Sensus Fidelium

[Mustaphile]

What are the reactions amongst the members of OBOB to a statement like this below....

Sensus Fidelium (Wed Dec 31, 2003 11:59 am)

A very important event in the Church today is the re-emergence of an understanding of the Sensus Fidelium, what the Christian people believe, accept, and reject. It is here, the Sensus Fidelium, wherein resides the promise of Christ to protect us from error with the guidance of the Spirit. Church hierarchy (the rulers) have taught what to believe, accept, and reject, but always with acceptance or a corrective response by theologian (experts) and the faithful even from the very beginning. (Acts 15)

This corrective response especially among the Church faithful, wherein the Spirit of truth resides, is a re-emerging tradition. Except in the early Church, never have so many faithful

Christians been so educated in our faith and Church history and so aware of its meaning in our lives. We mark self awareness as a corner stone in the development of the human species. It just might well be that our collective reawakening of a spiritual self awareness regarding truths of faith marks a corner stone in the concept of "Ecclesia semper Reformanda" (The church must always be reformed).

Herein lies present day conflict; the resistance of the hierarchy of the Church to recognize and honor the fact that the Spirit of truth speaks through the faithful who accept or reject their teachings. Theologians are suppressed and persecuted when attempting to express a better understanding of faith and morals that perhaps better reflects the sense of the faithful. This is not surprising since bishops are chosen because they echo mandates from Rome, and not because they reflect or listen to their people.

It has not always been thus in the Church and a re-awakening of the faithful people to their role in Ecclesia semper Reformanda is happening. It is long overdue

Source of the comments on Sensus Fidelum

I've been reading the Catholic Catechism and trying to come to a better understanding of the dynamics of Catholicism. If I was to characterise myself, I would consider myself a reformer. I see the glimmer of truth in in the idea of Sensus Fidelum and Ecclesia semper Reformanda. Your thoughts?

 

[Archbishop 10-K]

I would disagree.

The lay faithful do not have the authority to do any such thing as change doctrine. They do not have apostolic succession. Heck, for that matter, clergy don't have a right to change doctrine, either. I became Catholic because I believe the true Church that Christ established got it right the first time.

 

[Carrye]

My general impression is that the article doesn't present the whole story. It generalizes, and doesn't speak to the whole of the Catholic Faith. Specifics follow:

This corrective response especially among the Church faithful, wherein the Spirit of truth resides, is a re-emerging tradition.

The Spirit of Truth was given to the Church, and is not thought to reside in individual members of the Faithful in the same way as many Protestant groups believe. Now of course that's not to say that individuals (lay persons) aren't divinely inspired, or that they don't have anything to contribute to the Church. But they do not hold the same divinely ordered authority that those in the ordained ministries do.

We mark self awareness as a corner stone in the development of the human species. It just might well be that our collective reawakening of a spiritual self awareness regarding truths of faith marks a corner stone in the concept of "Ecclesia semper Reformanda" (The church must always be reformed).

The Church must always be reformed when she needs to be, but not simply for the sake of reform, and especially not at the whim of the people. Truth is not determined by a majority vote.

Herein lies present day conflict; the resistance of the hierarchy of the Church to recognize and honor the fact that the Spirit of truth speaks through the faithful who accept or reject their teachings.

As I said above, that's simply not true.

Theologians are suppressed and persecuted when attempting to express a better understanding of faith and morals that perhaps better reflects the sense of the faithful. This is not surprising since bishops are chosen because they echo mandates from Rome, and not because they reflect or listen to their people.

And neither is this. Theologians are embraced for their work and their thoughts. They are included in Church Councils, and their academic contributions are valued. BUT, the latest whim of the latest theologian is not necessarily considered valid or valuable. Whether or not they echo the values of the people is of no account at all. The Church is not a democratic institution, but a monarchy with Christ Jesus as her head.

It has not always been thus in the Church and a re-awakening of the faithful people to their role in Ecclesia semper Reformanda is happening. It is long overdue

The role of the lay person in the Church is beginning to be rediscovered after Vatican II. But again, that doesn't mean that what the majority of Catholics believe should be the rule. A majority can be wrong. And when we're talking about matters of eternal importance, I don't want to take that chance.

 

[Mustaphile]

What role does the layman then play in Ecclesia semper Reformanda? How does one utilise Sensus Fidelum? Does the layman advocate those in authority who seek to promote their understanding of a more explicit understanding of the revelation of God's purpose revealed through Jesus Christ?

