“"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.
“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. “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.
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. “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.
“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."
“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 Jews as Jews, Muslims as Muslims, Protestants as Protestants, Buddhists as Buddhists, etc., etc., etc., obtain salvation as Jews, 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
Topic: SECRET SPECIAL CHAPTER OF NEO FSSPX (Read 63293 times)