CathInfo.com

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/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.

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.

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.