This article concludes that Exsurge Domine would not qualify for infallible teaching because, for a variety of reasons, the author feels the condemnations do not fit the qualifications of an explicit definition.
Thanks for the reply.
I read the article, however, since I have broken the encyclical down myself, I would have some trouble agreeing to his points. I would find accepting 'the burning of heretics' more comparable over all. Though harsh, it keeps from backpedaling the issue (if infallibility is to be accepted), and in a certain frame of though it might be acceptable. That is, we believe that God would not desire death on anyone, but is this true? Certainly someone who tries to destroy the Apostolic faith is more dangerous than any serial killer.
I think the fact that Leo X says that the propositions are rejected as heretical or
offensive to pious ears or
seductive of simple minds or
in opposition to Catholic truth is important. It offers ambiguity in to the nature of the condemnation of each proposition, and I do think that makes it fuzzy as far as defining dogma goes.
Perhaps we could contrast it to the two documents suggested as infallible which, like Exsurge Domine
, are condemnations of propositions: Innocent X's Cum Occasione
and Pius VI's Auctorem Fidei
In these two terms, each condemned proposition is listed specifically, with the specific reasons for its condemnation also listed. That seems to make Cum Occasione
and Auctorem Fidei
better candidates than Exsurge Domine
for infallibility to me.
But as I said before, my understanding of Papal infallibility is merely that it is in recognition of the fact that in the history of the Church, matters of dogma have sometimes been definitively settled by Popes, and if the Church is infallible, the Popes must have been infallible when doing so. Absent a "infallibility mechanism" the Popes can call upon (which I don't think there is) it will be difficult to assemble any authoritative list of the times it has happened.