[PFKEY]

Very good. And short. Thank you.

If I may continue to ask more questions.

Did this change satify the conditions of infallibility?

As I understand these conditions they are:

Speaking ex cathedra as Supreme Pastor
Explaining a doctrine of faith or morals
To be held by the Universal Church

[ultima ratio]

Ex cathedra means "from the Chair [of Peter]". No recent pope has spoken ex cathedra.

[traditionalist]

Ultima ratio is not exactly correct. By the admission of Paul VI himself, the pope who ratified Vatican 2, the council did not issue any infallible teachings. As a result, nothing taught at the council binds the Catholic to what is known as "the assent of faith," that is, we Catholics do not have to believe that the council's teachings are contained in divine revelation or have any necessary connection to divine revelation.

However, Catholics must give all non-infallible Chruch teaching what is known as "religious submission." Essentially this means that we must give it the benefit of the doubt. If we have no strong evidence to believe it is false, we must believe that it is probably true, though holding open the possibility that it might be corrected at a future date. However, if we can find strong evidence that it is false, such as documents issued by previous popes that teach the opposite or passages in scripture that unambiguously contradict it, then we can respectfully raise questions and doubts about the non-infallible teaching. The key word here, however, is respectful. We are supposed to avoid polemics in doing so.