I'm not sure that I like the term "conditional" for religious assent.  To me that sounds as if it's giving individuals a little too much discretion in taking or leaving various teachings of the Magisterium.  Non-Absolute might be a better term; I think that we must leave intact the grave presumption of truth as Msgr. Fenton characterized it.

I simply cannot buy that suddenly religious submission has been transmuted to mean the assent of faith; some of these Vatican authorities still know what they're talking about when it comes to basic theological concepts like this.

Was there a secret General Chapter?

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.

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:

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 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

Yes, I know that some authors use the term "conditional".  No doubt they're thinking of the Latin, which has more the sense of non-absolute (as in the sense of simpliciter vs. secundum quid).  But in English it comes across as our being free to take it or leave it based on our private judgment.

Contrast that with Diekamp cited by RJS:

The obligation to adhere to them can only begin to terminate in case, and this only occurs very rarely, a man fit to judge such a question, after a repeated and very diligent analysis of all the arguments, arrives at the conviction that an error has been introduced into the decision.

English use of the term "conditional" doesn't bring with it this very important connotation.

Quote from: drew

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. ...  Fr. Fenton published an excellent article, The Question of Ecclesiastical Faith, AER, April 1953 ...  

I am very familiar with Fenton’s opinion on this matter.  The opinion Fenton adheres to is the minority opinion.

"Minority Opinion"?  You mean, Ecclesiastical Faith (EF) as a Majority Opinion is very popular, in vogue, the most modern theological trend of the day.  You are talking about a term and theological concept that no Church Father and very few Church Doctors ever heard.  

(Ecclesiastical Faith) is manifest from even a superficial study of the history of Catholic theology that the notion of a certain and absolutely firm acceptance of Catholic teachings, motivated by the authority of the Church and not by the authority of God as the Revealer, became accepted during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

The purpose of Msgr. Fenton's article is to bury the term which he clearly thinks is unsupportable.  Msgr. Fenton accepting the authoritative opinion of others says that EF is "the firm and certain acceptance of a teaching on the authority of the Church which proposes that teaching and not on the authority of God Himself."  What Msgr. Fenton rejects on principle is the very idea that it is possible for human authority to declare anything "infallible."  He is absolutely correct.  That should be evident.

Consider this, the objects of EF are supposed to be infallible truths.  Only a truth of God can claim infallibility because infallibility is an attribute of God alone.  It is an attribute of the Church only because it is God’s Church which is both a divine and human institution.  The human pope is only accidentally infallible when he engages the Church’s attribute of infallibility under specific conditions as stipulated in the dogma on papal infallibility from Vatican I Council.

The “Minority Opinion” defended by Fr. Fenton and referenced in my citation is the correct one.  The minority opinion Fr. Fenton defends is derived from deductive reasoning from dogma, that is, the argument is deduced from the most certain knowledge that man can have - divine and Catholic faith.  The “Majority Opinion” is not.  The former is a reasoned truth from infallible premises.  The latter is human inductive theological speculation beginning from the particular and arguing to the general principle.  Why would anyone favor a reasoned necessary conclusion from divine truths over a human theological speculation that is only a few hundred years old?  What necessarily follows is that the objects of EF become contingent truths that can be done away with by the same authority that called them into being.

In fact, in the very article you cited, he himself admits that “a great number of the manuals of sacred theology currently in use” defend the notion that “the assent due to these [non formally- revealed] teachings is that of a strictly ecclesiastical faith.” The question has not been resolved, and therefore one I free to hold to either opinion.  But to claim that the common opinion "is a serious error", is itself extremely rash.  Have you studied this in any depth?  I could cite plenty of the manuals Fr. Fenton alludes to which teach that only ecclesiastical faith is owed to non formally revealed truths, which have been definitively proposed by the Church.

Like I said, it is a very popular modern opinion.  What I will explain later is why this very popular modern opinion has a great responsibility for the success of Vatican II and the conciliarist revolution.

But what is important is that object of faith in question, are not truths that has been formally contained in the revealed deposit (Scripture or Tradition), which was closed with the death of the last apostle.

You said: “All infallible objects of faith have God as their source of revelation without exception.” If that is your position, do you believe that the “final approval of a religious order” is a truth revealed by God?  Is it a revealed truth that Pope Alexander VI and John XXII were true Popes?  Neither of these truths are contained in scripture and Tradition.  And public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.  Yet the Church’s infallibility is commonly believed to embrace these “secondary objects” of infallibility, which are not revealed in Scripture and Tradition.

