Your point is wrong also and we've gone over this before. You don't even believe what you wrote. I have shown before that Vatican II teaches that Religious Liberty is divinely revealed, but in order for your hatred of the Sede position to continue in its irrational state, you must train yourself to overlook this point or explain it away.

That the Hierarchy defected is an indisputable reality because it is an historical reality, the Magisterium however, can never defect - BD has it correct in the post above yours:

Again, you are using the OUM term incorrectly.  The OUM (ordinary and universal magisterium) is the 'continuous' teaching of the church, over the period of 2,000 years.  It is not made up of 1 hierarchy but of ALL the hierarchys.

You are trying to make a distinction where there is none. Vatican II has to be an act of the Magisterium. Yes, it appeared to be "hierarchy", but that "hierarchy" included the man you call "pope". A Popes approval of a Council is what makes it binding. You will not find any theologian, saint, Catholic writer etc... before Vatican II that would say that a General Council is not an act of the Magisterium. In fact, I would bet the only people that have said that it is not, are the people who adhere to the novel beliefs of the SSPX/R&R.

If Ecuмenical Councils are not infallible, then I do not know what is.

It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth. 
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.

I spent years trying to defend the indefensible. Believe me, I know what you are coming from. It used to be that Catholics could trust the Magisterium with a child-like confidence. Adherence to the pope was the mark of the Roman Catholic per excellence. Do you really think that the average layman had to be concerned with "precise wording and theological exactness"? We should not have to scrutinize in detail every single Magisterial word, trying to separate what is infallible from that is not; and then deciding on our own what to believe and what not.

The typical mindset is this: Infallible means truth, then I must believe it. Fallible means error, then I choose not to believe it. That extreme compartmentalization is not right; and the only reason people are doing it after Vatican II is so they end up choosing what to believe. Both infallible and fallible teaching proposed by the Magisterium should be generally accepted. God does not want this from us; otherwise the entire existence of a Magisterium would be utterly pointless. What good is the Magisterium if we cannot trust it, if we have to inspect every sentence proposed to us looking for falsehood?. The Catholic Church is known for its clarity and the ability to teach and reach the hearts and intellects to people from all walks of life, both the learned and the unlearned.

AES: Never disputed it. What you are disputing is that this is an act of the Magisterium with the approval of the Pope. You have no excuse for denying it.

True.  After looking over the link he provided earlier and going a little further through the thread, this is exactly what has happened.  It seems to me that Stubborn believes that the magisterium is the Deposit of Faith.

Obviously, he is free to correct me if I'm wrong.