Notice how you distort the logic of Vatican I.  Not everything taught by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium must be accepted "as divinely revealed".  It's rather that everything that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium teaches as having been divinely revealed must be believed as divinely revealed.

That's the common sedevacantist distortion, focusing on the form of the teaching, i.e. whether solemn or ordinary universal, and ignoring the OTHER notes of infallibility.  This Ordinary Universal Magisterium must teach something as being binding upon all Catholics for infallibility to be engaged.  Sedevacantists typically distort this into basically having the Pope be a divine oracle who in no capacity can every teach or even say anything.

Ladislaus,

Is this the kind of thing you mean - an up front statement by Paul VI claiming the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium for Vatican II?

..... given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility; but it nevertheless has its teaching authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium which ordinary magisterium is so obviously authentic, that it must be accepted humbly and sincerely by all the faithful according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and purpose of each docuмent.

General Audience, Jan 12, 1966.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/audiences/1966/docuмents/hf_p-vi_aud_19660112_it.html

Ladislaus said,

That can be discerned from the language used.  Theologians discuss this at great length when dealing even with solemn definitions, the kinds of language that would make known the intent to teach infallibly.

How would it be discerned so that ordinary Catholics, not theologians, could discern it?  

And surely you must have examples of this to verify your point.

Oh, and what are the OTHER notes of infallibility?  You haven't answered that.

Ladislaus said,

Quote

That can be discerned from the language used.  Theologians discuss this at great length when dealing even with solemn definitions, the kinds of language that would make known the intent to teach infallibly.

How would it be discerned so that ordinary Catholics, not theologians, could discern it?  

And surely you must have examples of this to verify your point.

Oh, and what are the OTHER notes of infallibility?  You haven't answered that.

You don't know what these are?  Yet you claim to be instructing everyone about the notion of infallibility?

OUM is simply a MODE of teaching.  OUM also has to DEFINE a MATTER OF FAITH OR MORALS as something that MUST BE HELD BY ALL THE FAITHFUL.

There has to be a definition of a matter of faith and morals done in a definitive way which makes it clear that it's essentially dogmatic.  Infallible definitions in pre-Vatican II Magsiterium were inferred by theologians from various key words (there are list of these).  So, for instance, if the Church declares the rejection of a truth (of faith or morals) as rendering someone "anathema", that's one such key word.  Other phrases would include things like "we declare and define that all the faithful must believe [x,y, or z]".

By your understanding, deriving from the perspective of refusing to take into account these other notes, every word of every encyclical would now become infallible dogmatic teaching.  Long explanatory texts and discourses do not constitute infallible DEFINITIONS.

For many years I have been pondering on the question of infallibility of the ordinary magisterium. Those now involved in trying to reinstate the DOGMA of a geocentric reading of Scripture (Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics) have had to enter a HISTORY of Catholics DENYING the consequences of the ordinary infallibility.

We all know what the extraordinary infallibility covers. But as posted, Vatican I clearly states there is an ordinary infallibility. that is, when a pope in his ordinary duty finds he has to define a teaching that must be held in order to prevent falsehoods to the Catholic faith. God knows that even the slightest error can erode faith like 'dry rot in a Cathedral.'

Pope Paul V in a papal decree defined a heliocentric reading of Scripture as formal heresy. Many dogmas are defined negatively, that is, by way of their contrary being condemned by an official act of definition and declaration. Twice the Church acknowledged that the 1616 decree was non-reversible.

But as science claimed to have falsified the 1616 decree (which we now know it never did) in order to save the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium, the 1616 decrees infalibility has been denied for the last 400 years.

Now while men can deny this infallibility, the Church cannot. Thus when defining the 1616 decree in 1820 the Holy Office had to agree it was non-revisable, that is, infallible, the wording used before 1870 for infallibility. Thus in 1870 Vatican I also spelled out the conditions for infallibility that apply to the 1616 decree.

Now let us take it from 1870. The definition added the following:

‘The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according to the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecuмenical councils… sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognised as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might forcefully set it out…’ --- Vatican I (1869-1870) (Denz. 1836.)

In other words, no pope can dismiss a previous definition in his capacity as teaching in his ordinary infallibility. At Vatican II, every contradiction to a previous pope's definition cannot claim ordinary infallibility.

