[gbcdoj]

A dogmatic judgment of the Pope is an infallible definition, in the sense that Bp. Gasser is using it. He's responding to a proposal to require a formula for ex cathedra pronouncements.

[ultima ratio]

A dogmatic judgment is not infallible if it does not expressly bind the universal Church. This pope has made many such statements--none of which were infallible.

[pascendi]

"A dogmatic judgment of the Pope is an infallible definition, in the sense that Bp. Gasser is using it. He's responding to a proposal to require a formula for ex cathedra pronouncements."

An infallible statement is what Vatican I says it is, which basically, is what the church has always understood about the excercise of the supreme magisterium.

An infallible statement will always contain only what the church has always understood as having already been divinely revealed. No infallible statement, at the time which it occurs, is news to anyone at that time who knew their doctrine well.

[pascendi]

A speculation: leading up to the time of Pope Saint Pius X, the modernists loved to use the question everything strategy. So long as it wasn't clearly dogmatic, the move was on to suppress belief in favor of the so-called enlightened mind. After Pius X scattered the modernists in his own time, he did warn that after he was gone, they'd be back. They did come back, and it seems to me that their strategy is nearly a polar opposite: make everything look infallible such that by appearances, every novelty and every deviation from doctrine would seeminly have the Holy Spirit as its author.

[pascendi]

I've suddenly and inexplicable become bored.

Maybe I'll go do something else now. It's been fun.

Keep the Faith whole and undefiled; God bless you and yours.