[Lil Red]

+JMJ+
from CCC

Quote

The supernatural sense of faith

91 All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them53 and guides them into all truth.54

92 "The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals."55

93 "By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium),. . . receives. . . the faith, once for all delivered to the saints. . . The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life."56

my question is specifically about #92. Is there an example of sensus fidei, or could you explain it a little more?

[Raphael]

Lil Red, on 08 March 2010 - 06:09 PM, said:

+JMJ+
from CCC

my question is specifically about #92. Is there an example of sensus fidei, or could you explain it a little more?

Sure, the whole body of the faithful is the Body of Christ, which cannot err in its whole. Obviously, many of its members can err individually, but there's always an overarching consensus on the faith, particularly among the well-catechized and the bishops, on all matters. It would seem that something like contraception is proof against this, but I would argue that those who are contracepting and know it's wrong can't really be termed "the faithful" as they are knowingly against the faith in one (and usually more) matters. Those who contracept and are honestly ignorant of the Church's teachings may be otherwise faithful.

Before Ven. Pius XII declared the Dogma of the Assumption, he sent word to all the bishops of the world to gauge whether or not the sensus fidei was in favor of the declaration of the dogma at the time. The sensus fidei would not have taken into account the thoughts of those who were against the Assumption, since they would be against a doctrine (but not at that time a dogma), but it would have taken into account those faithful in the Church, particularly the ones the bishop knew were faithful. He would sort of listen to the chatter in this diocese and determine if there was support for this timing of the declaration or not.

I think the Motu Proprio was largely in response to the Sensus Fidei; the pope sensed that there was a growing movement of people desiring the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and that these people had good reason to desire it.

The idea of the sensus fidei is that the Holy Spirit is moving in His Church. Individuals and even large groups can err, but the sense of the faithful as a whole cannot. It must not be assumed, though, that "the faithful" includes all who profess to be Catholic. A willful show of dissent from the Church really disqualifies a person because that person is not acting on faith. Of course, one could ask, "how do we know that the Holy Spirit isn't speaking through the dissenters and they are being disregarded?" I think it's clear, though, that the Holy Spirit will not disagree with a doctrine. I also think it's clear that a person who has genuine faith seeks unity and not division, and even if they are not fond of a particular practice of the Church (such as liturgy in the vernacular), they will not go around telling everyone that the Church is in error. There are many non-doctrinal areas or parts of the faith where doctrinal development may be needed and the sensus fidei can be a great help in this. Before Lech Walesa, the Church didn't have much to say on the issue of solidarity, but Pope John Paul II saw the faithful all over the world standing behind the movement they were hearing about on the news and wrote extensively about solidarity himself.

Hope that helps.

God bless,

Micah

[jaime]

Micah is correct about the assumption

[Raphael]

hot stuff, on 11 March 2010 - 03:04 PM, said:

Micah is correct about the assumption

It's good to know, given that I assumed the whole thing.