It is commonly believed that the Church’s infallibility extends to these non formally revealed truths, but since they are clearly in a different category than truths contained within the revealed deposit, they are assented to with a different kind of faith.  That is the common opinion.  But again, the question of ecclesiastical faith has not been resolved by the Church.

Fr. Fenton and the theological experts he references deny that mere EF even exists.  Bishop Fidel Martinez' article is entitled: EF - A Modern Misconception.  Be that as it may, even those who hold to the idea of mere EF do not agree on its exact meaning.  The reason for this is that they do not agree on the formal objects of EF.  Even such claims as human infallibility in the “final approval of a religious order” is not agreed upon.

Here is the section of the article you cited in which Fenton acknowledges that ecclesiastical faith is taught in a “great number of manuals of sacred theology” in his day.  

Fenton: “Thus the supporters of the fides ecclesiastica represent it precisely as the assent which must be given to an infallible declaration or definition of the Church about one of these truths not revealed in itself but still intimately connected with the content of divine public revelation.  Within this category they list theological conclusions in the strict sense of the term (truths which are only virtually revealed, as distinct from those revealed formally, even though in an implicit manner), dogmatic facts, pertinent teachings within the field of philosophy, final approval of religious orders, and the canonization of Saints. Unquestionably the magisterium of the Church can issue and does issue absolutely irrevocable and infallible declarations and decisions on these subjects. These authoritative statements unquestionably demand from the faithful completely certain and irrevocable assent. A great number of the manuals of sacred theology current in our time assert that, in such a case, the assent due to these teachings is that of a strictly ecclesiastical faith.”

Msgr. Fenton freely admits that EF is a common opinion and his article is intended to give a balanced critical analysis by examining the strength of the arguments on both sides.  When he is done, it is evident that mere EF cannot stand the light of day.  A bad idea always has bad consequences.  So let's examine the consequences of belief in a mere EF which is a more popular belief today than it was in 1953.

The immemorial traditions of our Church have been repudiated by the conciliarist Church, our neo-Iconoclasts.  How were they overthrown?  They were reduced to objects of merely human EF and categorize as a matters subject to the disciplinary discretion of the Church.  If objects of EF are "the firm and certain acceptance of a teaching on the authority of the Church which proposes that teaching and not on the authority of God Himself," then they are necessarily contingent human truths.  If the Church thinks the objects of EF are historical, contingent truths which have become outdated and no longer speak to the modern mind, then she can change them into other more relevant contemporary truths.  These truths then can be regulated as merely Church disciplinary matters.  Of course, there will be those who reject these innovation so the conciliarist Church constructed the novel 1989 Profession of Faith with an oath of faith in the submission to the authentic (ordinary) magisterium of the pope in a Catholic Credo.  It becomes the one and only unconditional non-negotiable condition for holding any authority in the conciliarist Church and the means to force compliance with the innovations.  It is now the rule of faith to restore "heretics" to the conciliarist Church.  It is not a dogma but in the conciliarist mind.

Msgr. Fenton presents the arguments against the very idea of EF by three (who he considers) eminent theologians: Bishop Garcia Martinez, Fr. Blaise Beraza, S.J. and Fr. Francisco Marin-Sola.  The arguments are grounded in the dogmas from Vatican I On Faith and Pope Pius IV's Tridentine Profession of Faith.

In combatting the objective validity of this notion, Fr Marin-Sola made use of some interesting arguments. He employed eleven distinct demonstrations to support his conclusion that all the truths accepted as completely certain by reason of the Church's teaching are believed with an act of genuine divine faith. Several of these demonstrations are taken from the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas. Some of them apply directly to theological conclusions, while others have reference to all the truths classified as within the secondary object of the Church's infallible magisterium.

Outstanding among these proofs are those based upon the following contentions:
1) There is no such thing as an infallibly certain and true faith other than that which is based on the authority of God.
2) What is revealed mediately or virtually is truly something spoken by God It is an explanation of His teaching.
3) The man who denies (obstinately) a truth proposed infallibly by the Church is a heretic, and the sin of heresy necessarily involves a contradiction of the divine message itself.
4) The infallible teaching of the Church cannot propose any new doctrine, but only an explanation of the deposit of public divine revelation. [.......]

Thus, the argument of Fr . Marin-Sola is quite apposite. If he can show (as I believe that he has shown), that it is impossible to have the sin of heresy apart from an obdurate contradiction of divinely revealed truth proposed as such by the Catholic Church, he has won his point.

