So, for those who claim that the Magisterium is always infallible, are you claiming that every word that came out of Pius XII's mouth that appeared in AAS is to be regarded as infallible?

[I'm talking to the SVs here.  Stubborn has redefined Magisterium according to his Magisterium-sifting principles and does not believe in a priori infallibility for anything except solemn definitions].

For those who do not believe the magisterium is always infallible - (by Magisterium, I mean the Divine, Ordinary and the Universal Magisterium) are you claiming that re: Denz., Jesus Christ instituted a binding magisterium in the Church that can err at all?

(by Magisterium, I mean the Divine, Ordinary and the Universal Magisterium)

Stubborn, considering this thread is partially discussing the article where it explains the various levels of the magisterium, then your above definition is only going to cause confusion, since it's correct, but incomplete.  There is a part of the magisterium outside of your definition above.  If you disagree, then you must become a sede because logically, that's where it will lead.  And we all know that won't happen, ha ha.  So, for clarity's sake, please quit talking about the magisterium only in the infallible sense...

A pope can exercise the Magisterium in a talk in St. Peters, he can speak infallibly in an Encyclical,

Of course he can.  If he makes it clear he is doing so, and uses proper language.

and an official Promulagtion by a Pope of a General Council makes it infallible.

No.  Just as above, outside of solemn infallible declarations (which previous councils had), if the pope is to exercise his 'ordinary and universal' (or Authentic) magisterium, he must 1) make it clear he is speaking authoritatively, 2) that it is binding, 3) it is a matter of faith.  He doesn't have to use the solemn language of "we declare, pronounce and define" but he does have to make it clear that it is binding.

If he does NOT make it clear that it is binding, it could still be infallible, but it would be so ONLY because it agreed with "what has always been taught".

The pope at V2 did not use his authority to bind anyone to anything.  BINDING IS A NECESSITY because the pope must put the faithful on alert that they MUST believe this teaching.  An infallible teaching must bind the faithful; if it is not binding, then it's not infallible.  You cannot have one without the other.

Even though V2 discussed doctrine/faith/morals, it did not do so with a 'certainty of faith' which is the binding factor.  Ergo, no catholic is bound to accept it's docuмents under pain of sin.  Ergo, they aren't infallible.

I agree it is confusing, but when the "folks" who are using these words are theologians and Church officials, we sorta have to accept that one can use the word 'magisterium' in an infallible sense, no matter how confusing we think it is.  We aren't trained to know the difference; they are.  This is their area of expertise, not ours.  We must study so to understand what they are saying, not dumb it down so they speak on our level.

I meant to say "folks here". And yes, I do accept that one can (and should) use the word magisterium in an infallible sense, otherwise the term itself actually is confusing infallible teachings with teachings that are fallible. That isn't dumbing it down, that is simply applying actual meaning to proper wording.

The V II docs themselves ALL imply that it is intended to be believed by the entire Church

Of course they IMPLIED it, because the modernists wanted people to think they were binding.  An implication is not enough.  It must be clear and without doubt.  And I'm talking about the docuмents themselves - they must be clear as to their intent and clear that they are binding of the faithful because they teach truths which have a 'certainty of faith'.  V2 contradicts itself - so which side of the contradiction am I bound to believe?

and Paul VI says he is using his supreme and apostolic authority to promulgate them.

We've been over this before..."promulgate" is a legal word which has to do with issuing a legal docuмent (in this case, Paul VI was declaring that the coucil docuмents were legally formalized and that the council was complete).  It has nothing to do with faith/morals/infallibility. 

You don't have a leg to stand on. There is no way around it. If Paul VI was a true Pope, you must adhere to the teaching in Vatican II.

Another 'either-or' from a sede, with no room for distinctions or reality.  How amusing.

Therefore, not everything in the AAS is by itself infallible. It requires our assent unless it can be shown to contradict something from the  Magisterium. I believe that some of Pius XII's errors (NFP, theistic evo.) and his situation is similar to Honorius. We don't have Pope teaching a doctrine to the entire Church (like what was done in Vatican II). We merely have a validly elected Pope, allowing a belief or practice that is against divine law or Church Teaching. Honorius furthered or allowed Monothelitism; Pius XII furthered or allowed NFP, theistic evolution, etc...

This then refers to Magisterium that's non-infallible.  At one point Church law stipulated that everything in AAS were to be considered part of the authentic Magisterium.  We're probably just talking sematic differences here then.  I and many theologians refer to things like what you cited above as non-infallible Magisterium ... whereas I'm guessing you would say it's not part of the Magisterium.  Question of definitions.  What's important is that some things that a pope teaches are infallible; others are not ... e.g. NFP, etc.

Here is a previous post that should help explain it.

You will note that Stubborn does not believe in any a priori guarantee of infallibility.  He believes that something is infallible if it's part of the Deposit of Revelation and non-infallible if it is not ... leaving Stubborn's private judgment to discern between which is which.  In point of fact, infallibility is an a priori guarantee that when some teaching meets the notes of infallibility, it is guaranteed a priori to be true.  So if one of these teachings doesn't correspond with what WE think has been divinely revealed, then we change our mind and now accept them as divinely revealed.  For Stubborn, if we think they're not revealed, we reject them.  Stubborn would have made a very good Old Catholic.

Obviously not everything coming out of the mouth or from the pen of a Pope is infallible. Deducing what has been said about the Teaching office in the past, we can, first of all, surmise that it cannot err. Then we know how Magisterium is exercised Extraordinarily as per Vatican I.

Agree.
.

The Magisterium exercised ordinarily and universally must be considered infallible as per V I.

V1 only defines the parameters for Extraordinary/Solemn papal definitions.  It doesn't define the 'ordinary and universal' magisterium...which is why we are reading articles and debating it.
.

This means that anything that can be shown to contradict a teaching we know to have been taught as divinely revealed must not be infallible.

Agree.