It is time some SSPX members start asking +Fellay when did he signed the (1989) "Profession of Faith" and "Oath of Fidelity" (obviously long before Argentinian approval) because they are in deep trouble now. On his recent private meeting with Francis, +Fellay was "encouraged to establish a seminary in Italy".

Pope to extend validity of confessions of SSPX priests beyond Year of Mercy

Several thousand people were assembled in Puy-en-Velay (Haute-Loire) during the pilgrimage organized this weekend by the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X on the occasion of the jubilee year celebrated in  this Mecca of Christendom. During the Mass celebrated Saturday in St. Paulien, Father Christian Bouchacourt, District Superior of France, said that this pilgrimage constituted a prayer for (France). He noted that many saints are linked to this holy place (Joan of Arc, Louis-Marie Grignon de Montfort, John Francis Regis, etc.) and urged the faithful to recite the Angelus  every day for Muslims so they can know, love and serve Jesus Christ. [...]

Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the SSPX,  celebrated the Mass for Good Shepherd Sunday with his two Assistants General.

A few days earlier he had met with Pope Francis during a very positive meeting which strengthened ties between the Holy See and the Society founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Despite the publication of the Post-Synodal Exhortation, which "makes us cry," he revealed some "happiness" from the interview

    The Pope confirmed that the SSPX was Catholic in his eyes
    He confirmed that he never would condemn it
    He confided that he wishes to expand the faculties of the SSPX, starting with the authorization of its priests to validly hear confession.

Finally, during the talks in Rome, Bishop Fellay was encouraged to establish a seminary in Italy

Emphasis mine.
 





   

It is you who err, drew.  CF. Nishant's comments.  He's exactly right.

Pax Vobis, I suggest you read the entirety of this article, The doctrinal authority of Papal Encyclicals, www dot catholic apologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

With regard to non-infallible statements in Encyclicals, it is the common theological teaching that

"the faithful are bound in conscience to accord these letters not only the tribute of respectful silence, but also a definite and sincere internal religious assent. To this end many of them, like Fr. De Groot, apply to the encyclicals a teaching with the eminent and brilliant Dominic Palmieri had developed about the Catholic attitude towards non-infallible teaching in the Church. Pegues, in his Revue thomiste article, makes this application with his usual clarity. Hence it follows that the authority of the encyclicals is not at all the same as that of the solemn definition, the one properly so-called. The definition demands an assent without reservation and makes a formal act of faith obligatory. The case of the encyclical’s authority is not the same. This authority (of the papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great. It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church.  Ultimately, however, this assent is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith. Strictly speaking, it is possible that this teaching (proposed in the encyclical letter) is subject to error. There are a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be. But, absolutely speaking, it could be, because God does not guarantee it as He guarantees the teaching formulated by way of definition"

The additional phrase does not change the meaning. The reason Pope Pius XII says "He who hears you, hears Me" applies to statements of the Ordinary Magisterium is because of what theologians infallible security. Fenton explains, "The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility." Contrary to what you and Drew claim, even in the excerpt you quote above, the Pope clearly says he is talking about statements where the Pope does not exercise the supreme power of his teaching authority. This rules out infallible statements and proves the Holy Father is talking about non-infallible statements, which nonetheless are a priori known to be endowed by God with infallible security.

It is true that Pius only said “ordinary” and not “ordinary and universal”

Drew, you are incorrect, Pope Pius XII is clearly talking about the non-infallible Authentic Ordinary Magisterium and not the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Your quarrel is with him because he says that what the Pope or Church teaches, even non-infallibly, still requires consent.

The teaching of Diekamp was cited earlier, “These non infallible acts of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff do not oblige one to believe, and do not postulate an absolute and definitive subjection. But it behooves one to adhere with a religious and internal assent to such decisions, since they constitute acts of the supreme Magisterium  of the Church, and are founded upon solid natural and supernatural reasons. 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" on the very rare circuмstances in which internal assent can be suspended is along the same lines of what DV says. DV clearly says it is permissible to withhold assent and raise through the appropriate channels the difficulty in what is proposed. You complain that

But God “can neither deceive or be deceived.”  The ordinary authentic magisterim can and has done both.

In your opinion. But not in the opinion of Msgr. Fenton or several other pre-Vatican II theologians, read the portion cited above where Msgr. Fenton says "it probably never has been and it is normally certain that it will never be ... But absolutely speaking, it could be." This is what is meant by the "logic of faith".

Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter had already expounded on the nature of the assent due to non-infallible decrees from Rome, "since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure."

And this is what Pope Benedict XVI is saying in Ad Tuendam Fidem that you cite. The case of Fr. Waters you bring up proves very little, because his ordinary's accusation was not necessarily correct. Why is all this important? Because there is a right way and a wrong way to express disagreement with non-infallible statements, and what you propose is the wrong way. Wrong because it takes no account of infallible security, which is something God has given to His Church's (even non-infallible) Magisterium.

The additional phrase does not change the meaning. The reason Pope Pius XII says "He who hears you, hears Me" applies to statements of the Ordinary Magisterium is because of what theologians infallible security. Fenton explains, "The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility." Contrary to what you and Drew claim, even in the excerpt you quote above, the Pope clearly says he is talking about statements where the Pope does not exercise the supreme power of his teaching authority. This rules out infallible statements and proves the Holy Father is talking about non-infallible statements, which nonetheless are a priori known to be endowed by God with infallible security.

"Infallible Security" is nothing more than a theological pacifier.  I have respect for Fr. Fenton but I always remind myself that he was capable setting aside the literal meaning of dogma making it subject to speculations of theologians. With "Infallible Security" he ended up defending salvation by implicit desire.  When dogma is abandoned there is no sound mooring for any Catholic who becomes capable of following any error or disciplinary corruption. A fortiori, the higher the authority, the greater the fall whether it is a theologian or the pope himself.

The absurdity of "infallible security" is seen in Fr. Fenton's assurance that blind obedience will always save the day:

In doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters..... God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.

This is not true.  There is a "valid reason to discountenance non-infallible teaching authority" and that is when that authority overturns dogma.  And this is proven by the countless vocations wrecked and souls lost by obedient submission to the Vatican II disciplinary directives irrespective to its damage to the faith.  The abandonment of dogma always comes first. Now we are to believe in two types of infallibility.  One is infallibly infallible and the other is uninfallibly infallible. Theologians must believe that everyone else is stupid.  

From this "Infallible Security" you affirm that Jesus' commands that, "He who heareth you, heareth me," refers to the pope in any exercise of his authentic ordinary magisterium whatsoever.  If there are any restrictions of this "Infallible Security" no one really knows.  It is a matter open to theological speculation.  Not just in addressing questions of truth/falsehood or disciplinary matters in the category of authority/obedience, but anything.  

This is absurd.  It offends the first principles of the understanding.  It makes the human authority of the pope greater than its cause.  This is nothing but papalatry.  God alone is infallible.  Man is only infallible when he participates in the infallibility of God.  And the only known person to do so is the pope and that only in specific circuмstances.  The very dogma of papal infallibility makes this assertion heretical because the dogma itself places limits and conditions on its exercise and your "Infallible Security" does not.  The religious submission to the ordinary magisterium, described by theologians recommended by Fr. Fenton and previously quoted in this thread, is always and necessarily conditional. The very quote you cited says the same thing: "The (dogmatic) definition demands an assent without reservation and makes a formal act of faith obligatory. The case of the encyclical’s authority is not the same."  The ordinary magisterium is the authority of a man and therefore "assent without reservation" cannot be given without sin. Our submission to God is never conditional without sin.

The reason Pius XII says in Humani Generis, "He who heareth you, heareth Me" is because he is referring directly to doctrines of the ordinary and universal magisterium.  I will address this specifically below.

Quote from: Drew

But God “can neither deceive or be deceived.”  The ordinary authentic magisterim can and has done both.

In your opinion. But not in the opinion of Msgr. Fenton or several other pre-Vatican II theologians, read the portion cited above where Msgr. Fenton says "it probably never has been and it is normally certain that it will never be ... But absolutely speaking, it could be." This is what is meant by the "logic of faith".

Why limit yourself to "pre-Vatican II theologians"?  If the ordinary magisterium has never "deceived or been deceived" then what on earth are doing?  What was Archbishop Lefebvre ever doing?  There would be no justification for any traditional Catholic defending anything. Roberto de Mattei's recent article on Pope Honorius is a very nice historical summary of error by the ordinary magisterium that is unique in history.  But errors of smaller magnitude have occurred and Fr. Fenton, discussing the question of papal infallibility, gives several examples of errors in papal docuмents in the exercise of the ordinary magisterium.  

