of divine faith; teachings of the infallible Magisterium are believed with the certainty of faith.

To the latter is due the RELIGIOUS SUBMISSION. Religious submission involves the "mind and will" ... which is simply a way of stating that it must be an INTERNAL submission and not merely and outward "shutting up". It is not an absolute unconditional assent of divine faith or with the certainty of faith, but it is nevertheless and act of intellect and will (not merely of the body -- controlling the lips). Yes, as Father Fenton stated, it is theoretically POSSIBLE (however unlikely) that this Magisterium COULD CONTAIN ERROR. In that case, given due and proportionate reason, a respectful disagreement may be had ... while in full submisssion to the Magisterium per se.

There is consequently ABSOLUTELY NO REASON that any Catholic can reject that statement that we MUST give religious submission of the intellect and will to the merely authentic Magisterium. This was held universally by all Catholic theologians before Vatican II. This does not preclude legitimate respectful disagreement for grave reasons. Grave reason here = an APPARENT word-for-word contradiction of previous Magisterium to which we ALSO OWE THE SAME submission.

So how do we know that Pius IX and Gregory XVI weren't in fact WRONG in their condemnation of religious liberty while Vatican II was right? Ah, you say, it's because Pius IX and Gregory XVI followed Tradition while Vatican II did not. Says who, Drew? Your private judgment?

You're basically claiming that the 1989 formula required the absolute assent of divine faith to the merely-authentic non-infallible Magisterium in its mention of "intellect and will". That is completely false.

Ironically, it is the Sedevacantists who make this EXACT SAME MISTAKE, essentially imputing infallibility and absolute certainty to the teachings of the non-infallible merely-authentic Magisterium ... based on this very same language used in the pre-Vatican II theologians, that religious submission involves the internal assent of intellect and will.

« Reply #24 on: August 15, 2015, 06:05:23 AM »

Quote

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html
Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff OR the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.

Quote from: Article on LG,PF &AM

Fr. Joseph Fenton attributes the term “authentic (or authorized) magisterium"
to the theological writings of the esteemed Fr. Joachim Salaverri who said:

Fr. Joachim Salaverri wrote:

Quote

“An internal and religious assent of the mind is due to the doctrinal decrees of the Holy
See which have been authentically approved by the Roman Pontiff.”

Fr. Joachim Salaverri, of the Jesuit faculty of theology in the Pontifical Institute of Comillas in Spain,
quote taken from article by Fr. Joseph C. Fenton, Infallibility in the Encyclicals, AER, 1953
Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticum, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility.(no.659ff). Fr. Joachim Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.)

N.B.: Fr. Fenton considered Fr. Salaverri and Louis Cardinal Billot, S. J. the foremost theologians of their time.
Fr. Fenton said regarding the authentic magisterium:

Quote

The fact of the matter is that every doctrine taught by the Holy Father in his capacity as the
Vicar of Christ must, by the very constitution of the Church militant of the New Testament, be
accepted by the faithful for what it is. If it is an infallible declaration, it is to be accepted with
an absolutely firm and irrevocable assent. If it is a non-infallible statement, it must be
accepted with a firm but conditional mental assent. Fr. Joseph C. Fenton, Infallibility in the Encycl
icals, AER, 1953

Other theologians before Vatican II were in agreement with Fr. Fenton.

Fr. Nicolas Jung wrote:

Quote

"This is why we owe the "authentic" Magisterium not a blind and unconditional assent
but a prudent and conditional one: Since not everything taught by the Ordinary Magisterium
is infallible, we must ask what kind of assent we should give to its various decisions. The
Christian is required to give the assent of faith to all the doctrinal and moral truths defined by
the Church's Magisterium. He is not required to give the same assent to teaching imparted by
the sovereign pontiff that is not imposed on the whole Christian body as a dogma of faith. In
this case it suffices to give that inner and religious assent which we give to legitimate
ecclesiastical authority. This is not an absolute assent, because such decrees are not
infallible, but only a prudential and conditional assent, since in questions of faith and
morals there is a presumption in favor of one's superior....
Such prudential assent does not eliminate the possibility of submitting the doctrine to a further examination, if that seems required by the gravity of the question. Nicolas Jung, Le Magistère de L’Èglise, 1935, pp.153,154

Dom Paul Nau wrote:

Quote

"If we are not to be drawn into error, we urgently need to remember that the assent due to the non-infallible Magisterium is... that of inward assent, not as of faith, but as of prudence,
the refusal of which could not escape the mark of temerity, unless the doctrine rejected was an
actual novelty or involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught." Dom Paul Nau, Pope or Church?, p.29,

Ladislaus

« Reply #25 on: August 15, 2015, 07:12:30 AM »

Ah, MariaA ! These theologians are saying EXACTLY what I have been in my posts.

What you need to demonstrate is that the statement in the Professio is stating something different.

Msgr. Fenton used the term internal "mental" (aka "of the mind") assent for religious submission (in your citation above). Fr. Jung used the expression "inner" (aka of the mind and will, the interior faculties of man). This is to distinguish mere external lip service.

So when the Preamble uses the term religious submission of the mind and will, it's saying NOTHING OTHER THAN what these same theologians are saying. PROVE that the Professio means the absolute and unconditional assent of faith (with the certainty of faith).

You can't, because it does NOTHING OF THE SORT.

And why exactly do you keep bolding "authentic" Magisterium? It's precisely to the MERELY authentic Magisterium that the Profession requires "relgious submisson" (vs. the assent of faith).

In fact, the Vatican authorities have made it quite clear that they would entertain respectful dialogue with regard to the SSPX's concerns/problems/issues with the teachings of Vatican II ... provided that it's done from a standpoint of "religious submission", or "respect" and "deference". Lumen Gentium equates this religious submission to "in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence". This is to be distinguished from the cocky, "Convert, ye heretics, before we'll talk." attitude of the Resistance et al. Since WHEN has it been permitted for Catholics to adopt this defiant (vs. submissive) attitude towards the Vicar of Christ? Answer: NEVER.

drew

« Reply #26 on: August 15, 2015, 07:00:59 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: drew

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: John Steven

Quote from: ABL

To get rid of the error, they should have added, "...insofar as this Magisterium is in full conformity with Tradition."

Your reply makes a distinction between the uses of the word “magisterium.” I agree with that distinction as far as it goes. But that distinction made here was not made in your first post. The teacher in one is God and the teacher in the other is man teaching by his grace of state. The former can neither deceive nor be deceived. The latter can both deceive and be deceived even when corresponding to his grace of state. The distinction is one of kind and not one of degree. Even in your current reply you are using the word at times without making the necessary distinction.

Submission of the mind and will, that is, the soul to God on the authority of God is what divine faith is. It must necessarily be unqualified. Any submission to man, any man whatsoever, speaking ultimately on his own authority, always and everywhere must be necessarily qualified.

Fr. Joseph Fenton in the AER article, The Religious Assent Due to Teaching of Papal Encyclicals, cites several theologians and all admit that religious submission is ALWAYS qualified and is distinct from “divine faith and ecclesiastical faith” (a term Fr. Fenton dates to the 16th century referring to doctrines of Catholic faith that have not been dogmatized). He cites specific examples of problems and says, “In line with these explanations, it is clear that the contradictions of a doctrinal statement contained in a papal encyclical in a non-infallible manner, but asserted authoritatively only in an encyclical is something which could be qualified with at least the censure of error. Obviously this applies to doctrinal statements alone.” Whenever "error" is admitted as possible, qualification of assent is necessary. The problem is that you do not see any distinction between what Fr. Fenton describes and what is taught in Lumen Gentium, incorporated in the 1989 Profession of Faith, and made a criminal violation in canon law. I think this is a big mistake.

In Donum Veritatis, on religious vocation of theologians, Cardinal Ratzinger references Lumen Gentium and says that the “religious submission of will and intellect (i.e.: what LG calls “the soul”)... cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith” and indicates the “indissoluble bond between the ‘sensus fidei’” and the “religious submission of the will and intellect.... to the (authentic) magisterium.”

There is nothing in this explanation that suggests limitations or qualifications. Submission of the intellect and the will, that is, the soul, in an act of faith is necessary because “created reason is completely subject to uncreated truth, we are obliged to yield to God the revealer full submission of intellect and will by faith” (Vatican I). The truths of divine revelation are not self-evident and therefore require submission of the mind and will. The religious submission of the will and intellect is demanded by Cardinal Ratzinger for the same reason because it is “under the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.” That is, it is an appeal to authority and not to reason. No qualification of this religious submission if affirmed. They may say that their can “respectful disagreement,” but ultimately the questioning is permitted and ends with human authority alone. True “respectful disagreement” is followed by definitive clarification by the Holy Father. That is not case now nor has it been since Vatican II. If you have doubt as to the meaning of the 1989 Profession of Faith then examine how it is applied.

Fr. Waters and the Mission have been accused of “heresy” and “schism” by the local ordinary. The diocesan letter from the judicial vicar at the direction of the bishop specifically cited “descent from the ‘authentic magisterium’” for the charge of “heresy.” This charge has been appealed to the Holy Father through the CDF as is the right of every Catholic to obtain a clear, authoritative, and definitive declaration from the Holy Father on matters of Faith. This right to appeal to the Holy Father has been twice affirmed, once at the Lyons II and the other at Vatican I Council, it is also codified in canon law. Catholics possess this right and this right imposes a duty of obligation upon the Holy Father.

The 1989 Profession of Faith is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed with two additional dogmatic propositions plus a third non-dogmatic addendum which is the proposition in question. According to the CDF, the “Professio fidei states: ‘Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium.’” This is a “Professio fidei” and it is imposed as such.

Fr. Waters and the Mission were accused of “heresy” for denying acts of the “authentic magisterium” that demanded “religious submission of the will and intellect” to the person of the pope by virtue of his grace of state and not to the attribute of infallibility which God has endowed His Church. When the charge of “heresy” for disobedience to the “authentic magisterium” was appealed to the Holy Father through the CDF asking, as a right, a definitive determination of matters concerning the Catholic Faith, the reply given by the CDF was the 1989 Profession of Faith. No answer was made to Fr. Waters’ "respectful questioning" that the 1989 Profession of Faith could not be made by any Catholic without specific qualifications, several of which were cited, without breaking the First Commandment. He also added that he is willing to be corrected if the Holy Father will infallibly settle the matter. This failure to answer also explains why it is the only absolutely non-negotiable condition for regularization of the SSPX with Rome. Nothing else is needed.

Everything since and including Vatican II has no greater authority than the authentic ordinary magisterium of the pope and bishops which ultimately is human authority with few exceptions, such as previously cited, when Pope John Paul II used the authentic magisteium to engage the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium on the decree concerning the ordination of women.

In fine, theologians such as Fr. Fenton before Vatican II when speaking of religious submission do not use the phrase “submission of the mind and will” without necessary qualifications and several examples have already been cited. These qualifications are not in the 1989 Profession of Faith or the CDF explanation of the addendum. It is added to a Creedal profession and now treated by the CDF as if it were a dogma, for only denial of a dogma can be formally charged with heresy. Any criticism of Vatican II and the concilarist direction is only permitted until serious questions are asked and then the reply is the 1989 Profession of Faith – that is, the reply is 'shut-up.' The reason Bishop Fellay has not been told to 'shut-up' is because he has asked no serious questions.

No Catholic can accept a demand of UNQUALIFIED submission of the mind and will to any man as man and that is what the authentic ordinary magisterium is. Theologians before Vatican II recognized necessary qualifications. The current understanding and application of the teaching does not.

Quote from: Ladislaus

So how do we know that Pius IX and Gregory XVI weren't in fact WRONG in their condemnation of religious liberty while Vatican II was right? Ah, you say, it's because Pius IX and Gregory XVI followed Tradition while Vatican II did not. Says who, Drew? Your private judgment?

