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.
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 docuмent 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
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.
Topic: SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX (Read 63343 times)