CathInfo.com

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.

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.

“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.”

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.

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.

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