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, 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.
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.
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.
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.