Topic: Pope tells SSPX traditionalists they must accept Second Vatican Council

[VarangianGuard]

Say hello to the Western Rite?  The SSPX are ultra-trads, they believe all other Rites to be heretical.  There is no way they will 'dox.

Believe other rites to be heretical? Respectfully..., that is absolute nonsense.
They are of the Roman rite and are concerned about 1) Doctrine and 2) the traditional Latin Mass(albeit this weird - in my opinion -attitude that one must settle for the 1962 liturgical books)
In fact, their priests urge Roman rite Catholics to attend Eastern  liturgies if no TLM is available. 

However, I agree that the they won't go Orthodox as a group. Maybe some individual priests and probably more layfolk, but that's it.
 

[choy]

Say hello to the Western Rite?  The SSPX are ultra-trads, they believe all other Rites to be heretical.  There is no way they will 'dox.

Believe other rites to be heretical? Respectfully..., that is absolute nonsense.
They are of the Roman rite and are concerned about 1) Doctrine and 2) the traditional Latin Mass(albeit this weird - in my opinion -attitude that one must settle for the 1962 liturgical books)
In fact, their priests urge Roman rite Catholics to attend Eastern  liturgies if no TLM is available.  

However, I agree that the they won't go Orthodox as a group. Maybe some individual priests and probably more layfolk, but that's it.
 

They believe in the "traditional" belief that the Eastern Catholic Rites are nothing more than transitional Rites for the Orthodox to become Roman Catholics.

Also they are ultramontanists.  While they believe the post-Vatican II Popes to be "modernist heretics", they still hold strong to the authority of the Pope and are hoping to restore a traditional Pope who will rid the Church of the heretical Vatican II.

And I haven't heard of SSPX priests telling their flock to come attend Eastern Catholic parishes.  I haven't seen anyone some to our parish, and we're the only EC Church in our area.

[VarangianGuard]

That is not true. There is no such "traditional belief". Even Trent flies in the face of that postulate. If you are referring to romanisations of the Eastern rites,  that is a different matter and does not concern the SSPX.  I have been in SSPX chapels around the globe for years and I know what I am talking about.
I am not saying the SSPX views Orthodoxy favourably. Far from it. But that isn't the point here.
 
However, about ultramontanism, I agree with you totally. That is also why I say few of them are likely to go Orthodox.
It is also my major beef with them.

[searn77]

Say hello to the Western Rite?  The SSPX are ultra-trads, they believe all other Rites to be heretical.  There is no way they will 'dox.

I realize this is from wikipedia so there's always the possibility that it's wrong, and I don't have the time right now to really look into it, but I was under the assumption that the SSPX were in communion with a similar group but one that is eastern rite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_Society_of_Saint_Josaphat

[ErmyCath]

In any case, RCC teaching is not easy to find out about these days. It used to pretty clear and concise, but not any more. That 3 successive popes can teach differently to what the church has always taught and that people are willingly blind and convince themselves that "in some mysterious way, the former and the present teaching can be reconciled", is beyond me.
Personally, I am currently taking  (and suffering)  the consequences of that and to my horror I have discovered that maybe changing doctrines isn't a new thing with the Catholic church. It is just that this change is somehow much more radical.

After many years as a convinced and devout traditionalist Catholic, I am having serious doubts about the whole thing and from the looks of it on this forum, I am not the only one.

I am right there with you...

[Shanghaiski]

SSPX - Say goodbye to Der Panzerpope and say hello to the Western Rite!

lol thinking the same thing.

Yeah right. Ask the SSPX what they think about artificial birth control and denying scholastic theology.

Well, there is no official Orthodox position on non-abortifacient artificial birth control, although I believe the traditional opinion would be negative. As for denying scholastic theology, that is one of the problems. The RC traddies are much more wedded to the developments from 1100 on than anything prior to that time.

[Shanghaiski]

Most Catholics I know don't accept the Second Vatican Counsel.  They prefer the first.

How is any Christian at liberty to not accept an ecumenical council of his/her own Church?

