You may choose, a priori, to reject the encyclicals. I choose, a priori, to accept them. Encyclicals of themselves not infallible documents, but by their nature generally do contain pronouncements on faith and morals that are de facto infallible because they express the teaching of the ordinary Maginserium. Didn't they teach you that in Freshman Anti-Catholicism at that fancy Bible college?
Did you forget that it was you who claimed: "There is no difference. Since it is the same Holy Spirit speaking through them both."? How then does your new assertion that encyclicals can be fallible jibe with your claim that there is no difference between what a Pope says and the Holy Spirit says?
Though I didn't have a class called "Anti-Catholicism" (some parts were discussed in a "Cults and World Religions" class), I didn't need one to tell me what I already learned in Catechism classes as a Catholic. What I learned in Bible College was what the Word of God said, in context and in toto, and as I told you earlier, was a solid foundation upon which a lifetime of knowing God could be built. I've never regretted my following the Lord's leading to go there.
That's interesting; for you just said that part of an encyclical is ERROR!
Encyclicals of themselves not infallible documents, but by their nature generally do contain pronouncements on faith and morals that are de facto infallible because they express the teaching of the ordinary Maginserium.