Assent and Dissent- inspired or revealed?

[Protinus]

Assent...Dissent: what do these terms mean to us???

We have read in this forum that the category of DEFINITIVE DOCTRINE is a relatively new one on the current taxonomy in Church teaching. We remember that Definitive Doctrine must be “held in Firm Acceptance”…”the believer holds and accepts these teachings as true”. Definitive Doctrine is NOTChurch dogma and there is a tendency here and other places to artificially elevate all the teachings of the Church to the status of dogma.

Again definitive Dogma is NOT Definitive Doctrine. Examples include how the Church coveys Definitive Doctrine through her teachings on the ordination of women or the indissolubility of marriage.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3566378/The-indissolubility-of-marriage-reasons.html

Many questions remain regarding the scope of Definitive Doctrinal teaching. BI6, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, commented on the Profession of Faith claimed that “those who fail to give internal assent to a definitive doctrine are not in full communion” with the Church. http://www.adoremus.org/RatCom1098.html. As a non-theologian, even I can see much ambiguity in this letter!! One glaring issue about his commentary is IT IS NOT CLEAR whether or not those that do not provide internal assent to particular teachings would be barred from the sacraments.

When one has problems with a particular teaching…in fact, can not give internal assent to that teaching, sometimes the label of “dissenter” is applied to the individual….IOW, not providing internal assent = dissent. What I have read in my Catholic journey is that is precious little about “dissent”, which usually translates to public dissent and obstinate denial of Church teachings. However, much is written about withholding internal assent and giving leeway to this.

Many Church leaders condemn public dissent. I contend that dissent depends in a large part on underlying motive. If dissent is motivated by discrediting Church teaching by casting aspersions and degrading the teaching in the minds of others, then I do not believe the “dissenter” is in keeping with authentic church membership.

If, however public or private dissent or withholding assent is in keeping with proper respect for Church tradition and the Church’s teaching office, then it is conceivable that if inspired by the Holy Spirit- we can be change agents and reformers within the Church. To withhold this Spirit inspired dissent would, in my mind, be detrimental to the future of the Church.



"We're all educated, only about different things"

Will Rogers

[boughtwithaprice]

IMO, to require internal assent, when an issue is not clear in one's mind, is not putting forth a teaching office. It is commanding the faithful to practice cognitive dissonance, until they no longer feel like objecting. This causes humans to bow to other humans and go against conscience, something scipture never tells us to do.

To me, witholding internal assent just means that I am not convinced of a teaching at this time. I may be able to be convinced if explained properly and thoroughly, but there is still the possiblility that the teaching may be wrong and require modification. The lay faithful are part of the magisterium. The church is one body and it does not consist solely of the heirarchy. To demand internal assent, under penaly of hell fire, when a lay faithful is not convinced of a teaching, turns the church into "a clockwork orange" IMO I do not believe that is what God has intended for His church. There should be a dialogue between the lay faithful and the heirarchy.


(in the movie "a clockwork orange", people are programmed to have feelings of nausea whenever thoughts of violence occur. It was thought that it was a way to control criminals and make jail unnecessary. It was supposed to allow criminals to live free, but of course it backfired and sentenced people to a fate worse than death)

[Loki]

First of all, thank you both for your posts; I always enjoy reading what you two have to say.

I just read the part of Küng's The Church about how the church should respond to heresy. While what we're discussing here isn't necessarily heresy, the idea of embracing different points of view and dissent as a means of testing the dogma with close scrutiny is a point well-worth noting.

[Irenaeus]

What I have read in my Catholic journey is that is precious little about “dissent”, which usually translates to public dissent and obstinate denial of Church teachings.

I agree wholeheartedly with you, Protinus, about how a lack of assent doesn't always necessarily mean dissent.

However, isn't any deliberate lack of assent to a doctrine that is proposed as infallibly true in itself a denial of the intrinsic credibility of its source?

[Protinus]

I agree wholeheartedly with you, Protinus, about how a lack of assent doesn't always necessarily mean dissent.

However, isn't any deliberate lack of assent to a doctrine that is proposed as infallibly true in itself a denial of the intrinsic credibility of its source?


The great promise of VII was in ecumenical theology and the teaching of "hierarchy of truth". This has yet to be exploited yet some some Catholic brethren say VII has "gone too far":doh: IOW, The RCC has yetto expound on VII's important insights, such as not every dogmatic teaching is central to the "foundations of Christian life". I have read that as a requirement for ecumenical reunion with our non-Catholic brethren that some scholars say that not every dogmatic teaching be necessary for the reunion to occur. Things like Mary, the universality of redemption and the resurrection of the body, while divinely revealed, simply conform to what all Christians believe and share.