It's different in Roman Catholicism et. al. than it is for Orthodox. Ecumenical councils are not nearly as important as belief in papal supremacy. If one has this, one has various options--these may be unofficial or not liked by some/most RCs, but it's the current situation, ever since large groups of non-Latin Riters w/different ecclesial understandings began joining the papal church.

[William]

Most Catholics I know don't accept the Second Vatican Counsel.  They prefer the first.

Really? Most Catholics I know (and I live with Catholics and grew up as one) act like VII was the only ecumenical council in history and the most important event in church history bar nothing.

[Iconodule]

Most Catholics I know don't accept the Second Vatican Counsel.  They prefer the first.

Really? Most Catholics I know (and I live with Catholics and grew up as one) act like VII was the only ecumenical council in history and the most important event in church history bar nothing.

Heh, my uncle is a (retired) RC priest and when I mentioned the second ecumenical council, he said, "Oh yeah, that happened in the 60's".

[choy]

Most Catholics I know don't accept the Second Vatican Counsel.  They prefer the first.

Really? Most Catholics I know (and I live with Catholics and grew up as one) act like VII was the only ecumenical council in history and the most important event in church history bar nothing.

Heh, my uncle is a (retired) RC priest and when I mentioned the second ecumenical council, he said, "Oh yeah, that happened in the 60's".

Correct him and day it was in the 80s (380s to be exact) :p

[choy]

Well, there is no official Orthodox position on non-abortifacient artificial birth control, although I believe the traditional opinion would be negative. As for denying scholastic theology, that is one of the problems. The RC traddies are much more wedded to the developments from 1100 on than anything prior to that time.

1100?  Save for St. Thomas Aquinas, most traddies I come across can't even tell you anything about the Church pre-Council of Trent.

[J Michael]

Most Catholics I know don't accept the Second Vatican Counsel.  They prefer the first.

Really? Most Catholics I know (and I live with Catholics and grew up as one) act like VII was the only ecumenical council in history and the most important event in church history bar nothing.

 

You mean....No, now wait a minute....do you mean that it................*wasn't* ??  Eeeeeek!!


(I wonder how many Orthodox lay people worldwide, apart from those prowling the internet, know how many Ecumenical Councils there were, and which was first and which was last?)(No, I don't *really* expect an answer to that  .)

[Maria]

Most Catholics I know don't accept the Second Vatican Counsel.  They prefer the first.

Really? Most Catholics I know (and I live with Catholics and grew up as one) act like VII was the only ecumenical council in history and the most important event in church history bar nothing.

Heh, my uncle is a (retired) RC priest and when I mentioned the second ecumenical council, he said, "Oh yeah, that happened in the 60's".

I fear that is a common mistake as most Catholics have been heavily indoctrinated with the Vatican II documents in catechism classes and in college "theology" classes. So for them, Vatican II is an ecumenical council as it was opened to Protestant and Orthodox Christian observers.   Yeah. Incredible.

Another very common error: Many Catholics think that the Immaculate Conception refers to Christ.

[choy]

I fear that is a common mistake as most Catholics have been heavily indoctrinated with the Vatican II documents in catechism classes and in college "theology" classes. So for them, Vatican II is an ecumenical council as it was opened to Protestant and Orthodox Christian observers.   Yeah. Incredible.

Another very common error: Many Catholics think that the Immaculate Conception refers to Christ.

That is one of the bummers about the Catholic Church for me, everything is about a certain point of history rather than one that looks at the entire history of the Church.  "Modern" RCs look at the Vatican II Church, Traditionalists look at Trent.  It seems as if there was no Catholic Church prior to Trent.  In fact most people come off as if everything was the same exact way from the time of Jesus until Trent that what exists at Trent is the way it has always been.

[Jetavan]

ROME The head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X said he has been receiving mixed messages from the Vatican for years over if and how the group might be brought back into full communion with the church.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the society, claimed that top Vatican officials told him not to be discouraged by official statements from the Vatican, because they did not reflect Pope Benedict XVI's true feelings.
....
According to an audio recording posted Dec. 30 on YouTube, the bishop gave a nearly two-hour talk Dec. 28 at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Academy in New Hamburg, Ontario. He spoke about the society's three years of discussions with the Vatican over the society's future and explained how he interpreted behind-the-scenes communications about the talks.

