On the importance of understanding infallibility

[Abu]

DavidFilmer #57
It’s one thing to define what infallibility looks like, and it is quite another thing to categorize ANY teachings as infallible. Which, according to my list, would mean that the Church has infallibly taught exactly three Doctrines.

The reality is that it is false to claim against Vatican I that ‘Vatican-1 (and Canon Law) creates an entire body of “fallible” dogma.” ’ Further, the persistent jumbling of “Doctrines” with “dogma” belittles the distinction which the Magisterium has proclaimed.

In your “list” you continue to omit Bl Pope John Paul’s Motu Proprio Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem specifically identifying the three categories of truths.

In post #37 an (EWTN) expert articulates the reality.
From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002:
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

thistle #59
The Church obviously does not think it important that the faithful know which teachings are infallible or non-infallible

For clergy, theologians and laity, the Magisterium has shown the importance of the charisma of infallibility by expressly defining papal infallibility at Vatican I against the error of Gallicanism, and by ensuring that the faithful have this truth clarified.

“TO PROTECT THE FAITH of the Catholic Church against errors arising from certain members of the Christian faithful, especially from among those dedicated to the various disciplines of sacred theology, we, whose principal duty is to confirm the brethren in the faith (Lk 22:32), consider it absolutely necessary to add to the existing texts of the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, new norms which expressly impose the obligation of upholding truths proposed in a definitive way by the Magisterium of the Church, and which also establish related canonical sanctions.”[My emphasis].

The Magisterium obviously does not see the need to provide a list of the many doctrines, but sees the importance of ensuring that theologians, and clergy and others, cannot legitimately defy and dissent from doctrine.

 

[thistle]

The reality is that it is false to claim against Vatican I that ‘Vatican-1 (and Canon Law) creates an entire body of “fallible” dogma.” ’ Further, the persistent jumbling of “Doctrines” with “dogma” belittles the distinction which the Magisterium has proclaimed.

In your “list” you continue to omit Bl Pope John Paul’s Motu Proprio Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem specifically identifying the three categories of truths.

In post #37 an (EWTN) expert articulates the reality.
From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002:
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

For clergy, theologians and laity, the Magisterium has shown the importance of the charisma of infallibility by expressly defining papal infallibility at Vatican I against the error of Gallicanism, and by ensuring that the faithful have this truth clarified.

**“TO PROTECT THE FAITH of the Catholic Church against errors arising from certain members of the Christian faithful, especially from among those dedicated to the various disciplines of sacred theology, we, whose principal duty is to confirm the brethren in the faith (Lk 22:32), consider it absolutely necessary **to add to the existing texts of the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, new norms which expressly impose the obligation of upholding truths proposed in a definitive way by the Magisterium of the Church, and which also establish related canonical sanctions.”[My emphasis].

The Magisterium obviously does not see the need to provide a list of the many doctrines, but sees the importance of ensuring that theologians, and clergy and others, cannot legitimately defy and dissent from doctrine.

Then how are the 1.2 billion Catholics supposed to know what teachings are infallible?

 

[Abu]

thistle #61
Then how are the 1.2 billion Catholics supposed to know what teachings are infallible?

Of vital importance for Catholics is the need to obey the Church’s teaching and as a large percentage, probably greater than 60% of the 1.2 billion do not participate through their own fault in the Sunday Masses, regularly as required, the question is irrelevant.

Since non-definitive (non-infallible) doctrine requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25), those Catholics who need to resist the machinations of dissenters are equipped.

The Papal Magisterium obviously sees the importance of ensuring that theologians, clergy and others, cannot legitimately defy and dissent from doctrine by issuing Ad Tuendam Fidem which actualizes the importance of the teaching of Vatican II.

 

[thistle]

Of vital importance for Catholics is the need to obey the Church’s teaching and as a large percentage, probably greater than 60% of the 1.2 billion do not participate through their own fault in the Sunday Masses, regularly as required, the question is irrelevant.

Since non-definitive (non-infallible) doctrine requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 25), those Catholics who need to resist the machinations of dissenters are equipped.

The Papal Magisterium obviously sees the importance of ensuring that theologians, clergy and others, cannot legitimately defy and dissent from doctrine by issuing Ad Tuendam Fidem which actualizes the importance of the teaching of Vatican II.