The argument based on the first of the four reasons I have cited as used by Fr. Marin-Sola is obviously powerful, and, it would seem, ineluctable. That based on the fourth of these reasons is likewise convincing. Actually, it is substantially the argument based on an appeal to the text of the Vatican Council and of the Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV.

The second of these contentions, however, seems to form the basis not only for a proof, but also for a highly acceptable statement or exposition of Fr. Marin-Sola's teaching. In the last analysis, if statements set forth in an authoritative and infallible manner by the magisterium of the Catholic Church are to be accepted on divine faith, it can only be by reason of the fact that God Himself has taught these truths. And, in order to see how a teaching like a dogmatic fact can really enter and has really entered into the fabric of divine public revelation, we must carefully examine the very nature of the revealed message itself.

They did not quote St. Pius X which is most pertinent.

“They (the modernists) exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of Tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority.  But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those ‘who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind.... or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church’; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: ‘We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by every one of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.’ Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: ‘I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.’”  St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominid Gregis

Msgr. Fenton goes into some detail what the "ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church" refers which the EF people reduce to a mere human authority.  Take, for example, the most important of the immemorial ecclesiastical traditions, the Roman rite of Mass.   It is not and never has been a mere object of Church discipline but that is where the idea of EF has taken us.  

“If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be..... changed to other new rites by any pastor of the churches whomsoever : let him be anathema” Council of Trent, Den. 856

This is a dogma.  It is a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.

Fr. Waters and Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission have made a public profession of divine and Catholic faith in our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions.  We have refused to consider them as mere objects of human EF but hold them as necessary attributes of the faith which make it known and communicable to others.  Since God commands the faithful to make public professions of faith and to worship Him in the public forum, every Catholic possesses a right to these immemorial ecclesiastical traditions that perfectly manifest the faith we hold in the internal forum.

The 1989 Profession of Faith is the means to overturn divine and Catholic Faith.  It is impossible to take this Profession without offending God.  Fr. Waters and the Mission have said this to the CDF.  The reply, "study" the 1989 Profession of Faith.

Drew

The whole point of this profession so called, is to force acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and its doctrinal corruptions which are un-Catholic, heterodox and heretical.
Therefore there is no need at all to argue what the nuances of submission might mean as this affair has no grounds upon which it can call for such acceptance or submission.
There is only one option and that is to reject it as a whole and to make no concession to it as if it were legitimate.
The argument about it being "pastoral" does not hold because the claim of this distinction is used to cover the fact that its"pastoral suggestions" are the direct tools of actively subverting the Church's dogmatic teaching, its Traditions and Its practice. This leading directly to the undermining of the Church's primary mission and Her highest law of the Salvation of Souls. This is a long established fact.

This false council is alien to Catholic Tradition, it is alien to sound Catholic doctrine, and it is anathema to the Catholic Religion.  No one need inquire further about it once they know this.

I agree with J.Paul and with covet truth.

Modernism can never be pastoral.

Quote from: Drew

 “"Minority Opinion"?  You mean, Ecclesiastical Faith (EF) as a Majority Opinion is very popular, in vogue, the most modern theological trend of the day.”

No, I mean the common opinion of the Church’s approved theologians.  Nothing about being in vogue or the trend of the day.  It is extremely rash to denigrate the common theological opinion, which is taught (as Fenton said) in “very many” theological manuals which have been used in the formation of priests for generations.  Even Fr. Fenton did not explicitly reject the teaching, but only gave credence to the minority opinion.   Have you studied this issue in any depth?  And can you name a single pre-Vatican II manual that rejects ecclesiastical faith, as you do based on your own private judgment?

You said, "Minority Opinion" not "common opinion".  If you are offering a clarification of your post, you should simply say so.  In fact, I identified EF as a "common opinion" in my post.  And it is a common opinion that has only been a generally accepted theological term since the eighteenth century at best.  The Church is 2000 years old.  Still Msgr. Fenton says that it is "one of the most ardently debated subjects of recent times."  And what is specifically debated?  Msgr. Fenton, and the three eminent theologians he references and agrees with, deny that mere EF even exists!  Have you studied this issue at all?  I have a public letter written to my local ordinary and forwarded to Rome over 15 years ago on this subject.  

(Ecclesiastical Faith) is manifest from even a superficial study of the history of Catholic theology that the notion of a certain and absolutely firm acceptance of Catholic teachings, motivated by the authority of the Church and not by the authority of God as the Revealer, became accepted during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Note carefully.  EF is a truth that has a "certain and absolutely firm acceptance" and it does not have "the authority of God as the Revealer."  EF believes in the existence of infallible truths that do not have "God as Revealer."  The very existence of this theological speculation is what is in question.