 

[Carrye]

What role does the layman then play in Ecclesia semper Reformanda?

I guess that depends on what one sees as needing to be reformed.

How does one utilise Sensus Fidelum?

I'm not sure that I understand this concept entirely.

Does the layman advocate those in authority who seek to promote their understanding of a more explicit understanding of the revelation of God's purpose revealed through Jesus Christ?

Yes, but. That really is not a role that is unique to an individual lay Catholic in the Church. Lay and clergy alike are looking for a more complete understanding of God's revelation and divine plan. If you're thinking of some sort of active advocacy to get the Church to change something, then I'd say no. I guess I'm not entirely clear on what you're asking.

 

[Maximus]

What are the reactions amongst the members of OBOB to a statement like this below....

My reaction is negative. It sounds like Protestantism.

I think the quote below -

It is here, the Sensus Fidelium, wherein resides the promise of Christ to protect us from error with the guidance of the Spirit. Church hierarchy (the rulers) have taught what to believe, accept, and reject, but always with acceptance or a corrective response by theologian (experts) and the faithful even from the very beginning. (Acts 15)

-

is very wrong.

Acts 15 does not show lay persons and theologians correcting the Church hierarchy, just the opposite, in fact. Some of the laity - the Judaizers - had been advocating that converts be required to keep the Old Covenant Jewish law. It was the hierarchy, led by St. Peter, that rejected that idea and spoke authoritatively to condemn it. It then sent forth its decree to the various local churches, insisting that it be obeyed as the voice of the Holy Spirit.

It is true, however, that it is our responsibility as Christians to know the faith and to stick to it. There have been prophecies (like La Salette) that indicate that a dark time is coming when what appears to be the Church may not be. The true hierarchy may then be underground and only recognizable to those who truly know the ancient Catholic faith.

May God grant us knowledge, wisdom, and discernment.

 

[Mustaphile]

I'm not sure that I understand this concept entirely.

I think the issue lies in your statement of lack of understanding of the second question. What meaning is there in the sense of the faithful without utility? If there is not practical application of it, why is it there? Saying that God exists means very little without an understanding of how we use that knowledge. Similarly, the sense of the faithful exists, but what utility do we bring to it?

-edit-

I'd like to go back to square one, if I can, before I get too far along this path. What is Sensus Fidelum and what is the basis for understanding it? How did it come about? That seems like a more appropriate place for me to start.

 

[Markh]

The Catholic Church is not a democracy and if you don't like that fact, you know where the door is.

The hierarchy is the way Christ intended his Church to be.

If we asked the average Catholic in decidion making we would soon see an altreation on the view of the real presence, a rejection of papal infallibility, the allowing of female "priests", the allowing of contraceptives in marriage and seeing practicing homosexuality as no longer being a sin.

And if the altrenative is that I would rather stick with the hierarchy thank you.

 

[Mustaphile]

The Catholic Church is not a democracy and if you don't like that fact, you know where the door is.

Hehehe...well since I havent stepped through the door yet, I'll take it this doesn't apply to me.

Not asking questions too much and just doing what your told seems to be a pre-requisite for entering the world of Catholicism. In all good conscience I can't accept that and God gave me a conscience for good purpose. Each time I approach the door of Catholicism, I am rebuffed. It's not very welcoming and there is something fundamentally wrong in that. Christ was more welcoming. Seek and you shall find, knock and the door shall be opened to you. There exists an element of elitism, amongst some Catholics, which lacks in humility. I'll keep knocking and and hope the door is opened one day. I have a fervent hope of finding a more reasonable kind of Catholic. If I was to think of something I would seek to reform in the Catholic church this would be the first thing.

 

[EllenMoran]

Three points, Mustaphile.

First, the "check your brain at the door" perception is simply that -- perception. It is not the truth. While we are to submit to the Church, the search for Truth and understanding encourages thought and questioning.

Secondly, perhaps the manner of your approach is influencing the manner of the response you are getting? This thread for example -- the approach is very much a challenge. How might the answers have been different if the thread had opened with "Can you help me to understand the role of the laity in the Catholic Church? I'm particularly interested in how they impact the formation of doctrine, etc."

