Declaration Fiducia supplicans

I have read all the document very carefully. Then I talked to a Dominican priest on this topic and the role of conscience in practical life of a Catholic. The priest said that his conscience contradicts the possibility of a blessing given to a gay couple and he is against the possibility of giving sacramental Communion to couples after they or one of them divorced ( adhortation Familiaris consortio ).
He said that as Catholics we have to be obedient to our conscience provided it's well formed and we still form it. He told that about this I can read something in the catechism.
I found in catechism the section about MORAL CONSCIENCE.
So, look at some excerpts:

1778 '' .... In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. ''

My comment: The document Fiducia Supplicans is not a dogma and the significance of the document is much lower than encyclics or another important documents which we Catholics could consider as infallible teaching of the pope, ex cathedra teaching. This told me the Dominican priest.
So my conscience tells me that a blessing given to a homosexual couple could be taken by them as a form of acceptance of their sexual relationship because the document Fiducia Supplicans says nothing about sin, sinning if such a couple has a sexual relationship.
My conscience tells me that a blessing for such a couple is not just and right and according to point 1778 of the catechism I'm obliged to follow faithfully what I know to be just and right.
Of course I consider it not just and right in my actual state of theological knowledge and I don't know such couples personally. So my decision is not forever because I don't know what my conscience will say me in future provided I will form my conscience.

1778 '' [Conscience] is a messenger of him who speaks to us and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.''

My comment: a definition of the word vicar / a representative or deputy - a person who is given the power to do something instead of another person, or the person whose rank is immediately below that of the leader /.
So my conscience is a deputy, representative of Christ and I must listen to Christ so I must listen to my conscience which tells me the blessing for such couples is a mistake which can produce no or less struggle for finishing a sinful life style.


1782 'Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.'

My comment: nowhere is said that the document has an importance equaling a dogma or infallible teaching ex cathedra. It's a major novelty in the Catholic tradition and teaching of almost 2000 years of history. So my conscience has many doubts.

1783 - ' ...The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path. we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice.'

My comment: I'm obliged to form my conscience so I cannot exclude that in future I could accept the document if a right formation of my conscience follows.

Where is the boundary I'm going to never cross even if my conscience told me something contrary? These are all the dogmas and so called infallible or ex -cathedra teaching of the RCC.

I encourage you to read the section about conscience in the catechism, write your thoughts about your conclusions.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

What I read about conscience in the New advent Catholic Encyclopedia is this:
' .... having the subjective conviction (after exercising due diligence to form one’s conscience well) that one has to act contrary to Church authority, or that one may not morally obey Church authority, that is, if one is not sure one is right, one has (Aquinas would say) an erring opinion (not an erring conscience) in that case, one is morally bound not to act contrary to a trustworthy authority (e.g., the Church). Such a person would have a doubtful conscience, and one morally cannot act with such doubts, any more than a hunter may shoot at a rustling bush if it might be hiding another hunter and not a deer. ''

My comment: The content about conscience in the New advent Catholic Encyclopedia is very long and not easy to understand and I consider this content as a document of lower importance than the catechism of RCC.

But I understand that excerpt above that I can act contrary to Church authority (in this case to the document Fiducia Supplicans ) provided I am sure I am right. But if I am not sure, if I have doubts whether I am right then I mustn't act contrary to the Church authority. So I must be sure, not hesitant in my personal opinion (conscience) to act against the authority of the church. Such a condition seems to be needed to avoid rejecting Catholic teaching because of one's personal whims. So I must think about if I am sure that the document Fiducia Supplicans has some doubtful, erroneous content. Some known bishops in the Catholic world, Polish episcopacy, African bishops, Ukrainian Greko Catholic Church are against this document that shows me that it's not only my personal opinion but some authorities in Catholic Church reject at least some parts of this document. So, can I be sure, the document is not right? Nowadays I can tell - rather yes.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04268a.htm

 

IMO (I can err here) this document isn't contrary to the Magisterium of just a few years ago. It's because the former dokument said about blessings understood in the traditional way as they had been understood until this document (Fiducia supplicans).

