^^^

Your quibbling has already taken this thread in another direction that was discussed in detail years ago without any apparent benefit because there is still no accepted understanding even of the basic terminology that was covered before and which must be understood to form proper judgments. 
 
Drew

Is it possible that all of the Apostles could have abandoned Our Lord after the agony in the garden?  Yes.
Is it possible that all of the Apostels could have denied Our Lord, as St Peter did?  Yes.
Is it possible for a Cardinal, Bishop or Pope to lose the faith and believe heresy?  Yes.
Is it possible for ALL the cardinals, bishops and the Pope to lose the faith and believe heresy?  Yes.
It hasn't happened yet, but it is possible.  As St Athanasius told us, even if those holding the True Faith are reduced to a handful, there is the Church.

All abandon?  Yes.
All deny?  Yes.

For one of the above to lose the faith and believe heresy?  Yes.

"for ALL the cardinals, bishops, and the Pope to lose the faith and believe heresy?"
Absolutely NOT!  That would mean a defection of the hierarchy (despite St. Athanasius' pious hyperbole).

It is the “promulgation,” that is, Dogma, that that is the “proximate Rule.”

You're just plain wrong, Drew.  Promulgation is not the dogma itself.  It's the object of the promulgation and also of our faith.

I could agree with you on this, but it's a matter of theory, and off topic (my fault).  Back to V2 - not all of the hierarchy defected, so the question is irrelevant.

Yeah, but there's a virtual but true Universality when you've got all but one or two bishops who signed the docuмents (+Lefebvre signed them too.).  Absolutely unanimity is not a requirement for Universality.  In fact, the Pope is the litmus test for Universality.  If he along with all but one or two dissident bishops teaches something, it's universal.  Period.  Vatican I was universal despite a number of bishops who rejected it and split off.

^^^^

Your quibbling has already taken this thread in another direction that was discussed in detail years ago without any apparent benefit because there is still no accepted understanding even of the basic terminology that was covered before and which must be understood to form proper judgments. 
 
Drew

It doesn't matter who voted on what.

If you're talking about infallibility and that the pope's "vote" is all that matters, I agree.  But we were discussing indefectibility and if V2 constituted the defection of the "entire" church, which according to the votes, it did not.

That an ecuмenical which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied

I do not deny this either.  An ecuмenical council is "an organ of" infallibility, meaning it is a "vehicle" or a "method" of a pope proclaiming something infallible.  The pope can use other "organs" too, as he did with the Assumption (I think it was a 'papal bull' he used), which was outside of a council.  The point is, I'm not denying that an ecuмenical council is POTENTIALLY infallible.  I'm denying that it is AUTOMATICALLY infallible JUST BECAUSE it's ecuмenical.  That's not how it works.

Once the pope ratifies the conciliar decrees, (assuming there are 'decrees') the councils teachings are binding (if they are worded properly and are clear as to what they are binding) on the faithful. 

Agree, with the above specifications.  All previous ecuмenical councils contained decrees (i.e. canons) which stated, very clearly, they were binding.  V2 did not formally decree, nor bind anyone. 

Without the ratification of the pope, the council and it's decrees are worthless.  It is this act by the pope, and the pope alone, which makes the council an infallible act of the magisterium (if the council has the proper wording to make it clear in what it is teaching and binding).

Agree, except...