In Donum Veritatis, on religious vocation of theologians, Cardinal Ratzinger references Lumen Gentium and says that the “religious submission of will and intellect (i.e.: what LG calls “the soul”)... 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.”

And this is absolutely correct.  It cannot be "simply exterior or disciplinary" ... which is proving EXACTLY what I have been saying.  He's here defining "of the will and intellect" (aka "of the soul") as being distinguished from "simply exterior or disciplinary" (i.e. -- "I'll shut up about this out of obedience to the hierarchy but I don't buy it for one second.").  And, yes, it's due to the impulse of faith due to our obligations towards the Magisterium.  That's the motivation for this submission; it's not merely "disciplinary".  You're way off base.

R&R has created this false attitude towards the Magisterium among Traditional Catholics, and it's most pernicious.

Cardinal Ratzinger accurately reflects traditional Catholic theology on this subject.

Quote from: drew

Submission of the mind and will, that is, the soul to God on the authority of God is what divine faith is.  It must necessarily be unqualified.

Simply not true, Drew.

 

“Simply not true”? What I said is a brief paraphrase but the statement is most certainly true.

“We are obliged to yield to God the revealer full submission of intellect and will by faith. This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the catholic church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.”

Even in the passages cited by MariaA from Msgr. Fenton et al, they use the expressions "internal assent" (of the soul) and "assent of the mind".  This is in fact the pre-Vatican II language of theologians ... to distinguish this assent from a mere external (of the body) assent through paying lip service only or in simply shutting up and refraining from open criticism.

 

No one is denying that Fr. Fenton et. al. described religious submission as an internal assent.  That is not in question.  These theologians also described it as a “conditional” assent, as a “prudent” assent, etc.  It is always and by all a qualified assent.  These restrictive adjectives are not present in the novel understanding of this doctrine taken from Lumen Gentium.

There's absolutely no indication in the Profession that it means anything different.

 
It is as you say “in the Profession (of faith).”  Can you provide other examples in Catholic Creeds that are offered to "heretics" for their admission to the Church that include non-dogmatic propositions grounded solely on human authority?  If there is one I am not aware of it.

And if you look at the entire context of what has been leaked regarding the talks, this traditional sense of religious submission is precisely what they had in mind.  This is the EXACT SAME MISTAKE that many sedevacantists make; they see the language in pre-Vatican II theologians regarding internal submission of the mind and will and have used that to extend the scope of infallibility beyond what has been defined by the Church.

You are repeating nothing that you have not already said.  You again claim that I am making the “EXACT SAME MISTAKE that many sedevacantists make.”  It has already been denied and I am denying it again.  Go read the previous post because you do not understand the argument or you would not be misstating it.

I have provided you with a specific case where denial of the “authentic (ordinary) magisterium” of the Church since Vatican II has been declared a “heresy” by the local ordinary.  The appeal of this judgment to the Holy Father through the CDF has been answered with, and only with, the 1989 Profession of Faith.  The implications of this fact should be evident to every traditional Catholic because they are most certainly evident to every Modernist.  The charge of “heresy” can only be ascribed to the denial of “divine and Catholic faith.”  Appeal to the Holy Father in Rome through the CDF on the charge of "heresy" was answered with the 1989 Profession of Faith.  This, as said before, constitutes prima facie evidence that Modernist Rome is treating the third addendum to the 1989 Profession of Faith as a “dogma.”  

This treatment, in my opinion, is intended to give the appearance of dogma without the substance.  The purpose of treating it as dogma is to deceive.  It is to give the appearance that divine authority has approved of the Modernist Church.  This is evidence against Sedevacantism because if the concilarist popes are not true popes, there would be nothing preventing them from dogmatizing error.  

Now you can, if you want, continue to believe that the Modernist Church regards religious submission of the mind and will to the “authentic magisterium” theologically in the same sense as Fr. Fenton and the other theologians before Vatican II held that doctrine.  But if you were one of my field commanders in a strategic operation, no matter what your previous accomplishments, I would relieve you from command because in my estimation you have no sense for the changing dynamics of the combat.  Facts have to be considered normative.

