Are these statements infallable?

[Era Might]

[quote]There's no such thing as a distinction between "Papal Magisterium" and "Universal and Ordinary Magisterium."  There is only "Magisterium."  This was defined by Vatican II, basically, as the "Pope and bishops united together teaching something concerning faith or morality."  Whenever the pope speaks infallibly on such matters, the bishops are united to him in teaching whether they do so intentionally or not, and whether they agree or not.[/quote]

There is indeed a distinction. The Papal Magisterium is not the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, although the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium is intimately connected to the Papal Magisterium, to the extent that it requires its approval. There are further distinctions, which we don't need to go into here, such as the "Ordinary Magisterium" and the "Supreme Ordinary Magisterium".

[quote]There is only one "new perspective" that could be had about papal infallibility:  individual bishops possess the infallible authority of Peter, and the "Bishop of Rome" is merely "first among equals."[/quote]

I'll leave it to theologians and the Magisterium to plumb the depths of the ministry of the Bishop of Rome. I have already pointed to one development of the Church's dogmatic faith in the Pope. I will not rule out more, in the future, as the Holy Spirit guides the Church, as he always has.

[quote]The idea that the Church is a "product of its time" is not safe in my opinion.  The Church is timeless, and usually challenges the people in the time in which it finds itself to do something that they are not doing, or to do the opposite of what they ARE doing.  That's traditional ecclesiology, and you know it.[/quote]

The Church is, of necessity, a product of its time, although it always retains its eternal dimension. "Ever ancient, ever new" as the Fathers liked to say.

[quote]Even so, doctrine needs to be presented in a way that makes it understandable to those for whom God himself intends it. In my Encyclical Epistle Slavorum Apostoli, I recalled that this was the very reason why Saints Cyril and Methodius laboured to translate the ideas of the Bible and the concepts of Greek theology in the context of very different historical experiences and ways of thinking. They wanted the one word of God to be "made accessible in each civilization's own forms of expression". They recognized that they could not therefore "impose on the peoples assigned to their preaching either the undeniable superiority of the Greek language and Byzantine culture, or the customs and way of life of the more advanced society in which they had grown up". Thus they put into practice that "perfect communion in love which preserves the Church from all forms of particularism, ethnic exclusivism or racial prejudice, and from any nationalistic arrogance". In the same spirit, I did not hesitate to say to the Aboriginal Peoples of Australia: "You do not have to be divided into two parts ... Jesus calls you to accept his words and his values into your own culture". Because by its nature the content of faith is meant for all humanity, it must be translated into all cultures. Indeed, the element which determines communion in truth is the meaning of truth. The expression of truth can take different forms. The renewal of these forms of expression becomes necessary for the sake of transmitting to the people of today the Gospel message in its unchanging meaning.

--Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter "Ut Unum Sint"[/quote]

[quote]Welll.... I know what you're getting at, but modern philosophy has a tendency to PREVENT accuracy of thought and concept definition, rather than CLEARLY present and define.  Scholasticism may have been pedantic and ornate, but at least it prevented unintentional misinterpretation of statements.[/quote]

There has been PLENTY of misinterpretation throughout the centuries. We only need to look a few decades back, when Fr. Leonard Feeney misinterpreted the Church's pronouncements on salvation, for which he was corrected by Pope Pius XII. You can read that correction [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1467"]HERE[/url].

[quote]I'm not talking about "simple statements."  I'm talking about "plain statements."  We have a serious problem if "actively formulating the faith" necessitates that we become non-straightforward.  Ultimately, if the fundamentals of the faith cannot be understood or realized and grasped by a simple person it isn't worth the paper it is printed on or the tongues on which it is preached.

MOST people don't want "nuance" they want ANSWERS!  The "modern Church" isn't delivering.[/quote]

The Church has been providing answers for 40 years. What is it that isn't "plain" to you? Perhaps I can point to the Church's answer.