Obviously, but if they don’t know the Church teachings then what?
I live in the Philippines which is about 85% Catholic (that would be 80 million Catholics) and I can say that maybe most of them do not know what the Church teaches. They are very devout Catholics and Mass attendance here is around 80% (my local parish Church has 10 Masses every Sunday to be able to accommodate everyone).

It has taken you a long time to respond to my repeated post and now you say it doesn’t matter if they know the teachings or not as many of them globally do not attend Mass. Maybe if they knew the teachings it would make a big difference but you seem to be writing them off. Its good Christ did not write us off as a lost cause.

 

[Abu]

thistle #63
now you say it doesn’t matter if they know the teachings or not as many of them globally do not attend Mass. Maybe if they knew the teachings it would make a big difference but you seem to be writing them off. Its good Christ did not write us off as a lost cause.

False.

As stressed repeatedly the importance of understanding infallibility has been so that theologians, clergy and others, cannot legitimately defy and dissent from doctrine by issuing Ad Tuendam Fidem which actualizes the importance of the teaching of Vatican II, so that the bishops as the leaders of their flocks know what should be taught and can see that it is.

Obviously for those laity who are faithful in Sunday Mass attendance it is up to the clergy, priests and bishops, to explain and instruct and encourage in what is important in living a Christ-like life in faith and morals, as it is for the children at school through their teachers. Unless and until that is done how will they know?

As Christ stressed: “And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” (Matthew 18:17). Christ relies on His fellow workers in the vineyard.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The reality is that it is false to claim against Vatican I that ‘Vatican-1 (and Canon Law) creates an entire body of “fallible” dogma.” ’ Further, the persistent jumbling of “Doctrines” with “dogma” belittles the distinction which the Magisterium has proclaimed.

To what “jumbling of doctrines” do you refer? I have said that ALL doctrines were regarded as infallible until Vatican-1. Thus, all Catholic doctrine was homogeneous (meaning, not-jumbled). There was no official distinction between “infallible” and (for lack of a better antonym) “fallible.”

In your “list” you continue to omit Bl Pope John Paul’s Motu Proprio Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem specifically identifying the three categories of truths.

I would be quite willing to admit a FOURTH doctrine infallibly pronounced according to Church doctrine, providing you can cite that this teaching has been “manifestly evident[ally]” taught by the Catholic Magesterium. In my opinion (and I doubt anyone would challenge me on this), any doctrine which the Catholic Church has officially declared as “infallible” is “manifestly evident” as infallible [per the Code of Canon Law, #749 §3)].

If you have some OTHER definition of “manifestly evident” then I would like to hear it. Unless it happens to include your “Vatican-1 checklist.”

If you claim that Motu Proprio is infallible, please cite the “manifestly evident” pronouncement of the Catholic Church that verifies your claim. Otherwise, it is YOUR claim. It might be a very good claim (and I might, and do, agree), but it is YOUR (and my) OPINION. Unless you have some OTHER definition of “manifestly evident” that you would like to propose (other than “everyone get out your Vatican-1 checklist…”)

In post #37 an (EWTN) expert articulates the reality.
From EWTN Q&A: Answer by David Gregson on Nov-22-2002:

I have never heard of David Gregson. But I’m pretty sure he is not a Pope. An internet search finds little about him (he has no entry in Wikipedia), so I’m pretty sure he is not even a Bishop. If he were at least a Bishop, he would be some part of the Catholic Magesterium, though he would STILL only speak for himself and his Diocese. Alas, he appears to be none of the above, so he is nothing more than a private theologian.

Don’t get me wrong - I have the greatest respect for many private theologians. I have cited in this thread the great Ludwig Ott - merely a priest, but widely regarded as one of the greatest theologians of the 20th Century). This Gregson fellow is probably a great guy. But his OPINION is no better than mine or yours or Ott’s (as I’m sure he would agree).

Ott gave us the most precise “categorization” of Catholic Dogma ever proposed. He “classified” practically EVERY Catholic teaching into a complex “hierarchy of truth” of his own invention. It is a landmark of Catholic theology, and I have no dispute with ANYTHING he said, but it is NOT the teaching of the Catholic Church. It MIGHT, on some happy day, BECOME the teaching of the Catholic Church (just as teachings of Gregory, Aquinas, and Theresa of Avila have), but it is NOT recognized in this manner TODAY. On THIS DAY, all of Ott’s classifications are his OWN OPINION as a private theologian, and do NOT represent the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men.”

