I didn't say that. The correct quote, FROM YOUR SOURCE, is: Nothing is to be taken as dogmatically declared or defined, unless it is manifestly known to be such.
"Declaring dogma" is a prerequisite for it being 'of the faith'. For something to be infallible, it must be declared as dogma, then we know that either the pope (solemnly) or the bishops (universal magisterium) are teaching something that is important. The council of nicea was very clear that it was declaring something to be 'of the faith'. The magisterium must do the same if they declare that something has 'always been taught'. Otherwise, they are teaching as private theologians and are fallible.
Boy I really hate the new auto-trimming of quotes on CI. Makes carrying on a discussion with nested quotes nearly impossible
Anyways, you said (in your summary):
2. V2 did NOT declare that ANY of their statements to be infallible. Therefore, they are not.
To which I replied:
2) "Declaring infallibility" is not a prerequisite to being infallible, so disagreed. Niceae didn't declare infallibility, so is it up for grabs, too?
Look Pax, I agree
with you about the non-infallibility of Vatican II, just for a different reason. You think that it's not infallible because it is the pope or the Church's prerogative to give all the trappings of infallibility and pull the chute at the last second, which allow the pope and the Church to unleash havoc on the faithful because someone didn't cross a "t" or dot an "i" and a bunch of error has crept in and is now dominating the Catholic world, but don't worry because it's not infallible. It's a very mechanistic and legalistic way of looking at things, and one where we find a Church that can feed poison
at the dinner table so long as she doesn't call it
"dinner." And I certainly don't think Augustine supports your reading (maybe you should consider replying to the parts of his commentary that don't
agree with your position-- I certainly didn't shy away from addressing the parts of the commentary that you used to leverage against my
position) of the matter.
Anyways, I say it's not infallible because there was no pope at it. The problem with your reasoning is that you're stretching a single quote or two from a canonical commentary as a decisive statement that infallibility, in all its "manifestations", depends on the conditions prescribed by Vatican I for only one
of those manifestations. If that were not enough, the very source you're using to arrive at this conclusion is not itself
infallible by your own criteria, so how do you explain your reliance on it? I think you're doing the right thing (looking at approved authors to see what they have to say and teach) but it'll only take you so far when you try to extract what you already think is the case.