[quote=Lazerlike42]Specifically, I am looking to see if there are any Magesterial statements to answer this question:
When God protects the Magesterium from error, does He protect the words used (what is actually said), the intent of the words (what they are meant and understood to say at the time), or both?
It is the actual words used that are protected. One of the errors (tricks) of the modernists is to claim that it is the “meaning behind the words” that is protected, and not the words themselves. Then the modernist proceeds to “reinterpret” the statement in a new way, due to an alleged “deeper understanding”.
This was condemned at the first Vatican Concil, where Papal Infallibility was defined:
Vatican I" "Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding… " (Vatican I, Dz 1792; 1800; 1839).
Papal Infallibility has limits. The Pope cannot come out and change a doctrinal teaching of the Church, nor reveal any new doctrine. The first duty of the Pope is to defend what the Church has always taught, and, when deemed necessry, to define these docrinal teachings when necessary.
Vatican I: “For the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.”
Vatian II was merely a pastoral council, and as such falls into the same category as a Papal Encyclical, It was not part of the extraordinary magisterium, as both Popes who reigned over the council told us.
Paul VI: "There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoid issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.” (Paul VI, General Audience of January 12, 1966 in Insegnamenti di Paolo VI, vol.4, p. 700.)
Then there is the important testimony from the Council’s. At the close of Vatican II, the bishops asked Archbishop (later Cardinal), Felici, who was the Council’s Secretary, for that which the theologians call the “theological note” of the Council . That is, the doctrinal “weight” of Vatican II’s teachings. Felici replied:
“We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the decelerations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations.”