Perhaps you can find what you need say by quoting a book over 50 years before that, which had an imprimatur?

Fenton cites these.  Look them up yourself.  Footnotes 16-29.

"Another very imposing group of theologians explicitly list the papal encyclicals, at least in a general way, as non-infallible docuмents. Bishop Hilarinus Felder, [16] Msgr. Caesar Manzoni, [17] and Fathers Emil Dorsch, [18] Reginald Schultes, [19] Antonio Vellico, [20] Ludwig Koesters, [21] Ludwig Lercher, [22] and Aelred Graham [23] teach thus in their treatises. The same view is set forth by Fr. Mangenot in his excellent article on the encyclicals in the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, [24] by Fr. Lucien Choupin in his outstanding monograph, [25] by Fr. Thomas Pegues in his frequently quoted article in the Revue thomiste on the authority of the encyclicals, [26] and by Canon George Smith in his brilliant study on this subject in the Clergy Review. [27] Fr. Jean Vincent Bainvel, along with Choupin and Schultes, incidentally, refers explicitly to the encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII and classifies them as non-infallible, [28] while the article of Pegues was written as an answer to a question sent in to the Revue thomiste about the doctrinal authority of Pope Leo’s encyclicals. Fr. Herman Dieckmann [29] classifies the doctrine contained in papal encyclicals with that of the Roman Congregations."

I have NEVER said that all acts of the Magisterium are infallible.

You don't seem to accept #2. I had given you quotes from 6 different imprimatured Catholic books through the 19th century explaining what passive infallibility of the Church is, and you condemned them all!

You have "NEVER said" that all acts of the Magisterium is infallible, and yet you argue with me every step of the way when I assert the contrary.  And your idiot CMRI pal bosco has been promoting this notion all along while you defend him.  Not to mention that you basically stalk me across CathInfo downthumbing every single post of mine.  You have some perverse obsession with me, Nado.

You have no idea what passive infallibility means nor any understanding of its scope.  Passive infallibility is the infallibility of the Ecclesia Credens and a function of the Church's indefectibility.  It is not this crap that you push that the Church can never fail (passively) to condemn any error whatsoever.

Definition of "magisterium" from "A Catholic Dictionary": "The Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion.... This teaching is infallible...". It then goes on to explain that the magisterium consists of two types of teaching; solemn and ordinary. It then repeats later in the definition, "All these are founts of a teaching which as a whole is infallible".
 
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) in the article on Infallibility, states the same: "Three Organs of Infallibility: 1. the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See (exercised by what theologians describe as the ordinarium magisterium, i. e. the common or everyday teaching authority of the Church), 2. ecuмenical councils under the headship of the pope; and 3. the pope himself separately.
 
The First Vatican Council confirms the same: "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."

Obviously this Council couldn't demand the faithful believe both solemn and ordinary teaching if they weren't guaranteed infallible.
 
You have been disproven big time. Again.
 

The definition from "A Catholic Dictionary" is, per V1, absolutely wrong.

You quoted it, why don't you see it - - V1 decrees that only "all" those decrees are infallible: "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."

Which is to say that teachings which do not meet the criteria are fallible. That means, the teachings which are *not* contained in the written Word of God (Scripture) or *not* contained in Tradition (UOM), and which are *not* proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office as divinely revealed truths" -  are entirely fallible.

Both you and Lad are confusing "magisterium" with "Hierarchy". The Hierarchy, which includes the pope, is human, as such is absolutely, entirely fallible. This confusion being demonstrated between "Magisterium" and "Hierarchy",  will only fuel the continuance of the currant silly debate and insure that there is solution.

The "Universal and Ordinary Magisterium" is *not* the hierarchy, rather, the UOM is teachings which have been taught since the time of the Apostles - these are infallible without solemn papal decrees and will always completely agree with any solemn papal decrees.

Constantly misnaming the Hierarchy as "the Magisterium" only adds to the confusion - as obviously already demonstrated.

Stubborn, I have been waiting a couple of days for you to answer this. Can a true pope be "out of the Church"?

You do not get it at all, which makes debating with you a test which no one, not even you, can pass.

Your whole idea of "out of the Church" is altogether corrupt. You cannot grasp the fact that the pope, being the supreme authority on earth, has no superior, not even all the bishops, priests, cardinals and whatever other prelates all together in council can even accuse him of anything, let alone you judging him of being "out of the Church" - this fact in and of itself makes the whole sedevacantist doctrine, which btw, most certainly is nothing but a doctrine of man, absolutely superfluous, if not mortally sinful.

