Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX  (Read 25592 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16468
  • Reputation: +9034/-3679
  • Gender: Male
SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
« Reply #30 on: August 16, 2015, 08:08:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.  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.  There's absolutely no indication in the Profession that it means anything different.  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.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16468
    • Reputation: +9034/-3679
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #31 on: August 16, 2015, 08:14:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: drew
    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.


    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3715/-282
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #32 on: August 16, 2015, 10:27:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ladislaus,
    Quote
    R&R has created this false attitude towards the Magisterium among Traditional Catholics, and it's most pernicious.


    R&R made some small sense in the beginning when most of the Church was still Catholic and there was a chance to stop the revolutionaries but now it serves no function except to help that same revolution.

    The revolutionaries have won the war, they have ascended to all of the seats of power in the Church. They control its resources, its teaching and visible assets.There is no longer any doubt which would justify the holding pattern reason for R&R and it now only serves a gatekeeper function which keeps Catholics from facing the reality of the situation and keeps them tied to a wholly un-Catholic and diabolical regime.

    We exist now only as disparate enclaves which are trying to hold on the the True Faith and even these exist only with varying levels of orthodoxy and doctrinal soundness.

    For the revolutionaries we exist only as a "mop up" chore which is pending. They will co-opt one at a time.
    With time on their side we have seen the purity of the faith drying up in the spiritual desert which they have created.
     It is quite easy to see the fulfilment of the words of St. Luke, "But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?"


    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 356
    • Reputation: +1053/-220
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #33 on: August 16, 2015, 01:17:43 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    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.

    Quote from: Vatican I, On Faith
    “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.”


    Quote from: Ladislaus
    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.

    Quote from: Ladislaus
    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.

    Quote from: Ladislaus
    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



    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3715/-282
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #34 on: August 16, 2015, 01:40:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The bottom line is that the Modernists heretics are not interested in dogma or in dogmatizing anything. They are only interested in acceptance and obedience to their "enlightened" propositions. Their use of religious terms and concepts are only to give the appearance of religious authority to their doctrinal coercion.

    The employment of religious assent is merely a tool of expediency for them. The True Church when treating on the subject of assent is not speaking about submission to un-Catholic things and heretical ideas, because things such as these, cannot be a part of the Church's Magisterium.

    Bishop Fellay is  just trying to figure out a way to accept this profession without appearing to do so. Perhaps so that he can continue on with his visionary mission of saving the Church?


    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1329
    • Reputation: +1285/-90
    • Gender: Female
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #35 on: August 16, 2015, 02:20:17 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: AJNC
    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 re
    lative. 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.”



    It is a tragedy that naive +Fellay is in charge. He thinks as long as BXVI is alive there is a conservative in the Vatican sympathetic to tradition. The "attack on the moral order, both natural and supernatural" has been blamed on bold Francis but in reality he is only doing BXVI's dirty work of the "real council". Cardinal Ratzinger, as head of the CDF said the following in a 1994 "LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION BY THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL:

    Quote

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html
    3. Aware however that authentic understanding and genuine mercy are never separated from the truth(4), pastors have the duty to remind these faithful of the Church's doctrine concerning the celebration of the sacraments, in particular, the reception of the Holy Communion. In recent years, in various regions, different pastoral solutions in this area have been suggested according to which, to be sure, a general admission of divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion would not be possible, but the divorced and remarried members of the faithful could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorised according to a judgement of conscience to do so. This would be the case, for example, when they had been abandoned completely unjustly, although they sincerely tried to save the previous marriage, or when they are convinced of the nullity of their previous marriage, although unable to demonstrate it in the external forum or when they have gone through a long period of reflexion and penance, or also when for morally valid reasons they cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.

    In some places, it has also been proposed that in order objectively to examine their actual situation, the divorced and remarried would have to consult a prudent and expert priest. This priest, however, would have to respect their eventual decision to approach Holy Communion, without this implying an official authorisation.

    In these and similar cases it would be a matter of a tolerant and benevolent pastoral solution in order to do justice to the different situations of the divorced and remarried.


    This is where the 1989 "Profession of Faith" comes in. Since the modernists "do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act", the "religious submission of will and intellect" would do.

    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: 16468
    • Reputation: +9034/-3679
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #36 on: August 16, 2015, 05:12:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    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.

    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.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16468
    • Reputation: +9034/-3679
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #37 on: August 16, 2015, 05:23:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: drew
    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.


