I just realzied i put orthodox in the title when this is really directed towards RC people, sorry for the wrong title. As you guys know im going through RCIA and have a lot of questions... so, I will be posting here a lot, please bear with me! Anyways to my question:
I don't quite understand the whole teaching magisterum of the Church thing, like what we are to believe. Let me try and explain my random scattered thoughts and put them into a coherent sentence. I understand papal infallibility as it pertains to faith and morals when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra, and yet we are told we need to believe the other teachings of the church on such issues as contraceptives/abortion, but this has not been spoken about in the sense of ex cathedra. So, why do we need to believe that? You always hear that it's the cafeteria Christians that pick and choose what needs to be believed but aren't they by definition doing the proper thing. If it NEEDED to be believed wouldn't it have been spoken of in the ex cathedra sense? I don't understand the distinction made between the two.
This line of reasoning leads to my 2nd question, if you could answer both questions I'd appreciate that. This being that if there are other documents or articles of faith that are supposed to be held by all catholics I find it hard to believe in them. I always shiver at the super conservative catholics who say all teachings of the church must be endorsed... if this was the truth the there would never be any growth or reform within the Church. Only the ignorant, or arrogant fool would deny that the medieval and early modern church endorsed all sorts of atrocities and I find it hard to reconcile the belief in certain ideas that are "needed" to be followed when in the past this line of reasoning has caused horrible events to occur.
Standing in the darkness confused,