An infallible document has to have the proper form.
Yes, but even this is subject to interpretation.
Besides other testimony i provided, even as regards papal statements, Dulles states, “Except for the definition of the Immaculate Conception, there is little clarity about which papal statements prior to Vatican I are irreformable. Most authors would agree on about half a dozen statements” - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/magisterial-cat-and-mouse-game.html
And O'Connor,
...it will often be difficult to determine what in fact is being taught infallibly by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. This is so because it must be determined that the bishops of the world, in union with the Bishop of Rome, are teaching a matter of faith or morals which must be held definitively. It is not, therefore, sufficient to establish that such and such a matter is being taught by the bishops and the Pope. It must be clear that they are teaching it definitively as something which must be held. Therefore, one must ascertain 1) exactly what is being taught; 2) whether the Pope and bishops are all (i.e., by a moral unanimity) teaching it; and 3) what degree of certitude they are attaching to their teaching. All of this entails a somewhat exhaustive study and one in which it can be expected that the experts (i.e., the theologians) will not always come to a meeting of minds. — Fr. James T. O'Connor, The Gift of Infallibility (Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, 1986), p. 106. http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2697
since they use ambiguous language in many places, they cannot be compared to previous infallible statements in order to produce a contradiction,
Yet RCs look to the "living magisterium" to interpret itself, but V2 simply affirms the interpretive nature of RC interpretation, as it is obvious V2 is interpreting prior "infallible" teaching as if it that was interpretive, and one aspect of this it that most RCs and modern popes (JP2 affirmed Prot. saints) see this as teaching that properly baptized Prots are born again, in communities that are instruments for salvation, somehow meaning they are in subjection to the pope and in the bosom of the .
Thus one can truthfully state that the popular understanding of V2 as seen in Catholic scholarship as concerns at least this issue (among others ) contradicts past infallible teaching, or the popular understanding of it, but which contradictory interpretation Rome has only affirmed in word and in deed, and is a matter of interpretation.
And submission to V2 is enjoined. Traditional RCs who deny that invoke Pope Paul VI:
...it [the Council] avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority."
Yet as RC apologist Dave Armstrong argues,
The pastoral vs. dogmatic distinction is bogus. A friend of mine who is a canon lawyer, wrote to me:
"This "pastoral" vs. "dogmatic" council distinction is a bunch of hooey (a technical canonical term meaning whatever). Those two words are descriptive, not definitive. Whatever Vatican II taught authoritatively, Catholics are bound to hold. Period. Of course, finding out just what Vatican II taught authoritatively is not always so clear as it was with, say, Trent, but that's a different problem from the one your friend wants to pose." ...So you are not at liberty to dissent from its teaching in part or in entirety. It's as simple as that. - http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/01/vatican-ii-is-it-orthodox-binding.html
I think it is more honest to state that V2 is clear enough for it to be held that it is contradicting past infallible teaching, as you seem to acknowledge, and that assent of mind and will to V2 is enjoined. The traditional Catholics may be rejected as saying V2 is to be held as infallible (http://www.novusordowatch.org/vatican-ii-infallible.htm), but i think they are correct in holding that it taught contrary to previous teaching.
In addition, the answer to my question which began this excursion, "do you even have an infallible list of all infallible teachings?" is still no, as other RC apologists admit, despite the works of Ott and Denzinger.
if you could find one infallible document that contradicts another infallible document, that would suffice to show that the supposed infallibility that corresponds to the office of the See of Peter is bogus...Thankfully the Faithful are not tasked with determining what constitutes infallible teaching, that office belongs to the bishop of Rome.
But as the popes have failed to provide an infallible list of all infallible teachings, then some hold V2 is infallible, or essentially that submission to it as if it were infallible is to be given, and to all official teaching (though what is "official" is also disputed among Catholics). In either case it is unreasonable to restrict the veracity of Rome to papal infallibility, and if so, then an infallible list is needed, or of all infallible teachings, as infallibility is not restricted to the pope.