Quote from: Drew

 “The purpose of Msgr. Fenton's article is to bury the term which he clearly thinks is unsupportable.”

Where does Fenton say the purpose of his article is to “bury” to common opinion, as opposed to merely presenting a case for the minority opinion?

The word "bury" is my attribution.  It is not in quotation marks in my previous post so that should have been obvious.  The arguments marshaled by Msgr. Fenton concern the very existence of merely EF.  Msgr. Fenton considers the arguments against the very existence of EF as "ineluctable."  If you end up demonstrating that it does not exist, you have effectively "buried" it.

Quote from: Drew

 “Consider this, the objects of EF are supposed to be infallible truths.  Only a truth of God can claim infallibility because infallibility is an attribute of God alone.”

Your sentences is confused.  Objects of ecclesiastical faith are non formally revealed truths that can be proposed infallibly by the Church.

Confused?  What don't you understand?  Are you denying that "infallibility is an attribute of God alone"?  IF so, say it and we can refocus the discussion.
Let's start at the beginning.  Those who believe in the existence of EF believe that the Church can propose formal objects of infallible faith that must necessarily be believed for salvation that do not have "God as Revealer" either explicitly or implicitly.  

Can the Church infallibly propose a truth that is not formally contained in the revealed deposit?  If you say no, you are limiting the object of infallibility to the primary object alone, and thereby excluding the secondary objects of infallibility (which is contrary to Tradition).   If you include the secondary objects as teachings that can be proposed infallibly by the Church, you must also make a distinction between the two categories of truth  - (a) truths formally contained in the revealed deposit and (b) truths not formally contained in the deposit.   Once you make this necessary distinction, you have just created a distinct formal object of faith.  And since the act is specified by its formal object, the act of faith in adhering to the two distinct objects must itself be distinct.

Furthermore, Fenton is not denying that the Church can infallibly propose these non-formally revealed truths; rather the question is, if (when they are infallibly proposed), are they are to be assented to with ecclesiastical faith or divine faith.  That is the question.  The argument of Fr. Beraza (which Fenton discusses) is the following:  

Fr. Beraza: “Whatever is revealed by God can be believed by divine faith. But it is revealed by God that the judgment of the Church, defining anything by its supreme doctrinal authority [including non-revealed truths], is infallibly true. Therefore the judgment of the Church, thus defining something to be infallibly true, can be believed with divine faith.”

The argument is not about whether the Church is infallible in proposing non-revealed truths, but whether these non-revealed truths should be believed with divine faith, since God Himself teaches that the judgment of the Church (in proposing them) is infallibly true.  Fenton continues with the following from Fr. Beraza:

Fr. Beraza: “The man who believes that the Church's judgment is true believes also that the object of that judgment is exactly what the Church judges it to be. For, to believe the Church's judgment to be true is the same thing as to believe that the object of the judgment [including non-revealed truths] is as it is represented in the judgment. If therefore you believe with divine faith that the judgment of the Church, here and now defining something, is infallibly true; by that same faith you would necessarily believe that the object of that judgment [including non-revealed truths] is exactly as it is asserted to be in that judgment by the Church.”

Personally, I find this argument unpersuasive. But the point is that those arguing against ecclesiastical faith are not limiting the object of belief to revealed truths only; they are expanding the object that must be believed with divine faith to include non formally revealed truths.

You begin this segment with inductive theological speculation.  That's not a problem but you should recognize what you are doing and admit the limitation of certainty with this method.  The problem is very simple and has been accurately defined:  Is there such a thing as EF which is the belief that the Church can propose infallible truths on her authority alone without God as Revealer?  Msgr. Fenton et al. argue that in the formally revealed divine revelation contains objects of implicit faith that the Holy Ghost leads the Church.  They argue that every object of EF is at least implicitly contained in divine revelation and therefore there is no such thing as mere EF.

The quotation from Fr. Beraza that you have cited is only one of more than a dozen arguments proposed. Fr Marin-Sola alone has 11 different arguments against the existence of mere EF.  The argument of Fr. Beraza is the weakest.  I made no reference to this argument in my post because that other arguments are so compelling.  Furthermore, Msgr. Fenton discusses the relative merits of the arguments in detail.  SO why are you wasting our time and the time with this?  