Drew

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

AJNC,

+Fellay has been dishonest even with the religious orders (Dominicans of Avrille, Braz. Benedictines and the German Carmelites. He was caught on many lies). So, he has totally discredited himself. I think +de Galarreta would have to go with +Fellay to Rome because he is the one that handled the talks with the Romans. My assumption is that if the two assistants are eager to go to Rome, so is +dG. If he has objections to it, he should have spoken after Fr. Pfluger made it clear the train to Rome is leaving. As far as +TM, my impression is that they are not leveling with him but is clear from his last talk that he is not going to Rome. He calls those who advise going to Rome "bad friends" and warns about them.

+TM may be the reason why the SSPX is coming to Rome through the back door (Argentina), as someone who has something to hide but from his last interview, he has gone the whole hog. I was delighted to hear Fr. Cyprian's June sermon. After listening to it, it is clear to me that he will not go to Rome. His speaking so emphatically at this time when +Fellay is showing his reform of the reform colors is no coincidence and very encouraging. MO.

MA, I agree with what you say about Bp Fellay. But take a look at this extract from the editorial of the just departed SSPX-UK Superior in that District's July-August Bulletin.

http://sspx.co.uk/newsletter_2015_16_julaug.pdf

Bishop de Galarreta’s sermon
The recent departures from the Society of Father Brendan King and Father Giaco-
mo Ballini are truly regrettable, not least because they are based upon the fear of a false deal with the Roman authorities, something which has not happened and, please God, will never, happen. The following extract from Bishop de Galarreta’s sermon given in Athlone, Dun Laoghaire, Liverpool, and Edinburgh, at the occasion of the recent Confirmations, highlighted this very point:
“The triple office conferred by the Sacrament of Confirmation is to profess, to
combat for, and to propagate, the Faith, the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Catholic Church... This mission is more urgent than ever given that the situation in the Church is getting worse from day to day.
We see how the ecclesiastical authorities are continuing the liberal and modernist
revolution, and how this touches on all the aspects of the life of the Church. Having over-turned Catholic teaching, the Faith, Catholic doctrine, the liturgy, the sacraments, the holy sacrifice of the Mass, the government of the Church, the nature of the Church her-self, with a new bible, new a new catechism, a new code of Canon Law, a new notion of holiness (which is unrecognisable to Tradition), there are now moves to overturn Catholic morality, the last defence, the last bastion left in the official Church. It is an attack on the moral order, both natural and supernatural.You know that the Church authorities want to allow Holy Communion for divorced “re married” couples, as well as recognising sinful partnerships, cohabitation, and even unnatural unions. This affects Catholic teaching and goes against the sanctity of the Church herself, against the sanctity of marriage and against the sanctification of souls.
It also signifies an overturning of all morality because if the realities of good and evil can change then virtue and sin become relative. It changes the precepts given by Our Blessed Lord in the moral law, both natural and supernatural.
We also see how the Roman authorities work to get rid of those opposed to these
innovations, whether they be prelates or institutions, such as the Franciscans of the Immaculate.

We see how Rome still wants to impose upon us the errors of Vatican II and the
post -conciliar reforms, making these a condition of any agreement. We see how those in authority act towards us with disloyalty and cunning.
Hence our position remains very clear, and Bishop Fellay himself has stated that,
given this concrete situation, it is impossible and indeed suicidal to envisage any sort of agreement or canonical recognition.”

It is a tragedy that naive +Fellay is in charge. He thinks as long as BXVI is alive there is a conservative in the Vatican sympathetic to tradition. The "attack on the moral order, both natural and supernatural" has been blamed on bold Francis but in reality he is only doing BXVI's dirty work of the "real council". Cardinal Ratzinger, as head of the CDF said the following in a 1994 "LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION BY THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html
3. Aware however that authentic understanding and genuine mercy are never separated from the truth(4), pastors have the duty to remind these faithful of the Church's doctrine concerning the celebration of the sacraments, in particular, the reception of the Holy Communion. In recent years, in various regions, different pastoral solutions in this area have been suggested according to which, to be sure, a general admission of divorced and remarried to Eucharistic communion would not be possible, but the divorced and remarried members of the faithful could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorised according to a judgement of conscience to do so. This would be the case, for example, when they had been abandoned completely unjustly, although they sincerely tried to save the previous marriage, or when they are convinced of the nullity of their previous marriage, although unable to demonstrate it in the external forum or when they have gone through a long period of reflexion and penance, or also when for morally valid reasons they cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.

In some places, it has also been proposed that in order objectively to examine their actual situation, the divorced and remarried would have to consult a prudent and expert priest. This priest, however, would have to respect their eventual decision to approach Holy Communion, without this implying an official authorisation.