To your question about deliberate lack of assent as a measure of denying the "source", this can not be answered without the believer's spiritual journey as a main context (see bwap's remarks on cognitive dissonance above) and the capacity that the believer has a full appreciation of the authoritative status of Church teaching. So your question becomes muted by the shear questions and the teachings that the Church conveys herself. I would argue that the Church sets herself up for believers and their lack of internal assent on certain teachings.

There is universal Catholic acceptance on some dogma such as the "law of love" and the "dignity of the human person"...perhaps on this website anyway. But what about specific moral teachings of the Church such as "just war" and "artificial birth control"? Few scholars, theologians and inquiring believers believe that these things have been taught infallibly. And rightly so: teachings on artificial birth control are based on all too changing empirical data, e.g., embryological studies of what transpires in the earliest stages of contraception.
Therefore, how can this teaching that the Church has be taught infallibly and therefore, where does the withholding of internal assent have anything to do with denying the sourcce of problematic teaching as a result?

[Irenaeus]

Therefore, how can this teaching that the Church has be taught infallibly and therefore, where does the withholding of internal assent have anything to do with denying the sourcce of problematic teaching as a result?

Regardless of the scientific exigencies of the question of contraception and embyronic states, the moral teaching is unequivocal, and binding upon the faithful. I heartily disagree that the Church's condemnation on contraception is merely based on the physical sciences. However, this is not the place for that discussion.

Whether or not this moral matter is assented to by the believer is a subjective thing. In the older days with men such as Blondel, the great divorce from the old understanding of revelation occured when they began to interpret reality as the agreement between "the understanding and the thing." However, Catholic theology as it was always understood believed in a revealed truth that was immutable independent of the subjective intellect.

I believe the main error in this reasoning is that it places far too much emphasis on the believer's "spiritual journey" as a process of discovery rather than the understanding that the faith is something that is handed down to us, and to which we must give the assent of faith.

Surely there is to be a growth in understanding as a result of the assent of faith. John Paul II in Fides et Ratio was quite clear on that point.


The great promise of VII was in ecumenical theology and the teaching of "hierarchy of truth".

That idea predates the Second Vatican Council.

IOW, The RCC has yetto expound on VII's important insights, such as not every dogmatic teaching is central to the "foundations of Christian life".

If a teaching is dogmatically taught, to deny its truth is to deny the infallibility of the Church, and to deny the infallibility of the Church is to deny its indefectability. Inevitably this calls into question Christ's promise to preserve the Church. Ultimately, it calls into question the nature of truth.

I have read that as a requirement for ecumenical reunion with our non-Catholic brethren that some scholars say that not every dogmatic teaching be necessary for the reunion to occur.

Justin Cardinal Rigali once spoke of his work as the Italian translator for Pope Paul VI. In one instance the Holy Father met with a Protestant leader. After hearing the latter's grievances with Catholic belief, the Holy Father said, "I respect what you have to say, but I disagree, because I am Peter." True ecumenism is the search for truth, as I'm sure you would agree, Protinus. If either side relinquishes its belief in the truth of its dogmas and creeds, it calls into question its legitimacy. Especially for the Catholic Church, if one matter of her authoritative teaching in faith and morals is false, then what can we say of her other declarations?


Things like Mary, the universality of redemption and the resurrection of the body, while divinely revealed, simply conform to what all Christians believe and share.

Again, the recourse to the adequatio rei et intellecti. Is a dogma merely true because it can be verified by our shared, lowest common demoinator of experience? Is that the criteria for keeping dogma?


To your question about deliberate lack of assent as a measure of denying the "source", this can not be answered without the believer's spiritual journey as a main context (see bwap's remarks on cognitive dissonance above) and the capacity that the believer has a full appreciation of the authoritative status of Church teaching.

I appreciate that, even as a man on a spiritual journey myself. However, G.K. Chesterton once said that a man does not become a believer in a philosophical system because it explains something, but because it explains everything. Of course there is growth in understanding and so forth, but these are subjective elements in the mind and soul that develop toward the full assent of the intellect to revealed truth. However, as we constantly reiterate, assent is not contingent upon understanding. I understand the fear of drone automations of belief and the role of conscience, but even Vatican II insisted upon the necessity of making a well-formed conscience, and that if one knows of the obligation of assent to an article of faith or a teaching on morals, to not assent is to sin against faith.

So your question becomes muted by the shear questions and the teachings that the Church conveys herself.

