This discussion in this thread concerns two points that must be properly understood to defend the Faith.
The first point is the 1989 Profession of Faith which is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed with the addenda of three propositions. This first two are dogmas. The third is not. This Profession of Faith is the one and only non-negotiable requirement by the CDF to regularize the SSPX with Rome. It was the one and only non-negotiable condition offered to Fr. Samuel Waters by the CDF for the charges of “schism” and “heresy” made by his local ordinary. This Profession of Faith was regarded with contempt by Archbishop Lefebvre.
The third addendum concerns the demand by solemn oath for the unqualified “submission of the mind and will,” or as phrased in Lumen Gentium (LG), which is the direct reference for the addendum, “submission of the soul,” to man as man. This is a violation of the First Commandment.
Ladislaus and RJS are correct on this, while Marie and Drew are mistaken, here is Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis describe the nature of the assent due to the Ordinary Authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs, "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth Me"
No reference or citation for this novel teaching in LG was made at Vatican II to Pope Pius XII and Humani Generis (HG). The CDF under Ratzinger in his two documents explaining the “religious submission of the mind and will” also makes no reference to HG. The first to make the connection, as far as I know, was Archbishop Guido Pozzo in an interview with Jean-Marie Dumont on October 20, 2014 that was published in the French magazine, Famille Chrétienne. So you are repeating the opinion of the front man at the CDF who has repeatedly said that the 1989 Profession of Faith is the one and only non-negotiable condition for regularizing the SSPX.
The reason that LG and the CDF did not reference HG as an authority for its teaching is because they are not talking about the same thing. The examples provided by Pope Pius XII in HG are examples of the ‘ordinary and universal magisterium’ (such as, inerrancy of scripture, identity of the Church and the Mystical Body of Christ, the fixed meaning of the term, substance
, that the world had a beginning, the existence of original sin, etc., etc., etc.) and not the ‘authentic ordinary magisterium’. The ordinary and universal magisterium is always infallible and that is why Pius XII specifically references our Lord’s admonition, “He who heareth you, heareth Me,” which can only be said if there is no possibility of error. It is true that Pius only said “ordinary” and not “ordinary and universal” but the context should have made that clear to you and to Pozzo.
Here it is in Lumen Gentium,"Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra" followed by a simple explanation of the rare circumstances in which temporarily withholding assent is justified, and the nature of the submission to the Magisterium that must be manifested during the time while the theologian expresses his doubts and questions through the appropriate channels.
The fact of the matter is that an oath is appended to and required from a Profession of Faith in which every article in the Profession is a dogma except the third proposition in question. This proposition is proposed with no qualifications whatsoever. The oath concerns what the words say and an oath disavows any mental reservation or qualification.
Furthermore, we have the specific example by the CDF applying the 1989 Profession of Faith to Fr. Samuel Waters and the Mission regarding the formal charge of “heresy” and “schism” made by the local ordinary for “dissent from the authentic magisterium.” No qualifications as specifically made to the CDF by Fr. Waters were admitted. Although Ratzinger at the CDF said, “A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore ‘tuto doceri non potest,’” (Ratzinger, Ad Tuendam Fidem), the CDF applied dissent from the ordinary authentic magisterium by Fr. Waters as if were heresy and not merely "erroneous." I repeat: Fr. Waters was accused of heresy for "dissent from the authentic magisterium" and the reply from the CDF was the 1989 Profession of Faith. This constitutes prima facie
evidence for the proper understanding of this question.
"Donum Veritatis also allows that even if "not habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments," "some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies," and withholding assent is allowed for a theologian "who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching." In such "even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions," and is to "refrain from giving untimely public expression to them," and "avoid turning to the mass media," but with a humble and teachable spirit it is his duty "to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented," with "an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him." prayerfully trusting "that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail."
Donum Veritatis, on religious vocation of theologians, references LG and says that the “religious submission of will and intellect... 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.”
