[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

I hesitated to reply to you because you always post reams of crap, but all your writing can be dismissed as easily as this — encyclicals are not infallible (even if some infallible truth is incidentally contained somewhere in the body of an encyclical, the pope does not exercise complete doctrinal authority in presenting it) and V2 was pastoral, not dogmatic. Thus neither require assent, public or private.

[MHGinTN]

Catholic authority is a three legged beast, to be ridden along the salvation trail: Traditions + Scripture + Magisterium = Catholic Authority. When Scripture does not line up with the Traditions, the Magisterium sorts out the variance bringing either in line with catholic authority. Is that about the truth of it?

[daniel1212]

I hesitated to reply to you because you always post reams of crap, but all your writing can be dismissed as easily as this — encyclicals are not infallible

Which is why you need to to read what is provided, as you simply do not understand RC teaching if you believe only infallible teaching requires assent.

Both infallible and ordinary teaching require assent, though there is a difference in the kind of submission both require. Infallible, irreformable, extraordinary teachings (which arguably constitute the smaller portion of what RCs believe and practice), require (according to various Catholic sources), "sacred assent," "internal assent," that being "assent of faith" "without wavering," "submission of faith," "assent of mind and heart," “obedience of faith,” "theological faith," “divine and Catholic faith.”

One who doubts these articles lacks faith that Rome possesses ensured veracity, and falls into heresy), while "authentic" but non-definitive ordinary teaching requires "ordinary assent," that being "religious submission of will and intellect," submission of mind and will," which "forbids public contradiction of the teaching"." An obstinate refusal to give "assent of faith" when it is due is a sin against the virtue of faith, while obstinate refusal to give "religious assent" when it is due is a sin against the virtue of charity. - (Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of Theologian, 32; http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html)

For how this applies to the pope's encyclicals see my prior post, which is far smaller than the almost 44,000 word encyclical itself.

[daniel1212]

and V2 was pastoral, not dogmatic. Thus neither require assent, public or private.

I missed this, which once again examples the interpretive nature of RC teaching, and while you reject V2 as requiring any assent, JP2 stated:

You have no right any more to bring up the distinction between the doctrinal and the pastoral that you use to support your acceptance of certain texts of Vatican Council II and your rejection of others. It is true that the matters decided in any Council do not all call for an assent of the same quality; only what the Council affirms in its 'definitions' as a truth of faith or as bound up with faith requires the assent of faith. Nevertheless, the rest also form a part of the SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM of the Church, to be trustingly accepted and sincerely put into practice by every Catholic." (Paul VI, Epistle Cum te to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 11 Oct, 1976, published in Notitiae, No. 12, 1976.)

And in closing the V2 council, Pope Paul VI stated,

the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man's conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force... ADDRESS OF POPE PAUL VI DURING THE LAST GENERAL MEETING OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, 7 December 1965; http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_epilogo-concilio.html

Then there is PIUS XI;

For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii.html

[Elsie]

... all your writing can be dismissed as easily as this...

encyclicals are a big waste of time!

[Elsie]

I hesitated to reply to you because you always post reams of crap,

ALWAYS?

I see an awful lot of quotes from CATHOLIC sources; therefore...

[RnMomof7]

V2 was an ecumenical council and as such is considered to be infallible ...

and like it or not it was infallible in the matters of faith and morals for Roman Catholics