The Ordinary magisterial teachings are the usual day to day teachings of the Church, taught to her members through parents, priests, nuns, teachers, catechisms, hierarchy etc,. The Church's  Universal Magisterium is merely, as PPIX puts it, "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith". Councils are relatively rare yet their place as regards the UM cannot be over stated.

Deo Gratias they've all done their job, how else could we know V2 is wrong? Yet 1000 - 2000 years ago souls were saved without the Council of Trent, V1 and many other Councils, how did they do it? How do we do it? - resort back to my previous post here.  

In may not work in your idea of Catholic ecclesiology, but in reality that's the way it is.

You will firmly abide by the true decision of the Holy Roman Church and to this Holy See, which does not permit errors.
(Bull cuм Postquam; Denz. 740b)

Moreover if what you said were true then there would be no debates in Traditionalist circles on issues such as “Feeneyism,” NFP, Mary’s role in salvation, and the plethora of moral issues we are faced with today.

A church that teaches major doctrinal error, heresy, pernicious moral guidance, and blasphemies/sacrilege in discipline and liturgy is not the church of Christ, but a false and phony church; faker than your local Pentecostal congregation.

Catholic ecclesiology, by necessity, requires a living magisterium and an orthodox one that does not substantially change. Otherwise defection has occurred.

Your grasp of what SVs actually think -- versus what the anti-SV propaganda says and which people like you, Matto, et alii just mindlessly parrot -- is as tenuous as your grasp of reality.

Do you agree that the Church and Christ are one? That the Church is Christ?

If so, what's the point of being even the least bit concerned about the Church's indefectibility?

And Christ, what about Christ?

Ok you are missing the point though. Since you said nothing to my previous question, I am guessing that you agree that Christ and the Church are one and the same. As such, what reason can there be to be concerned about the defection of the Church, which is Christ, as that is something that can never happen.

I reworded your above reply your to make it agreeable: The mere fact that heresy and error came forth through the post-conciliar teachings of the conciliar popes, is, in all trad's observations, indeed an indication that the Holy Ghost is not with them, that they've lost the faith and have in fact failed in their duties as the successors of Peter. But Christ is not fine with any of that.

One thing is for sure, you can talk the true religion all day long with sedes and agree on everything, but once "popes" enter into the subject, it's like trying to converse within the Tower of Babble.