    That's because the biggest beef that Vatican authorities have had with the SSPX, in terms of prerequisites for any discussion, is what they perceive to be the open rebellion towards and lack of respect for the Vatican II Magisterium among Traditional Catholics.  This attitude in their minds entails an implicit rejection at least of the need for a religious submission towards the Magisterium.  Just because it appears in a document entitled "Profession of Faith", this doesn't necessarily mean that these authorities consider the acceptance of a need for religious submission to even the merely-authentic Magisterium as being de fide.  St. Pius X excommunicated people for rejecting his merely-authentic Magisterium.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16468
    • Reputation: +9034/-3679
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #38 on: August 16, 2015, 05:27:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: drew
    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.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16468
    • Reputation: +9034/-3679
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #39 on: August 16, 2015, 05:31:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: drew
    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.


    Offline RJS

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 39
    • Reputation: +40/-0
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #40 on: August 17, 2015, 08:26:50 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Drew, the “assent of faith” and “religious assent” are both an assent of the intellect and will.   But these are two different levels of assent corresponding to the degree of certitude about the doctrine proposed.
     
    Those truths that have been proposed infallibly require the unqualified assent of faith.  There are two categories of doctrines that require an assent of faith: (a) truths revealed by God and definitively (infallibly) proposed by the Church require the assent of Divine and Catholic Faith (faith in God revealing and the infallible Church proposing).  (b) truths that have not been revealed by God, but have been definitively (and infallibly)  proposed by the Church require the assent of ecclesiastical faith (faith in the infallible Church teachings, but not in God revealing).  An example of doctrines that fall in this latter category are theological conclusions, which are conclusions derived from two premises, one of which is revealed, while the other is known by reason.  

    Doctrines that have not been definitively (infallibly) proposed by the Church only require a “religious assent”, which is an assent based on the moral virtue of obedience, not on the theological virtue o faith.  The reason for the lesser degree of assent is due to the lesser degree of certitude regarding the truthfulness of the doctrine proposed.  A truth that is not infallibly proposed by the Church is subject to change. Therefore, only a religious assent of mind and will is required.  

    As Ladislaus said, the sedevacantists fail to grasp this distinction and imagine that anything taught by the “authentic Magisterium” must necessarily be infallibly true.  Then, when they see a error proposed, they immediately think infallibility has been violated.
    " In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin". (Eccl 7:40)


    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 356
    • Reputation: +1053/-220
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #41 on: August 17, 2015, 02:02:17 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    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.

    Quote from: Ladislaus
    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.  

    Quote from: Ladislaus
    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.

    Quote from: Ladislaus
    Quote from: drew
    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:

    Quote from: drew
    “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.

    Quote from: Ladislaus
    Quote from: drew
    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.

    Drew

    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 356
    • Reputation: +1053/-220
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #42 on: August 17, 2015, 04:17:36 PM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: RJS
    Drew, the “assent of faith” and “religious assent” are both an assent of the intellect and will.   But these are two different levels of assent corresponding to the degree of certitude about the doctrine proposed.


    Exactly!
     
    Quote from: RJS
    Those truths that have been proposed infallibly require the unqualified assent of faith.  There are two categories of doctrines that require an assent of faith: (a) truths revealed by God and definitively (infallibly) proposed by the Church require the assent of Divine and Catholic Faith (faith in God revealing and the infallible Church proposing).  (b) truths that have not been revealed by God, but have been definitively (and infallibly)  proposed by the Church require the assent of ecclesiastical faith (faith in the infallible Church teachings, but not in God revealing).  An example of doctrines that fall in this latter category are theological conclusions, which are conclusions derived from two premises, one of which is revealed, while the other is known by reason.


    Not exactly!  Articles of “ecclesiastical faith,” like articles of divine faith, are all truths revealed by God as are all dogmas.  Dogmas are called ‘formal objects of divine and Catholic faith’.

    Quote from: RJS
    Doctrines that have not been definitively (infallibly) proposed by the Church only require a “religious assent”, which is an assent based on the moral virtue of obedience, not on the theological virtue o faith.  The reason for the lesser degree of assent is due to the lesser degree of certitude regarding the truthfulness of the doctrine proposed.  A truth that is not infallibly proposed by the Church is subject to change. Therefore, only a religious assent of mind and will is required.


    Not exactly.  There are many doctrines of divine faith that have not been “definitively (infallibly) proposed by the Church” which demand more than simple “religious assent.”  These divine truths are formal objects of divine faith, truths that are revealed by God to which we believe on the authority of God.  For example, it was about three hundred years before the divinity of Jesus Christ was dogmatized.  When dogmatized it became a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  Before that it was a formal object of divine faith.

    Even teachings of the authentic ordinary magisterium require more than simple external “obedience.”  They also require a conditional assent of the intellect even though these teaching may not be evident to the mind.  The important point is that the assent to the authentic ordinary magisterium is always and everywhere conditional.  The presumption of belief is in favor of the pope because of his office and grace of state.

