CathInfo.com

Let me make it less confusing for you, man...

All of the quotes in that article are from pre-V2 times, so we have some trust that these theologians were orthodox.  Yes, there are not 3 magisteriums (strictly speaking) but 3 LEVELS of the magisterium.  Sorry for not being precise; I assumed you would understand since you read the article.

This is true that bishops alone or the Pope, clearly not intending to teach the whole Church something, is not infallible. The problem is that this cannot be part of the Magisterium since there are numerous Papal Teachings which state that any form of Magisterium (there are only 2 categories) is infallible. There has never been any statement by a Pope that the Magisterium can err in any capacity whatsoever.

The pre-V2 theologians who were quoted in the article are not contradicting previous papal statements, but are further distinguishing the different levels of the magisterium (since in the past, the orthodox hierarchy spoke only orthodox things).  Such a distinguishment was necessary because in the 1900s, popes had the duty of speaking on non-doctrinal matters (i.e. communism, social theory, education) which may or may not be infallible, depending.

As for Vatican II, if it had valid Popes presiding over it, it was definitely infallible.

No, no, no.  Just because a pope gives a talk in St Peter's square does not make it infallible.  Just because a pope writes an encyclical does not make it infallible.  Just because the pope presides at a council does not make it infallible.  All previous ecuмenical councils were infallible (because they officially taught doctrine) but that does not mean that all ecuмenical councils are infallible, just because they're ecuмenical.

This means that it would have infallibly taught error and the Gates of Hell prevailed against the Church. There is nothing in Church history which one can point to that would prove that an official Pope approved Ecuмenical Council of the Catholic Church could be anything less than Infallible. Any aspect touching morals and faith would be infallible. Our Lord said "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am there in the midst of them." This applies to all the General Councils. One would NOT be able to point to any part of a Council of the past dealing with faith or morals that one is free to reject as not Infallible. This is why we can appeal to any Docuмent of a Council, not dealing with changeable disciplines, to refute any heretic that comes along.

Previous councils were infallible because they defined doctrine.  If they had not, they would not have been.  V2 was unique in that it was the first ecuмenical council to not define doctrine.

So either Vatican II is infallible and religious liberty is divinely revealed or we worship the same god as muslims etc... or the men presiding over them were not Catholic and had no authority to call a council.

Or...V2 didn't define doctrine (solemn magisterium) and it didn't teach "what has always been taught" (ordinary and universal magisterium) therefore it only employed its "merely authentic" or "ordinary" magisterium which is fallible.  Therefore, it requires no "assent" because
1) it never said it required assent (which is a requirement to be infallible), and
2) no catholic is required to give assent to matters which are not clearly "matters of faith", even if such matters are related to doctrine/faith/morals.

First, what you said proves that you have no faith that what the Councils of the Church teach is infallible, thereby giving you no reason whatsoever to use a Council to prove any of your points.

Second, since all of the prerequisites were met for Vatican II to be an act of the Magisterium, it would most definitely be infallible, were the claimants presiding actually Popes.

Third, what all this proves is that it cannot be a Council of the Catholic Church and the men presiding were not Popes. If they were, the Church has defected and the Gates of Hell have prevailed.

First, if you have any faith at all and want to keep it, all we can say with absolute certainty of faith is that V2 was not infallible. All other opinions and theories are simply that, useless opinions and useless theories elevated to be doctrines by those with no faith and no faith in the doctrine of infallibility.

Second, per V1, the prerequisites for infallibility were not met at V2. 

Third, it was a council of the Catholic Church - you can dispute this indisputable fact all you like, but that will never change indisputable fact. Note that in spite of that indisputable fact, the Catholic Church has not been destroyed.