Understanding Papal Infallibility

[anonymous123abc]

I am having trouble fully understanding Papal Infallibility what is spoken ex cathedra and what is not and what is** infallible **and what is not.

Does he have to say “I am speaking ex cathedra” and then state what he wants to say so that it is clear that it is ex cathedra?

Does that mean that anything the Pope says that does not start with “I am speaking ex cathedra” can be questioned as to whether it is infallible or not (so only ex cathedra statements and ecumenical councils would be infallible)?

Fr Pacwa stated in his debate with Martin that

And the thing that the Pope’s infallibility does not mean is that the Pope is right all the time. In no way does the Catholic Church even teach that. He’s infallible only when he speaks ex cathedra, in order to clearly speak infallibly. He has to say that explicitly to be speaking infallibly.

Secondly, it has to be to the whole Church, not to one part or one individual of the Church, but to everybody in the Church.

And thirdly, it has to be on the issue of faith and morals. He cannot infallibly say that the stock market will drop.

(see the transcript of the debate here columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/rc.html although I am not sure how accurate the transcript is)

But I am still not clear on the issue. Would I be right in dismissing all the below as not ex cathedra and not infallible? Based on the above criteria it seems like I might be able to but, Martin says (again see link to transcript above), for example states

For instance, in Boniface VIII’s “Unum Sanctum,” which Cardinal Manning says, and I quote, “Is beyond all doubt an ex cathedra.” That’s Manning, who is an authority, allegedly, on papal decrees.

For example,

**1) **Was Pope Boniface VIII’s “Unum Sanctum” spoken ex cathedra? is it infallilible?

2) Was Pope Gregory VII “Dictatus papae” spoken ex cathedra? is it infallilible?

3) Is it true that Pope Pius IX said the following (Martin stated that he did in his debate with Fr Pacwa, see the transcript here columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/rc.html under Program 5)

"I alone, despite my unworthiness, am the successor of the apostles”

"the Vicar of Jesus Christ”

“I alone have the mission to guide and direct the barc of Peter” (I think this should be barque not barc? What does barc/barque mean here?)

“I am the way, the truth and the life. They who are with me are with the Church. They who are not with me are out of the Church.”

?

A) If so, would such statements have been spoken ex cathedra? are they infallilible?

B) Even if it can’t shown that Pope Pius IX actually said the above, is it part of Catholic dogma that the Pope

is ‘the successor of the apostles’ (i.e. I would have thought the dogma is that he is the successor of Apostle Peter, as opposed to saying Apostles [plural])?

alone has “the mission to guide and direct the barc of Peter” (I think this should be barque not barc? What does barc/barque mean here?)?

that he is the “the way” “the truth” and “the life”. “They who are with the Pope are with the Church. They who are not with the Pope are out of the Church."?

4) I read that Pope Urban II, regarding the the crusades, charged Christians to take up the holy cause, promising to all those who went remission of sins and to all who died in the expedition immediate entry into heaven. Would this have been spoken ex cathedra and is it infallilible?

 

[PJD1987]

I am having trouble fully understanding Papal Infallibility what is spoken ex cathedra and what is not and what is** infallible **and what is not.

Does he have to say “I am speaking ex cathedra” and then state what he wants to say so that it is clear that it is ex cathedra?

Does that mean that anything the Pope says that does not start with “I am speaking ex cathedra” can be questioned as to whether it is infallible or not (so only ex cathedra statements and ecumenical councils would be infallible)?

Fr Pacwa stated in his debate with Martin that

(see the transcript of the debate here columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/rc.html although I am not sure how accurate the transcript is)

But I am still not clear on the issue. Would I be right in dismissing all the below as not ex cathedra and not infallible? Based on the above criteria it seems like I might be able to but, Martin says (again see link to transcript above), for example states

For example,

**1) **Was Pope Boniface VIII’s “Unum Sanctum” spoken ex cathedra? is it infallilible?

2) Was Pope Gregory VII “Dictatus papae” spoken ex cathedra? is it infallilible?