OK, I’m with you with the last claim (particularly because of Ratzinger’s letter). The question of the infallible nature of canonization has been discussed here many times. As well as Humanae Vitae. If you can CITE anything that establishes these (or other) teachings as infallible per the current understanding of the Catholic Church then PLEASE do so. We (on this poor forum) have been looking for this for YEARS. You seen rich in claims, but poor in proofs.

 

[thistle]

False.

As stressed repeatedly the importance of understanding infallibility has been so that theologians, clergy and others, cannot legitimately defy and dissent from doctrine by issuing Ad Tuendam Fidem which actualizes the importance of the teaching of Vatican II, so that the bishops as the leaders of their flocks know what should be taught and can see that it is.

Obviously for those laity who are faithful in Sunday Mass attendance it is up to the clergy, priests and bishops, to explain and instruct and encourage in what is important in living a Christ-like life in faith and morals, as it is for the children at school through their teachers. Unless and until that is done how will they know?

As Christ stressed: “And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” (Matthew 18:17). Christ relies on His fellow workers in the vineyard.

Do you really think the priests go through a list of Church teachings every Sunday at Mass??
It is really very simple. If the Church requires us to know what teachings are infallible they would issue a list. That is the quickest and cheapest and surest way to get that information out. Then the faithful can ask about any teachings they don’t understand.
As said in earlier posts it doesn’t matter which teachings are infallible or non-infallible because the faithful are bound by both.
You are the one in earlier posts said it does matter and that the faithful need to know which are infallible. The Church does not agree with you.

 

[Abu]

thistle #66
As said in earlier posts it doesn’t matter which teachings are infallible or non-infallible because the faithful are bound by both.

Against that false opinion, the Magisterium identifies that the faithful need to be protected from the errors of the dissenters: “to protect the faith of the Catholic Church against errors arising from certain members of the Christian faithful, especially from among those dedicated to the various disciplines of sacred theology” Ad Tuendam Fidem, Bl John Paul II]

You are the one in earlier posts said it does matter and that the faithful need to know which are infallible. The Church does not agree with you.

False.

To ridicule the Magisterium for protecting real Catholics against error from “certain members” including some theologians is myopic.

 

[thistle]

Against that false opinion, the Magisterium identifies that the faithful need to be protected from the errors of the dissenters: “to protect the faith of the Catholic Church against errors arising from certain members of the Christian faithful, especially from among those dedicated to the various disciplines of sacred theology” Ad Tuendam Fidem, Bl John Paul II]
False.

To ridicule the Magisterium for protecting real Catholics against error from “certain members” including some theologians is myopic.

You are wrong. You are the one who said all Catholics should know which teachings are infallible and that the Church considers that important.
Well it does not matter if the faithful know which teachings are infallible or not because they are bound by all teachings.
The Church obviously does not consider it important that the faithful know which teachings are infallible otherwise at a stroke they could do this by issuing a list. They haven’t which means it is not important for the faithful to know which teachings are infallible.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

False.

As stressed repeatedly the importance of understanding infallibility has been so that theologians, clergy and others, cannot legitimately defy and dissent from doctrine by issuing Ad Tuendam Fidem which actualizes the importance of the teaching of Vatican II, so that the bishops as the leaders of their flocks know what should be taught and can see that it is.

Obviously for those laity who are faithful in Sunday Mass attendance it is up to the clergy, priests and bishops,*** to explain and instruct and encourage in what is important in living a Christ-like life in faith and morals***, as it is for the children at school through their teachers. Unless and until that is done how will they know?

As Christ stressed: “And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” (Matthew 18:17). Christ relies on His fellow workers in the vineyard.

Abu, you are not saying anything different from anyone else here.

You DO NOT espouse the detailed theological instruction on Infallibility to the laity at Mass.

You DO NOT espouse a listing of fallible or infallible doctrines.

You DO NOT really disagree with anything being said here, but rather you are misunderstanding (innocently, I believe) what is being said and disagreeing with that!

 

[Abu]

In the Apologetics thread Is the lumen fidei an infallible document?, DavidFilmer contended that:

when John Paul the Great declared the infallible nature of the teaching that the Church has no authority to ordain women……the teaching itself did not come from the Pope, but from the Ordinary Magesterium (the Bishops).

This is a double error, firstly since “the Bishops” can teach faithfully and infallibly only what has been taught by the Magisterium, and secondly since that teaching was considered “a merely disciplinary force” and “still open to debate” as factually stated below, Bl John Paul II issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to definitively teach the faithful and correct error.

