Akin says --- that is wrong, for it can as well be interpreted that there are many more...
But as usual on these pages, it does appear that some wish to have most everything both ways, as in even ordinary magesterium is also considered infallible in it's teachings, but papal encyclicals (for instance) which teach on faith and morals can be downplayed(?) if any portion of the contents ever prove embarrassing.
Some split the baby even further and talk about alleged distinction between what is held [see The Meaning of Papal Infallibility, Thomas J. Shanahan, S.J.] and what must be believed.
How many preztels are in that box?
I do not agree the following is unadulterated, unvarnished truth itself (but the papacy sure as shooting does -- at least did on March 17, 1993), from;
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19930317en.html
The Successor of Peter Teaches Infallibly ... The magisterial function of bishops, then, is strictly tied to that of the Roman Pontiff. Therefore, the conciliar text goes on aptly to say:
"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking" (LG 25).
This supreme authority of the papal Magisterium, to which the term apostolic has been traditionally reserved, even in its ordinary exercise derives from the institutional fact that the Roman Pontiff is the Successor of Peter in the mission of teaching, strengthening his brothers, and guaranteeing that the Church's preaching conforms to the "deposit of faith" of the apostles and of Christ's teaching. However, it also stems from the conviction, developed in Christian tradition, that the Bishop of Rome is also the heir to Peter in the charism of special assistance that Jesus promised him when he said: "I have prayed for you" (Lk 22:32). This signifies the Holy Spirit's continual help in the whole exercise of the teaching mission, meant to explain revealed truth and its consequences in human life.
For this reason the Second Vatican Council states that all the Pope's teaching should be listened to and accepted, even when it is not given ex cathedra but is proposed in the ordinary exercise of his Magisterium with the manifest intention of declaring, recalling and confirming the doctrine of faith. It is a consequence of the institutional fact and spiritual inheritance that completes the dimensions of the succession to Peter. ...
The example on this thread of how concept of infallibility is spoken of one way, when there are yet a few other ways to "hold to" or believe in the thing/condition which can be raised at any one time (according to whichever is most convenient it seems), is one of the reasons many outsiders cannot get past the fact that Rome and Romanists do seem to speak out of both sides of the face at once on this issue, and a few others...
As James White(?) put it, "what Rome giveth with one fork of it's tongue, it taketh away with the other"
I turned you off with:
“Akin says-—”
I didn’t say, or at least I didn’t mean to say, that the Popes have taught infallibly only three times. The Pope, the bishops, all priests, and all Catholics, in fact, teach and believe infallibly when they teach and believe what the Church has always taught and always believed.
I’m not talking about niggling controversies or messy situations (such as when the state has interfered with the Church’s freedom to govern or teach), but the main outline—the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Councils, etc.
As for how many infallible statements popes have uttered, well that is impossible to say looking back. How many times have the popes quoted scripture? How many times have they quoted the canons of general councils? How many times have they merely applied the foundational principles of the Catholic faith without any change or alteration? These would all be infallible. If I say, right now, Christ is Lord, then I do so without any possibility of error, and so have said something infallible. However, none of what I say is guaranteed to be so, and therefore I do not personally enjoy the charism of infallibility. I can, with hindsight, be found to be absolutely unerring in something I say, but that means nothing about me or my place on earth. The Church, and by extension the Holy Father, has the promise of infallibility, but only under very specific situations, and that allows us to be certain of what the Church teaches. So, yes, popes can be said to have spoken infallibly many times, but only rarely can we say we know without any doubt that they are infallible merely because they said it. There are ex cathedra pronouncements (including the canonisation of saints), and also when they, like any bishop, can be said to be "authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, ... are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held." These latter, however, are not what most people are speaking about when discussing infallible pronouncements because they are not peculiar to the papacy and so not specifically "papal infallibility."