How much disagreement does the church tolerate?

[fix]

I’ve heard similar statements like this, and I don’t buy it. If I cannot rationally accept a position of the Magisterium, I am by no means simply going to say I will defer to the wisdom of my betters. That would be a position completely without integrity. On the matter I just propounded, I suppose I am not so absolutely certain that the Church’s position is wrong, even though it seems to me to be completely insane, and not in the way the martyrs were thought to be mad because they had strong convictions, but the insanity of putting abstractions above life. But still, that is a rare matter, and maybe even never happens the way I said, so I can bite my tongue.

But if the Church still, as it used to, refused unbaptized infants Christian burial because St. Augustine said that if anyone held they could be saved, they should be anathema, I would leave the Church without remorse.

It is an issue of authority. Either Christ is the authority behind His Church or not.

 

[Kevin12]

It is an issue of authority. Either Christ is the authority behind His Church or not.

If the Church makes pronouncements I could not accept, I would do what Luther did (though not literally). I would leave Church and become a Protestant (or perhaps join the Orthodox Church, which I admit I have considered). But as I have said, this has not happened. I believe what the Church says is true because I accept the reason of its positions, not just because the Church said it. So far I agree with their positions, and the places where I have difficulties are mostly theoretical issues. The one primary thing that might have made me, at one time, leave the Church, is no longer an issue: the Church now allows Christian burial for unbaptized infants and the Catechism notes that we may hope for their salvation, even if it is only a hope. I am just lucky I live in the era I do when such lowercase traditions as Limbo are not the only interpretation possible.

 

[Mark121359]

I would leave the Church without remorse.

If the Church makes pronouncements I could not accept, I would do what Luther did (though not literally).*** I would leave Church*** and become a Protestant (or perhaps join the Orthodox Church, which I admit I have considered)…

I’m sorry, I just can’t relate to this. I praise God that I accept all of our Church’s teachings! And I just cannot wrap my brain around ever, ever leaving my Church for another church. I mean, don’t get me wrong, there was a time in my life when I stopped going to Church all together…and that lasted a long time. But, when I came back, there was never, ever any doubt about which Church I was coming back to! She has it all. Where else am I going to go to find that fullness of truth? It sort of reminds me of when Simon Peter answered Jesus, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” There truly is nothing on this earth that can come close! I hope you really think about, and contemplate about what the RCC really means to you. I really and truly mean it when I say…She means everything to me!..P.S. I just thought of another reason why I could never, ever leave the Catholic Church…I’d miss my Mama Mary way, way, way too much!

Peace, Mark

 

[sw85]

It depends what you mean by “be Catholic.” Once you become Catholic (through baptism or welcoming) you cannot cease to be Catholic. Not even apostasy can do that. So I assume you mean “be a Catholic in good standing,” i.e., able to receive the sacraments.

A useful guide was one I read on Ed Peters’ (a canon lawyer’s) blog a while back: dogma (credenda) requires belief, while doctrine (tenenda) requires holding. You must believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true man; you must hold that contraception is immoral. The difference is the amount of doubt you allowed. You cannot have any doubt about dogma/credenda because it belongs to the deposit of faith and you must give it full assent. Doctrine requires assent of the will, meaning that you resolve to submit to the Church’s teaching authority even if you have doubts about the teaching itself (this submission includes not publicly undermining the teaching). Others can correct me here if appropriate.

Refusal to believe in a dogma when you know it’s a dogma and that it’s serious stuff is the mortal sin of heresy and results in latae sententia (that is, automatic) excommunication. If you a formal heretic, you are outside of communion with the Church and cannot receive the sacraments or return to sanctifying grace until you repent of your errors. Refusal to assent to a doctrine merits at least canonical punishment up to and including refusal of communion.

One problem, of course, with denying doctrine is that the only way to deny doctrine is to deny that the Church is infallible on matters of faith and morals under the circumstances that make doctrine doctrinal. Since the infallibility of the Magisterium is itself a dogma, you can’t really effectively deny doctrine without denying dogma, which, again, makes you prone to the mortal sin of heresy and excommunication.

Hint, since I just told you denying a dogma is grave matter and that if you know it’s serious and that it incurs excommunication, you are liable to excommunication, you cannot now claim you didn’t know any better, which means you cannot claim the excommunication does not adhere to you.