3) Is it true that Pope Pius IX said the following (Martin stated that he did in his debate with Fr Pacwa, see the transcript here columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/rc.html under Program 5)

"I alone, despite my unworthiness, am the successor of the apostles”

"the Vicar of Jesus Christ”

“I alone have the mission to guide and direct the barc of Peter” (I think this should be barque not barc? What does barc/barque mean here?)

“I am the way, the truth and the life. They who are with me are with the Church. They who are not with me are out of the Church.”

?

A) If so, would such statements have been spoken ex cathedra? are they infallilible?

B) Even if it can’t shown that Pope Pius IX actually said the above, is it part of Catholic dogma that the Pope

is ‘the successor of the apostles’ (i.e. I would have thought the dogma is that he is the successor of Apostle Peter, as opposed to saying Apostles [plural])?

alone has “the mission to guide and direct the barc of Peter” (I think this should be barque not barc? What does barc/barque mean here?)?

that he is the “the way” “the truth” and “the life”. “They who are with the Pope are with the Church. They who are not with the Pope are out of the Church."?

4) I read that Pope Urban II, regarding the the crusades, charged Christians to take up the holy cause, promising to all those who went remission of sins and to all who died in the expedition immediate entry into heaven. Would this have been spoken ex cathedra and is it infallilible?

Papal infallibility is invoked on matters of only faith and morals, when spoken from the chair of St. Peter. It is a dogma defined in 1870 at the First Vatican Council. However, the dogma was defined, as all dogma’s are based on the fact that it is something that has always been evident and true in the Church. With that being said, papal documents must be read in their context, when they were written, their audience, and whatnot, the same way the Bible must be interpreted.

Dictatus Papae was written to establish the legitimacy and supremacy of the Pope during the Dark Ages, a time when temporal powers were seeking to control and dictate terms to the spiritual power of the Pope. By consolidating the two (who would argue that the Lord is supreme ruler), Pope Gregory VII was able to better establish a footing for the Catholic Church in trying times, and that power only grew over the proceeding centuries. I see nothing wrong with this document.

Unum Sanctam is largely a recapitulation of the same themes in Dictatus Papae. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The statements concerning the relations between the spiritual and the secular power are of a purely historical character, so far as they do not refer to the nature of the spiritual power, and are based on the actual conditions of medieval Western Europe.” This is quite correct, as I said every document has an historical context which cannot be discounted. Unum Sanctum was written during a dispute with Philip the Fair of France over temporal/spiritual power and must be read as so. Regardless, it has been the constant Teaching of the Church that one must be in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church to guarantee salvation.

The quotes you have provided of Blessed Pius IX are common Teachings of the Church, and I see no issues with them. It is basic Catholic Teaching and the entire premise of the Church is based on the idea of Apostolic Succession. It is explained catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession here in great detail.

Pope Urban II was exercising his ability as Holy Father in granting a plenary indulgence to those who went on Crusade that had confessed their sins in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. This is perfectly in keeping with his office and prerogative, and there is no issue at all with his exercising of that right.

So, taking all that into account, you have three examples of Papal Teaching upholding the constant tradition and dogma of the One Holy Church established by Jesus Christ, and one example of a Pope exercising his power of granting an indulgence. So yes, all four I suppose can be considered infallible statements as the two Papal Documents pertain to matters of faith and morals, and the statements of Blessed Pius IX are simply reiterating the constant Teaching of the Church. And Pope Urban’s granting of an indulgence is a normal practice for any reigning Pontiff.

God bless.

-Paul

 

[George_Stegmeir]

In the case of “bard/barque”, the proper spelling is barque which means ship. The pope was being poetic and likening the leading of the Church with steering a ship (a very complicated thing to do).
I would say that all of the Papal quotes you refer to were spoken Ex Cathedra and are part of Catholic Doctrine.
I have a question for you: Why are you so concerned with Papal statements and Encyclicals that are quite old and rather obscure to most of us. Are you a theology student in a university?
There is so much more to study in the contemporary Church that affects your daily life if you convert to Catholicism.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I am having trouble fully understanding Papal Infallibility what is spoken ex cathedra and what is not and what is** infallible **and what is not.