If anything mutes my question, it is the inevitable deluge of questions, the great tumbling and roar as the thousand year edifice of Catholic teaching falls to the ground. If one teaching of the Church which she has taught under the charism of infallibility is false, then the Catholic Church is not the bearer of revelation, one of the old motives of credibility we once used to teach in metaphysics and dogma.

The question again comes to this: Is the faith merely to be based on the adequatio rei et intellecti, or in auctoritatem Dei revelantis? How one answers that question dictates how one answers all the rest.


There is universal Catholic acceptance on some dogma such as the "law of love" and the "dignity of the human person"...perhaps on this website anyway. But what about specific moral teachings of the Church such as "just war" and "artificial birth control"? Few scholars, theologians and inquiring believers believe that these things have been taught infallibly.

Does the number of men and women who believe in such a way in any way detract from what the Church herself, the Magisterium itself, has said of the matter?

And rightly so: teachings on artificial birth control are based on all too changing empirical data, e.g., embryological studies of what transpires in the earliest stages of contraception.

Again, if you are referring to the so called faulty science and embryology of Humanae Vitae, that's a discussion for another thread. Regardless, the moral teaching of the Encyclical carries the weight.

Therefore, how can this teaching that the Church has be taught infallibly and therefore, where does the withholding of internal assent have anything to do with denying the sourcce of problematic teaching as a result?

I have two responses to this:

1) As to the issue of contraception, you have the Church's constant reiteration of that teaching throughout the centuries, not based upon mere embryology but upon morality itself. I'm sure you already know that this concensus was all across Christianity until the early 20th century.

2) I heavily doubt that this is the only issue many of those who have trouble in this vein struggle with. To adopt the criterion of assent to dogma to resting on the agreement of intellect and the matter rather than on the authority of the God who reveals and who can neither deceive nor can be deceived, then you no longer have the God who, whether he thundered on Sinai or suffered on Calvary, taught us the truth, and in the Incarnation, was truth himself. Instead, you have a God that proposes to man the truth (which has always been the case) but instead of the "fiat" of man's open faith, instead, God's revelation is dismissed unless it can be affirmed by the intellect. Notice I did not say, "examined," or "questioned," dismissed.

Paul once spoke in the Scriptures of bringing all thoughts and making them "obedient to Christ." Thomas Aquinas with his philosophia perennis was the one who, like all the others before him, from Augustine who "wrested the palm from them all" to even the earliest Fathers, received the light of faith as expounded by the Church, and with the light of faith came to the understanding.

I think Fr. Oakes, S.J., of the Seminary of St. Mary of the Lakes in Chicago put it quite well on a recent article on the development of faith and philosophy:

Similarly in philosophy, a Christian already knows on the basis of revelation that materialism is wrong, which means that any philosopher arguing for materialism must have made a wrong step, or more probably several, somewhere along the line. But that fact alone is not enough to refute materialism. One must then put oneself in the shoes of the materialist and walk through his arguments with him and point out his errors by the rules of rational thought and not by revelation.

The Christian receives in faith first what he knows to be true in auctoritatem Dei revelantis, and from there he reasons. What the system you propose does is demand that the revealed teaching submit to the adequatio rei et intellecti, without which the teaching subjectively loses its imperative of belief.

Again, what we believe on revelation and how God conveys and preserves his self-revelation to man predetermines this entire conversation.

If I have any question, it is this:

Is the Christian assent to revelation to be based on the authority of God who reveals, or on the agreement between the understanding and the thing revealed?

[Protinus]

Are you filling in for NewMan99 with these long posts??^_^

[Irenaeus]

Are you filling in for NewMan99 with these long posts??^_^

Lol, I think I need some sleep! I tend to get long winded at night. My apologies!

Let's pray for each other. :wave:

[Protinus]

Lol, I think I need some sleep! I tend to get long winded at night. My apologies!

Let's pray for each other. :wave:

I will...and I'll respond with my feeble multi quote capacity...i'm running on air at the moment!

[boughtwithaprice]

Iraneus, it seems that you say withholding assent to Catholic teaching is equivalent to unbelief in God. It is a leep of logic to take a group of men (i.e. the Catholic heirarchy) and make their pronouncements equivalent to God. Am I understanding you correctly?

[Irenaeus]

Hi BWAP,

Let me first wish you a happy upcoming birthday. :wave: My availability for CF will be decreasing but I want to give Protinus and yourself the courtesy of finishing at least in some small way my participation in this thread. It's never polite to 'leave someone hanging.'