This document changed the understanding of a blessing. We can read in it that there are unconditional blessings too which can be given every man (given to good and evil people) hoping that they'll help them with time to try to live according to the will of God. In the traditional understanding of a blessing it couldn't be given to a man living in sin. That's why the former document from the year 2021 rejected the possibility of blessings for same sex couples.
In the Fiducia supplicans we can read about a blessing given to a pharaoh, even if he was a pagan. There are other instances of unconditional (given to good and evil people) blessings - for example a blessing given to a person who starts a journey.

But my question is - even if one can bless a sinful person (according to the newest document) then it's made in the hope that this person will change their sinful life (repentance) at least with time. But when a same sex couple will come to a priest for a blessing then it seems to me that their intention won't be to live without sex in the relationship because if they wanted to live without sex then they could go to confession and simply live together without the sin so there would be no need to go and ask for such a blessing.

So, the logic says that such a same sex couple will be given a blessing but after that they will continue living in sin. Such a blessing can give them a false impression that their sex relationship is OK , no sin or maybe only a venial one (my supposition). The danger of seeing the blessing in such a way comes from the content of this said document because there is no sentence, no word in this document that sex in the homosexual relationship is a sin and as in case of extramarital sex the sin is not venial but a grave one.

So who will tell the same sex couple that they live in grave sins and consequently their salvation is in danger? They will come to a priest for the blessing and the priest won't tell them that they should repent and change their life, that sex between them is sinful ... this the priest won't tell them. He only will give them the blessing. The couple may have the impression that they can be like a marriage.
There is in Poland a known Dominican priest (from time to time he is invited to some media to a talk with him) and after the Fiducia supplicans document he is ready even to give Communion same sex couples. So he made a step forwards. First blessings, then accepting such couples as equal to marriage couples, then if it's a marriage then why not to give them Communion. But if someone takes Communion then they can think that their life is without grave sins. So gay people won't have any incentive (or the incentive will be too weak) to give up the sinful sex. And what about the sacrilege? We know that results of a sacrilege can be fatal, worsening of the health or even death.
So instead of merci for such couples and the hope that they give up the sex sin in future the results of such a blessing can be fatal for the individuals.

Another thing to considerate is conversion of some Protestants. Sometimes some Protestants who became or are going to become Catholics say that their motivation is that Catholic Church hasn't accepted same sex marriages and women as priests ( because they see that it's incompatible with the Bible). They say that their churches become lgbt friendly and the Bible tells distinctly that it's a grave sin. So after this document Such Protestant may not have the motivation to convert to Catholic Church because it will seem to them that even Catholic Church has become lgbt sin friendly. I think they'll convert to an Orthodox Church because Orthodoxy won't accept blessings given to people living in sin (and not wanting to give up the sin).

Yes, above I wrote about my doubts = confusion. But whether the document contains errors I don't know because the understanding of blessings has changed. So I rather don't see an error but I see potential numerous fatal dangers which such blessings can produce. It would be better that such a document has never been published IMO because instead to create something good it created lots of confusion and rejection in Catholic Church. The fruits aren't good.

Until now nobody in the Church said that it's ex cathedra. But such a document is a novelty, no Catholic tradition.

there is not the only case when the pope said or wrote something very controversial, not supported by the teaching and tradition, and which led to confusion in Catholic Church.

