[It must not] be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority [The Ordinary Magisterium], of which it is true to say: ‘He who hears you, hears me’; [Luke 10:16] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion…
Actually you are wrong. It is also part of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium which is also infallible.
Actually you are wrong.
...t is only during the last three pontificates that the most important utterances of the Holy See have been given to the world in the shape of encyclicals,..
In the early centuries the term encyclical was applied, not only to papal letters, but to certain letters emanating from bishops or archbishops and directed to their own flocks or to other bishops.
As for the binding force of these documents [encyclicals] 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. — Catholic Encyclopedia>Encyclical; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm
Like the CCC, only parts of it can be considered infallible, and even the (imagined) guarantee of infallibility only extends to a pronouncement itself, and not to the arguments or reasons for it.
This does not mean that the teaching that Adam and Eve were two read persons would not be considered infallible teachig, in contrast to holding to the story of how they sinned, and the other historical events such as the Flood, but the point is that simply because something is taught in an encyclical and calls for assent does not make it infallible.
And Donum Veritatis also allows that even if "not habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments," "some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies," and withholding assent is allowed for a theologian "who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching." In such "even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions," and is to "refrain from giving untimely public expression to them," and "avoid turning to the mass media..."
But which is what V2 dissenters regularly do.
Meanwhile, just what is and what is not an encyclical, and which parts express infallible teaching, and how they are to be understood (such as The Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX), are all subject to some interpretation.
Of course, i can understand why RCs who long for all the means of the Inquisition want to hold all formal papal statements as infallible, such as condemn as false that,
Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes...The Church has not the power of using force. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. (Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX)
And the Papal Bull Ad exstirpanda, May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV, authorized the use of torture (coerce, "force all the heretics)" to elicit confessions (besides the burning of those convicted, and destruction their houses, and taking possessing their goods), and which was confirmed by Pope Alexander IV in 1259, and by Pope Clement IV in 1265.
And the issue of what is infallible is one in which RCs disagree, as they lack an infallible list of all infallible decrees. Yet it is not likely to be as many as they perhaps could be,
Bishop Vincent Gasser, spokesman for the deputation “de fide” (the committee of Conciliar Fathers charged with drafting the solemn definition), delivered a four-hour speech explaining and defending the draft which was submitted to the assembled Fathers for their vote. Gasser is quoted no less than four times in the official footnotes to “Lumen Gentium” 25, which treats of infallibility…
In replying to some Fathers who urged that the procedures or form to be used by the pope in arriving at an infallible decision (i.e., his grave moral duty to pray for guidance, diligently consult the existing teaching of the Church, etc.) be included in the definition, Gasser replied: But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. "Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the apostolic See;" where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?
In other words, Gasser was able to assert "in passing"--that is, as something which did not need arguing and would be taken for granted by his audience-- that there had already been "thousands and thousands" of infallible definitions issued by the Roman see! - http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/papalinfallibility.pdf (EO source)