A few things. When properly understood, what Scripture teaches is without error. The reason is because that teaching comes from the Holy Spirit. When the Pope exercises papal infallibility, the same divine protection is exercised. When he speaks infallibly, ex cathedra:*he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. (Vatican I, session 4, chapter 4, paragraph 9)*In examining what constitutes an occasion of papal infallibility, the teaching of Vatican I expounds 3 criteria (or 4 depending on how you group them):

1. 
   *]He is exercising his papal office as head of the Church (not just his bishopric, or his role as a, expositing theologian, etc…)
   *]He defines a doctrine in the arenas of faith or morals
   *]The doctrine is to be held by all Christians
   
   So there is no absolute formula by which he must communicate such a teaching (just as there is no set formula to identify explicitly this or that teaching of Scripture within its own text). However, you can find examples of teachings pretty universally recognized as exercises of infallibility such as the definitions of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption. Each of these teachings were taught by way of an encyclical, by the Pope communicating to all the faithful for them to hold a dogma pertaining to the faith.
   

   Does that mean that anything the Pope says that does not start with “I am speaking ex cathedra” can be questioned as to whether it is infallible or not

   So to answer this question, no, just because he doesn’t use the formula “I am speaking ex cathedra” it doesn’t mean we can start “questioning” a doctrine.
   
   Be careful not to fall into the trap of looking for technicalities and then concluding “hey, if it isn’t infallible, I can reject it altogether!” I’m not saying that’s what you asserted, but that attitude is common among those who feign confusion over whether or not the Church has taught something. You see this often among non-Catholics who do not grasp the idea of the charism, and you see this often among dissenting “Catholics” (presuming they have not excommunicated themselves automatically by willingly embracing heresy).
   
   As a general rule, you can tell if anything is taught infallibly by the Church (whether by the Pope, or the magisterium of bishops together) when you see consistency in the teaching throughout decades or centuries, especially when opposing voices to a doctrine are themselves rejected. Take for instance the issue of so-called “women’s ordination.” Opponents often try to reject the teaching of the male priesthood on the grounds that they supposedly don’t see a clear enough statement of the dogma from the Church. But take for instance this from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:That is why we can never ignore the fact that Christ is a man. And therefore, unless one is to disregard the importance of this symbolism for the economy of Revelation, it must be admitted that, in actions which demand the character of ordination and in which Christ himself, the author of the Covenant, the Bridegroom and Head of the Church, is represented, exercising his ministry of salvation which is in the highest degree the case of the Eucharist—his role (this is the original sense of the word “persona”) must be taken by a man. This does not stem from any personal superiority of the latter in the order of values, but only from a difference of fact on the level of functions and service. (Inter Insigniores, 5e-f)Take even stronger language from Pope John Paul II:Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women* and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful. (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis)*You see how Pope John Paul II covered the 3 criteria from Vatican I regarding the teaching of an infallible dogma. Now some might argue that his own words indicate that the teaching was already infallibly taught, but in either case, there isn’t plausible cause to doubt the teaching. Continue to earlier this year then from Pope Benedict XVI:Recently a group of priests from a European country issued a summons to disobedience, and at the same time gave concrete examples of the forms this disobedience might take, even to the point of disregarding definitive decisions of the Church’s Magisterium, such as the question of women’s ordination, for which Blessed Pope John Paul II stated irrevocably that the Church has received no authority from the Lord. (Pope Benedict XVI, homily, April 5, 2012)Now it’s no secret that there are still some “Catholics” out there who insist this has not been infallibly taught yet, and therefore they can fulfill their desires by rejecting the doctrine. But dissenting Catholics do not shape the faith.
   