 

That day, at evening, Jesus said to his followers, “Come with me across the lake.” So they left the crowd behind and went with Jesus in the boat he was already in. There were also other boats that went with them. A very bad wind came up on the lake. The waves were coming over the sides and into the boat, and it was almost full of water. Jesus was inside the boat, sleeping with his head on a pillow. The followers went and woke him. They said, “Teacher, don’t you care about us? We are going to drown!” Jesus stood up and gave a command to the wind and the water. He said, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind stopped, and the lake became calm. He said to his followers, “Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?” They were very afraid and asked each other, “What kind of man is this? Even the wind and the water obey him!” (Mark 4:35-40)

It's all gonna be fine, folks, we are still God's children, it's still Jesus' church, and she is still indefectible. We owe the bishop of Rome deference of mind, heart, and will in matters of faith and morals, in accordance with the various degrees of theological certainty. Lumen Gentium is an excellent guide on this point. Peace be with your souls

 

I had to cancel some of my expressions / sentences which I wrote on this thread above. Below I'm pasting the sentences with my comments and excerpts taken from the source: http://twotlj.org/G-2-1-I.html#Note105

why I have cancelled them (because I have changed my mind after having read some material today about when we Catholics must assent with the pope, our bishop and magisterium. So the withdrawn sentences are:


1. So, according to this point nobody can tell me - ' You won't listen to the pope if you don't accept all the document Fiducia Supplicans . Catholics should listen to the pope.'
Accepting the document I would feel forced to act contrary to my conscience and no one, even the pope or the Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith have the right to prevent me from acting according to my conscience.

My comment: When the pope says something containing authoritative teaching it's certain even if it's not a dogma and even if it's not said ex cathedra. It's because he had consulted this before with theologians. The pope can say that this and this is a truth to be accepted as certain or that this and this is the Church’s constant and most firm moral teaching or that this is a teaching to which assent is due or an authoritative teaching.


2. Popes are only infallible when they speak ex cathedra or they speak about former accepted dogmas and official church teaching = tradition.

My comment: Not only in the two cases. Other possible (not all cases are mentioned above in my comment to point 1)

All the excerpts below are taken from the source: http://twotlj.org/G-2-1-I.html#Note105

'' Vatican II teaches: “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 of soul. This religious submission of will and of intellect must be shown in a special way to the authoritative magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. ''

'' Vatican II: The relevant submission of soul - that is, of will and of intellect - is to the teaching proposed insofar as the magisterium of the Church authoritatively proposes it ''

3. So, repeating a priest I used to talk to 7 years ago, sorry but I'm awaiting a new pope. But what if the new one will be similar in confusing teaching to this one?

My comment: Such an expression suggest disobedience to the pope and promoting it. And I'm against it.

'' when popes and bishops fulfill their teaching role, God sees to it that those who submit their judgment to what is taught are not led into serious and harmful error.''

4. If the document is not ex cathedra then the pope can err.....If not then it can possibly contain errors. Popes are only infallible when they speak ex cathedra or they speak about former accepted dogmas and official church teaching = tradition.

My comment: Look at my comment to point 2. If there is a document then a pope must have consulted it with theologians so it cannot contain errors because in such a case a pope is infallible.

'' Mistakes in papal and episcopal teaching are not to be presumed (suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability).
Teachings to which religious assent is due usually are truths, even if not truths of faith. In the few cases in which such a teaching is mistaken, the mistake is hardly likely to be obvious. Popes and bishops generally seek theological advice and study it carefully before teaching on complex and difficult issues.''


'' One’s responsibility to give religious assent comes into play only if the pope or one’s bishop acts in his official capacity, proposes a teaching bearing on (be relevant to something) a matter of faith or morals, and calls for its acceptance as certain.''

'' there are five kinds of cases in which one has no responsibility to give religious assent: (i) when popes and bishops express opinions on matters outside faith and morals, (ii) when they speak or write on matters of faith and morals but as individual believers or private theologians rather than in their official capacity, (iii) when they teach officially but only tentatively (not definitely, in a way that lacks confidence; hesitantly), (iv) when they put forward observations and arguments, without calling for their acceptance in themselves, but as incidental to a truth of faith or a teaching which calls for religious assent, or (v) when they give merely disciplinary directives, for example, that certain opinions should not be taught while certain others may be. In all these cases, one’s responsibility is not to assent, but to listen respectfully, try to understand what the pastors are saying, and obey any disciplinary directives.''