I have provided in a previous post the link to the entire article.  It is eight typewritten pages that is a brief and very clear exposition of the subject.  I hope everyone reads it and gives it the reflection the subject deserves because the implication, although lost on you, are not just very helpful in the defense of Catholic tradition but essential for doing so.

Quote from: Drew

 The “Minority Opinion” defended by Fr. Fenton and referenced in my citation is the correct one.”

Even if you personally think the minority opinion is right, declaring your personal opinion to be “the correct one” is completely rash.  Fenton himself does not go that far.  This is one of the problems in Tradition: individual laymen making rash judgments based on private judgment, and departing from the common opinion (and sometimes even unanimous opinion) of the Church’s theologians prior to Vatican II. We see this, for example, with those who depart from Tradition by rejecting BOD, which was not only the majority opinion prior to Vatican II, but the unanimous opinion.

The argument based on the first of the four reasons I have cited as used by Fr. Marin-Sola is obviously powerful, and, it would seem, ineluctable. That based on the fourth of these reasons is likewise convincing. Actually, it is substantially the argument based on an appeal to the text of the Vatican Council and of the Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV.

"Ineluctable" means, "not able to be avoided or changed."  Why?  Because, as I said before, the argument is deduced necessarily from Catholic dogma, specifically, "Vatican Council and of the Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV."  That is why the argument is "obviously powerful" and seemingly "ineluctable."

So here we come to the reason that you do not find Msgr. Fenton's et al. arguments "obviously powerful... ineluctable" is because you do not give credibility to dogma.  A necessary deduction from known truths is not "rash judgment" except to those who reject the literal meaning of dogma.  

Quote from: Drew

 “The minority opinion Fr. Fenton defends is derived from deductive reasoning from dogma, that is, the argument is deduced from the most certain knowledge that man can have - divine and Catholic faith.  The “Majority Opinion” is not.  The former is a reasoned truth from infallible premises.”

Nope.  Ecclesiastical faith is based on the distinction in the formal object which specifies the act.   If it was simply a case of the minority opinion being deduced from “the most certain knowledge that a man can have,” then the contrary teaching would not have been accepted as the majority opinion for generations.

This is covered above.  All this means is that you are not the first "theologian" who thinks understanding dogma requires a gnostic handbook of ciphers.

Quote from: Drew

 “What necessarily follows is that the objects of EF become contingent truths that can be done away with by the same authority that called them into being.”

I don’t know where you are getting this.  What you are saying is completely confused.  It’s as if you are just making things up as you go along.

Of course you don't.  This all flows from the denial of dogma.  EF contends that the Church and not God is revealer of these truths.  If the Church is the revealer of these truth and not God then they cannot be infallible.  If the Church alone without God is the revealer then the Church can change on her own authority any object of EF.  This "necessarily follows."

Quote from: Drew

 “The immemorial traditions of our Church have been repudiated by the conciliarist Church, our neo-Iconoclasts.  How were they overthrown?  They were reduced to objects of merely human EF and categorize as a matters subject to the disciplinary discretion of the Church.”

The reason the Modernists reject just about everything the Church teaches , is not because of the idea that certain doctrines are only to be assented to with ecclesiastical faith, while others are assented to with divine and Catholic Faith.  The reason they reject what the Church has always taught is because they believe in evolution of dogma. They believe the truth changes.  Therefore, they reject what was formerly taught based on the notion that the truth has evolved.  It has nothing to do with the kind of assent owed to the teachings.

If you believed dogma then the arguments against the existence of EF would have made the same impression on you that they made on Msgr. Fenton.
 
There are two reasons the SSPX has failed to defend the Catholic Faith: Firstly, they deny dogma as dogma.  That is, they do not believe that dogmas are truths directly revealed by God that form the formal objects of divine and Catholic faith. This is best exemplified in their common belief that Jєωs as Jєωs, Muslims as Muslims, Protestants as Protestants, Buddhists as Buddhists, etc., etc., etc., obtain salvation as Jєωs, Muslims, Protestants, Buddhists, etc., etc., etc. without membership in the Church, without belief in any article of divinely revealed faith, without the sacraments, without subjection to the Roman Pontiff, etc., etc., etc.

Secondly, they believe that immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are merely matters of Church discipline and can be changed be the free and independent will of the legislator.  

If there is any substantial difference between this and the Modernist belief in "evolution of dogma," it certainly did not pose a problem during the doctrinal discussions.  Once Bishop Fellay gets eveyone on board with the 1989 Profession of Faith, all the doctrinal problems will be sorted out one way or another.

Drew