CathInfo.com

Well, my personal opinion is that it cannot go on for more than 14 years 6 months 35 days 2 hours 15 minutes and 23.5 seconds.  But some theologians hold that it's 15 minutes and 47.8 seconds.

You might believe in a Church that would fail in its mission if it taught error to the universal Church, but if so, you definitely don’t believe in the Roman Catholic Church, since it has never taught such a thing.

Does the material Church you believe in (not sure what CT refers to) have a hierarchy consisting of validly ordained bishops who received their jurisdiction from a true successor of St. Peter?  If not, this is another confirmation that your “Material Church” is not the true Church founded by Christ, since the Church Christ founded will continue to exist as He constituted and founded it, and He constituted and founded it with a legitimate hierarchy of bishop with authority. 

The true Church also has four marks, one of which (apostolicity) also requires legitimate hierarchy consisting of bishops with jurisdiction – that is, validly ordained bishops with the authority to carry out the mission that Christ entrusted to His Church.  So, if your Material Church doesn’t have a hierarchy of bishops with authority to carry out the mission Christ entrusted to his Church (and they can only receive the authority to carry out that mission from a Pope), then your Church lacks a mark that the true Church will always possess.  This is yet another confirmation that the Material Church you believe in a false Church.

What’s worse, holding to an error of Vatican II, or rejecting the true Church founded by Christ and believing in a false Church (one without four marks)?    Blessed are those today who believe in the true Church AND reject the errors of Vatican II.

You’ll have to explain what your “Material Church” thinks Vatican I defined concerning the Papacy, which contradicts what I wrote, or what ABL wrote (not sure which you're referring to).

There’s a lot to unpack there, but suffice it to say that the Church founded by Christ has never taught that the Pope is unable to err in a magisterial teaching that is addressed to the universal Church.  Perhaps the problem is that you’ve been reading the writings of the Old Catholic heretics, or their post-Conciliar counterparts - the sedevacantist – who say this is what the true Church teaches?  If so, don’t let them fool you.    Heretics always distort the meaning of Catholics dogmas by presenting them in an extreme sense.  They then present their straw man “dogma” before inexperienced Catholics, as if it's the teaching of the Church, and easily refute it, thereby giving the appearance of having refuted what their Church teaches.  This is a tried and true method of heretics. There's always a certain number of Catholics who fall for this trick and end by leaving the Church. Cardinal Franzelin discussed this tactic used by heretics in his celebrated book, On Divine Tradition:

“As the Fathers often explain, whenever Catholic truth stands midway between two opposite errors, heretics always preserve the Catholic dogma only to distort it by presenting it in an extreme sense in one direction or the other.  Then, what the Catholic Church does not in the least teach, is placed in this [distorted] way before the inexperienced, as though it were Catholic dogma, which can then be easily attacked.” (Franzelin, De Divina Traditione)

Why did Franzelin mention this common tactic of heretics?  Because the heretics he was discussing in the book used the same tactic. And who were those heretics?  It was none other than the old Catholic heretics 1.0 – the Neo-Protestants of the 19th century.  Franzelin explains that the way these heretics attacked the dogma of papal infallibility, was through the use of sophisms and specious arguments that had the effect of eliminating the distinction between infallible ex cathedra papal teachings, and non-infallible teachings of the Pope’s ordinary Magisterium, in the hope of convincing Catholics that everything the Pope teaches must now be considered infallible, according to Vatican I.  He writes:

“… no Catholic has ever denied, or can deny the necessity of distinguishing between ex cathedra definitions and other declarations, even doctrinal ones, whether of the Popes themselves or of Pontifical Congregations.  Enemies of the Holy See and those impugning infallibility alone try to eliminate this necessary distinction, which itself is contained in the decree of the Vatican definition, and especially today the Neo-Protestants [i.e., Old Catholics] do the same. (…) the teacher of Neo-Protestantism, Freidrich Schulte, in order to defend heresy and attack the dogma of papal infallibility, chiefly exerted all his strength and constructed sophisms to bring it to pass that the distinction between a definition ex cathedra, and other public docuмents and declarations of the Popes, is hollow, even to the point that all the declarations which the Pope promulgated or promulgates by the force of his pastoral office, in whatever way he does so, must be held as infallible definitions by Catholics after the Vatican Council.” (Franzelin, De Divina Traditione)

It’s surprising how successful this tactic was.  Even though anyone could have read the dogma of papal infallibility for himself and seen right through the lies of these heretics, nevertheless, as usual, there was a certain caliber of ignorant Catholics who fell for it – just as there’s a certain caliber of ignorant Catholic today who has fallen for the identical tactic of the sedevacantist heretics - not to prove the dogma of papal infallibility false, but in an attempt to prove that the subject of the dogma - the Popes - are false..  One difference is that the Old Catholics 2.0 (today’s Sedevacantists) go further than their heretical 19^th century counterparts, by claiming Vatican I also ruled out the possibility that a pope can fall into heresy.  Not surprisingly, the same dupes fall for that one as well.

I’ll respond to the rest of your reply later.