The Pope's Encyclical

[Adonia]

Bravo to Pope Bennedict on his recent encyclical! His words on love, talking about both the physical and spiritual were inspiring. I really like this man! From his previous office where from what I had heard about him, he was a rigid idealoque, (of which I had no problem him being such) to his understanding of the human experience and his ability to connect the here and now with the beauty of God really reasonates with me.

 

[Aaron_I]

Good stuff:

Deus Caritas Est

 

[dwc]

Amazing. I’m going to have to read it several times before I grasp it all. You know, people who claim that catholics must be dumb to believe what we believe must never read the popes’ encyclicals (much less Augustine, etc). This is some heady stuff.

On first reading I found it interesting that Pope Benedict reminds us that the Church requires purity and sexual morality, but then goes on to emphasize that the church and Christ also demand an active and fruitful love of neighbors, demonstrated by our commitment to caring for the poor and disenfranchised. We can’t sit back and feel confident in our salvation simply because we are monogamous, pro-life, NFP using, heterosexual Catholics. We have to also actively work to feed and clothe the least of our brothers, both through our charitable activities and our participation in the social and political arena. I think he is going to challenge people in unexpected ways.

 

[Ortho]

Is this encyclical infallible?

 

[dwc]

Infallibility is the million dollar question, isn’t it? With regard to ABC, I’ve read the statement numerous times on this forum that even though it hasn’t been spoken of ex cathedra, it has been taught in Human Vitae and in other papal teaching letters, and so is in fact an infallible teaching. If that reasoning is correct, then this encyclical is infallible as well. Honestly, though, I’ve never gotten the entirety of the infallibility doctrine straight in my mind, since I was taught that only doctrines specifically identified as ex cathedra were infallible.

Alternatively, with regard to the ABC situation, I’ve seen people state that even if it isn’t formally an infallible teaching, since it was clearly taught by Rome, all obedient Catholics must follow it. Same would apply to all encyclicals, I would think.

 

[Ortho]

It’s extremely difficult to get a straight answer about what is infallible, and what is not. So, I figure if infallibility has any credibility folks should know if the recently published encyclical is infallible. If they don’t know, then infallibility seems a sham.

 

[dwc]

I don’t know that I would ever agree infallibility is a sham; however, it is a very, very remarkable claim, IMO. I mean, it says no less than that the Holy Spirit Himself has revealed this as an undisputed truth. Reserving this claim to very few and very specific situations, as in when clearly and distinctly speaking ex cathedra, has always seemed much more consistent with the gravity of the claim and the humility it should generate than in when applying it as some have. But, I would be the first to admit that since joining this forum I have become thoroughly confused as to what are and are not infallible teachings.

 

[Ortho]

dwc:

I don’t know that I would ever agree infallibility is a sham; however, it is a very, very remarkable claim, IMO. I mean, it says no less than that the Holy Spirit Himself has revealed this as an undisputed truth. Reserving this claim to very few and very specific situations, as in when clearly and distinctly speaking ex cathedra, has always seemed much more consistent with the gravity of the claim and the humility it should generate than in when applying it as some have. But, I would be the first to admit that since joining this forum I have become thoroughly confused as to what are and are not infallible teachings.

I would say it is a sham if an encyclical just published cannot be defined as infallible or fallible.

As I observe things, the infallible status of a proposition is determined by each individual Catholic. They say it is impossible to list all the infallible teachings since there is 2,000 years to cover. Well, a single encyclical that has just been published should pose no problem.

I’d suggest a big red stamp at the Vatican. Anything that is published that is infallible should get the stamp and be put in a special collection at the Vatican library. Then it would be easy.

 

[dwc]

Well, I just submitted this question to the Ask an Apologist forum. Maybe we’ll get a clearly defined answer.

 

[Dorothy]

dwc:

Well, I just submitted this question to the Ask an Apologist forum. Maybe we’ll get a clearly defined answer.

It is my understanding that what the Church teaches from the ordinary Magisterium is binding.

Infallible statements are made (ex: Immaculate Conception) when there is questioning about something that has been consistently thought.

