Those are the two I was referring two. But some say it's only one, the Assumption, and some say it's hundreds of ex cathedra magisterial pronouncements, and (guess what) there is no infallible guide to tell me how many infallible statements there are. They simply institutionalized the circularity without the people seeing it.

The pope said here's the definition of declaring ex cathedra, and then the pope said now I'm declaring something, and then the pope left you and me holding the bag as to determining infallibly whether he declared ex cathedra or not. That's how he keeps himself off the hook: if he needs to declare later it wasn't ex cathedra, he still can, he has plausible deniability, he only needs to say "Simon didn't say". The idea that the Assumption is infallibly declared only arises on your infallible authority, not the pope's, because he didn't apply the definition to the declaration, you did. He's free, the hapless Catholic is stuck and doesn't even realize he's holding the bag.

But that's a consequence of the Catholic always being asked to suspend his own authority to decide except in the case of deciding to whom he will delegate his authority to decide. (And that problem is shared with some Orthodox.) The Church gives you no help whatsoever in sharing your responsibility for rightly or wrongly deciding that the Church you're speaking of is in fact (part of) the same church Jesus established. It cannot share that responsibility with you because it's your free will. Any Church or cult can claim total authority after you make that one decision on your own authority to delegate all authority to it; and that's why the Orthodox claim is no different from the claims of the others. Until you see it you'll still be stuck in that claim of self-sustenance that the Orthodox (or Catholic) Church doesn't actually make for itself: you need to see that that you delegated to the Church your authority to make decisions, but you cannot logically delegate your authority to decide at the same time as exercising your authority to decide (to delegate). Each person is responsible for the use of his freewill, even if he only ever uses his freewill once to make himself the passive slave of some magisterium. The actual claim any Church should make is not infallibility but (Joan of Arc) to hope to stay right if right and to be put right if wrong. Only Jesus can remove or retain a candlestick, not the candlestick.

Vatican I effectively shut up the Catholics but stopped short of saying the Immaculate Conception was infallible, which is why Catholics today still are unsure whether it should be counted. It was use of force and threat, not actual use of a power of infallibility. If the Catholic or Orthodox are incorrect about who they've sainted, we'll all laugh about it in heaven, it was never an earthly perfection that they had to work so hard to defend their rightness about (and thereby prevent the living from recognizing their own saintedness but keep them in a state of doubt that can transfer to the afterlife). But for those whose system depends upon being right at all costs, unlike Joan of Arc's system, there is always the risk of pride preceding a fall. I don't think the Catholic or Orthodox will lose their place utterly, but the Catholics are cruising for a bruising and I have no eschatology that preserves either organizational name; only the invisible church is knowably preserved. (Incidentally, my doubt about the Churches might be paralleled to the hierarchs' doubt about individual sainthoods and salvations; perhaps I should be more confident about both Churches just as they should be more confident about my sainthood. But then that suggests that the problem is that we all lack spiritual discernment of each other and our organizational destinies, and resolving that might be the direction we should each take.)

no single person or a group of Catholics can go against the Pope and dispute his teachings, even if they are not ex cathedra.

Since Orthodox and Protestants are fond of pointing out that the Pope has been successfully refuted repeatedly in the earliest days, and since the Church is semper idem, that hasn't changed. If Vatican I was truly a change it'd be a problem, but it was deliberately phrased in such way that it wouldn't be a change to the same Catholic-Orthodox system in which the Bishop of Rome can be overcome if the other bishops are wise and connected enough. Also, since the Orthodox still pretty well agree with Roman primacy if Rome isn't schismatic, without agreeing with Roman superiority, the crux is the claims of superiority, not of the pope having a unique ultimate authority alone. That quibble is only important because the path to unity and resolving the conflict would involve the Orthodox and the Catholics both admitting that the pope didn't actually mean to claim a superiority he didn't have; and in my (perhaps scholastic) understanding of the pope's pronouncements, he didn't.

I appreciate your continuing to give me the grace of interaction, I hope that by one means or another our comms get through.

Add: It might be thought of this way. One pope really wanted Mary to be glorified so wrote up, and got approved, the Immaculate Conception with a really high-sounding set of declaration clauses that had never been used before so that he would win over those who weren't certain he should go that far. That didn't work, so the later pope put forward Infallibility to try to patch up what the prior pope had done and to shut up the argument, but without actually saying that the Immaculate Conception was in fact infallible (or, for that matter, saying the Infallibility declaration was itself infallible, important point). That worked to get the sheeple quiet but it didn't help the Protestant argument against circularity, which remained. So the next later pope found occasion to try to cement the Infallibility doctrine by repeating almost the same magic formula as Conception in the Assumption doctrine as if the repetition would do the trick. Well, that led many to think there were now two infallible doctrines praise God, but they hadn't realized the new was no more declared infallible than the old. Simply defining infallibility doesn't infallibly declare how the ordinary person can infallibly decide a doctrine is infallible. Note that no pope ever had the simple gumption of John the Revelator who ended all discussion of circularity by saying self-referentially that THIS prophecy is not to be added to or subtracted from. And by my count no pope ever will. If Infallibility was ever declared it was declared once and for all by John, never to be repeated. The Revelation is Infallible by its own declaration, and the Bible is Infallible by application of John's meaning as closing the then-open canon. But Chicago Leo? Pfft.