Vatican II changes things?

[diggerdomer]

Can you please show me where CITH is part of “liturgical law” and not an indult that can be repealed at any time? Can you show me where it says that it is a part of the law that applies to everyone and not only to certain areas or locations too? Thanks.

The indults you found are from 1969 (or so). Yes, back then, CITH was permitted through indults. I am aware of that historical information.

The current General Instruction of the Roman Missal is the relevant liturgical law. As approved for the U.S. (and so, applicable for the U.S. only) you can read it here: usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml#sect1a

See e.g. para 160: “The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant.”

There are no qualifications or distinctions between the two methods of receiving in the law.

As noted in the Decree promulgating the approved U.S. adaptations: “… they are hereby published as particular law for all Latin celebrations of the Sacred Liturgy in the dioceses of the United States of America.” Note, too, you can read here the approved U.S. adaptation, specifically para 160, to see what approved changes there were to the universal law: usccb.org/liturgy/girm/fil2.shtml

Interestingly, the original (Latin, universal law) does not specify the method of receiving communion, on the tongue or in the hand.

Similarly, e.g., kneeling during most of the Eucharistic prayer is an approved adaptation, particular law, for U.S. dioceses. It’s not an indult either, it’s part of the approved liturgical law not something contrary to it.

Regarding being “repealed” as you call it–well, yes, of course, the Church can change liturgical law at any time. The fact that the Church can change liturgical law doesn’t make something permitted by the law an indult.

 

[una_fides]

The indults you found are from 1969 (or so). Yes, back then, CITH was permitted through indults. I am aware of that historical information.

The current General Instruction of the Roman Missal is the relevant liturgical law. As approved for the U.S. (and so, applicable for the U.S. only) you can read it here: usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml#sect1a

See e.g. para 160: “The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant.”

There are no qualifications or distinctions between the two methods of receiving in the law.

As noted in the Decree promulgating the approved U.S. adaptations: “… they are hereby published as particular law for all Latin celebrations of the Sacred Liturgy in the dioceses of the United States of America.” Note, too, you can read here the approved U.S. adaptation, specifically para 160, to see what approved changes there were to the universal law: usccb.org/liturgy/girm/fil2.shtml

Interestingly, the original (Latin, universal law) does not specify the method of receiving communion, on the tongue or in the hand.

Similarly, e.g., kneeling during most of the Eucharistic prayer is an approved adaptation, particular law, for U.S. dioceses. It’s not an indult either, it’s part of the approved liturgical law not something contrary to it.

Regarding being “repealed” as you call it–well, yes, of course, the Church can change liturgical law at any time. The fact that the Church can change liturgical law doesn’t make something permitted by the law an indult.

Thank you for that infomration. I would like to clarify it for you. In order to permit a deviation from the universal norm of the Church, which is CITH, and thereby add such a deviation to the local law of the Church, the US needed to get an indult. It is Rome, not the US, from where the liturgy comes and the US answers to Rome. It is not its own independent Church (although sometimes I wonder…). It is the law for the universal Roman Catholic Church that the universally permitted method of receiving is on the tongue. There are places that have not applied for and received the indult and are only permitted to receive on the tongue. Reception in the hand is a special permission that can be repealled at any time.

 

[diggerdomer]

Thank you for that infomration. I would like to clarify it for you. In order to permit a deviation from the universal norm of the Church, which is CITH, and thereby add such a deviation to the local law of the Church, the US needed to get an indult. It is Rome, not the US, from where the liturgy comes and the US answers to Rome. It is not its own independent Church (although sometimes I wonder…). It is the law for the universal Roman Catholic Church that the universally permitted method of receiving is on the tongue. There are places that have not applied for and received the indult and are only permitted to receive on the tongue. Reception in the hand is a special permission that can be repealled at any time.

By that reasoning, kneeling during the majority of the Eucharistic Prayer – along with all the other adaptations for the U.S. approved by Rome – are also indults.

Is that what you’re claiming?

I still see no indult in any of the documentation associated with the current liturgical law for the U.S.; again, if you can produce any CURRENT relevant indult documentation (i.e. from the Vatican, not from some other organization) I would appreciate it.

I’d also be interested in your reference for "It is the law for the universal Roman Catholic Church that the universally permitted method of receiving is on the tongue. " Where does official liturgical law from the Vatican say that? Thanks again.