'' most Catholics have no more reliable way of interpreting Scripture or knowing and interpreting the Church’s tradition than listening to and thinking with the magisterium. Very few are such experts in philosophy, science, or other fields of scholarship that they would really know that the Church’s teaching depended on a mistaken premise from one of those fields, even should that occur. In practice, most of the faithful could question a pope’s or bishop’s judgment only by trusting some scholars in preference to others. But in doing that they would presume to make for themselves the judgment among experts which the pope and bishops are not only divinely authorized but better qualified to make.''

'' Where religious assent is known to be due, it is a sin to withhold it. Here this sin is called deliberate nonassent. To communicate such nonassent to others with the intention of encouraging them to share in it is a more serious sin, called here sinful dissent.''

'' Deliberate nonassent is a grave matter. As has been explained (1.c), religious assent, although distinct from faith in God, is an act of human faith grounded in divine faith. Thus, while the sin of deliberate nonassent is not directly against divine faith, it does violate (without withdrawing) the commitment of faith, insofar as that is a human commitment not only to God but to the covenantal communion which is the Church. Because of the seriousness of this violation in itself, and because it interferes with ecclesial solidarity, it seems that deliberate nonassent is a grave matter.103 Two factors can aggravate its gravity: (i) if one denies not the teaching of one’s bishop but papal or conciliar teaching, and (ii) if one persists in the sin after being warned by the Holy See or one’s bishop. ''

'' when ongoing, radical, theological dissent has caused great confusion in the Church, many Catholics may suppose that the conditions requiring religious assent are never met with respect to nondefined teachings which they personally do not find convincing. Of course, even if they do not commit the sin of deliberate nonassent, their error still might be culpable, as resulting from self-induced blindness due to previous sins.''

'' Following subjectivist conscience is deliberate nonassent. The sin of deliberate nonassent is committed by those who rationalize their failure to assent as following their “conscience,” using the word in a subjectivist sense. Conscience truly so-called is formed by moral truth, which can be known with certitude by the help of the Church’s teaching . “Conscience” in a subjectivist sense refers to one’s own opinions and preferences, treated as more authoritative than any practical truth or requirement originating beyond oneself . But to treat one’s own opinions and preferences as more authoritative than the Church’s teaching is deliberate refusal to give that teaching the assent it deserves; and this refusal is only rationalized, not justified, by saying: “My conscience tells me it is right for me to do X, so it is right for me, no matter what the pope says!” While not the position of those convinced that in some instance the conditions requiring religious assent are not met, this is the position of those who do not care whether the conditions are met. Quite simply, these latter refuse assent on the general principle that no one, not even those who speak in Jesus’ name, can tell them what to do and what not to do.''

'' while the theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, he is also obliged to form it. Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgement regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good.''

 

Thanks for raising this topic, it caused me to read the document.

There is a close member of my family who is gay. That person knows that I love them and they know I don't approve of their lifestyle. It is my regular prayer that this person comes back to God and His church. It would be a true miracle if it were to happen but I do not give up hope because God can do anything. I have made it known that if the occasion of a same sex wedding were to occur, I would not attend. That would be a sad day for many reasons and I would miss such an event not out of spite or any lack of love but rather because I see it as God's will that I do not condone sin, neither by myself or others.

I fear this document goes to far too tortuous lengths to parse out the conditions where a blessing might not be confused as condoning an "irregular situation" (that should include both same sex relationships as well as cohabitation without marriage by a man and woman). Given the difficulty the authors had in defining an acceptable blessing in such situations, I think that a same sex couple would always misinterpret an explicit blessing (as opposed to a general blessing for a group such as a congregation) from a priest as condoning their "irregular situation". If a couple in an "irregular situation" want a blessing, let them attend mass, without receiving communion, and receive the blessings a priest gives as per the normal order of mass.