In these and similar cases it would be a matter of a tolerant and benevolent pastoral solution in order to do justice to the different situations of the divorced and remarried.

This is where the 1989 "Profession of Faith" comes in. Since the modernists "do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act", the "religious submission of will and intellect" would do.

It is as you say “in the Profession (of faith).”  Can you provide other examples in Catholic Creeds that are offered to "heretics" for their admission to the Church that include non-dogmatic propositions grounded solely on human authority?  If there is one I am not aware of it.

That's because the biggest beef that Vatican authorities have had with the SSPX, in terms of prerequisites for any discussion, is what they perceive to be the open rebellion towards and lack of respect for the Vatican II Magisterium among Traditional Catholics.  This attitude in their minds entails an implicit rejection at least of the need for a religious submission towards the Magisterium.  Just because it appears in a docuмent entitled "Profession of Faith", this doesn't necessarily mean that these authorities consider the acceptance of a need for religious submission to even the merely-authentic Magisterium as being de fide.  St. Pius X excommunicated people for rejecting his merely-authentic Magisterium.

You are repeating nothing that you have not already said.  You again claim that I am making the “EXACT SAME MISTAKE that many sedevacantists make.”  It has already been denied and I am denying it again.

And yet you CONTINUE making the same error with every post.  As I pointed out, you declare the simple use of the phrase "of the mind and will" in the context of religious submission as being tantamount to declaring that it must be believed unconditionally.  SOMETHING CAN BE ACCEPTED CONDITIONALLY BY THE MIND AND THE WILL.  That's PRECISELY what the sedevacantists have done.  They see THIS SAME LANGUAGE in the pre-Vatican II theologians and have drawn the same conclusion, that this language requires internal unconditional assent of faith of all teachings of the authentic Magisterium, whether infallible or not.

Look, Drew, our point of contention is this.  You're arguing that the Profession's use of the phrase "of the mind and will" necessarily has it talking about giving the unconditional assent of faith to the non-definitive acts of the Magisterium, forcing everyone to believe the non-infallible acts of the Magisterium with the certainty of faith.

You based this on nothing other than the phrase "of the mind and will".  I point out that Monsigonor Fenton referred to the conditional religious submission as being "internal" and "of the mind" ... to distinguish it from the merely external submission.

The first thing you need to do is properly understand and fairly state the “point of contention” that you are trying to answer.  You do not understand the argument.  Fr. Fenton et al. clearly say that the internal submission of the mind and will to the authentic ordinary magisterium is always and necessarily conditional.  The treatment of this doctrine by the conciliarist Church since Lumen Gentium does not.   This last sentence is what I affirm and you deny.

That passage from the Profession specifically refers to RELIGIOUS submission, which is a well-known term among theologians, who routinely qualify it as "internal" and "of the mind" vs. merely external.  Your quote from Vatican I refers to submission "by faith" and is describing supernatural faith as involving both the intellect and the will, the will because the truths of revelation are unknowable by the intellect on its own and therefore requires a submission of the will.  You're trying to compare apples and oranges.

The statement regarding divine faith, which were said was “simply not true,” is, in fact, an accurate and truthful statement regarding divine faith.  I'm well aware that Vatican I is referring to divine faith.  And I also know the difference between apples and oranges.  The point which you have overlooked is that the description of divine faith is essentially no different than the current description of religious submission of the mind and the will to the authentic ordinary magisterium.  In both cases, no qualifications are admitted.  

There's absolutely NO WAY in which the Conciliarists now believe that non-definitive acts of the Magisterium must be accepted as de fide.  In fact, most Conciliarist theologians circuмscribe the scope of infallibility and of what's de fide to the extreme. As for those who accuse people who don't accept the need for religious submission as being heretics, they're mistaken regarding the theological note.  It's only theologically certain and therefore not strictly heresy.

Previously posted on this question, Lumen Gentium, the 1989 Profession of Faith, and the Authentic Magisterium, a docuмent sent to the CDF by Fr. Waters, specific citations are quoted by “conciliarists” who consider the doctrinal teaching of Vatican II irreformable and binding on the Catholic conscience.  It is my opinion that it is naïve to believe that conciliarists are not intent to consolidate the gains of their revolution.  Pope Benedict said specifically before his resignation that this marked the “end of the old Church and the beginning of the new.”

