Here’s what VATICAN I SAID:
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema (First Dogmatic..., 1870, 2.5, parenthetical item in original).
Here’s what VATICAN II says:
The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter.
For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ (Dogmatic Constitution..., 1964, 2.15)
One council says those who don’t recognize the Roman Pontiff as the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy is ANATHEMA, while the later council says They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ even when they DON’T acknowledge the Roman Pontiff.
I don’t call the above mere softening of words. I call it NOT AFFIRMING the previous words.
You cannot reconcile the word ANATHEMA and the words United with Christ. The two are dramatically opposite each other.
The penalty of "anathema" no longer exists in canon law post 1983, so the penalty clauses of those anathemas are legally void.
Non-Catholics aren't subject to Catholic church discipline, so the penalty of "anathema" never applied in any case.