Iraneus, it seems that you say withholding assent to Catholic teaching is equivalent to unbelief in God. It is a leep of logic to take a group of men (i.e. the Catholic heirarchy) and make their pronouncements equivalent to God. Am I understanding you correctly?

Well, let me say this.

We know from revelation that God is truth. Therefore, he can neither be deceived nor deceive. We also know that he has revealed himself. Additionally, the bearer of his revelation, gifted with indefectibility and infallibility in certain instances, is the Church. These make up what we once called the "four motives of credibility," or, those propositions which make the Church's proclamations worthy of belief.

Your logical assumption is correct but I believe the description of it is rude in the older sense of the word.

What do you mean by "group of men?" If by the "group of men" you mean the Bishops of the Church in union with the Pope, then that is what we call the Magisterium. Yes, under certain conditions they are infallible. This is the charism with which the Holy Spirit has protected them in those conditions.

To voluntarily refuse assent from even the smallest infallible "jot or title" from the corpus of infallible teaching is to question the whole. Ultimately, you question the motives of credibility, which leads to a question of the nature of God, and by corollaries, its implications in anthropology, epistemology, metaphysics and theology are striking.

No proclamation of the Magisterium is "equivalent to God," in the strict sense. The Church speaks at certain times and seasons infallibly as the steward and guardian of Revealed Truth, of which the Magisterium is the servant. Whereas God is truth and reveals himself, the Church as she receives light on the already existing depositum fidei expounds upon it for the edification of the faithful.

Thus this brings me back to my original question: is our assent to revelation to be based on the authority of God who reveals, or the agreement between the understanding (intellect) and the thing [revealed]?

If its the former, then our faith is contingent upon what God has said, and on his word which as a corollary preserves the Magisterium from error. It it is the latter, we run all the Church's proclamations through the intellect for approval before accepting them, not accepting them before the intellect penetrates them. It seems in this instance that we do not trust God enough to keep his word.

While again, I do not deny the place of conscience and the needed role of the intellect in the assent of faith, but I believe a study on documents such as Dei Filius, Fides et Ratio and even Pascendi would be praiseworthy and edifying in clarifying an abuse or disuse of the role of conscience in belief.

[boughtwithaprice]

Hi Iraneus:

I think that we are talking past eachother. I do not believe in witholding assent to infallible dogma. I think that assent can be withheld in matters of noninfallible doctrine. I have a problem with people treating nonifallibld doctrine as though it was infallible and the word of God itself. That would be making the words of men equivalent to the word of God. God promised infallibility to the church as a whole, not the magisterium alone.

My question is, do you believe that the Magisterium speaks revealed truth in every word that it teaches?

As to your question, I believe that there is a difference between revealed truth, dogma, and the reasoning of men, doctrine. Human intellect produces doctrine, so human intellect should be permitted to critique it, or as we say withold assent till convinced.

[Irenaeus]

My question is, do you believe that the Magisterium speaks revealed truth in every word that it teaches?


No. I have stated as such earlier. The Magisterium is only infallible under certain conditions. We both know that.

As to your question, I believe that there is a difference between revealed truth, dogma, and the reasoning of men, doctrine. Human intellect produces doctrine, so human intellect should be permitted to critique it, or as we say withold assent till convinced.

I've never seen that sort of dichotomy. Doctrines can also fall under the Church's Magisterial authority, in which case they should be believed.

[boughtwithaprice]

I've never seen that sort of dichotomy. Doctrines can also fall under the Church's Magisterial authority, in which case they should be believed.

But if they are not infallibly defined, then they can be questioned and assent witheld until the matter is settled with one's conscience. If a pronouncement is produced by human reasoning about God's words, and is not God's word itself, then the matter should be reasoned and critiqued until one' conscience is clear. It should not just be pronounced and the faithful commanded to go against conscience.

You say that the magisterium is not infallible in all instances, yet we should believe everything that they say because it is under the teaching authority. It seems that you admit that there is a dichotomy, yet deny its existence at the same time.

[Irenaeus]

But if they are not infallibly defined, then they can be questioned and assent witheld until the matter is settled with one's conscience.


Well, when something is not infallibly defined of course then the issue at stake may still be more or less true objectively, but there is no binding in conscience.

If a pronouncement is produced by human reasoning about God's words, and is not God's word itself, then the matter should be reasoned and critiqued until one' conscience is clear.

Be very careful what you say here, BWAP. Why the addendum "human reasoning about God's words"? Is not that what, for example, homoousios was, and other philosophical, metaphysical terminology, with a 'baggage' of philosophical systems and linguistic connotations thousands of years old? The Arians once objected that that word should be discarded because it was not found in the Scriptures. However, the Church can, and does, dogmatize with concepts of human reasoning.