We know they are NOT wrong because their teaching is in accord with the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Of course any judgment anyone makes on anything can rightfully be called “private judgment.” Even making a profession of Catholic faith by the submission of mind and will to the revelation of God is a “private judgment.” Vatican I’s article on the faith says that, “the assent of faith is by no means a blind movement of the mind.” That is, it requires a “private judgment” regarding the motives of credibility. What I said before concerning conscience applies here. Every Catholic must do his best before any act or judgment to insure a conscience that is both true and certain. He is then required to follow that conscience even if it is shown subsequently to be erroneous. We have made, what you call a “private judgment” on the Catholic Faith and we have submitted this “private judgment” to the supreme magisterium of the Church. We have done all that is morally required in the objective order to obtain a definitive judgment by virtue of the infallible Magisterium of the Church.

Quote from: Ladislaus

You're basically claiming that the 1989 formula required the absolute assent of divine faith to the merely-authentic non-infallible Magisterium in its mention of "intellect and will". That is completely false.

I am not making this claim. I am claiming that Rome is treating it that way. That is established by what the CDF has done with Fr. Waters and the Mission. It could not be called a “heresy” if it were not treated as an article of “divine faith.” That is a fact by definition and constitutes prima facie evidence in support of this argument.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Ironically, it is the Sedevacantists who make this EXACT SAME MISTAKE, essentially imputing infallibility and absolute certainty to the teachings of the non-infallible merely-authentic Magisterium ... based on this very same language used in the pre-Vatican II theologians, that religious submission involves the internal assent of intellect and will.

It is true that the Sedevacantists make this mistake but I am not. I am not “imputing infallibility and absolute certainty to teaching of the non-infallible.” Quite the opposite. I think that what is being done in the 1989 Profession of Faith is evidence against Sedevacantism because it is an effort by Modernists to impose the conciliarists teachings with the appearance of infallible truth without its substance. If the concilarist popes were not true popes then there would be nothing prohibiting them from dogmatizing error. In spite of having all the power and authority, they have not done this.

The Sedevacantists also treat the pope, in his person, as the 'rule of faith.' He is not. The ‘never failing faith’ given by Jesus to St. Peter was according to a Lapide, a personal gift for him alone. And this is confirmed by Vatican I in its definition of papal infallibility because it cites this scripture passage as the authority for the dogma yet the dogma itself defines infallibility in a very narrow sense as an attribute of the Church that the pope under specific conditions can employ.

Drew

Ladislaus

« Reply #29 on: August 16, 2015, 08:03:24 AM »

Quote from: drew

Your reply makes a distinction between the uses of the word “magisterium.” I agree with that distinction as far as it goes. But that distinction made here was not made in your first post.

Drew, I've been pushing this distinction for years here on CI, largely in addressing the sedevacantists, many of whom similarly confuse "internal religious submission of the mind and will" with infallibility. So if it was not clearly-enough articulated in my first post, that's because I was assuming the distinction in my mind. In fact, the distinction is evident already in the passage from the Professio wherein it's talking about the Magisterium where it falls short of making a "definitive act". So that was my starting point

Ladislaus

« Reply #30 on: August 16, 2015, 08:08:35 AM »

Quote from: drew

Submission of the mind and will, that is, the soul to God on the authority of God is what divine faith is. It must necessarily be unqualified.

Simply not true, Drew. Even in the passages cited by MariaA from Msgr. Fenton et al, they use the expressions "internal assent" (of the soul) and "assent of the mind". This is in fact the pre-Vatican II language of theologians ... to distinguish this assent from a mere external (of the body) assent through paying lip service only or in simply shutting up and refraining from open criticism. There's absolutely no indication in the Profession that it means anything different. And if you look at the entire context of what has been leaked regarding the talks, this traditional sense of religious submission is precisely what they had in mind. This is the EXACT SAME MISTAKE that many sedevacantists make; they see the language in pre-Vatican II theologians regarding internal submission of the mind and will and have used that to extend the scope of infallibility beyond what has been defined by the Church.

Ladislaus

« Reply #31 on: August 16, 2015, 08:14:18 AM »

Quote from: drew

In Donum Veritatis, on religious vocation of theologians, Cardinal Ratzinger references Lumen Gentium and says that the “religious submission of will and intellect (i.e.: what LG calls “the soul”)... cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith” and indicates the “indissoluble bond between the ‘sensus fidei’” and the “religious submission of the will and intellect.... to the (authentic) magisterium.”

And this is absolutely correct. It cannot be "simply exterior or disciplinary" ... which is proving EXACTLY what I have been saying. He's here defining "of the will and intellect" (aka "of the soul") as being distinguished from "simply exterior or disciplinary" (i.e. -- "I'll shut up about this out of obedience to the hierarchy but I don't buy it for one second."). And, yes, it's due to the impulse of faith due to our obligations towards the Magisterium. That's the motivation for this submission; it's not merely "disciplinary". You're way off base.

R&R has created this false attitude towards the Magisterium among Traditional Catholics, and it's most pernicious.

Cardinal Ratzinger accurately reflects traditional Catholic theology on this subject.

drew

« Reply #33 on: August 16, 2015, 01:17:43 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: drew

Submission of the mind and will, that is, the soul to God on the authority of God is what divine faith is. It must necessarily be unqualified.

Simply not true, Drew.

“Simply not true”? What I said is a brief paraphrase but the statement is most certainly true.

Quote from: Vatican I, On Faith

“We are obliged to yield to God the revealer full submission of intellect and will by faith. This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the catholic church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.”

Quote from: Ladislaus

Even in the passages cited by MariaA from Msgr. Fenton et al, they use the expressions "internal assent" (of the soul) and "assent of the mind". This is in fact the pre-Vatican II language of theologians ... to distinguish this assent from a mere external (of the body) assent through paying lip service only or in simply shutting up and refraining from open criticism.

No one is denying that Fr. Fenton et. al. described religious submission as an internal assent. That is not in question. These theologians also described it as a “conditional” assent, as a “prudent” assent, etc. It is always and by all a qualified assent. These restrictive adjectives are not present in the novel understanding of this doctrine taken from Lumen Gentium.

Quote from: Ladislaus

There's absolutely no indication in the Profession that it means anything different.

It is as you say “in the Profession (of faith).” Can you provide other examples in Catholic Creeds that are offered to "heretics" for their admission to the Church that include non-dogmatic propositions grounded solely on human authority? If there is one I am not aware of it.

Quote from: Ladislaus

And if you look at the entire context of what has been leaked regarding the talks, this traditional sense of religious submission is precisely what they had in mind. This is the EXACT SAME MISTAKE that many sedevacantists make; they see the language in pre-Vatican II theologians regarding internal submission of the mind and will and have used that to extend the scope of infallibility beyond what has been defined by the Church.

You are repeating nothing that you have not already said. You again claim that I am making the “EXACT SAME MISTAKE that many sedevacantists make.” It has already been denied and I am denying it again. Go read the previous post because you do not understand the argument or you would not be misstating it.

I have provided you with a specific case where denial of the “authentic (ordinary) magisterium” of the Church since Vatican II has been declared a “heresy” by the local ordinary. The appeal of this judgment to the Holy Father through the CDF has been answered with, and only with, the 1989 Profession of Faith. The implications of this fact should be evident to every traditional Catholic because they are most certainly evident to every Modernist. The charge of “heresy” can only be ascribed to the denial of “divine and Catholic faith.” Appeal to the Holy Father in Rome through the CDF on the charge of "heresy" was answered with the 1989 Profession of Faith. This, as said before, constitutes prima facie evidence that Modernist Rome is treating the third addendum to the 1989 Profession of Faith as a “dogma.”

This treatment, in my opinion, is intended to give the appearance of dogma without the substance. The purpose of treating it as dogma is to deceive. It is to give the appearance that divine authority has approved of the Modernist Church. This is evidence against Sedevacantism because if the concilarist popes are not true popes, there would be nothing preventing them from dogmatizing error.

Now you can, if you want, continue to believe that the Modernist Church regards religious submission of the mind and will to the “authentic magisterium” theologically in the same sense as Fr. Fenton and the other theologians before Vatican II held that doctrine. But if you were one of my field commanders in a strategic operation, no matter what your previous accomplishments, I would relieve you from command because in my estimation you have no sense for the changing dynamics of the combat. Facts have to be considered normative.

Drew

Ladislaus

« Reply #36 on: August 16, 2015, 05:12:01 PM »

Look, Drew, our point of contention is this. You're arguing that the Profession's use of the phrase "of the mind and will" necessarily has it talking about giving the unconditional assent of faith to the non-definitive acts of the Magisterium, forcing everyone to believe the non-infallible acts of the Magisterium with the certainty of faith.

You based this on nothing other than the phrase "of the mind and will". I point out that Monsigonor Fenton referred to the conditional religious submission as being "internal" and "of the mind" ... to distinguish it from the merely external submission.

That passage from the Profession specifically refers to RELIGIOUS submission, which is a well-known term among theologians, who routinely qualify it as "internal" and "of the mind" vs. merely external. Your quote from Vatican I refers to submission "by faith" and is describing supernatural faith as involving both the intellect and the will, the will because the truths of revelation are unknowable by the intellect on its own and therefore requires a submission of the will. You're trying to compare apples and oranges.

There's absolutely NO WAY in which the Conciliarists now believe that non-definitive acts of the Magisterium must be accepted as de fide. In fact, most Conciliarist theologians circumscribe the scope of infallibility and of what's de fide to the extreme.

As for those who accuse people who don't accept the need for religious submission as being heretics, they're mistaken regarding the theological note. It's only theologically certain and therefore not strictly heresy.

Ladislaus

« Reply #37 on: August 16, 2015, 05:23:30 PM »

Quote from: drew

That's because the biggest beef that Vatican authorities have had with the SSPX, in terms of prerequisites for any discussion, is what they perceive to be the open rebellion towards and lack of respect for the Vatican II Magisterium among Traditional Catholics. This attitude in their minds entails an implicit rejection at least of the need for a religious submission towards the Magisterium. Just because it appears in a document entitled "Profession of Faith", this doesn't necessarily mean that these authorities consider the acceptance of a need for religious submission to even the merely-authentic Magisterium as being de fide. St. Pius X excommunicated people for rejecting his merely-authentic Magisterium.

Ladislaus

« Reply #38 on: August 16, 2015, 05:27:32 PM »

Quote from: drew

I have provided you with a specific case where denial of the “authentic (ordinary) magisterium” of the Church since Vatican II has been declared a “heresy” by the local ordinary.

This ordinary has no idea what he's talking about. So how's this relevant?

Of course, there would be nothing to prevent the Holy See from treating the need for "religious submission" as de fide. In fact, Denzinger treats many such Professions of Faith for returning heretics as being tantamount to dogmatic definitions.

Ladislaus

« Reply #39 on: August 16, 2015, 05:31:39 PM »

Quote from: drew

And yet you CONTINUE making the same error with every post. As I pointed out, you declare the simple use of the phrase "of the mind and will" in the context of religious submission as being tantamount to declaring that it must be believed unconditionally. SOMETHING CAN BE ACCEPTED CONDITIONALLY BY THE MIND AND THE WILL. That's PRECISELY what the sedevacantists have done. They see THIS SAME LANGUAGE in the pre-Vatican II theologians and have drawn the same conclusion, that this language requires internal unconditional assent of faith of all teachings of the authentic Magisterium, whether infallible or not.

RJS

« Reply #40 on: August 17, 2015, 08:26:50 AM »

Drew, the “assent of faith” and “religious assent” are both an assent of the intellect and will. But these are two different levels of assent corresponding to the degree of certitude about the doctrine proposed.