 

[diggerdomer]

In order to permit a deviation from the universal norm of the Church, which is CITH, and thereby add such a deviation to the local law of the Church, the US needed to get an indult. It is Rome,

Simply not true.

The GIRM approved for U.S. dioceses is not a deviation from the universal law. It is an adaptation of the universal law. It is the particular law for U.S. dioceses. Read the info on the links I provided. Nothing there about deviations, indults, etc.

I’m just going by what the Vatican and the U.S. Bishops (with Vatican approval) published. I see no mention of deviation or indult.

 

[una_fides]

By that reasoning, kneeling during the majority of the Eucharistic Prayer – along with all the other adaptations for the U.S. approved by Rome – are also indults.

Is that what you’re claiming?

I still see no indult in any of the documentation associated with the current liturgical law for the U.S.; again, if you can produce any CURRENT relevant indult documentation (i.e. from the Vatican, not from some other organization) I would appreciate it.

I’d also be interested in your reference for "It is the law for the universal Roman Catholic Church that the universally permitted method of receiving is on the tongue. " Where does official liturgical law from the Vatican say that? Thanks again.

2009: The indult “remains in force until revoked”: ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=563904&Pg=Forum8&Pgnu=1&recnu=1

In a 2009 interview, Cardinal Marini explains the following:
In the recent visit to Santa Maria di Leuca and Brindisi, the Pope has distributed communion to the kneeling faithful in the mouth. Is it a practice destined to become usual in papal celebrations?

I think so. Regarding it, it should not be forgotten that the distribution of communion in the hand still remains, from a juridical viewpoint, an indult from the universal law, granted by the Holy See to those Episcopal Conferences which have made a request for it. The mode adopted by Benedict XVI tends to underline the force of the norm valid for the entire Church. In addition, a preference could perhaps be seen for the use of this mode of distribution, which, without eliminating anything from the other, puts into light better the truth of the real presence in the Eucharist, aids the devotion of the faithful, introduces with greater ease the sense of mystery. Aspects which, in our age, pastorally speaking, it is urgent to underline and recover.
vatican.va/news_services/or/or_quo/text.html#16
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/06/back-to-regular-papal-pallium.html

2003:
Query: Whether in dioceses where it is allowed to distribute Communion in the hands of the faithful, a priest or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may restrict communicants to receive Communion only in their hands, not on the tongue.
Response: Certainly it is clear from the very documents of the Holy See that in dioceses where the Eucharistic bread is put in the hands of the faithful, the right to receive the Eucharistic bread on the tongue still remains intact to the faithful. Therefore, those who restrict communicants to receive Holy Communion only on in the hands are acting against the norms, as are those who refuse to Christ’s faithful [the right] to receive Communion in the hand in dioceses that enjoy this indult.
adoremus.org/0203CommunionHand.html

Here are a few more good articles I found on the topic that I do hope you’ll read:
catholicpreaching.com/index.php?content=articles&articles=20080711anchor
catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=31755
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/comunion.htm
the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2007/01/communion-in-hand.html

I think I’ve sufficiently shown that many recent sources explain that CITH is an indult still in effect until repealed. To explain, because the US received this indult, they were permitted to add reception in the hand as one of the two methods of reception of Communion to the GIRM. The GIRM does not somehow change the fact that CITH is still an indult; it merely establishes that in the US the norms (because of the indult in force) are either reception in the hand or on the tongue. I hope this helps clarify for you.

I think we are deviating from the topic of V2 changing things, so if you want to start another thread on CITH or join another in progress and continue this discussion, be my guest. Because CITH has really nothing to do w/ V2, I think we should continue this discussion elsewhere or just leave it be. Thanks.

 

[chosen_people]

From my personal perspective it is enough to read this book which was collaboration of priests against Vatican II to realize how much Vatican II changed certain attitudes:

catholicvoice.co.uk/pinay/

 

[AlwaysAsking]

From my personal perspective it is enough to read this book which was collaboration of priests against Vatican II to realize how much Vatican II changed certain attitudes:

This is a long document which, according to the introduction, launches into anti-communism and, potentially, anti-semitism. For the benefit of the discussion, would you please elaborate which attitudes you feel were changed by Vatican II and what this document makes clear to you?