Dogmas and doctrine can be, are and have been pronounced infallibly with "human reasoning about God's words." That is the nature of a human, authoritative teaching body as the steward of revelation. Just because human reasoning was used, for example, in the First Nicene Council even to the Second Vatican Council does not mean their proclamations were any less authoritative.

When God's revelation to us, the depositum fidei is confirmed, clarified and promulgated by the Church with human reasoning, we say with the Apostles, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us." The charism of infallibility manifests.


It should not just be pronounced and the faithful commanded to go against conscience.

On the contrary; if it is pronounced infallibly, the very fact that it is of faith should convince all of rightly formed conscience that it is to be held with the assent of faith.

Thank you for your continued dialogue.

[Protinus]

Regardless of the scientific exigencies of the question of contraception and embyronic states, the moral teaching is unequivocal, and binding upon the faithful. I heartily disagree that the Church's condemnation on contraception is merely based on the physical sciences. However, this is not the place for that discussion.

agreeably, but they not "physical science" issues...they are biologic facts that the Church has yet to ascertain and the flawed HV, however well intended, does not make up for the droves of dissenters when teachings are to to made to the faithful.

Whether or not this moral matter is assented to by the believer is a subjective thing.

what?

I believe the main error in this reasoning is that it places far too much emphasis on the believer's "spiritual journey" as a process of discovery rather than the understanding that the faith is something that is handed down to us, and to which we must give the assent of faith.

this is hyperbole, with much due respect. I have never had an encounter in the the sacrament of recouncilation or with my frequent pastoral counsel that that troubles with teaching are somehow projected on a screen of "absolute assent". What are you talking about?

Surely there is to be a growth in understanding as a result of the assent of faith. John Paul II in Fides et Ratio was quite clear on that point.



That idea predates the Second Vatican Council.

and amplified by VII to a establish a new foothold and countenance with the layity. Did I say that it was a novel idea? I'm saying that as per VII that it is not fulfilled.



If a teaching is dogmatically taught, to deny its truth is to deny the infallibility of the Church, and to deny the infallibility of the Church is to deny its indefectability. Inevitably this calls into question Christ's promise to preserve the Church. Ultimately, it calls into question the nature of truth.

the statement was used semantically as I was addressing primary Christian "truths" ...sheesh



Justin Cardinal Rigali once spoke of his work as the Italian translator for Pope Paul VI. In one instance the Holy Father met with a Protestant leader. After hearing the latter's grievances with Catholic belief, the Holy Father said, "I respect what you have to say, but I disagree, because I am Peter." True ecumenism is the search for truth, as I'm sure you would agree, Protinus. If either side relinquishes its belief in the truth of its dogmas and creeds, it calls into question its legitimacy. Especially for the Catholic Church, if one matter of her authoritative teaching in faith and morals is false, then what can we say of her other declarations? ecumenical you say? I am Peter?

to which I give you a quote from my Cardinal (who I like...personally, that is, as I had a few discussions with him)

"this is a dialogue. But it is a dialogue in the Roman sense- I talk, you listen"

- Cardinal Edward Egan

Again, the recourse to the adequatio rei et intellecti. Is a dogma merely true because it can be verified by our shared, lowest common demoinator of experience? Is that the criteria for keeping dogma?

Are you asking me or telling me?


I appreciate that, even as a man on a spiritual journey myself. However, G.K. Chesterton once said that a man does not become a believer in a philosophical system because it explains something, but because it explains everything. Of course there is growth in understanding and so forth, but these are subjective elements in the mind and soul that develop toward the full assent of the intellect to revealed truth. However, as we constantly reiterate, assent is not contingent upon understanding. I understand the fear of drone automations of belief and the role of conscience, but even Vatican II insisted upon the necessity of making a well-formed conscience, and that if one knows of the obligation of assent to an article of faith or a teaching on morals, to not assent is to sin against faith.

I don't like Chesterton's anti-semitic remarks...even if he was a converted Catholic the last ten years of his long life...read George Orwell's statements about him.

and to "not assent is to sin against faith"...this is where we part ways...in fact, I'm glad I happened on this nugget of yours in this multi-quote potpourri.

You, not a pastor or ordained priest, will never be able to ever say that "disciplinary norms" are best or less so, given our current society...therefore these things are not immutable, they are protected by our God such that they can never be dangerous to the faithful.

So, it appears that although general disciplinary norms may not be "the best," given the contemporary situation, and therefore not immutable, they are always protected by God such that they can never be harmful or dangerous to the faithful.