If the Church makes pronouncements I could not accept, I would do what Luther did (though not literally). I would leave Church and become a Protestant (or perhaps join the Orthodox Church, which I admit I have considered). But as I have said, this has not happened. I believe what the Church says is true because I accept the reason of its positions, not just because the Church said it. So far I agree with their positions, and the places where I have difficulties are mostly theoretical issues. The one primary thing that might have made me, at one time, leave the Church, is no longer an issue: the Church now allows Christian burial for unbaptized infants and the Catechism notes that we may hope for their salvation, even if it is only a hope. I am just lucky I live in the era I do when such lowercase traditions as Limbo are not the only interpretation possible.

Whether or not you give assent to the Church’s teachings at this moment is irrelevant. Do you deny that it is infallible in matters of faith and morals under the appropriate teaching circumstances?

 

[Kevin12]

I’m sorry, I just can’t relate to this. I praise God that I accept all of our Church’s teachings! And I just cannot wrap my brain around ever, ever leaving my Church for another church. I mean, don’t get me wrong, there was a time in my life when I stopped going to Church all together…and that lasted a long time. But, when I came back, there was never, ever any doubt about which Church I was coming back to! She has it all. Where else am I going to go to find that fullness of truth? It sort of reminds me of when Simon Peter answered Jesus, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” There truly is nothing on this earth that can come close! I hope you really think about, and contemplate about what the RCC really means to you. I really and truly mean it when I say…She means everything to me!..P.S. I just thought of another reason why I could never, ever leave the Catholic Church…I’d miss my Mama Mary way, way, way too much!

Peace, Mark

If the Church ordained women priests, would you leave it? I mean, if you take the line of the Sedevacantists, it’s quite easy to never leave the Church if you disagree with its teachings, because you can always say that, by teaching incorrectly, the Church as we recognize it would cease to be the Church.

 

[Mark121359]

If the Church ordained women priests, would you leave it? I mean, if you take the line of the Sedevacantists, it’s quite easy to never leave the Church if you disagree with its teachings, because you can always say that, by teaching incorrectly, the Church as we recognize it would cease to be the Church.

Never, means never. I’ll never budge on that. And besides, women priests is never going to happen. Just as the Church will never accept so-called SSM, abortion as an option, etc. So, I can’t really relate to some “what if” questions that will never see the light of day… Boy, how many times did I use the word never in this post?

Peace, Mark

 

[Kevin12]

Whether or not you give assent to the Church’s teachings at this moment is irrelevant. Do you deny that it is infallible in matters of faith and morals under the appropriate teaching circumstances?

Part of the problem is, we don’t have a list from the Church wherein the Church says “These are the Church encyclicals that are ex cathedra and these are the ones that aren’t”. I am not trying to be cheeky here - I still cannot figure out whether Lumen Gentium is Church doctrine or not.

As to infallibility, I do believe that the Church is infallible, and I was probably overreaching when I said that I would leave the Church if the situation on unbaptized infants were what it was 100 years ago, since that was just a matter of Church practice rather than dogma. But as I’ve asked, does infallibility mean that the Church is right because it is the Church or does it mean the Church is the Church because it is right?

 

[Kevin12]

Never, means never. I’ll never budge on that. And besides, women priests is never going to happen. Just as the Church will never accept so-called SSM, abortion as an option, etc. So, I can’t really relate to some “what if” questions that will never see the light of day.

Peace, Mark

However, pursuing a purely hypothetical line of thought - I am sure those who do not recognize the legitimacy of the post Vatican II Popes thought the same thing about the changes (or what they think of as changes) before the council. For example, I am sure many Catholics 200 years ago would have never thought the Church would allow the Mass in the vernacular, or never would have believes the Church would promote ecumenism with those outside the Church. And yet, when they did change it, they decided the Church was no longer the Church. So I don’t think it should be taken for granted that that in this matter - which unlike the issue of contraception or abortion is based on a rather complicated metaphysical idea of gender - the Church might change its position, even if in so doing it went wrong.

