But really, if we are going to be serious, we need to look at the documents and to go over them calmly. Reaching the verdict before we know the details is not exactly the highest of human functioning.
Does the tiniest part of you believe the entire subject of Papal Infallibility was without controversy? Have you "calmly" reviewed the documents and come to the conclusion that the Bishops (etc) of the Catholic Church were unanimously in favor of the definition of Papal Infallibility? Does your "calm" review explain why approximately 170 Bishops connveniently 'took a hike' prior to the final vote?
Your side (seemingly a much used term of yours) might do well to make an effort to attempt to objectively examine the reading of history on the "other side".
Denying the validity of the Council, Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick refused to speak at any of the general sessions after June 4th, 1870. Bishop Joseph Strossmeyer of Diakovar told Lord Acton, There is no denying that the Council lacked freedom from beginning to end. To Professor Joseph Hubert Reinkens, Strossmeyer said, that the Vatican Council had not had the freedom necessary to make it a true Council and to justify its passing resolutions binding the conscience of the entire Catholic world.
lacking a moral unanimity or even a clear two-thirds majority, Papal Infallibility was now elevated as an article of faith equal to the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. A belief that could not possibly meet the Vincentian canon of Universality, Antiquity and Consent, and in fact a belief not universally shared by Catholics even within living memory of the Council that solemnly defined it. Years later, Orthodox theologian Sergei Bulgakov, observed with disdain that, The Vatican Council has as much right to call itself a Council as todays meetings of delegates from the Soviet republics can claim to be a free expression of the will of the people. http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/papaldogma.aspx