It is because V1 was called specifically for the purpose of condemning errors and defining the doctrine of papal infallibility, that doctrine is what everything is about within that Council.

Whatever prominent theologians wanted to argue, we can see plainly now, in hind site, that they were wrong. I've read what many theologians taught and published almost immediately after V1, and even decades after V1 which should have been condemned because they taught new ideas as regards papal infallibility, just as if these ideas were taught at V1 when they were not.

Unlike V2, with V1, "the single cloth which is woven from the top so that there are no seams" remains the single, seamless cloth.

“You permit the case of St. Athanasius to be invoked in your favor. It is true that this great Bishop remained practically alone in the defense of the true faith, despite attacks from all quarters. But what precisely was involved was the defense of the faith of the recent Council of Nicea. The Council was the norm which inspired his fidelity, as also in the case of St. Ambrose. How can anyone today compare himself to St. Athanasius in daring to combat a council such as the Second Vatican Council, which has no less authority, which in certain respects is even more important than that of Nicea?”

Well of course everyone insisted it was authoritative as all the other councils, would you expect them to say the whole thing was diabolical?

As for the letter to +ABL, you forget that Pope Paul VI wrote that letter actually believing that he had this other infallibility that Fr. Fenton preaches.

 Which is to say that pope Paul VI actually, truly and firmly and positively believed that divine protection prevented him from ever harming the Church, and that obedience of the faithful to his disciplinary and doctrinal directives can only be pleasing to God - exactly as Fr. Fenton teaches.

 While the sedes use this error of additional infallibility in their effort to prove popes are not popes, the conciliar popes use the exact same error to do whatever they want, assured of divine protection.

It's an error that begets a double tongued conundrum.

LOL, funny.

All I am doing is answering your questions as charitably as I can. I think I understand much of what and how sedes think and why. I find it somewhat amazing.

I think it boils down to sedes, like the conciliar popes, both believe the pope has an additional infallibility because some theologians taught it. V1 teaches the pope is only infallible when he defines a doctrine on faith or morals to the whole Church, and V1 specifically teaches that new doctrines have no divine protection . Not complicated, at least not to me and many other trads.

But I've made myself pope. LOL, funny.

If I miss you, have a blessed Christmas QV.