Lumen fidei [published on June 29, 2013] claims to be 
“in continuity with all that the Church’s magisterium has pronounced”;  thus there is an explicit reference—but only in a footnote—to Chapter 3 of the Constitution 
Dei Filius of the First Vatican Council (no. 7, note 7).  It is also about the “faith [that is] 
received from God as a supernatural gift” (no. 4), and it specifies that faith is a “
theological” and “
supernatural” virtue given by God (no. 7). Similarly we read:
Since faith is one, it must be professed in all its 
purity and integrity” (no. 48); not a single article of the Creed can be
 denied;  there is a need for vigilance to ensure that the deposit of 
faith is passed on “in its entirety (no. 48).
But those are the only traces of the traditional teaching.
All the rest of the Encyclical buries these all-too-rare allusions in
 a context that is quite foreign to them. This context connects the idea
 of faith with the idea of experience and personal encounter, which 
establishes a relation between man and God, without making it clear 
whether this is the intellectual relation of knowledge[1] or the 
affective relation of love.[2] Nor is it very clear whether this 
personal encounter corresponds to the profound requirements of nature or
 whether it surpasses them by introducing man into a specifically 
supernatural order.[3] The problem is compounded by the failure to cite 
the classical notions of natural and supernatural in describing this 
relation: it is above all a question of existence.[4]
The central idea is that faith is first of all existential, the 
product of an encounter with the living God that reveals love and leads 
to communion (no. 4, no. 8).  It is essentially dynamic, openness to the
 promise of God and memory of [that promise about] the future (no. 9), 
openness to love (no. 21, no. 34), attachment to the source of life and 
of all fatherhood (no. 11), an experience of love (no. 47)…. It consists
 of “
the willingness to let ourselves be constantly transformed and renewed by God’s call” (no. 13).
There is no definition of what a theological virtue is, and the 
reader will search in vain for a specific definition of the three 
theological virtues, which consequently are mixed up. Never is faith 
related to the authority of God who reveals (the word “authority” 
appears once, in no. 55, but in reference to another subject). The 
revealed deposit of faith is mentioned only in no. 48, but it is not 
defined—particularly the fact that it was completed at the death of the 
last apostle.
No. 18 recalls that 
“Christian faith is faith in the incarnation 
of the Word and his bodily resurrection; it is faith in a God who is so 
close to us that he entered our human history.” But it must be 
admitted that it is quite difficult to recite the act of faith on the 
basis of the considerations proposed here, according to which faith 
relies not on the authority of God who can neither deceive nor be 
deceived, but rather on the “
utter reliability of God’s love” (no. 17), and on the reliability of Jesus “
based… on his divine sonship” (
ibid.). In other words: I believe in God because he is love and not because he is truthful.
We find in footnote 23 an excerpt from 
Dei Verbum that speaks about “[willing assent] 
to the revelation given by God”, which requires
the grace of God, anticipating it and assisting it, as 
well as the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and 
converts it to God, and opens the eyes of the mind and makes it easy for
 all to accept and believe the truth (no. 29).
Yet further on the Encyclical reads:
The creed does not only involve giving one’s assent to a 
body of abstract truths; rather, when it is recited the whole of life is
 drawn into a journey towards full communion with the living God (no. 
45).
The necessity of faith in order to be saved is presented in a non-directive manner: the beginning of salvation is “
openness to something prior to ourselves, to a primordial gift that affirms life and sustains it in being” (no. 19). Or else:  “
Faith in Christ brings salvation because in him our lives become radically open” (no. 20). This is far from the Gospel clarity:
Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every
 creation.  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:  but he 
that believeth not shall be condemned (Mark 16:15-16).
On the contrary, no. 34 says:
The light of love proper to faith can illumine the 
questions of our own time about truth…. As a truth of love, it is not 
one that can be imposed by force; it is not a truth that stifles the 
individual. Since it is born of love, it can penetrate to the heart, to 
the personal core of each man and woman. Clearly, then, faith is not 
intransigent, but grows in respectful coexistence with others.
