Can you show me where the church teaches a Pope can proclaim pernicious error or heresy to the whole world in his official teaching capacity?

There is no such teaching. The Church only teaches to beware of pernicious error or heresy whatever the source.

So far, I’ve cited a plethora of Magisterial docuмents to the contrary.

Even without the quotes I’ve thus provided, this can simply be deduced from the Indefectibility of the Church, which teaches that she cannot become corrupt in matter and faith and morals and that she will remain substantially the same in her divine mission, doctrines, disciplines and liturgy. This is a divinely revealed truth.

You've cited theologians who've done what V1 condemns as far as abandoning the meaning of the dogma. Again, the pope is not the Church. The Church, which is Christ, will remain without blemish and last until the end of time.

Until some time before the last judgement, there will always be converts, people finding out, getting the answers they seek to join the Church and have hope of saving their souls - in spite of all appearances of the Church being destroyed and in spite of all the heresies and abominations flooding every nook and cranny of this world. This is the Church's indefectibility working. 

When the pope engages his papal infallibility, he must intend to engage his infallibility. The V2 popes themselves literally and explicitly said that they did not engage their papal infallibility at V2 - that's one thing about V2 that is truth. The other truth is that V2, due to such a radical departure from the Church's Magisterium, everyone should know there's no papal infallibility in it. The pioneering trads knew this truth, truth does not change.

But as your above quote demonstrates, when theologians wrongfully teach that popes are divinely protected from teaching error to the whole Church and that such a thing is impossible, the people will believe what they learned from the theologians, whose wrong teachings were widely published as authentic Church teaching.

Had the theologians all echoed V1's clear teaching of exactly when it is that popes enjoy the divine protection from error, and / or had V1 been as widely published as the theologians' teachings, there would be no, or much less confusion in the matter.   

Yes indeed! The limitations you correctly note are placed by V1, not me - and you are correct, those limitations are indeed contrary to what Fr Fenton, Salaverri and Billot asserted. Which is to say simply, they *all* contradict V1.

I only mentioned Quo Primum as an example intended to demonstrate the difference between papal infallibility and papal authority. And yes, make no mistake about it, Quo Primum is indeed an irreformable decree on the Church's Liturgy of the Roman Rite - the pope, St. Pius V, intended to and actually made it irreformable. He can do that because as pope, he has that supreme authority, and he used his supreme authority to bind everyone, even future popes to this law.

Dogma is binding because of what it is, the pope binds us to it under pain of mortal sin - he binds us to it using the same supreme authority as was used for Quo Primum. But there is no mistake about it, it is the truth that we are bound to.     

So you’re asking me to disregard Billot, Franzelin, Salaverri, Fenton and the accompanying Magisterial docuмents since Vatican I they use to support their assertions? And I’m supposed to just believe you because you say they’re wrong and your interpretation of Papal infallibility is correct, even though you’ve cited no text in your favor? 

Stubborn, the following Magisterial teaching completely destroys your entire way of thinking. Will you humbly submit to the Roman Pontiff’s teaching authority, or audaciously resist, and accuse him of being erroneous, since it’s “nOt aN eX cAtHeDrA” pronouncement 

For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circuмstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii, n. 104)

Completely annihilates R&R 

Who are the rightful interpreters of the decrees of Vatican I? Is it you?

Well, when V1 says the pope is infallible when he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, and theologians turn that into "he cannot teach error to the whole Church," anyone with elementary reading comprehension can interpret that to see the theologians have changed the dogma.

V1 tells you exactly when he is infallible. The theologians tell you he cannot teach error. See the diff? The conciliar popes themselves believe as the sedes believe, and also as the NOers believe, which is as theologians teach - which is not how it is because it's not what V1 teaches. 

To your last statement, even if they were Magisterial, you would ignore them anyway. In your system, the only mode of promulgating binding teachings are infallible, ex cathedra proclamations with grand solemnity, contrary to the entire history of the Church and common Catholic sense.

You fail to recognize the distinction between teachings requiring divine, Catholic Faith and those requiring lower degrees of assent such as ecclesiastical faith or religious assent.No, this is false.

Magisterial teachings can be and most often are binding. Ex cathedra decrees are merely doctrines, (which are beliefs the Church has always held), defined ex cathedra and are always binding. Both teachings are binding because we owe our religious assent to the truth, it is on that account that we owe our religious assent to all magisterial teachings whether infallible or not, albeit not always with the same degree of religious assent that we owe to dogmas.

In the case of the V2 docuмents, I don't know what I'd call those - certainly not Magisterial teachings because any Catholic truth within them is used for nefarious purposes and is hidden in ambiguity among heresies.  
 

For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circuмstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii, n. 104)


Completely annihilates R&R

Excellent quote.

Who are the rightful interpreters of the decrees of Vatican I? Is it you?

No interpretation of Vatican I is required, the definition is clear beyond all doubt, it must be accepted not interpreted. Interpreting definitions is what modernists do.