I thank Mr. Echo for pointing out the difference between this document and a clarification to the magisterium of a classification that it would mandate adherence for Roman Catholics. I understand from his words that this one does not fall into such a sweeping and serious classification.

I presume that those who wrote this were trying to walk a fine line between church doctrine and the pressures of modern society. Whereas, I hope to remain open to the challenges of loving others as Christ directed (and to muster the courage), I don't think this letter is one Christ would have written.

 

What I have read recently in a document dating from 1990 ( and signed by Cardinal Ratzinger under the pope John Paul Ii) all the ordinary Magisterium is infallible. Soon I'll post some excerpts of that official Vatican document on my thread with a link.

 

I look forward to reading your post. Thank you

 

Taken from the DONUM VERITATIS - ON THE ECCLESIAL VOCATION OF THE THEOLOGIAN
Given at Rome, at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on May 24, 1990
JOSEPH CARD. RATZINGER
Prefect

This Instruction was adopted at an Plenary Meeting of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and was approved at an audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect by the Supreme Pontiff, Pope John Paul II, who ordered its publication.

source: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/...aith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

Below I'm pasting some (shortened by me - shorter sentences to be simpler to understand) excerpts from the instruction.

1. the role of the Magisterium in the Church. .... the People of God enjoys this privilege (a participation in the Holy Spirit's infallibility) under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, which is the sole authentic interpreter of the Word of God, written or handed down...

My comment: So, a participation in the Holy Spirit's infallibility has the Magisterium but not theologians.

2. As successors of the apostles, the bishops receive the mission of teaching all peoples...They have been entrusted with the task of preserving, explaining, and spreading the Word of God.

My comment: So, the teaching is not a role of theologians.

3. the Magisterium must protect God's People from the danger of deviations and confusion, guaranteeing them professing the authentic faith free from error.

My comment: So, to say that something is free or not free from error is not a role of theologians.

4. the Holy Spirit bestowed on Church's Pastors the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.... it is exercised particularly when the bishops in union with their visible head proclaim a doctrine by a collegial act ...

My comment: So, theologians cannot be infallible.

5. Revelation also contains moral teachings. Access to them is made difficult by man's sinful condition. It is a doctrine of faith that these moral norms can be infallibly taught by the Magisterium...

6. Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, even should this not issue (formally send out or make known) in an infallible definition or in a "definitive" pronouncement but in the proposal of some teaching which leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals and to moral directives derived from such teaching.

My comment: But "Those of the right faith, including bishops, priests and theologians, are not the successors of the apostles teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium.

7. all acts of the Magisterium derive from from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth....

My comment: Can errors derive from Christ? All acts means - all of them.

8. The Roman Pontiff fulfills his mission with the help of the various bodies of the Roman Curia and in particular with that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in matters of doctrine and morals. Consequently, the documents issued by this Congregation expressly approved by the Pope participate in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter.

9. The teaching of each bishop, taken individually, is exercised in communion with the Roman Pontiff.. Such communion is a condition for its authenticity.

My comment: Can a bishop teach something not being in communion with the Roman Pontiff?

10. The pastoral task of the Magisterium is one of vigilance. It seeks to ensure that the People of God remain in the truth. The theologian, to be faithful to his role of service to the truth, must take into account the proper mission of the Magisterium and collaborate with it.

My comment: that the People of God remains in the truth is not the role of the theologian. The theologian must collaborate with the Magisterium. And how collaborate with the Magisterium those who say that the Magisterium is in error?

11. The living Magisterium of the Church ...promotes, with the authority received from Jesus Christ, new and deeper comprehension, clarification, and application of revealed doctrine.... Theology gains an ever deeper understanding of the Word of God found in the Scripture and handed on faithfully by the Church's living Tradition under the guidance of the Magisterium.

My comment: Theology, theologians are under the guidance of the Magisterium. But not that the Magisterium is under the guidance of theologians.

