CathInfo.com

4.  How does the Holy Ghost guide the church?  By the pope's infallibility and Apostolic truths from Tradition and Scripture.
5.  Is there any other way that the Holy Ghost can guide the Church?  No, this is the only power the pope has for teaching.
6.  Apart from Infaillibility, is there any other way for the pope to be protected from error?  No.
Conclusion - A council cannot be infallible unless the pope uses infallibility.

4 is absolutely false and is nothing but your begging the question in favor of your conclusion.  Your allegation (aka gratuitious assertion) that (apart from Scripture and Tradition), the Church is not guided by the Holy Spirit except in those of his judgements that meet the notes of infallibility ... is precisely what we're arguing about and you're simply begging the question.  That's utterly ridiculous and at the very least savors of heresy.  Perhaps 1% of the Magisterium in its entire history has met the notes of infallibility (that number is probably incredibly high).  Your allegation that 99+% of the Magisterium can go corrupt and lead souls to hell is utter absurdity, and I would categorize it as at least implicitly heretical.

PS -- your conclusion doesn't follow at all from the 3 premises above it.

your view of the Church can hardly be excused of being outright heretical.  Only the confusion of these days absolves you from heresy.

I honestly don't really believe that anymore. There's limits to culpability here, especially once one takes it upon themselves to start promoting an obviously erroneous position that blasphemes Holy Mother Church... A "material heretic" is a Catholic in good faith who merely makes a mistake on Church dogma, but is open to correction. When you stray out of that position, the individual becomes culpable. This is what I've come to understand about why MHFM so openly refers to others has heretics. Language which the Church has traditionally used, yet has been usurped by more "ecuмenical" phrases like Modernist, pseudo-traditionalist, conservative, etc. out of human respect.

From the Popes and Magisterium (which some here think we can deny):

Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431:
“… ALL HERETICS corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame.”

Pope Innocent IV, First Council of Lyons, 1245:
“The civil law declares that those are to be regarded as heretics, and ought to be subject to the sentences issued against them, who even on slight evidence are found to have strayed from the judgment and path of the Catholic religion.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum #13:
"can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others."
[...]
"he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith."

Canon 1325.2: "After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic;"

Pax, explain what your mental and spiritual malfunction is (and I'm serious in asking this) where it's more important for you to save and salvage Bergoglio than it is to defend the honor and the holiness of Holy Mother Church?

Bergoglio's non-infallible errors/heresies/sins do not reflect on the holiness, indefectible nature or purity of the Church.  That's the point.  When Bergoglio isn't teaching authoritatively then he's simply a bishop who is using his fallible, human faculties to speak heretical, erroneous catholic words.

You basically characterize her as a whore in order to save Bergoglio.

Bergoglio has nothing to do with the V2 council which is what this thread is about.  Bergoglio is a heretic, no doubt about that.  V2 was still a fallible council; nothing about Bergoglio changes that.

I'm using church law, logic and common sense to show that even though God *seemingly* allowed V2 to proclaim error (but proclaiming something is not the same as a binding teaching), technically speaking, that is allowed by the Church's own rules because God only promised the Holy Ghost to protect the Church when She follows the rules that God laid out.  If such rules aren't followed, then contradictions, errors and a crisis of Faith follow because the Modernists used "assumptions" of the laity to confuse them. 

The laity "assumed" that V2 was like every other ecuмenical council.  It wasn't.
The laity "assumed" they could trust V2 clerics.  Most were orthodox, but the minority weren't and they controlled the voting.
The laity "assumed" that God would not allow evil clerics to promote ambiguous errors.
Etc, etc

But when you deep dive into the legal fine print of it all, you can see that what happened was *technically* allowed by God, mostly due to the laity of the time not being strong in their Faith, not standing up for Truth, not fighting for orthodoxy.

Extending that metaphor, you're claiming that she's like a wife who flirts with other men, kisses them passionately, and even engages in sɛҳuąƖ foreplay, but if she doesn't actually engage in penetrative copulation, she's free from the charge of adultery.  Your limiting the holiness of the Church to "infallibility in the strict sense" is absolutely the same as if you were characterizing this woman as not guilty of adultery simply because she didn't engage in the final act.

The correct analogy would be that the wife did not do any of these things, but an imposter, dressed as the wife, did so and scandalized everyone.  Our Lord never promised that the Church would be free from scandals or apparent contradictions or a crisis of Faith.  Our Lord's own passion scandalized the Apostles (as He foretold) and His death was a *apparent* contradiction to His claim of being God, and it caused a crisis of Faith to most all.  Our Lady at LaSallette said the Church would be "in eclipse" meaning hidden, but not gone.  Meaning that darkness would *appear* to triumph, that error would *appear* to be taught, that doctrine would *appear* to change.  But appearances or imposters do not change the truth.  Scandals and contradictions do not sully the Church's holiness or purity.  Just like an adulterous imposter does not make the wife guilty nor destroy the marriage.

Meanwhile, the Popes have characterized the Church and her Magisterium as being without stain or blemish.

There are fallible types of the magisterium, a fact you never admit. 

That's like calling the aforementioned woman above without stain or blemish.  But, yeah, oh wait, when the popes taught these things about the Church and the Magisterium, they weren't protected by the Holy Spirit, so they could have been just full of it.

The word "teach" is overused and generalized.  V2 did not teach; it promoted, argued, persuaded.  Strictly speaking, a Church teaching is a binding truth, which ALL must assent to, under pain of sin, to get to heaven.  Such teachings apply to solemn pronouncements, but also Scripture and Tradition (which account for 99% of the Faith).