Frs. Rumble and Carty, in their book, Radio Replies, list the following as infallible papal proclamations:
St. Leo I, Letter to Flavian (the Tome), On the Divinity of ChristSt. Agatho, Letter Omnium Bonorum Spes, On the Divine and Human Wills in Christ
Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, On Papal Supremacy
Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus, On the Heavenly Destiny of the Saints
Leo X, Exsurge Domine, Condemnation of the Errors of Luther
Innocent X, Cum Occasione, Condemnation of the Jansenist Errors
Innocent XI, Coelestis Pastor, Condemnation of the Quietist Errors
Clement XI, Unigenitus, Condemnation of the Errors of Quesnel
Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, Condemnation of the Synod of Pistoia
Bl. Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, Dogma of the Immaculate Conception
Bl. Pius IX, Quanta Cura, Condemnation of Modern Errors
Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Condemnation of Anglican Orders (doubtful)
Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae, Condemnation of Americanism (doubtful)
St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, Condemnation of the Errors of the Modernists
St. Pius X, Pascendi, Condemnation of the Errors of the Modernists
Pius XI, Casti Connubii, Condemnation of Contraception (probable)
Pius XI, Quadragesima Anno, Condemnation of Socialism (probable)
Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus, Dogma of the Assumption
Also if you get Dom Cuthbert Butler's The Vatican Council: 1869-1870 (a great book in any case), he has an appendix discussing the views of theologians on what papal pronouncements fit the criteria laid down at the Council. If I remember right he lists about 12 as universally agreed on, and some others like Quanta Cura as doubtful.
Thanks.
I will start taking a look at your list.
But the list itself raises vexing issues. It lists some things as "doubtful" and others as "probable".
Does that mean "probably not infallible" and "probably infallible"?
If it is probably not infallible, do I have to accept it, or can I go with theologians who oppose the particular doctrine?
The worrying thing about an invincible doctrine like infallibility, coupled with the lack of any agreed upon list of doctrines is precisely what I have encountered, which is why I wanted to see an official list in the first place: I have had people argue very vociferously for a position they believe in passionately, claiming that it is the infallible teaching of the Church. Clearly, if it IS, then where I disagree with that person and that position, I have to alter my view. But if it is not in fact an infallible doctrine, then the person is abusing authority by claiming something to be divinely inspired and protected which is really just his own passionately-held opinion.
Infallibility is spiritual nuclear weaponry. It asserts, with the authority of God and on the basis of the power of God, a truth of faith that cannot be empirically verified. Infallible doctrines, therefore, have the same power as the Gospels and the Bible: they are direct revelations of the power of God, of full divine authority, equal to God on the Mount with Moses, equal to Jesus Christ in the Temple: God speaks, and that ends the discussion. Opposing the Gospels, or any infallible doctrine of the Church (whether pronounced by Pope or Magesterium) is blasphemy: dangerous sin.
It matters, therefore, what is infallible doctrine and what is human opinion. Infallible doctrine is divine revelation. It is God speaking on earth, through the Church, and has identical power as the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospels, because it is actually Jesus enthroned, speaking again through the Church.
But this brings us around again to what, specifically, is infallible.
Non-Catholics hate infallibility because they think it's an absurd assertion. They fear that any Pope or cabal of cardinals could use this doctrine to impose any rule of their own liking, if they went mad.
The best argument against that is that, despite temptation, they never have done so. But there is a flaw in that argument which makes me extremely uncomfortable. To be able to assert "They never have", I have to be able to point to a body of doctrines that are infallible, in order to demonstrate no deviations.
Even the list you provided contains caveats like "Doubtful". So, can I take up a doubtful doctrine and pronounce that this is the equivalent to Jesus in the Gospel, this is God's Revelation through the Church, and if you disagree, you sin? I can do that with the Gospels, of course. Presumably I can do that with an infallible doctrine that's not in dispute. But if an infallible doctrine is in dispute, doesn't that perforce mean it is not infallible.
Once again, we circle back to a terrible problem of authority. As laymen or clergy, we can each point to a list of doctrines that we think are infallible, but how do we know we are right? Someone else can label an item "doubtful", indicating that maybe it's not infallible after all.
It seems to me that if infallible doctrines are infallible because of God, there has to be an authoritative list somewhere of infallible doctrines. The list you produced are all Papal pronouncements. Elsewhere, it was said that whatever comes out of Ecumenical Councils on matters of faith and morals is infallible. Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council. On your list there are items marked "doubtful". And there are plenty of Catholics here who excoriate Vatican II every chance they get. Certainly if lex orandi est lex credendi, then liturgical changes are matters of FAITH, and if they come from an ecumenical council, they become matters of morality.
I get the disturbing feeling that there is no list of infallible doctrines anywhere, and that infallibility is an inchoate doctrine bordering on incoherent. It seems to resemble the tort laws of the United States, where the law is whatever the court in authority says it is. There is a capriciousness to this which I find disturbing.
It would seem to me, for example, that the Cathechism of the Church, which was produced by a worldwide labor of bishops and scholars over many years, and says right in its foreward that it has the full teaching authority of the Magesterium of the Church behind it, along with a papal blessing of similar strength, has all of the right parties issuing it. It seems to me, further, that the Cathechism embraces all of the Catholic faith and the entirety of Catholic morality.
Therefore, just applying the language of infallibility, looking at the authorities, and looking at the subject matter. I conclude that the Catechism's teachings on faith and morals, which is most of the document, are the infallible doctrines of the Church, and that if one wants a collection of the infallible doctrines of the Church, duly authorized by modern authority, the one place they are all collected to date is the Catechism.
But then I read people asserting the catechism is NOT infallible.
Which causes me to pine all the more for a definitive list of infallible doctrines. If it is not the catechism, and no such list exists, then how do I know that ANY doctrine of the Church is infallible other than the handful that were specifically promulgated as such using the specific words of infallibility, right after Vatican I?