Apparently speaking without a text, he also called the Jewish people "enemies of the church," saying Jewish leaders' support of the Second Vatican Council "shows that Vatican II is their thing, not the church's."

[choy]

ROME The head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X said he has been receiving mixed messages from the Vatican for years over if and how the group might be brought back into full communion with the church.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the society, claimed that top Vatican officials told him not to be discouraged by official statements from the Vatican, because they did not reflect Pope Benedict XVI's true feelings.
....
According to an audio recording posted Dec. 30 on YouTube, the bishop gave a nearly two-hour talk Dec. 28 at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Academy in New Hamburg, Ontario. He spoke about the society's three years of discussions with the Vatican over the society's future and explained how he interpreted behind-the-scenes communications about the talks.

Apparently speaking without a text, he also called the Jewish people "enemies of the church," saying Jewish leaders' support of the Second Vatican Council "shows that Vatican II is their thing, not the church's."

By their fruits you will know them.

[Peter J]

Most Catholics I know don't accept the Second Vatican Counsel.  They prefer the first.

Really? Most Catholics I know (and I live with Catholics and grew up as one) act like VII was the only ecumenical council in history and the most important event in church history bar nothing.

Heh, my uncle is a (retired) RC priest and when I mentioned the second ecumenical council, he said, "Oh yeah, that happened in the 60's".

I fear that is a common mistake as most Catholics have been heavily indoctrinated with the Vatican II documents in catechism classes and in college "theology" classes. So for them, Vatican II is an ecumenical council as it was opened to Protestant and Orthodox Christian observers.   Yeah. Incredible.

Another very common error: Many Catholics think that the Immaculate Conception refers to Christ.

A remember a sentence in an article, something like "A decree from a Vatican Council has more weight than the pope expressing an opinion."

[Jetavan]

ROME The head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X said he has been receiving mixed messages from the Vatican for years over if and how the group might be brought back into full communion with the church.
....
Apparently speaking without a text, he also called the Jewish people "enemies of the church," saying Jewish leaders' support of the Second Vatican Council "shows that Vatican II is their thing, not the church's."

The Vatican responds:

The Vatican reaffirmed its commitment to dialogue with Jews on Monday after the head of a traditionalist breakaway group called them "enemies of the Church."
 
The Vatican chief spokesman, Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, said it was "meaningless" and "unacceptable" to label Jews as "enemies" of the Catholic church.
....
On Monday, Lombardi stressed he was not directly responding to Fellay's words but merely restating the church's official position on relations with Jews, which dates to the Second Vatican Council. He declined to comment on the potential impact of Fellay's words on the dialogue between the Vatican and the SSPX.
 
The dialogue is currently stalled as the Vatican awaits the SSPX's response to a reconciliation offer submitted last June. Leaked SSPX documents slammed the proposal as "clearly unacceptable," but the Vatican signaled in October that it is willing to give the traditionalists "additional time for reflection and study."

[choy]

The SSPX should just be excommunicated and then they should dialogue.  The problem here is the SSPX is in a grey area which is hurting the spirituality of many Catholics who think they can legitimately approach the SSPX and still be Catholic.

[VarangianGuard]

The SSPX should just be excommunicated and then they should dialogue.  The problem here is the SSPX is in a grey area which is hurting the spirituality of many Catholics who think they can legitimately approach the SSPX and still be Catholic.

And all Catholics can in fact do that, entirely legitimately.

On what grounds should they be excommunicated? For saying and teaching what the Popes and RC hierarchy themselves said for centuries about the people in question? I mean, rabbinical Judaism was created precisely to counter the message of Christ and is as such anti-Christian. That goes for the faithful of this man-made religion too,  inasmuch as they agree with the doctrine contained therein.
It is, on the contrary, the Novus Ordo debacle which is hurting the spirituality of Catholics even more than all legalisms, as it dabbles in diabolical ecumania and seeks to put all religions on equal footing and highly placed Cardinals even publicly affirm that the rabbinical religion is salvific for its followers.

I guess this is a fine example of how doctrine "develops" in the Roman church. To hold what had been held for centuries now puts a man in danger of excommunication.
Judaizing is a sin, also for the Orthodox.

