Encyclicals infallible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hegesippus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hegesippus

Guest
What criteria are not met set forth by Vatican I in the domga of papal infalliblity that are not fulfilled when a pope issues an encyclical? I am wondering if these are infallible documents because it appears that they do meet every one of the criteria set forth by Vatican I.
 
Hegesippus said:
What criteria are not met set forth by Vatican I in the domga of papal infalliblity that are not fulfilled when a pope issues an encyclical? I am wondering if these are infallible documents because it appears that they do meet every one of the criteria set forth by Vatican I.
Click to expand...
Encyclicals are not in themselves infallible documents. However trhey can contain infallible teaching from the Magisterium. By restating the constant teaching of the Church.
 
Strictly speaking only people can be fallible or infallible, not documents. Thus, when the Pope
  1. intends to teach,
  2. as head of the Church,
  3. on matters pertaining to faith or morals
  4. and the teaching is addressed to the whole Church
Then he is teaching infallibly on that subject. It is not correct to say that the teaching is infallible, but that the Pope was infallible when giving the teaching. Or I suppose you could say the teaching was the result of an infallible definition. Either way, since the Pope was infallible when teaching on the subject, then the teaching he gave was true, and since it is true, it cannot be changed. So it is not the whole document that is infallible, but the teachings in the document are true and without error, when they are the result the Pope teaching infallibly.
In the same way the Catechism of the Catholic Church, since it has the approval of the Pope, will be true and without error in all the Church teachings that it presents, since these teachings come from God.
Since it is not scripture, it could have error in things that are not Church teachings, for example, in things that are mentioned in passing, though I don’t know of any error anyone has found yet.

And actually the bible is not infallible. Because only people can be fallible or infallible. But, since the bible is the word of God, then everything asserted by the sacred authors must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, and thus will be without error. This inerrance extends to science, history, etc., though the bible is difficult to interpret in these areas, since the bible was intended to present salvation history, the life and person and some teachings of Jesus and was intented to be an aid to the the teaching of the Gospel, and it was not intended to teach science or history.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
Encyclicals are not in themselves infallible documents. However trhey can contain infallible teaching from the Magisterium. By restating the constant teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
Perfect. Even if something is not infallibile we have to accept it. 🙂
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
Encyclicals are not in themselves infallible documents. However trhey can contain infallible teaching from the Magisterium. By restating the constant teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
I don’t necessarily disagree, but can you tell me what is the authority for your position here?
 
So is the Syllabus of Errors an infallable teaching?

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

If so, then we have some serious problems here with respect to the Church and its interactions with Democratic societies. If not, then why should we give current teachings of the Church any more authority or respect than they deserve…i.e., they are persuasive as to the points they cover or they or not.
 
rr1213 said:
So is the Syllabus of Errors an infallable teaching?

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

If so, then we have some serious problems here with respect to the Church and its interactions with Democratic societies. If not, then why should we give current teachings of the Church any more authority or respect than they deserve…i.e., they are persuasive as to the points they cover or they or not.
Click to expand...
I may be wrong on this but I don’t believe that the “Syllabus of Errors” was ever signed by the pope.
 
Be careful regarding the “Syllabus of Errors” It is very easily misunderstood because it is just that a - Syllabus. Each item in the syllabus was lifted from a previous document that provided meaning and context. Without the original meanings and contexts you cannot really know what the syllabus is saying in many cases
 
I do not believe that encyclicals are infallible, because while teaching as head of the church, the pope is not teaching as the official head of the church.

They are infallible in the instances they agree with the magestarium, but they are not infallible per se.

Remember and encyclical is simply a letter to the church, it is not a clearly defined church teaching

A lone Raven
 
rr1213 said:
So is the Syllabus of Errors an infallable teaching?
Click to expand...
That doesn’t answer my question, and I really don’t think that’s a sound way to address the question, in any event.

The Syllabus is a stick used by both extreme theological liberals (e.g., Hans Kung) AND conservatives (e.g., sedevacantists) to undercut the teaching authority of the Church. Perhaps you fall into one of those two camps. I do not, and I think it’s inappropriate to use the Syllabus along those lines.

Further, one can make a case for the infallibility of the Syllabus of Errors, properly understood. Cardinal Avery Dulles, for example, finds certain propositions in the Syllabus regarding religious liberty to be in tension with the teaching of Vatican II, but not, properly understood, in contradiction to that teaching. See his discussion here.

A broader defense of the Syllabus by I. Shawn McElhinney can be found here.

