Obsequium religiosum

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yab_Yum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

Yab_Yum

Guest
Obsequium religiosum.

What exactly is the difference between it and the full assent of faith given to the infallible Magesterium?
 
Yab_Yum said:
Obsequium religiosum.

What exactly is the difference between it and the full assent of faith given to the infallible Magesterium?
Click to expand...
Hello Yab Yum,

Well, technically, one does not give the full assent of faith to the infallible magisterium. Instead, such assent is given to that which is defined, by that magisterium, as part of divine revelation.

One can say, in answer to your question, that there is a difference in the subject and object.

The object of religious submission is not part of the deposit of the faith. The teachings we are to submit to “are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or last to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error” (Ratzinger, Commentary on the Profession of Faith, June 29, 1998). On the other hand, the object of what we believe with divine and catholic faith is what has been revealed by God.

It is different in the subject because the virtue of faith, while it involves the intellect and will, is not the same as religious submission of the intellect and will. Faith was called “the full obedience of intelligence and will” in Vatican I (Dei Filius, ch. 6). St. Paul said the faithful should respond to revelation by "bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ (2. Cor. 10: 5-6).

So, it is the difference between the full obedience that is “faith” and religious submission. Externally, there might not be an observable difference between these two responses. Internally, there is. Compare “I believe it.” to “I religiously accept and submit to it.”

Just a few thoughts…

Dan
 
"Dogmas and Doctrines

Doctrine - any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful.

The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. This teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or decision of an ecumenical council, or this teaching may be taught ordinarily in the exercise of the Church’s magisterium or teaching authority.

Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God.

The difference in Dogmas and Doctrines is the level of certainty with which the magisterium teaches. Dogmas are taught with absolute certainty (beyond all doubt whatsoever), whereas doctrines are taught with moral certainty (similar to beyond reasonable doubt).

Dogmas require the assent of faith, meaning that obstinate doubt or denial of the truth of the dogma is the sin of heresy–a sin against the virtue of faith.

Doctrines require religious submission of intellect and will. Refusal to submit to doctrines of the Church is not a heresy, not a sin against faith, but a sin against charity. We are called to “obey our leaders and submit to them” (Heb 13:17). To dissent with doctrine is incompatible with humility, loyalty, and charity. It is a matter of placing one’s own fallible intellect and will above that of the mind of the Holy Catholic Church."
 
Obsequium also means respect.We respect the teaching but since we are taught to be loyal to conscience(Vatican II) & since the Church is the people Of God & not just the pope.We must follow are conscience in the end,always & everywhere icluding above the pope.Popes have a horrid track record for example—Sex in marriage a necesary evil tainted with sin(gregory the great),Condemnation of democracy(Pius IX),educating boys & gorls in same class as unnatural(piux IX) etc we must always after informing ourselves be loyal to conscience
 
Ott’s Fundamentals describes it “as an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See. The so-called “silentium obsequiosum.” that is “reverent silence,” does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.”

See also paragraphs 23 to 31 of this document from the CDF–it’s directed to theologians, not laymen, so take that into account:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

This old article from the 1940s also has a lot of good info on this citing various theologians’ explanations.
catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

For example:

“Lercher teaches that the internal assent due to these pronouncements cannot be called certain according to the strictest philosophical meaning of the term. The assent given to such propositions is interpretative condicionatus, including the tacit condition that the teaching is accepted as true “unless the Church should at some time peremptorially define otherwise or unless the decision should be discovered to be erroneous.” [33] Lyons [34] and Phillips [35] use the same approach in describing the assent Catholics are in conscience bound to give to the Church’s non-infallible teachings. Fr. Yves de la Brière speaks of the “submission and hierarchical obedience” due to these pronouncements. [36]”

From other sources I’ve read I’ve gathered that this form of assent requires a spirit of docility that gives a presumption of truth to the teaching and a good faith effort to accept the teaching. If that effort fails, then assent can be suspended, but criticism must be given to the proper authority in a manner consonant with one’s rank and competence and with due reverence for the Magisterial organ doing the teaching.
 
These people were from a time that ignored history & the true theology of Reception & the Sense Of The Faithful & Conscience.So powerful is reception that Pope Pius IX polled his Bishops before issuing the Immaculate Conception Dogma to see how the Laity were RECIEVING
the teaching.At Vatican II a proposed ammendment was presented to make the infallibilty of the magisterium the source of the peoples infallibilty but it was rejected by the Council as going against tradition (Lumen Gentium 12) .The pope & bishops infallibilty is grounded in the infallibilty of the Whole people Of God not the other way around. John Paul II makes it clear in his book On the threshold of Hope that “If Newman places conscience above authority he is proclaiming nothing new in the constant teaching of the church…”. The Catechism quotes Newman as saying “Conscience is The Aboriginal Vicar Of Christ”. Aquinnas weighs in by saying"anyone whom the ecclesiastical authority in ignorance of the true facts imposes a demand that offends against his clear conscience,should perish in excommunication rather than violate his conscience". The Council summarizing the tradition spoke of LOYALTY always to conscience. Ott was speaking of a temporary time where history or sound theolgy was forgotten.AfterVatican 1(which was a incomplete council) popes started to accumulate so much power that they thought themselves above the church.At Vatican 1 papal investigators found 41 instances in history where popes taught errors. Blind obedience has zilch to do with Catholicism
 
This is a 2-year old thread. We are not supposed to resurrect old threads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top