I meant "gospel" in the sense of the good news of Christianity -- what the church has to preach (the late scholastic technical term is "depositum fidei," which sounds like we're back to economics) -- not the four interrelated tracts attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (which are in fact referred to the as the [one] gospel *according to* Matthew etc.).
The locus classicus for the Catholic understanding of papal infallibility (an aspect of the broader notion of the church's maintenance of the gospel, as I mentioned) is the statement of the First Vatican Council in 1870, which is found in the standard collection of Catholic statements of doctrine, Enchirdion Symbolorum, ed. Denzinger-Schoenmetzer, n. 3074. I find to my surprise that I posted this text to lbo-talk almost five years ago. I'll spare you the Latin (I see I actually copied it out last time) but offer you my translation. Someone had written, "... there is actually very little in the RC tradition slated to be infallible...," and I replied--
That's true, but it's primarily if not exclusively matters of doctrine, not ethics. The definition from the the 1870 council is rather narrowly drawn: "The Roman pontiff, when speaking in his official capacity [ex cathedra, lit. 'from the episcopal chair'], that is, when -- exercising his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians -- he defines by the full authority inherited from the apostles a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal church, through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, operates with the infallibility by which the divine redeemer wished his church to be instructed for defining doctrine in faith and morals."
The statement not only limits itself to a few official actions; it also contains in its last clause a curious ambiguity that perhaps reflects some of the practical and theoretical struggles within the late 19th-century leadership of the church.
The long article that I believe you're quoting describes some of those struggles -- <www.cin.org/montfort/infallib.html> -- in the 19th and 20th centuries. --CGE
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, John Thornton wrote:
> This is incorrect. The pope can speak infallibly on any matter that
> pertains to faith or morals. It is not limited to matters concerning
> the gospels. To quote the Catholic Information Networks "Notes on
> Papal Infallibility":
>
> "One of the limitations is the object of infallibility, namely,
> matters of "faith & morals." The phrase is difficult to interpret
> precisely. The Council of Trent had used the phrase in a much broader
> way, including matters of custom and ecclesiastical and liturgical
> discipline. Vatican I, however, distinguished between "faith & morals"
> on the one hand and matters "which pertain to discipline and Church
> government" on the other. It would appear, therefore, that the scope
> of infallibility would include doctrinal matters rather than just
> governmental and liturgical practises. In the official EXPOSITION,
> Bishop Gasser explained that infallibility has a direct and an
> indirect object:
>
> "As I said before, since other truths, which in themselves may not be
> revealed, are more or less intimately bound up with revealed dogmas,
> they are necessary to protect, to expound correctly and to define
> efficaciously in all its integrity the deposit of faith. Truths of
> this nature belong to dogmatic facts insofar as without these it is
> not possible to protect and expound the deposit of faith, truths, I
> repeat, that do not belong directly to the deposit of faith but are
> necessary for its protection."
>
> John Thornton
>
> >No. All the much-misunderstood theological notion of infallibility
> >asserts is the Catholic conviction that the church cannot fundamentally
> >misrepresent the gospel -- although all would admit that substantial
> >mistakes are possible... Catholics don't contend that the political
> >judgments of the bishop of Rome are in any sense infallible (and they'd be
> >uncomfortable with his being described as "God's representative on
> >earth"). --CGE
>