Here’s the point of papal infallibility and why there doesn’t need to be a list:
Books and copies of papal decrees may be lost and destroyed, etc., etc. We rely on the ordinary and universal Magisterium ordinarily–the constant teaching of the true faith by Popes and bishops in their words, letters, catechisms; the belief and handing on of the faith by the faithful in all times and places; in the Church’s worship and traditions, etc. Our faith is not just a list of papal and concilliar definitions–the Pope’s or a Council’s ability to define the faith is called an extraordinary exercise of the Magisterium for this reason. When the clarity of a truth is cast into doubt (not in the sense that people know what the Church teaches but don’t believe it, but rather in the sense that what the Church actually teaches becomes uncertain) and the ordinary means fail to bring this clarity and unity of faith, it is the duty of the Pope to definitively settle the matter and call all to the unity and clarity of faith, so these truths once again can be handed on by the ordinary means throughout the world for ever and ever. It falls ultimately to one man in order to remove the case of schism–if it fell to many, they could be divided against themselves and it would be impossible to settle which side was on the side of truth unless you knew the truth ahead of time (but the reason appeal is made to a definitive judgment is because the truth is not settled ahead of time).
This is why in his book, the Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, Cardinal Manning enunciated this principle:
Cardinal Manning:
The enunciation of the faith by the living Church of this hour, is the maximum of evidence, both natural and supernatural, as to the fact and the contents of the original revelation.
It should also be noted that there are not just a few papal definitions. At the First Vatican Council, when some bishops wanted to condition papal infallibility on the Pope following some procedure, the relator (charged with providing official explanations of Council documents to the bishops at the Council) said this could not be done, because there were already so many instances with various procedures or even none at all:
said:
But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?
Throughout history Popes have often intervened to provide definitive judgments in the areas of faith and morals, sometimes definitively condemning long lists of propositions (e.g. Coelestis Pastor of Bl. Innocent XI, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus of St. Pius V, Unigenitus of Clement VI, Auctorem Fidei of Pius VI, etc., etc.; each condemned proposition is probably considered an individual judgment by Gasser above accounting for the high number he gives) and sometimes definitively asserting a truth (e.g. like those definitions in Benedictus Deus of Benedict XII, Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII, the dogmatic letter of St. Agatho, the Tome of St. Leo, etc.).
But again, we don’t need to find a list because the ordinary magisterium of the Church ordinarily suffices.
But if the Pope needs to intervene definitively to bring needed certainty and clarity at that time (either alone or together with his brother bishops), such a judgment can be known by language stating the judgment is definitive and binding on the whole Church. That’s it–it’s very simple. And as Bishop Gasser, noted, it has been done countless times.
– can check out those references.