Again, idiot, NO CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN has ever held that every teaching of the Magisterium is infallible.  You and your idiot cohort bosco alone believe that crap.  In so doing, you discredit Catholicism.  No, I don't accept Msgr. Fenton as infallible.  But you do, since his writings were imprimatured.  Nevertheless, Fenton cites a long list of sources (other theologians) who also teach that things like encyclical letters are not infallible.  You have yet to produce a single proof (other than your own perverted fantasy) that all acts of the Magisterium are infallible.  That's because NO CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN has ever held that.

Gotta love the "down thumb attack" that Ladislaus has begun - within an hour I received 50 or so down thumbs, all in numbers of three across all of my posts. Looks like Ladi-boy is having a temper tantrum like a little boy because he has lost the debate.

Here I will list some quotes that you have asked for confirming that the Church teaches both solemn and ordinary magisterium are infallible. Please note the clarification that the Commentary on Canon Law gives on what may be erroneous from the magisterium - things that exclude faith or morals. These quotes easily trump the unknown priests you have quoted to support your position:


First Vatican Council (1870):
"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."

Canon Law 1323 (1917):
1. All of those things are to be believed with a divine and Catholic faith that are contained in the written word of God or in tradition and that the Church proposes as worthy of belief, as divinely revealed, whether by solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium.

Commentary On Canon Law, Augustine (imprimatur, 1918) Canon 1323:
§ 1. All those truths which are contained in the written word of God, or in tradition, and proposed to our belief as divinely revealed either by a solemn proclamation or by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church must be believed by Divine and Catholic faith.
…This infallible judgment is embodied in the teaching office of the Church, and constitutes a special prerogative granted to the Church by Christ, in virtue of which she cannot deceive nor be deceived in matters of faith and morals.
Our text distinguishes a solemn ex cathedra judgment and the ordinary magisterium of the Church. But there is no intrinsic difference between the two, as they derive from the same source, vis., the divine promise and providence, and have the same object and purpose. The object is faith and morals; the purpose, to protect the faithful from error.
…Both the Pontiff sole and the body of teachers united with him, enjoy the power of teaching infallibly.
a) What has been solemnly defined, either by a general council or by the Supreme Pontiff, is certainly de fide; but not all the historical or theological assertions which accompany a papal decision (for instance, the Bull "Ineffabilis ") are de fide.
b) What is clearly and undoubtedly contained in Holy Scripture and Tradition as a matter of faith or morals, must be believed, although individual errors are not entirely excluded;
c) What the universal and approved practice and discipline proposes as connected with faith and morals must also be believed ("Lex orandi, lex credendi").
d) What the Holy Fathers and the theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide.

Pope Pius IX in his Letter to Archbishop Scherr of Munich in 1863:
"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 judgment 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, through 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. "

Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, On the Study of Holy Scripture, November 18, 1893:
Wherefore the first and dearest object of the Catholic commentator should be to interpret those passages which have received an authentic interpretation either from the sacred writers themselves, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost (as in many places of the New Testament), or from the Church, under the assistance of the same Holy Spirit, whether by her solemn judgment or her ordinary and universal magisterium

Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical On the Church in Scotland, 1898
"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"

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950 (Denz 2313):
It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians.

Pope Pius XII, Defining the Dogma of the Assumption, Munificentissimus Deus, Nov 1, 1950:
"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."
“Certainly this teaching authority of the Church, not by any merely human effort but under the protection of the Spirit of Truth,[7] and therefore absolutely without error, carries out the commission entrusted to it, that of preserving the revealed truths pure and entire throughout every age, in such a way that it presents them undefiled, adding nothing to them and taking nothing away from them.”

Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913), Science and the Church, The Holders of the Teaching Office:
(1) The official activity of teaching may be exercised either in the ordinary, or daily, magisterium, or by occasional solemn decisions. The former goes on uninterruptedly; the latter are called forth in times of great danger, especially of growing heresies. The promise of Divine assistance provides for the integrity of doctrine "all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt., xxviii, 20). From the nature of the case it follows that individual bishops may fall into error, because ample provision is made when the entire teaching body of the Church and the supreme pastor in particular are protected by Providence. The "Ecclesia docens", as a whole, can never fall into error in matters of faith or morals, whether her teaching be the ordinary or the solemn; nor can the pope proclaim false doctrines in his capacity of supreme pastor of the universal Church. Without this prerogative, which is known by the name of Infallibility, the Divine promise of assistance would be a fallacy.

