V2 was an ecumenical council, because ecumenical means ALL
cardinals bishops were present invited. But just because it was an ecumenical council does not mean it was infallible. These 2 terms are not mutually exclusive.
I fixed a few things for you! I'm assuming my corrections are what you meant to say (I wasn't going to correct "present" to "invited" but given your emphasis on the word "all" it seemed prudent to so correct).
At any rate, an ecumenical council is certainly infallible. That's what distinguishes it from provincial and smaller councils where only a few bishops and not the pope get together to discuss some thing or another. Infallibility doesn't protect just the Church of Antioch, or of Carthage, or of Rheims. It protects the whole Church. Any individual Church can err (as we see being the case frequently throughout the centuries).
It's debatable whether the ordinary magisterium actually agreed with itself. Does a simple majority, democratic vote constitute a consenus of theological opinion? I'd wager, no. The V2 rules of procedure were unlike any ecumenical council in history. This alone serves to warn all catholics that it wasn't a "normal" ecumenical council.
There is no, and will never be, any question about the ordinary magisterium "agreeing with itself." The ordinary magisterium is, by definition
, what the world's bishops teach in union with the pope. It's distinguished from the extraordinary magisterium because it's how they usually
teach (by letter, oration, publication, etc.-- as opposed to all gathering together at once, which is extraordinary
). Theologians all say that a moral unanimity suffices to show what the ordinary magisterium teaches; and this makes sense, given that until the Internet, it would literally be impossible to discern an absolute unanimity. A moral unanimity suffices. I think nearly three thousand bishops approved Vatican II texts. Less than seventy-five did not, and some who did not only did not simply because they weren't there
. That's a moral unanimity if there ever was one. In either event, when they left, a moral unanimity interpreted the documents in an unorthodox sense. Only further reinforcing what, on the hypothesis that Paul VI was pope, the Church's ordinary magisterium thinks of Vatican II.
But, even playing devil's advocate, let's say a 51-49 vote on one of the erroneous documents constitutes an exercise of ordinary magisterium. So what? The ordinary magisterium is only infallible if it follows the same protocols of V1: the teaching must be 1) on faith and morals, 2) clearly expressed as a matter of faith to be believed, 3) binding on the faithful. It must also agree with Tradition. The ordinary magisterium (i.e. hierachy) is only infallible if it agrees with Tradition. This makes the ordinary magisterium's teachings ordinary AND UNIVERSAL. If such teachings are theoretical or novel, then they aren't UNIVERSAL, they are just ordinary, ergo, they are fallible.
"There's nothing new under the sun". If it's new, it ain't Catholic.
The ordinary magisterium is infallible by definition. It is what all the world's bishops teach in union with the pope. If what we're describing is not
a moral unanimity of bishops, or is not
taught in union with the pope, then it's not
the ordinary magisterium. It's just something that a lot of bishops are doing.
The idea that the ordinary magisterium is only infallible when it agrees with tradition is fallacious. Completely circular. It makes infallibility out to be a synonym for being inadvertently right.
Universal means in all places, not for all time. If it meant for all time, then Trent goes out the window, and so does pretty much everything. Given there's no way to verify all the things believed on day one anyways, so all of a sudden all of Catholicism becomes gnostic. Universality in time is something that was misunderstood from the Vincentian canon (theologians have written about this; the SSPX idea of universality in time is the real novelty