No, it is not an act of the extraordinary magisteruim and thus is not infallible. Infallibility only applies when a Pope is defining a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the entire Church. It does not apply when Cardinals vote.
This isn’t exactly infallibility, but it may be what you’re thinking of .
Of course the Pope has free will. Are you under the impression that whatever the Pope does is inspired by the Holy Ghost? I think some people think that, but it is completely wrong. The Pope can fall into error just as you and I can, and the Holy Ghost does will permit it. The only difference is that when the Pope defines a doctrine to be held universally by all Catholics, the Holy Ghost will protect him from error. That is what Papal Infallibility means. It doesn’t mean that the Pope is infallible in faith or morals at all times.
How is that not a teaching on faith or morals?
When a Pope is elected an intellectual proposition is not being made; someone is being chosen for a role.
It was a teaching of faith, but the Pope was not defining the doctrine. He was just teaching it. Remember, the Pope is only infallible when he defines a doctrine, not simply when he teaches a doctrine, or explains, a doctrine.
What differentiates “defining a doctrine” from “teaching a doctrine”? Examples?
Defining means to definitively proclaim. It’s like a once and for all thing. If I talk about a doctrine with you, I am just explaining it or teaching it. But if I declare definitively with supreme apostolic authority that x doctrine is a truth and that it must be held by the whole Church, then it is a definition.
Let me restate: The Pope is infallible when he speaks 1) to the Universal Church 2) on a matter of faith and morals 3) from the Chair of Peter. It’s a formal moment. If any one of these elements are missing, it is not considered a statement of the infallible extraordinary magesterium.
There are other requirements, too, such as the necessity of the Pope to be in consultation with the bishops and the Church at large.
After Vatican I, I don’t think that is true if the Pope is truly acting ex cathedra.
Such elections, it appears, have happened. The thing the Church is assured of is that no pope will err when speaking ex cathedra, on a matter of faith or morals, to the Universal Church. And indeed, those ancient popes known to have lived worldly or even immoral lives made no such doctrinal pronouncements. Presumably, they weren’t interested anyway, but we believe the Holy Spirit would not have allowed them to teach, in the formal way described, any error as Pope.
Yes, you are right, it is logical. That is why we see the popes praying always, attending confession regularly. They are just as aware, as you say, that they are free to ignore God. A pope can make a lot of mistakes from advocating the wrong toothpaste to holding that the faithful dead do not see God til the last Day–the only thing a mistaken pope will not do, is teach error to the Universal Church, on a matter of faith and morals, from the chair of Peter.
No!. The Pope can speak infallibly with or without the bishops.
Sometimes I think some bishops would like the faithful to be unclear about this: It was to Peter as the Rock that the promise of infallibility was made–and Peter is the support of his brothers. They can share in his infallibility when they join with him in formally proclaiming some teaching–not otherwise!
Well, it depends upon what you mean by “without”. At the very least, the Pope must consult.
I don’t think so. Maybe he does, but I don’t think that it is required that he consult:
“Consent” is one thing. “Consult” is another. The Pope must consult, but it is not necessary that anyone else consent, or agree. For instance, the Pope Paul VI consulted with others before writing Humanae Vitae. That didn’t mean that the Pope’s advisors (or large portions of the American Church, for instance) agreed with, or consented, to the encyclical.