Every Vatican II docuмent starts this way:

“PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY.”

Every Docuмent in Vatican II ends this way.

“EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS.  WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY… I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”

All that's needed is for the body of the Docuмent to be explaining faith or morals, which all of them did. If these claimants were real Popes, these docuмents would be infallible. It does not matter if these things were contained in Scripture or Tradition or Divinely Revealed, what matters is that your "popes" taught "infallibly" that they were.  If you believe these men were popes then V II must be infallible to you.

So you are saying that regardless of what was actually taught, you think in virtue of his authority (vs by virtue of his infallibility) that  those teachings would have been infallible had a "true" pope, say, Pope St. Pius X, taught them because all that is needed for infallibility is contained in the body of the docuмents, not in the actual teachings.

This is contrary to V1 because per V1, the actual teachings must be contained in Scripture and tradition and proposed by the Church's magisterium as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, otherwise, the teachings are not promised to be free from the possibility of error.

Further, we know from V1 that the Holy Ghost was not promised to safeguard new doctrines at all, no matter what the body of the docuмent contains.  

but if an Ecuмenical Council teaches a fundamentally erroneous and flawed system of theology (with its faulty ecclesiology and soteriology) that we must reject in order to preserve our faith, then the Magisterium would have failed

The key words are 'teaches' and 'reject' and 'magisterium'.  If we establish that V2 was not infallible, then indefectibility doesn't enter the equation because something which is fallible is not binding.  And all non-binding 'teachings' (which aren't teachings at all) are therefore unofficial.  Indefectibility means the Church will never OFFICIALLY teach error, which V2 never did.

The 2nd word, 'reject', is a good one because it implies we have a choice - which we do in the face of V2.  We know that the new mass is illicit due to Quo Primum, (and probably invalid and definitely immoral) therefore it is also non-binding.  We reject it because we are obligated to.  In the same way, we know that the errors of V2 are errors because they already are condemned by previous infallible, ex cathedra statements.  We MUST reject them, as a matter of Faith.

The 3rd word, 'magisterium' is used too imprecisely above.  You said 'the magisterium would have failed'.  Well, it can!  ...if you're talking about the "merely authentic", non-infallible magisterium (which is another word for the 'current hierarchy'), which is the magisterial level of V2.  So, yes, V2 was an example of the "merely authentic" magisterium failing, because it did not define anything, nor did it teach anything which agrees with "what has always been taught".  But indefectibility does not protect the fallible hierarchy; it only protects OFFICIAL, infallible statements from binding catholics to error.  None of which V2 contained.

What is it that you are in disagreement about with the "folks" on CI?  

In a nutshell, certain folks claiming that the hierarchy is in some way the infallible magisterium.

Square your garbage theology with Pope Leo XIII...

Just a different use of the term "authentic".  Theologians come up with terms all the time.

Doesn't the teaching office of the Church require teachers?

It certainly does. The teachers are not the infallible magisterium though, rather, the teachers are people, people who are quite capable teaching error, just as the last +50 years have proven. 

In Latin...

[/pre]

Right, dogma is the object of that faith, but not the rule.

Object of faith:  dogma
Ultimate/Remote RULE of faith:  truthfulness of God
Proximate/Inanimate RULE of faith:  divine revelation (Scripture/Tradition)
Proximate/Living RULE of faith:  Magisterium/the Church

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm

from Catholic Encyclopedia:
Quote

Quote from: Catholic Encyclopedia

The word rule (Latin regula, Gr. kanon) means a standard by which something can be tested, and the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith, and serving as its norm or measure. Since faith is Divine and infallible, the rule of faith must be also Divine and infallible; and since faith is supernatural assent to Divine truths upon Divine authority, the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself. But since Divine revelation is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council, I, ii), the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith; since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith". Unless, then, the Bible and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living. [Goes on to demonstrate that this proximate animate/living rule is the Church/Magisterium]

rule = something extrinsic to the faith and serving as its norm or measure

Quote from: Drew

The Magisterium is the teaching office that engages the Church’s attribute of infallibilty.

Magisteirum may or may not be infallible, depending on the circuмstances and notes.

Ladislaus,

Faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God.  The faith is not God. It is what God has revealed. As you say, “since Divine revelation is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Councilo, I, ii), the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith.”  That is, the revelation itself is the rule of faith. 

But since “these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves” they are called “proximate but inanimate rules of faith” (others call them the “remote rules of faith”).  But if, as this article claims, “The rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith,” how can Scripture and Divine tradition be considered “extrinsic” to the faith since they are the formal objects of divine faith?  That is, they contain the whatness of what God has revealed. They are the substance of the revelation.  This term “extrinsic” as it is used here is non-sense because the Magisterium itself is part of revelation, and therefore, intrinsic to revelation itself.  
 
Unless “Bible and Divine tradition are to be profitless, we must look to some proximate rule.”  This is true. The Magisterium is not “the rule,” it is ruler by which the rule is determined.  The rule constitutes the whatness of what we must believe.  It is that determination which we call Dogma that constitutes the proximate rule of faith.  Dogma itself is divine revelation and if “the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith” so is, and must necessarily be, Dogma!  
 
It is the difference between the judge and judgment.  The judge is the means by which the judgment is rendered and it is the judgment itself that is the normative rule.  Just as God and the faith are not an identity, neither are the judge and the judgment. As Scheeben says regarding the Rule of Faith:
 

The Rule of Faith was given to the Church in the very act of Revelation and its promulgation by the Apostles. But for this Rule to have an actual and permanently efficient character, it must be continually promulgated and enforced by the living Apostolate, which must exact from all members of the Church a docile Faith in the truths of Revelation authoritatively proposed, and thus unite the whole body of the Church, teachers and taught, in perfect unity of Faith. Hence the original promulgation is the remote Rule of Faith, and the continuous promulgation by the Teaching Body is the proximate Rule.
Scheeben, Manual of Catholic Theology

It is the “promulgation,” that is, Dogma, that that is the “proximate Rule.”
 
Your quibbling has already taken this thread in another direction that was discussed in detail years ago without any apparent benefit because there is still no accepted understanding even of the basic terminology that was covered before and which must be understood to form proper judgments. 
 
Drew

Infallibility comes in because if V II's a legit council, a Pope, together with the world's Bishops, taught a heretical ecclesiology to the entire Church Infallibly. This is what Stub and Pax don't or won't understand. Yes, if this were true the Church would have defected. Because Infallibility is involved, defection is the conclusion.
I can't speak for all sedes but this is the reason why I'm sede. I am not 100% sure what would happen in the hypothetical situation of a true Pope gone heretical. If I thought that was the case I may not be Sede. I am sede because I know that General Councils of the Catholic Church cannot teach error to the Church. This to me, is 100% proof that these men were not validly elected and were heretics before their election with no power to call a Council.

I'm not even concerned with the personal heresy.  I'm concerned about the implications for Magisterium.  I'm of the belief that these guys were illegitimate because Siri was the legitimate pope-elect and that his stepping down under duress was canonically invalid.  Siri was alive through the reign of John Paul II.  THEN, Benedict XVI was consecrated bishop in the new rite ... as was Bergoglio.  Consequently, that could be an impediment to the formal exercise of authority as well.  There's some explanation.  All I know is that V2 could not have emanated from a legitimate pope.  Could there be other explanations such as that Paul VI was being blackmailed so that his acts were under duress and not free?  Possibly.  He had been a known ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ at one point.  So who knows?  All I know is that this was not a legitimate Ecuмenical Council.  And, honestly, at the end of the day, that's all I NEED to know.