 

[Mark121359]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/VATBAN.TXT

However, pursuing a purely hypothetical line of thought - I am sure those who do not recognize the legitimacy of the post Vatican II Popes thought the same thing about the changes (or what they think of as changes) before the council. For example, I am sure many Catholics 200 years ago would have never thought the Church would allow the Mass in the vernacular, or never would have believes the Church would promote ecumenism with those outside the Church. And yet, when they did change it, they decided the Church was no longer the Church. So I don’t think it should be taken for granted that that in this matter - which unlike the issue of contraception or abortion is based on a rather complicated metaphysical idea of gender - the Church might change its position, even if in so doing it went wrong.

Again, contrary to what you believe, It will never happen! The difference is, I trust my Church. She could never commit a grievous error like that! So it’s an argument that’s worthless to me.

ewtn.com/library/issues/whywomen.txt
ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/VATBAN.TXT
ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/ALL-MALE.TXT
ewtn.com/library/issues/takingno.txt
ewtn.com/expert/answers/priesthood_men.htm

Peace, Mark

 

[Kevin12]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/VATBAN.TXT

Again, contrary to what you believe, It will never happen! The difference is, I trust my Church. She could never commit a grievous error like that! So it’s an argument that’s worthless to me.

ewtn.com/library/issues/whywomen.txt
ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/VATBAN.TXT
ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/ALL-MALE.TXT
ewtn.com/library/issues/takingno.txt
ewtn.com/expert/answers/priesthood_men.htm

Peace, Mark

I understand and agree, I was merely trying to provide an example of how those who claim what we recognize as the the Church as no longer exercising authority because of pronouncements they feel violate Church tradition, while they are most certainly wrong, are not guilty of an incoherent position. For these people, the vernacular Mass or taking communion in the hand is just as grievous an error as women priests - they are wrong, of course, but in their way I still think they believe they are being faithful to the Church.

 

[sw85]

Part of the problem is, we don’t have a list from the Church wherein the Church says “These are the Church encyclicals that are ex cathedra and these are the ones that aren’t”.

Ex cathedra means “from the chair,” i.e., the chair of Peter. Since encyclicals are issued by the Pope it follows that all encyclicals are ex cathedra. I’m not sure what this has to do with infallibility.

I am not trying to be cheeky here - I still cannot figure out whether Lumen Gentium is Church doctrine or not.

A document isn’t doctrine, so no, it isn’t “Church doctrine.” The principles it elucidates, to the extent they touch on matters of morality, are doctrine. To the extent they touch on matters of faith, they are dogma. Insofar as Lumen Gentium nor VII didn’t issue any new dogmas, any dogmatic statements they contained are simply reiterations of earlier dogmas. To my knowledge, Lumen Gentium didn’t issue any new doctrines, either.

If you mean you don’t know whether its principles are infallible, well, ecumenical councils are extraordinary exercises in the infallible Magisterium of the Church. So to the extent Lumen Gentium touches on doctrinal and dogmatic points (i.e., matters of faith and morals), yes, those points are infallible.

As to infallibility, I do believe that the Church is infallible, and I was probably overreaching when I said that I would leave the Church if the situation on unbaptized infants were what it was 100 years ago, since that was just a matter of Church practice rather than dogma. But as I’ve asked, does infallibility mean that the Church is right because it is the Church or does it mean the Church is the Church because it is right?

It doesn’t mean either of those things. It means it is right (under the circumstances where it exercises its teaching authority formally) because Christ protects it from error. Christ protects it from error because orthodoxy in matters of faith and morals are normatively necessary for salvation. You cannot be saved if you don’t accept salvation which means you need to know what salvation is, what sin is, who Christ is, etc. Christ promised that he would be with the Church always, and he said this at the same time he expressly charged them with carrying on his ministry of teaching and redemption. So either he meant it or he is a liar. Since God isn’t a liar but truth itself, it must be true.

Infallibility is mostly prophylactic. It means the Church will not teach error, which is a positive thing. It doesn’t guarantee that the Church won’t leave something out, that its teachings will be properly understood by anyone, that it will express them very well, etc. For instance it’s easy for me to give assent to Gaudium et Spes even though it more or less sounds like gibberish to me precisely because it is the product of an ecumenical council which is an extraordinary exercise of the infallible Magisterium. So the extent it’s doctrinal/dogmatic, it cannot be in error, and to the extent it isn’t, it doesn’t concern my salvation so I don’t really care about it.

