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.

There's no such thing as: infallibly safe fallibility.  That's a contradiction to the highest degree. 

Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on the church in Scotland

6. But as the Church was to last to the end of time, something more was required besides the bestowal of the Sacred Scriptures. It was obviously necessary that the Divine Founder should take every precaution, lest the treasure of heavenly-given truths, possessed by the Church, should ever be destroyed, which would assuredly have happened, had He left those doctrines to each one's private judgment. It stands to reason, therefore, that a living, perpetual "magisterium" was necessary in the Church from the beginning, which, by the command of Christ himself, should besides teaching other wholesome doctrines, give an authoritative explanation of Holy Writ, and which being directed and safeguarded by Christ himself, could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Organs of infallibility

Having established the general doctrine of the Church's infallibility, we naturally proceed to ask what are the organs through which the voice of infallible authority makes itself heard. We have already seen that it is only in the episcopal body which has succeeded to the college of Apostles that infallible authority resides, and that it is possible for the authority to be effectively exercised by this body, dispersed throughout the world, but united in bonds of communion with Peter's successor, who is its visible head and centre. During the interval from the council of the Apostles at Jerusalem to that of their successors at Nicaea this ordinary everyday exercise of episcopal authority was found to be sufficiently effective for the needs of the time, but when a crisis like the Arian heresy arose, its effectiveness was discovered to be inadequate, as was indeed inevitable by reason of the practical difficulty of verifying that fact of moral unanimity, once any considerable volume of dissent had to be faced. And while for subsequent ages down to our own day it continues to be theoretically true that the Church may, by the exercise of this ordinary teaching authority arrive at a final and infallible decision regarding doctrinal questions, it is true at the same time that in practice it may be impossible to prove conclusively that such unanimity as may exist has a strictly definitive value in any particular case, unless it has been embodied in a decree of an ecuмenical council, or in the ex cathedra teaching of the pope, or, at least, in some definite formula such as the Athanasian Creed. Hence, for practical purposes and in so far as the special question of infallibility is concerned, we may neglect the so called magisterium ordinarium ("ordinary magisterium") and confine our attention to ecuмenical councils and the pope.

Tanquerey, The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium

http://sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=727

1. The Morally Unanimous Preaching (Teaching) of the Bishops

290 Bishops teach the flock entrusted and subject to them by means of catechisms, by synodal directives, mandates, and in public sermons. If it is evident from these docuмents that some doctrine is being set forth universally as an object of faith, then nothing else is required for this doctrine to be accepted de fide. Bishops spread throughout the world, but with the Roman Pontiff forming one Corporate Body, are infallible when declaring a teaching on faith or morals.

Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter Dec. 21, 1863 - Letter to Archbishop Scherr of Munich

http://www.geocities.ws/prakashjm45/tuas_libenter.html

[The members of the Congress of German Catholic theologians at Munich] recognized and asserted that all Catholics in their scholarly writings are obliged in conscience to obey the dogmatic decrees of the infallible Catholic Church.

 We desire to reassure ourselves that they did not mean to limit the obligation, which strictly binds Catholic teachers and writers, to those things only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by everybody. In a like manner, We are convinced that it was not their intention to state that the perfect adherence to revealed truths (which they regard as absolutely necessary for true progress in science and for refuting errors) can be maintained, if the submission of faith is given only to those dogmas expressly defined by the Church. The reason for this is the following: even supposing that we are treating of that subjection which is to be made by an explicit act of divine faith, this must not be limited to those things which have been defined in the express decrees of the ecuмenical councils or of the Roman Pontiffs of this See; but it must also be extended to those things which, throught the ordinary teaching of the whole Church throughout the world, are proposed as divinely revealed and, as a result, by universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians are held to be matters of faith.

Here's an article where His Excellency Bp. Fellay speaks of respectful submission to authentic magisterium and says Rome itself says many of these things like religious liberty, ecuмenism etc are considered "open questions." http://fsspx.asia/en/content/23944

Next, Bp. Huonder had said the only acceptable way of ecuмenism is to seek the return of the separated to the Catholic Church.

"This can be debated: it is true per se that we owe respectful submission to magisterial docuмents, an Encyclical for example. It is normal to receive this docuмent respectfully, since it is issued by the supreme authority. In itself the phrase is not shocking, it is even Catholic ...But I think that presently the situation is so catastrophic that it is causing an extremely interesting reaction. On several levels. On the level of the dialogue, all the bishops sent by Rome with whom we have had doctrinal discussions for the past two years told us that the points under discussion—always the same ones—are “open questions”. They all said this, the cardinals included. “Open questions”, meaning that you can debate them. Therefore they are no longer obligatory. And these discussions are bearing fruit. We do not see them yet, because it is at the level of theological reflection. And that takes a lot of time, certainly.

XavierSem,

The only arguments you have left to make is to prove Vatican II doesn't contradict past Church teaching: Religious Liberty, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, the nature of the Church, etc.

Ok. To be clear, I agree with much of what you posted, including Munificentissimus Deus of Pope Pius XII, where the Holy Father says the unanimous agreement of the episcopal hierarchy is already a certain and infallible proof of the Assumption; and where Cardinal Franzelin explains the 19th century Church's consensus on the dogma of Papal Infalliblity is a proof of its Apostolic origin; I would add the statement of Van Noort that the OUM was giving a clear cut witness to the legitimacy of Pope Pius XII's (no one before the 20th century even knew who Pope Pius XII was or would be, so the idea that all bishops for 19 centuries must have explicitly assented to it for it to be infallible, is not strictly speaking the case) succession to St. Peter, is another instance of the Teaching Church's Indefectibility. Infallibility and Indefectibility are closely related. Indefectibility is sometimes called "negative infallibility" by some.