 

[chosen_people]

This is a long document which, according to the introduction, launches into anti-communism and, potentially, anti-semitism. For the benefit of the discussion, would you please elaborate which attitudes you feel were changed by Vatican II and what this document makes clear to you?

Here’s the blurb from "catholic treasures"to buy the book "PLOT AGAINST THE CHURCH’ by Maurice Pinay. “It is now a well known “secret” that 12 Priests collaborated on the construction of this book, using the pen name of Pinay. The purpose was to alert the Council Fathers before the opening of Vatican II and warn them of the plans of the enemy to work within the structure to undermine and infiltrate the Church with revolutionary ideas. Contains powerful historical facts on the origins and founders of Communism and Freemasonry and their attacks on the Church. Read the teachings of the Popes, Councils and Saints against the enemies of the Church from the earliest times through today. Discover the “fifth column” among the clergy, at work right up to the present time, to destroy the unity of the Church. This is sobering material with serious consequences for all Catholics. Contains a veritable wealth of information. No book in the 20th century has been the object of so many commentaries in the world press as this important and valuable work, a copy of which was made available to every Council Father before the opening of Vatican II. “In our time more than ever before, the chief strength of the wicked lies in the cowardice and weakness of good men.” It is necessary to know the enemy before one is able to launch an offensive, both moral and spiritual, against those whose stated purpose it is to crucify Christ’s body on earth, His Church. New edition, fourth printing. 710 pp. Now in paperback. ITEM #11063 $25.00”

Now as to the point of the book when it deals about such subjects as communism, freemasonary or the death of your saviour, they are all linked to a single entity - the Jews. Now as to what are and were the ramifications of these ideas and how Vatican II is involved it will have to wait as I have to get ready for work.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Here’s the blurb from "catholic treasures"to buy the book "PLOT AGAINST THE CHURCH’ by Maurice Pinay. “It is now a well known “secret” that 12 Priests collaborated on the construction of this book, using the pen name of Pinay. The purpose was to alert the Council Fathers before the opening of Vatican II and warn them of the plans of the enemy to work within the structure to undermine and infiltrate the Church with revolutionary ideas. Contains powerful historical facts on the origins and founders of Communism and Freemasonry and their attacks on the Church. Read the teachings of the Popes, Councils and Saints against the enemies of the Church from the earliest times through today. Discover the “fifth column” among the clergy, at work right up to the present time, to destroy the unity of the Church. This is sobering material with serious consequences for all Catholics. Contains a veritable wealth of information. No book in the 20th century has been the object of so many commentaries in the world press as this important and valuable work, a copy of which was made available to every Council Father before the opening of Vatican II. “In our time more than ever before, the chief strength of the wicked lies in the cowardice and weakness of good men.” It is necessary to know the enemy before one is able to launch an offensive, both moral and spiritual, against those whose stated purpose it is to crucify Christ’s body on earth, His Church. New edition, fourth printing. 710 pp. Now in paperback. ITEM #11063 $25.00”

Now as to the point of the book when it deals about such subjects as communism, freemasonary or the death of your saviour, they are all linked to a single entity - the Jews. Now as to what are and were the ramifications of these ideas and how Vatican II is involved it will have to wait as I have to get ready for work.

This means that is was easy to destroy the Church in opposition to what Jesus says that the gates of hell won’t prevail against it.

Or your reading of Vat II is completely askew.

I will easily take the latter. Conspiracy aside, the fact that Catholicism cannot be defined as purely doctrine is some peoples fault. It is their answer to Islam, a slave relationship to God as Master. Father is how Jesus Himself describes God, and yes, God has rules, but God isn’t reduced to rules. The God of history, Who acts through history, Who sustains history by sustaining existence is not the God of historicity, which is secular and in modernist. That bad things are happening after Vat II is proof of Vat II being the cause is the presupposition worthy of protestant Bible theology. People saying that Vat II documents saying what it does not is not the documents fault. If what anti-Vat II “armchair theologians” are saying is true, we cannot trust the Church and Jesus’ statement is wrong. It is the work of the devil to try to reduce Catholicism down to doctrine and away from the relationship with God the Father by His adoptive sons and daughters.

I see abuse when I go to the Church in books, action, liturgy, etc, but the gates of hell have not prevailed.