So...since canon law is infallible in the indirect and and potentially negative sense, and since canon law precludes assent to the doctrines of the the Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops that are in union with him...then it means that assent to these doctrines can be harmful or even dangerous to the faithful, even if they are declared "solemn", de fide.

I'll pick up with the rest later:doh:

[boughtwithaprice]

Thank you for your continued dialogue.

I appreciate your willingness to dialogue, Iraneus, but I still think we are talking past eachother. Infallible pronouncements require the assent of faith of which you speak, but matters not infallibly defined are the product of human reasoning. They may be true, but it requires some thought to establish them in one's conscience.

[QuantaCura]

I think we need to determine then what is considered infallible Church teaching and what is not.

It is wrong to limit the charism of infalliblity to only extraordinary solemn dogmatic definitions that require us to receive them with divine faith. It also encompasses those things that must only be "held." Likewise, it is not just extraordinary solemn definitive proclamations that are infallible, but also the universal ordinary magisterium--that is the bishops of the world united with the Pope, teaching in common with him continually.

Likewise, I think we need to understand what conscience is. St. Catherine of Siena described it as a guard dog. When we encounter something wrong or evil or when we should do good, our conscience barks to warn us. However, we must feed our guard dog or he becomes weak and unable to bark. The food for our conscience is the Holy Scriptures and Tradition, handed down by the Church and expounded upon.

We have to make sure that our conscience has not become weak, by which we receive things pleasant to our lower appetite, but contradictory to conscience without the warning we should receive. What conscience is, is the mechanism by which we apply the Truth to given situations, choosing how to act accordingly--it is not an exercise of judgment on particular truths. Thus Pope Pius XI firmly rejected "liberty of conscience" but fully supported "liberty of consciences." The Second Vatican Council drew drew the same distinction in its decree on Religious Liberty.

Decades earlier Cardinal Newman explains what true conscience is as compared the counterfeit that was offered in the 19th century in this letter:

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section5.html

I highly recommend reading the whole thing, but here is a very helpful exerpt (he is speaking specifically of papal magisterium here, but it also can apply to other forms of magisterial teaching):


1. First, I am using the word "conscience" in the high sense in which I have already explained it,—not as a fancy or an opinion, but as a dutiful obedience to what claims to be a divine voice, speaking within us; and that this is the view properly to be taken of it, I shall not attempt to prove here, but shall assume it as a first principle. {256}

2. Secondly, I observe that conscience is not a judgment upon any speculative truth, any abstract doctrine, but bears immediately on conduct, on something to be done or not done. "Conscience," says St. Thomas, "is the practical judgment or dictate of reason, by which we judge what hic et nunc is to be done as being good, or to be avoided as evil." Hence conscience cannot come into direct collision with the Church's or the Pope's infallibility; which is engaged in general propositions, and in the condemnation of particular and given errors.

3. Next, I observe that, conscience being a practical dictate, a collision is possible between it and the Pope's authority only when the Pope legislates, or gives particular orders, and the like. But a Pope is not infallible in his laws, nor in his commands, nor in his acts of state, nor in his administration, nor in his public policy. Let it be observed that the Vatican Council has left him just as it found him here. Mr. Gladstone's language on this point is to me quite unintelligible. Why, instead of using vague terms, does he not point out precisely the very words by which the Council has made the Pope in his acts infallible? Instead of so doing, he assumes a conclusion which is altogether false. He says, p. 34, "First comes the Pope's infallibility:" then in the next page he insinuates that, under his infallibility, come acts of excommunication, as if the Pope could not make mistakes in this field of action. He says, p. 35, "It may be sought to plead that the Pope does not propose to invade the country, to seize Woolwich, or burn Portsmouth. He will only, at the worst, excommunicate {257} opponents ... Is this a good answer? After all, even in the Middle Ages, it was not by the direct action of fleets and armies of their own that the Popes contended with kings who were refractory; it was mainly by interdicts," &c. What have excommunication and interdict to do with Infallibility? Was St. Peter infallible on that occasion at Antioch when St. Paul withstood him? was St. Victor infallible when he separated from his communion the Asiatic Churches? or Liberius when in like manner he excommunicated Athanasius? And, to come to later times, was Gregory XIII., when he had a medal struck in honour of the Bartholomew massacre? or Paul IV. in his conduct towards Elizabeth? or Sextus V. when he blessed the Armada? or Urban VIII. when he persecuted Galileo? No Catholic ever pretends that these Popes were infallible in these acts. Since then infallibility alone could block the exercise of conscience, and the Pope is not infallible in that subject-matter in which conscience is of supreme authority, no deadlock, such as is implied in the objection which I am answering, can take place between conscience and the Pope.