Finally, I'm sorry that you have had negative experiences with some Catholics. I would challenge you, however, to consider whether those particular interactions are the Catholic faith, or if it is what is taught by the Church is truly Catholicism.

 

[Mustaphile]

I would challenge you, however, to consider whether those particular interactions are the Catholic faith, or if it is what is taught by the Church is truly Catholicism.

Can you reword this last sentence for me? I'm not comprehending the challenge.

 

[Mustaphile]

First, the "check your brain at the door" perception is simply that -- perception. It is not the truth. While we are to submit to the Church, the search for Truth and understanding encourages thought and questioning.

Since I only have my perceptions to work with I think you could be a little more generous.

Secondly, perhaps the manner of your approach is influencing the manner of the response you are getting? This thread for example -- the approach is very much a challenge. How might the answers have been different if the thread had opened with "Can you help me to understand the role of the laity in the Catholic Church? I'm particularly interested in how they impact the formation of doctrine, etc."

I did ask something similar to this further along in the thread. The purpose of the thread for me was to assess what attitudes are concerning this statement made by the ARCC, a body I assume that forms part of the interactions with the Church. I have some affinity for what they are talking about, and I wished to guage from input from people in this forum how receptive they were to ideas like this. Its an idea that springs from within the body of Catholic believers. If I was to become a Catholic I would probably be inclined to support such a body. I can assume that many would be repulsed at the idea that I would do so.

Finally, I'm sorry that you have had negative experiences with some Catholics.

I'm not sorry myself. More perplexed. I have an affinity for the teachings of the Church, through my readings of the Catechism, but not for the attitudes of the practioners of those teachings. So I am both drawn to the wisdom and repulsed by the folly. I think perplexed is a good word.

 

[Carrye]

I think the issue lies in your statement of lack of understanding of the second question. What meaning is there in the sense of the faithful without utility? If there is not practical application of it, why is it there? Saying that God exists means very little without an understanding of how we use that knowledge. Similarly, the sense of the faithful exists, but what utility do we bring to it?

The laity have an invaluable role in the Church, but it is often not going to be determining doctrine. The laity are in the world, and so they must witness to it. They must be good parents, good husbands and wives, and raise their children for God. We must care for those in the world, our brothers and sisters who are in need. We must be Christ to the world. And that, as you know, is no small task.

But the role of the clergy is different. They are our elders, educated in the Holy Faith, but more importantly, called by God in a special way to His service. They are the ones who will ultimately define doctrine and such, with the help of theologians among the laity.

I'd like to go back to square one, if I can, before I get too far along this path. What is Sensus Fidelum and what is the basis for understanding it? How did it come about? That seems like a more appropriate place for me to start.

That's my question as well. I'm not sure that I understand.

 

[marciadietrich]

I haven't gotten thru all the replies yet. I would say that the sense of the faithful has to exclude those who postulate opinions based on secular values rather than a formation of conscience in the faith. If we have a large percentage of Catholics who had poor religious training, don't care about and/or don't understand even the basics of their faith their "sense" is not based in faith but rather personal opinion.

The sense of the faithful should include well-catechized laymen who look to tradition, and in that they will help preserve the faith in times when some of the heirarchy become misguided.

I admit not knowing too much on this subject, but I feel it is similiar to and related to formation of conscience. Going by your conscience isn't an excuse to be disobedient and to change doctrines and practices that are unappealing ... it is supposed to mean you do your best to understand the faith and when a situation hits you don't know what the Church's stand is, you go with your well-formed conscience.

Don't know if that helps...

God bless...

Marcia

 

[marciadietrich]

Looking in the Catechism:



2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

So the moral sense of the faithful included in a judgement there. But the moral sense of the faithful is not going to be based on modern society and Dr. Ruth type pop psychology.

I would postulate that any time the sense of the faithful is contrary to something taught by the Magisterium that means the faithful are not looking to God and faith, but drawing on secular society and personal opinion instead.

Marcia

 

[Michelina]

ARCC Mission and Goal
To bring about substantive structural change in the Catholic Church, ARCC seeks to institutionalize a collegial understanding of Church in which decision-making is shared and accountability is realized among Catholics of every kind and condition. It affirms that there are fundamental rights which are rooted in the humanity and baptism of all Catholics. To this end ARCC developed and works to implement a Charter of the Rights of Catholics in the Church and a Proposed Catholic Constitution.