12. when the theologian receives the canonical mission or the mandate to teach. such collaboration becomes a participation in the work of the Magisterium. the theologian accepts his office and taks the oath of fidelity (obedience). the theologian is charged with the task of presenting and illustrating the doctrine of the faith with full accuracy.

My comment: How do the theologians being against the magisterium become participators in the work of the Magisterium? Theologians' oath of fidelity (obedience) to the Magisterium?

13. When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as revealed.

My comment: My conclusion is the ordinary Magisterium is infallible and it's calling for theological faith.

14. When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.

My comment: No comment.

15. The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium...It can happen that a theologian may raise questions regarding even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the documents.

My comment: No words here about a good rebellion or even not acceptance, disagreement...

16. it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into consideration every aspect a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the exercise of its mission.

My comment: No comment.

17. the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression.

My comment: the theologians disagreeing with the pope and the magisterium do give untimely public expressions (the internet, papers, TV, radio)

18. Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.

My comment: Any body's consciences- mine, yours, theologians' , bishops' do not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.

19. there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness to accept the teaching of the Magisterium for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith. The theologian will strive to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him.

My comment: I see here no possibility of mutiny but Theologian's readiness to revise his own opinions and acceptance of the teaching of the Magisterium for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith.

20. If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do it with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could contribute to progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and clearer.
In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media" for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification.

My comment: The words above are same explaining.

21. the theologian's difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination.

My comment: No word about a duty to rebel here.

22. such a situation ( when the theologian feels he cannot give his intellectual assent ) can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail.

My comment: Mutiny, disagreement or suffering for the truth, in silence and prayer? What did John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger suggest in such a case?

23. The Magisterium has drawn attention several times to the serious harm done to the community of the Church by attitudes of general opposition to Church teaching which even come to expression in organized groups.

My comment: The Magisterium under the pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger...

24. Paul VI addresses public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church - called "dissent" ... In such a way freedom of thought comes to oppose the authority of tradition.

25. Dissent has different aspects. In its most radical form, it is asserted that the theologian is not bound to adhere to any Magisterial teaching unless it is infallible. Thus ... doctrines proposed without exercise of the charism of infallibility are said to have no obligatory character, leaving the individual completely at liberty to adhere to them or not.The theologian would be totally free to raise doubts or reject the non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium particularly in the case of specific moral norms. he would even be making a contribution to the development of doctrine.

26. Dissent is generally defended by various arguments, The first - The documents of the Magisterium, it is said, reflect nothing more than a debatable theology. The second takes theological pluralism. Here the interventions of the Magisterium would have their origin in one theology among many theologies, while no particular theology, could claim universal normative status. In opposition to and in competition with the authentic magisterium, there thus arises a "parallel magisterium" of theologians.

27. it is one of the theologian's tasks to give a correct interpretation to the texts of the Magisterium.
As far as theological pluralism is concerned, this is only legitimate (acceptable) to the extent that the unity of the faith is not jeopardized.This cannot mean that it is possible to accept conclusions contrary to that mystery and it certainly does not put into question the truth of those assertions by which the Magisterium has declared itself.

28. As to the "parallel magisterium", it can cause great spiritual harm by opposing itself to the Magisterium of the Pastors. Indeed, when dissent succeeds in extending its influence to the point of shaping; a common opinion, it tends to become the rule of conduct. This cannot but seriously trouble the People of God and lead to contempt for true authority.

29. Dissent sometimes also appeals to a kind of sociological argumentation which holds that the opinion of a large number of Christians would be a direct and adequate expression of the "supernatural sense of the faith".
Consequently, what the believer believes is what the Church believes.

30. the Second Vatican Council emphasized the guidance of God's People by the magisterium of the Pastors.
Magisterial interventions serve to guarantee the Church's unity in the truth of the Lord in face of changeable opinions and are an expression of obedience to the Word of God.it might seem that they limit the freedom of theologians.