   Let me say more regarding the idea of “questioning” a teaching on the grounds that one believes it has not technically been infallibly taught. Consider this:*Religious submission of mind and of will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff even when he is not defining, in such a way, namely, that the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to according to his manifested mind and will, which is clear either from the nature of the documents, or from the repeated presentation of the same doctrine, or from the manner of speaking. (Lumen Gentium, 25)*Theologian Father William Most made comments about this statement from Lumen Gentium. He describes it as the 4th level of Church teaching. Fr. Most has this to say:How can anyone give any mental assent when there is not absolute certitude? In normal human affairs, we do it all the time. Suppose we are at table, and someone asks if a dish of food came from a can, and if so, was it sent to a lab to check for Botulism. It is true, routine opening of a can would not detect that deadly poison. Yet it is too much to check every can, and the chances are very remote, so much so that normal people do not bother about it - yet their belief takes into account a real but tiny possibility of a mistake. Similarly with a doctrine on this fourth level. And further, the chances of error on this level are much smaller
   than they are with a can of food. Similarly, in a criminal trial, the judge will tell the jury they must find the evidence proves guilt beyond
   reasonable doubt. He does not demand that every tiny doubt be ruled out, even though it may mean life in prison or death.
   
   If one should make a mistake by following the fourth level of Church teaching, when he comes before the Divine Judge, the Judge will not blame him, rather He will praise him. But if a person errs by breaking with the Church on the plea that he knew better - that will not be easily accepted.Let me finish with this: Realize also that it really isn’t the worry of the average lay person to go around deciding whether or not the Church/Pope has taught something infallibly and then rejecting those teachings he feels aren’t infallible. That’s really something for theologians to work out if there should be genuine confusion among the hierarchy. Remember, even some of the books of Scripture had their doubters in the first few centuries. There was doubt about the divinely inspired quality of 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation, for example. And yet today, those doubting voices have all but vanished, save for some dissenters among non-Christians, or some unorthodox “Christian” groups. Shall we go about our lives questioning those texts because of the dissenters’ drum beat? Or can we not see the consistency throughout the centuries that the Church has safely identified these books as divinely inspired.
   
   Our trust must be in the Holy Spirit. We are dealing with theology, not science. From the beginning, man has been given signs and taught to respond faithfully. And, of course, we are not forbidden from studying, discerning and researching the history of a Church teaching.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I alone, despite my unworthiness, am the successor of the apostles

p.s. Regarding quotes like these, you are right to question the validity of their existence. As it is written, it doesn’t fit in the context of the Papal Tradition before or after it was supposedly made, so don’t worry about it being some isolated little sting of infallibility that slipped through the cracks. Furthermore, if it is a valid quote, it’s so obscure, it cannot possibly pass the muster of being something that the faithful in all the world was supposed to hold, eliminating it from passing the infallibility muster from Vatican I. And finally, it’s origin is quite specious. As best as I can tell, even from non-Catholic author (Henry Sheldon, ca. 1895) who seems to be the oldest source for that quote writes this about that quote:*If the Ultramontane papers of France can be trusted, the Pope said…*And he goes on with the “I alone, despite, yadda, yadda…” So anyway, the origin of the quote is sketchy, and I also could not find any larger context. According to Sheldon, who wrote his comment supposedly 9 years after the Pope made his, said it was the Ultramontanists quoting the Pope saying that. So it may not even have been the Pope’s source material.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Oh, and one more thing…

If you really want to dive deep into Papal Infallibility, check out this book:

The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser at Vatican Council I

From what I understand, it expounds on the kind of questions the faithful may have about the teaching.

 

[PJD1987]

p.s. Regarding quotes like these, you are right to question the validity of their existence. As it is written, it doesn’t fit in the context of the Papal Tradition before or after it was supposedly made, so don’t worry about it being some isolated little sting of infallibility that slipped through the cracks. Furthermore, if it is a valid quote, it’s so obscure, it cannot possibly pass the muster of being something that the faithful in all the world was supposed to hold, eliminating it from passing the infallibility muster from Vatican I.