But why this article of Fr. Fenton?  Any why this misquotation?  Yes, even your quote here is wrong.  Fr. Fenton did not say what you are attributing to him.  Fr. Fenton is quoting another theologian's opinion.  I have read Msgr. Fenton’s article, The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals, and it was worthwhile to review the article.  I recommend its reading to everyone, including yourself.  If your purpose of recommending this article concerns the nature of religious submission to the ordinary magisterium, then my question for you is, "So what"?  It is not even Fr. Fenton's best article on the subject, it adds nothing to the discussion that has not already been admitted, and the purpose and general thesis of this article lies elsewhere.  

The argument in this discussion thread concerns the nature of religious submission as understood by Fr. Fenton, and other authoritative theologians he references, which is described always and everywhere as necessarily a qualified, conditional submission, compared with the nature of the novel religious submission taught in Vatican II's which calls for submission of the mind and will, or as Lumen Gentium say, submission of the soul to the "authentic magisterium."  Are they one and same kind? There is both speculative and practical evidence that they are not.  But the first clue that they are not the same is the fact that Pius XII's Humani Generis was never authoritatively referenced in Lumen Gentium or in the two CDF docuмents on the question.  But the new understanding of religious submission is to the authentic magisterium, under oath, the violation of which is a canonical crime and punished with an unspecified penalty.  Why? And why now?  Any why is no used in an a Catholic creed as an article of faith and the one and only condition from the CDF to reconcile schismatics and heretics to the Church?  But if you and others believe that there are the same then you should have no problem taking the 1989 Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity if you are a priest and if you are a layman you should be unwilling to deal with any priest who has not done so.  

Which introduces the next possibility for your bringing up this article: If your purpose in quoting from this article of Msgr. Fenton is regarding the Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals then we have another problem.  How is it possible to say that, "He who heareth you, heareth Me," applies to the ordinary magisterium and not conclude that every act of the ordinary magisterium is necessarily infallible? "Infallible Security"?

The purpose of Msgr. Fenton's article is to examine various theological schools of thought regarding the authority of papal encyclicals.  This points made in this article can also be applied to  Motu proprios, apostolic letters,  apostolic constitutions, addresses, sermons, or whatever means the pope chooses to exercise his authentic magisterium to address doctrinal or moral questions by virtue of his ordinary magisterium. In this article Fr. Fenton recognizes three distinct groups with regard to the question at hand.  

“In this examination we shall consider (A) those writers who stress the non-infallible character of the teachings contained in these docuмents and then (B) those who insist upon the fact that some of the statements propounded in the encyclicals can be or actually are infallible pronouncements. We shall begin, however, with a list of (C) those authors who make no adequate mention of the encyclicals in their treatment of the Church’s magisterium.”

In the article Fr. Fenton names more than thirty theologians representing the different schools and quotes many of them.  He makes it clear that all the cited theologians referenced are of the highest reputation and very well respected by himself, but he ultimately sides with one group against the other two.  If this was a shooting match only one group actually even aiming at the target.  When you randomly select a quote from Fr. Fenton's articles you cannot be sure where it is coming from.  RJS did the same thing you are doing earlier in this thread when he quoted from Fr. Fenton's article on the question of Ecclesiastical Faith.  

The theologian you quoted (and attributed to Fr. Fenton) was from group A.   Group A does not believe that infallibility can be predicated with regard to papal encyclicals.  So I will make that assumption that this is the opinion that you are defending against my claim that infallible questions are address in these docuмents.  But what does it matter because you have the fall back position of "Infallible Security."  SO you believe that they are and are not infallible at the same time.  

Which brings me back to the reason Pius XII says, "He who heareth you, heareth Me."  It is because he is referring directly to doctrines that concern the ordinary and universal magisterium in Humani Generis and not for some stupid invention of "Infallible Security."  Fr. Fenton concludes his article agreeing with group B, that is, he also believes that encyclicals can and do contain infallible doctrine and not just virtue of "Infallible Security."

Msgr. Fenton is correct.  They do and just one easy example should suffice: In Mystici Corporis Pius XII teaches that there is an identity between the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church.  He appeals directly to our Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles for this doctrine.  

Mystici Corporis[/i]]The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself. [.....] If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers. Pius XII, Mystici Corporis

Therefore, he affirms that it is a doctrine of divine and apostolic tradition.  It is therefore a universal doctrine of the Catholic Church being taught be the ordinary magisterium in an encyclical.  We know be divine and Catholic faith that the ordinary and universal magisterium is infallible.  This infallible doctrine is referred to again in Humani Generis where Pope Pius XII specifically says that some believe that they are not bound to this doctrine.  