Those truths that have been proposed infallibly require the unqualified assent of faith. There are two categories of doctrines that require an assent of faith: (a) truths revealed by God and definitively (infallibly) proposed by the Church require the assent of Divine and Catholic Faith (faith in God revealing and the infallible Church proposing). (b) truths that have not been revealed by God, but have been definitively (and infallibly) proposed by the Church require the assent of ecclesiastical faith (faith in the infallible Church teachings, but not in God revealing). An example of doctrines that fall in this latter category are theological conclusions, which are conclusions derived from two premises, one of which is revealed, while the other is known by reason.

Doctrines that have not been definitively (infallibly) proposed by the Church only require a “religious assent”, which is an assent based on the moral virtue of obedience, not on the theological virtue o faith. The reason for the lesser degree of assent is due to the lesser degree of certitude regarding the truthfulness of the doctrine proposed. A truth that is not infallibly proposed by the Church is subject to change. Therefore, only a religious assent of mind and will is required.

As Ladislaus said, the sedevacantists fail to grasp this distinction and imagine that anything taught by the “authentic Magisterium” must necessarily be infallibly true. Then, when they see a error proposed, they immediately think infallibility has been violated.

drew

« Reply #41 on: August 17, 2015, 02:02:17 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

The first thing you need to do is properly understand and fairly state the “point of contention” that you are trying to answer. You do not understand the argument. Fr. Fenton et al. clearly say that the internal submission of the mind and will to the authentic ordinary magisterium is always and necessarily conditional. The treatment of this doctrine by the conciliarist Church since Lumen Gentium does not. This last sentence is what I affirm and you deny.

Quote from: Ladislaus

That passage from the Profession specifically refers to RELIGIOUS submission, which is a well-known term among theologians, who routinely qualify it as "internal" and "of the mind" vs. merely external. Your quote from Vatican I refers to submission "by faith" and is describing supernatural faith as involving both the intellect and the will, the will because the truths of revelation are unknowable by the intellect on its own and therefore requires a submission of the will. You're trying to compare apples and oranges.

The statement regarding divine faith, which were said was “simply not true,” is, in fact, an accurate and truthful statement regarding divine faith. I'm well aware that Vatican I is referring to divine faith. And I also know the difference between apples and oranges. The point which you have overlooked is that the description of divine faith is essentially no different than the current description of religious submission of the mind and the will to the authentic ordinary magisterium. In both cases, no qualifications are admitted.

Quote from: Ladislaus

There's absolutely NO WAY in which the Conciliarists now believe that non-definitive acts of the Magisterium must be accepted as de fide. In fact, most Conciliarist theologians circumscribe the scope of infallibility and of what's de fide to the extreme. As for those who accuse people who don't accept the need for religious submission as being heretics, they're mistaken regarding the theological note. It's only theologically certain and therefore not strictly heresy.

Previously posted on this question, Lumen Gentium, the 1989 Profession of Faith, and the Authentic Magisterium, a document sent to the CDF by Fr. Waters, specific citations are quoted by “conciliarists” who consider the doctrinal teaching of Vatican II irreformable and binding on the Catholic conscience. It is my opinion that it is naïve to believe that conciliarists are not intent to consolidate the gains of their revolution. Pope Benedict said specifically before his resignation that this marked the “end of the old Church and the beginning of the new.”

The accusation of “heresy” made by a local ordinary has been supported by the CDF by replying to the charge with, and only with, the 1989 Profession of Faith.

You said, “It’s only theologically certain and therefore not strictly heresy.” This is not correct. All the teaching of the authentic ordinary magisterium does not have the note of being “theologically certain.” In the previous post I quoted Fr. Fenton referring to specific doctrinal errors in papal encyclicals. IF you include such things as Pope Francis daily sermons, which constitute acts of the “authentic magisterium,” they need to be regularly vetted with theological qualifications before publication.

What is true, and what you should say, is that dissent from the authentic ordinary magisterium cannot be called “heresy” at all because the formal charge of heresy is with respect to articles of divine and Catholic faith. This is particularly true when the descent from the authentic ordinary magisterium is accompanied with an appeal to the Holy Father for a definitive judgment and a willingness to be corrected.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: drew

I have provided you with a specific case where denial of the “authentic (ordinary) magisterium” of the Church since Vatican II has been declared a “heresy” by the local ordinary.

Your quote is taken out of context. The full quote is:

Quote from: drew

“I have provided you with a specific case where denial of the “authentic (ordinary) magisterium of the Church since Vatican II has been declared a “heresy” by the local ordinary. The appeal of this judgment to the Holy Father through the CDF has been answered with, and only with, the 1989 Profession of Faith.”

Your objection is absurd. We are not simply discussing the accusation of “heresy” by a local ordinary. We are discussing the treatment of that charge by the CDF.

And yes, there is something “to prevent the Holy See from treating the need for ‘religious submission’ as de fide” because it is not. The CDF has no more authority to invent dogma as they do to deny dogma.

You were asked to produce a specific example of a Profession of Faith to reconcile a heretic to the Church which contains a non-dogmatic proposition. Again, I do not know a single example. If you do, produce it.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: drew

I have provided a specific example that demonstrates that the CDF does not regard religious submission of the mind and will in the same theological sense that Fr. Fenton et al. did. This specific example is the practical application of their understanding, and, in fact, is far more important key to knowing their understanding of the question than anything that may have previously written.

You in your posts have not provided any evidence against this. You have made yourself your own authority in defense of your claim, and you insist upon the accuracy of your claim against the fact of its actual application. The conciliarist Church has documented no qualification to their version of religious submission of the mind and will, and qualifications were always present in pre-Vatican II theological discussions of the question; the CDF, when asked about the need for specific qualifications, ignored the question in their reply; this non-dogmatic demand has been included in a Profession of Faith in which every other article is a dogma and they have made this Catholic creed a non-negotiable condition for reconciliation with the Church from “heresy”; and there has been specific additions to canon law making failure to submit the mind and will to the authentic magisterium a crime with an unspecified canonical punishment.

You are more concerned with trying to win an argument than finding the truth. It is unfortunate because you have made some excellent posts whose credibility will always be questioned for no other reason than the readers’ inability to distinguish between the merits of your argument and your ego.

Drew

drew

« Reply #42 on: August 17, 2015, 04:17:36 PM »

Quote from: RJS

Exactly!

Quote from: RJS

Those truths that have been proposed infallibly require the unqualified assent of faith. There are two categories of doctrines that require an assent of faith: (a) truths revealed by God and definitively (infallibly) proposed by the Church require the assent of Divine and Catholic Faith (faith in God revealing and the infallible Church proposing). (b) truths that have not been revealed by God, but have been definitively (and infallibly) proposed by the Church require the assent of ecclesiastical faith (faith in the infallible Church teachings, but not in God revealing). An example of doctrines that fall in this latter category are theological conclusions, which are conclusions derived from two premises, one of which is revealed, while the other is known by reason.

Not exactly! Articles of “ecclesiastical faith,” like articles of divine faith, are all truths revealed by God as are all dogmas. Dogmas are called ‘formal objects of divine and Catholic faith’.

Quote from: RJS

Doctrines that have not been definitively (infallibly) proposed by the Church only require a “religious assent”, which is an assent based on the moral virtue of obedience, not on the theological virtue o faith. The reason for the lesser degree of assent is due to the lesser degree of certitude regarding the truthfulness of the doctrine proposed. A truth that is not infallibly proposed by the Church is subject to change. Therefore, only a religious assent of mind and will is required.

Not exactly. There are many doctrines of divine faith that have not been “definitively (infallibly) proposed by the Church” which demand more than simple “religious assent.” These divine truths are formal objects of divine faith, truths that are revealed by God to which we believe on the authority of God. For example, it was about three hundred years before the divinity of Jesus Christ was dogmatized. When dogmatized it became a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Before that it was a formal object of divine faith.

Even teachings of the authentic ordinary magisterium require more than simple external “obedience.” They also require a conditional assent of the intellect even though these teaching may not be evident to the mind. The important point is that the assent to the authentic ordinary magisterium is always and everywhere conditional. The presumption of belief is in favor of the pope because of his office and grace of state.

Quote from: RJS

As Ladislaus said, the sedevacantists fail to grasp this distinction and imagine that anything taught by the “authentic Magisterium” must necessarily be infallibly true. Then, when they see a error proposed, they immediately think infallibility has been violated.

That is not a fair characterization of the sedevacantist position. It may be with specific individuals but, in general, sedevacantist will cite specific real heresies, that is, rejections of divine and Catholic faith by the conciliarist popes to justify their position and not simply corruptions of the teaching by the authentic ordinary magisterium. They have legitimate complaints of heresy that should be acknowledged without which any discussion with them will be fruitless. Also, St. Thomas says that the faith can be denied by acts as well as by words. This is an important point because the Catholic religion is an incarnational religion. The faith is expressed, and God is worshiped, in both word and deed. The outward ecclesiastical traditions that make the faith known and communicable are therefore necessary attributes of the faith.

The argument with Ladislaus concerns his belief that the pre-Vatican II understanding of religious submission of the mind and will to the authentic magisterium is not essentially different from the conciliarist understanding of that doctrine. I disagree and believe that it is imperative that all traditional Catholics understand the implication of the 1989 Profession of Faith. Ladislaus has no problem with it.

I have offered evidence for my jusgments and Ladislaus has offered nothing beyond his own opinions.

To summarize:

1. The pre-Vatican II theologians such as Fr. Fenton and others previously cited always teach that the submission to the authentic ordinary magisterium is necessarily conditional. The conciliarist take their teaching from Lumen Gentium and offer no conditions or qualifications, at least nothing that can be put in writing. More to the point, the CDF when asked specifically about the need for necessary qualifications to the religious submission did not address the question in their reply.

2. Fr. Waters and the Mission were accused of “heresy” which was submitted to the Holy Father through the CDF. The only reply from the CDF was the 1989 Profession of Faith.

3. Submission to the authentic magisterium is not a dogma, that is, it is not a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. As far as I know, there is no examples of a non-dogmatic proposition being added to a Catholic Creed. Now Catholics who have been accused of “heresy” for dissent from the “authentic magisterium” are told by the CDF that they can only be reconciled to the Church through the 1989 Profession of Faith. That is, the CDF is pretending that dissent from the authentic magisterium is a heresy.

4. The 1989 Profession of Faith is the one and only absolutely non-negotiable condition for the SSPX to be regularized with Rome. This has been confirmed in recent interviews with Archbishop Pozzo and, more recently, Cardinal Muller. The SSPX cannot add any written qualifications or entertain mental reservations to the acceptance of this Profession. The 1989 Profession of Faith is the Doctrinal Preamble.

5. Fr. Waters told the CDF that without specific qualifications that he listed, such as, any teaching of the authentic magisterium that was in conflict with divine and Catholic faith, not in accordance with natural law, corrupts immemorial ecclesiastical traditions, etc., could not command or expect submission of the mind and will. Any oath of unconditional submission of the mind and will can only be made to God. Therefore, the 1989 Profession of Faith as written and as practiced by the CDF is a violation of the First Commandment. The CDF ignored this complaint.

6. These facts constitute prima facie evidence that there is an essential difference between the CDF’s understanding of the religious submission of the mind and will with the understanding of that doctrine by faithful Catholic theologians before Vatican II.

Drew

Ladislaus

« Reply #43 on: August 18, 2015, 07:19:35 AM »

Quote from: RJS

Drew, the “assent of faith” and “religious assent” are both an assent of the intellect and will.

See the bolded above, Drew. Something which you persist in denying. Your allegation that the Profession is requiring the assent of faith to teachings of the merely-authentic Magisterium has been based on the presence of the phrase "of the mind and will". RJS articulated the Catholic position very nicely.

