Hm................unfortunately your muddled syntax confuses rather than clarifies.
Assent? One is a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Jew and so on, when one accepts and adheres to the teachings of their faith. Otherwise they are not, irrespective what they assert.
The Pontiff is infallible only on matters Faith and Morals, when speaking Ex-Cathedra; “from his Chair”.
Roman Catholicism is most certainly not some sort of democratic forum where everyone gets to ventilate his/her opinion and decide what they will accept/reject.
It is an ‘other worldly’ religion focused of the eternal.
Again, if one accepts and adheres to its teachings one is a Roman Catholic; otherwise one is not.
If you’re looking for a starting point for the teachings of the Church, begin reading the Creeds; Apostolic, Nicene and so on.
Therefore everything else he says or anyone else says IS fallible.
Then what basis is there for trusting it to be true and hanging your eternal salvation on it?
Which Roman Catholic teachings?
Trent?
VI?
VII?
CCC?
Only ex catherda ones, the ones that are supposed to be infallible for which there isn't even an infallible, consistent list?
The bartender looks up and says, "What is this? a JOKE?"
Claiming a lack of comprehension is a poor excuse for lack of argument. What is so hard to understand in: "So you believe that only Ex Cathedra Statements from the Church from the church requires assent from RCs? If not, just what, in your opinion, requires assent? If you hold other teachings (such as encyclicals) as requiring assent can can you provide an infallible list of all teaching which requires assent, and what magisterial level each falls under so we may know what level of assent is required, and the confusion you present Rome as the solution to can be avoided?"
Or is "It is [words transposed] not your one basic duty that of simply following your pastors? Or does that no[t] require assent?" enough to excuse actually answering the questions?
Assent? One is a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Jew and so on, when one accepts and adheres to the teachings of their faith. Otherwise they are not, irrespective what they assert.
What kind of response is that? I am simply asking you what requires RC assent, not a Hindu, a Buddhist, or a Jew. Why is that so difficult to answer?
The Pontiff is infallible only on matters Faith and Morals, when speaking Ex-Cathedra; “from his Chair”.
That is not what I asked. Lets try again: Do you believe that only Ex Cathedra Statements from the Church from the church require assent from RCs?
Roman Catholicism is most certainly not some sort of democratic forum where everyone gets to ventilate his/her opinion and decide what they will accept/reject.
That remains to be seen, but you are avoiding the question. Again, what, in your opinion, requires assent? You presented the pope - who requires submission - as the solution to divisions, and thus we need to know if only Ex-Cathedra statements require assent, or if other papal teaching, including social encyclicals and that of councils, all require submission, and what level. And what do you consider authorative in defining what requires assent?
Again, if one accepts and adheres to its teachings one is a Roman Catholic; otherwise one is not.
But rather then simply following their pastors, as papal teaching exhorts, which, however unScriptural would prevent divisions, we see RC ascertaining the validity of church teaching by examination of the evidential warrant for it, even aspects of V2, as well as engaging in varying degrees of interpretation. Including what magisterial level certain teachings belong to, and thus what level of assent is required. And which interpretation we see Rome implicitly sanctioning.
Not that I have Catholic statements on that matter, but i want to know your answers, and thus how the pope will prevent different devise opinions.