“4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis).

Then in #50:

The Church established (in the mind of the Faithful) a fanciful idea that only “top shelf” (infallible) doctrines are binding. After all, why would such a distinction exist in the first place?

False.

The unfaithful chose fancifully to distort the fact that Vatican II taught otherwise, and as seen here, some have fallen for the dissenting distortion.

The blatant, repeated error of blaming “the Church” for “a fanciful idea” ignores the definitive three categories of *Ad Tuendam Fidem *of Bl John Paul II, and his changes in Canon Law, in response to the very fact of the definition in Vatican II – a typical development of doctrine – which means in the understanding of doctrine.

Then in #65:

I have never heard of David Gregson.

That’s what comes through selfism – the failure to even know about helpful, knowledgeable aids to
understanding a teaching, as well as the fact that EWTN has for many years hosted many faithful Catholic apologists who have helped untold numbers of people to understand the faith and correct errors.

David M. Gregson, Ph.D.
Dr. Gregson is a member of the theology department at EWTN, and the topic for his dissertation was St. Augustine’s Trinitarian Metaphysics of Knowledge, and covers the general questions category at EWTN. For those interested in the truths of Catholicism, EWTN and their experts are very helpful.
ewtn.com/vexperts/conference.asp

The revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., similarly cites the Magisterium: “The papal infallibility defined by the Church refers not only to the occasional exercise of the Pope’s prerogative to proclaim such dogmas as the bodily Assumption into heaven of the Blessed Virgin, or such dogmatic facts as the canonization of saints.” The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 231].

The error among the confused here has always been in not realising the importance of understanding infallibility.

Dr Jeff Mirus:
“Further, it is not a new thing. It was precisely defined at Vatican I in order to clarify what was at that time a confusing issue, but this was by way of stating clearly what Christ’s teaching was, not by way of adding anything new. Vatican I therefore carefully enumerated the conditions under which the Pope was in fact infallible – the same conditions which logic demands, which Scripture suggests, and which tradition shows us in action down through the centuries.”
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm

Confused readers can find this third category of doctrine as defined in *Ad Tuendam Fidem *(post #51), in the CCC #892, and that is from Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium #25.

 

[thistle]

In the Apologetics thread Is the lumen fidei an infallible document?, DavidFilmer contended that:
This is a double error, firstly since “the Bishops” can teach faithfully and infallibly only what has been taught by the Magisterium, and secondly since that teaching was considered “a merely disciplinary force” and “still open to debate” as factually stated below, Bl John Paul II issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to definitively teach the faithful and correct error.

“4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis).

Then in #50:
False.

The unfaithful chose fancifully to distort the fact that Vatican II taught otherwise, and as seen here, some have fallen for the dissenting distortion.

The blatant, repeated error of blaming “the Church” for “a fanciful idea” ignores the definitive three categories of *Ad Tuendam Fidem *of Bl John Paul II, and his changes in Canon Law, in response to the very fact of the definition in Vatican II – a typical development of doctrine – which means in the understanding of doctrine.

Then in #65:
That’s what comes through selfism – the failure to even know about helpful, knowledgeable aids to
understanding a teaching, as well as the fact that EWTN has for many years hosted many faithful Catholic apologists who have helped untold numbers of people to understand the faith and correct errors.

David M. Gregson, Ph.D.
Dr. Gregson is a member of the theology department at EWTN, and the topic for his dissertation was St. Augustine’s Trinitarian Metaphysics of Knowledge, and covers the general questions category at EWTN. For those interested in the truths of Catholicism, EWTN and their experts are very helpful.
ewtn.com/vexperts/conference.asp

The revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., similarly cites the Magisterium: “The papal infallibility defined by the Church refers not only to the occasional exercise of the Pope’s prerogative to proclaim such dogmas as the bodily Assumption into heaven of the Blessed Virgin, or such dogmatic facts as the canonization of saints.” The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 231].

The error among the confused here has always been in not realising the importance of understanding infallibility.

Dr Jeff Mirus:
“Further, it is not a new thing. It was precisely defined at Vatican I in order to clarify what was at that time a confusing issue, but this was by way of stating clearly what Christ’s teaching was, not by way of adding anything new. Vatican I therefore carefully enumerated the conditions under which the Pope was in fact infallible – the same conditions which logic demands, which Scripture suggests, and which tradition shows us in action down through the centuries.”
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm

Confused readers can find this third category of doctrine as defined in *Ad Tuendam Fidem *(post #51), in the CCC #892, and that is from Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium #25.

