For many years I have been pondering on the question of infallibility of the ordinary magisterium. Those now involved in trying to reinstate the DOGMA of a geocentric reading of Scripture (Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics) have had to enter a HISTORY of Catholics DENYING the consequences of the ordinary infallibility.
We all know what the extraordinary infallibility covers. But as posted, Vatican I clearly states there is an ordinary infallibility. that is, when a pope in his ordinary duty finds he has to define a teaching that must be held in order to prevent falsehoods to the Catholic faith. God knows that even the slightest error can erode faith like 'dry rot in a Cathedral.'
Pope Paul V in a papal decree defined a heliocentric reading of Scripture as formal heresy. Many dogmas are defined negatively, that is, by way of their contrary being condemned by an official act of definition and declaration. Twice the Church acknowledged that the 1616 decree was non-reversible.
But as science claimed to have falsified the 1616 decree (which we now know it never did) in order to save the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium, the 1616 decrees infalibility has been denied for the last 400 years.
Now while men can deny this infallibility, the Church cannot. Thus when defining the 1616 decree in 1820 the Holy Office had to agree it was non-revisable, that is, infallible, the wording used before 1870 for infallibility. Thus in 1870 Vatican I also spelled out the conditions for infallibility that apply to the 1616 decree.
Now let us take it from 1870. The definition added the following:
‘The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according to the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecuмenical councils… sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognised as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might forcefully set it out…’ --- Vatican I (1869-1870) (Denz. 1836.)
In other words, no pope can dismiss a previous definition in his capacity as teaching in his ordinary infallibility. At Vatican II, every contradiction to a previous pope's definition cannot claim ordinary infallibility.
For me then, the ORIGINAL definition and teaching has infallible precidence over the mass of contradiction since Vatican II. The only definition of infallibility since Vatican II was John Paul II definition that women cannot be priests.