RJS

« Reply #44 on: August 18, 2015, 08:55:57 AM »

Quote from: drew

“Not exactly! Articles of “ecclesiastical faith,” like articles of divine faith, are all truths revealed by God as are all dogmas. Dogmas are called ‘formal objects of divine and Catholic faith’.”

If the “articles of ecclesiastical faith” were revealed by God, they would be assented to with divine and Catholic faith, not simply ecclesiastical faith. The reason they are not assented with divine faith is because they were not directly revealed by God. These non-revealed doctrines that are assented to with ecclesiastical faith are sometimes referred to as being “virtually revealed,” but they are not directly contained in the revealed deposit. As mentioned in the previous post, they are conclusions derived from two premises, one of which is revealed while the other is known by reason. They are believed in the authority of the Church teaching, not God revealing.

Quote from: drew

What I think you are doing is equating the term “definitively proposed by the Church” with solemn definitions only. That is not correct. The term is also used (see below) to refer to truths that have been clearly and definitively proposed by the ordinary and universal Magisterium only (and not by a solemn act). This is the category that the doctrine of the divinity of Christ would have fallen in during the first 300 year, before it was solemnly defined. For the first 300 years the doctrine was de fide, but not de fide definite.

Here is a citation from Van Noort using the term “definitive” to refer to teachings of OUM that have not been solemnly defined.

Van Noort: “Ways in Which the Church Proposes Revealed Truths: A proposal of a revealed truth by the Church, such as we have described above, can, according to the Vatican Council, take place in either of two ways: either by a solemn decree, or by the Church’s ordinary and universal teaching. … The exercise of the ordinary and universal Magisterium includes the whole gamut of diverse actions by which the pope and bishops dispersed throughout the world, either by themselves or through various kinds of helpers, continuously expound doctrine on faith and morals. This teaching is exercised first of all by explicit teaching, either oral or written. Secondly, it is also exercised by implicit teaching through the practices and liturgy of the Churches, by the promulgation of laws, by the approval of customs, by the recommendation of devotions, by the approval of books, and so forth. Clearly, if a truth is capable of being declared an object of divine-catholic faith through the force of this ordinary and universal teaching, there is required such a proposal as is unmistakably definitive.”

The “unmistakably definitive” proposal of the OUM differs from that of a solemn decree by the manner in which its definitive character is known: the latter is due to a single definitive act, the former to a coalescence of non-definitive acts.

Quote from: drew

“Even teachings of the authentic ordinary magisterium require more than simple external “obedience.” They also require a conditional assent of the intellect even though these teaching may not be evident to the mind. The important point is that the assent to the authentic ordinary magisterium is always and everywhere conditional. The presumption of belief is in favor of the pope because of his office and grace of state.”

The teachings of the authentic Magisterium do require more than simple external obedience, as you said; they also require internal assent of intellect and will. And yes, the assent is conditional, since it is based on the moral virtue of obedience, which is always a balance between excess and defect, and therefore is never absolute (whereas the assent of faith is absolute). The point was that the “religious assent” due to non-infallible teachings of the Church is only one of obedience.

Quote from: drew

“That is not a fair characterization of the sedevacantist position. It may be with specific individuals but, in general, sedevacantist will cite specific real heresies, that is, rejections of divine and Catholic faith by the conciliarist popes to justify their position and not simply corruptions of the teaching by the authentic ordinary magisterium.“

You are addressing a different mode of argumentation used by sedevacantists. One mode of argumentation is based on the claim that the recent popes have been heretics; but a heretic cannot be the pope, therefore, etc. The other mode of argumentation (the one I addressed) is based on infallibility. This mode of argumentation is as follows: the Pope (and Church) are infallible; but the post-concilair Pope (and Church) have violated infallibility; therefore, the Pope cannot be the true pope and the post-Conciliar Church cannot be the true Church. This latter argument is based on an erroneous notion of infallibility.

Quote from: drew

“The argument with Ladislaus concerns his belief that the pre-Vatican II understanding of religious submission of the mind and will to the authentic magisterium is not essentially different from the conciliarist understanding of that doctrine. I disagree and believe that it is imperative that all traditional Catholics understand the implication of the 1989 Profession of Faith. Ladislaus has no problem with it. I have offered evidence for my jusgments and Ladislaus has offered nothing beyond his own opinions.”

Here’s the problem I see with your position: words have meanings. The term “religious assent” has a fixed meaning that has been used for centuries. If the CDF wants to change the meaning of the word, they have an obligation to tell everyone and to explain what the new meaning is. If they don’t do so, the presumption of a reasonable person is that the term is being used the way it has always been used. If this was not the case, communication would impossible.

Now, none of the points you raised were sufficient to demonstrate that the meaning of the term has been changed. Everything you presented was circumstantial evidence, or simply silence (the CDF did not reply to a question, etc.). This does not suffice to change the meaning of a word. And even if an individual modernist prelate does not correctly understand the term (which would not be surprising), his subjective error would not change the objective meaning of the word.

Ladislaus

« Reply #45 on: August 18, 2015, 09:32:23 AM »

I'm not sure that I like the term "conditional" for religious assent. To me that sounds as if it's giving individuals a little too much discretion in taking or leaving various teachings of the Magisterium. Non-Absolute might be a better term; I think that we must leave intact the grave presumption of truth as Msgr. Fenton characterized it.

I simply cannot buy that suddenly religious submission has been transmuted to mean the assent of faith; some of these Vatican authorities still know what they're talking about when it comes to basic theological concepts like this.

RJS

« Reply #46 on: August 18, 2015, 02:26:23 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

You have a point. Using the term conditional may not be the best way to phrase it. Here's how some theologians have explained it:

Merkelbach: “When the Church does not teach with her infallible authority, the doctrine proposed is not, as such, unreformable; for this reason, if per accidens, in a hypothesis which is however very rare, after a very careful examination of the matter, it appears to someone that there exist very grave reasons contrary to the doctrine thus proposed, it will be licit, without falling into temerity, to suspend internal assent."

Franciscus Diekamp: “These non infallible acts of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff do not oblige one to believe, and do not postulate an absolute and definitive subjection. But it behooves one to adhere with a religious and internal assent to such decisions, since they constitute acts of the supreme Magisterium of the Church, and are founded upon solid natural and supernatural reasons. The obligation to adhere to them can only begin to terminate in case, and this only occurs very rarely, a man fit to judge such a question, after a repeated and very diligent analysis of all the arguments, arrives at the conviction that an error has been introduced into the decision."

drew

« Reply #48 on: August 18, 2015, 05:12:45 PM »

Quote from: RJS

Quote from: Ladislaus

“Conditional” is the qualification used by Fr. Joseph Fenton. The following referenced quotes from experts are all supplied by Fr. Fenton. The point is this: Any submission to the authentic ordinary magisterium is necessarily conditional. The references you have cquoted essentially say the same thing.

Quote from: Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton

If it is a non-infallible statement, it must be accepted with a firm but conditional mental assent. Fr. Joseph C. Fenton, Infallibility in the Encyclicals, AER, 1953

Quote from: Fr. Nicholas Jung

"This is why we owe the "authentic" Magisterium not a blind and unconditional assent but a prudent and conditional one: ….. Such prudential assent does not eliminate the possibility of submitting the doctrine to a further examination, if that seems required by the gravity of the question. Nicolas Jung, Le Magistère de L’Èglise, 1935, pp.153,154

Quote from: Dom Paul Nau

"If we are not to be drawn into error, we urgently need to remember that the assent due to the non-infallible Magisterium is... that of inward assent, not as of faith, but as of prudence, the refusal of which could not escape the mark of temerity, unless the doctrine rejected was an actual novelty or involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught." Dom Paul Nau, Pope or Church?

Drew

drew

« Reply #49 on: August 18, 2015, 05:25:37 PM »

Quote from: RJS

Quote from: drew

There are two points I would like to address in your post.

In my opinion, this is serious error. All infallible objects of faith have God as their source of revelation without exception. If not, it would be impossible to claim infallibility. They are believed by the authority of God revealing under the direct guidance of the Holy Ghost and confirmed by the Church’s teaching authority grounded in her attribute of Infallibility. Fr. Fenton published an excellent article, The Question of Ecclesiastical Faith, AER, April 1953. http://strobertbellarmine.net/fenton_ecclesiastical_faith.html

There is a range of theological opinions on the exact meaning of the term “ecclesiastical faith” which was first used in the 16th century. But, what Fr. Fenton emphasizes and defends with the opinions of theological experts is that any infallible doctrine must necessarily have God as its revealer and therefore there is really no such thing as a merely ecclesiastical faith. This argument is important for another reason because it references the Tridentine Profession of Faith which contains articles of ecclesiastical tradition that form formal objects of divine and Catholic faith.

Quote from: Msgr. Joseph Fenton, AER, April 1953

Fr. Beraza makes the very telling point that “in the universal revelation [that all of the doctrinal pronouncements in which the Church uses its supreme apostolic teaching power are infallibly true], there are also revealed all the particular propositions contained in that [universal] revelation.” Furthermore, in establishing the fact that “all the things that can be the object of ecclesiastical faith are contained in the deposit of revelation,” he makes a uniquely valuable contribution to the study of sacred theology in bringing out the meaning of that connection by which the truths which fall within the secondary object of the Church's infallible magisterium are said to be joined to the doctrines which constitute the primary object of that same teaching activity.

Those things are said to be the object of ecclesiastical faith which are connected with the deposit of revelation, and without which this [deposit of revelation] could not be preserved in its entirety. But these things, despite the fact that they are said to be connected with the deposit of revelation, are really within the deposit of revelation. This connection is doubtless a relation of some kind. This, since it is mutual, is not only a relation of the other truths with the deposit of revelation, but also a relation of the deposit of revelation with these other truths. Consequently, the magisterium of the Church, as something spiritual and supernatural, has reference to the other truths, not considered absolutely in themselves, nor even according to the relations which they have to the deposit of faith, but rather according to the relations which the deposit of faith has to these [other] truths, If these are such that from their affirmation or denial there would follow an implicit affirmation or denial of some correlative truth contained in the deposit of faith, these things are themselves implicitly revealed; and thus, properly speaking, they are not outside but inside the deposit of revelation.7

Like Bishop Garcia Martinez, Fr. Beraza insists upon the fact that there can be no such thing as an absolutely certain assent of faith based on other than the divine authority itself. He likewise makes effective use of two documents of the magisterium, documents which have not usually been given sufficient consideration in the study of this particular question.

First, he points to a statement in the Vatican Council's constitution Pastor Aeternus. The Council declared that “The Holy Ghost has not promised to Peter's successors that, with Him revealing, they might make known any new teaching, but [He has promised them] that, with Him assisting them, they might guard in a holy manner and faithfully expound the revelation handed down through the Apostles, or the deposit of faith.”8

This is obviously a serious argument against the validity of the concept of a merely ecclesiastical faith. It would be idle to imagine that there could be any such thing as an infallible definition or declaration by the Church's magisterium apart from the assistance of the Holy Ghost. And, according to the teaching of the Vatican Council itself, that help or assistance is given to the Popes (who have the same infallible teaching power as the ecclesia docens as a whole) precisely for the sake of guarding and proposing the actual doctrines which have been given to the Church as divine revelation through the Apostles.

The second of the two documents to which Fr. Beraza appeals so successfully is the profession of faith ordered by Pope Pius IV. In this formula the Catholic asserts his profession of and belief in all the articles of the Apostles' Creed and in each one of these articles taken individually. Likewise he states his acceptance of “the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and the rest of the observances and constitutions of the same Church,” and of the Church's own interpretation or explanation of the Scriptures. He asserts his belief in the existence of the seven Sacraments, in the character of the Mass as true and proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead, in the existence of purgatory, and in the primacy of the Roman Church. Then, in the final paragraph of the formula, the Catholic makes the following profession.