 

[Brendan]

Ortho:

It’s extremely difficult to get a straight answer about what is infallible, and what is not. So, I figure if infallibility has any credibility folks should know if the recently published encyclical is infallible. If they don’t know, then infallibility seems a sham.

Lumen Gentium #25 is actuall pretty clear on the subject. What I really find is there always exist an number of theologians who don’t like a teaching generally look for loopholes.

They generally required an infallible teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium to somehow be ‘re-infallibly’ declared in the Extra-Ordinary Magisterium (ex cathedra).

If so, something like the 10 Commandments could not be considered infallible, as there are no ‘ex cathedra’ statements on it

Generally speaking, Papal Encyclicals are restatements or re-articulations of what the Church already infallibly teaches.

Namely, they are a teaching aid to assist the Faithful in understanding what IS ALREADY Infallible.

 

[Fidelis]

Ortho:

Is this encyclical infallible?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

As for the binding force of these documents it is generally admitted that the mere fact that the pope should have given to any of his utterances the form of an encyclical does not necessarily constitute it an ex-cathedra pronouncement and invest it with infallible authority. The degree in which the infallible magisterium of the Holy See is committed must be judged from the circumstances, and from the language used in the particular case.
newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm

In other words, in the areas of a given encyclical where the Pope is clearly intend to teach or clarify dictrine or dogma, it is infallible. The rest can be called reflection or exhortation.

 

[Brendan]

Dorothy:

It is my understanding that what the Church teaches from the ordinary Magisterium is binding.

Infallible statements are made (ex: Immaculate Conception) when there is questioning about something that has been consistently thought.

Teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium are Infallible as well.

Infallibility is generally divided into two categories

Ordinary and Extra-Ordinary

Ordinary is just that, what the Church as a whole teaches on Faith and Morals.

Extra-Ordinary is Ex Cathedra and Eccumenical Councils.

Lumen Gentium #25 describes the infallible nature of the Ordinary Magisterium pretty well

Pastor Aeteruns of Vatican I describes the use of the Extra-Ordinary Magisterium

 

[dwc]

Like I said, maybe we’ll get a definitive answer from the apologist.

 

[Ahimsa]

dwc:

Like I said, maybe we’ll get a definitive answer from the apologist.

Is the apologist infallible?

 

[Jasny]

Ordinary and Extra-Ordinary

From my reading of the definition in Vatican I the ex-cathedra is very clear so no sham there:

**"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.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."**

This is a classic way of ex-cathedra saying " teach and define" with “anathema” at the end. All such statements made by the Pope whether in a bull, encyclical, or council are infallable. The document is not as important as how the stament is pronounced.​

The problem starts with claiming the ordinary mag. is infallable.

If you read closly the word UNIVERSAL is used in Vatican I to clearify when the ordinary magisterium is infallable. UNIVERSAL in this case means always and everywhere:

"Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium."

So when a pope bishop or layman for that matter Echo (catechise) the universally held teaching of the Church then they are infallable too.

 

[m134e5]

Ortho:

Is this encyclical infallible?

The view on love, as it is defined in this encyclical, most certainly is. I hope you are not asking if you can be excused from showing the charity and love to others that this encyclical instructs us to show.

 

[Church_Militant]

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . "). From the CA online Library. and A whole bunch of links.

 

[dulcissima]

Benedict says himself in the introduction to the encycical that the first part is more speculative.

 

[Ortho]

Jasny:

From my reading of the definition in Vatican I the ex-cathedra is very clear so no sham there:

**"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.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."**

This is a classic way of ex-cathedra saying " teach and define" with “anathema” at the end. All such statements made by the Pope whether in a bull, encyclical, or council are infallable. The document is not as important as how the stament is pronounced.​

The problem starts with claiming the ordinary mag. is infallable.

If you read closly the word UNIVERSAL is used in Vatican I to clearify when the ordinary magisterium is infallable. UNIVERSAL in this case means always and everywhere:

"Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium."

So when a pope bishop or layman for that matter Echo (catechise) the universally held teaching of the Church then they are infallable too.

Does that mean the recent papal encyclical is infallible?