Humani Generis[/i]]Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.  Pius XII, Humani Generis

Again, the pope appeals to "sources of Revelation" for this doctrinal teaching.  It is therefore a universal matter of belief always and everywhere among the faithful. This is one of the specific examples that Pius XII references when he quotes our Lord saying, "He who heareth you, heareth Me."  This is NOT simply the ordinary magisterium speaking.  IT is the ordinary and universal which is known by divine and Catholic faith to be infallible.  Let's not hear anymore about "Infallible Security" when we have dogma on infallibility to rely upon.

Lumen Gentium, the third paragraph addendum in the 1989 Profession of Faith, and the two docuмents from the CDF explaining this addendum do not reference Humani Generis.  The reason is that Humani Generis is teaching that the Catholic conscience must give an unqualified assent to doctrinal teachings of the “ordinary and universal magisterium.”  Lumen Gentium teaches an unqualified submission of the soul to the authentic magisterium and no reference is made whatsoever to “universal” teachings.  And why?  Because, Vatican II wants to impose the very novelties that are censored on Humani Generis.  The word "novelty" and its cognates occur six times in the docuмent and are always censored. The encyclical opposes novelties against the universal teachings of the Church.

Anything a pope does is an act of the Authentic Magisterium. The term has no more meaning than identifying the legitimate holder of the office.  It is the “authentic magisterium” that is address in the 1989 Profession of Faith.  Furthermore, any pope can use any means of communication he chooses to engage the “ordinary magisterium,” which is his teaching authority based upon his grace of state.  Whenever the “ordinary magisterium” is engaged to teach on “universal” questions of doctrine and/or morals, he is then engaging the “ordinary and universal magisterium,” and when he does so we know, as an article of divine and Catholic faith, that the teaching is infallible.  Any form of communication to teach can address at one and the same time matters of the “ordinary magisterium” and the “ordinary and universal magisterium.”  It is absurd to say that a pope in his ordinary teaching authority speaks for God so that whatever he says is what God says, that is, “He who heareth you, heareth Me.”  For God cannot error and any pope in his “ordinary magisterium” can err.  A “theologian” can lie but a “theologian” cannot make God a liar.

Pope Pius IX in Tuas Libenter had already expounded on the nature of the assent due to non-infallible decrees from Rome, "since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure."

This reference has nothing to do with our discussion.  Cardinal Manning defended the promulgation of the dogma of papal infallibility and said at the same time that many if not most of the Catholic doctrines of our faith had never been dogmatized.  He wanted a lot more dogmas from Vatican I than he got but regardless if a Catholic doctrine had be dogmatized or not, he still taught the fullness of the Catholic faith and held that it was necessary for salvation.  The belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ was not dogmatized until three hundred years after the first Pentecost anyone who denied it before it was dogmatized could not obtain salvation.  What is your point in this reference?  This refers specifically to teachings of the ordinary and universal magisterium which you do not even recognize in an encyclical.  But don't worry - you have your pacifier  - "Infallible Security."

And this is what Pope Benedict XVI is saying in Ad Tuendam Fidem that you cite. The case of Fr. Waters you bring up proves very little, because his ordinary's accusation was not necessarily correct. Why is all this important? Because there is a right way and a wrong way to express disagreement with non-infallible statements, and what you propose is the wrong way. Wrong because it takes no account of infallible security, which is something God has given to His Church's (even non-infallible) Magisterium.

Benedict/Ratziner denies the theological/philosophical concept of substance.  It necessarily follows and he has specifically denied belief in transubstantiation.  His entire hermeneutic of reform vs. hernemeutic of rupture is predicated upon his neo-modernist philosophy/ theology which overthrows the concept of substance and replaces it with the accident of relationship.  The modernist principle of evolution in changing relationships underlies everything he has written.  There is no such thing as dogma as dogma in his system.  So just to what do you think he wants to bind the Catholic conscience with unconditional submission of the mind and will? "Infallible Security"?

As for the case of Fr. Waters, the less you say, the more intelligent you will look.  So there is a "right way" and a "wrong way" to defend the faith and you pretend to know the "right way"?  You have no theological justification not to enter into recognized canonical relationship with the Novus Ordo Church.  Just make your oath of unconditional obedience to the authentic magisterium and crawl under your "Infallible Security Blanket" and don't worry about a thing.  We will wake you when the fight is over.

Drew