Just when I thought the posts had clarified the issue for me, notwithstanding the personal attacks, y’all lost me again. In actuality, the encyclicals that define the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary are not good examples. Those are two very clear instances of ex cathedra statements by a Pope. I don’t think anyone would have trouble understanding that the definition of those doctrines are infallable or with the extent of those doctrines. In fact, the doctrines themselves are emboldened and set apart from the rest of the text. At least it is in the case of the former – I don’t recall for the latter.
Let me provide a concrete example that is the subject of another thread. The Council of Trent defined the Canon infallably. The Council went further and stated the books in the Canon are those as they appeared in the Vulgate. In his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, however, Pope Pius XII stated that the Coucil’s decision to define the Canon as those versions of the books as they appeared in the Vulgate was a “juridical” one, not a “critical” one. In other words, the Council did not go w/ the Vulgate version of the books b/c the Vulgate was inherently better, correct, or of itself inspired. Rather, the Council chose the Vulgate b/c it needed a single version of the Bible for the universal Church and the Vulgate was the best version then available. Pope Pius then went on to encourage the creation of new Bible translations, utilizing the original languages rather than the Vulgate. As we know, there are questions as to the authenticity of, among other things, the ending of Mark and the story of the Woman Caught in Adultery in John. Some newer Bible translations do not include these passages, or they set them apart from the remainder of the text by bracketting or italicizing them.
Does Pope Pius’ encyclical therefore mean that those two passages, and others differing from the Vulgate, are not necessarily part of the Canon? If the encyclical constitutes an infallable teaching, then I think the answer is, “yes.” If the answer is, “no,” then I think the Council’s determination of the books as they appear in the Vulgate still obtains. The long and short of it is, apart from the question of the canonicity of Mark and John, which has been infallably defined, are these particular portions of those books necessarily canonical? I for one, would be very sad to hear they are not. I am particularly fond of the story of the Woman Caught in the Act of Adultery. Moreover, there are some manuscripts that do not contain Jesus’ prayer for the forgiveness of those crucifying him contained in Luke. Is this, by virtue of the encyclical, now no longer necessarily canonical?
This is just one example. Do you see now my reasons for wanting to know whether papal encyclicals are infallable?
I have read the Compendium to the Cattechism, and I have consulted the Cattechsim on a number of issues. It’s not a matter of me looking to see what doctrines I need to agree w/ b/c I do not want to give my assent unless I have to, as at least one of you seem to have asserted. Rather, God gave me a brain to use, and the Church encourages me to use it. But there’s no point in trying to determine whether or not I agree w/ a doctrine that, if I am to remain a Catholic (which I intend to), I must assent to. I’d rather spend my mental efforts elsewhere. Moreover, for me, telling me that something is so b/c the Church says so is unsatisfactory. Even if I fully intend on giving my assent, and do not hold the slightest intent of disagreeing with, a doctrine of the Church, I still have an intellectual need to understand the WHY behind the doctrine. For example, Baptism is for the forgiveness of sin, yet we baptize infants who bear no personal sin. We do this b/c of original sin. Yet the Church teaches that though we carry the effects of original sin (which continue beyond baptism), we bear no guilt for that sin. If we bear no guilt for the sin and baptism does not remove its effects from us, why baptize infants (aside from the warning in John 3 that one cannot enter Heaven unless they are born again of the water and the spirit)? I spent some time looking into this, came up with an answer, and walked away from the endeavor w/ a greater understanding of the efficacy of the sacrament, a greater appreciation of the sacrament itself, and feeling more in communion with the Church and its teaching on the subject. Likewise w/ the doctrines of transubstantiation and the presence of both body and blood in both species of communion. I studied the rationale behind them and now agree w/ them more than ever. In fact, I wasn’t even sure I did agree w/ them until I studied the issue. How is this a bad thing?
I’m now trying to understand the nature and extent of the doctrine of Papal infallibility as it bears on the teaching and doctrines of the Church, and I’m having difficulty. During the course of my examination, I noticed an apparent disconnect btwn the extent of that doctrine and the doctrine of inerrancy of scripture. I also noted that the nature and extent of Papal infallability would bear on ANY Church doctrine I studied, to the extent there was an encyclical on the subject. Moreover, the extent of that effect would depend on whether and to what extent encyclicals are infallable. So, I thought I would inquire on this forum to see what folks had to say on the subject. The doctrine of infallability is so thoroughly wrapped up in the Church’s teaching that I felt a need to understand its nature and extent. Some of the responses seemed imprecise and did not seem (to me) to directly answer the question posed. So, I probed. Apparently, that was a mistake. From the reaction, you’d think I’d taken one step short of heresy.
