"Sensus Fidelium"

[Ellen]

Has anyone ever heard of this? On another Catholic bulletin board I frequent, a poster stated that this is a tradition (I don’t know if big T or small t) of the Church wherein “the people” must be contacted before any doctrine is pronounced, and if we don’t agree w/ it, it cannot be a doctrine.

This sounds like the complete opposite of what the Church is. “We” are not incapable of falling into error when making pronouncements of faith and morals; however, the Pope and Magisterium are (Doctrine of Infallibility). This smacks of the Church being a democracy, where everyone gets a vote (a’la the Episcopal church ordaining the gay bishop after a vote), which it is not.

Has anyone heard of this term, and is there any element of truth to it?

Thanks for your wise and learned opinions .

Ellen

 

[juanh]

this is a hot topic to many…but this is a definition from disciplesnow.com

DEFINITION: SENSUS FIDELIUM
Literally the “sense of the faithful.” Just as the Spirit infallibly guides the magisterium so that it doesn’t propose teachings that would lead the whole Church into error, so there is a flip side to the infallibility coin: The faithful, as a whole, have an instinct or “sense” about when a teaching is—or is not—in harmony with the true faith.
JRH

 

[davidv]

juanh:

this is a hot topic to many…but this is a definition from disciplesnow.com

DEFINITION: SENSUS FIDELIUM
Literally the “sense of the faithful.” Just as the Spirit infallibly guides the magisterium so that it doesn’t propose teachings that would lead the whole Church into error, so there is a flip side to the infallibility coin: The faithful, as a whole, have an instinct or “sense” about when a teaching is—or is not—in harmony with the true faith.
JRH

Two quotes from the Vatican web site from in “STATEMENT FROM THE CO-CHAIRMEN OF THE ANGLICAN-ROMAN CATHOLIC INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION”

• a recognition that because of their baptism and their participation in the sensus fidelium the laity play an integral part in decision making in the Church (cf. Authority in the Church: Elucidation, 4);

And more of the story
29. In every Christian who is seeking to be faithful to Christ and is fully incorporated into the life of the Church, there is a sensus fidei. This sensus fidei may be described as an active capacity for spiritual discernment, an intuition that is formed by worshipping and living in communion as a faithful member of the Church. When this capacity is exercised in concert by the body of the faithful we may speak of the exercise of the sensus fidelium (cf. Authority in the Church: Elucidation, 3-4). The exercise of the sensus fidei by each member of the Church contributes to the formation of the sensus fidelium through which the Church as a whole remains faithful to Christ. By the sensus fidelium, the whole body contributes to, receives from and treasures the ministry of those within the community who exercise episcope, watching over the living memory of the Church (cf*. Authority in the Church I*, 5-6). In diverse ways the “Amen” of the individual believer is thus incorporated within the “Amen” of the whole Church.
I believe that it is this “sense” that plays a role in the changes in the Church disciplines that occur from time to time.

 

[juanh]

very informative…thanks!!

JRH

 

[Ellen]

Ok, “disciplines” I can handle. It was the no defined doctrines/teachings w/o the laity agreeing to it that bothered me. If that were the case, then why, when allegedly the majority of Catholics wanted Pope Paul VI to approve the pill, did he not? The changing of disciplines w/ laity approval makes more sense.

Thanks.

Ellen

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

It has nothing to do with the Laity “approving” anything. The Magisterium has no need for any of the faithful to approve anything.

 

[mercygate]

juanh:

this is a hot topic to many…but this is a definition from disciplesnow.com

DEFINITION: SENSUS FIDELIUM
Literally the “sense of the faithful.” Just as the Spirit infallibly guides the magisterium so that it doesn’t propose teachings that would lead the whole Church into error, so there is a flip side to the infallibility coin: The faithful, as a whole, have an instinct or “sense” about when a teaching is—or is not—in harmony with the true faith.
JRH

Oh. Like American Catholics and birth control. Right?

 

[Salena]

mercygate:

Oh. Like American Catholics and birth control. Right?

This does not apply to doctrines that have been apart of our faith. It doesn’t mean we can change any doctrine. Birth control has been for many years. Just because times change doesn’t mean God changes.

 

[mercygate]

Findnmway:

This does not apply to doctrines that have been apart of our faith. It doesn’t mean we can change any doctrine. Birth control has been for many years. Just because times change doesn’t mean God changes.