    Quote from: RJS
    As Ladislaus said, the sedevacantists fail to grasp this distinction and imagine that anything taught by the “authentic Magisterium” must necessarily be infallibly true.  Then, when they see a error proposed, they immediately think infallibility has been violated.


    That is not a fair characterization of the sedevacantist position.   It may be with specific individuals but, in general, sedevacantist will cite specific real heresies, that is, rejections of divine and Catholic faith by the conciliarist popes to justify their position and not simply corruptions of the teaching by the authentic ordinary magisterium.  They have legitimate complaints of heresy that should be acknowledged without which any discussion with them will be fruitless.  Also, St. Thomas says that the faith can be denied by acts as well as by words.  This is an important point because the Catholic religion is an incarnational religion.  The faith is expressed, and God is worshiped, in both word and deed.  The outward ecclesiastical traditions that make the faith known and communicable are therefore necessary attributes of the faith.

    The argument with Ladislaus concerns his belief that the pre-Vatican II understanding of religious submission of the mind and will to the authentic magisterium is not essentially different from the conciliarist understanding of that doctrine.  I disagree and believe that it is imperative that all traditional Catholics understand the implication of the 1989 Profession of Faith.  Ladislaus has no problem with it.  

    I have offered evidence for my jusgments and Ladislaus has offered nothing beyond his own opinions.

    To summarize:

    1.  The pre-Vatican II theologians such as Fr. Fenton and others previously cited always teach that the submission to the authentic ordinary magisterium is necessarily conditional.  The conciliarist take their teaching from Lumen Gentium and offer no conditions or qualifications, at least nothing that can be put in writing.  More to the point, the CDF when asked specifically about the need for necessary qualifications to the religious submission did not address the question in their reply.

    2.  Fr. Waters and the Mission were accused of “heresy” which was submitted to the Holy Father through the CDF.  The only reply from the CDF was the 1989 Profession of Faith.
     
    3.  Submission to the authentic magisterium is not a dogma, that is, it is not a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  As far as I know, there is no examples of a non-dogmatic proposition being added to a Catholic Creed.  Now Catholics who have been accused of “heresy” for dissent from the “authentic magisterium” are told by the CDF that they can only be reconciled to the Church through the 1989 Profession of Faith.  That is, the CDF is pretending that dissent from the authentic magisterium is a heresy.

    4.  The 1989 Profession of Faith is the one and only absolutely non-negotiable condition for the SSPX to be regularized with Rome.  This has been confirmed in recent interviews with Archbishop Pozzo and, more recently, Cardinal Muller.  The SSPX cannot add any written qualifications or entertain mental reservations to the acceptance of this Profession.  The 1989 Profession of Faith is the Doctrinal Preamble.

    5.  Fr. Waters told the CDF that without specific qualifications that he listed, such as, any teaching of the authentic magisterium that was in conflict with divine and Catholic faith, not in accordance with natural law, corrupts immemorial ecclesiastical traditions, etc., could not command or expect submission of the mind and will.  Any oath of unconditional submission of the mind and will can only be made to God.  Therefore, the 1989 Profession of Faith as written and as practiced by the CDF is a violation of the First Commandment.  The CDF ignored this complaint.
     
    6.  These facts constitute prima facie evidence that there is an essential difference between the CDF’s understanding of the religious submission of the mind and will with the understanding of that doctrine by faithful Catholic theologians before Vatican II.    

    Drew



    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16468
    • Reputation: +9034/-3679
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #43 on: August 18, 2015, 07:19:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: RJS
    Drew, the “assent of faith” and “religious assent” are both an assent of the intellect and will.


    See the bolded above, Drew.  Something which you persist in denying.  Your allegation that the Profession is requiring the assent of faith to teachings of the merely-authentic Magisterium has been based on the presence of the phrase "of the mind and will".  RJS articulated the Catholic position very nicely.

    Offline RJS

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 39
    • Reputation: +40/-0
    • Gender: Male
    SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX
    « Reply #44 on: August 18, 2015, 08:55:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: drew
    “Not exactly!  Articles of “ecclesiastical faith,” like articles of divine faith, are all truths revealed by God as are all dogmas.  Dogmas are called ‘formal objects of divine and Catholic faith’.”


    If the “articles of ecclesiastical faith” were revealed by God, they would be assented to with divine and Catholic faith, not simply ecclesiastical faith.  The reason they are not assented with divine faith is because they were not directly revealed by God.  These non-revealed doctrines that are assented to with ecclesiastical faith are sometimes referred to as being “virtually revealed,” but they are not directly contained in the revealed deposit.  As mentioned in the previous post, they are conclusions derived from two premises, one of which is revealed while the other is known by reason.  They are believed in the authority of the Church teaching, not God revealing.