And infallibility is not restricted to the pope. As D.D., Ph.D. Canon George D. Smith states,
What is liable to be overlooked is the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church. It is by no means uncommon to find the opinion, if not expressed at least entertained, that no doctrine is to be regarded as a dogma of faith unless it has been solemnly defined by an ecumenical Council or by the Sovereign Pontiff himself. This is by no means necessary. It is sufficient that the Church teaches it by her ordinary magisterium, exercised through the Pastors of the faithful, the Bishops, whose unanimous teaching throughout the Catholic world, whether conveyed expressly through pastoral letters, catechisms issued by episcopal authority, provincial synods, or implicitly through prayers and religious practices allowed or encouraged, or through the teaching of approved theologians, is no less infallible than a solemn definition issued by a Pope or a general Council.
If, then, a doctrine appears in these organs of divine Tradition as belonging directly or indirectly to the depositum fidei [“deposit of faith”] committed by Christ to His Church, it is to be believed by Catholics with divine-Catholic or ecclesiastical faith, even though it may never have formed the subject of a solemn definition in an ecumenical Council or of an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Sovereign Pontiff. - "Must I Believe It?" by Canon George Smith Ph.D., D.D. (Originally published in The Clergy Review) http://www.corpuschristiuniversity.org/index.php?option=com_sectionex&view=category&id=14&Itemid=11
Catholic faith” is placed in infallible Church teachings, and has a level of divine certitude insofar as we believe that Jesus Christ, who can neither deceive or be deceived, revealed them through His Church, his chosen instrument, His only one, a dove, spotless and without blemish...
And so goes the assertion, but thus my questions to you which began this excursion. For having made a subjectively fallible faith-decision to submit to Rome, the basis for your assurance of Truth is the assured veracity of Rome. But which rests upon a number of presuppositions, including that which Dulles also states,
People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. Even the most qualified scholars who have access to the Bible and the ancient historical sources fall into serious disagreements about matters of belief” (ibid, p. 4)
It is this premise, that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God and to discern their meanings), in order to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority, that i find unScriptural (not the need for magisterium, but assured infallibility).
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God .
I think what is tripping you up is the distinction between Catholic Faith and human faith. Catholic Faith is ascribed to those things which belong to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, and among those things are doctrines which the papacy has had to weigh in on with infallible teachings. Human faith is subjective, based upon a fallible assurance or feeling, and is subject to change when more information is forthcoming. For example, one could have human faith in a preacher, pastor, or priest, thinking that he is a good and holy man, only to find out years later that he was a fraud. I have seen this numerous times.
You can certainly go out and find choice quotes from spokespersons to say whatever you want about infallible documents being subject to interpretation, subject to fallible interpretation, but now I feel like I am arguing with a journalist and not a philosopher who is interested in answering the question, “What must we believe in order to be saved?” The whole point of an infallible pronouncement is to clarify a point of doctrine. Imagine the Catholic father of a large family in a Buick station wagon, turning around to warn the children, “don’t make me come back there!” Usually, when a pope publishes such a document, he’s back there.
Despite what you have said more than once, Denzinger’s compilation of infallible documents is complete, there is no mystery about what should be on that list. You can quote moderns all day long about the supposed confusion surrounding infallible teachings, but hey, they have come to appreciate the various shades of gray.
That you are confused by what is found in the documents of Vatican Council II, such as the concept of collegiality, and all of the ambiguous sections found inside, you are not alone. You will find lots of commentators struggling to understand it. The same might be said of the writings of the late Pope JPII, confusing to say the least. There are some who will enjoin you to submit to concepts beyond comprehension, to rock star modernist theological discourse that passes as part of this new, as you say, living magisterium. It is not only not Catholic, it is not human...
Thanks for all the effort you have put into this. I have more to say, but not now. Take care. I have to go feed goats, get ready for mass.