Incidentally, one might wonder about the catechetical effectiveness of the definition of the Decalogue given in no. 46:
The Decalogue is not a set of negative commands, but 
concrete directions for emerging from the desert of the selfish and 
self-enclosed ego in order to enter into dialogue with God.
In short, faith, as it is presented in 
Lumen fidei, is first of all an experience of life and of love, fully realized in the “
encounter with Christ” (no. 30): “
Faith knows because it is tied to love, because love itself brings enlightenment” (no. 26). Jesus is said to be the one savior because “
all God’s light is concentrated in him, in his ‘luminous life’ which discloses the origin and the end of history” (no. 35)….
It is much too early to propose, based on a first encyclical, a key 
to reading the teaching of Pope Francis; the next encyclical—which is 
said to be dedicated to poverty—will be more personal and will enlighten
 us more precisely. We will simply be so bold as to point out that Lumen
 fidei is indeed in line with post-conciliar teaching. Vatican II wanted
 to open up the Church to the modern world, which is characterized by 
its rejection of the argument from authority. Thus the Council claimed 
to be pastoral, avoiding all dogmatic definition so as not to give the 
impression of coercing contemporary minds.
From this perspective, the considerations on faith in 
Lumen fidei are somewhat reminiscent of what the immanentist philosopher Maurice Blondel wrote:
If faith increases our knowledge, it is not initially and
 principally inasmuch as it teaches us certain objective truths by 
authorized testimony, but rather inasmuch as it unites us to the life of
 a subject, inasmuch as it initiates us, through loving thought, to 
another thought and another love. (M. Blondel in A. Lalande, Dictionnaire technique et critique de la philosophie [Paris: PUF, 1968], 360, emphasis added.)
It is not learning objective truths, but becoming united to the life 
of a subject and being initiated by loving thought to another thought 
and another love. Hence a problem arises: how can one be content to 
propose to modern minds, which are smitten with autonomy, what the 
authority of divine revelation imposes on us? And how can we do this 
without giving the impression to those minds that the authority of 
divine revelation is contrary to their aspirations to autonomy? And 
without diluting the revealed deposit itself either or diminishing its 
authority? These are the difficulties with which the Magisterium has 
been struggling for fifty years.
In a recent article, Fr. Jean-Dominique, O.P., recalls the interest 
with which the Protestants of Taize welcomed the non-dogmatic teaching 
of Vatican II:
The Council’s intention is to drop an excessively static 
and notional language so as to adopt resolutely a dynamic, living 
language. This whole magnificent document [Dei Verbum, the 
conciliar document on Revelation—Editor’s note] will consider Revelation
 as the living Word that the living God addresses to the living Church 
composed of living members…. This whole document on Revelation will be 
dominated by the foundational evangelical themes of word, life and 
communion.  The Word of God, is the living Christ whom God gives to 
mankind so as to establish between him and them the communion of the 
Spirit in the Church.
Thus the Church gave up “
speaking about the acceptance of revelation in terms of submission to authority” so as to speak primarily about a “
personal faith that accepts God’s revelation” (Roger Schutz and Max Thurian, 
La Parole vivante au Concile [
Les Presses de Taize, 1966], 77-78, cited by Fr. Jean-Dominique, “
Concile ou rĂ©volution?” in 
Le Chardonnet [July 2013]: 6).
This intention no longer to resort to dogmatic definitions is 
deplored by the Declaration of the bishops of the Society of St. Pius X 
dated June 27, 2013:
We are truly obliged to observe that this Council without
 comparison, which wanted to be merely pastoral and not dogmatic, 
inaugurated a new type of magisterium, hitherto unheard of in the 
Church, without roots in Tradition; a magisterium resolved to reconcile 
Catholic doctrine with liberal ideas; a magisterium imbued with the 
modernist ideas of subjectivism, of immanentism and of perpetual 
evolution according to the false concept of a living tradition [which is
 also found in the writings of Maurice Blondel—Editor’s note], 
vitiating  the nature, the content, the role and the exercise of 
ecclesiastical magisterium.”  (See DICI no. 278, dated July 5, 2013).
(DICI no. 279 dated July 19, 2013)