Without hesitation I accept and profess all the other things which have been proposed, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and by the oecumenical councils, and especially by the holy Council of Trent (and by the oecumenical Vatican Council, particularly with reference to the primacy and the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff) ; and at the same time I likewise condemn, reject, and anathematize all the teachings opposed [to the above], and every one of the heresies condemned and rejected and anathematized by the Church.9

The formula of Pope Pius IV designates the sum-total of the doctrine listed and asserted within it as “this true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can he saved.” Thus, as far as the profession itself is concerned, the acceptance of the articles of the Apostles' Creed and the assertion of belief in the teachings of the sacred canons both fall within the limits of a statement of Catholic faith.

The “sacred canons” to which the formula refers are, of course, the various pontifical declarations and definitions in which the Sovereign Pontiff has spoken authoritatively and infallibly to the faithful. Many of these declarations and definitions had to do with truths which fell within the secondary, rather than within the primary, object of the Church's infallible magisterium. Obviously the “constitutions” of the Church, which the Tridentine profession of faith mentions, and which are likewise accepted in an act of “true Catholic faith,” may also contain some declarations about theological conclusions and dogmatic facts, as well as statements or judgments about formally revealed truths.

It cannot be denied that Fr. Beraza and Bishop Garcia Martinez have offered cogent and impressive arguments against the validity of the concept of a merely ecclesiastic faith.

The second point:

Quote from: RJS

Quote from: drew

The speculative argument is very strong and in my opinion is difficult to refute. It was based solely upon speculative grounds that Archbishop Lefebvre rejected the formulation calling it a “dangerous formulation” and “sheer trickery.” He said, “They (Modernist in Rome) are no doubt going to have these texts signed by the seminarians of the Fraternity of St. Peter before their ordination and by the priests of the Fraternity, who will then find themselves in the obligation of making an official act of joining the Conciliar Church.” Well, what happened? The signed the Profession of Faith and they have not made another critical comment regarding the conciliar revolution.

My argument is not only speculative but practical. The Mission which Fr. Waters is a member was charged with heresy for rejecting specific acts of the authentic ordinary magisterium. This was appealed to the Holy Father through the CDF and the CDF replied with the 1989 Profession of Faith. You refer to this as “simply silence.” The letters between Fr. Waters and the CDF are posted on the Mission web page. The non-canonical Excommunication of Fr. Waters was followed by the illegal non-canonical administrative laicization process. If you call this “simply silence,” you need to have your hearing checked.

Drew

RJS

« Reply #50 on: August 18, 2015, 06:35:53 PM »

Quote from: drew

In my opinion, this is serious error. All infallible objects of faith have God as their source of revelation without exception. If not, it would be impossible to claim infallibility. ... Fr. Fenton published an excellent article, The Question of Ecclesiastical Faith, AER, April 1953 ...

I am very familiar with Fenton’s opinion on this matter. The opinion Fenton adheres to is the minority opinion. In fact, in the very article you cited, he himself admits that “a great number of the manuals of sacred theology currently in use” defend the notion that “the assent due to these [non formally- revealed] teachings is that of a strictly ecclesiastical faith.” The question has not been resolved, and therefore one I free to hold to either opinion. But to claim that the common opinion "is a serious error", is itself extremely rash. Have you studied this in any depth? I could cite plenty of the manuals Fr. Fenton alludes to which teach that only ecclesiastical faith is owed to non formally revealed truths, which have been definitively proposed by the Church.

But what is important is that object of faith in question, are not truths that has been formally contained in the revealed deposit (Scripture or Tradition), which was closed with the death of the last apostle.

You said: “All infallible objects of faith have God as their source of revelation without exception.” If that is your position, do you believe that the “final approval of a religious order” is a truth revealed by God? Is it a revealed truth that Pope Alexander VI and John XXII were true Popes? Neither of these truths are contained in scripture and Tradition. And public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Yet the Church’s infallibility is commonly believed to embrace these “secondary objects” of infallibility, which are not revealed in Scripture and Tradition.

It is commonly believed that the Church’s infallibility extends to these non formally revealed truths, but since they are clearly in a different category than truths contained within the revealed deposit, they are assented to with a different kind of faith. That is the common opinion. But again, the question of ecclesiastical faith has not been resolved by the Church.

Here is the section of the article you cited in which Fenton acknowledges that ecclesiastical faith is taught in a “great number of manuals of sacred theology” in his day.

Fenton: “Thus the supporters of the fides ecclesiastica represent it precisely as the assent which must be given to an infallible declaration or definition of the Church about one of these truths not revealed in itself but still intimately connected with the content of divine public revelation. Within this category they list theological conclusions in the strict sense of the term (truths which are only virtually revealed, as distinct from those revealed formally, even though in an implicit manner), dogmatic facts, pertinent teachings within the field of philosophy, final approval of religious orders, and the canonization of Saints. Unquestionably the magisterium of the Church can issue and does issue absolutely irrevocable and infallible declarations and decisions on these subjects. These authoritative statements unquestionably demand from the faithful completely certain and irrevocable assent. A great number of the manuals of sacred theology current in our time assert that, in such a case, the assent due to these teachings is that of a strictly ecclesiastical faith.”

Ladislaus

« Reply #51 on: August 18, 2015, 07:57:48 PM »

Yes, I know that some authors use the term "conditional". No doubt they're thinking of the Latin, which has more the sense of non-absolute (as in the sense of simpliciter vs. secundum quid). But in English it comes across as our being free to take it or leave it based on our private judgment.

Contrast that with Diekamp cited by RJS:

Quote

The obligation to adhere to them can only begin to terminate in case, and this only occurs very rarely, a man fit to judge such a question, after a repeated and very diligent analysis of all the arguments, arrives at the conviction that an error has been introduced into the decision.

English use of the term "conditional" doesn't bring with it this very important connotation.

RJS

« Reply #52 on: August 19, 2015, 09:28:33 AM »

Quote from: drew

There is a range of theological opinions on the exact meaning of the term “ecclesiastical faith” which was first used in the 16th century.

Not to get too far off track, but, in defense of the notion of ecclesiastical faith, I wanted to note that an act is specified by its formal object. Now, there is certainly a difference between truths contained formally in the revealed deposit (e.g., the Trinity), and truths that are only related to the revealed deposit (e.g., whether this or that person is in heaven, or this or that person was a true pope (both secondary objects of infallibility). Clearly these are not in the same category, which is why the Church refers to the former as the primary object of infallibility and the latter as secondary objects of infallibility.

But if they are in a different category (and they are), it means the formal object is distinct Therefore, the act of faith, which is specified by its formal object, would also be distinct.

drew

« Reply #53 on: August 19, 2015, 05:48:14 PM »

Quote from: RJS

Quote from: drew

I am very familiar with Fenton’s opinion on this matter. The opinion Fenton adheres to is the minority opinion.

"Minority Opinion"? You mean, Ecclesiastical Faith (EF) as a Majority Opinion is very popular, in vogue, the most modern theological trend of the day. You are talking about a term and theological concept that no Church Father and very few Church Doctors ever heard.

Quote from: Msgr. Fenton

(Ecclesiastical Faith) is manifest from even a superficial study of the history of Catholic theology that the notion of a certain and absolutely firm acceptance of Catholic teachings, motivated by the authority of the Church and not by the authority of God as the Revealer, became accepted during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

The purpose of Msgr. Fenton's article is to bury the term which he clearly thinks is unsupportable. Msgr. Fenton accepting the authoritative opinion of others says that EF is "the firm and certain acceptance of a teaching on the authority of the Church which proposes that teaching and not on the authority of God Himself." What Msgr. Fenton rejects on principle is the very idea that it is possible for human authority to declare anything "infallible." He is absolutely correct. That should be evident.

Consider this, the objects of EF are supposed to be infallible truths. Only a truth of God can claim infallibility because infallibility is an attribute of God alone. It is an attribute of the Church only because it is God’s Church which is both a divine and human institution. The human pope is only accidentally infallible when he engages the Church’s attribute of infallibility under specific conditions as stipulated in the dogma on papal infallibility from Vatican I Council.

The “Minority Opinion” defended by Fr. Fenton and referenced in my citation is the correct one. The minority opinion Fr. Fenton defends is derived from deductive reasoning from dogma, that is, the argument is deduced from the most certain knowledge that man can have - divine and Catholic faith. The “Majority Opinion” is not. The former is a reasoned truth from infallible premises. The latter is human inductive theological speculation beginning from the particular and arguing to the general principle. Why would anyone favor a reasoned necessary conclusion from divine truths over a human theological speculation that is only a few hundred years old? What necessarily follows is that the objects of EF become contingent truths that can be done away with by the same authority that called them into being.

Quote from: RJS

In fact, in the very article you cited, he himself admits that “a great number of the manuals of sacred theology currently in use” defend the notion that “the assent due to these [non formally- revealed] teachings is that of a strictly ecclesiastical faith.” The question has not been resolved, and therefore one I free to hold to either opinion. But to claim that the common opinion "is a serious error", is itself extremely rash. Have you studied this in any depth? I could cite plenty of the manuals Fr. Fenton alludes to which teach that only ecclesiastical faith is owed to non formally revealed truths, which have been definitively proposed by the Church.

Like I said, it is a very popular modern opinion. What I will explain later is why this very popular modern opinion has a great responsibility for the success of Vatican II and the conciliarist revolution.

Quote from: RJS

But what is important is that object of faith in question, are not truths that has been formally contained in the revealed deposit (Scripture or Tradition), which was closed with the death of the last apostle.

You said: “All infallible objects of faith have God as their source of revelation without exception.” If that is your position, do you believe that the “final approval of a religious order” is a truth revealed by God? Is it a revealed truth that Pope Alexander VI and John XXII were true Popes? Neither of these truths are contained in scripture and Tradition. And public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Yet the Church’s infallibility is commonly believed to embrace these “secondary objects” of infallibility, which are not revealed in Scripture and Tradition.

It is commonly believed that the Church’s infallibility extends to these non formally revealed truths, but since they are clearly in a different category than truths contained within the revealed deposit, they are assented to with a different kind of faith. That is the common opinion. But again, the question of ecclesiastical faith has not been resolved by the Church.

Fr. Fenton and the theological experts he references deny that mere EF even exists. Bishop Fidel Martinez' article is entitled: EF - A Modern Misconception. Be that as it may, even those who hold to the idea of mere EF do not agree on its exact meaning. The reason for this is that they do not agree on the formal objects of EF. Even such claims as human infallibility in the “final approval of a religious order” is not agreed upon.

Quote from: RJS

Here is the section of the article you cited in which Fenton acknowledges that ecclesiastical faith is taught in a “great number of manuals of sacred theology” in his day.

Fenton: “Thus the supporters of the fides ecclesiastica represent it precisely as the assent which must be given to an infallible declaration or definition of the Church about one of these truths not revealed in itself but still intimately connected with the content of divine public revelation. Within this category they list theological conclusions in the strict sense of the term (truths which are only virtually revealed, as distinct from those revealed formally, even though in an implicit manner), dogmatic facts, pertinent teachings within the field of philosophy, final approval of religious orders, and the canonization of Saints. Unquestionably the magisterium of the Church can issue and does issue absolutely irrevocable and infallible declarations and decisions on these subjects. These authoritative statements unquestionably demand from the faithful completely certain and irrevocable assent. A great number of the manuals of sacred theology current in our time assert that, in such a case, the assent due to these teachings is that of a strictly ecclesiastical faith.”

Msgr. Fenton freely admits that EF is a common opinion and his article is intended to give a balanced critical analysis by examining the strength of the arguments on both sides. When he is done, it is evident that mere EF cannot stand the light of day. A bad idea always has bad consequences. So let's examine the consequences of belief in a mere EF which is a more popular belief today than it was in 1953.

