What is "religious assent"?

[scameter18]

What is meant when the Church talks about religious assent, for example:

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

(Catechism, 892)

How is this “religious assent” different from the “assent of faith”? Must we accept everything that is taught in a way that requires religious assent, or does it only require some other degree or form of obedience? Thanks for the clarifications. God bless.

 

[holyday_for_kid]

Hello My name is Ivan, 28 years old, I live in Siberia in the Russian city of Omsk. My daughter is three years, and it needs a very expensive operation, the buyout, my family can not pay "(. Please help us survive. Because if she dies, I’ll die with her! Please, give child the best gift for Christmas and New Year - this is life. Please help whatever you can. You can send donations to Webmoney Z 27 63 27 08 17 26 ; E 50 10 17 99 22 18 (as thank’s we can send you our baby appliqué, or drawings), or make a census, that also can save our lives.Thanks in advance.

 

[Sirach2]

There’s an old prayer we learned as children in CCD class from the Baltimore Catechism. The Act of Faith:
O my God! I firmly believe that Thou art one God in three Divine persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; I believe that Thy Divine Son became man, and died for our sins, and that he will come to, judge the living and the dead.** I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them**, who canst neither deceive nor be deceived
It is a loving act of faith in God, to give assent to what the Church teaches, though we may not fully understand or grasp its meaning. We simply trust with an act of the heart and will.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Must we accept everything that is taught in a way that requires religious assent,

Yes. If we do not, we make our own authority greater than that of the bishops and the popes.

Did Christ give the keys to Peter or to you and me?

 

[Ron_Conte]

What is meant when the Church talks about religious assent, for example:

All of the teachings of the Magisterium are either:

1. infallible - no possibility of error; irreformable
   or
2. non-infallible - limited possibility of error; non-irreformable

The infallible teachings require the full assent of faith, also called theological assent or divine and catholic faith. Infallible teachings do not allow for any faithful disagreement, nor any obstinate doubt, without grave sin.

The non-infallible teachings require religious assent, also called the religious submission of will and intellect. Non-infallible teachings, because there is a limited possibility of error, allows for some limited licit theological dissent, without sin or without grave sin.

The Magisterium teaches infallibly in any of three ways:

1. Papal infallibility
2. Conciliar infallibility
3. the ordinary and universal Magisterium
   All other magisterial teachings are non-infallible and non-irreformable.

 

[scameter18]

Thank you all for your help. My main reason for asking this question is that I have been dealing for some time with the issues raised by so-called Traditionalists, who have told me that a Catholic is free to sift through and disagree with large parts of papal encyclicals, Councils, and almost anything else that is not purely a reiteration of dogma, especially if it appears to disagree with the thought of Catholics in history. Based on these answers, this appears to be an erroneous stance. I would appreciate specific clarification on this issue, if someone could please. Thanks again and God bless.

@Charlemagne II: I wanted to say congratulations on being a Catholic after having been an atheist for so long. I myself was an atheist before becoming Catholic, and so I can personally appreciate your journey to the Faith. God bless.

 

[Sirach2]

Thank you all for your help. My main reason for asking this question is that I have been dealing for some time with the issues raised by so-called Traditionalists, who have told me that a Catholic is free to sift through and disagree with large parts of papal encyclicals, Councils, and almost anything else that is not purely a reiteration of dogma, especially if it appears to disagree with the thought of Catholics in history.

#25 in Lumen Gentium,Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution will help you:
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.
It is a grievous matter to me that radical traditionalists have spread these doubts to the faithful, and it is totally false and right out of the pit, if I may say so.

JReducation:

1. If all Catholics believed something to be doctrinally true at a time and was taught in the church, can it be claimed later to be wrong?

Yes, if the belief is incorrect. There are many things that people believe to be doctrine that are disciplines, theological statements, or commentaries on a doctrine. Often, people think that everything that a pope writes or a council writes is a doctrine or that everything that is in an encyclical is infallible. Very often, these writings are about an infallible belief, but what is being said about the belief can be a development of the thought, not necessarily another infallible statement. …] However, these explanations cannot contract the doctrine. They can simply be insufficient or unclear.

You may want to read the works of St. Boniface. He speaks very clearly on the authority of the pope over councils, even those of the past and over previous popes. To paraphrase him, no pope is bound by any decree of any council or any previous pope unless that which is decreed is explicitly contained in divine revelation.

No pope is bound by any doctor of the church, any saint or any miracle or an private apparition. All revelation comes from Christ. All law comes from Christ and it is written in the heart of the pope. That’s it in a nutshell. It’s a very long statement, which you may be able to find online.

 

[scameter18]

I truly thank you for this reply. To be honest, I have been struggling with this issue for some time. As a convert to the Faith, I had gained a sense of certainty and security with my faith, especially in the authority of the Pope and the Magisterium. But when talking to a Traditionalist (specifically a sedevacantist) who was, frankly, more educated than I in the history of Church doctrine, I began to doubt and despair, feeling a deep insecurity in my faith as a Catholic. However, I always knew in my heart that what he taught was false (and gravely so), and your reply here definitively affirms this for me. I will try to repair the wounds that were done to my faith and thereby grow in the mending you have shown. Thank you again and God bless.

 

[Genesis315]

Yeah, it’s similar to a Protestant using Bible quotes out of context to condemn Catholic doctrine, they just use Magisterial documents against each other in the same way.

As to religious assent (obsequium religiousum), from what I’ve read, it is a docile inner acceptance of the teaching, but it is not unconditional like the assent for teachings proposed in a definitive way. Religious assent requires a presumption that the Pope, Council, or bishop is teaching the truth and a good faith effort to assimilate and accept the teaching. However, if one, after such good faith effort, cannot reconcile the teaching, one may qualify assent, and even offer criticism in a manner consonant with one’s competence and rank. For example, a theologian or bishop may respectfully submit criticisms to Rome for review and judgment, etc.

On the other hand, an untrained laymen denouncing the Magisterium on the internet or trying to convince his fellow laymen that the Magisterium is wrong doesn’t seem fit the bill.

 

[scameter18]

Thank you for the further clarification. That analogy seems particularly true. It is indeed a complex issue, as are all mysteries in the Faith, but it is good to know that I can trust the Church, particularly the Pope and Magisterium, in their authority. God bless.