If you believe in the infallible Magisterium then your earlier statement to the effect that you would be “completely without integrity” to defer to the judgment of your betters even when you don’t understand or “rationally accept” what they say, simply isn’t true. On the contrary, it would be irrational for you not to accept their judgment; that’s why they’re your “betters,” after all. They’re protected from error, you aren’t. So whatever you have trouble “rationally accepting” can only because of some deficiency on your part, not theirs. If you really believe in infallibility, the only position without integrity is the one that would drive you to abandon the Church because of your own lack of insight in that instance.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’ll post these next clarifications of mine in three separate sections. They are, again, largely quotes which are answers to questions.

PART ONE:

Here is Church teaching from, again, Brother JR. This is really not up for variances of opinions. Seminarians learn what the Magisterium teaches. One can choose not to accept what the Church teaches, but one cannot assert that that’s not what the Church teaches. It is what the Church teaches, thus:

Part of the problem is, we don’t have a list from the Church wherein the Church says “These are the Church encyclicals that are ex cathedra and these are the ones that aren’t”. I am not trying to be cheeky here - I still cannot figure out whether Lumen Gentium is Church doctrine or not.

Has the Roman Catholic Church ever produced an infallible list of its infallible teachings?

In direct answer:

It’s called the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I think that folks are confusing infallible with Ex Cathedra. All Ex Cathedra statements are infallible. Not all infallible statements are Ex Cathedra.

Anything that is dogmatic or moral is infallible.

Church law and tradition teach us that everything that the Holy Father teaches in matters of faith and morals carry the obligation of assent. There is also our faith that the Church cannot err in matters of faith and morals.

Infallibility is merely a subset of definitive teachings which must be believed.

What are issued by the way of Encyclicals (such as JP2’s, etc.), what is in the Catechism, etc. must be believed when any of it makes statements about doctrine or dogma. It’s not optional. It’s different if a statement is issued which merely sheds light on a teaching, which is merely a suggestion, which is a papal reflection, etc.

People often hear that the pope is infallible or that Trent was infallible and don’t know that both statements are highly exaggerated. The pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, even when he exercises the ordinary magisterium. In other words, he does not have to speak ex Cathedra to speak infallibly on faith or morals. If he talks about the upcoming Olympics, I wouldn’t bet on his team.

A council is infallible when it affirms a dogma or moral law that is already believed by the Church. For example, Vatican I affirmed papal infallibility and proceeded to unwrap it for us. But Vatican I did not pull papal infallibility out of the collective sleeves of the bishops. This was believed from the first generation of Christians up to today.

Anything in the CCC that comes from scripture, morals or dogma is infallible. .

JReducation:

The CCC is a Megisterial Document that containes infallible doctrines and morals, as well as canons and other disciplinary laws that are binding on all Catholics. No part of the Catechism is up to debate. As Pope Benedict has said, the more you dissent with the Catechism the further you get from communion with the Church. That’s a thought worth pondering.

 

[Elizabeth502]

PART TWO:

On the separate matter of non-dogmatic teaching: (liturgical changes, canon law, certain discretionary matters, and even priestly celibacy):
"JReducation:

Anything that is law, discipline, commentary, or pastoral can change. It is not infallible.

Quo Primum is about liturgy. The manner in which liturgy is celebrated is man-made. Therefore, man can also change it without impunity, as long as he has the authority to change it. When St. Pius V said that no one could change this [the liturgy], he was not speaking to his successors. He was speaking to the rest of us. His successors could change it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

PART THREE:

Female ordination falls in the category of definitive teaching. As Brother JR said, the subject of female ordination is closed in the Catholic Church. Just because it is not included in the handful of Ex Cathedra statements does not mean it is any less permanent, absolute, truthful, or binding.

Re: Why not Women Priests?

---

Quoted by JReducation:
*Excuse my naivete, but why are Catholics even discussing this question? The Holy Father has already issued an apostolic decree that does not allow this question past the front door of the Vatican. His decree is binding on future popes. From my perspective it’s like asking whether or not we can consecrate pound cake and Coke. It’s just not going to happen, because it’s doctrinally impossible.

ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

vatican.va/holy_father/jo…otalis_en.html

Or is there something that I’m missing here? I’m not trying to be rude. I’m just trying to be realisitc and ask why discuss something that is a given for all eternity. Infallible statements cannot be retracted. You see where my question comes from?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=449577
A different discussion, but pertinent, includes the same Religious Brother, conversing with a Lutheran here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lutheranteach
Where do such things leave the Catholics (and I know quite a few) who are in line with 90% of the Church’s teachings but cannot and will not accept the church’s position on some seemingly vital things such as: Papal authority, abortion position, contraception, the assumption, the perpetual virginity of Mary or her immaculate conception, or the ordination of women. Are they to stay and be in disagreement (which these individuals have not budged from in 10, 20, 30, or even 50 years) or should they leave the church?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JReducation
They have already left the Church. Such a person is no longer in communion with the Catholic Church. Therefore, should not approach the altar for communion. They may still be physically present, but they no longer belong to the Church. They have what is known as an imperfect communion with the Church.

An imperfect communion with the Church is when one posesses and subscribes to some of the truths of the faith, but not to all. This is the case of the Reformation communities. In the case of the Reformation communities, they are not heretics, because this is what they inherited from their forefathers. In the case of a Catholic, he or she is a heretic, because these were not the beliefs that they inherited. These are their own beliefs that they want to impose on the Church or beliefs that they choose to deny.*

 

[Deltadeliquent]

I’m with RichardG.
The Church’s teaching that animals are somehow below us in God’s eyes and that we are allowed to do whatever we wish with them, has always been my biggest problem with the Church.
Being a mother myself, I just can’t give credence to a Creator who loves only one of His children. As far as I am concerned, all of creation is equal and everyone and everything in nature shoud be treated with as much Love and respect as possible. Food and self defence are the only reasons to kill. And there are no reasons to maim, torture or enslave.

Some times it keeps me away, but mostly I chalk it up to the Church being invented and run by humans for humans. It’s only natural for humans to come first inthe minds of humans.

But I really wish and pray that the Church will someday soon put animals in particular on a par with humans…i think God already does.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m with RichardG.
The Church’s teaching that animals are somehow below us in God’s eyes and that we are allowed to do whatever we wish with them, has always been my biggest problem with the Church.

“somehow below” refers to the distinction humans have of being made in the image and likeness of God, uniquely, and in particular with a soul which gives us the share in divine life.

It doesn’t mean that all of creation is not a reflection of God’s love.
It doesn’t mean that we aren’t responsible to be stewards of that creation. We are.

Some times it keeps me away, but mostly I chalk it up to the Church being invented and run by humans for humans. It’s only natural for humans to come first inthe minds of humans.

No, that is not a Catholic belief, that “the Church was invented by humans.” The Church was invented by Jesus Christ, who still speaks through that Church. The Church is protected from error, by the Holy Spirit, when speaking on faith and morals. The Church is a divine institution, appointed by Christ, but administered by humans. Thus, it is both human and divine.

A person – not to mention a Catholic – who is sensitive to God’s creation and appreciates the immensity of God as reflected in creation, will mirror such sensitivity and appreciation by treating animals with understanding of their environments, physical needs, social needs.

But I really wish and pray that the Church will someday soon put animals in particular on a par with humans…i think God already does.

Again, it is not Church teaching that however animals reflect God, they do so to the same degree that humans do. Animals lack that soulness which is unique to humans. That doesn’t mean that animals do not have feelings of some sort, and relationships (with each other and with humans). However, they do not and cannot share in divine life to the same level that humans can.

 

[Deltadeliquent]

I think you have proved my point quite well in your response…
The creature with a soul and able to enjoy divine attention is on a higher level that a creature that does not have a soul and who is not the object of divine attention.

All I know, being a dumb earthly creature, is that I would never treat my children differently and that I cannot love one above the other. It’s just not in in me.

That fact that this is not Church teaching proves my point for me.