But I’m not really interested in getting into an argument about the Syllabus of Errors. Although I am still interested in an answer to my original question, if you can offer one.

My take on that question is that the Church’s position respecting the infallibility of papal encyclicals is not entirely clear at the present time.

Although one can draw certain inferences from existing magisterial documents, the inferences cut in different ways depending on the spectacles one views the evidence through. I don’t think the evidence is broad and clear enough, at the present time, to draw any definite conclusions. But if I’m mistaken in that regard, I would be pleased to be corrected.
 
The following is taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia citation set forth above in post no. 8:

“The binding power of the Syllabus of Pius IX is differently explained by Catholic theologians. All are of the opinion that many of the propositions are condemned if not in the Syllabus, then certainly in other final decisions of the infallible teaching authority of the Church, for instance in the Encyclical “Quanta Cura”. There is no agreement, however, on the question whether each thesis condemned in the Syllabus is infallibly false, merely because it is condemned in the Syllabus. Many theologians are of the opinion that to the Syllabus as such an infallible teaching authority is to be ascribed, whether due to an ex-cathedra decision by the pope or to the subsequent acceptance by the Church. Others question this. So long as Rome has not decided the question, everyone is free to follow the opinion he chooses. Even should the condemnation of many propositions not possess that unchangeableness peculiar to infallible decisions, nevertheless the binding force of the condemnation in regard to all the propositions is beyond doubt. For the Syllabus, as appears from the official communication of Cardinal Antonelli, is a decision given by the pope speaking as universal teacher and judge to Catholics the world over. All Catholics, therefore, are bound to accept the Syllabus. Exteriorly they may neither in word nor in writing oppose its contents; they must also assent to it interiorly.”

Two things strike me. First, how can there be debate as to whether the syllabus is infallable or not…this is important stuff so how can The-Church- -Against-Which-The-Gates-Of-Hell-Shall-Not-Prevail be uncertain as to whether its own pronouncement is infallable? Second, even if it is not infallable, how can the Church insists that Catholics assent to the teaching if it be against their conscience? How can the Church insist on something for which it is not willing to ascribe infallability?
 
Tiny_Montgomery said:
The Syllabus is a stick used by both extreme theological liberals (e.g., Hans Kung) AND conservatives (e.g., sedevacantists) to undercut the teaching authority of the Church. Perhaps you fall into one of those two camps.
Click to expand...
I’m neither. I am a Protestant looking to learn more about the Catholic Church and her teachings.
 
Hegesippus said:
What criteria are not met set forth by Vatican I in the domga of papal infalliblity that are not fulfilled when a pope issues an encyclical? I am wondering if these are infallible documents because it appears that they do meet every one of the criteria set forth by Vatican I.
Click to expand...
Regarding infallibility of Church teaching, I must respectfully state that I think the Church is talking out of both sides of her mouth. On one side she claims, “this is Church teaching”, yet when history has borne out an error, apologists will maintain, “that was never formally and solemnly proclaimed by the Magisterium” or “that was a disciplinary concern, not dogmatically defined.”

So, regarding Church “teaching” on stem cell research–it seems quite clear what the Church is proclaiming, yet one could also maintain that no formal and solemn proclamation has come forth from the Magisterium on this issue. Is this then ok for Catholics to disagree on this issue?
 
rr1213 said:
Two things strike me. First, how can there be debate as to whether the syllabus is infallable or not…this is important stuff so how can The-Church- -Against-Which-The-Gates-Of-Hell-Shall-Not-Prevail be uncertain as to whether its own pronouncement is infallable? Second, even if it is not infallable, how can the Church insists that Catholics assent to the teaching if it be against their conscience? How can the Church insist on something for which it is not willing to ascribe infallability?
Click to expand...
rr1213 - I think if you read the text you quoted carefully, you’ll see that there’s disagreement among theologians about the technical basis upon which the binding force of the Syllabus rests.

This is because it’s in a bit of a twilight zone, resting as it does as an addendum to an encyclical.

But, the text goes on to note:

“NEVERTHELESS the binding force of the condemnation in regard to ALL the propositions is BEYOND DOUBT” (emphases added).

Now, within Catholicism, there is a difference between a proposition with “binding force” (one which requires assent of the intellect) and one which is strictly speaking “infallible”.

But this is rather difficult to explain succinctly, or at least, I’m not up to it at the moment.

Instead, I would refer you to the three documents I’ve linked to below, which also address the whole complex matter of conscience that you raise in your second point.

