But generally no, encyclicals aren’t themselves infallible, but they may contain infallible statements, depending on what the intention of the pope was in writing it.
Paragraph 3 probably answers your question yet adds to your confusion. According to dictionary.com, the definition of “manifest(ly)” is:
Suffice it to be said that no doctrine may be considered infallibly promulgated if there is reasonable cause for doubt about the status of this doctrine. While some people might get out their Vatican-1 checklists and form opinions about the nature of various Church teachings, these conclusions are usually their own opinions (though they may be very good and well informed opinions).
David, please excuse me, but this doesn’t appear to make sense. What’s the point of an infallible magisterium if 1. it almost never exercises its infallibility, 2. if it almost never defines what’s explicitly infallible, 3. if it can’t even be sure of itself until after the fact?
It seems to get right down to the same issue as Sola Scriptura.
Are you conflating magisterial teaching with the normal pastoral work of the Church? Do you require that each and every word be set in concrete as dogma? I suspect that you might then find a problem with dogma, if you do not already have one. Something, or someone, seems to be challenging your faith in the Church.David, please excuse me, but this doesn’t appear to make sense. What’s the point of an infallible magisterium if 1. it almost never exercises its infallibility, 2. if it almost never defines what’s explicitly infallible, 3. if it can’t even be sure of itself until after the fact?
I am sorry to use such strong words, but: a lot of this sounds like the rationalizations of a Church that does not know what it’s talking about: “Oh, X is probably infallible but we can’t know it until the infallible hierarchy infallibly defines what infallibility is, and then we can’t be sure if the infallible definition of infallibility is infallible because it might actually be fallible until we are infallibly told that the concept of Infallibility is infallible”, etc.
If only the Magisterium would properly define itself as clearly as it does almost everything else (Transubstantiation, the Assumption, etc.) ! All the official definitions of authority in this matter are confusing and roundabout. For example, Bishops speak infallibly when, across the whole world, they proclaim a single doctrine with one voice in union with the Pope - yet this almost never actually happens! It’s simply theoretical.
What’s the point of hypothetical infallibility when we can’t ourselves discern between Official Church Teaching vs. One Pope’s Opinion?
Let’s look at the Canon Law following your citation of Can. 749.Humanae vitae certainly deals with faith and morals, and because it was an explicit reply to many who looked for loopholes in applying that doctrine, the encyclical met with a great deal of opposition. This has never been retracted as being just a nice “probable” opinion.
That Something is a sincere wish to be saved from my sins and serve God in His beatitude for eternity. I can’t do that if I am constantly unsure what is dogma, what is doctrine, and what is mere theological opinion.
I deleted my post, as I think it was too strongly worded. Pardon me for that, if you will.
God sees your heart, brother. Hasn’t Our Lord told us to put His servants in His place and listen to them? If you read conflicting opinions here on CAF, and surely you will, what does your heart lean toward? The easy road? The road suggested in the papal document? And if doubt still remains, talk to one or more of your pastors in the same way that we obtain more than one medical opinion in a doubtful matter of health importance.
not david but let me try to explain
the Church really only uses infallibility when it is absolutely necessary, there are many many things the Church believes and teaches as true that isn’t an infallible statement. The Church doesn’t need to declare things as infallible.
Christ gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter (the first bishop of rome) and said that what ever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven. Christ gave the power of the keys to peter and his successors. This is why we see that pope can make infalliable statements because of his power passed on to him from the sucessor of peter who got the power from Christ himself.
as I said there is not a need for it to happen. Maybe some history buffs can explain if it has ever happened before.
Again Christ gave the power of the keys to the successor of peter. This means that when he speaks ex cathedra he speaks without error. This is not by his own power or some false thing we try to trick the people of God. No the Holy Spirit makes it infallible, the Holy Spirit makes it to were that what he speaks is truth and he can’t speak falsehood.What’s the point of hypothetical infallibility when we can’t ourselves discern between Official Church Teaching vs. One Pope’s Opinion?
You were perfectly in your rights to post such a reply, though! We must always be querying, exhorting, and uplifting others - even if it’s via hard questions.
There is no complication in the sacraments, the doctrines of grace, the dogmas of Mary, etc., but the mode by which Popes & bishops teach infallibly is very dark to me (and to the OP, apparently). Obviously it’s agreed that the Pope does not write infallibly in every Encyclical - and yet almost every Encyclical is addressed to all the bishops of the world on an issue of universal importance. Why are they not infallible unless the simple formula of Pastor Aeternus is added? What if that Formula is not added to an encyclical?
I was brought up atheist, baptized Catholic 2 years ago, fell away to high-church protestantism (Anglicanism), and am in the process of coming back now. It is made very difficult by the concept of the Magisterium, which seems vague and cloudy to me. I don’t even know when the word itself came into existence, as there’s no trace of it even in the Council of Trent.
I believe the Petrine supremacy, but there’s the Extraordinary Magisterium, which is explicit, and then there’s: the “Ordinary Magisterium”, which seems to be implicit. It is the latter which makes no sense to me and to a lot of protestants, because it is abstract. How do we know when the Ordinary Magisterium is being exercised? Popes & bishops speak “in unison” all the time, but many many bishops have been in error about many many things, so what does it mean?
. My question stems out of my concern that the Church’s ban on membership in the Freemasony may be based on a misunderstanding of what Masonic terms, practices, and symbols actually mean (because many of the charges brought against Masons by Catholics are directly denied by Masonic institutions). IF this were the case, then the Church (including many Popes) wrongly understood what Masons teach/believe/do, and this renders papal teachings and canon law about Masonry misguided and incorrect (if not morally wrong due to the prejudice they’re created) would this compromise Church teachings on infallibility? Is the Church infallible when teaching on other people’s beliefs and declaring if Catholics can be a part of a group or not?I believe the Petrine supremacy, but there’s the Extraordinary Magisterium, which is explicit, and then there’s: the “Ordinary Magisterium”, which seems to be implicit. It is the latter which makes no sense to me and to a lot of protestants, because it is abstract. How do we know when the Ordinary Magisterium is being exercised? Popes & bishops speak “in unison” all the time, but many many bishops have been in error about many many things, so what does it mean?
I’m not to sure how to explain it but I would say the only time bishops speak in union is at ecumenical councils, outside of statements ex cathedra by the Pope, and at ecumenical councils the Church doesn’t declare things as dogma or doctrine. While bishops and theologians declare many things and many things are very close to the mind of the Church we can only know this is certainty with ecumenical councils or when the pope speaks ex cathedra. But usually when the vatican talks about stuff releases documents they know what they are talking about and it is close to the truth.
someone else will have to answer this for me. But that seems reasonable and correct.
The first (extraordinary) has only been exercised twice in Catholic history, so you are not likely to see proclamations of this type - it is rare.
I note here that dogma is declared normally in response to heresy - to end the argument. It sets doctrine, which is unchangeable in its content, into stone. Doctrine holds just as much authority, but has not been set by formal declaration in stone. We must remember also that the canon of New Testament scripture was not set for almost 400 years. The Arian heresy, among others, forced the Church to act. Later, when the reformation declared seven books of sacred scripture to be non-inspired, the Church was against pushed into a corner and forced to act. Trent was a response to heresy.
Good point!