I do think that the Church is composed of divine teaching, much wisdom from human thought and some concretions formed over the past two thousand years due to historical situations, and human need. I don’t see any edict from Jesus regarding say, what a priest wears, the shape of a papal crown, how many Hail Marys to say…et al.
That’s what I mean by invented.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think you have proved my point quite well in your response…
The creature with a soul and able to enjoy divine attention is on a higher level that a creature that does not have a soul and who is not the object of divine attention.

All I know, being a dumb earthly creature, is that I would never treat my children differently and that I cannot love one above the other. It’s just not in in me.

How do you know how much love God has for his various creatures, including non-human? Why do you think that God’s granting man dominion over other creatures (Genesis) means that God only loves humans? God’s love is infinite, and His creation is a reflection of His infinite love. Why do you think that only you appreciate animals as part of that creation?

That fact that this is not Church teaching proves my point for me.

What do you think is “not Church teaching” and how does it “prove” whatever point you think you’re making?

I do think that the Church is composed of divine teaching, much wisdom from human thought and some concretions formed over the past two thousand years due to historical situations, and human need. I don’t see any edict from Jesus regarding say, what a priest wears, the shape of a papal crown, how many Hail Marys to say…et al.
That’s what I mean by invented.

None of those trivial things you mention has anything to do with divine inspiration. That is not the aspect of the One Holy Cahtolic and Apostolic Chruch that is divinely inspired. Those are all external practices and disciplines, which can change, and I think you know that, and those were also distinguished from Truth in a post tonight, about 3 of my posts ago.

 

[Surnaturel]

Ex cathedra means “from the chair,” i.e., the chair of Peter. Since encyclicals are issued by the Pope it follows that all encyclicals are ex cathedra. I’m not sure what this has to do with infallibility.

A document isn’t doctrine, so no, it isn’t “Church doctrine.” The principles it elucidates, to the extent they touch on matters of morality, are doctrine. To the extent they touch on matters of faith, they are dogma. Insofar as Lumen Gentium nor VII didn’t issue any new dogmas, any dogmatic statements they contained are simply reiterations of earlier dogmas. To my knowledge, Lumen Gentium didn’t issue any new doctrines, either.

If you mean you don’t know whether its principles are infallible, well, ecumenical councils are extraordinary exercises in the infallible Magisterium of the Church. So to the extent Lumen Gentium touches on doctrinal and dogmatic points (i.e., matters of faith and morals), yes, those points are infallible.

It doesn’t mean either of those things. It means it is right (under the circumstances where it exercises its teaching authority formally) because Christ protects it from error. Christ protects it from error because orthodoxy in matters of faith and morals are normatively necessary for salvation. You cannot be saved if you don’t accept salvation which means you need to know what salvation is, what sin is, who Christ is, etc. Christ promised that he would be with the Church always, and he said this at the same time he expressly charged them with carrying on his ministry of teaching and redemption. So either he meant it or he is a liar. Since God isn’t a liar but truth itself, it must be true.

Infallibility is mostly prophylactic. It means the Church will not teach error, which is a positive thing. It doesn’t guarantee that the Church won’t leave something out, that its teachings will be properly understood by anyone, that it will express them very well, etc. For instance it’s easy for me to give assent to Gaudium et Spes even though it more or less sounds like gibberish to me precisely because it is the product of an ecumenical council which is an extraordinary exercise of the infallible Magisterium. So the extent it’s doctrinal/dogmatic, it cannot be in error, and to the extent it isn’t, it doesn’t concern my salvation so I don’t really care about it.

If you believe in the infallible Magisterium then your earlier statement to the effect that you would be “completely without integrity” to defer to the judgment of your betters even when you don’t understand or “rationally accept” what they say, simply isn’t true. On the contrary, it would be irrational for you not to accept their judgment; that’s why they’re your “betters,” after all. They’re protected from error, you aren’t. So whatever you have trouble “rationally accepting” can only because of some deficiency on your part, not theirs. If you really believe in infallibility, the only position without integrity is the one that would drive you to abandon the Church because of your own lack of insight in that instance.

All encyclicals are not ex Cathedra, it is a special and explicit papal function such as the Marian dogmas. Still, the moral and doctrinal teachings are authoritative and binding for RCs but not declared infallible.