The bottom line is that if you find that your well-formed conscience cannot assent to Church teaching, you should leave the Church, rather than act against your conscience (Aquinas taught this). You will be judged, ultimately - I mean by God - on whether you acted in accordance with your conscience. BUT, you do have a serious obligation to inform your conscience.

Magisterial Documents and Public Dissent by Cardinal Bertione

The Inconvenient Conscience by George Cardinal Pell

Forming a Catholic Conscience by Thomas G. Morrow

A further, short comment from Jeff Miller (aka The Curt Jester):

Thinking with the mind of the Church is not something easily conducive in our culture where individualism reigns supreme… St. Peter when it came to understanding the Eucharist replied to Jesus when asked if he would leave also “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” If we start from the proposition that what Jesus teaches through his Church is true we can then stand with St. Peter in his confusion and humbly struggle to the best of our abilities to understand what is taught.
 
rr1213 - A further thought on the Syllabus.

The Syllabus admittedly falls into the category of a “difficult” document. It came out of a particular cultural moment, and the language and analysis was rooted in that moment. And, importantly, the language was quite technical, and rested on a background of previous documents which must be understood to understand the Syllabus.

In this, the language in the Syllabus is not unlike technical language used in a legal context – for example, a Supreme Court case using the term “due process”. Now, what does that mean? Well, to understand it, you would have to read through prior cases in which the term was fleshed-out and developed. Similarly with the Syllabus.

Yet another analogy that comes to mind are those “things difficult to understand” in Paul’s writing, as noted by Peter (2 Pt 3:16).

One might wish that Paul never wrote that Christ was “the firstborn of every creature” (Col 1:15 kjv), since such language can give rise to such misunderstandings, and even heresies, such as Arianism.

But there it is. One might wish for perfect clarity at all times and in all places, but human language being what it is, one will not always find it, either in the inerrant Scriptures, or in the magisterial documents of the Church.
 
Pope Pius XII held that Papal Encyclicals, even when they are not ex cathedra, can nonetheless be sufficiently authoritative to end theological debate on a particular question:

It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: “He who heareth you, heareth Me.” (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians.
—Humani Generis
 
Documents are never infallible. Only a teaching (a doctrine) can be infallible. Even a papal document that contains an infallible teaching, such as the teaching on the Immaculate Conception, will not be infallible in every sentence, but only on what is infallibly defined.

When the Magisterium teaches under its ordinary non-infallible magisterium, (not the ordinary and universal magisterium, which is infallible) then its teaching is subject to the possibility of occasional error and later correction; such teachings are reformable. Now even the non-infallible ordinary teaching of the Church is guided by God, not to the extent of infallibility, but only to the extent that it will not lead anyone off the path of salvation.

Ron
 
So, the only two instances in which papal infallibility was ever exercised in the history of the Catholic Church were the defining of the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary?

Anything else, like the papal encyclical, Humanae Vitae, is encouraged but not binding?

I ask this in the light of recent non-ex cathedra remarks from the current pope which signal a possible shift in emphasis in contrast to the urgent tone of Humanae Vitae.
 
JPUSC #19
So, the only two instances in which papal infallibility was ever exercised in the history of the Catholic Church were the defining of the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary?
Click to expand...
Those two teachings are DOGMAS. There are many other infallible DOCTRINES.
No document is infallible – only the defined dogmas or doctrines within are infallible, and they don’t need to repeat previous teaching to contain an infallible doctrine…

Ecumenical Councils confirmed by the Pope can proclaim, and many have, infallible dogmas and doctrines and one example is the dogma on the exercise of papal infallibility in Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I which is the basis for papal infallibility It is vital to know when papal infallibility is exercised.

Pastor Aeternus, Chap 4, #9, (an infallible dogma) is the basis for understanding infallibility. For infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach:
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

Some theologians assume that only papal dogmas are infallible, a gross error.

The three levels of teaching are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
**2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) **requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith. [See the Explanatory Note on ATF by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
corvidae #10
I do not believe that encyclicals are infallible, because while teaching as head of the church, the pope is not teaching as the official head of the church.
They are infallible in the instances they agree with the magestarium, but they are not infallible per se.
Remember and encyclical is simply a letter to the church, it is not a clearly defined church teaching
Click to expand...
You can see now when the Pope exercises his infallibility in an Encyclical etc., from the infallible dogma in *Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I, which teaches:

Chapter 3.
“On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”

*Pastor Aeternus *has the dogma of Vatican I on papal infallibility and you can find it at:
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#6
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top