Dear brother Isa,
That's nice. Now explain how, under Lumen Gentium, as Fr. Ambrose posted, that makes a difference.
Not every "Catholic knows" that it is not infallible, but according to Lumen Gentium, they should assent to it.
NOTE: this has already been addressed earlier to brother Mickey just a couple of weeks ago. But, truth to tell, I'm not sure if it was in this thread, or in another one, so I will repeat the explanation here. "Religious assent of the mind and will" is, according to the Catholic understanding, different from an "assent of Faith." "Assent of Faith" - a technical term that every professional Catholic theologian understands - has a different object than "religious assent." "Assent of Faith" has as its object, infallible teaching or doctrine. "Assent of Faith" is tantamount to believing something as if God himself were before us telling us "you must believe this" (that's my admittedly non-technical explanation of a technical term
On the other hand, "religious assent" - another technical term - has, as its object, the ecclesiastical Magisterium. It is equivalent to "religious obedience" to religious authority on earth. I'll give you the example I gave to brother Mickey earlier. According to the Latin canons, a Latin Catholic is bound by "religious assent" or "religious obedience" to always confess his/her sins privately to a priest. On the other hand, an Armenian Catholic is not so bound, and has no need to give "religious assent" to the Latin canons, because according to their own Tradition, general absolution is normative during their DL.
The matter that requires "assent of faith" in BOTH Traditions, on the other hand, is the Divine teaching that God has given the Church the power to forgive sins.
If a person were to be placed under censure for violating a precept that requires "religious assent," then the immediate reason for the censure would be disobedience to one's religious superior. In distinction, if a person were to be placed under censure for violating a precept that requires "assent of faith," then the immediate reason for the censure would be heresy.
Hope that helps. If you have any other questions about the matter, please ask. I know it might be a difficult concept to understand.
Ineffibilis Deus is hardly a colloquial document: for one thing, there hasn't been colloquial Latin for quite some time.
Please, brother Isa, stop misrepresenting what I say/write. I did NOT say that Ineffibelus Deus
was a colloquial document. I said the use of the term "full of grace" should be regarded as a "colloquialism" because that is term is what most (if not all) Catholics are used to.
Here's the Latin of the part I have repeatedly refered to, since you say "translation" is the problem.
Cum vero ipsi Patres, Ecclesiseque scriptores
animo menteque reputarent, Beatissimam Virginem ab angelo
Gabriele sublimissimam Dei Matris dignitatem ei nuntiante,
ipsius Dei nomine et jussu gratia plenam fuisse nuncupatam,
docuerant hac singulari solemnique salutatione nunquam alias
audita ostendi, Deiparam fiiisse omnium divinarum gratiarum
sedem, omnibusque Divini Spiritus charismatibus exoraatam, imo
eorumdem charismatum infinitum prope thesaurum, abyssumque
inexhaustam, adeo ut nunquam maledicto obnoxia, et una cum
Filio perpetuae benedictionis particeps ab Elisabeth Divino acta
Spiritu audire meraerit : Benedicta tu inter mulieres, et hener-
dictus fructus ventris tui.
When the Fathers and writers of the Church meditated on the fact that the most Blessed Virgin was, in the name and by order of God himself, proclaimed full of grace by the Angel Gabriel when he announced her most sublime dignity of Mother of God, they thought that this singular and solemn salutation, never heard before, showed that the Mother of God is the seat of all divine graces and is adorned with all gifts of the Holy Spirit. To them Mary is an almost infinite treasury, an inexhaustible abyss of these gifts, to such an extent that she was never subject to the curse and was, together with her Son, the only partaker of perpetual benediction. Hence she was worthy to hear Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit, exclaim: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."
The idea of Mary being "full of grace," or being the "seat of divine graces" is a near-UNIVERSAL praise given to Mary by the Fathers. HOWEVER, we all understand that these are poetic and figurative terms. It's absurd to think that this is supposed to have a literal meaning. If it was taken literally, then it would mean that Mary had the Grace of the priesthood, which the Church has never taught. You yourself would understand the dramatically effusive praises of the Eastern Church in poetic, not literal terms. I think it would be unChristian (i.e., violates a lot of moral precepts taught us by our Lord) to assume the Latin Church, or the Catholic Church as a whole, would not likewise understand it in such a manner, if the only purpose is to disparage the Catholic Church.