 

[una_fides]

This means that is was easy to destroy the Church in opposition to what Jesus says that the gates of hell won’t prevail against it.

Or your reading of Vat II is completely askew.

I will easily take the latter. Conspiracy aside, the fact that Catholicism cannot be defined as purely doctrine is some peoples fault. It is their answer to Islam, a slave relationship to God as Master. Father is how Jesus Himself describes God, and yes, God has rules, but God isn’t reduced to rules. The God of history, Who acts through history, Who sustains history by sustaining existence is not the God of historicity, which is secular and in modernist. That bad things are happening after Vat II is proof of Vat II being the cause is the presupposition worthy of protestant Bible theology. People saying that Vat II documents saying what it does not is not the documents fault. If what anti-Vat II “armchair theologians” are saying is true, we cannot trust the Church and Jesus’ statement is wrong. It is the work of the devil to try to reduce Catholicism down to doctrine and away from the relationship with God the Father by His adoptive sons and daughters.

I see abuse when I go to the Church in books, action, liturgy, etc, but the gates of hell have not prevailed.

“Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ” (Saint Athanasius, AD 373).

There was a time in the Church’s early history when most of her bishops were heretics and denied the divinity of Christ. If one went with the flow of the Church in that time, they would most likely end up heretics. Satan’s primary target is the Church. We are facing a time of mass apostasy but on a much more subtle level. People are denying foundational dogmas of the faith yet are remaining in the Church and claiming to still be Catholic, and worse in many cases, they are claiming their teachings to be the teachings of the Church! The modernists cite Vatican II and the spirit of Vatican II for their abuses. If what they were doing and are doing were abuse, then why hasn’t the Church strongly condemned such abuses and supressed them through exercising discipline? Why is it that if a parish wants to have a “life teen mass” (which is basically a leap towards protestant pentacostalism with rock-style music, etc) you will hear no opposition from the bishops and such causes no concern. They will tell you that this is a good thing and a good and legitimate form of the Mass according to Vatican II, but if you have members of a parish who want to have a reverent Tridentine Mass, that you will find many priests and bishops in fierce opposition? It seems most of the priests and bishops have quite a different idea of what Vatican II was and what they thought it was supposed to be. We are in very troubling times, and the Church is in need a counter-reformation like never before.

 

[una_fides]

I just found the following from the Baltimore Catechism that can further help us in understanding some practical applications of NSOC and how it applies to people:

"*324 Q. Who are they who neglect to profess their belief in what God has taught?

A. They who neglect to profess their belief in what God has taught are all those who fail to acknowledge the true Church in which they really believe.

There are some outside the Church who feel and believe that the Catholic Church is the true Church, and yet they do not become Catholics, because there are so many difficulties in the way. For example, they have been brought up in another religion, and all their friends, relatives, or associates are opposed to the Catholic religion. Their business, their social life, their worldly interests will all suffer if they become Catholics. So, although they feel they should at once embrace the true religion, they keep putting off till death comes and finds them outside the Church–and most probably guilty of other mortal sins. Such persons cannot be saved, for they reject all the graces God bestows upon them. A very common fault with such people is to excuse this conduct by saying: Oh! I was brought up in the Protestant religion, and everyone ought to live in the religion in which he was brought up. Let me ask: If persons were brought up with some bodily deformity that their parents neglected to have remedied while they were young, would they not use every means themselves to have the deformity removed as soon as they became old enough to see and understand their misfortune? In like manner, if unfortunately parents bring up their children in a false religion–that is, with spiritual deformities, it is the duty of the children to embrace the true religion as soon as they know it. Again persons will say: Oh, I believe one religion as good as another; we are all Christians, and all trying to serve God. If one religion is as good as another, why did not Our Lord allow the old religions–false or true–to remain? If one man says a thing is black and another says it is white, they cannot both be right, for a thing cannot be black and white at the same time. Only one can be right; and, if we are anxious about the color of the object, we must try to find which one is right. Just in the same way all the religions that claim to be Christian contradict one another; one says a thing is false and another says it is true: one says Our Lord taught so and so and another says He did not. Now since it is very important for us to know which is right, we must find out which is really the Church Our Lord established; and when we have found it we will know that all the other pretended Christian religions must be false. Our Lord has given us marks by which we can know His Church, as we saw while speaking of the marks of the Church; and the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church that has all these marks. We say that we are Roman Catholics to show that we are in communion with the Church of Rome, established by St. Peter, the chief of the Apostles."

