Stubborn, Magisterium simply means, Teaching Authority. For e.g. Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis uses Pope Pius XII speaks of the Ordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Teaching Authority, "these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority" (p.20)

In the citation you provide from Pope Bl. Pius IX, "the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world", is a reference to the Ordinary and Universal Teaching Authority of the Church. Notice that the criterion of universality given by Pope Pius IX is that it is that of the Church spread over the whole world, that is what universality in Ordinary and Universal Magisterium means.

Another example from Van Noort, cited by Salza and Siscoe: ""Meantime, notice that the Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matters in solemn fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight of her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching. Consequently, we must hold with an absolute assent, which we call ‘ecclesiastical faith,’ the following theological truths: (a) those which the Magisterium has infallibly defined in solemn fashion; (b) those which the ordinary magisterium dispersed throughout the world unmistakably proposes to its members as something to be held (tenendas). So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII is [present tense] the legitimate successor of St. Peter’; similarly … one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.’ For — skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — when someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession." (Sources of Revelation, p. 265) http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-of.html

After we identify the OUM, the next stage is to observe (1) it is impossible that it has collectively defected into heresy or apostasy. (2) it is impossible that all members of the episcopal college have died without replacement. The implications of this for (1) the validity of the new rite (2) the SV question etc, can then be more closely studied.

Ladislaus claims, "Right now, since the Holy See is vacant, the OUM is not being exercised.", but that begs the question. The Conclusion is assumed in the Premise. Rather, since the OUM teaches that the Holy See is occupied, it follows as infallibly true that in fact it is.

See this book: https://archive.org/details/outlinesofdogmat01hunt/page/n6 " ... it affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their own appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time. A volume might be occupied if we attempted to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine Constitution of the Church would be ruined." See also the citation from Van Noort by Salza and Siscoe on their website.

The Teaching Church's Indefectibility prevents it from wrongly recognizing its Head. If we could agree on that, we could study the other implications of Indefectibility. SV's raise various objections to R&R, and R&R raise various objections to SVism.

Neither position holds the complete truth. R&R is closer, in so far as it at least recognizes an OUM. But saying the entire OUM of the Church today can collectively fall into heresy, just so long as all the Bishops who exercise the OUM do not die, the as some (not all) R&R do, is also mistaken. A careful study of these things will show R&R needs slight modification.

Within the universal magisterium is the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium and yes, we absolutely do owe our assent of faith to these teachings because they are the truth, and it is Catholic truth that binds us. But these teachings are not the hierarchy. The hierarchy can go off the deep end as reality demonstrates, and when that happens we must not follow. It is the truth that is *always*  binding, the truth is eternal, the truth can never go off the deep end, which is why we are bound to the truth, not the hierarchy.

We are bound no less by either the Church's Ordinary Magisterium, Universal Magisterium, or her Extraordinary Magisterium. No less because what we're bound by is Catholic truth, it does not matter the method, it is the matter, the truth that binds us.

Now if you are a believer that LG 25 is in fact a Catholic doctrine and the hierarchy is in fact the magisterium, then you may must flush and denounce Catholic truth, and follow the  always infallible hierarchy no matter what they preach - just double check to make sure whatever it is they preach, that they are unanimous and in union with the pope with their preaching.

The first bold sentence is false, at least in the way implied by Stubborn. The Roman Pontiff binds Catholics. He is the "the permanent principle of the unities of faith and communion and their visible foundation."
The second clause is also false.  The hierarchy cannot "go off the deep end" or the Church defects.  If that is in fact what you believe occurred then go all the way with it and accept the defection.  
The third sentence is also heresy.  The Catholic Church is a society governed by living members and Catholics are absolutely bound to them.    
The last sentence is partially true.  Catholics must follow the hierarchy and remain in union with the pope.  This is Catholicism.  

Ladislaus claims, "Right now, since the Holy See is vacant, the OUM is not being exercised.", but that begs the question. The Conclusion is assumed in the Premise. Rather, since the OUM teaches that the Holy See is occupied, it follows as infallibly true that in fact it is.

That's circular reasoning and begging the question on YOUR part and not mine.  I've stated my reasons for why I believe that the Holy See is only doubtfully exercising any formal authority.  These are independent of the OUM question.

OUM "teaches" nothing of the sort.  We have a significant number of people who are nominally Catholic, but most of whom are actually bereft of the Catholic faith, who think that Bergoglio is the Catholic pope.  We've already discussed this.  Not to mention that you keep blundering the definition of OUM.  You clearly have no idea what it actually is ... as evidenced by your poll questions.

You assume that the Novus Ordo hierarchy exercise the OUM in order to prove that they exercise the OUM.

I'm disappointed to see 5 people (poll result) have admitted to objective heresy. Teaching and Governing are merely aspects of the same Office. Without being appointed to Episcopal Office by the Pope, one cannot exercise Ordinary Jurisdiction or Ordinary teaching authority.

This coming from a man who attends SSPX masses. You're so self-contradictory it's actually painful to read. 

The hierarchy is teaching a different gospel and it isn’t good. 

Notice the way Msgr. Noort says, "the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession." - so Teaching Body, Hierarchy, OUM can be used synonymously.

But let's rephrase the question, then: where are the Ordinaries of the Church? Only those who are Ordinaries (1) can exercise Ordinary Jurisdiction by virtue of their Ruling Office/Ruling Authority (2) can exercise Ordinary Teaching Authority by virtue of that same Office.