The accusation of “heresy” made by a local ordinary has been supported by the CDF by replying to the charge with, and only with, the 1989 Profession of Faith.
 
You said, “It’s only theologically certain and therefore not strictly heresy.”  This is not correct.  All the teaching of the authentic ordinary magisterium does not have the note of being “theologically certain.”  In the previous post I quoted Fr. Fenton referring to specific doctrinal errors in papal encyclicals.  IF you include such things as Pope Francis daily sermons, which constitute acts of the “authentic magisterium,” they need to be regularly vetted with theological qualifications before publication.  

What is true, and what you should say, is that dissent from the authentic ordinary magisterium cannot be called “heresy” at all because the formal charge of heresy is with respect to articles of divine and Catholic faith.  This is particularly true when the descent from the authentic ordinary magisterium is accompanied with an appeal to the Holy Father for a definitive judgment and a willingness to be corrected.

Quote from: drew

I have provided you with a specific case where denial of the “authentic (ordinary) magisterium” of the Church since Vatican II has been declared a “heresy” by the local ordinary.

This ordinary has no idea what he's talking about.  So how's this relevant?

Of course, there would be nothing to prevent the Holy See from treating the need for "religious submission" as de fide.  In fact, Denzinger treats many such Professions of Faith for returning heretics as being tantamount to dogmatic definitions.

Your quote is taken out of context.  The full quote is:

“I have provided you with a specific case where denial of the “authentic (ordinary) magisterium of the Church since Vatican II has been declared a “heresy” by the local ordinary.  The appeal of this judgment to the Holy Father through the CDF has been answered with, and only with, the 1989 Profession of Faith.”

Your objection is absurd.  We are not simply discussing the accusation of “heresy” by a local ordinary.  We are discussing the treatment of that charge by the CDF.

And yes, there is something “to prevent the Holy See from treating the need for ‘religious submission’ as de fide” because it is not.  The CDF has no more authority to invent dogma as they do to deny dogma.

You were asked to produce a specific example of a Profession of Faith to reconcile a heretic to the Church which contains a non-dogmatic proposition. Again, I do not know a single example.  If you do, produce it.

Quote from: drew

You are repeating nothing that you have not already said.  You again claim that I am making the “EXACT SAME MISTAKE that many sedevacantists make.”  It has already been denied and I am denying it again.

And yet you CONTINUE making the same error with every post.  As I pointed out, you declare the simple use of the phrase "of the mind and will" in the context of religious submission as being tantamount to declaring that it must be believed unconditionally.  SOMETHING CAN BE ACCEPTED CONDITIONALLY BY THE MIND AND THE WILL.  That's PRECISELY what the sedevacantists have done.  They see THIS SAME LANGUAGE in the pre-Vatican II theologians and have drawn the same conclusion, that this language requires internal unconditional assent of faith of all teachings of the authentic Magisterium, whether infallible or not.

I have provided a specific example that demonstrates that the CDF does not regard religious submission of the mind and will in the same theological sense that Fr. Fenton et al. did.  This specific example is the practical application of their understanding, and, in fact, is far more important key to knowing their understanding of the question than anything that may have previously written.  
 
You in your posts have not provided any evidence against this.  You have made yourself your own authority in defense of your claim, and you insist upon the accuracy of your claim against the fact of its actual application.  The conciliarist Church has docuмented no qualification to their version of religious submission of the mind and will, and qualifications were always present in pre-Vatican II theological discussions of the question; the CDF, when asked about the need for specific qualifications, ignored the question in their reply; this non-dogmatic demand has been included in a Profession of Faith in which every other article is a dogma and they have made this Catholic creed a non-negotiable condition for reconciliation with the Church from “heresy”; and there has been specific additions to canon law making failure to submit the mind and will to the authentic magisterium a crime with an unspecified canonical punishment.

You are more concerned with trying to win an argument than finding the truth.  It is unfortunate because you have made some excellent posts whose credibility will always be questioned for no other reason than the readers’ inability to distinguish between the merits of your argument and your ego.

Drew

Drew, the “assent of faith” and “religious assent” are both an assent of the intellect and will.

See the bolded above, Drew.  Something which you persist in denying.  Your allegation that the Profession is requiring the assent of faith to teachings of the merely-authentic Magisterium has been based on the presence of the phrase "of the mind and will".  RJS articulated the Catholic position very nicely.