Now, very quickly, the 5 main issues in Vatican II and the CCC are (1) Ecuмenism, (2) EENS, (3) Ecclesiology, (4) Religious Liberty, (5) Collegiality. I mentioned the first one above, there's nothing like a clear unambiguous definition of what Ecuмenism even is, only in a few docuмents you will find vague terms like "restoration of unity" (like Unitatis Redeintegratio 1 - "This movement toward unity is called "ecuмenical." Those belong to it who invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior") - the only acceptable definition is that "restoration of unity" can only happen by the return of all separated Christians to Catholic unity with the Church. Something is not considered definitive or infallible if it has not been formally defined in a universally accepted way. Would you disagree?

I will get back on EENS subsequently. It's an erroneous opinion that non-Christians can be saved. The CCC is ambiguous, some claim it teaches salvation without Christ, while others, with whom we agree, say it only says non-Christians in good faith will be led by God to salvation through knowing Christ, see CCC 161 & 846-848, that last passage says God in ways known to Himself brings men to that faith without which it is impossible to please Him. I believe Bp. Fellay in another interview said there was a docuмent that said faith in Christ and the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation, and H.E. agreed with that. References later. God bless.

Edit: And I note the naysayers have still not been able or willing to answer the simple question: So, just where are the Ordinaries of the Church today? It's as simple as simple can be. Those appointed or confirmed by the Pope are Ordinaries. Where are they?

Some svists, sdists, spists, are afraid to even touch this question, as it doesn't agree with their hypothetical theory of 61 year Svism.

POPE PIUS XII THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION - November 1, 1950

Quote

Quote

Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven- which surely no faculty of the human mind could know by its own natural powers, as far as the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of God is concerned-is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church. For, as the Vatican Council asserts, "all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."

As I said earlier, "whenever the Church speaks of anything "universal", "universal" always includes time as well as unanimity, as in "since the time of the Apostles and forever", and as in "always and everywhere".

The Vincentian Canon by St. Vincent of Lerins

(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. *That* is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecuмenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.



In one of his sermons, Fr. Wathen explains it quite clearly in a nutshell:

"...One of the saints, [St. Vincent of Lerins (died 445)] whose name I cannot remember, for which I apologize, made a statement concerning heresy and orthodoxy which I find both wonderfully intriguing as well as important.

He says that the true faith is that which has been believed by all the people all the time. [He is] speaking about all the faithful, all those who are in the Church. Which is to say that any idea that has not been held as a part of Catholic doctrine through all the generations of the Church by the vast majority of the people, is not Catholic.

Which is to say that at any given time, an idea can be widely held even by the vast majority of the people as is liberalism among Catholics today.  Also, a heretical idea can be shown to have been held by a small group within the Church all through history or during a number of generations of history. But the true doctrine of the Church is that which has been held always by everyone..."

This quote demonstrates the confusion I've been talking about.

Prove it to yourself, stop just parroting it haphazardly, instead, actually give an example of the Church's Magisterium being  wrong, and also when it is wrong "but it can't lead you into heresy or rejection of the faith". The whole line of thinking is utterly absurd when what the Church and the Church's Magisterium is, is correctly understood.

The only way your above quote could be true, is through a misunderstanding of what the Church and the Church's Magisterium is, *and*, if you, like NOers, do not believe that the Church is Christ, "...the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing". - Humani Generis (27)

This is why we must belong to the Church, because in doing so we belong to Christ, they "are one and the same thing", because there is no salvation "in any other". Because Christ and the Church are one, and because the teachings of the Church is the Church's Magisterium, the Church's Magisterium and the teachings of Christ "are one and the same thing". Yet you are saying they can be wrong, which is to say the Church can be wrong, which is saying that Christ can be wrong. Preposterous.



Not so. Like yourself, Xavier has the same confused idea of of what the Church and the Magisterium is. Whereas you believe the pope is not the pope because he and the hierarchy, being the magisterium, is not, to be brief, infallibly safe, Xavier believes same as the pope - that because the magisterium is infallibly safe, whatever the pope and hierarchy do is safe to follow and accept. Neither ideas make any Catholic sense whatsoever, because both ideas are Novus Ordo.

You're the one who's been arguing that the Magisterium can be wrong. As you said so yourself, not even all the Bishops and the Pope being in agreement makes something infallible. It must always be something the Church has always taught. Therefore, by your own logic, the rest of the Ordinary Magisterium must be fallible. Stop flip-flopping. 

There's no such thing as: infallibly safe fallibility.  That's a contradiction to the highest degree.

It is in no way a contradiction. The teachings of the Pope are part of the Ordinary Magisterium, but they are not infallible unless they are ex cathedra. Therefore, the rest of it is fallible and can be wrong. So the Pope, and therefore the Ordinary(but not Universal) Magisterium can teach in error. It's fallible.  But it's infallibly safe in that you can never be guilty of sin for giving religious assent to the teachings of the Pope, even if they later turn out to be wrong.