CathInfo.com

Your implying to start with a vacant chair, which maintains and ends with a vacant chair, which is contrary to V1.

No, I would start with whether or not the Conciliar Popes profess the Catholic Faith. I think we would both agree that they do not. After that comes whether or not they are true Popes

No, I start with and adhere to the teaching of the Church at V1.     

I suggest you start by telling the forum about your erroneous belief that Church councils confirmed by the pope are not infallible……

I suggest you start by telling the forum about your erroneous belief that Church councils confirmed by the pope are not infallible……

Is a council that publicly professes already condemned errors infallible? Or does it fall under the same condemnations already given by previous Popes?

You'll find the answer is the latter. If the teachings of the council were already condemned by the Church, then they couldn't have come from the Church. They came from men who had already left her through public heresy. See: 'Audivimus', 'Achatius' and Causa XXIV: Heretics Excommunicating Catholics Question 1.

Vatican II publicly required the religious assent of all Catholics according to its promulgator, Paul VI. They were merely gaslighting you with the whole "pastoral council" nonsense. To learn more about what Vatican II actually taught, check out this abridged podcast series by former paid Vatican II apologist Louie Verrecchio so you know what you're assenting to.

To give you an idea, it teaches that declared heretics and schismatics are part of the "people of God" and the Church of Christ. By its own definition the conciliar-synodal church founded at Vatican II is a church with no unity of faith. It is in fact an extension of the liberal sect. Lacking the miraculous mark of unity of faith that only the Catholic Church has, this body of men that obscures the Catholic Church is not her.

If you think such poisonous fruit could come from the Church you don't really believe in the Church of the Apostles Creed.