CathInfo.com

Also, the incompetent and ignorant LoT claims that assent must be given to any "authoritative" docuмent.  We've discussed this before, but the ignoramus doesn't understand the notion of "assent" to these docuмents, and departs from his own hero Fenton's explanation for what this means.

There's no mortal sin (or sin at all, but rather virtue) in respectfully disagreeing with even an authoritative non-infallible docuмent if it happens to contradict Catholic principles.  But, then, LoT claims that these are all effectively infallible.

Problem is that, by virtue of its not having appeared in AAS, this docuмent isn't even guaranteed "authentic" by the Church.

Also, the incompetent and ignorant LoT claims that assent must be given to any "authoritative" docuмent.  We've discussed this before, but the ignoramus doesn't understand the notion of "assent" to these docuмents, and departs from his own hero Fenton's explanation for what this means.

There's no mortal sin (or sin at all, but rather virtue) in respectfully disagreeing with even an authoritative non-infallible docuмent if it happens to contradict Catholic principles.  But, then, LoT claims that these are all effectively infallible.

Problem is that, by virtue of its not having appeared in AAS, this docuмent isn't even guaranteed "authentic" by the Church.

Suprema haec.  LoT's fault.  Bad boy.  

"As regards the doctrinal value of Decrees of the Holy Office it should be observed that canonists distinguish two kinds of approbation of an act of an inferior by a superior: first, approbation in common form (in forma communi), as it is sometimes called, which does not take from the act its nature and quality as an act of the inferior. Thus, for example, the decrees of a provincial council, although approved by the Congregation of the Council or by the Holy See, always remain provincial conciliar decrees. Secondly, specific approbation (in forma specifica), which takes from the act approved its character of an act of the inferior and makes it the act of the superior who approves it. This approbation is understood when, for example, the pope approves a Decree of the Holy Office ex certa scientia, motu proprio, or plenitudine suâ potestatis. Even when specifically approved by the pope, decrees of the Holy Office are not infallible. They call for a true assent, internal and sincere, but they do not impose an absolute assent, like the dogmatic definitions given by the pope as infallible teacher of the Faith. The reason is that, although an act of this congregation, when approved by the pope specifically, becomes an act of the sovereign pontiff, that act is not necessarily clothed with the infallible authority inherent in the Holy See, since the pope is free to make the act of an inferior his own without applying his pontifical prerogative to its performance. Similarly, when he acts of his own volition, he may teach ex cathedra or he may teach in a less decisive and solemn way. Examples of specific approbation of the Decrees of the Holy Office which yet lack the force of ex cathedra definitions are given by Choupin ("Valeur des décisions doctrinales et disciplinaires du Saint-Siège", Paris, 1907, ch. ix, sect. 9). The disciplinary Decrees of the Holy Office have the same force as those of the other congregations, that is, they are binding upon all the faithful if they be formally universal; and they are binding only upon the parties interested if they be merely personal, e.g., judicial sentences, which are law for the parties in the case. If, however, they be personal and at the same time equivalently universal, canonists are not fully agreed as to their force. For a discussion of this point see Choupin, op. cit., ch. iv, sect. 33, and the authors cited by him."

via "newadvent.org"