I disagree it can be used synonymously because using it that way has led the vast majority astray because truth does not matter, the (Modernist) hierarchy does. The teaching body is the hierarchy, not the UOM - again, "universal" always includes the attribute of time, it means "since the time of the Apostles and forever", magisterium = teaching, not people.

I think Sheeben defines it best (emphasis in the original):

"III. The act of promulgation must be a teaching (magisterium), and not a mere statement; this teaching must witness to its identity with the original Revelation, i.e. it must always show that what is taught is identical with what was revealed; it must be a "teaching with authority" - that is, it must command the submission of the mind, because otherwise the unity and universality of the Faith could not be attained." - Scheeben

You keep citing Lumen Gentium 25, but you state something not stated there. When something is taught by the Extraordinary Magisterium (e.g. Trent), we owe it the assent of divine and Catholic Faith. When something is taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (e.g. all the Bishops stating the Assumption of Mother Mary is divinely revealed dogma), we again owe it the assent of divine and Catholic Faith. This is clearly taught in Vatican I, and is cited by Pope Pius XII to that effect. When something is taught by the Ordinary Non-Infallible Authentic Magisterium, we give it a prudential and conditional assent called religious submission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum

I cite LG 25 because that is the gospel you are preaching but apparently don't even realize it. You are preaching that whatever the bishops teach in unison and union with the pope is infallible - which is altogether false and is strictly and only a NO doctrine defined in LG 25.

The extraordinary magisterium is a defined dogma. Period. Using Sheeben's above quote, "it [teaching] must always show that what is taught is identical with what was revealed, it must be a teaching with authority, it must command submission of the mind...."

Note he says "what is taught", not "who teaches it".

To make your quote make sense, it would read:

When something is taught by the Extraordinary Magisterium a Council (e.g. Trent), we owe it the assent of divine and Catholic Faith. When something is taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium Hierarchy (e.g. all the Bishops stating the Assumption of Mother Mary is divinely revealed dogma), we again owe it the assent of divine and Catholic Faith.

I say: This is conditional upon that the teaching "must always show that what is taught is identical with what was revealed, it must be a teaching with authority..."

The bishops did not define the Assumption, the pope did that when he defined the doctrine ex cathedra, which doctrine is identical with what was revealed because the Apostles were eyewitnesses to the Assumption and that event account has been taught, handed down since then.

The bishops stating that the Assumption is a revealed dogma are merely carrying out their mission in teaching the faith, but them making the statement did not make the Assumption divinely revealed dogma.

Magisterial statements are not always infallible, but they are always safe. Not everything becomes infallible just because it occurs once in a Papal Encyclical. There are many theological grades of certitude like doctrina catholica, proxima fidei etc before a doctrine becomes de fide.

Here you're using it synonymously again proves that to do so only serves as the instrument of confusion. This instrument you are using is one of the main instruments that was used by the enemy which helped get us in this mess to begin with - and is still effective today as you are demonstrating.

Papal or hierarchical statements are not always infallible and these days, are in fact, mostly lies or are interwoven with heresy and lies. This is merely common knowledge.

OTOH, the Church is Christ, the Church's teachings (Magisterium) is always infallible because it is always the truth, because it comes from Christ we know that it is always the truth because it always shows that what is taught is identical with what was revealed. This is always true whether it's the Church's Extraordinary, Ordinary or Universal Magisterium.

I agree about the infallible safety of the Magisterium.  And if Xavier believes it too, then he's unquestionably in schism.

You know, the very raison d'etra of the Traditional movement is that there have been errors taught at Vatican II and in the subsequent papal teaching, and that we cannot accept these without endangering our faith, i.e. that this teaching is not in fact safe.  So if you 1) are a Traditional Catholic (believe that the V2 teaching is harmful) and 2) believe in the infallible safety of the Magisterium, then you MUST logically conclude that the V2 Magisterium is not in fact the Catholic Magisterium.  But the more you post, the more it sounds like you're not actually a Traditional Catholics, but rather a sentimentalist who finds edification in the pre-Vatican II liturgy and spirituality, and who opted for SSPX over FSSP only because the former was allegedly promoted by some exorcism and because SSPX has a bigger/stronger organization.  You really are a trainwreck, XavierSem.

Of course we have absolute certainty regarding infallible safety of the Church's Magisterium, that is not at issue, what's at issue here is like all things NO, the multi-meaning of the word "Magisterium" - which Xavier wants to use synonymous with the pope and hierarchy so as to confuse the confused even further.  

Your first sentence is incomplete. This is because errors were taught decades before, or well in advance of V2 and are in fact errors which helped usher in V2. One the errors is the idea that the Church's magisterium, which actually is always 100% infallible, is the pope and/or hierarchy.

They took a true meaning and misapplied it to the pope and hierarchy - and nearly everyone not only bought off on it, they think it is some church doctrine or a defined dogma, which it is, of the conciliar church.

Don't conflate Magisterium with the infallible Magisterium. Much of the Magisterium is fallible, but it's all infallibly safe. Meaning it can be wrong, but it can't lead you into heresy or rejection of the Faith. And yet today we have the Pope and the Bishops teaching heresy.

And here we have XavierSem who tells us that Vatican 2 was a-ok and that the current hierarchy are valid both formally and materially, and yet refuses to submit to that hierarchy and obstinately ignores their orders. Making himself a schismatic.