ARCC Origins
The Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church (ARCC) was founded in 1980 by lay and clerical Catholics in the wake of Vatican condemnations of such theologians as Edward Schillebeeckx, Jacques Pohier, and Hans Küng.

Heterodox theologians. This is a Modernist organization.

The Sensus Fidelium ('sense' of the faithful) is a valid and important principle in understanding the Faith. But the important thing to remember is that 'the faithful' does not mean nominal Catholics. "Faithful" means real Catholics, devout, spiritual, obedient. This group seems to think that the Holy Spirit works speaks thru nominal or Modernist Catholics. This is a complete travesty of the principle of "Sensus Fidelium".

 

[Carrye]

ARCC Mission and Goal
To bring about substantive structural change in the Catholic Church, ARCC seeks to institutionalize a collegial understanding of Church in which decision-making is shared and accountability is realized among Catholics of every kind and condition. It affirms that there are fundamental rights which are rooted in the humanity and baptism of all Catholics. To this end ARCC developed and works to implement a Charter of the Rights of Catholics in the Church and a Proposed Catholic Constitution.

ARCC Origins
The Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church (ARCC) was founded in 1980 by lay and clerical Catholics in the wake of Vatican condemnations of such theologians as Edward Schillebeeckx, Jacques Pohier, and Hans Küng.

Heterodox theologians. This is a Modernist organization.

I read that too Michelina, but only know of Schillebeeckx, and Kung ... I haven't read enough of either to have an opinon. Thank you for confirming my suspicions. Oh, and this looks like another opportunity for you to fill me in further.

 

[Mustaphile]

Ok, so what is a modernist Catholic? I need to catch up on the lingo.

 

[Michelina]

Modernism is very difficult to define in a few words. Basically, it's a way of humanizing everything in a way that is consonant with the spirit of the world.

Or, a way of seeing supernatural reality with a humanistic mentality.

Or, an interpration of the Faith that is contaminated by worldly thinking.

St Pius X said it best: Agnosticism is its Philosophical Foundation.

"A full definition of modernism would be rather difficult. First it stands for certain tendencies, and secondly for a body of doctrine which, if it has not given birth to these tendencies (practice often precedes theory), serves at any rate as their explanation and support. Such tendencies manifest themselves in different domains. They are not united in each individual, nor are they always and everywhere found together. Modernist doctrine, too, may be more or less radical, and it is swallowed in doses that vary with each one's likes and dislikes."

Abbate Cavallanti: "Modernism is modern in a false sense of the word; it is a morbid state of conscience among Catholics, and especially young Catholics, that professes manifold ideals, opinions, and tendencies. From time to time these tendencies work out into systems, that are to renew the basis and superstructure of society, politics, philosophy, theology, of the Church herself and of the ".

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm

The roots of Modernism are in the (false) "scientific", mechanistic, utilitarian approach of the modern mind, disbelieving in invisible realities and taking traditional teachings as mere metaphors from less enlightened ages.

Pope St. Pius X's Encyclical "Pascendi Domininci Gregis" (Pastoring the Lord's Flock) is the best answer to your question.

Pope Pius says that defining it is like trying to hold an eel in your hands.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

Modernism is as much an attitude* as it is a set of false propositions.

The attitude is basically Humanistic.

One more point: Modernism is built on Ignorance (of Revelation, Tradition, Church Doctrine, History, etc, etc, etc)

Its combination of arrogance and ignorance is fatal, if swallowed.

 

[marciadietrich]

Abbate Cavallanti: "Modernism is modern in a false sense of the word; it is a morbid state of conscience among Catholics, and especially young Catholics, that professes manifold ideals, opinions, and tendencies. From time to time these tendencies work out into systems, that are to renew the basis and superstructure of society, politics, philosophy, theology, of the Church herself ..."

....

One more point: Modernism is built on Ignorance (of Revelation, Tradition, Church Doctrine, History, etc, etc, etc)

Its combination of arrogance and ignorance is fatal, if swallowed.

Since no one corrected me, and given what you've written here Michelina, I am hopeful that I wasn't too far off base in seeing a connection between proper conscience formation on the individual level and the idea of sensus fidelius on the macro level. That without the proper conscience formation, education in faith and adherence to authority of the Church you can't have a sense of the faithful among a group that has malformed consciences and attitudes (i.e. arrogant and ignorant).

Marcia