31. The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.

32. Magisterium has the mission to set forth the Gospel's teaching, and protect the Faith. it can at times take serious measures when it withdraws from a theologian, who departs from the doctrine of the faith

33. The judgment expressed by the Magisterium in such circumstances is the result of a thorough investigation which afford the interested party the opportunity to clear up possible misunderstandings of his thought. Moreover, the theologian who is not disposed to think with the Church contradicts the commitment he freely and knowingly accepted to teach in the name of the Church.

34. argumentation appealing to the obligation to follow one's own conscience cannot legitimate dissent. while the theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, he is also obliged to form it. Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. A right conscience is duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good.

35. The right conscience of the Catholic theologian presumes not only faith in the Word of God but also love for the Church and respect for her divinely assisted Magisterium. Setting up a supreme magisterium of conscience in opposition to the magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the Revelation and its transmission in the Church and the role of the theologian.
The propositions of faith are not the product of mere individual research and free criticism of the Word of God but constitute an ecclesial heritage.

36. Polling public opinion opposing the Magisterium by exerting the pressure of public opinion, making the excuse of a "consensus" among theologians, maintaining that the theologian is the prophetical spokesman of a "base" or autonomous community which would be the source of all truth, indicates a grave loss of the sense of truth.

37. The Church "is like a sacrament, a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men". Consequently, to pursue concord and communion . To succumb to the temptation of dissent is to allow the "leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit" to start to work.

38. theology and the Magisterium are of diverse natures and missions and cannot be confused.

My comment: So, having read all the above, the role of theologians is not to say if the Magisterium is in error or not..

39. The acts of assent and submission to the Word entrusted to the Church under the guidance of the Magisterium are directed ultimately to Him (God).

My comment: no comment.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

That's why I changed my mind regarding the current pope and the magisterium. I'm feeling like according to point 22 above:

... such a situation ( when I feel I hardly can give my intellectual assent to Fiducia Supplicans) can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call for me to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail.

 

I have read, and reread, the attached article [ https://onepeterfive.com/magisterium-cheat-sheet/ ] in an effort to understand the levels of authority within the magisterium and the differences between Definitive teachings on faith and morals and Non-definitive teachings of the magisterium.

Although this is a complicated matter deserving much thought, it should be clear that not every utterance of the Pope, or a single Bishop, is to be understood as infallible, just as the Catechism allows. It is only after a thorough and dogmatic process of review by the college of bishops (remembering that the Pope is only one member in his capacity as the Bishop of Rome) wherein a proposed teaching is successfully vetted against the ultimate standard of Christ's teachings that such teaching may be considered infallible.

I don't suggest for a moment that we should easily dismiss something that a Pope may say for it would be too easy to create a smorgasbord of faithful practices from which one picks and chooses. So, the statements of the Pope deserve careful consideration and certainly if they are elevated to the level of Definitive teachings on faith and morals by the college of bishops it would be our obligation to follow such teaching irregardless of personal preference. This document, "Fiducia Supplicans" has not been elevated to such a level of authority but just as we are doing here, it does deserve considered review.

 

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, even should this not issue in an infallible definition or in a "definitive" pronouncement.

What I can conclude from the above point 6 is that there is no need to pronounce by the magisterium that a document is infallible or definitive. It's enough that this is an official document published by the magisterium with the approval of the pope. Look at the word in green also

 

The article from the link above was written by a theologian who is supporting his opinion on the magisterium with the knowledge of his friend and colleague, Dr. Michael Sirilla, a dogmatic theologian.
I have read some parts of this article and can say that the statement below is only an opinion of the dogmatic theologian.
His opinion:

' III. Non-definitive teachings of the magisterium:
A. Teachings on faith and morals (or connected thereto) presented as true (or at least as sure) that have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
B. Manner of proposal: ordinary and universal Magisterium (the pope alone, or pope and bishops together)

***These teachings are NOT infallible and therefore they are reformable (i.e., able to be modified, clarified, corrected, or contradicted/overturned)

C. Assent: Religious submission of will and intellect

D. Censure: Erroneous or (regarding prudential teachings) rash/dangerous '

I have read such official Vatican documents on papal infallibility like:
Donum Veritatis, Professio Fidei , the dogmatic constitution Dei Filius and the part ON THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH of the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium.
... and I can say that nowhere in the documents is said that Non-definitive teachings (of the magisterium, that have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. ) are NOT infallible.