Nobody here is confused.
It does not matter which teachings are infallible or non-infallible because the faithful are bound by both.
The Church obviously does not think it to be important that the faithful know which teachings are infallible or it would have quickly dealt with that by issuing a list but it did not.

 

[Abu]

The theme here is the importance of understanding infallibility. The errors exposed show how even the Vatican I dogma has been criticized.

When infallibility is understood its purpose is seen as to have and declare the truth. Thus *Casti Connubii *and *Humanae Vitae *condemn the evils of contraception and identify dissent, against the majority of “Catholics”, including many fallible theologians and fallible politicians, and those of other sects who are in error.

The dogma has been criticized, but others have gone further – “those who found the Church’s moral imperatives too hard made them out to be mere ideals, and then proceeded to urge a redefinition of infallibility….an infallible Church that keeps adjusting its moral doctrine to the moral license of the age.” The Teaching Church In Our Time, in How Infallible Is The teaching Church?, Daughters of St Paul, 1978, p 116].

 

[thistle]

No. Your thrust throughout this thread is that the Church considers it important that the faithful know which teachings are infallible whereas the reality is that if the Church did consider it so they could issue a list to the faithful which would be cheap, easy and quick to do. The Church has not done so. Therefore the Church does not consider that to be important.
Also it really does not matter which teachings are infallible or not as we are bound by all of them.

 

[Abu]

The confusion demonstrated here on infallibility is typified by the reality of dissent which Father Thomas J. Reese, S.J. displays to further muddy the understanding of infallibility.

Fr Richard John Neuhaus comments:
‘On the subject of the ordination of women, he is, as they say, more nuanced. He notes what he believes is the strong support for ordaining women among Catholics in Europe and America, and anticipates that support will increase elsewhere “as women in other parts of the world become better educated.” Of course, the Magisterium has said that the Church is not authorized to ordain women and therefore cannot do it. Reese comments: “I believe that the only reason the Pope has not declared this teaching infallible is that the Vatican realizes that to do so would put the whole question of infallibility up for debate. As long as infallibility is kept in the closet and not used, Catholics don’t worry about it. If it were used to define a teaching opposed by the vast majority of Catholics, then the doctrine of papal infallibility would be put at risk.” ’
firstthings.com/article/2009/02/setback-in-rome-1

Fr Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. Cap. in *Non-Infallibility: The Papacy And Rahner *comments:
‘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 When applying this teaching to a case in which a person had conscientiously decided to use contraception, against the decision of Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, Rahner commented: "Such a Catholic need not fear that he has incurred any subjective guilt or regard himself as in a state of formal disobedience to the Church’s authority."4 ’
Note:
3. Karl Rahner, “Magisterium,” Encyclopedia of Theology: The Concise Sacramentum Mundi, edited by Karl Rahner (New York: The Seabury Press, 1975), p. 877.
4. Karl Rahner, On The Encyclical ‘Humanae Vitae,’ Theological Investigations, Vol. II (New York: The Seabury Press, 1974), 285.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4210

As articulated clearly way back in post #3:
“The need to understand, explain and defend infallibility is precisely because the faithful have been assaulted by those theologians who wished to denigrate truth such as the occurred with Humanae Vitae, and confused with the errors identified.”

 

[thistle]

You keep digressing so I will make it simple and then we will not misunderstand you.
Please tell us in simple words without resorting to quoting the titles of a thousand articles/papers.

If the Church considers it important that the faithful know which teachings are infallible why hasn’t it issued a list of infallible teachings? Would you not agree that would be an easy way to inform them?

Why does it matter if the faithful know or don’t know which teachings are infallible when we are bound by all teachings?

 

[Abu]

As this thread has been opened to reveal the Magisterium’s concern over the importance of understanding, explaining and defending infallibility, erroneous views have been exposed and dissent identified.

Nowhere has any Pope or the originator suggested that all infallible doctrine be listed.

Infallibility relates not to the fullness of understanding of revealed doctrine, but to the truth (the freedom from error) of the Church’s way of proposing it. Development means that the Church can always acquire a deeper understanding of Revelation, being protected by the charism of infallibility from misunderstanding or misrepresenting those truths entrusted to it. (Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, Our Sunday Visitor, article Development of Doctrine).