While I agree the existence of such a quote is undoubtedly questionable at the very least, I don’t agree with the last part you’ve stated here. I see absolutely nothing wrong with Blessed Pius IX’s statement that is not in reference to Apostolic Succession and his rightful claim to being the Successor of St. Peter. I think he may have used flowery language to make the point, if indeed these quotes are accurate, but I think they reflect the constant tradition of the Church regarding Apostolic Succession and the fact that the Pontiff is Christ’s Vicar on Earth, in which case the faithful must absolutely hold to this.

I’m not sure if you were suggesting otherwise, I doubt you were, but maybe you could clarify?

God bless.

-Paul

 

[MarcoPolo]

While I agree the existence of such a quote is undoubtedly questionable at the very least, I don’t agree with the last part you’ve stated here. I see absolutely nothing wrong with Blessed Pius IX’s statement that is not in reference to Apostolic Succession and his rightful claim to being the Successor of St. Peter. I think he may have used flowery language to make the point, if indeed these quotes are accurate, but I think they reflect the constant tradition of the Church regarding Apostolic Succession and the fact that the Pontiff is Christ’s Vicar on Earth, in which case the faithful must absolutely hold to this.

I’m not sure if you were suggesting otherwise, I doubt you were, but maybe you could clarify?

God bless.

-Paul

Ah. Here’s how I read it—and I was meaning the 1st sentence. The sentence as it is worded in isolation suggests that only the Roman bishop is successor to the apostles, which of course is not Church teaching. The quote says: “I alone, despite my unworthiness, am the successor of the apostles”

 

[PJD1987]

Ah. Here’s how I read it—and I was meaning the 1st sentence. The sentence as it is worded in isolation suggests that only the Roman bishop is successor to the apostles, which of course is not Church teaching. The quote says: “I alone, despite my unworthiness, am the successor of the apostles”

Okay, I did not read that quote correctly when I first read the OP. I still reserve judgment as more context would be needed to make a final decision on that. But as a stand alone statement that is indeed what it seems to indicate. I tend to believe the Holy Father would not have made such a bold statement, and if he uttered something similar, the more extreme Ultramontanists probably would have used it to support the minority held claim maybe of impeccability vs infallibility. Also one cannot exclude the possibility of this arising as a myth of the anti-Catholic French or Italians during the Unification.

God bless.

-Paul

 

[anonymous123abc]

Thank you all for your comprehensive and helpful replies. It will probably take me a bit of time to read the responses carefully and digest them, but I might have some follow up questions after I do.

God bless.

 

[chypmonk]

This grace given to the Vicar of Christ on earth does not guarantee that every time the Pope speaks on a matter of faith or morals he is engaginig infallibility. If such were the case, then there would be no need for distinguishing ex cathedra pronouncements from ordinary lectures, or the solemn from the ordinary magisterium. The following four criteria must be present in order for a papal teaching to be considered ex cathedra , that is, infallible.
**
1. The Pope must teach as supreme doctor (teacher) of the whole world**. This is usually done in council of his fellow bishops, prudent but not absolutely necessary. Ecumenical Councils are infallible to the extent the Pope approves of their teaching as such, this is the most common and clear form. As supreme lawgiver, however, he can only bind the baptized. He does not legislate for non-Christians. The grace of their baptism is working on them to accept the papal authority. The successor of Saint Peter is not infallible when he speaks merely as a private theologian, a simple priest, the Bishop of Rome, the Archbishop of the Roman province, the Primate of Italy, or the Patriarch of the West, all of which offices he holds.