For me then, the ORIGINAL definition and teaching has infallible precidence over the mass of contradiction since Vatican II. The only definition of infallibility since Vatican II was John Paul II definition that women cannot be priests.

GJC said,

......Montini signed, sealed and delivered the solemnly promulgated docuмents a month earlier. It is clear he exercised all three conditions for a pope to teach infallibly......

Agreed. The argument that Montini exercised all necessary conditions for a pope to teach infallibly certainly stands up and has been argued by John Daly here -

http://www.novusordowatch.org/vatican-ii-infallible.htm

But the point of this thread was to refute the claim that Vatican I restricted Papal infallibility to only ex Cathedra teachings.  Some Trads have said this to me, although most restrict Papal infallibility to Dogmatic teachings of the Extraordinary Magisterium, that is, to the Pope either teaching ex Cathedra or in union with an Ecuмenical Council.

The point, really, was to highlight the overlooked infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium  That the OUM's infallibility has been overlooked is described in the article linked above and quoted here -

By a strange reversal, while the personal infallibility of the pope in a solemn judgment, so long disputed, was definitely placed beyond all controversy [in 1870], it is the Ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Church which seems to have been lost sight of. It is as if the very brilliance of the Vatican I definition had cast into shadow the truth hitherto universally recognised; we might almost say as if the definition of the infallibility of solemn judgments made these henceforth the exclusive method by which the Sovereign Pontiff was to put forward the rule of faith. (…) The theological mark of heresy has to be applied, not only to what contradicts a defined truth, but also to what conflicts with a truth clearly put forward by the Ordinary Magisterium.
(Dom Paul Nau: The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church Theologically Considered, Solesmes, 1956.)

Of course not every word that comes from the Pope and the Bishops of the world is infallible.

Ladislaus said,

By your understanding, deriving from the perspective of refusing to take into account these other notes, every word of every encyclical would now become infallible dogmatic teaching.  Long explanatory texts and discourses do not constitute infallible DEFINITIONS.

But this is not my understanding.  And the teachings of the OUM do not have to be defined in terms associated with Dogmatic pronouncements of the Extraordinary Magisterium.

Ladislaus said,

There has to be a definition of a matter of faith and morals done in a definitive way which makes it clear that it's essentially dogmatic.  Infallible definitions in pre-Vatican II Magsiterium were inferred by theologians from various key words (there are list of these).  So, for instance, if the Church declares the rejection of a truth (of faith or morals) as rendering someone "anathema", that's one such key word.  Other phrases would include things like "we declare and define that all the faithful must believe [x,y, or z]".

That a teaching is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, is usually sufficient in itself to guarantee infallibility.  But if questions do arise as to whether a particular teaching of the OUM is infallible, then the Pope can make a definitive pronouncement, confirming or reaffirming that a particular doctrine is indeed infallibly taught by that Magisterium. This is not the same as an ex Cathedra pronouncement.  

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

But the point of this thread was to refute the claim that Vatican I restricted Papal infallibility to only ex Cathedra teachings.  Some Trads have said this to me, although most restrict Papal infallibility to Dogmatic teachings of the Extraordinary Magisterium, that is, to the Pope either teaching ex Cathedra or in union with an Ecuмenical Council.

The point, really, was to highlight the overlooked infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.

Got it.

I have always believed that when the Bishops in union with the Pope define doctrine at a general council it represents the LIVING Magisterium and is infallible (Extraordinary is a modern term, please see the Catholic encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm)
and requires full assent of the faith.

The end of Lumen Gentium:

Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.

Given in Rome at St. Peter's on November 21, 1964.

If he were the pope everyone would have to consent to this under pain of mortal sin.

Montini was the son of Satan, not the Vicar of Christ.

If "an angel from heaven" aka Gal. 1:8 were to lead you into the pit, would you follow him into the pit? - or would you not follow him because he is not an angel of light?

The same goes with the pope and the OUM.

Whether pope or not, we are not even permitted to follow *anyone* who is leading us into the pit.

But to say the pope is not the pope and *that* is the reason not to follow him is using the wrong reasoning altogether, that reasoning is based on a false or perverted understanding of infallibility.