That is, the appeal is not to any inherent intelligibility to propositions by the ordinary authentic magisterium but to its authority alone in the sense that we believe the truths of our faith on the authority of God alone. But God “can neither deceive or be deceived.” The ordinary authentic magisterim can and has done both.
When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. (23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith..... Not without reason did the Second Vatican Council emphasize the indissoluble bond between the "sensus fidei" and the guidance of God's People by the (authentic) magisterium of the Pastors. These two realities cannot be separated. (Cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 12.) (23) Cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, n. 25; Code of Canon Law, can. 752. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, CDF, Donum Veritatis, May 1990
The permission of dissent that you cite is permitted to “theologians,” must be in the private forum alone, is merely theoretical permitting no practical descent, ultimately requires obedience in the external forum, presupposes our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are merely disciplinary matters, presupposes no necessary relationship between our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions and the faith they make known, and in the final analysis requires submission in the internal forum without offering definitive dogmatic declarations to resolve any teaching held to be contrary to the faith. This “dissent” is meaningless especially in light of Fr. Waters case before the CDF.
The pre-Vatican II theology manuals that clearly explain how the religious submission to the Ordinary Authentic Magisterium differs from the irrevocable assent of divine Catholic Faith to the infallible statements of the Pope or Church have been cited earlier.
The pre-Vatican II theologians, as you say, “explain how the religious submission to the ordinary authentic magisterium differs from the irrevocable assent of divine Catholic Faith.” That is, they always say that the religious submission is necessarily a qualified submission. The problem is the 1989 Profession of Faith does not. It is not an oversight.
There is a reason why the 1989 Profession of Faith is the one and only non-negotiable condition for recognition of the SSPX. Do you think Archbishop Lefebvre was ignorant of the implications when he said:
Question: What do you think of the instruction of Cardinal Ratzinger setting up the Oath of Fidelity which includes a Profession of Faith?
Archbishop Lefebvre: Firstly, there is the Credo which poses no problems. The Credo has remained intact. And, so the first and second sections raise no difficulties either. They are well-known things from a theological point of view. It is the third section which is very bad. What it means in practice is lining up on what the bishops of the world today think. In the preamble, besides, it is clearly indicated that this third section has been added because of the spirit of the Council. It refers to the Council and the so-called Magisterium of today, which, of course, is the Magisterium of the followers of the Council. To get rid of the error, they should have added, "...insofar as this Magisterium is in full conformity with Tradition."
As it stands this formula is dangerous. It demonstrates clearly the spirit of these people with whom it is impossible to come to an agreement. It is absolutely ridiculous and false, as certain people have done, to present this Oath of Fidelity as a renewal of the Anti-Modernist Oath suppressed in the wake of the Council. All the poison in this third section which seems to have been made expressly in order to oblige those who have rallied to Rome to sign this profession of Faith and to state their full agreement with the bishops. It is as if in the times of Arianism one had said, "Now you are in agreement with everything that all the Arian bishops think."
No, I am not exaggerating. It is clearly expressed in the introduction. It is sheer trickery. One may ask oneself if in Rome they didn't mean in this way to correct the text of the protocol. Although that protocol is not satisfactory to us, it still seems too much in our favor in Article III of the Doctrinal Declaration because it does not sufficiently express the need to submit to the Council.
And so, I think now they are regaining lost ground. They 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.
Differently from in the Protocol, in these new texts there is a submission to the Council and all the Conciliar bishops. That is their spirit and no one will change them.
The second argument in this thread concerns the discussion of the nature of “ecclesiastical faith” and its formal objects. The arguments of Msgr. Joseph Fenton are defended where he makes a compelling case that mere ecclesiastical faith does not even exist. This, like the 1989 Profession of Faith, is necessary to understand for the defense of the Faith against modernist errors. They together constitute the principle weapons be which Modernists destroy the Faith and then impose their errors on the faithful.