** 2. The Pope ( or council with him) must be defining a doctrine of faith or morals, which pertains to our salvation…** Note too, that infallibility is engaged only on such positive acts, not on any lack of action. The Supreme Pontiff can be infallible when he teaches with words not when he teaches by silence.
Indeed, in the latter case, silence at times may even be a grave scandal but it is not a teaching.
Infallibility is a different thing than inspiration. It is the guarantee of God’s protection from teaching error. Inspiration is a direct moving grace from God,which does not sanctifying the recipient, but enlightening him by a private revelation, or by infused knowledge, to communicate a divine message to men.

3.The Pope must make his intention known by clear words that he is defining a doctrine contained in the deposit of faith, and binding upon the consciences of men. Such* ex cathedra introductions as “We declare,”* “We define,”** or “We pronounce,” are customarily prefixed to the actual definition.
The deposit of faith (depositum fidei) is that body of revelation, containing truths to be believed (faith) and principles of conduct (morals), which was given by Our Savior to His Apostles, to be preserved by them and their successors, with the guarantee of the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, in the visible Church for all times and to the end of time.

**4.The Pope must attach the sanction of anathema to the decree, either explicitly or implicitly. **In other words, since obedience to superiors is necessary for salvation, the anathema means that the representative of Christ on earth intends to avail himself of the full height of his God-given authority and command our intellectual assent.

Interestingly enough, the Pope is greater in believing what he has defined than in defining. For the grace of infallibility does not, when engaged, make the Pope any holier.

It is a grace freely given by God (gratia gratis data), such as is prophecy, tongues. or healing, and it is meant primarily for the edification of the faithful and, secondarily, for non-believers.

Infallibility is a charism that is directed at strengthening the virtue of Faith in others; and naturally, that will redound upon the Faith of the Pope himself.

As supreme teacher, the Pope is the highest pinnacle in the hierarchy of the Church teaching (ecclesia docens), which extends all the way, from an infallible definition, down to a mother teaching her child catechism. All of the faithfull share the responsibility of 'the Church Learning" In believing what has been defined, or what has been transmitted universally down through the centuries (depositum fidei), we, all the children of the Church, are the Church learning (ecclesia docens). As believers we are greater than teachers. Just as a priest is greater in receiving Holy Communion than in distibuting It.

For in the reception of the sacraments we are made holier. We receive an increase of sanctifying grace, which is a gratia gratum faciens, that is, a grace making one pleasing (to God).

We might also mention here that for a Pope to engage the grace of infallibility, it is not a prerequisite that he be in a state of grace. This is strictly theologically speaking. There is no guarantee from Christ either that His Vicar can never stuggle with his own personal faith himself, or that he will be immune from sin.

** Infallibility is not the same as impecability. Only Our Lord, as God, was impeccable, that is, incapable of sinning. Our Lady was not impeccable; but she was immaculate. She could have sinned (but not by way of concupiscence for she was free of that), but she didn’t! ** She alone, of all the children of men, was free of all sin, original as well as personal!

 

[chypmonk]

Sometimes it is debated if the pope was teaching infallibly. Such as Pius XI’s teaching on contraception which is very authoritative. Paul VI made sure his secretary said his encyclical Humanae Vitae was not necessarily teaching infallibly. I think, as others at the time thought, that Pius XI was teaching infallibly in Casti Connubii:

Casti Connubii, Pius XI, 1930, here is the infallible definition:
“56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and**** through Our mouth proclaims ****anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11CASTI.HTM

 

[anonymous123abc]

2) Was Pope Gregory VII “Dictatus papae” spoken ex cathedra? is it infallilible?

I found the following information to be helpful (in case others were interested)

From Wikipedia - Dictatus papae en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatus_papae

Dictatus papae is a compilation of 27 statements of powers arrogated to the Pope that was included in Pope Gregory VII’s register under the year 1075.[1] Some historians argue that it was written (or dictated) by Gregory VII himself; others argue that it has been inserted in the register at a later date, and that it had a different origin.[2] In 1087 Cardinal Deusdedit published a collection of decretals, dedicated to Pope Victor III, that embodied the law of the Church – Canon law – which he had compiled from many sources, both legitimate and false (see Pseudo-Isidore). The Dictatus papae agrees so clearly and closely with this collection that some have argued the Dictatus must have been based on it; and so must be of a later date of compilation and insertion in the papal register than 1087.[3]
Dictatus Papae is a heading in the letter-collection that implies that the pope composed the piece himself. It does not mean a ‘papal dictate’ or any kind of a manifesto; rather it means ‘papal dictation’. It was not published, in the sense of being widely copied and made known outside the immediate circle of the papal curia.

