"Sensus Fidelium"

[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.

As I’m sure you are aware there are passages that can and have been interpreted in this way. (Psalm 45, Rev. 12). The fact that there are other interpretations makes these passages no different from the various passages interpreted as prophecies of the Messiah.

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.

Neither man wrote about the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, or the sack of Jerusalem, or any number of other historically significant events that took place during their lifetimes. Doesn’t mean they didn’t happen . . .

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.

Arguing from an absence of evidence is always a logical impossibility.

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).

I would agree with you that it was politically very badly timed. What the thought process of the Holy Father was, I do not know. Doesn’t change the fact that he didn’t make it up out of wholecloth, he proclaimed as doctrine something that had been long believed. (Written discussion dating back at least to the 4th century, possibly the 3rd: how “early” is “early” enough?) Proclamations are typically meant to put an end to debate (in-house, obviously) . . .

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.

The obstacle with the Orthodox has to do with two items - first, obviously, is the authority of the Pope, which is the underlying issue of the whole Schism.
The Marian issue is not over whether her body was taken into heaven but whether or not she died first - a position neatly skirted by the phrase “at the end of her life” in the declaration.

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.

Presume you still mean Assumption, not Ascension?

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)

Amen.

 

[telmab7]

I believe what you are saying is that you believe that God the Father took up Elijah as recorded in (2 Kings 2:11)but you don’t believe that God the Father would do it for The Mother of The Son Of Man?
We too believe that the Holy Scriptures of our 73 books of the bible are the inerrant Word Of God but we believe equally in the supernatural power of Holy tradition of the church
Your statements illustrating your belief in sola scriptura have some Christian authenticity issues with them and some failings of the general understandings of Orthodox Christianity
The majority of the scriptures were written between 70AD and 156AD accumulated into a collection in post of the following 100 to 150 years and then finalized
Usage of the scriptures in the hand of the lay people then didn’t occur until after the late 11th century and proliferate in the following centuries
Throughout all of this time the Church was firmly established in the Eucharist , Penance and the observation of veneration of important Martyrs and Saints
You will have trouble finding in the bible substantiation of scripture alone to be Christianity quite the contrary you will find scriptures that say the Faith is to follow scripture and tradition
you will find in both Old testament and the new Testament . You must remember as Christian descendants from Judaism that the majority of the Jewish Faith is outside of the Torah and in the Traditions
both before and after Jesus

I believe that you are correct in saying that Sensus Fidelium had little to do with the Assumption and that was more of a top down (from the Magisterium) interpretation of the culmination of the life of the Queen of Heaven and The Mother Of The Church
I belie that a very old form of Sensus Fidelium however had something to do with The Immaculate Conception understanding during the overall period of time when Christianity seemed as if it was on the brink of being overtaken by Arianism it then endured both Arianism and Nestorianism
One can easily make a case that today’s emergent Protestant form of Christianity is more than a bit semi-nestorian . If you are interested it would be worth reading what both of our church fathers had to say in theologically in regards to this heresy It will help you to understand how in post of it there became a necessity for definitions and clarifications within the core of Christianity

If you have yet to receive “the fruit” of the temporal gifts of who The Blessed Mother is to Christians we as a group can pray for you that Your Mother intercedes on your behalf and we pray these things in Jesus name

If someone has a direct web site link to Sensus Fidelium “the actual document” this forum has sparked

Remember as Newman was quoted to go deep into history and deep in scripture is to be a Catholic
Mark

 

[Corki]

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

This (Birth Control) is one of the most erroneous applications of Sensus Fidelium and you see it dragged out in certain dissident circles. First of all, Sensus Fidelium can’t be “invoked” as rationale to change the long standing teaching of the Church on matters of faith and morals.

Second, Sensus Fidelium can’t be invoked to change something that has been long taught to be sinful into something unsinful. One good example of this is slavery. The Church tolerated slavery for centuries and now condemns it. That shift is validated by the Sensus Fidelium of the layity. A shift in the other direction could never be validated by Sensus Fidelium since it would mean permitting something that was previously sinful.

Third, Sensus Fidelium can’t be seen as a “snapshot” in time. That would result in a Church that is built on the changing whims of public opinon. Rather, Sensus Fidelium is a long term look at the voice of the Holy Spirit working through the layity.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Ok, this thread is almost 6 years old (and I just now noticed it was resurrected almost a year ago, as well)! I started it, under my old account (which I for some reason lost, maybe in that crash that happened several years ago? I don’t know). It freaked me out, b/c I forgot all about that account, and was like “that’s me, but it’s not me!” I thought someone “hacked” into my info and started another account.

How did you find such an old thread?

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[telmab7]

You see like this it can re-arise It can come from a grass roots movement and if it bears fruit and stands the tests of the enduring fruit it can become “part of” our valid devotions to God and it comes back to us in a valid form

**Can anyone help with a direct web-site link to Sensus Fidelium "the actual document” this forum has sparked my interest in reading the original **

I tired pounding around search buttons in both the Vatican website and Catholic archives ?!
I believe it may be buried inside of an old If someone has a direct web site link to encyclical , but which one?
Thanks, Mark

 

[StrawberryJam]

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.

