It is not the precise narrative that makes the decrees binding;

it is the papal promulgation of them in a setting of a General Council.

Catholics are not supposed to scrutinize every detail of the council docuмents trying to identify what parts are binding and what parts are not.

We are supposed to give religious asent to whatever is proposed in a ecunemical Council ratified by a pope, trusting that it is for our own benefit.

You can't pick and choose.

Sorry, Pax, but you keep relying upon the strict limits of infallibility but then have no concept whatsoever regarding the overall indefectibility of the Magisterium.  If an Ecuмenical Council, guided by the Holy Ghost, could produce a body of doctrine so harmful to faith that it forces Catholics to break submission with the hierarchy rather than assent to them, then the Magisterium would have defected.

One of the (accidental) harms that people noticed from the Vatican I definition was precisely this notion of yours that everything which didn't have the notes of infallibility as defined by Vatican I became "take it or leave it" (your words).  This was never taught by Vatican I  but was wrongly inferred by people who think as you do.  That is completely alien to any true sensus Catholicus.

"By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will be preserved unimpaired in its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change, which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the Sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men."

it is that the council was not an ecuмenical council in the same degree as all previous ones

V1 says you're wrong.
Yes, if the narrative is precise enough to warrant more than a 'religious assent', which is conditional.
We don't have to srutinize every detail because USUALLY council docuмents are quite clear, short and to the point.  It is plainly obvious that a 4th grader, with a general understanding of the english language, can recognize when the Church is teaching authoritatively and when She's not.
'Religious assent' is conditional.  It is not blind trust.  
The catechism is a summary of our Faith; it can be understood by children.  When V2 says something different than the catechism, that should send 'alarm bells' off in our heads.  We have a brain, we have a conscience - we are supposed to USE IT.

It is not 'picking and choosing' (unless you erroneously think that EVERY sentence in a council is binding, in some generalized, inspecific way) to compare one's catechism to a view that appears new.  You act like the Faith is rocket science.  IT'S ALL THERE IN THE CATECHISM.  It will never change, be added to, or subtracted from.  It's the same as it was in Christ's time.  THERE IS NOTHING NEW IN CATHOLICISM.  So when V2 comes along with something new, and doesn't teach it officially or clearly, the simpliest, most logical answer is that IT'S WRONG because it contradicts the catechism, and something wrong can't come from the Church.

The answer is not some complex, canon law interpretation, personal authority nonsense, whereby since a council can CREATE and CHANGE Church doctrine, therefore there's not a pope.  That's circular logic.  The simplest answer is not that Paul VI was not the pope; it is that the council was not an ecuмenical council in the same degree as all previous ones.  This view requires much less canon-law acrobatics, is consistent with V1, and is supported by the council's own docuмents AND all the opinions of the post-V2 hierarchy, who all say that V2 was not binding but only requires 'conditional/religious assent'  (which, by the way, contradicts the assertion that God will not allow the laity to be led into error if they submit to a general council...the magisterium which CREATED the council said it was not binding and must be interpreted according to tradition).  So, again, more contradictions!

This is a great quote, Cantarella.  On the one side, straight SVism has been accused of violating the principle that the Church cannot "lose the Apostolic hierarchy", while R&Rism of violating the principle that the Church "can never become corrupt in faith or in morals".  Most SVs also state that the Novus Ordo Sacraments are invalid.  That's why I believe that some form of CT would address both these issues.