The Church does not do anything in vain.
The Church did not do V2 nor create the NOM.

The pope is not the Church.

Go look at the books. A solemn General Council is the solemn magisterium, and a pope approving of whatever is in it, means the Church did it. The pope represents Christ and His Church. And if you want to still deny this, you tell us when "the Church" does something.

The Church's magisterium is how we know, because it is what tells us that V2 taught errors. What you are saying here ^^ is that the solemn magisterium can teach error, which is altogether wrong.

I've never understood this particular intellectual malfunction of yours.  No, what he's clearly saying is that it cannot be Solemn Magisterium ... but that it SHOULD have been, had it actually been approved by a legitimate Pope.  It's a form of modo tollentis argument for SVism.

You CONSTANTLY beg the question that the Conciliar papal claimants are Popes and engage in egregious circular argumentation as a result.

Then the other circular nonsense you engage in is that if the "Pope" (as you consider each Conciliar papal claimant to be) teaches truth, then it's Magisterium, but then if the "Pope" teaches error, then what he taught is not Magisterium ... based on the Stubbornian "rule of faith [sic]".  Consequently, you reduce both the Magisterium and infallibility to an absurd tautology.

Since only true teachings are Magisterium, the Magisterium is infallibly true (since you simply exclude error by definition from Magisterium).

What's true is true, and what's false is false.

Utterly absurd.  Magisterium is anything that the Pope (for our purposes here) teaches in his official capacity as Pope to the Universal Church ... say, vs. something he might say from the pulpit, or an interview on a plane or with Scalfari, etc. -- and not merely the stuff he HAPPENS TO get right.  Infallibility is an a priori GUARANTEE of truth, and not simply the fact that a teaching happens to be true.

I've never understood this particular intellectual malfunction of yours.  No, what he's clearly saying is that it cannot be Solemn Magisterium ... but that it SHOULD have been, had it actually been approved by a legitimate Pope.  It's a form of modo tollentis argument for SVism.

One of the reasons you've never understood is because you have a misunderstanding of what the Magisterium and papal infallibility even is. Yes, you, the great CI theologian misunderstand something. Incredible but true.

The Solemn magisterium is what I posted in my last post, and PPVI said more than once that there was purposely no pronouncements of the solemn magisterium.  

Pope Paul VI, Jan. 12, 1966, General Audience
“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority..."

In the above, he is telling us that the council was not magisterial, not infallible. By now everyone should know this. What he is saying below is that it was only disciplinary and pastoral.

Pope Paul VI, Aug. 6, 1975, General Audience
 “Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.” 

It's of your own doing that you continually insist, even in light of V2, that all councils are ipso facto infallible and magisterial. This is the real intellectual malfunction. 

I don't know that there is doubt there, because I honestly do not care if they're popes or not. To me it's like the weather - whatever it's gonna be, nobody can do anything about it. So if the "true pope" declared they were not popes I would be happy for the sedes. Or if he said nothing, or said they were true popes, it would not change my faith one iota, but I wonder if he said they were true popes or nothing at all, on that account would the sedes consider him a non-pope? 

You ask all these questions as if you are trying to catch me or something, but you gotta remember I do not care about the status of the conciliar popes. I hope the sedes are right, I really do - I do not think they are right, but I hope they are for their own sake.

And if he ever does say they were not popes, then the sedes can celebrate the fact that they were right the whole time - hooray for them! I'd like to celebrate with them. It'd be a useless celebration to me, but why not? Now they have bragging rights! It'd be a very big deal to them, not to me, but I would celebrate with them. Would they return to attending Mass with all other Catholics after that? 

And that right there, folks, is precisely where dogmatic R&R leads: "I honestly do not care if they're popes or not," Stubborn says. It really is exactly the same position taken by the Old Catholics.

Stubborn decides "his faith" to be whatever suits him. Papal infallibility? Who cares? He can take if or leave it. If a "Pope" defined something Stubborn didn't think was "the Magisterium," then Stubborn has the authority to simply ignore it. 

The whole thing Jesus said about "upon this rock I will build my Church," Stubborn interprets away. Stubborn is his own "rule of faith." No "rock" needed.

I don't know that there is doubt there, because I honestly do not care if they're popes or not. To me it's like the weather - whatever it's gonna be, nobody can do anything about it. So if the "true pope" declared they were not popes I would be happy for the sedes. Or if he said nothing, or said they were true popes, it would not change my faith one iota, but I wonder if he said they were true popes or nothing at all, on that account would the sedes consider him a non-pope? 

My point is to hopefully show you that some of the SV-type positions are not so unreasonable as you make them out to be. 