I note that no catholic can reply to this post/

 

[Richard_Hughes]

I note that no catholic can reply to this post/

Aloha Strawberry: You essentially said that during the early history of the Church, until recently, “no one was interested in birth control’ because of the high rate of infant mortality. Not true. Google the history of contraception and you’ll find that contraceptive methods were used even during Jesus’ time (e.g., coitus interruptus and the use of cotton and olive oil), and He said nothing about it.

Polls indicate that 70% of married practicing-Catholics use contraceptive methods; mostly sterilization and other non-aborting methods. This can only be recognized as a sign of the Holy Spirit’s guidance (through the Sensus Fidelium), because no sign has been given to the contrary. Therefore, the use of non-aborting contraception is not sinful, and members of the Magisterium have no recourse but to declare these methods morally right.

All votes and decisions made by members of the Magisterium are not infallible, and the Magisterium has made mistakes in the past. Originally, all birth control was considered sinful, until the 1950s when Pius XII permitted “Natural Family Planning” (NFP), which is technically contraception; i.e., “contra (against) conception.” The purpose of NFP (like all contraceptive methods) is to limit human birth. No child exists until conception, so it is wrong to assume that contraception interferes with the birth of a child.

Before Humane Vitae was decreed, a Commission of 59 religious and lay-persons was established by John XXIII to determine if other forms of birth control are “permissible.” All but 4 Commission members voted contraceptive methods (other than abortifacients) permissible. Paul VI chose not to accept the Commission’s findings. He avoided a decision by saying that more study is needed, then he (one man) issued Humane Vitae. The Magisterium need to come in line with the sensus fidelium and correct its mistake regarding (non-aborting) contraception.

 

[Richard_Hughes]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilyM
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?

---

LilyM, precisely what my point is concerning the sense of the faithful (called “sensus fidelium” in the dead language of the ancient Romans who executed Christ Jesus). Humanae Vitae needs to comply with the sense of the faithful. Members of the Magisterium have no choice but to be servants of the Holy Spirit; the Spirit of God is not their servant! When the Holy Spirit reveals a truth through the sense of the faithful (faithful to God!), the members of the Magisterium must obey. Amen (i.e., so be it)?

I get the feeling there is a belief that members of the Magisterium (simple teachers of religious doctrine who are subject to human failure, just as are we) decide what the Spirit of God is to teach! No, absolutely no, it is the other way around.

It has been a precept of the Church since ancient times that the institutional dimension of the Church is the servant of the charismatic dimension of the Church, not the other way around as some ultra conservatives (i.e., pre-Vatican II thinkers ) may have us believe. Come on folks, let’s be realistic; God is in charge, not members of the Magisterium, and His Spirit works through the sense of the faithful. That has been a precept of the Church from the beginning.

You said, “I’d have to disagree with this one.” And you asked, “After all, the Sensus Fidelium prior to the release of Humanae Vitae was surely that the Church should permit contraception, no?” Yes, it was, so Humanae Vitae needs to be changed. Who is in charge, the Holy Spirit, or members of the Magisterium (a relatively small committee of men who vote on matters of morality) who are known to have been wrong and have failed miserably many times throughout history? The Spirit’s teachings, through the sense of the faithful, are infallible. That is what makes the Church (the People of God) infallible.

You asked, “And if you polled the vast majority of Catholics today it’d be the same or more strongly in favor of ABC, no?” Yes. If that happened, it could possibly be a revelation from the Spirit of God through the sense of the faithful. The revelation could possibly have revealed the truth once again; namely, that all forms of (non-aborting) contraception are no more sinful than Natural Family Planning (NFP), which Roman Catholicism has declared not sinful.

Originally, **any act of controlling birth **was considered a mortal sin, until the 1950s when Pius XII permitted NFP, which is technically contraception; i.e., “contra (against) conception.” Yet, the purpose of NFP is identical to sterilization and all other (non-aborting) contraceptive methods — the purpose and intention is to limit human birth. I repeat, the purpose and intention of NFP users is exactly the same as other contraceptive methods — to limit human birth.

Come on folks, figuratively speaking, let’s stop making the sign of the cross, “In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Magisterium”! The teaching authority of Roman Catholicism is simply a servant of the Spirit of God, not His master. God speaks to us through the sense of the faithful. He must increase, and we who are His servants (including the members of the Magisterium) must decrease. Amen?

 

[ausculta]

Originally, any act of controlling birth was considered a mortal sin, until the 1950s when Pius XII permitted NFP, which is technically contraception; i.e., “contra (against) conception.” Yet, the purpose of NFP is identical to sterilization and all other (non-aborting) contraceptive methods — the purpose and intention is to limit human birth. I repeat, the purpose and intention of NFP users is exactly the same as other contraceptive methods — to limit human birth.

1. Would you kindly cite some documents in support of your assertion in bold for my personal edification. Thank You.
2. I’m not sure that:

a) The purpose and intent of ABC is to limit human birth.
b) The purpose and intent of NFP is to limit human birth.

therefore

c) Both are morally impermissible.

NFP seems to retain some important elements: openness to the possibility of conception (per divine will) and no violation of the natural order.

In Christ,

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Your cooperation and courtesy in not reopening old/dormant threads is requested:

-1. the issues that spurred them are often no longer “hot” or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally

-2. posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread

Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he is quoting was made a year ago).