CathInfo.com

Sean,

Thanks. I might purchase that book.

However, let me note, and Lad has brought this up repeatedly, that the issue of whether the "authentic Magisterium" could err remains - we are dealing with indefectibility more so than infallibility. Lad often brings this up in response to some comments that I make on the subject, as if I don't get it - I absolutely do.

My point in referencing "infallibility" is because that is what Vatican I, the infallible Magisterium, talks about. To my knowledge, the "infallible" Magisterium has never opined about "indefectibility." So to argue that the Church is indefectible by referring to "defectible" teachings is circular in my view: you have to accept an a priori the concept of indefectibility to rely on Magisterial statements below the infallible as indefectible or free from error.

Also, when we are talking about an ecuмenical council such as Vatican II, are we really only talking about "authentic" Magisterium? Perhaps Vatican II is discussed in the book, but the "authentic" Magisterium distinction still presents issues regarding indefectibility, and to me doesn't obviate the problem of an ecuмenical council approved by the Pope being erroneous. And we are not only talking about error here, but even perhaps contradiction with prior Magisterium statements, which present an logical or epistemological dilemma that is dangerously lurking behind all these discussions.

Obviously one way to resolve (as to the ecuмenical council problem) it is by holding that there is nothing seriously erroneous or harmful to the faith in Vatican II, and that Magisterial statements that are in such only come post-Vatican II in "authentic" Magisterial statements of popes, organs of the Vatican such as the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, etc. But then the problem of an "authentic" Magisterium contradicting prior "authentic" or even infallible Magisterial statements remains.

Which is why I say that the Conciliar Church experience requires a level of engagement with these issues that have been avoided, but I think won't go away: the prospect of an "authentic" Magisterium teaching not only falsely but even in contradiction to what the Magisterium has taught in the past.

To say the "authentic" Magisterium is not infallible evades that ultimate question and the consequences of it I think.
 

To put it another way, a dogma is simply a doctrine, defined ex cathedra.

Per Pope Pius IX quoted in my post above yours, we are obliged to accept all the doctrines of the Church whether or not they have been declared ex cathedra.