More evidence that, ultimately, the Pope is the rule of faith:



St Peter’s successors = rule of faith

Then per his explanation (which after V2 even he did not believe - but far as I know he never corrected himself)...

There is nothing absurd about it. We cannot exclude that possibility, since the Church has never taught the contrary. What we can state with absolute certainty is that when the Pope engages his infallibility, as defined by Vatican I, then, and then only, is his infallibility guaranteed. When he is not infallible as defined by the Church, the possibility of his being fallible is obvious. Unless you want to be your own pope and construct your own dogmas. Here is Vatican I: accept it and submit as a good child of Holy Mother Church:

• For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
  
  • not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
  • but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
  Indeed, their apostolic teaching was
  
  • embraced by all the venerable fathers and
  • reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors,
  for they knew very well that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] .
• This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
• But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.
• Therefore,
  
  • faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
  • to the glory of God our saviour,
  • for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
  • for the salvation of the christian people,
  • with the approval of the sacred council,
    

    ---

  • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
    
    • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
      
      • that is, when,
      • in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
      • in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
      • he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
    • 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.
    • Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

    ---

  So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

• It would be unthinkable that the Vicar of Christ could speak, in his official capacity to the entire Church militant, on a matter of faith or morals, definitively settling a question by a decision which he wishes to constitute as irrevocable and which he commands the faithful to accept as irrevocably and absolutely true, without being protected by his charism of doctrinal infallibility.

Thus circuмstantial solemnity, as such, has no absolutely neces- sary connection with the infallibility of a pontifical definition.

Since V2, it is no longer unthinkable - as the recordings of the other Fr. Fenton above say. His last sentence you quoted here, double talks what he just said prior in your quote. But what he ends up teaching in that last sentence, is the message everyone gets from that sentence, which is that the pope has additional infallibility not taught at V1, i.e. not only doctrinal, but also personal, (he more clearly articulates his error in this quote) and most people believe his error to be an authentic teaching of the Church - and the sedes use this error of personal infallibility as their impetus for insisting popes are not popes.

V1 is quite clear on the conditions for papal infallibility, namely, 1) when he defines a doctrine 2)concerning faith or morals 3)to be held by the whole Church. As such, whenever the pope wants to settle a question by an irrevocable decision infallibly, then he must do so according to the requirements of papal infallibly as defined at V1.
 

The second reason commonly alleged against the existence of infallible teaching in the papal encyclicals is founded on the two- fold contention that the Holy Father speaks infallibly only when he issues a definition or declaration ex cathedra and that a state-
ment in a papal encyclical cannot be an ex cathedra pronouncement. 

Both Cardinal Billot and Fr. Salaverri oppose the first of these statements. Both are convinced that there are infallible doctrinal statements issued by the Holy Father which do not lend themselves to classification as ex cathedra judgments. It is in line with this conviction that Cardinal Billot was willing to admit the existence of infallible teachings in the papal encyclicals, which he did not
consider to be ex cathedra docuмents.

Cardinal Louis Billot was certainly one of the greatest ecclesi- ologists of the generation just past. There are many who consider him the ablest writer on the treatise de ecclesia since the time of the Vatican Council. Fr. Joachim Salaverri, of the Jesuit faculty of theology in the Pontifical Institute of Comillas in Spain, holds very much the same position in the theological world of the mid- twentieth century that Cardinal Billot occupied in that of fifty years ago.

So we have three heavy weight theologians holding that infallible teaching can be contained in Encyclicals not classified as ex cathedra. That can’t be dismissed.

V1 is quite clear on the conditions for papal infallibility, namely, 1) when he defines a doctrine 2)concerning faith or morals 3)to be held by the whole Church. As such, whenever the pope wants to settle a question by an irrevocable decision infallibly, then he must do so according to the requirements of papal infallibly as defined at V1.