Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):
“Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.
Klaus Schatz doesn't speak for the Church and for every opinion he publishes hundreds of other opposing positions are published by other equally reputable Catholic theologians and historians. Schatz applies a very loos or liberal interpretation of the history of the documents and speculates that "if the doctrine of Papal Infallibility were in effect the Popes who issued those documents would probably have invoked it". The doctrine of Papal infallibility was not established until 1870. At that time Ineffabilis Deus was declared infallible retroactively. It was again invoked in 1950 for Munificentissimus Deus.
Now you are going to have to answer why you cite Catholic Theologians and historians as authoritative when they agree with you but claim they are fools or worse then they disagree with you.