V2 is a legally binding council, but it is not morally binding. It is legally binding in that we must give “religious assent” to its “pastoral initiatives”. It is not morally binding because 1) it doesn’t teach with certainty of faith, 2) “religious assent” allows for critique, and something which can be questioned is not binding, 3) V2 is supposed to be “interpreted in the light of Tradition”. Something which requires interpretation is not a command, nor binding.
.
All previous ecuмenical councils were both legally and morally binding because 1) they were taught with “certainty of faith”, 2) they required 100% submission of mind/will, under penalty of anathema (ie grave sin), 3) the teachings were clear and concise.
.
V2 was ecuмenical in the sense that all bishops/cardinals took part in it. However it cannot be compared to previous ecuмenical councils in form, purpose or conclusion. V2 is a historical anomaly; it was only ecuмenical in appearance; it was a non-doctrinal conciliar novelty.
.
Modernists love to take a pre-existing idea or organization and “subvert expectations” by changing the rules, altering legal fineprint, and inventing new terms to explain all the changes. Just like the devil uses magic to make a trick appear real, so the Modernists used legal trickery to make V2, a conciliar novelty, appear the same as all previous councils. But it is not so. And they’ve admitted it.