I don't know if Stubborn's assertion, that V1 contained ALL the Church's teaching on infallibility, is correct.  I do know that it is sufficient for now.

The First Vatican Council:

…..in virtue of *his* supreme apostolic authority, *he* defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, *he* possesses, by the divine assistance *promised to him* in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

...So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Pax, defined dogma is defined dogma. I remind you that defined dogma by it’s very nature, is in itself, always complete,  unchangeable and unchanging forever. Defined dogma's meaning, remains the same forever.  

If, like recent theologians, you can find a way to make that which was “promised to him”, into being promised to “councils” and promised to “the totality of bishops etc.” of LG25, then, please post how you did it. Until then, we are certain that "his" and  “he” means the pope alone, and “promised to him” means Divine protection from the possibility of error is promised to the pope alone – just exactly as it is written. No one can ever, not in all eternity ever change this without changing it's meaning, as these sedes are wont to do.

Because it is dogma, there is no possibility of ever changing it, yet to change it is what the sedes seek in vain. All they will ever find is some teachings from recent theologians who managed to change it to agree with them, but dogma is eternal truth and eternal truth never changes. So to think it is in any way incomplete is wrong because any further decrees on infallibility can only repeat that which has been declared at V1, much to the dismay of these sedes.

These sedes have the temerity to reject this definition because for them, it is incomplete since it does not fit their narrative - adding the NO's LG25 is what for them is missing, is what completes the dogma. It is only incomplete because it does not go far enough for them. For these sedes it is a scandal because it does not support their faith in the empty chair, it does not say enough to satisfy their obsession with an empty chair - which is the reason that for them, it is  incomplete, is not finished, and there must be more - as if the Holy Ghost was incapable of including the additional conditions of LG25 at any time during the council V1.

The other fact of the matter is, if He did add the conditions of LG25, then this dogma as it is declared, would be altogether meaningless – which is exactly what this dogma is to these sedes.
 
Pax, my friend, please never lose sight of the fact that when you are dealing with these sedes, you are dealing with people who have no faith in the defined dogma as it is written, as it was declared by Pope Pius IX at V1. You must accept that they are in fact scandalized by this very dogma as it is written and decreed by a pope in a council – which, need I remind you, is the very entity they claim to be always, automatically infallible.  

This is pure comedy.  

We agree on something! ha ha!

Trying to get us to believe in the NO de fide doctrine, with the ultimate goal being that of rejecting that same doctrine as you sedes do, would indeed be laughable if it weren't such a tragedy.

And for what purpose must we believe it in order to reject it?
To agree with you that the pope is not the pope of course.

Stubborn, my comment about V1 being potentially incomplete was not in reference to the council aspect.  A council is only infallible if the pope is involved; it is a method for him to use in being infallible.  Hope we agree on this. 

V1 didn’t define the aspect of non-solemn infallibility (ie ordinary/universal magisterium) which this site has shown, is filled with hundreds of posts debating what it is.  I think this topic needs much clarity from the Church.  

There is nothing in Scripture, tradition, her solemn judgement, or in Her ordinary and universal magisterium which teaches that all councils are infallible, or that infallibility is found within the totality of bishops in council, or dispersed throughout the world in unison with the pope.

Never said there was.

If there was such a teaching, then V1 is incomplete. If there was, then V1 does not define the Church's infallibility - because it's incomplete. 

The council of nicea defined part of Christ's nature, as being fully God.  Some centuries later, it was necessary to define Christ's nature as being also fully man.  The council of nicea never claimed to be the FINAL say on all things related to Christ's nature.  I wouldn't say that it was "incomplete" but only that it did not answer every possible question/heresy that could arise.

In the same way, V1 was called to define papal infallibility based on the heresies of the protestants and pre-modernists.  Now, over a 100 years later, there is a lack of clarity on when the ordinary/universal magisterium is infallible.  This needs to be defined at some point, in my opinion.  This doesn't mean that V1 is "incomplete", it just means it didn't foresee all future heresies.

If it is a de fide doctrine, then V2 and the NO, meeting the criteria of LG25 to a "T", are infallible because it came from a council with all the bishops in unison with the pope and is still taught by all the bishops in unison throughout the world and we had all dam well better hop on the V2 bus.

V2 does not meet the criteria of LG25, nor V1.

It actually did.......
"Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed, which are contained in the word of God as 
found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium."

The magisterium waters have been further muddied by the many distinctions that theologians have made over the last 100+ years.  There needs to be more clarification, in my opinion.