[boughtwithaprice]

Thank you for your contribution to this thread, QuantaCura. I am going to take some time and think about it, and give it the due consideration that it deserves. I don't think that we have reached agreement yet, but we can make progress, and, to me, that is worth the effort.

[Irenaeus]

Hello Protinus,

agreeably, but they not "physical science" issues...they are biologic facts that the Church has yet to ascertain and the flawed HV, however well intended, does not make up for the droves of dissenters when teachings are to to made to the faithful.

Protinus, regardless of whether the biological facts are perfectly or imperfectly understood, the moral teaching remains.

I understand your concern about the science, however.

what?

Assent or lack thereof to an infallible doctrine has no bearing objective its moral truth. That's basically what I meant.

this is hyperbole, with much due respect. I have never had an encounter in the the sacrament of recouncilation or with my frequent pastoral counsel that that troubles with teaching are somehow projected on a screen of "absolute assent". What are you talking about?

What I was saying was that there is far too much emphasis on 'spiritual journey,' which, albeit legitimate, tends to water down the necessity of faith where there are articles to be held assented to.

Did I say that it was a novel idea?

No. I didn't mean to suggest in any way that you did.

ecumenical you say? I am Peter?

to which I give you a quote from my Cardinal (who I like...personally, that is, as I had a few discussions with him)

"this is a dialogue. But it is a dialogue in the Roman sense- I talk, you listen"

- Cardinal Edward Egan

That wasn't my point, Protinus. My point on ecumenism (a great aside in this discussion) was that true Ecumenism does not forsake the truth in the interest of unity. On an earlier post, you said that some believe that certain teachings could be put aside for the interests of unity. Paul VI made quite clear in private conversation that his own loyalty to truth, if you will, made that impossible.

Are you asking me or telling me?

I'm asking you. It was clearly an interrogative sentence.

I don't like Chesterton's anti-semitic remarks...even if he was a converted Catholic the last ten years of his long life...read George Orwell's statements about him.


I used it as mere illustration. Take the truth of the statement, let's not reflect on the man, which is not necessary to this discussion.

and to "not assent is to sin against faith"...this is where we part ways...in fact, I'm glad I happened on this nugget of yours in this multi-quote potpourri.

I knew we would part ways on this point and I think it's extremely important that it be discussed.

You, not a pastor or ordained priest, will never be able to ever say that "disciplinary norms" are best or less so, given our current society...therefore these things are not immutable, they are protected by our God such that they can never be dangerous to the faithful.

Protinus, I never said the disciplines of the Church were immutable. Can you quote me as saying such? I've been absolutely unambiguous in my affirmation that only infallible doctrine/dogma must be assented to with faith.


So, it appears that although general disciplinary norms may not be "the best," given the contemporary situation, and therefore not immutable, they are always protected by God such that they can never be harmful or dangerous to the faithful.

Of course, I heartily disagree with that statement, especially the part I bolded.

I think you need to read my posts with greater acuity.

So...since canon law is infallible in the indirect and and potentially negative sense, and since canon law precludes assent to the doctrines of the the Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops that are in union with him...then it means that assent to these doctrines can be harmful or even dangerous to the faithful, even if they are declared "solemn", de fide.

I'll pick up with the rest later:doh:

Protinus, that's logically unsound. Canon Law does not have the weight of an article of faith. Let me make an analogy: say it was of faith that the sun existed. Canon Law for us would then be that we would therefore have to sunbathe twice a day, everyday. That precept is not of faith therefore it may be disagreed with. However, binding precepts of the Church must be obeyed.

[QuantaCura]

I found this beautiful prayer written by Pope Paul VI:

Lord, I believe:
I wish to believe in Thee.
Lord, let my faith be full and unreserved, and let it penetrate my thought, my way of judging Divine things and human things.
Lord, let my faith be joyful and give peace and gladness to my spirit, and dispose it for prayer with God and conversation with men, so that the inner bliss of its fortunate possession may shine forth in sacred and secular conversation.
Lord, let my faith be humble and not presume to be based on the experience of my thought and of my feeling; but let it surrender to the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and not have any better guarantee than in docility to Tradition and to the authority of the magisterium of the Holy Church. Amen.

POPE PAUL VI

[Irenaeus]

That is a beautiful prayer, Quanta. Thanks for sharing!