So the statement above is only a private opinion of that theologian.
Below I'm pasting a passage from the document PROFESSION OF FAITH which suggests something contrary to the opinion of the theologian:

' The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed (first paragraph) or to be held definitively (second paragraph) with an act which is either defining or non-defining. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an 'ex cathedra' pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. '

Source: CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
PROFESSION OF FAITH
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/...c_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html

Beside of this it's not a role of theologians to state which papal document is fallible and which not. Even no bishop / bishops can assess this officially. The authority to state something like this has only the magisterium with the approval of the pope or an ecumenical council with the approval of the pope. On the role of the theologian says the Vatican document DONUM VERITATIS of which some passages quoted Mr Eko.

But now to another point: Can some bishops (even many bishops) plus many lay people plus many theologians reject something what was officially stated with pope's approval by the magisterium?
After very carefully reading of the official documents I mentioned above it's absolutelly impossible in Catholic Church. Let's look at some excerpts below:

The first 3 points are taken from CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
PROFESSION OF FAITH
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect


1. it is clear that, on questions of faith and morals, the only subject qualified to fulfil the office of teaching with binding authority for the faithful is the Supreme Pontiff and the College of Bishops in communion with him. together with the Roman Pontiff they exercise supreme and full power over all the Church, although this power cannot be exercised without the consent of the Roman Pontiff.

2. These doctrines are contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgement as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex cathedra,' or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
These doctrines require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law.

3. Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex cathedra' or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a 'sententia definitive tenenda'. Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Church's Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church.


The another 6 points below are taken from DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM

1. It is clear throughout that it is a question of the bishops acting in conjunction with their head, never of the bishops acting independently of the Pope. In the latter instance, without the action of the head, the bishops are not able to act as a College: this is clear from the concept of "College." This hierarchical communion of all the bishops with the Supreme Pontiff is certainly firmly established in Tradition.

2. He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion....the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful.

3. But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope's power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.

4. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. 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.

5. Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.

6. The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter.


All in all - The fact is that many bishops in the world say and write that Fiducia Supplicans is not infallible (if not infallible then it can be or is erroneous) or they simply say that the document is erroneous, even blasphemy. But what authority to say this have the bishops?
According to official documents published under the Polish pope, under Cardinal Ratzinger and all former official documents even before Vatican II without 'being together' with the pope (any pope) they have no authority to state something without him and what they say can be fallible (erroneous). It doesn't matter if the bishops are supported by many lay people and theologians because in the Catholic Church there is no democratic rules or public opinion of believer doesn't decide what is true or false in the Catholic faith.

I would change my mind only if somebody showed me an official Vatican document (be it old or new one) which would show that anybody with no approval of the pope can reject a document published by the magisterium (having a pope's official approval).

 

But what could you say about this passage -
Matthew 16:18: ' And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.'
If the pope was a false pope then it would mean that the gates of hades have overcome the rock (and at the same time the Church). So what with the promise of Jesus?
It would mean too that the dogma on infallibility of the pope (any pope) is false. But how can a dogma be false? If one Catholic dogma was false then another dogmas could possibly be false ..... the rolling stones .... this all could destroy the Catholic Church as a group of naive sectarian Christians believing in some imaginary dogmas.
Ask a priest if it's possible that a dogma can be false?

from the Catechism of RCC:

# 88 The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.