The immemorial traditions of our Church have been repudiated by the conciliarist Church, our neo-Iconoclasts. How were they overthrown? They were reduced to objects of merely human EF and categorize as a matters subject to the disciplinary discretion of the Church. If objects of EF are "the firm and certain acceptance of a teaching on the authority of the Church which proposes that teaching and not on the authority of God Himself," then they are necessarily contingent human truths. If the Church thinks the objects of EF are historical, contingent truths which have become outdated and no longer speak to the modern mind, then she can change them into other more relevant contemporary truths. These truths then can be regulated as merely Church disciplinary matters. Of course, there will be those who reject these innovation so the conciliarist Church constructed the novel 1989 Profession of Faith with an oath of faith in the submission to the authentic (ordinary) magisterium of the pope in a Catholic Credo. It becomes the one and only unconditional non-negotiable condition for holding any authority in the conciliarist Church and the means to force compliance with the innovations. It is now the rule of faith to restore "heretics" to the conciliarist Church. It is not a dogma but in the conciliarist mind.

Msgr. Fenton presents the arguments against the very idea of EF by three (who he considers) eminent theologians: Bishop Garcia Martinez, Fr. Blaise Beraza, S.J. and Fr. Francisco Marin-Sola. The arguments are grounded in the dogmas from Vatican I On Faith and Pope Pius IV's Tridentine Profession of Faith.

Quote from: Msgr. Fenton

In combatting the objective validity of this notion, Fr Marin-Sola made use of some interesting arguments. He employed eleven distinct demonstrations to support his conclusion that all the truths accepted as completely certain by reason of the Church's teaching are believed with an act of genuine divine faith. Several of these demonstrations are taken from the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas. Some of them apply directly to theological conclusions, while others have reference to all the truths classified as within the secondary object of the Church's infallible magisterium.

Outstanding among these proofs are those based upon the following contentions:
1) There is no such thing as an infallibly certain and true faith other than that which is based on the authority of God.
2) What is revealed mediately or virtually is truly something spoken by God It is an explanation of His teaching.
3) The man who denies (obstinately) a truth proposed infallibly by the Church is a heretic, and the sin of heresy necessarily involves a contradiction of the divine message itself.
4) The infallible teaching of the Church cannot propose any new doctrine, but only an explanation of the deposit of public divine revelation. [.......]

Thus, the argument of Fr . Marin-Sola is quite apposite. If he can show (as I believe that he has shown), that it is impossible to have the sin of heresy apart from an obdurate contradiction of divinely revealed truth proposed as such by the Catholic Church, he has won his point.

The argument based on the first of the four reasons I have cited as used by Fr. Marin-Sola is obviously powerful, and, it would seem, ineluctable. That based on the fourth of these reasons is likewise convincing. Actually, it is substantially the argument based on an appeal to the text of the Vatican Council and of the Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV.

The second of these contentions, however, seems to form the basis not only for a proof, but also for a highly acceptable statement or exposition of Fr. Marin-Sola's teaching. In the last analysis, if statements set forth in an authoritative and infallible manner by the magisterium of the Catholic Church are to be accepted on divine faith, it can only be by reason of the fact that God Himself has taught these truths. And, in order to see how a teaching like a dogmatic fact can really enter and has really entered into the fabric of divine public revelation, we must carefully examine the very nature of the revealed message itself.

They did not quote St. Pius X which is most pertinent.

Quote from: St. Pius X

“They (the modernists) exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of Tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those ‘who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind.... or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church’; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: ‘We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by every one of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.’ Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: ‘I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.’” St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominid Gregis

Msgr. Fenton goes into some detail what the "ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church" refers which the EF people reduce to a mere human authority. Take, for example, the most important of the immemorial ecclesiastical traditions, the Roman rite of Mass. It is not and never has been a mere object of Church discipline but that is where the idea of EF has taken us.

Quote from: Council of Trent

“If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be..... changed to other new rites by any pastor of the churches whomsoever : let him be anathema” Council of Trent, Den. 856

This is a dogma. It is a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.

Fr. Waters and Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission have made a public profession of divine and Catholic faith in our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions. We have refused to consider them as mere objects of human EF but hold them as necessary attributes of the faith which make it known and communicable to others. Since God commands the faithful to make public professions of faith and to worship Him in the public forum, every Catholic possesses a right to these immemorial ecclesiastical traditions that perfectly manifest the faith we hold in the internal forum.

The 1989 Profession of Faith is the means to overturn divine and Catholic Faith. It is impossible to take this Profession without offending God. Fr. Waters and the Mission have said this to the CDF. The reply, "study" the 1989 Profession of Faith.

Drew

RJS

« Reply #58 on: August 20, 2015, 06:00:34 PM »

Quote from: Drew

“"Minority Opinion"? You mean, Ecclesiastical Faith (EF) as a Majority Opinion is very popular, in vogue, the most modern theological trend of the day.”

No, I mean the common opinion of the Church’s approved theologians. Nothing about being in vogue or the trend of the day. It is extremely rash to denigrate the common theological opinion, which is taught (as Fenton said) in “very many” theological manuals which have been used in the formation of priests for generations. Even Fr. Fenton did not explicitly reject the teaching, but only gave credence to the minority opinion. Have you studied this issue in any depth? And can you name a single pre-Vatican II manual that rejects ecclesiastical faith, as you do based on your own private judgment?

Quote from: Drew

“The purpose of Msgr. Fenton's article is to bury the term which he clearly thinks is unsupportable.”

Where does Fenton say the purpose of his article is to “bury” to common opinion, as opposed to merely presenting a case for the minority opinion?

Quote from: Drew

“Consider this, the objects of EF are supposed to be infallible truths. Only a truth of God can claim infallibility because infallibility is an attribute of God alone.”

Your sentences is confused. Objects of ecclesiastical faith are non formally revealed truths that can be proposed infallibly by the Church. Can the Church infallibly propose a truth that is not formally contained in the revealed deposit? If you say no, you are limiting the object of infallibility to the primary object alone, and thereby excluding the secondary objects of infallibility (which is contrary to Tradition). If you include the secondary objects as teachings that can be proposed infallibly by the Church, you must also make a distinction between the two categories of truth - (a) truths formally contained in the revealed deposit and (b) truths not formally contained in the deposit. Once you make this necessary distinction, you have just created a distinct formal object of faith. And since the act is specified by its formal object, the act of faith in adhering to the two distinct objects must itself be distinct.

Furthermore, Fenton is not denying that the Church can infallibly propose these non-formally revealed truths; rather the question is, if (when they are infallibly proposed), are they are to be assented to with ecclesiastical faith or divine faith. That is the question. The argument of Fr. Beraza (which Fenton discusses) is the following:

Fr. Beraza: “Whatever is revealed by God can be believed by divine faith. But it is revealed by God that the judgment of the Church, defining anything by its supreme doctrinal authority [including non-revealed truths], is infallibly true. Therefore the judgment of the Church, thus defining something to be infallibly true, can be believed with divine faith.”

The argument is not about whether the Church is infallible in proposing non-revealed truths, but whether these non-revealed truths should be believed with divine faith, since God Himself teaches that the judgment of the Church (in proposing them) is infallibly true. Fenton continues with the following from Fr. Beraza:

Fr. Beraza: “The man who believes that the Church's judgment is true believes also that the object of that judgment is exactly what the Church judges it to be. For, to believe the Church's judgment to be true is the same thing as to believe that the object of the judgment [including non-revealed truths] is as it is represented in the judgment. If therefore you believe with divine faith that the judgment of the Church, here and now defining something, is infallibly true; by that same faith you would necessarily believe that the object of that judgment [including non-revealed truths] is exactly as it is asserted to be in that judgment by the Church.”

Personally, I find this argument unpersuasive. But the point is that those arguing against ecclesiastical faith are not limiting the object of belief to revealed truths only; they are expanding the object that must be believed with divine faith to include non formally revealed truths.

Quote from: Drew

The “Minority Opinion” defended by Fr. Fenton and referenced in my citation is the correct one.”

Even if you personally think the minority opinion is right, declaring your personal opinion to be “the correct one” is completely rash. Fenton himself does not go that far. This is one of the problems in Tradition: individual laymen making rash judgments based on private judgment, and departing from the common opinion (and sometimes even unanimous opinion) of the Church’s theologians prior to Vatican II. We see this, for example, with those who depart from Tradition by rejecting BOD, which was not only the majority opinion prior to Vatican II, but the unanimous opinion.

Quote from: Drew

“The minority opinion Fr. Fenton defends is derived from deductive reasoning from dogma, that is, the argument is deduced from the most certain knowledge that man can have - divine and Catholic faith. The “Majority Opinion” is not. The former is a reasoned truth from infallible premises.”

Nope. Ecclesiastical faith is based on the distinction in the formal object which specifies the act. If it was simply a case of the minority opinion being deduced from “the most certain knowledge that a man can have,” then the contrary teaching would not have been accepted as the majority opinion for generations.

Quote from: Drew

“What necessarily follows is that the objects of EF become contingent truths that can be done away with by the same authority that called them into being.”

I don’t know where you are getting this. What you are saying is completely confused. It’s as if you are just making things up as you go along.

Quote from: Drew

“The immemorial traditions of our Church have been repudiated by the conciliarist Church, our neo-Iconoclasts. How were they overthrown? They were reduced to objects of merely human EF and categorize as a matters subject to the disciplinary discretion of the Church.”

The reason the Modernists reject just about everything the Church teaches , is not because of the idea that certain doctrines are only to be assented to with ecclesiastical faith, while others are assented to with divine and Catholic Faith. The reason they reject what the Church has always taught is because they believe in evolution of dogma. They believe the truth changes. Therefore, they reject what was formerly taught based on the notion that the truth has evolved. It has nothing to do with the kind of assent owed to the teachings.

" In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin". (Eccl 7:40)

drew

« Reply #59 on: August 20, 2015, 10:38:20 PM »

Quote from: RJS

Quote from: Drew

“"Minority Opinion"? You mean, Ecclesiastical Faith (EF) as a Majority Opinion is very popular, in vogue, the most modern theological trend of the day.”

No, I mean the common opinion of the Church’s approved theologians. Nothing about being in vogue or the trend of the day. It is extremely rash to denigrate the common theological opinion, which is taught (as Fenton said) in “very many” theological manuals which have been used in the formation of priests for generations. Even Fr. Fenton did not explicitly reject the teaching, but only gave credence to the minority opinion. Have you studied this issue in any depth? And can you name a single pre-Vatican II manual that rejects ecclesiastical faith, as you do based on your own private judgment?

You said, "Minority Opinion" not "common opinion". If you are offering a clarification of your post, you should simply say so. In fact, I identified EF as a "common opinion" in my post. And it is a common opinion that has only been a generally accepted theological term since the eighteenth century at best. The Church is 2000 years old. Still Msgr. Fenton says that it is "one of the most ardently debated subjects of recent times." And what is specifically debated? Msgr. Fenton, and the three eminent theologians he references and agrees with, deny that mere EF even exists! Have you studied this issue at all? I have a public letter written to my local ordinary and forwarded to Rome over 15 years ago on this subject.

Quote from: Msgr. Fenton

Note carefully. EF is a truth that has a "certain and absolutely firm acceptance" and it does not have "the authority of God as the Revealer." EF believes in the existence of infallible truths that do not have "God as Revealer." The very existence of this theological speculation is what is in question.

Quote from: RJS

Quote from: Drew

“The purpose of Msgr. Fenton's article is to bury the term which he clearly thinks is unsupportable.”

Where does Fenton say the purpose of his article is to “bury” to common opinion, as opposed to merely presenting a case for the minority opinion?

The word "bury" is my attribution. It is not in quotation marks in my previous post so that should have been obvious. The arguments marshaled by Msgr. Fenton concern the very existence of merely EF. Msgr. Fenton considers the arguments against the very existence of EF as "ineluctable." If you end up demonstrating that it does not exist, you have effectively "buried" it.