[ErmyCath]

I guess this is a fine example of how doctrine "develops" in the Roman church. To hold what had been held for centuries now puts a man in danger of excommunication.

In two sentences, you have precisely summarized why I am I inquiring into Orthodoxy.

This is very well said and is an important point that I think every "Traditionalist" Roman Catholic must confront at some point. Many veer off into sedevacantism, others somehow reconcile the developments and maintain faith in the impeccability of the Roman Church while presumably ignoring the last 3 to 5 popes and a purported Ecumenical Council.

For my part, answering by saying the Pope was never infallible to begin with and that council was not ecumenical is much more consistent and logical. That is bolstered the more I examine Orthodoxy.

[VarangianGuard]

I guess this is a fine example of how doctrine "develops" in the Roman church. To hold what had been held for centuries now puts a man in danger of excommunication.

In two sentences, you have precisely summarized why I am I inquiring into Orthodoxy.

This is very well said and is an important point that I think every "Traditionalist" Roman Catholic must confront at some point. Many veer off into sedevacantism, others somehow reconcile the developments and maintain faith in the impeccability of the Roman Church while presumably ignoring the last 3 to 5 popes and a purported Ecumenical Council.

For my part, answering by saying the Pope was never infallible to begin with and that council was not ecumenical is much more consistent and logical. That is bolstered the more I examine Orthodoxy.

Ermycath,
Thanks. I purposely wrote it like that and it is my reason for inquiring into Orthodoxy too.
Retreating into sedevacantism was never an option for me and although I initially looked into it a bit, I could not fathom how Christianity could be based essentially on the man in Rome, as it seems the SV's are implying.
On the other hand, it is also not a viable option to just disregard the last Popes either, as you point out very well.
I have taken the only viable route left, the one which I tragically missed before.

[J Michael]

The SSPX should just be excommunicated and then they should dialogue.  The problem here is the SSPX is in a grey area which is hurting the spirituality of many Catholics who think they can legitimately approach the SSPX and still be Catholic.

And all Catholics can in fact do that, entirely legitimately.

On what grounds should they be excommunicated? For saying and teaching what the Popes and RC hierarchy themselves said for centuries about the people in question? I mean, rabbinical Judaism was created precisely to counter the message of Christ and is as such anti-Christian. That goes for the faithful of this man-made religion too,  inasmuch as they agree with the doctrine contained therein.
It is, on the contrary, the Novus Ordo debacle which is hurting the spirituality of Catholics even more than all legalisms, as it dabbles in diabolical ecumania and seeks to put all religions on equal footing and highly placed Cardinals even publicly affirm that the rabbinical religion is salvific for its followers.

I guess this is a fine example of how doctrine "develops" in the Roman church. To hold what had been held for centuries now puts a man in danger of excommunication.
Judaizing is a sin, also for the Orthodox.

Well, that was pretty polemical.

[choy]

On what grounds should they be excommunicated?

Pastor Aeternus.

Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

So, then,
if anyone says that
the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of
faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema.

[ErmyCath]

On what grounds should they be excommunicated?

Pastor Aeternus.

Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

So, then,
if anyone says that
the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of
faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema.

I think the point is that the pope is teaching (under his authority set forth in Pastor Aeternus) something now that is opposite of what the Church taught even for the first part of the 20th Century...

In other words, keeping in line with the teachings I like trying to hit a moving target. Many of the saints of the past would be excommunicated by the current Magisterium for holding to the beliefs taught infallibly during their lifetimes (but of course no one gets excommunicated anymore).

[primuspilus]

Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the society, claimed that top Vatican officials told him not to be discouraged by official statements from the Vatican, because they did not reflect Pope Benedict XVI's true feelings

I have an issue with this part. If this were another Pope, I might give this statement some credence. However, because of the Pope's highly influential contributions during Vatican II when he was a priest, I find it hard to believe.

PP

[theistgal]

I don't put any stock in rumors like thay. IIRC the followers of Medjugorje claimed something similar, that Pope JPII secretly supported them so don't pay any attention to those silly ol' official condemnations.

