So the conflation continues on both sides, where teaching (Magisterium) and "commands" are being blurred together.
1) Infallible Magisterium (teaching) -- requires assent with the certainty of faith
2) Infallible Universal Discipline (commands) -- requires unquestioning obedience and acceptance
3) Non-Infallible Magiserium (teaching) -- requires internal religious assent (both sides misinterpret this)
4) Non-Universal Commands -- requires obedience UNLESS complying would be contrary to faith or morals
5) Personal Teaching of Pope as Private Theologian -- accept it if true, reject it if false
6) Personal Actions of the Pope -- not protected, where he can sin like anyone else
Much conflation by both sides of all these layers of papal authority in this thread.
R&R try to claim that the Conciliar problem entails #3, #4, #5, #6 only ... with an extreemly loose interpretation of #3 that makes it tantamount to #5
SVs claim that the Conciliar problem also includes #1 and #2 ... with a strict interpretation of #3 that makes it tantamount to #1
R&R fail badly on #2, since the New Mass is clearly Universal Discipline, where the Holy Ghost protects a pope from promulgating a Rite of Mass that's offensive to God and harmful to souls.
SV fail in exaggerating the scope of #1 an then offering an interpretation of #3 that's so strict that it becomes, for all intents and purposes, the same as #1.
Both sides are quibbling about the scope of #1 rather than recognizing that this problem goes well beyond that, to the indefectibility of the Church.