Look, Drew, our point of contention is this. You're arguing that the Profession's use of the phrase "of the mind and will" necessarily has it talking about giving the unconditional assent of faith to the non-definitive acts of the Magisterium, forcing everyone to believe the non-infallible acts of the Magisterium with the certainty of faith.
You based this on nothing other than the phrase "of the mind and will". I point out that Monsigonor Fenton referred to the conditional religious submission as being "internal" and "of the mind" ... to distinguish it from the merely external submission.
The first thing you need to do is properly understand and fairly state the “point of contention” that you are trying to answer. You do not understand the argument. Fr. Fenton et al. clearly say that the internal submission of the mind and will to the authentic ordinary magisterium is always and necessarily conditional. The treatment of this doctrine by the conciliarist Church since Lumen Gentium
does not. This last sentence is what I affirm and you deny.
That passage from the Profession specifically refers to RELIGIOUS submission, which is a well-known term among theologians, who routinely qualify it as "internal" and "of the mind" vs. merely external. Your quote from Vatican I refers to submission "by faith" and is describing supernatural faith as involving both the intellect and the will, the will because the truths of revelation are unknowable by the intellect on its own and therefore requires a submission of the will. You're trying to compare apples and oranges.
The statement regarding divine faith, which were said was “simply not true,” is, in fact, an accurate and truthful statement regarding divine faith. I'm well aware that Vatican I is referring to divine faith. And I also know the difference between apples and oranges. The point which you have overlooked is that the description of divine faith is essentially no different than the current description of religious submission of the mind and the will to the authentic ordinary magisterium. In both cases, no qualifications are admitted.
There's absolutely NO WAY in which the Conciliarists now believe that non-definitive acts of the Magisterium must be accepted as de fide. In fact, most Conciliarist theologians circumscribe the scope of infallibility and of what's de fide to the extreme. As for those who accuse people who don't accept the need for religious submission as being heretics, they're mistaken regarding the theological note. It's only theologically certain and therefore not strictly heresy.
Previously posted on this question, Lumen Gentium, the 1989 Profession of Faith, and the Authentic Magisterium
, a document sent to the CDF by Fr. Waters, specific citations are quoted by “conciliarists” who consider the doctrinal teaching of Vatican II irreformable and binding on the Catholic conscience. It is my opinion that it is naïve to believe that conciliarists are not intent to consolidate the gains of their revolution. Pope Benedict said specifically before his resignation that this marked the “end of the old Church and the beginning of the new.”
The accusation of “heresy” made by a local ordinary has been supported by the CDF by replying to the charge with, and only with, the 1989 Profession of Faith.
You said, “It’s only theologically certain and therefore not strictly heresy.” This is not correct. All
the teaching of the authentic ordinary magisterium does not have the note of being “theologically certain.” In the previous post I quoted Fr. Fenton referring to specific doctrinal errors in papal encyclicals. IF you include such things as Pope Francis daily sermons, which constitute acts of the “authentic magisterium,” they need to be regularly vetted with theological qualifications before publication.
What is true, and what you should say, is that dissent from the authentic ordinary magisterium cannot be called “heresy” at all because the formal charge of heresy is with respect to articles of divine and Catholic faith. This is particularly true when the descent from the authentic ordinary magisterium is accompanied with an appeal to the Holy Father for a definitive judgment and a willingness to be corrected.
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.
This ordinary has no idea what he's talking about. So how's this relevant?
Of course, there would be nothing to prevent the Holy See from treating the need for "religious submission" as de fide. In fact, Denzinger treats many such Professions of Faith for returning heretics as being tantamount to dogmatic definitions.
Your quote is taken out of context. The full quote is:
“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.”
Your objection is absurd. We are not simply discussing the accusation of “heresy” by a local ordinary. We are discussing the treatment of that charge by the CDF.
And yes, there is something “to prevent the Holy See from treating the need for ‘religious submission’ as de fide
” because it is not. The CDF has no more authority to invent dogma as they do to deny dogma.
You were asked to produce a specific example of a Profession of Faith to reconcile a heretic to the Church which contains a non-dogmatic proposition. Again, I do not know a single example. If you do, produce it.
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.
And yet you CONTINUE making the same error with every post. As I pointed out, you declare the simple use of the phrase "of the mind and will" in the context of religious submission as being tantamount to declaring that it must be believed unconditionally. SOMETHING CAN BE ACCEPTED CONDITIONALLY BY THE MIND AND THE WILL. That's PRECISELY what the sedevacantists have done. They see THIS SAME LANGUAGE in the pre-Vatican II theologians and have drawn the same conclusion, that this language requires internal unconditional assent of faith of all teachings of the authentic Magisterium, whether infallible or not.
I have provided a specific example that demonstrates that the CDF does not regard religious submission of the mind and will in the same theological sense that Fr. Fenton et al. did. This specific example is the practical application of their understanding, and, in fact, is far more important key to knowing their understanding of the question than anything that may have previously written.
You in your posts have not provided any evidence against this. You have made yourself your own authority in defense of your claim, and you insist upon the accuracy of your claim against the fact of its actual application. The conciliarist Church has documented no qualification to their version of religious submission of the mind and will, and qualifications were always present in pre-Vatican II theological discussions of the question; the CDF, when asked about the need for specific qualifications, ignored the question in their reply; this non-dogmatic demand has been included in a Profession of Faith in which every other article is a dogma and they have made this Catholic creed a non-negotiable condition for reconciliation with the Church from “heresy”; and there has been specific additions to canon law making failure to submit the mind and will to the authentic magisterium a crime with an unspecified canonical punishment.
You are more concerned with trying to win an argument than finding the truth. It is unfortunate because you have made some excellent posts whose credibility will always be questioned for no other reason than the readers’ inability to distinguish between the merits of your argument and your ego.