The Catechism #88 was expanded in 1997 by an addition to read: “The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas…[the addition follows] or also when it proposes in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.”

 

[AmbroseSJ]

What you seem to be missing is that it is the DISSENTERS who are MOST concerned with infallibility. Faithful Catholics are satisfied to believe that the Church is infallible, and therefore he can believe without error all of her doctrines.

OTOH, DISSENTERS are like crafty lawyers looking for ways to avoid doctrine. They do this by understanding infallibility in such a way, that only infallibly declared doctrines are binding on them. They argue and split hairs on the definition of infallibility to find a loophole that will grant them license to dissent. Their arguments, and the arguments of their adversary creates such a blizzard of controversy around the doctrine of infallibility that it leaves the Catholic Faithful quite befuddled.

Your argument seems to suggest that EVERYONE must understand every excruciating detail of infallibility, with all of its degrees and commentary in order to fight off the erroneous DISSENTERS. But the truth is, this is not practical or possible as the last 100 years have shown. If anything, the more people DELVE into the doctrine of infallibility the more errors are multiplied among the Faithful.

That is why some would wish for a return to the simpler times, when Church infallibility blanketed ALL doctrines of the Church, without exception, and without heated debates about whether THIS doctrine is REALLY infallible, and necessary to hold.

 

[Abu]

AmbroseSJ #77
If anything, the more people DELVE into the doctrine of infallibility the more errors are multiplied among the Faithful.
That is why some would wish for a return to the simpler times, when Church infallibility blanketed ALL doctrines of the Church, without exception, and without heated debates about whether THIS doctrine is REALLY infallible, and necessary to hold.

It is precisely because of the fact that the error of Gallicanism in the nineteenth century “asserted the more or less complete freedom of the Catholic Church from the ecclesiastical authority of the bishop of Rome”, as the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., points out, with the resultant “widespread confusion among the faithful, especially in the realm of doctrine, where the Pope had for centuries exercised supreme teaching authority in full accord, it was assumed, with the premises of revelation”, that the wisdom of the Magisterium saw the necessity of exposing and repudiating such a grave error by solemnly defining papal infallibility. The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 228].

"Gallicanism:
A cluster of doctrines, favored by the French Church, that tended to limit the authority of the Pope in relation to the bishops, and to subordinate the rights of the Church to the power of the State.

“Gallicanism became Conciliarism after the Great Western Schism, claiming the superiority of council over the Pope, and promoted by John Gerson (1363-1429) and Peter d’Ailly (1350-1420). The French Revolution drove the bishops into the arms of the Pope and dealt a mortal blow to Gallicanism, but the basic idea was still alive until the First Vatican Council formally condemned it in 1870.”
catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33692

Why should anyone challenge the wisdom of the Church determined by Her Magisterium?

History shows that from the beginning there were those who rebelled against and corrupted the teaching of the Church – She always responds with developing Her teaching for the sake of Her flock.

 

[thistle]

It is precisely because of the fact that the error of Gallicanism in the nineteenth century “asserted the more or less complete freedom of the Catholic Church from the ecclesiastical authority of the bishop of Rome”, as the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., points out, with the resultant “widespread confusion among the faithful, especially in the realm of doctrine, where the Pope had for centuries exercised supreme teaching authority in full accord, it was assumed, with the premises of revelation”, that the wisdom of the Magisterium saw the necessity of exposing and repudiating such a grave error by solemnly defining papal infallibility. The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 228].

"Gallicanism:
A cluster of doctrines, favored by the French Church, that tended to limit the authority of the Pope in relation to the bishops, and to subordinate the rights of the Church to the power of the State.

“Gallicanism became Conciliarism after the Great Western Schism, claiming the superiority of council over the Pope, and promoted by John Gerson (1363-1429) and Peter d’Ailly (1350-1420). The French Revolution drove the bishops into the arms of the Pope and dealt a mortal blow to Gallicanism, but the basic idea was still alive until the First Vatican Council formally condemned it in 1870.”
catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33692

Why should anyone challenge the wisdom of the Church determined by Her Magisterium?

History shows that from the beginning there were those who rebelled against and corrupted the teaching of the Church – She always responds with developing Her teaching for the sake of Her flock.

It does not matter if the faithful do or don’t know which teachings are infallible or non-infallible.
The Church does not consider it important and you have not shown that it does.