CathInfo.com

Not infallible in an extraordinary,solemn manner, but according to the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium:

Finally, and also by definition, nothing can be part of the ordinary magisterium which lacks universality (both geographically and temporally). 

To deny this is to suggest that novelty can be magisterial.

4. Other escapists, unwilling to falsify easily verifiable facts about the Council itself, have cheerfully altered Catholic doctrine instead. They claim in particular that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is infallible only when the teaching it proposes is not only taught by all the bishops at a given moment but can also be shown to have been taught by them over a very lengthy period. To justify this claim they appeal to the famous “Vincentian Canon” or touchstone of traditional doctrine: “What has always been believed, everywhere, and by all.” This requirement is also useful to those who deny the Church’s teaching that Baptism “in voto” (by desire) can suffice for justification and thus for salvation.


But the requirement is in fact heretical! The teaching of the 1870 Vatican Council on the subject is dogmatic and plain and any doubt of interpretation is resolved by reference to the conciliar discussions. The term “universal” implies universality in place, not in time. In technical terms, it is synchronic universality, not diachronic universality, which conditions the infallibility. What has been believed always and everywhere is infallibly true, but teaching may be infallibly true without having been explicitly believed always and everywhere. The present teaching of the Church’s supreme teaching authority, whether expressed in a solemn judgment or by ordinary acts, is necessarily infallible and thus quite incapable of bringing in false or new doctrine, though it may render explicit what has been hitherto implicit or make certain what has fallen into doubt. If flagrantly false doctrine is taught under conditions that ought to guarantee infallibility, it is not just the novelty that must be rejected, but the authority imposing it also, for legitimate authority cannot err in such cases and blatant error is therefore a sure proof of illegitimacy.

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/did-vatican-ii-teach-infallibly/msg372568/#msg372568

You're an "escapist" with your "temporal" universality requirement . . . actually, that would be an improvement if you were only that, since your "temporal" requirement is in fact "heretical." 

This (the Daly view) is the "spirit of Vatican I" I referred to in a prior post. He says it's in the "conciliar discussions." I don't see it in what the Holy Ghost inspired in Vatican I, and this is the issue that needs to be revisited: does the Magisterium serve Tradition and what is handed down, protect and strengthen it, or does it, ipse dixit, simply say, "what we say is Tradition, shut up and obey."

The Daly view was a trap door to Vatican II. Or, you could say Vatican II was a monster the Sede theologians created . . . before they were "Sede."

Nope.

Both John XXIII and Paul VI explicitly denied its infallibility.

Vatican II was a unique breed of cat, and unlike all other councils (just as the new canonizations use the same terminology as traditional ones, but what is being “canonized” is a new conception of “sanctity”).