I am honestly in disbelief that we have Catholics here who have no concept about the Catholic Magisterium ... and who seem to follow a religion that's closer to both Protestantism and schismatic Orthodoxy than it is to Catholicism. 

Yeah, a lot of them are "dogmatic" sedes who are converts from Protestantism, too. A bunch of them on Facebook issuing their "bulls" and "encyclicals" to everyone. They act like some Catholic theologian after having converted from being a Protty or secularism only 3 years ago. Some of them haven't even had Confirmation, and others are home-aloner schizoids, despite a valid Tridentine Latin or eastern rite Mass available to them, but they think they can school everyone on the Catholic Faith.

Can the magisterium issue NEW teachings of the Faith?
Can the magisterium change articles of Faith?
Can the magisterium get rid of articles of Faith?

The answer to this is 'no' because EVERY article of Faith that we are required to hold now, is the same that was required of the Apostles and of 1st century christians, either explicitly or implicitly.  Therefore, when you argue that the magisterium is 'always reliably safe' or something along those lines, you are indirectly giving them freedom to add/subtract from the Faith, which freedom they do not have - because the FAITH CANNOT CHANGE.  The Faith came before the Church, since the Faith existed (imperfectly) in the Old Testament.  As Christ said "I came not to destroy but to fulfill." 

As Christ warned us 'beware of wolves in sheep's clothing."  Who would He be warning us about, except the hierarchy?  Why did St Paul need to rebuke St Peter, if the magisterium is always 'safe'? 

When one says that 'dogma is the rule of faith', the way I understand it is that dogma refers to 1) articles of faith and 2) infallible declarations by previous magisteriums.  Therefore, dogma covers all REQUIRED beliefs. 

If the current pope/magisterium fallibly contradicts an article of faith or previous infallible statement (yes, it can happen), then they are anathema, as St Paul told us.  There's no other way to understand it and this view is completely Catholic. 

Catholicism 103:  The Pope is the principle and center, of the unity of faith.

True, but he's not the author of the articles of faith, he's just the guardian of it...if he stays orthodox.

Lawfullness and validity are completely separate issues.  I'm not going to go into the novus ordo's illegality...that's been covered before.

If the Magisterium could endanger faith, lead souls to hell, or even just cause them harm, it would have defected.  

Ladislaus and Cantarella,
If you believe the above, then how can you believe in Fr Chazal's explanation of sedeprivationism?  If you believe the magisterium/pope cannot defect, then how can you believe he is in heresy and has lost his spiritual office? 
To me, Fr Chazal's viewpoint where the pope loses his spiritual office when he loses his faith, is proof that the magisterium can defect.  Because the defection from the truth was not official, then such a defection is not of the Church, but just of the churchmen.

What about Pope Paul VI?  He was not exercising his magisterium at V2?  I don't think he was, i'm curious as to your view.

No, because as it was defined in Vatican I Council, everything that the Magisterium proposes for belief as being divinely revealed MUST necessarily be derived from the Deposit of Faith, which consists of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. There can be no novelties added to it, nor contradictions. The Magisterium consists of only all the infallible teachings of the Church.

Dogmas cannot change. They do not "evolve" either or are subject to further interpretation. This is true. It is also true however, that the Magisterium of the Church cannot contradict itself; but apparently it did, on December 7 of 1965, according to the Cassiciacuм Thesis.

What is your intent by this post? I have been defending the immutability of Catholic dogma a lot longer than you. It was you who used the term “living magisterium” and called it the “rule of faith.”  I reminded you where the term came from, Fr. Bainville, and why and how this early modernist used the term, that is, to ultimately destroy the immutability of the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. The term in fact is the distinguishing quality of Neo-modernism that posits a disjunction between dogma and its verbal expression.  It looks to the "living magisterium" to direct the progression of dogma from one meaning to another under the pretext of a deeper understanding.

I hope you never err by saying again, “the living magisterium is the rule of faith.”  

Drew

Catholicism 101: Ecuмenical Councils approved by a Pope are infallible.

This is a gross over generalization.  Ecuмenical Councils approved by a Pope CAN BE infallible, or rather, can issue infallible decrees.  They have the capacity to engage the Church's attribute of Infallibility and teach doctrinal truth without the possibility of error.  Only the Dogmatic definitions from ecuмenical councils, such as from the Council of Trent, have this attribute of Infallibility. Councils have historically done a lot more than define doctrine although this, until Vatican II, has always been their primary purpose. It is because Vatican II purposefully refused to define any doctrine that Canon Gregory Hesse speculated that it may not for that reason be a true ecuмenical council.

Drew