Quote from: RJS

Quote from: Drew

“Consider this, the objects of EF are supposed to be infallible truths. Only a truth of God can claim infallibility because infallibility is an attribute of God alone.”

Your sentences is confused. Objects of ecclesiastical faith are non formally revealed truths that can be proposed infallibly by the Church.

Confused? What don't you understand? Are you denying that "infallibility is an attribute of God alone"? IF so, say it and we can refocus the discussion.
Let's start at the beginning. Those who believe in the existence of EF believe that the Church can propose formal objects of infallible faith that must necessarily be believed for salvation that do not have "God as Revealer" either explicitly or implicitly.

Quote from: RJS

Can the Church infallibly propose a truth that is not formally contained in the revealed deposit? If you say no, you are limiting the object of infallibility to the primary object alone, and thereby excluding the secondary objects of infallibility (which is contrary to Tradition). If you include the secondary objects as teachings that can be proposed infallibly by the Church, you must also make a distinction between the two categories of truth - (a) truths formally contained in the revealed deposit and (b) truths not formally contained in the deposit. Once you make this necessary distinction, you have just created a distinct formal object of faith. And since the act is specified by its formal object, the act of faith in adhering to the two distinct objects must itself be distinct.

Furthermore, Fenton is not denying that the Church can infallibly propose these non-formally revealed truths; rather the question is, if (when they are infallibly proposed), are they are to be assented to with ecclesiastical faith or divine faith. That is the question. The argument of Fr. Beraza (which Fenton discusses) is the following:

Fr. Beraza: “Whatever is revealed by God can be believed by divine faith. But it is revealed by God that the judgment of the Church, defining anything by its supreme doctrinal authority [including non-revealed truths], is infallibly true. Therefore the judgment of the Church, thus defining something to be infallibly true, can be believed with divine faith.”

The argument is not about whether the Church is infallible in proposing non-revealed truths, but whether these non-revealed truths should be believed with divine faith, since God Himself teaches that the judgment of the Church (in proposing them) is infallibly true. Fenton continues with the following from Fr. Beraza:

Fr. Beraza: “The man who believes that the Church's judgment is true believes also that the object of that judgment is exactly what the Church judges it to be. For, to believe the Church's judgment to be true is the same thing as to believe that the object of the judgment [including non-revealed truths] is as it is represented in the judgment. If therefore you believe with divine faith that the judgment of the Church, here and now defining something, is infallibly true; by that same faith you would necessarily believe that the object of that judgment [including non-revealed truths] is exactly as it is asserted to be in that judgment by the Church.”

Personally, I find this argument unpersuasive. But the point is that those arguing against ecclesiastical faith are not limiting the object of belief to revealed truths only; they are expanding the object that must be believed with divine faith to include non formally revealed truths.

You begin this segment with inductive theological speculation. That's not a problem but you should recognize what you are doing and admit the limitation of certainty with this method. The problem is very simple and has been accurately defined: Is there such a thing as EF which is the belief that the Church can propose infallible truths on her authority alone without God as Revealer? Msgr. Fenton et al. argue that in the formally revealed divine revelation contains objects of implicit faith that the Holy Ghost leads the Church. They argue that every object of EF is at least implicitly contained in divine revelation and therefore there is no such thing as mere EF.

The quotation from Fr. Beraza that you have cited is only one of more than a dozen arguments proposed. Fr Marin-Sola alone has 11 different arguments against the existence of mere EF. The argument of Fr. Beraza is the weakest. I made no reference to this argument in my post because that other arguments are so compelling. Furthermore, Msgr. Fenton discusses the relative merits of the arguments in detail. SO why are you wasting our time and the time with this?

I have provided in a previous post the link to the entire article. It is eight typewritten pages that is a brief and very clear exposition of the subject. I hope everyone reads it and gives it the reflection the subject deserves because the implication, although lost on you, are not just very helpful in the defense of Catholic tradition but essential for doing so.

Quote from: RJS

Quote from: Drew

The “Minority Opinion” defended by Fr. Fenton and referenced in my citation is the correct one.”

Quote from: Msgr. Fenton

The argument based on the first of the four reasons I have cited as used by Fr. Marin-Sola is obviously powerful, and, it would seem, ineluctable. That based on the fourth of these reasons is likewise convincing. Actually, it is substantially the argument based on an appeal to the text of the Vatican Council and of the Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV.

"Ineluctable" means, "not able to be avoided or changed." Why? Because, as I said before, the argument is deduced necessarily from Catholic dogma, specifically, "Vatican Council and of the Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV." That is why the argument is "obviously powerful" and seemingly "ineluctable."

So here we come to the reason that you do not find Msgr. Fenton's et al. arguments "obviously powerful... ineluctable" is because you do not give credibility to dogma. A necessary deduction from known truths is not "rash judgment" except to those who reject the literal meaning of dogma.

Quote from: RJS

Quote from: Drew

This is covered above. All this means is that you are not the first "theologian" who thinks understanding dogma requires a gnostic handbook of ciphers.

Quote from: RJS

Quote from: Drew

“What necessarily follows is that the objects of EF become contingent truths that can be done away with by the same authority that called them into being.”

I don’t know where you are getting this. What you are saying is completely confused. It’s as if you are just making things up as you go along.

Of course you don't. This all flows from the denial of dogma. EF contends that the Church and not God is revealer of these truths. If the Church is the revealer of these truth and not God then they cannot be infallible. If the Church alone without God is the revealer then the Church can change on her own authority any object of EF. This "necessarily follows."

Quote from: RJS

Quote from: Drew

If you believed dogma then the arguments against the existence of EF would have made the same impression on you that they made on Msgr. Fenton.

There are two reasons the SSPX has failed to defend the Catholic Faith: Firstly, they deny dogma as dogma. That is, they do not believe that dogmas are truths directly revealed by God that form the formal objects of divine and Catholic faith. This is best exemplified in their common belief that Jews as Jews, Muslims as Muslims, Protestants as Protestants, Buddhists as Buddhists, etc., etc., etc., obtain salvation as Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Buddhists, etc., etc., etc. without membership in the Church, without belief in any article of divinely revealed faith, without the sacraments, without subjection to the Roman Pontiff, etc., etc., etc.

Secondly, they believe that immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are merely matters of Church discipline and can be changed be the free and independent will of the legislator.

If there is any substantial difference between this and the Modernist belief in "evolution of dogma," it certainly did not pose a problem during the doctrinal discussions. Once Bishop Fellay gets eveyone on board with the 1989 Profession of Faith, all the doctrinal problems will be sorted out one way or another.

Drew

« Reply #70 on: April 10, 2016, 05:32:52 AM »

In view of the new affirmation by Msgr. Pozzo on 4/9/16, that the "1989 Profession of faith" Faith" with its novel addendum (last paragraph which is not a dogma) "will be submitted for membership of the SSPX in the appropriate time" and to avoid so much repetition, I'm bringing back this old thread. I would repeat that the Roman Modernists (1989) "Profession of Faith" is a violation of the First Commandment. It demands "religious submission of will and intellect" to man on the authority of man.

Quote from: Msgr. Pozzo 4/9/16

What are the basic requirements to the SSPX, for their full communion with the Church of Rome?

It is first necessary to reiterate that being Catholic requires adherence to the Profession of Faith, the bond of the sacraments and hierarchical communion with the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops in communion with him. The Doctrinal Statement, which will be submitted for membership of the SSPX in the appropriate time, will contain these three essential and necessary points.

Quote from: Maria Auxiliadora

The non-dogmatic paragraph on the "Profession of Faith" said:
Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.

To be clear:

The Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” (4/9/16) is a "teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium" which "they do not intend to proclaim...by a definitive act" BUT the SSPX and all indult communities will be expected to "adhere with religious submission of will and intellect" in order to be considered "Catholics" by the New church. Hope this helps to see the picture.

Nishant

« Reply #71 on: April 10, 2016, 09:49:42 AM »

Ladislaus and RJS are correct on this, while Marie and Drew are mistaken, here is Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis describe the nature of the assent due to the Ordinary Authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs, "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth Me"

Here it is in Lumen Gentium,"Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra" followed by a simple explanation of the rare circumstances in which temporarily withholding assent is justified, and the nature of the submission to the Magisterium that must be manifested during the time while the theologian expresses his doubts and questions through the appropriate channels,

"Donum Veritatis also allows that even if "not habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments," "some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies," and withholding assent is allowed for a theologian "who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching." In such "even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions," and is to "refrain from giving untimely public expression to them," and "avoid turning to the mass media," but with a humble and teachable spirit it is his duty "to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented," with "an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him." prayerfully trusting "that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail."

https://en.wiki pedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum#Withholding_assent

The pre-Vatican II theology manuals that clearly explain how the religious submission to the Ordinary Authentic Magisterium differs from the irrevocable assent of divine Catholic Faith to the infallible statements of the Pope or Church have been cited earlier.

drew

« Reply #73 on: April 10, 2016, 05:05:11 PM »

Nishant:

This discussion in this thread concerns two points that must be properly understood to defend the Faith.

The first point is the 1989 Profession of Faith which is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed with the addenda of three propositions. This first two are dogmas. The third is not. This Profession of Faith is the one and only non-negotiable requirement by the CDF to regularize the SSPX with Rome. It was the one and only non-negotiable condition offered to Fr. Samuel Waters by the CDF for the charges of “schism” and “heresy” made by his local ordinary. This Profession of Faith was regarded with contempt by Archbishop Lefebvre.

The third addendum concerns the demand by solemn oath for the unqualified “submission of the mind and will,” or as phrased in Lumen Gentium (LG), which is the direct reference for the addendum, “submission of the soul,” to man as man. This is a violation of the First Commandment.

Quote from: Nishant

No reference or citation for this novel teaching in LG was made at Vatican II to Pope Pius XII and Humani Generis (HG). The CDF under Ratzinger in his two documents explaining the “religious submission of the mind and will” also makes no reference to HG. The first to make the connection, as far as I know, was Archbishop Guido Pozzo in an interview with Jean-Marie Dumont on October 20, 2014 that was published in the French magazine, Famille Chrétienne. So you are repeating the opinion of the front man at the CDF who has repeatedly said that the 1989 Profession of Faith is the one and only non-negotiable condition for regularizing the SSPX.

The reason that LG and the CDF did not reference HG as an authority for its teaching is because they are not talking about the same thing. The examples provided by Pope Pius XII in HG are examples of the ‘ordinary and universal magisterium’ (such as, inerrancy of scripture, identity of the Church and the Mystical Body of Christ, the fixed meaning of the term, substance, that the world had a beginning, the existence of original sin, etc., etc., etc.) and not the ‘authentic ordinary magisterium’. The ordinary and universal magisterium is always infallible and that is why Pius XII specifically references our Lord’s admonition, “He who heareth you, heareth Me,” which can only be said if there is no possibility of error. It is true that Pius only said “ordinary” and not “ordinary and universal” but the context should have made that clear to you and to Pozzo.

Quote from: Nishant

Here it is in Lumen Gentium,"Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra" followed by a simple explanation of the rare circumstances in which temporarily withholding assent is justified, and the nature of the submission to the Magisterium that must be manifested during the time while the theologian expresses his doubts and questions through the appropriate channels.

The fact of the matter is that an oath is appended to and required from a Profession of Faith in which every article in the Profession is a dogma except the third proposition in question. This proposition is proposed with no qualifications whatsoever. The oath concerns what the words say and an oath disavows any mental reservation or qualification.