Exactly! I should have eliminated my sarcasm and made a straight answer as you did. Especially on this important issue, since the teaching on birth control as outlined in Humanae Vitae is definitely not a new teaching but a reiteration of the doctrine always held by the Church.

 

[Richard_Hughes]

Has anyone ever heard of this? On another Catholic bulletin board I frequent, a poster stated that this is a tradition (I don’t know if big T or small t) of the Church wherein “the people” must be contacted before any doctrine is pronounced, and if we don’t agree w/ it, it cannot be a doctrine.

This sounds like the complete opposite of what the Church is. “We” are not incapable of falling into error when making pronouncements of faith and morals; however, the Pope and Magisterium are (Doctrine of Infallibility). This smacks of the Church being a democracy, where everyone gets a vote (a’la the Episcopal church ordaining the gay bishop after a vote), which it is not.

Has anyone heard of this term, and is there any element of truth to it?

Thanks for your wise and learned opinions .

Ellen

Aloha Ellen:

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” (a recent, complete official compilation of the teachings of Roman Catholicism, as you may know) should be a good source to go to for an understanding of the” Sensus Fidelium” (the sense of the faithful). The Catechism states: “In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a ‘supernatural sense of faith’ the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, ‘unfailingly adheres to this faith.’”(Emphasis mine)

Let’s analyze what the Catechism offers. The term, “supernatural sense of faith,“ can only mean a sense of faith that comes from God, and more specifically, from the Holy Spirit. It is a divine, infallible sense of faith through which the Holy Spirit reveals Truth. The living members of the Magisterium, as a body, guide the people of God, but when the Magisterium makes mistakes (as they regrettably have from time to time throughout history) it is the infallible sense of the faithful that will prevail.

Why is this? Because the People of God (the true Church) shares also in Christ’s prophetic office; the whole body of the faithful have an anointing that comes from the Holy Spirit. (1 Jn 2:20). Therefore, if a matter concerning faith or morals comes up, whereby a decision by the Magisterium goes against the infallible sense of the faithful (once the sense of the faithful is clearly manifested), that would be like the Magisterium going against God. Of course, the Magisterium would never interfere with the Sensus Fidelium, once it is clearly revealed. Amen?

When St. John wrote to the Christian community that they have the Truth (1 John 2:20), he said, “But you have the anointing * that comes from the holy one, and you all have knowledge.” [Bracketed explanation is mine.] Long ago, the Magisterium acknowledged the infallible Sensus Fidelium as a declaration of faith.

As Jesus would say…

Shalom,
Richard*

 

[StrawberryJam]

Wasn’t the catholic church protected from the Arian heresy by this very Sensus Fidelium? And a certain Bishop? Just one I think. Athanasias?
It was the actual real living people who without even being able to read, demanded this belief kept intact? And they only had a single Bishop defending this belief that still holds to this day?

 

[Richard_Hughes]

Wasn’t the catholic church protected from the Arian heresy by this very Sensus Fidelium? And a certain Bishop? Just one I think. Athanasias?
It was the actual real living people who without even being able to read, demanded this belief kept intact? And they only had a single Bishop defending this belief that still holds to this day?

Aloha Strawberry Jam:

I had never heard of this before, Interesting. Thanks.

Peace,
Richard

 

[NHInsider]

Hmm. I don’t think Athanasius stood alone in his battle with Arianism. . . .

An example of the Sensus Fidelium preserving Truth would be the belief in Mary’s Assumption, which was held by the Church for many centuries but wasn’t defined dogmatically until 1950.

 

[LilyM]

Hmm. I don’t think Athanasius stood alone in his battle with Arianism. . . .

An example of the Sensus Fidelium preserving Truth would be the belief in Mary’s Assumption, which was held by the Church for many centuries but wasn’t defined dogmatically until 1950.

No Athanasius wasn’t alone. There were others - Sts Basil, Gregory Nazianzus and Jerome, and all the Popes (apart from some wobbliness at times from Liberius) among them - fighting the good fight alongside him. And of course the majority of Bishops in the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople - and certain Emperors such as Gratian and Theodosius.

Not to mention that the lay faithful for the most part went along with the Arian bishops. Indeed it would’ve been difficult for the clergy to perpetrate heresy without a groundswell of support from the pews, no?

As far as I’m aware so there was no better anti-Arian ‘sensus fidelium’ among the laity than there was anti-Arian teaching among the priests and bishops.

