Not infallible in an extraordinary,solemn manner, but according to the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium:

There are those who ask what is the authority, the theological qualification, that the Council wished to attribute to its teachings, knowing that it has avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions, committing the infallibility of the ecclesiastical magisterium. And the answer is known to those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility; but it has nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium which ordinary and so clearly authentic magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and purposes of the individual docuмents. - Paul VI, General Audience, January 12, 1966.

To doubt the Council, he (Pope Paul VI) said, is “in the final analysis, to doubt the Holy Spirit himself who guides the Church.”

I'll tell you where I am on Vatican II. Its like a theory in science. If you can find reason that falsifies it then it ceases to have any credibility. Now there are parts of Vatican II that are traditional, but they belong to other councils or popes, not Vatican II. What we must examine are other 'teachings' of Vatican II to test its ACCEPTABILITY. Now here is a statement issued by Gaudium et spes that convinced me as an obedient Catholic to reject their claims that the 'Holy Spirit' guided Vatican II.

‘… The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians) deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science.’ --- Gaudium et spes, # 36.

Gaudium et spes no. 36, as agreed, was referenced with Fr Pio Paschini’s 1945 book Vita e Opere di Galileo Galilei, a work he refused to re-edit for the Pontifical Academy of Sciences right up to the time of his death in 1962. In 1979, a group of Italian scholars researching the history of this book using the author Paschini’s extensive correspondence on the matter, uncovered the reason why Rome censored the work. It turned out that while all agreed the book was factual, it was not considered ‘politically correct’ as far as the now pro-Galilean Rome was concerned. Paschini it seems; simply wrote down the Galileo case as it happened. The problem then was that once churchmen accepted Galileo was supposedly proven correct in his exegesis of Scripture by way of science, the Church just could not come out of recorded history in any way other than ‘guilty as charged.’ The last thing Rome wanted then was a book reminding the world of what occurred in 1616 and the Church’s condemnation of Galileo as suspected heretic in 1633. Paschini was asked to tone down certain aspects of his book. He was willing to do so in certain unimportant places but not with regard to its details as he read them from the archives. A year later, in 1946, the Holy Office told him his book was not going to be published and offered him money as compensation. Paschini was rightly devastated. He immediately shelved his book and returned to his career as before. Fr Pio Paschini died in 1962 never having re-edited his book. In his will he left his work to an assistant Fr Michele Maccarrone, a diocesan priest and medievalist who in 1963 tried to have it published once again even agreeing to its being re-edited first. The PAS, who wanted to publish the book back in 1945 in conjunction with Galileo’s death in 1642, were still interested, but this time to commemorate the four-hundredth anniversary of his birth in 1964. The Jesuit Fr Edmond Lamalle was assigned to make the changes, even meeting with the then Pope Paul VI who approved its publication as he had with the original unedited book back in 1945. On October 2, 1964, the book was finally published under the name of its original author Pio Paschini with not a mention that it had been re-edited, or rather altered, to the extent it was. ‘In Paschini’s work everything is said in the true light’ they claimed. But in truth this was a distorted version of Paschini’s book. Indeed, after reading and comparing the two scripts, one scholar described the book referenced in the docuмents of Vatican II as ‘intellectually dishonest if not simply a forgery.’ (Richard Blackwell: Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998, P.364.)

Now that was bad enough, but look at what #36 says: 

This is an accusation, that the churchmen of the Council of Trent, Popes Paul V in 1616 and Urban VIII, in 1633, when defining, declaring and confirming that the Bible reveals God created an orbiting sun in a geocentric world, made a grievous error on a matter involving the interpretation of Divine Revelation, and were thus responsible for the ridicule of lies against the Church that ensued for centuries thereafter. For those not aware of it, the Bible's revelations were never proven wrong by science.

So, according to Gaudium et spes, those who promoted the heliocentric heresy were led by the hand of God. So, again, who were those who caused ‘conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science?’ Well, that list could start with Moses; all the Fathers who unanimously believed the Bible meant what it said literally, that the sun and stars move around the Earth. Then there were the churchmen of Council of Trent (1545-1563) including those who wrote and promoted the 1566 Catechism of Trent, followed by those popes, Saint Bellarmine, and theologians of the Church in 1616, 1633, 1664 up to 1741. Finally, there was Fr Anfossi and others of the Holy Office of 1820 who defended Biblical geocentrism.

Let us remind ourselves of Trent’s ‘short-sighted views’ as Gaudium et Spes called it. 

The words heaven and Earth include all things that the heavens and the Earth contain… He also gave to the sun its brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty; and that they may be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. He [God] so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course that nothing varies more than their continual revolution, while nothing is more fixed than their variety…. The Earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundations (Psa. 103:5).’--- The Catechism of Trent:

The above 'teaching', gaudium et Spes #36. proved to me that no 'holy spirit' was present at Vatican Ii, only the spirit of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.    

How did they define the Magisterium for most of history?

I don’t know, maybe you should read what the Popes themselves said about the Magisterium. And I will include all true Popes up to Pius XII here because I, unlike you, believe that their teaching on the Magisterium was consistent.