[Rochir]

NICE to see such civilised discourse!:thumbsup:

[boughtwithaprice]

I wanted to share what I have been reading, as I believe that it is relevant to this discussion. This exerpt is from "Readings in Moral Theology No. 6, Dissent in the Church" It was written by Bernard Haring, a 20th century theologian, and he is giving his comment on the case against Charles Curran. Fr. Curran was stripped of his license to teach Catholic theology in 1986 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

For those intersted, a brief biography of Fr. Haring is here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n34_v34/ai_21062281/pg_1

unfortunately it is his obituary:(

Anyway, this exerpt was originally broadcast on West German Radio in Sept 1986 and is translated from the German by Benedict Neenan, O.S.B.


Fundamental Acceptance of the Teaching Authority of the Church

Curran has never given the slightest cause to doubt that he fundamentally accepts the teaching authority of the Chruch, even in the are of noninfallible, reformable teachings. With the entire sound tradition, Curran also emphasizes of course that in the area of fallible teaching statements an assent of faith--an irrevocable "Yes"-- cannot be demanded. To require a total assent to fallible teaching would contradict the once-and-for-all nature of the act of faith and stand in contradiction to the teaching of the First Vatican Council. The draft concerning Papal infallibility was adopted there only after the bounds of infallibility were clearly delineated. It is also a fact that at the time, curial and other circles were disappointed since they wanted papal teaching authority as such to be seen as unquestionable. Ever since the First Vatican Council there has been no lack of attempts to stretch the infallibility of the pope to such an extent that no dissent, even in the realm of fallible teaching, would be permitted. This is all the more astonishing in light of the fact that the minority of bishops who were able to advance this idea had been presenting as infallible a long list of papal teachings that were not only fallible, but in some cases actually incorrect.
The theology which we studied long before the Second Vatican Council provided the applicable qualifications for any authoritative teachings discussed so that any intelligent student could see where an act of faith was required and where a true faith assent was not possible.
Another question discussed again and again in the period before the Second Vatican Council concerned the safeguards which were built in or should be built in so that no false or unbalanced teaching of the Vatican could simply be promulgated. The most radical of those who emphasized authority solved the difficulty with the historically unverifiable position that at the proper time the Holy Spirit gives the person in authority the necessary insight to make the proper corrections. At the other extreme there were some, even well know theologians, who taught that the proper corrective lay rather in the way of non-acceptance of such untenable teachings by the faithful and theologians, thus keeping the way open to fuller insight into the truth.
Official magisterial texts do not require an assent of faith in the area of noninfallible Church teaching but rather a religiosum obsequium of intellect and will. The German translation of this phrase in the new Code of Canon Law is with "religious obedience of intellect and will"[religiosum Verstandes- und Willensgehorsam](Canon 751). I consider this translation unfortunate. What does obedience of the intellect mean in regard to official teaching based on natural law when one can find no convincing foundation for the matter in nature? Sound theology understands the Latin expression obsequium religiosum as that religious loyalty which prepares the intellect and will of the faithful to receive such teachings honestly and sincerely, to endeavor with honest reasoning to understand them and appropriate them. It should also prepare them, however, to examine the teachings critically and, should the situation arise, to assert those reservations which seem necessary without rebellion against authority. This, of course, must always be done in a spirit of shared responsibility with the Pilgim Church which, in so many areas of newly emerging problems, is sometimes only able to give provisional answers and must continue to search for a more complete response.
Since Humanae vitae, Charles Curran has come to view dissent as an expression of honest loyalty to, and co-responsibility with, both the Church's magisterium and the entire People of God. He is genuinely concerned with that loyalty and honesty which alone can truly honor the Church and Church authority.
Thus when the press reports, as it did last spring, that "Curran refuses to submit to the magisterium", it is grossly misleading. The report should rather read, "Curran has declared that he, with all due respect to the ecclesiastical teaching office, cannot recant in certain question of sexual ethics as long as he is unable, after great effort, to see his own positions as false and the official teachings of the Church as undoubtedly correct." In this long process of investigation, Curran has continually asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to clarify whether it considers dissent itself, whether from infallible or noninfallible teaching, to be a punishable offense in itself or if the Congregation considers as punishable only improperly expressed dissent.

[Irenaeus]

BWAP,

Thank you for your continued discussion, and for your last post.

Unfortunately I cannot respond in detail because I'm not going to be on CF regularly much longer because a new year begins immanently at college for me, where I only sporadically have internet access. I wish many blessings on you (and Protinus) and maybe I'll rejoin this discussion at a later time.

Again, thank you for corresponding with me.

Happy Solemnity of the Assumption!