 

[Kevin12]

Ex cathedra means “from the chair,” i.e., the chair of Peter. Since encyclicals are issued by the Pope it follows that all encyclicals are ex cathedra. I’m not sure what this has to do with infallibility.

A document isn’t doctrine, so no, it isn’t “Church doctrine.” The principles it elucidates, to the extent they touch on matters of morality, are doctrine. To the extent they touch on matters of faith, they are dogma. Insofar as Lumen Gentium nor VII didn’t issue any new dogmas, any dogmatic statements they contained are simply reiterations of earlier dogmas. To my knowledge, Lumen Gentium didn’t issue any new doctrines, either.

If you mean you don’t know whether its principles are infallible, well, ecumenical councils are extraordinary exercises in the infallible Magisterium of the Church. So to the extent Lumen Gentium touches on doctrinal and dogmatic points (i.e., matters of faith and morals), yes, those points are infallible.

It doesn’t mean either of those things. It means it is right (under the circumstances where it exercises its teaching authority formally) because Christ protects it from error. Christ protects it from error because orthodoxy in matters of faith and morals are normatively necessary for salvation. You cannot be saved if you don’t accept salvation which means you need to know what salvation is, what sin is, who Christ is, etc. Christ promised that he would be with the Church always, and he said this at the same time he expressly charged them with carrying on his ministry of teaching and redemption. So either he meant it or he is a liar. Since God isn’t a liar but truth itself, it must be true.

Infallibility is mostly prophylactic. It means the Church will not teach error, which is a positive thing. It doesn’t guarantee that the Church won’t leave something out, that its teachings will be properly understood by anyone, that it will express them very well, etc. For instance it’s easy for me to give assent to Gaudium et Spes even though it more or less sounds like gibberish to me precisely because it is the product of an ecumenical council which is an extraordinary exercise of the infallible Magisterium. So the extent it’s doctrinal/dogmatic, it cannot be in error, and to the extent it isn’t, it doesn’t concern my salvation so I don’t really care about it.

If you believe in the infallible Magisterium then your earlier statement to the effect that you would be “completely without integrity” to defer to the judgment of your betters even when you don’t understand or “rationally accept” what they say, simply isn’t true. On the contrary, it would be irrational for you not to accept their judgment; that’s why they’re your “betters,” after all. They’re protected from error, you aren’t. So whatever you have trouble “rationally accepting” can only because of some deficiency on your part, not theirs. If you really believe in infallibility, the only position without integrity is the one that would drive you to abandon the Church because of your own lack of insight in that instance.

I was not, in any case, talking about myself. If you believed the Magisterium to be wrong on some matter and there was no way for you to wrap your mind around its teaching, then that should lead you to likewise question the infallibility of the Magisterium that would convince you of your own lack of insight compared to the Church. To hold that the Magisterium is infallible and one should defer to it even if they can’t understand why if clearly circular logic. I can express this as a set of propositions:

X thinks that the Magisterium is wrong about teaching Y
X should assume that he is incorrect even if he can find no reason to because the Magisterium is infallible
The reason why X should accept that the Magisterium is infallible is because it is a teaching of the Magisterium that the Magisterium is infallible
The reason why X should accept that the Magisterium is infallible is because it is a teaching of the Magisterium that the Magisterium is infallible…

And so on and so forth, forever.

Again, I am not saying the Church is not infallible in fact, but if you really believe or hold (I’m not trying to use technical language here) that the Magisterium is wrong, I can’t see why you would have any rational justification for remaining in the Church, which is what I meant by having integrity. I think even you have said that infallibility has different interpretations, though obviously not all of them are equal. I am likewise unsympathetic to sedavacantists, but I think their position, while extremely wrong, is at least logically coherent.I did not say it would not be better for that person to see that the position of the Church is true, but if they cannot, it is better for them to admit their opposition to the Church then pay it mere lipservice%between%. Even more so because, by remaining technically in the Church while their hearts are opposed to it, they subtly lure the faithful into their errors.

(Edited) I do not disagree with the Church on any particular position, nor do I dispute the infallibility of the Magisterium. I may have miscommunicated my position or spoken hastily because some elements of Church tradition (lower case, not Sacred Tradition) have frequently caused me to doubt the Church, but I know these were not matters of dogma so I have no grounds for such doubt.