    Quote from: drew
    Not exactly.  There are many doctrines of divine faith that have not been “definitively (infallibly) proposed by the Church” which demand more than simple “religious assent.”  These divine truths are formal objects of divine faith, truths that are revealed by God to which we believe on the authority of God.  For example, it was about three hundred years before the divinity of Jesus Christ was dogmatized.  When dogmatized it became a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  Before that it was a formal object of divine faith.


    What I think you are doing is equating the term “definitively proposed by the Church” with solemn definitions only.  That is not correct.  The term is also used (see below) to refer to truths that have been clearly and definitively proposed by the ordinary and universal Magisterium only (and not by a solemn act).  This is the category that the doctrine of the divinity of Christ would have fallen in during the first 300 year, before it was solemnly defined.  For the first 300 years the doctrine was de fide, but not de fide definite.

    Here is a citation from Van Noort using the term “definitive” to refer to teachings of OUM that have not been solemnly defined.

    Van Noort: “Ways in Which the Church Proposes Revealed Truths: A proposal of a revealed truth by the Church, such as we have described above, can, according to the Vatican Council, take place in either of two ways: either by a solemn decree, or by the Church’s ordinary and universal teaching. … The exercise of the ordinary and universal Magisterium includes the whole gamut of diverse actions by which the pope and bishops dispersed throughout the world, either by themselves or through various kinds of helpers, continuously expound doctrine on faith and morals. This teaching is exercised first of all by explicit teaching, either oral or written. Secondly, it is also exercised by implicit teaching through the practices and liturgy of the Churches, by the promulgation of laws, by the approval of customs, by the recommendation of devotions, by the approval of books, and so forth. Clearly, if a truth is capable of being declared an object of divine-catholic faith through the force of this ordinary and universal teaching, there is required such a proposal as is unmistakably definitive.”

    The “unmistakably definitive” proposal of the OUM differs from that of a solemn decree by the manner in which its definitive character is known: the latter is due to a single definitive act, the former to a coalescence of non-definitive acts.

    Quote from: drew
    “Even teachings of the authentic ordinary magisterium require more than simple external “obedience.”  They also require a conditional assent of the intellect even though these teaching may not be evident to the mind.  The important point is that the assent to the authentic ordinary magisterium is always and everywhere conditional.  The presumption of belief is in favor of the pope because of his office and grace of state.”


    The teachings of the authentic Magisterium do require more than simple external obedience, as you said; they also require internal assent of intellect and will.  And yes, the assent is conditional, since it is based on the moral virtue of obedience, which is always a balance between excess and defect, and therefore is never absolute (whereas the assent of faith is absolute).  The point was that the “religious assent” due to non-infallible teachings of the Church is only one of obedience.

    Quote from: drew
    “That is not a fair characterization of the sedevacantist position.  It may be with specific individuals but, in general, sedevacantist will cite specific real heresies, that is, rejections of divine and Catholic faith by the conciliarist popes to justify their position and not simply corruptions of the teaching by the authentic ordinary magisterium.“


    You are addressing a different mode of argumentation used by sedevacantists.  One mode of argumentation is based on the claim that the recent popes have been heretics; but a heretic cannot be the pope, therefore, etc. The other mode of argumentation (the one I addressed) is based on infallibility.  This mode of argumentation is as follows: the Pope (and Church) are infallible; but the post-concilair Pope (and Church) have violated infallibility; therefore, the Pope cannot be the true pope and the post-Conciliar Church cannot be the true Church.  This latter argument is based on an erroneous notion of infallibility.  

    Quote from: drew
    “The argument with Ladislaus concerns his belief that the pre-Vatican II understanding of religious submission of the mind and will to the authentic magisterium is not essentially different from the conciliarist understanding of that doctrine.  I disagree and believe that it is imperative that all traditional Catholics understand the implication of the 1989 Profession of Faith.  Ladislaus has no problem with it.  I have offered evidence for my jusgments and Ladislaus has offered nothing beyond his own opinions.”


    Here’s the problem I see with your position: words have meanings.  The term “religious assent” has a fixed meaning that has been used for centuries.  If the CDF wants to change the meaning of the word, they have an obligation to tell everyone and to explain what the new meaning is.  If they don’t do so, the presumption of a reasonable person is that the term is being used the way it has always been used.   If this was not the case, communication would impossible.  

    Now, none of the points you raised were sufficient to demonstrate that the meaning of the term has been changed.  Everything you presented was circumstantial evidence, or simply silence (the CDF did not reply to a question, etc.).  This does not suffice to change the meaning of a word.  And even if an individual modernist prelate does not correctly understand the term (which would not be surprising), his subjective error would not change the objective meaning of the word.


    " In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin". (Eccl 7:40)

     

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