“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.
There are two points I would like to address in your post.
In my opinion, this is serious error.
All infallible objects of faith have God as their source of revelation without exception. If not, it would be impossible to claim infallibility. They are believed by the authority of God revealing under the direct guidance of the Holy Ghost and confirmed by the Church’s teaching authority grounded in her attribute of Infallibility. Fr. Fenton published an excellent article, The Question of Ecclesiastical Faith, AER, April 1953.
http://strobertbellarmine.net/fenton_ecclesiastical_faith.html There is a range of theological opinions on the exact meaning of the term “ecclesiastical faith” which was first used in the 16th century. But, what Fr. Fenton emphasizes and defends with the opinions of theological experts is that any infallible doctrine must necessarily have God as its revealer and therefore there is really no such thing as a merely ecclesiastical faith. This argument is important for another reason because it references the Tridentine Profession of Faith which contains articles of ecclesiastical tradition that form formal objects of divine and Catholic faith.
Fr. Beraza makes the very telling point that “in the universal revelation [that all of the doctrinal pronouncements in which the Church uses its supreme apostolic teaching power are infallibly true], there are also revealed all the particular propositions contained in that [universal] revelation.” Furthermore, in establishing the fact that “all the things that can be the object of ecclesiastical faith are contained in the deposit of revelation,” he makes a uniquely valuable contribution to the study of sacred theology in bringing out the meaning of that connection by which the truths which fall within the secondary object of the Church's infallible magisterium are said to be joined to the doctrines which constitute the primary object of that same teaching activity.
Those things are said to be the object of ecclesiastical faith which are connected with the deposit of revelation, and without which this [deposit of revelation] could not be preserved in its entirety. But these things, despite the fact that they are said to be connected with the deposit of revelation, are really within the deposit of revelation. This connection is doubtless a relation of some kind. This, since it is mutual, is not only a relation of the other truths with the deposit of revelation, but also a relation of the deposit of revelation with these other truths. Consequently, the magisterium of the Church, as something spiritual and supernatural, has reference to the other truths, not considered absolutely in themselves, nor even according to the relations which they have to the deposit of faith, but rather according to the relations which the deposit of faith has to these [other] truths, If these are such that from their affirmation or denial there would follow an implicit affirmation or denial of some correlative truth contained in the deposit of faith, these things are themselves implicitly revealed; and thus, properly speaking, they are not outside but inside the deposit of revelation.7
Like Bishop Garcia Martinez, Fr. Beraza insists upon the fact that there can be no such thing as an absolutely certain assent of faith based on other than the divine authority itself. He likewise makes effective use of two docuмents of the magisterium, docuмents which have not usually been given sufficient consideration in the study of this particular question.
First, he points to a statement in the Vatican Council's constitution Pastor Aeternus. The Council declared that “The Holy Ghost has not promised to Peter's successors that, with Him revealing, they might make known any new teaching, but [He has promised them] that, with Him assisting them, they might guard in a holy manner and faithfully expound the revelation handed down through the Apostles, or the deposit of faith.”8
This is obviously a serious argument against the validity of the concept of a merely ecclesiastical faith. It would be idle to imagine that there could be any such thing as an infallible definition or declaration by the Church's magisterium apart from the assistance of the Holy Ghost. And, according to the teaching of the Vatican Council itself, that help or assistance is given to the Popes (who have the same infallible teaching power as the ecclesia docens as a whole) precisely for the sake of guarding and proposing the actual doctrines which have been given to the Church as divine revelation through the Apostles.
The second of the two docuмents to which Fr. Beraza appeals so successfully is the profession of faith ordered by Pope Pius IV. In this formula the Catholic asserts his profession of and belief in all the articles of the Apostles' Creed and in each one of these articles taken individually. Likewise he states his acceptance of “the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and the rest of the observances and constitutions of the same Church,” and of the Church's own interpretation or explanation of the Scriptures. He asserts his belief in the existence of the seven Sacraments, in the character of the Mass as true and proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead, in the existence of purgatory, and in the primacy of the Roman Church. Then, in the final paragraph of the formula, the Catholic makes the following profession.
Without hesitation I accept and profess all the other things which have been proposed, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and by the oecuмenical councils, and especially by the holy Council of Trent (and by the oecuмenical Vatican Council, particularly with reference to the primacy and the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff) ; and at the same time I likewise condemn, reject, and anathematize all the teachings opposed [to the above], and every one of the heresies condemned and rejected and anathematized by the Church.9
The formula of Pope Pius IV designates the sum-total of the doctrine listed and asserted within it as “this true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can he saved.” Thus, as far as the profession itself is concerned, the acceptance of the articles of the Apostles' Creed and the assertion of belief in the teachings of the sacred canons both fall within the limits of a statement of Catholic faith.
The “sacred canons” to which the formula refers are, of course, the various pontifical declarations and definitions in which the Sovereign Pontiff has spoken authoritatively and infallibly to the faithful. Many of these declarations and definitions had to do with truths which fell within the secondary, rather than within the primary, object of the Church's infallible magisterium. Obviously the “constitutions” of the Church, which the Tridentine profession of faith mentions, and which are likewise accepted in an act of “true Catholic faith,” may also contain some declarations about theological conclusions and dogmatic facts, as well as statements or judgments about formally revealed truths.
It cannot be denied that Fr. Beraza and Bishop Garcia Martinez have offered cogent and impressive arguments against the validity of the concept of a merely ecclesiastic faith.
The second point:
“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 circuмstantial 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.
The speculative argument is very strong and in my opinion is difficult to refute. It was based solely upon speculative grounds that Archbishop Lefebvre rejected the formulation calling it a
“dangerous formulation” and “sheer trickery.” He said,
“They (Modernist in Rome) are no doubt going to have these texts signed by the seminarians of the Fraternity of St. Peter before their ordination and by the priests of the Fraternity, who will then find themselves in the obligation of making an official act of joining the Conciliar Church.” Well, what happened? The signed the Profession of Faith and they have not made another critical comment regarding the conciliar revolution.
My argument is not only speculative but practical. The Mission which Fr. Waters is a member was charged with heresy for rejecting specific acts of the authentic ordinary magisterium. This was appealed to the Holy Father through the CDF and the CDF replied with the 1989 Profession of Faith. You refer to this as “simply silence.” The letters between Fr. Waters and the CDF are posted on the Mission web page. The non-canonical Excommunication of Fr. Waters was followed by the illegal non-canonical administrative laicization process. If you call this “simply silence,” you need to have your hearing checked.
Drew
Topic: SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX (Read 63284 times)