Author Topic: SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX  (Read 24151 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14622
  • Reputation: +7674/-2383
  • Gender: Male
SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2015, 01:13:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline PerEvangelicaDicta

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2051
    • Reputation: +1283/-0
    • Gender: Female
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #16 on: August 14, 2015, 01:33:07 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Where we have issues is where MAGISTERIUM OPPOSES MAGISTERIUM


    You repeat this often and I thank you for that.  For me, a light bulb moment and launch pad for follow up.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14622
    • Reputation: +7674/-2383
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #17 on: August 14, 2015, 01:51:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta
    Quote
    Where we have issues is where MAGISTERIUM OPPOSES MAGISTERIUM


    You repeat this often and I thank you for that.  For me, a light bulb moment and launch pad for follow up.


    Once we agree that we can't set up an opposition between Tradition and Magisterium, then upon being confronted with apparent contradictions between pre-V2 Magisterium and post-V2 Magisterium, the issue then becomes whether we apply the hermeneutic of continuity or hermeneutic of rupture.

    We have a strict obligation to TRY applying the hermeneutic of continuity as much as we possibly can.  This hermeneutic of continuity must be the default for Catholics.

    It's only as the LAST POSSIBLE RESORT when no such hermeneutic can conceivably be applied to discrepancies that we must say that there has been a rupture.

    And what's funny is that I think the Vatican would perfectly agree with this line of thinking.

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3821
    • Reputation: +3706/-278
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #18 on: August 14, 2015, 04:00:37 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta
    Quote
    Where we have issues is where MAGISTERIUM OPPOSES MAGISTERIUM


    You repeat this often and I thank you for that.  For me, a light bulb moment and launch pad for follow up.


    Once we agree that we can't set up an opposition between Tradition and Magisterium, then upon being confronted with apparent contradictions between pre-V2 Magisterium and post-V2 Magisterium, the issue then becomes whether we apply the hermeneutic of continuity or hermeneutic of rupture.

    We have a strict obligation to TRY applying the hermeneutic of continuity as much as we possibly can.  This hermeneutic of continuity must be the default for Catholics.

    It's only as the LAST POSSIBLE RESORT when no such hermeneutic can conceivably be applied to discrepancies that we must say that there has been a rupture.

    And what's funny is that I think the Vatican would perfectly agree with this line of thinking.

    The SSPX/resistance R&R position has created a third alternative for itself, a Magisterium which is continuous but has few tears in it here and there.  Something akin to a Magisterium with a doctrinal hernia.

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3821
    • Reputation: +3706/-278
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #19 on: August 14, 2015, 04:12:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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."


    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 True Magisterium and the authentic Tradition of the Church are never opposed to one another, in that they are one integral entity. Thus when there is a conflict, it is from a departure from either one that is the cause.

    Only the Truth can claim Magisterial authority and there cannot be two Magisteriums. The one which introduces novelty is easily indentified as the false one which does not come from the Church.

    The conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, and the conciliar "magisterium" is not the Catholic Church's Magisterium.



    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 330
    • Reputation: +1029/-179
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #20 on: August 14, 2015, 04:32:56 PM »
  • Thanks!6
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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."


    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 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

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14622
    • Reputation: +7674/-2383
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #21 on: August 14, 2015, 08:17:00 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: J.Paul
    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."


    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 True Magisterium and the authentic Tradition of the Church are never opposed to one another, in that they are one integral entity. Thus when there is a conflict, it is from a departure from either one that is the cause.


    Indeed this is quite true.  But Tradition also admits of interpretation, just as Sacred Scripture does.  It was the Prots who first started claiming that the Magisterium contradicted Sacred Scripture.  But what they failed state was that it was their INTERPRETATION of Scripture that was opposed by the Magisterium's INTERPRETATION of Scripture.  Similarly with Tradition.  Like Sacred Scripture, Tradition admits of interpretation, and only the Magisterium has the role of being able to authentically interpret this.

    Novus Ordo critics of Traditional Catholicism have pounced upon the rhetoric of "Magisterium vs. Tradition" to make an analogy with the Protestants.  So the language must be completely avoided.