Furthermore, we have the specific example by the CDF applying the 1989 Profession of Faith to Fr. Samuel Waters and the Mission regarding the formal charge of “heresy” and “schism” made by the local ordinary for “dissent from the authentic magisterium.” No qualifications as specifically made to the CDF by Fr. Waters were admitted. Although Ratzinger at the CDF said, “A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore ‘tuto doceri non potest,’” (Ratzinger, Ad Tuendam Fidem), the CDF applied dissent from the ordinary authentic magisterium by Fr. Waters as if were heresy and not merely "erroneous." I repeat: Fr. Waters was accused of heresy for "dissent from the authentic magisterium" and the reply from the CDF was the 1989 Profession of Faith. This constitutes prima facie evidence for the proper understanding of this question.

Quote from: Nishant

"Donum Veritatis also allows that even if "not habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments," "some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies," and withholding assent is allowed for a theologian "who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching." In such "even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions," and is to "refrain from giving untimely public expression to them," and "avoid turning to the mass media," but with a humble and teachable spirit it is his duty "to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented," with "an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him." prayerfully trusting "that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail."

https://en.wiki pedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum#Withholding_assent

Donum Veritatis, on religious vocation of theologians, references LG and says that the “religious submission of will and intellect... cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith” and indicates the “indissoluble bond between the ‘sensus fidei’” and the “religious submission of the will and intellect.... to the (authentic) magisterium.” That is, the appeal is not to any inherent intelligibility to propositions by the ordinary authentic magisterium but to its authority alone in the sense that we believe the truths of our faith on the authority of God alone. But God “can neither deceive or be deceived.” The ordinary authentic magisterim can and has done both.

Quote from: Ratzinger, CDF

When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. (23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith..... Not without reason did the Second Vatican Council emphasize the indissoluble bond between the "sensus fidei" and the guidance of God's People by the (authentic) magisterium of the Pastors. These two realities cannot be separated. (Cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 12.) (23) Cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 25; Code of Canon Law, can. 752. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, CDF, Donum Veritatis, May 1990

The permission of dissent that you cite is permitted to “theologians,” must be in the private forum alone, is merely theoretical permitting no practical descent, ultimately requires obedience in the external forum, presupposes our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are merely disciplinary matters, presupposes no necessary relationship between our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions and the faith they make known, and in the final analysis requires submission in the internal forum without offering definitive dogmatic declarations to resolve any teaching held to be contrary to the faith. This “dissent” is meaningless especially in light of Fr. Waters case before the CDF.

Quote from: Nishant

The pre-Vatican II theology manuals that clearly explain how the religious submission to the Ordinary Authentic Magisterium differs from the irrevocable assent of divine Catholic Faith to the infallible statements of the Pope or Church have been cited earlier.

The pre-Vatican II theologians, as you say, “explain how the religious submission to the ordinary authentic magisterium differs from the irrevocable assent of divine Catholic Faith.” That is, they always say that the religious submission is necessarily a qualified submission. The problem is the 1989 Profession of Faith does not. It is not an oversight.

There is a reason why the 1989 Profession of Faith is the one and only non-negotiable condition for recognition of the SSPX. Do you think Archbishop Lefebvre was ignorant of the implications when he said:

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre

Question: What do you think of the instruction of Cardinal Ratzinger setting up the Oath of Fidelity which includes a Profession of Faith?

Archbishop Lefebvre: Firstly, there is the Credo which poses no problems. The Credo has remained intact. And, so the first and second sections raise no difficulties either. They are well-known things from a theological point of view. It is the third section which is very bad. What it means in practice is lining up on what the bishops of the world today think. In the preamble, besides, it is clearly indicated that this third section has been added because of the spirit of the Council. It refers to the Council and the so-called Magisterium of today, which, of course, is the Magisterium of the followers of the Council. To get rid of the error, they should have added, "...insofar as this Magisterium is in full conformity with Tradition."

As it stands this formula is dangerous. It demonstrates clearly the spirit of these people with whom it is impossible to come to an agreement. It is absolutely ridiculous and false, as certain people have done, to present this Oath of Fidelity as a renewal of the Anti-Modernist Oath suppressed in the wake of the Council. All the poison in this third section which seems to have been made expressly in order to oblige those who have rallied to Rome to sign this profession of Faith and to state their full agreement with the bishops. It is as if in the times of Arianism one had said, "Now you are in agreement with everything that all the Arian bishops think."

No, I am not exaggerating. It is clearly expressed in the introduction. It is sheer trickery. One may ask oneself if in Rome they didn't mean in this way to correct the text of the protocol. Although that protocol is not satisfactory to us, it still seems too much in our favor in Article III of the Doctrinal Declaration because it does not sufficiently express the need to submit to the Council.

And so, I think now they are regaining lost ground. They are no doubt going to have these texts signed by the seminarians of the Fraternity of St. Peter before their ordination and by the priests of the Fraternity, who will then find themselves in the obligation of making an official act of joining the Conciliar Church.

Differently from in the Protocol, in these new texts there is a submission to the Council and all the Conciliar bishops. That is their spirit and no one will change them.

The second argument in this thread concerns the discussion of the nature of “ecclesiastical faith” and its formal objects. The arguments of Msgr. Joseph Fenton are defended where he makes a compelling case that mere ecclesiastical faith does not even exist. This, like the 1989 Profession of Faith, is necessary to understand for the defense of the Faith against modernist errors. They together constitute the principle weapons be which Modernists destroy the Faith and then impose their errors on the faithful.

Drew

Ladislaus

« Reply #74 on: April 10, 2016, 05:40:39 PM »

You continue to confuse the phrase "of the intellect and will" with being the same thing as an unconditional assent of faith. You just can't seem to get past that.

drew

« Reply #75 on: April 10, 2016, 06:46:10 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

You continue to confuse the phrase "of the intellect and will" with being the same thing as an unconditional assent of faith. You just can't seem to get past that.

Ladislaus,

I think you reply without adequate reflection and consideration of the problem, and/or you have a particular bias, not a simple prejudicial bent, but a real bias, that makes examining a problem from different perspective impossible.

You have never in this thread understood the nature of the argument and you are unwilling or unable to correct anything you say.

For example, earlier post in this thread we had this exchange:

Quote from: drew

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: drew

Submission of the mind and will, that is, the soul to God on the authority of God is what divine faith is. It must necessarily be unqualified.

Simply not true, Drew.

“Simply not true”? What I said is a brief paraphrase but the statement is most certainly true.

Quote from: Vatican I, On Faith

“We are obliged to yield to God the revealer full submission of intellect and will by faith. This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the catholic church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.”

How is it possible that you could err on something this fundamental and then accuse me of not understanding the distinction between the submission of the intellect and will to divinely revealed propositions of faith, and the submission of the intellect and will to merely human declarations of churchmen? And not once but repeatedly.

You have made this objection before and I have replied to it before. It is the reply that you do not understand. I fully understand the distinction, unfortunately, I am unable to share that understanding with you. It is not me, but the Novus Ordo Church that is conflating the categories of truths of divine and Catholic faith, and the declarations of the ordinary authentic magisterium.

And as long as I have a specific case in which this conflation has formally taken place by the CDF that constitutes prima facie evidence, you do not have an argument and your theoretical speculations are a waste of breath.

Drew

Ladislaus

« Reply #78 on: April 11, 2016, 07:56:03 AM »

It is you who err, drew. CF. Nishant's comments. He's exactly right.

Nishant

« Reply #80 on: April 11, 2016, 10:48:14 AM »

Pax Vobis, I suggest you read the entirety of this article, The doctrinal authority of Papal Encyclicals, www dot catholic apologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

With regard to non-infallible statements in Encyclicals, it is the common theological teaching that

Quote

"the faithful are bound in conscience to accord these letters not only the tribute of respectful silence, but also a definite and sincere internal religious assent. To this end many of them, like Fr. De Groot, apply to the encyclicals a teaching with the eminent and brilliant Dominic Palmieri had developed about the Catholic attitude towards non-infallible teaching in the Church. Pegues, in his Revue thomiste article, makes this application with his usual clarity. Hence it follows that the authority of the encyclicals is not at all the same as that of the solemn definition, the one properly so-called. The definition demands an assent without reservation and makes a formal act of faith obligatory. The case of the encyclical’s authority is not the same. This authority (of the papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great. It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church. Ultimately, however, this assent is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith. Strictly speaking, it is possible that this teaching (proposed in the encyclical letter) is subject to error. There are a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be. But, absolutely speaking, it could be, because God does not guarantee it as He guarantees the teaching formulated by way of definition"

The additional phrase does not change the meaning. The reason Pope Pius XII says "He who hears you, hears Me" applies to statements of the Ordinary Magisterium is because of what theologians infallible security. Fenton explains, "The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility." Contrary to what you and Drew claim, even in the excerpt you quote above, the Pope clearly says he is talking about statements where the Pope does not exercise the supreme power of his teaching authority. This rules out infallible statements and proves the Holy Father is talking about non-infallible statements, which nonetheless are a priori known to be endowed by God with infallible security.

Quote from: drew

It is true that Pius only said “ordinary” and not “ordinary and universal”

Drew, you are incorrect, Pope Pius XII is clearly talking about the non-infallible Authentic Ordinary Magisterium and not the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Your quarrel is with him because he says that what the Pope or Church teaches, even non-infallibly, still requires consent.

The teaching of Diekamp was cited earlier, “These non infallible acts of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff do not oblige one to believe, and do not postulate an absolute and definitive subjection. But it behooves one to adhere with a religious and internal assent to such decisions, since they constitute acts of the supreme Magisterium of the Church, and are founded upon solid natural and supernatural reasons. The obligation to adhere to them can only begin to terminate in case, and this only occurs very rarely, a man fit to judge such a question, after a repeated and very diligent analysis of all the arguments, arrives at the conviction that an error has been introduced into the decision" on the very rare circumstances in which internal assent can be suspended is along the same lines of what DV says. DV clearly says it is permissible to withhold assent and raise through the appropriate channels the difficulty in what is proposed. You complain that

Quote

But God “can neither deceive or be deceived.” The ordinary authentic magisterim can and has done both.

In your opinion. But not in the opinion of Msgr. Fenton or several other pre-Vatican II theologians, read the portion cited above where Msgr. Fenton says "it probably never has been and it is normally certain that it will never be ... But absolutely speaking, it could be." This is what is meant by the "logic of faith".

Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter had already expounded on the nature of the assent due to non-infallible decrees from Rome, "since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure."

And this is what Pope Benedict XVI is saying in Ad Tuendam Fidem that you cite. The case of Fr. Waters you bring up proves very little, because his ordinary's accusation was not necessarily correct. Why is all this important? Because there is a right way and a wrong way to express disagreement with non-infallible statements, and what you propose is the wrong way. Wrong because it takes no account of infallible security, which is something God has given to His Church's (even non-infallible) Magisterium.

"Never will anyone who says his Rosary every day become a formal heretic ... This is a statement I would sign in my blood." St. Montfort, Secret of the Rosary. I support the FSSP, the SSPX and other priests who work for the restoration of doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical orthopraxis in the Church. I accept Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition and canonisations as an infallible declaration that a person is in Heaven. Sedevacantism is schismatic and Ecclesiavacantism is heretical.

Pax Vobis

« Reply #81 on: April 11, 2016, 11:25:07 AM »

Nishant,
I was simply showing that you left out an entire phrase of Humani Generis (for what reason I don't know), which makes the ENTIRE quote mean something different than what you originally said.

Quote

This rules out infallible statements and proves the Holy Father is talking about non-infallible statements, which nonetheless are a priori known to be endowed by God with infallible security.

The Pope said that encyclicals which deal with doctrine, require (some level of) assent, even when an infallible statement isn't proclaimed. I agree totally. But not all encyclicals or councils deal with doctrine. (...and most of the ones post V2 have nothing to do with doctrine...) Therefore, you can't generally say that non-infallible encyclicals require assent. Only those that deal with doctrine require assent.

drew