We must understand that implicit desires do not suffice in such instances. Every human has an obligation to become Catholic. If they are completely without any guilt as to why they did not know the Catholic religion to be true, then they could possibly be saved if they’re not guilty of any deliberate sin, have perfect charity towards God, etc. (I also believe that such people will be brought to the true faith, which is the only faith that pleases God, at some point before death through either an angelic intervention or a direct infusion of knowledge by God.)
God’s grace leads everyone to the fullness of truth. The Catholic Church is the fullness of the truth. Those who have access to the truth, but who reject it, are not just rejecting the Church, they are rejecting Christ himself and his invitation to enter into his kingdom. If anyone values their families, friendships, etc, more than the truth or deceives themselves into falling back in line with the teachings in which they were raised after encountering the convincing reality of the truth, they are no longer invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith.

 

[yablabo]

How do I answer this?:

“Take your time and read it and look up any information on it. Don’t jump to conclusions by just the first few things but keep reading. I found it interesting, I’m sure you will too.
This is some information I found to be interesting, the RCC had a meeting from 62-65 called Vatican II. What is the Vatican II? My understanding is it took place in October of ‘62. There were 2,540 bishops and others of the RCC gathered in Rome for this session. This session was to make some innovations to the old laws that the RCC followed. They held the last session on December 8, 1965 and when they were finished meeting they basically announced that a lot in the RCC was changing. Changing? No, they don’t change. Let’s see if they do or not…”

The questions range all over the board from Church Law to Divine Law…and the only one that I see that might pertain to what was in Vatican II was the one on the Mass. Church Law is law that can change with time as it is in the prudential judgement of the authority to do so… Divine Law is law which can never change… Even if Church Law changes, it is still the same Church as the Divine Law that we follow remains the same.

There’s really nothing to worry about in respect to Vatican II. It was not promulgated as a document binding on assent of faith. It was promulgated as binding on religious assent…meaning if it does contradict teachings of higher authority…one bows to the teaching of higher authority… Vatican II is a good sign of the times, however.

– Nicole

 

[una_fides]

The questions range all over the board from Church Law to Divine Law…and the only one that I see that might pertain to what was in Vatican II was the one on the Mass. Church Law is law that can change with time as it is in the prudential judgement of the authority to do so… Divine Law is law which can never change… Even if Church Law changes, it is still the same Church as the Divine Law that we follow remains the same.

There’s really nothing to worry about in respect to Vatican II. It was not promulgated as a document binding on assent of faith. It was promulgated as binding on religious assent…meaning if it does contradict teachings of higher authority…one bows to the teaching of higher authority… Vatican II is a good sign of the times, however.

– Nicole

Nicole,

You raise an interesting point. But aren’t we to give our religious assent to the current Magisterial teachings? I guess I’ve never read anything by the Church that says that it is alright to dissent from the ordinary Magisterium if the ordinary Magisterium differs from teachings previously promulgated with a higher degree of authority. Do you have any sources?

In reading Vatican II’s summary on adherance to the ordinary Magisterium of the Church, it doesn’t seem to leave any room for dissent:

“In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking” (Lumen Gentium, 25). vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Now, obviously if most of the bishops are teaching heresy such as during the days of the Arian controversy in the Church, you don’t follow heretical views; however, you do remain faithful to the pope and the authentic Magisterium, correct? I guess I’m trying to figure out if there is any room for dissent from the official ordinary Magisterium of the Church teaching in union with the pope.

 

[wisdomseeker]

does any no Cardinal Rigali from St Louis? in his enterview he answered the question about the communion rails being taken out. he said it is all up to each bishop. that is why we have so many variations in the Mass. he also praises VII. has it always being like that? that it is all up to each bishop? it seems to me that the power is in the hands of each bishop, it seems to me that is why the disobedience. if one bishop is liberal then we are stuck with a poor Mass. plus we run the risk of others to follow the pattern.

 

[una_fides]

does any no Cardinal Rigali from St Louis? in his enterview he answered the question about the communion rails being taken out. he said it is all up to each bishop. that is why we have so many variations in the Mass. he also praises VII. has it always being like that? that it is all up to each bishop? it seems to me that the power is in the hands of each bishop, it seems to me that is why the disobedience. if one bishop is liberal then we are stuck with a poor Mass. plus we run the risk of others to follow the pattern.