The only reason many of you are having trouble with this is because you're following blind guides, false teachers and the opinions of fallible theologians.

Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#18), Dec. 31, 1929: “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.”

LATIN: “… divini magisterii Ecclesiam fecit Deus ipse participem eamdemque divino eius beneficio falli nesciam.”

Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#16), Dec. 31, 1929: “To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...”

LATIN: “Huic magisterio Christus Dominus erroris immunitatem impertivit...”

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus (# 4), May 17, 1835: “... the Church has, by its divine institution, the power of the magisterium to teach and define matters of faith and morals and to interpret the Holy Scriptures without danger of error.”

Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium (#6) July 25, 1898: The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”

Pope Pius X, Editae Saepe (#8), May 26, 1910: “... only a miracle of that divine power could preserve the Church... from blemish in the holiness of Her doctrine...”

Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (#22), Dec. 11, 1925: “... the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.”

LATIN: "Idem semper Ecclesiae mos, idque sanctorum patrum consentiente iudicio: qui scilicet communionis catholicae expertem et ab Ecclesia extorrem habere consueverunt, quicuмque a doctrina authentico magisterio proposita vel minimum discessisset.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 10), Aug. 15, 1832: “Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain ‘restoration and regeneration’ for her (the Church) as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to any failing health or dimming of mind or other misfortune.”

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”

Pope Hadrian I, Second Council of Nicaea, 787: “… Christ our God, when He took for His Bride His Holy Catholic Church, having no blemish or wrinkle, promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, I am with you every day until the consummation of the world.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 9, March 23, 1440: “…the Spouse of Christ is uncontaminated and modest, knowing only one home, and she guards the sanctity of their marriage bed with chaste modesty.”

Pope St. Siricius, epistle (1) Directa ad decessorem, Feb. 10, 385: “And so He has wished the beauty of the Church, whose spouse He is, to radiate with the splendor of chastity, so that on the day of judgment, when He will have come again, He may be able to find her without spot or wrinkle [Eph. 5:27] as He instituted her through His apostle.”

Source: https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/the-magisterium/
(So sue me)

I don’t know, maybe you should read what the Popes themselves said about the Magisterium. And I will include all true Popes up to Pius XII here because I, unlike you, believe that their teaching on the Magisterium was consistent.

The only reason many of you are having trouble with this is because you're following blind guides, false teachers and the opinions of fallible theologians.

We're not the ones following blind guides.

The quotes you posted are beautiful. They are one and all, talking about teachings, not the pope.

Pope Pius IX clearly articulated what the Magisterium is in Tuas Libenter: "...all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith."

In principle, sadly, these V2 papal claimants are more Catholic than many of the modern R&R.  This notion of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church has been the constant teaching of the Church, from the Fathers, Doctors, theologians, etc.  Montini is right.  Often the enemies of the faith know the principles of the faith better than Catholics.

What happened to your faith?

The Holy Ghost does guide the Church, always has, always will - the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church.

Your brain it too wrecked to realize that YOU are the one who denies this, or, rather, the implications of this, i.e. that the Church cannot become converted into a wrecker of souls.  Your heretical R&R position invariably leads to insanty.

Not so Lad, I would likely think like you, if like you, I viewed everything from behind or around an empty chair.

I just told you the Holy Ghost does and always will guide the Church - yet you say I deny it. You're the one with a sanity problem, not me.

I don’t know, maybe you should read what the Popes themselves said about the Magisterium. And I will include all true Popes up to Pius XII here because I, unlike you, believe that their teaching on the Magisterium was consistent.

This begs the question because they didn't technically define what the Magisterium is.  Unless you take the implied definition, due to their repeated use of the word "teaching".  And what is a "teaching"?  It is an authoritative, obligatory fact which all catholics must believe to be saved. 


We know V2 (and arguably, 99% of their acts/words since 1960) have not risen to the level of formal teaching.  Thus, V2 and post-V2 writings/sermons/docuмents etc are not part of the Magisterium (properly and Traditionally understood).

The V2 and post-V2 writings/sermons/docuмents etc would be part of the NEWER/MODERN level of "ordinary, fallible magisterium" which did not exist prior to the 1900s.

Pope Pius IX clearly articulated what the Magisterium is in Tuas Libenter: "...all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith."

This sums it up perfectly.
1.  Did V2 claim to be "handed down" from Tradition?  Parts yes, parts are also admitted to be novelties.
2.  Did V2 claim to be "divinely revealed" by the teaching authority of the Church?  Nope.
3.  Did V2 claim to explain, clarify, define or teach anything as being "of the faith"?  Nope.

Therefore V2 is not part of the Magisterium, as defined prior to the 1900s....which is the time period when Pius IX lived.

Pope Pius IX clearly articulated what the Magisterium is in Tuas Libenter: "...all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith."

It's a sign of his quasi-modernism, that the above definition rebukes +Fenton's explanations and slippery definitions concerning the Magisterium.  It also totally condemns V2.