[theistgal]

"Thay" = "they"
"Droid keyboard" = "chaos"

[theistgal]

"Thay" = "THAT" and now I'm just going to stop and brood over my coffee cup for a while.

[choy]

I think the point is that the pope is teaching (under his authority set forth in Pastor Aeternus) something now that is opposite of what the Church taught even for the first part of the 20th Century...

In other words, keeping in line with the teachings I like trying to hit a moving target. Many of the saints of the past would be excommunicated by the current Magisterium for holding to the beliefs taught infallibly during their lifetimes (but of course no one gets excommunicated anymore).

But there are also administrative issues which Pastor Aeternus says Catholics must be in full submission to the Pope to.  The Pope says the SSPX has no active ministry in the Catholic Church today, yet they continue to operate their chapels and say Mass and peform Sacraments in the name of the Church.

[ErmyCath]

You're right, choy. But, is that failure to submit an excommicable offense?  I don't think so. It is, however, the basis for the idea that the priests are canonically irregular.

Now, I think one could argue they are excommunicated in fact because they persist in offering illicit sacraments in deception of the laity and their bishops routinely violate the law by confirming in another bishop's diocese.

Setting aside these canonical issues, though, many in the Church accuse them (both SSPX priests and attached laity) of failing to adhere to the doctrinal teaching of the Magisterium. That is the larger issue from my perspective as they are accused of heresy essentially for believing precisely those things the Church taught dogmatically until approximately 1969.

At its base it is a question of the breadth of the "development of doctrine" doctrine.

[Jetavan]

That is the larger issue from my perspective as they are accused of heresy essentially for believing precisely those things the Church taught dogmatically until approximately 1969. 

Which dogmatic teachings do you have in mind?

[choy]

You're right, choy. But, is that failure to submit an excommicable offense?  I don't think so. It is, however, the basis for the idea that the priests are canonically irregular.

At this point I believe it is.  Its not like they started doing this last week, its been going on for a long time.  Like I said, the issue is a lot of people get caught in the legal mumbo-jumbo the SSPX put out to justify their existence (I had an ultra-Trad explain it to me once and I never quite get it but it is extremely legalistic).  Since they will not close their chapels the RC Church should just excommunicate them for now until the issue is resolved.

Now, I think one could argue they are excommunicated in fact because they persist in offering illicit sacraments in deception of the laity and their bishops routinely violate the law by confirming in another bishop's diocese.

Setting aside these canonical issues, though, many in the Church accuse them (both SSPX priests and attached laity) of failing to adhere to the doctrinal teaching of the Magisterium. That is the larger issue from my perspective as they are accused of heresy essentially for believing precisely those things the Church taught dogmatically until approximately 1969.

At its base it is a question of the breadth of the "development of doctrine" doctrine.

At this point they obviously are not "of one mind" with the Pope and the larger Roman Catholic Church, they are already de facto not in communion with one another.

[gueranger]

That is the larger issue from my perspective as they are accused of heresy essentially for believing precisely those things the Church taught dogmatically until approximately 1969.  

Which dogmatic teachings do you have in mind?

Ah but there in lies the problem. None of it is dogmatic. We just have to accept it anyway.

"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation." -Nota Praevia of Lumen Gentium

[ErmyCath]

Good question.

Are we not discussing one in this very thread?  The meaning of ecumenism and the relationship of the Church to non-Catholics. Of course, the liturgical rites and their changes are sometimes raised to the level of dogmatic difference. Religious liberty versus religious tolerance is topical right now, but I concede that is somewhat related to the ecumenism discussion. Ecclesiology, as defined at Vatican II, was controversial even then (see the later-added explanatory preface).

From my experience, the SSPX believes in an essentially different religion than the "mainstream" Catholic Church. It is my belief, based on my research, that the SSPX "version" is more akin to Catholicism as it was believed and practiced prior to 1969. So, there is a very clear rupture there to be seen. In fact, many prominent people in the Church seem to proclaim that rupture as providential.

At any rate, I'm no expert. I was just sharing what caused me to start looking at Church history to see where the continuity could be found (because I reject the development of doctrine idea, at least as it is exemplified here).

