Benidict,
You’ve asked a very important question and one that I have been dealing with in considering Catholicism over the last two years. It’s difficult to understand exactly which teachings are actually infallible and must be accepted. It’s not as simple as saying one must only submit to the ex cathedra teachings. It goes way beyond that as Lumen Gentium from Vatican II demonstrates. Lumen Gentium should be read in its entirety; this is the part that causes me the most concern:
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
“. . . . .
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. . . . .”
Link:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
I did find an interesting commentary on
Non-Infallibility: The Papacy And Rahner, by Rev. Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. Cap., at the Catholic Culture Library. Many of my concerns about Lumen Gentium are discussed, there. So, I’m not the only one who has questions about "submission of mind and will to the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. The article does speak of non-infallible propositions of the Vatican congregations as “speculative judgments.”
Non-Infallibility: The Papacy And Rahner, by Rev. Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. Cap., at the Catholic Culture Library.
Link:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4210
"Karl Rahner, however, stated that this teaching in No. 25 of Lumen Gentium " . . . is not to be propounded in such a way that in practice an absolute assent is still demanded or that there were no instance in which one might withhold assent."3 "
"Now, John Paul II has stated: "With regard to the non-infallible expressions of the authentic magisterium of the church, these should be received with religious submission of mind and will (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25).“15 Again, in the absence of anything to the contrary, one must interpret John Paul II’s above statement consistent with the interpretation given to this matter by Pius IX and Pius X. This would mean that theologians and laity are bound by these Pontifical congregation statements merely with regard to writing and teaching.”
"So, this religious submission of will and mind, which John Paul II says must be given to non-infallible statements of the papal magisterium means, first of all, that the theologian must submit his will and mind (assent) to the decisions of the Vatican congregations “conformably with his (the pope’s) manifest mind and intention.” But, since it is the expressed intention of the papal magisterium that these propositions of the Vatican congregations are non-infallible, as speculative judgments in themselves, one must assume that the pope does not intend that Catholics and theologians be bound to give a submission of will and mind (an assent) to the propositions, themselves, as speculative judgments. He only intends Catholics and theologians to give a submission of will and mind (an assent) to these proposals as the practical judgment of the Pontifical congregations. "
“So, while external or public questioning and dissent in verbal or written form is never permitted, internal questioning, along with further investigation and discussion of the matter with a Vatican congregation, is permitted. Otherwise, possible error or discrepancies on either side would never be discovered and rectified.18”
I’ve also found it very difficult to get concrete answers regarding which teachings actually fall under the category of “Faith and Morals.”
As my friend gurneyhalleck1 has said, Catholicism is an all or nothing package (paraphrased.) I still haven’t figured out what the whole package is; but I’m still here.
Peace,
Anna
You been reading my mail? 
I know he and I would have tangled on alot. 