(bold emphasis mine)

Also, from Catholic Encyclopedia - Cardinal Deusdedit newadvent.org/cathen/04760c.htm

Sackur (see below) has made it probable that the so-called “Dictatus Papæ” (see GREGORY VII) were composed by Deusdedit. These are twenty-seven short theses concerning the privileges of the Roman Church and the pope [ed. Jaffé, Bibl. Rer. Germ., (Berlin, 1864-) II, 174]. Until quite recently Gregory VII himself was generally regarded as the author; Löwenfeld (see below) continued to maintain the authorship of Gregory, but Sackur, however, has shown that the “Indices capitulorum” in the “Collectio canonum” of Deusdedit are closely related to the brief theses known as “Dictatus Papæ” both in respect of sense and verbal text. Most probably, therefore, the latter are taken from the collection of Deusdedit, who put them together from the “Registrum Epistolarum” or letterbook of Gregory. Possibly also Deusdedit was the editor of this famous and important collection of Gregory’s correspondence. In this case, the cardinal appears in a new light as intimate counsellor and intellectual heir of Gregory VII.

I also found this thread to be helpful on the Dictatus Papae (the thread is titled Dicatus Papae) forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=554480 especially **post #7 **forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7782532&postcount=7 in that thread

 

[anonymous123abc]

I also found this article staycatholic.com/papal_infalibillity.htm to be helpful with regards to this topic in general.

 

[anonymous123abc]

I also found the following information from Wikipedia - Papal infallibility en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility to be helpful

Instances of infallible declarations

The Catholic Church does not teach that the pope is infallible in everything he says; official invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare.

Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX’s 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Pope Pius XII’s 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact which has been confirmed by the Church’s magisterium.[66] However, theologians disagree about what other documents qualify.

Regarding historical papal documents, 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):

1. “Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
2. Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
3. Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
4. Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
5. Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
6. Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
7. Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

The Holy See has given no complete list of papal statements considered to be infallible. A 1998 commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published on L’Osservatore Romano in July 1998[67] listed a number of instances of infallible pronouncements by popes and by ecumenical councils, but explicitly stated (at no. 11) that this was not meant to be a complete list.

One of the documents mentioned is Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on reserving priestly ordination to men alone,[68] which the Congregation earlier stated to be infallible, although not taught ex cathedra (i.e., although not a teaching of the extraordinary magisterium), clarifying that the content of this letter has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium.[69] This was confirmed in a commentary by the same Congregation[67] and in commentaries by Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger[70] and Tarcisio Bertone.[71]

As well as popes, ecumenical councils have made pronouncements that the Church considers infallible.

Also, this thread on Does Papal bull = Ex Cathedra forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=308582 especially post #25 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7065847&postcount=25 and #28 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7067339&postcount=28

 

[MarcoPolo]

Okay, I did not read that quote correctly when I first read the OP. I still reserve judgment as more context would be needed to make a final decision on that. But as a stand alone statement that is indeed what it seems to indicate. I tend to believe the Holy Father would not have made such a bold statement, and if he uttered something similar, the more extreme Ultramontanists probably would have used it to support the minority held claim maybe of impeccability vs infallibility. Also one cannot exclude the possibility of this arising as a myth of the anti-Catholic French or Italians during the Unification.

God bless.

-Paul

I tend to agree - either more context is needed to see how the Ultramontanists were using the statement, or perhaps they were simply advancing a myth. Either way, the comment doesn’t qualify as an “infallible” statement by any stretch.