You wrote in #211:
In other words, only papal utterances which guard Tradition have divine protection, novelties do not.
This is a tautology. Any statement of error obviously is not the work of the Holy Spirit. Vatican I does not make such banal statements. Rather, it says that the Holy Spirit assists the Holy Father precisely so that this is averted. Furthermore, implcit in your exegesis is the idea that sometimes the Holy Spirit assists the Holy Father and sometimes He doesn't and we i.e. you, decide when that is. Again, Protestantism.
In your latest post, you now write:
1. The protection of the Holy Spirit wasn't granted so that popes might go off on tangents proclaiming new doctrines.
Exactly. Writing this in the positive mood, it was granted to prevent this. And The Holy Spirit does. Or does He? Sometimes? Only when you say so?
2. His revelation is granted only to GUARD what has been handed-down to us from the apostles and the deposit of faith.
This is true. But why the word "only"? Omit it. The sentence makes perfect sense without it.
It seems that it's not only Vatican II documents that give you trouble. Vatican I also seems a little beyond you.
You really don't know what you're talking about. What I said was perfectly correct. Papal utterances are divinely protected only when they guard what has been transmitted from the apostles and the deposit of faith. Novelties don't qualify for protection.
This was not a tautology since the First Vatican Council was directing its language precisely in opposition to those pope-worshipers like yourself who made exaggerated claims on behalf of popes for all kinds of novel doctrines. It was shooting down claims of divine protection in such cases.