CHOY - I agree with you about the lack of communion. This is particularly true when one is mindful that communion for the Catholic Church is not really a communion of faith, but a communion of attachment to the Pope. This is how so many people who believe wildly different things are still in communion. It is becoming similar to the Anglican Communion (although it is certainly not that bad yet). I note, though, that the liberals in the Catholic Church can apparently believe whatever they want. The only ones called to sign a statement of doctrinal belief are the SSPX. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

[J Michael]

That is the larger issue from my perspective as they are accused of heresy essentially for believing precisely those things the Church taught dogmatically until approximately 1969.  

Which dogmatic teachings do you have in mind?

Ah but there in lies the problem. None of it is dogmatic. We just have to accept it anyway.

"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation." -Nota Praevia of Lumen Gentium

This might be splitting hairs, but is "ought" the same as "must"?

[ErmyCath]

Catholics must give intellectual ascent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

So "ought" essentially means "must" unless there is a later contradictory infallible pronouncement.

[gueranger]

That is the larger issue from my perspective as they are accused of heresy essentially for believing precisely those things the Church taught dogmatically until approximately 1969.  

Which dogmatic teachings do you have in mind?

Ah but there in lies the problem. None of it is dogmatic. We just have to accept it anyway.

"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation." -Nota Praevia of Lumen Gentium

This might be splitting hairs, but is "ought" the same as "must"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum#Withholding_assent

[Jetavan]

Catholics must give intellectual assent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

Is intellectual assent different from heart-felt consent?

[gueranger]

Catholics must give intellectual assent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

Is intellectual assent different from heart-felt consent?

From wikipedia:

The magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church are gradated according to a "hierarchy of truths". The more central or foundational a truth is in the system of truths proposed by the Church's magisterium, the greater the assent of the will to that "truth" must be. The document Donum Veritatis[1] teaches the following concerning this gradation of assent:

"When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed. When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held. When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith."

1 ^ Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Veritatis: Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, May 24, 1990, no. 23, Vatican Document

[ErmyCath]

Catholics must give intellectual assent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

Is intellectual assent different from heart-felt consent?

Whoa. That is a fantastic question. I don't think there is an "official" answer to it. My guess is the Church would say, if your heart tells you not to believe it, you must use your intellect to subdue your heart and submit to the teaching. After all, faith is not based on emotionalism.

Basically, Catholics must try to believe and must act and teach consistent with the non-infallible Magisterial teaching.

[J Michael]

Catholics must give intellectual ascent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

So "ought" essentially means "must" unless there is a later contradictory infallible pronouncement.

Thanks!  Seems I heard something like that somewhere before  .

[Jetavan]

Catholics must give intellectual assent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

Is intellectual assent different from heart-felt consent?

Whoa. That is a fantastic question. I don't think there is an "official" answer to it. My guess is the Church would say, if your heart tells you not to believe it, you must use your intellect to subdue your heart and submit to the teaching. After all, faith is not based on emotionalism.

True, emotionalism is not good, but there's another part of the heart that is not emotion: the conscience.

[ErmyCath]

Catholics must give intellectual assent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

Is intellectual assent different from heart-felt consent?

Whoa. That is a fantastic question. I don't think there is an "official" answer to it. My guess is the Church would say, if your heart tells you not to believe it, you must use your intellect to subdue your heart and submit to the teaching. After all, faith is not based on emotionalism.

True, emotionalism is not good, but there's another part of the heart that is not emotion: the conscience.

You're right. The official response would be that we must form our conscience in accordance with the teachings on the Church. So, if your conscience will not allow you to submit to the teaching, your conscience is not properly formed.

[J Michael]

Catholics must give intellectual assent to non-infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Magisterium.

Is intellectual assent different from heart-felt consent?

Whoa. That is a fantastic question. I don't think there is an "official" answer to it. My guess is the Church would say, if your heart tells you not to believe it, you must use your intellect to subdue your heart and submit to the teaching. After all, faith is not based on emotionalism.

Basically, Catholics must try to believe and must act and teach consistent with the non-infallible Magisterial teaching.

Yes, that was a great question!  While you're correct that faith is not based on emotionalism, it also isn't based solely on intellectualism, if I understand correctly.  God's grace is a component of faith without which "faith" isn't really faith.