You can say that you don't know if there is doubt there..but if there was zero doubt the answer would be "No, I do not believe there is a possibility that the Conciliar popes will ever be truly declared false popes. I don't even need to answer if I would accept such a true declaration were it to happen, because there is no chance such a true declaration will happen". 

Subjection to the Roman Pontiff is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all humans. The "doubt" in question is precisely what allows Catholics to refuse subjection to the Conciliar popes.  The fact that the Conciliar popes are manifest heretics, idolaters, promulgated non-Catholic liturgies, Sacrament, etc. is why Catholics can say "Somethings not right here..this has never happened before. These popes do not profess the true faith, and even worse they teach this false faith to the faithful! I know I cannot be 'in communion' with heretics, so how can I be subject to one as my supreme shepherd?"

You ask all these questions as if you are trying to catch me or something, but you gotta remember I do not care about the status of the conciliar popes. I hope the sedes are right, I really do - I do not think they are right, but I hope they are for their own sake.

Yeah, right  Again, the fact the the Conciliar popes are manifest heretics, idolaters, apostates, etc. etc. is justification enough to hold them as, at least, doubtful popes. No Pope has ever been a manifest heretic prior to the late 20th century.. that's literally a reason why people think, "Uh, I don't think this is possible".
If the SVs are absolutely right, or the sedeprivationalists, or sedeimpoundists, or the "sede doubters"..it doesn't really matter to us, now. Some SV great grandmother isn't going to hell because the status of the papacy was actually "sede plena" or "sede impounded", while she thought it was "sede vacant" because these men are manifest heretics and do not profess the true faith. 

What you can't say is "I don't care". If these men are somehow true popes, and you believe it to be so, you must be subject to them. That is necessary for your salvation. If you hold some reasonable doubt (e.g. they are heretics, idolaters, do not profess the true Faith) as to whether or not they are true popes, you can refuse subjection to them 

You don't even have any room to speak since you don't even have a pope, you have not had a pope for some 60 years and your rule of faith is a heretic yet you criticize me?

But please, obsess and care all you want, in the mean time keep the faith and strive to do God's holy will in all circuмstances of life. Do that, and, although you don't believe it, you can make it to heaven regardless of the status of popes.

You cannot be Catholic and not care who the Pope is. One may be mistaken about the status of a particular papal claimant. But to say the Pope does not matter is a heretical statement.

I do agree with you that the SV position is factually/historically problematic because I believe that most of the blame for the Crisis lies with the Cardinals and Bishops. But at least the SVs are logically and doctrinally consistent.

The SSPX invents a novel ecclesiology that shreds the promises of Jesus Christ and the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium concerning the papacy.

You forgot the rest of the quote...
.. but it nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary and so manifestly authentic magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, in accordance with the Council's intention regarding the nature and purposes of the individual docuмents." - Paul VI - General Audience 12 Jan. 1966

This, obviously, is a lie. Simple. Purposely or not, he misused his supreme authority in that the faithful are told they must go along with whatever is in the docuмents.

“The supreme ordinary magisterium of the Pope is infallible when he teaches the universal Church in matters of faith or morals, even without a solemn definition. For the Pope, as supreme teacher, can bind the faithful by his ordinary teaching authority, provided he clearly intends to do so.” - AD. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, transl. by Rev. Msgr. John J. Byrnes, Desclee, New York, 1959,

The problem is:
1st, Both V2 popes already said there was no infallibility at V2. This is true, accept it.
2nd, per V1 the pope is not infallible when he preaches new doctrines - which V2 was full of.   

2 questions:

1) What would sedes do or do differently if the new "true pope" came out and declared the conciliar popes were never popes?

2) What would sedes do or do differently if the new "true pope" NEVER mentioned anything at all about the conciliar popes?

The Church's magisterium is how we know, because it is what tells us that V2 taught errors. What you are saying here ^^ is that the solemn magisterium can teach error, which is altogether wrong. The Church's magisterium is always, always infallible. So when you see errors, if you know noting else, you know those teachings are not of the magisterium.

The Magisterium is the Church authoritatively teaching all those truths contained in the Deposit of Faith.

Ordinary Magisterium is the Church teaching Catholic truths in her usual, day to day activities.

Universal Magisterium is infallible, binding teachings that the Church has taught always and everywhere since the time of the Apostles.

Extraordinary Magisterium or Solemn Magisterium is the Church teaching in an unusual manner, such as through a Council or an ex cathedra statement made by the pope. 

General Councils are only General Councils because a pope approved of the result. If a pope approves of the result, it is "the Church" that gave us the result. Things have been presented in General Councils that the pope did not approve of, and it was simply laid aside as not part of the result, and the Church didn't give us those things.

Do you believe "the Church" gave us canon law?