Religious Assent

[totus_tuus2009]

I heard a priest in union with the Holy See that stated the teachings of the “authentic magisterium” is not infallible, but requires or religious assent and submission of mind in will. If the teachings are found to go against Tradition and contradict past doctrinal statement, then we are bound to not give religious assent and submission of mind and will. Eventually the author went to say that Vatican II’s new teachings are part of the authentic magisterium and therefore are not infallible and some of those teachings are harmful and go against previous doctrinal statements and therefore do not require our religious assent and submission of mind and will. Is this okay?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

People can’t go against any dogmatically defined statements. Vatican II was a pastoral council only, though, non-dogmatic, so believing previous Church councils or popes that came to different conclusions than our present day ones did on these matters is perfectly valid.

 

[eelpis]

The ordinary magisterium is not infallible. This is when the pope writes for example an encyclical.Catholics are to give assent anyway even if it’s not infallible. When the teaching SEEMS to contradict previous teachings we must give the pope the benefit of a doubt and investigate further-often you will see that there was only a seeming contradiction-and teachings do develop. For example- the VII teachings on religious liberty do not contradict previous teachings, but it seems so at first glance.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The ordinary magisterium is not infallible. This is when the pope writes for example an encyclical.Catholics are to give assent anyway even if it’s not infallible. When the teaching SEEMS to contradict previous teachings we must give the pope the benefit of a doubt and investigate further-often you will see that there was only a seeming contradiction-and teachings do develop. For example- the VII teachings on religious liberty do not contradict previous teachings, but it seems so at first glance.

Er . . . yes they do. They contradict the teachings of many popes and saints throughout history. In fact, I can’t find any saints from the Medieval Ages who supported religious freedom. Even St. Francis, renowned for his teachings on love, supported the suppression of heresy.

The Church’s beliefs on the matter are clearly visible from the fact that they promoted the early Inquisitions, supported the early Christian Emperors in suppressing heresies, and we have statements from them condemning religious freedom and supporting the active suppression of heresy going from the beginning of the last millennium up through the 19th century. There’s an enormous amount of information available on all of this. A lot of historical twisting goes on when we try to rewrite the Church’s history in a more currently culturally acceptable way.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The verdict is still out as to just how well certain of Vat II’s teachings conform to the previous magisterium, but the overall premise that they are themselves only one more part of the ordinary magisterium is correct. If they were found to truly contradict previous teaching one would not be bound to assent to them, and the authority of the Church would not be undermined (beyond, of course, the embarrassment).

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The verdict is still out as to just how well certain of Vat II’s teachings conform to the previous magisterium, but the overall premise that they are themselves only one more part of the ordinary magisterium is correct. If they were found to truly contradict previous teaching one would not be bound to assent to them, and the authority of the Church would not be undermined (beyond, of course, the embarrassment).

What is the process by which the verdict comes in?