Catholic Encyclopedia (~1913), Dogma:
"...some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office”

A Catholic Dictionary (imprimatur, 1931-1957), Infallibility:
"This infallibility resides (A) in the pope personally and alone; (B) in an ecuмenical Council subject to papal confirmation (these infallibilities are distinct but correlative); (C) in the bishops of the Church, dispersed throughout the world, teaching definitively in union with the pope. This is not a different infallibility from (B) but is the ordinary exercise of a prerogative (hence called the "ordinary magisterium") which is manifested in a striking manner in an ecuмenical Council. This ordinary magisterium is exercised by pastoral letters, preaching, catechisms, the censorship of publications dealing with faith and morals, the reprobation of doctrines and books: it is thus in continuous function and embraces the whole deposit of faith."

A Catholic Dictionary (imprimatur, 1931-1957), Magisterium:
“The Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion…This teaching is infallible. The solemn magisterium is that which is exercised only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or Popes... The ordinary magisterium is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers and theologians, in the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense of the Faithful, and various historical docuмents, in which the faith is declared. All these are founts of a teaching which as a whole is infallible...”

The Catechism Explained (imprimatur, 1899) Page 239: The Infallibility of the Church
Nor was this solemn declaration (of the Immaculate Conception in 1854) necessary; it was quite sufficient that all the bishops should teach in the same sense in regard of any given subject to make that teaching infallible; were it otherwise the Church would be capable of teaching heresy, or of falling away from the truth. Hence the Vatican Council declared that not only must that be accepted which has been solemnly defined by the Church, but also whatever is proposed by the lawful and general teaching authority (Vatican Council, 3, 3).

Educate yourself before posting again:

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

"Ultimately, however, this assent is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith. Strictly speaking, it is possible that this teaching (proposed in the encyclical letter) is subject to error. There are a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be. But, absolutely speaking, it could be, because God does not guarantee it as He guarantees the teaching formulated by way of definition’. "

 
Interesting how this appears suddenly in 1949 and is not found in Catholic books before that. As mentioned in my previous post, subjects other than faith and morals could potentially be erroneous, though highly unlikely. It is obvious after discussions with you on Feeneyism that you misunderstand the subject of how the ordinary magisterium works. Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII speak on the subject of things proposed outside a solemn judgment of the Church, stating they are part of the ordinary magisterium and must be believed:
 
Pope Pius IX in his Letter to Archbishop Scherr of Munich in 1863:
"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 judgment 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, through 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. "
 
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 1950 (Denz 2313):
It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians.
 

Bosco, could you please post more quotes?  I'd like more evidence that your interpretation of the magisterium is on par with a protestant minister's wife's interpretation of the bible...

.
The Latin word, magisterium, is a second declension noun in the neuter gender, which means it does not refer to any human being(s). It refers to a THING, which in this case is the teaching office of the Church.
.
An office is neither male nor female, for example. Since it isn't a human being or human beings, it is not the hierarchy, but their office, that is, their teaching office. Magister is the Latin singular second declension noun for teacher, male gender, and magistri is its nominative plural. Magisterium is the singular neuter noun in the second declension.
.
Some languages, like Spanish, attach male or female gender to inanimate objects like table, floor, kitchen, mountain, sunset, shoes or car. But this is not the case with Latin as applies to the noun, office.
.
I have run into very opinionated Novus Ordo activists who are under the impression that the Magisterium is an assembly of men who direct the Church, sort of like an ecclesiastical congress or whatever. Apparently this notion is promoted by Newchurch bishops to sew confusion among the faithful which is an outgrowth of Vat.II ecclesiology.
.
The purpose and mission of the Church's Magisterium is to transmit the Church's infallible teaching and Sacred Tradition throughout the ages, to subsequent ages. Like the tombstone on the burial place of ABL says, TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI, I have handed down that which I have received. It is not the place of the Magisterium to introduce new doctrine (Vat.I) but to safeguard the teaching office that has been handed down to this generation.
.

Thank you Neil!

Like all doctrines of man, constantly confusing "hierarchy" with "magisterium" is only one of the many teachings, principles and truths which necessarily must be misinterpreted, denied, rejected or otherwise altogether ignored in order to adhere to the sedevacantist doctrine.

I think a very simple way to correct this error is to replace the word "magisterium" with the word "teaching" or "Church teaching" 100% of the time, knowing that perhaps 1% of the time you'll actually need to put the word "magisterium" back in.

Using this above method should halt the perpetration of the false and confusing idea that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium or Universal Magisterium means the pope and/ or the living hierarchy, and that the Divine or Extraordinary Magisterium means the pope.