 

[Richard_Hughes]

---

An example of the Sensus Fidelium preserving Truth would be the belief in Mary’s Assumption, which was held by the Church for many centuries but wasn’t defined dogmatically until 1950.

Aloha NHInsider:

To my knowledge, there is no evidence that a true sense of the faithful (Sensus Fidelium) had anything to do with the declaration of the Assumption Dogma. One would expect that if Mary’s assumption is a historical fact preserved through the sense of the faithful, the event would be mentioned in Sacred Scripture. At the very least, the historical event would be hinted at in the prophecies and/or psalms of the the Hebrew (Old) Testament, and surely recorded in the Christian (New) Testament.

There is clear evidence that St. John (to whom Christ Jesus assigned the care of Mary, as you know) wrote his gospel when he was well into his nineties. So he obviously must have outlived Mary. Yet he never wrote a word about Mary’s demise or assumption into heaven. St. Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles between A.D. 80 and A.D. 90. In this marvelous history of the Apostles’ ministry, Luke mentioned Mary frequently, but not a word did he write about her death and assumption.

In the Bible, there are at least two recordings of mortal beings having been assumed directly into heaven: Elijah (2 Kings 2:11) and possibly the Apostle Philip (Acts 8:39). Something as awesome as Mary’s assumption was not recorded; therefore, one would rightly expect that in the early Church, there was no sense at all of the faithful believing that Mary was assumed in heaven – body, soul and spirit.

The Assumption of Mary into heaven is a beautiful thought, and I truly hope that her Assumption is true. However, I dare say that, sadly, half of the Christians on this earth (one billion of them who refuse to place themselves under the rule of Roman Catholicism, for various reasons), may never be convinced by Roman Catholicism to accept the Assumption Dogma, which was declared only 60 years ago. In the minds of these brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus, there is no Sensus Fidelium connection. Therefore, they will tell you that in declaring the dogma, the consensus (or vote) of the members of the Roman Magisterium in 1950, could only have been established on assumptions (no pun intended).

If that is true, the Ascension Dogma, was declared without a “golden thread” (the Sensus Fidelium) extending all the way back to the Apostles. I would think that such a thread would have to be a prerequisite for a dogma pronouncement from the Chair of Peter.

Regrettably, the dogma is a serious stumbling block for Orthodox and Bible Christians (and for some Catholic Christians). The declaration of the dogma in 1950, drove one more wedge into the side of the broken Mystical Body of Christ, making it that much more difficult for us to have oneness in the Church, for which Jesus fervently prayed.

You will recall Jesus’ prayer, shortly before His execution: “I pray not only for them [His disciples, soon to be apostles], but also for those who will believe in me through their word [that’s us!], so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them * the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one…” (Jn 17:20- 22) (Emphasis mine)

Shalom,
Richard*

 

[StrawberryJam]

No Athanasius wasn’t alone. There were others - Sts Basil, Gregory Nazianzus and Jerome, and all the Popes (apart from some wobbliness at times from Liberius) among them - fighting the good fight alongside him. And of course the majority of Bishops in the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople - and certain Emperors such as Gratian and Theodosius.

Not to mention that the lay faithful for the most part went along with the Arian bishops. Indeed it would’ve been difficult for the clergy to perpetrate heresy without a groundswell of support from the pews, no?

As far as I’m aware so there was no better anti-Arian ‘sensus fidelium’ among the laity than there was anti-Arian teaching among the priests and bishops.

Name the Bishops that were present when Arius presented his case.

Please tell us what Pope actually signed off on his heresy but then later recanted due to St. Athanasius?
I am sorry to tell you that your pope basically pooped out.
Yet, he remained in condition to be corrected by a Bishop, and was.

I think you need to tell more of the whole story. And how the **laypeople **kept the trinity intact. With one good man, a Bishop who stood alone amoung all of them. St. Athanasius.

You mention Liberius as if he was in passing. He was the POPE.

And, in “New Advent” they make it out as if he only signed off on a wishy washy doctrine of the trinity (denial of) but then later recanted when his life was not on the line.

I guess martyrdom was not his thing.

Why else would he claim and sign off as Pope to a denial of the trinity, only to RECANT, after his life was no longer in danger?

Hmm…

 

[StrawberryJam]

What really happened when that doctrine was up for grabs?

In fact, what happenes now when a matter of doctrine is “up for grabs”?

More questions. No good answers really.
Was it one third of the US bisops that spoke out against abortion,. or am I mistaken, and it was more than a whole big one third of the total?