    Here's how to approach the Novus Ordites:

    Yes, I give my internal assent to the Magisterium.  Pope Piux IX and Pope Gregory XVI condemned Religious Liberty.  I give my assent to that Magisterium and reject Religious Liberty.  Now Vatican II comes along and says the opposite.  Do I now accept Religious Liberty?  Do I both accept it and reject it at the same time?  That's intellectually impossible.  So do I now give my assent to a proposition and also to its opposite at the same time?  At that point the discussion centers around the hermeneutic to be applied and around how the two can be convincingly reconciled.  Now we are no longer setting ourselves up as private judges of Tradition over and against the Magisterium but as struggling with a legitimate crisis of conscience regarding assent.  Yes, we must give internal assent to the Magisterium.  But to WHICH Magisterium?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14622
    • Reputation: +7674/-2383
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #22 on: August 14, 2015, 08:41:18 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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."


    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 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


    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.


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16848
    • Reputation: +7972/-569
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #23 on: August 15, 2015, 03:01:55 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • .

    Post
    Quote from: AJNC
    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?

    Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora
    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.


    For some readers, it might be time to re-read the letter of "the three" to +Fellay early in 2012.  And be aware that letter was delivered while +F was putting the final touches on his AFD ("Doctrinal Preamble") or April Fifteenth Declaration.  

    In that letter, it seems clear that +W, +dG and +dM were of the same mind, but subsequently +F must have threatened the latter two forcing them into submission to his nefarious tactics.  

    But in time, the truth will come out, and if the latter two bishops are going to be true to their calling and their duty to God, they will not follow +F through the "back door" to Rome.  

    Interesting times are ahead.

    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1238
    • Reputation: +1262/-64
    • Gender: Female
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #24 on: August 15, 2015, 06:05:23 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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,




    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14622
    • Reputation: +7674/-2383
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #25 on: August 15, 2015, 07:12:30 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.


    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 330
    • Reputation: +1029/-179
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #26 on: August 15, 2015, 07:00:59 PM »
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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."


    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 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


    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.


    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 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  




    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 330
    • Reputation: +1029/-179
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #27 on: August 15, 2015, 07:57:01 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • Correction:
    Quote
    We know they [Pius IX and Gregory XVI] 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.


    Offline AJNC

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 986
    • Reputation: +556/-40
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #28 on: August 16, 2015, 07:44:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora
    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.


    MA, I agree with what you say about Bp Fellay. But take a look at this extract from the editorial of the just departed SSPX-UK Superior in that District's July-August Bulletin.

    http://sspx.co.uk/newsletter_2015_16_julaug.pdf

    Bishop de Galarreta’s sermon
    The recent departures from the Society of Father Brendan King and Father Giaco-
    mo Ballini are truly regrettable, not least because they are based upon the fear of a false deal with the Roman authorities, something which has not happened and, please God, will never, happen. The following extract from Bishop de Galarreta’s sermon given in Athlone, Dun Laoghaire, Liverpool, and Edinburgh, at the occasion of the recent Confirmations, highlighted this very point:
    “The triple office conferred by the Sacrament of Confirmation is to profess, to
    combat for, and to propagate, the Faith, the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Catholic Church... This mission is more urgent than ever given that the situation in the Church is getting worse from day to day.
    We see how the ecclesiastical authorities are continuing the liberal and modernist
    revolution, and how this touches on all the aspects of the life of the Church. Having over-turned Catholic teaching, the Faith, Catholic doctrine, the liturgy, the sacraments, the holy sacrifice of the Mass, the government of the Church, the nature of the Church her-self, with a new bible, new a new catechism, a new code of Canon Law, a new notion of holiness (which is unrecognisable to Tradition), there are now moves to overturn Catholic morality, the last defence, the last bastion left in the official Church. It is an attack on the moral order, both natural and supernatural.You know that the Church authorities want to allow Holy Communion for divorced “re married” couples, as well as recognising sinful partnerships, cohabitation, and even unnatural unions. This affects Catholic teaching and goes against the sanctity of the Church herself, against the sanctity of marriage and against the sanctification of souls.
    It also signifies an overturning of all morality because if the realities of good and evil can change then virtue and sin become relative. It changes the precepts given by Our Blessed Lord in the moral law, both natural and supernatural.
    We also see how the Roman authorities work to get rid of those opposed to these
    innovations, whether they be prelates or institutions, such as the Franciscans of the Immaculate.

    We see how Rome still wants to impose upon us the errors of Vatican II and the
    post -conciliar reforms, making these a condition of any agreement. We see how those in authority act towards us with disloyalty and cunning.
    Hence our position remains very clear, and Bishop Fellay himself has stated that,
    given this concrete situation, it is impossible and indeed suicidal to envisage any sort of agreement or canonical recognition.”


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 14622
    • Reputation: +7674/-2383
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #29 on: August 16, 2015, 08:03:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16