CathInfo.com

Do you have any imprimatured work that states what you are stating....that people were wondering if they were part of the Catholic Church or not?

That's not what I'm saying at all.  They didn't know who the real pope was and to whom they had to owe obedience and whose Magisterium they would have to submit to if it were to teach.

You do realize that material error does not exclude from membership in the Church, right?

That's another reason, BTW, that R&R is much more pernicious and potentially harmful to the faith than sedevacantism.  Sedevacantists at least formally acknowledge that they have a duty to submit to Church Magisterium, whereas the R&R dispute this.  So, if they're wrong, the sedevacantists are in material error, but the R&R are in danger of formal error due to their attitudes toward Church authority.

the understanding of the Church has always been that when a moral universality of the bishops (i.e. nearly all of them) get together and teach in union with the Pope, that the teaching is protected from any substantial grave error by the Holy Spirit.

Agree, but said "teaching" has always been (in 100% of past ecuмenical councils) in the form of infallible, dogmatic decrees.  You can't imply "teaching" to V2, because it wasn't dogmatic, nor did it claim to be, nor did it "teach" anything binding.
.
Your idea (as well as other's) that a non-dogmatic council is protected from the Holy Ghost is as novel as V2.  The problem lies not in you (or others); the problem lies in you projecting the same authority/protection to V2 as to Nicea.  Considering the evidence, this is ludicrous.  This is what +Vigano was saying...that V2 used the implication of an ecuмenical council (i.e. the pope with all the bishops) to trick people into accepting error when such "pastoral novelties" were not binding.  
.
Satan = magic.  Magic = imaginary.  Imaginary doctrine = V2.  This is exactly what Christ warned us about:  "There will be signs and wonders..."
.

R&R completely dismiss or ignore that the Magsiterium OVERALL is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit.  That doesn't mean there can't be a slight error here or there, but nothing substantial that would ever endanger souls or the faith.

The only proof you have ever provided for this is Fenton's opinion.  I consider his opinion a novelty, non-traditional and unproven.  If you can prove this, i'm all ears.
.

It's because of the overall "promises of Divine assitance made by her Founder" to the Church that a legitimate Ecuмenical Council is not capable of practically destroying the Church.  It's because of the indefectiblity of the Church.

This is, again, an opinion.  Those who argue that a pope cannot fall into heresy (which is an opinion) usually also argue that the Church's indefectibility applies to fallible statements.  1) This is an opinion, which contradicts Church history.  2) This is an opinion which elevates indefectibility to a secondary infallibility, which further 3) waters down the primacy of the pope, by making his personal infallibility less relevant, because even if he's not speaking infallibly, "don't worry, the Church can't be wrong, because She's indefectible."  I don't buy it (because of Fenton pushed it in the 50s) and the idea is only recent.

That's not what I'm saying at all.  They didn't know who the real pope was and to whom they had to owe obedience and whose Magisterium they would have to submit to if it were to teach.

You do realize that material error does not exclude from membership in the Church, right?

That's another reason, BTW, that R&R is much more pernicious and potentially harmful to the faith than sedevacantism.  Sedevacantists at least formally acknowledge that they have a duty to submit to Church Magisterium, whereas the R&R dispute this.  So, if they're wrong, the sedevacantists are in material error, but the R&R are in danger of formal error due to their attitudes toward Church authority.

Excellent! Very nicely put.