Trying to draw a parellel here. I realize, you all are tired of this by now.

But, I am not an anti catholic simply looking for reasons to disparage your credibility.

I am asking honestly, with sincere intentions of finding out if catholics really ought to say much like a surgeon general’s warning, that **they did the best they could **but can not really KNOW with total certianty, God?

Or is that out of line simply asking that?

 

[Richard_Hughes]

It has nothing to do with the Laity “approving” anything. The Magisterium has no need for any of the faithful to approve anything.

Aloha Br. Rich SFO:

Yes, but the members of the Magisterium have no authority to authorize anything (concerning faith and morals) that opposes the Sensus Fidelium, amen? (Even so, in the past, errors have happened and ecumenical councils were convened to correct those errors. That’s why the Church holds councils, as you know.)

I think I understand what may have motivated your above Post, and essentially you are correct. You were protecting the authority of the Magisterium. But here is an interesting thought: 1) The members of the Magisterium, along with the laity, are the faithful (i.e., the members are not apart from the faithful); therefore, technically, the Magisterium does have a need for members of the faithful (its members) to approve matters of faith and morals; and 2), it is through the whole (holy!) infallible Church (i.e., the men of the Magisterium and every lay Catholic Christian man and woman, as Church), that the Holy Spirit first reveals the faith.

It is through the sense of the faithful that the Holy Spirit works first and foremost. If that were not true, the Magisterium would have nothing to teach! Amen? The Holy Spirit set it up that way, and of course, you will agree that we Catholic Christians (in fact, all Christians) need to accept His way.

My understanding of the essential point of this Thread is to answer the question how (if at all) the Holy Spirit directs the Church in matters of faith and morals through the sense of the faithful (i.e., the sense of clergy and laity combined as Church), an where the Magisterium fits in. You are right, there is no “approving,” by the laity. However, if the Spirit of God reveals a matter of faith or morals through the Sensus Fidelium, the members of the Magisterium have no recourse but to accept and obey the teaching. Amen?

I have noticed the tendency for some Catholic Christians to downplay the significance of the Sensus Fidelium, so as to protect the authority of the members of the Magisterium. The Magisterium (as an important component of the institutional dimension of the Church) is supposed to be a servant of the Holy Spirit, the charismatic dimension of the Church, and the People of God — not the other way around. Amen?

As I see it, the Holy Spirit sets the rules, and reveals the faith through the Sensus Fidelium, as He sees fit. And when He does, the Magisterium must surely acknowledge and teach the revelation, when fully understood. One of those revelations is the doctrine on the Sensus Fidelium. (Catechism of the Catholic Church #889)

I don’t see this discussion as an “us guys” (laity) against “you guys” (the members of the Magisterium) situation. So let’s all relax a little, and not feel that we have to defend the Magisterium’s authority. Metaphorically speaking, let’s avoid making the sign of the cross, “In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Magisterium.” (That’s what I metaphorically used to do, before I experienced “Baptism in the Holy Spirit.”)

Shalom,
Richard

 

[LilyM]

Aloha Br. Rich SFO:

Yes, but the members of the Magisterium have no authority to authorize anything (concerning faith and morals) that opposes the Sensus Fidelium, amen? (Even so, in the past, errors have happened and ecumenical councils were convened to correct those errors. That’s why the Church holds councils, as you know.)

I’d have to disagree with this one. After all, the Sensus Fidelium prior to the release of Humanae Vitae was surely that the Church should permit contraception, no?

And if you polled the vast majority of Catholics today it’d be the same or more strongly in favour of ABC, no?

 

[StrawberryJam]

I’d have to disagree with this one. After all, the Sensus Fidelium prior to the release of Humanae Vitae was surely that the Church should permit contraception, no?

And if you polled the vast majority of Catholics today it’d be the same or more strongly in favour of ABC, no?

I’d have to nit pick this post a bit. Firstly, not that many years ago if you are thinking in terms of 2,000 year old church, no one was interested in birth control because it usually took about 10 or more live births for a family to have 2 or 3 children live past the age of 20 or so. Give or take a few years. So, I am not sure you can find any evidence that the majority of believers were interested in birth control for the majority of years of the existance of the church.
So, if we look at “development of dogma” innovations surely would be suspect.

No?

And, it raises other questions as well. Such as, why do women have a much easier time with pregnancy and why do children live longer now? Is it due to God suddenly having more mercy on people? Or medical knowledge? That, you will of course credit to God.