The problem is we don’t just have one liberal bishops but it appears that most have been infected with some form of liberalism or modernism. They’ve been trained to think Vatican II taught that Mass needed to be more casual, etc. They also do not seem to be disciplining any erring priests either. That is one of the biggest problems, as these local priests are teaching heresies from the pulpit on a regular basis and are getting away with it. Not to mention the widespread liturgical abuse.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The problem is we don’t just have one liberal bishops but it appears that most have been infected with some form of liberalism or modernism. They’ve been trained to think Vatican II taught that Mass needed to be more casual, etc. They also do not seem to be disciplining any erring priests either. That is one of the biggest problems, as these local priests are teaching heresies from the pulpit on a regular basis and are getting away with it. Not to mention the widespread liturgical abuse.

is Cardinal Rigali a liberal? do you know anything about him? he was a part of the Council.

 

[una_fides]

is Cardinal Rigali a liberal? do you know anything about him? he was a part of the Council.

I’m not too familiar with him. From what I’ve read, he seems to be in line with the Church on certain fundamental issues such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. But I can’t comment on his liturgical preferences or his disciplinary practices.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I’m not too familiar with him. From what I’ve read, he seems to be in line with the Church on certain fundamental issues such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. But I can’t comment on his liturgical preferences or his disciplinary practices.

thanks.

 

[divinedisciple7]

It might help to understand that (as Vatican II taught) the Church is, first, a mystery. Don’t think of it first, or necessarily primarily, as the visible hierarchical, clearly defined time-bound institution (like the Rotary club).

Unless I’m wrong, the idea that there is “no salvation outside the Church” was attributed to St. Cyprian in the mid 3rd century (so it’s not quite 2000 years old)–and if there’s an earlier reference anyone knows of please share of course. At the time, of course, “the Church” meant ALL CHRISTIANS. This was before any schisms etc. that unfortunately divided the Body of Christ.

Even St. Augustine realized and wrote about the “visible” Church vs. the invisible/spiritual Church (in The City of God). He recognized that there were those saved who were members of the visible Church as well as those outside the visible membership of the Church. Likewise, there were those who would not be saved who were outside the visible Church as well as those within.

Which book in the city of God is that quote found ?

 

[yablabo]

Nicole,

You raise an interesting point. But aren’t we to give our religious assent to the current Magisterial teachings? I guess I’ve never read anything by the Church that says that it is alright to dissent from the ordinary Magisterium if the ordinary Magisterium differs from teachings previously promulgated with a higher degree of authority. Do you have any sources?

In reading Vatican II’s summary on adherance to the ordinary Magisterium of the Church, it doesn’t seem to leave any room for dissent:

“In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking” (Lumen Gentium, 25). vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Now, obviously if most of the bishops are teaching heresy such as during the days of the Arian controversy in the Church, you don’t follow heretical views; however, you do remain faithful to the pope and the authentic Magisterium, correct? I guess I’m trying to figure out if there is any room for dissent from the official ordinary Magisterium of the Church teaching in union with the pope.

Of course we are to give religious assent to such teachings of our bishop and pope when they demand such assent, knowing that these teachings can change at a later date. It is only when they present a contradiction or a contrary sense to matters of faith or other matters of religious assent that assent is impossible. To try to assent to a contradiction or two contrary statements would be to break one’s rational ability. This is simple natural reason.

Thanks to the First Vatican Council, however, we do have statements to which we must give the assent of faith (that is the assent given to teachings which can not be revoked, reformed or in error). In Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason:

*5. Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God Who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and Who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.

1. God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.
2. Therefore We define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false.

…

1. Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.

…

1. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
2. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding*.

And under the Canons, 4. On Faith and Reason:

*3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And so in the performance of Our Supreme Pastoral Office, We beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and We command, by the authority of Him Who is also our God and Saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the Church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, We warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this Holy See.*

I do my best to give religious assent to what is taught by my bishop and the Pope… If I have a “good reason” not to assent, then I do not…“good reason” encompassing that which are statements which are either contrary or contradictory in themselves, contradictory or contrary to what is real, or finally contradictory or contrary to teachings of higher authority.