Read CE again, guys

Not the TRUTH of God but the truthFULNESS of God, not what He revealed but His truthfulness in the revealing of it

extrinsic because the truth of revealed truths cannot be known intrinsically since our intellects cannot grasp them as intrinsically true by themselves without the authority behind them

the FAITH is not the RULE OF FAITH

If some sources use the term faith loosely as rule of faith, it's because it's speaking of it materially rather than formally, just like you can consider faith materially as the propositions believed or formally as the supernatural virtue of faith

It is really all right there on the first cited paragraph:

The word rule (Latin regula, Gr. kanon) means a standard by which something can be tested, and the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith, and serving as its norm or measure. Since faith is Divine and infallible, the rule of faith must be also Divine and infallible; and since faith is supernatural assent to Divine truths upon Divine authority, the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself. But since Divine revelation is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council, I, ii), the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith; since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith". Unless, then, the Bible and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living.

It is extrinsic to our Faith in the sense that it is an external standard by which we can measure or test the truthfulness of the Faith, the "ultimate" rule thereof: the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself. Now, both Scripture and Tradition are the (proximate) rule of our Faith; but since they are "silent witness and cannot interpret themselves" (inanimate), an animate or living proximate rule of Faith is needed to continue for each coming generation: this is what the teaching Church is, the Magisterium.

Again, it is a constant teaching of the Church that although not everything emanating from a General Council is infallible; it cannot be harmful for the faithful either.

If it's not infallible, then in theory, it could be an error, and hence harmful.  Where is this 'constant teaching'?

Just because the Church says that:  "All ecuмenical councils HAVE been infallible", does not mean the same thing as "All ecuмenical councils ARE infallible".

The fallible portion of the narrative must necessarily be in accord to the constant Magisterium of the Church.

This is a contradiction.  You're saying that the fallible portion is infallible (because the "constant"/universal magisterium is infallible).

Furthermore, the detailed compartmentalization is unnecessary.

I don't follow.

An ecuмenical Council is an Act of the Magisterium.

Agreed.  It is an act of the ordinary magisterium, which is fallible, UNLESS what they teach agrees with the UNIVERSAL magisterium (which is 'what has always been taught').

The Magisterium cannot defect.

The UNIVERSAL magisterium cannot defect.  The ordinary (or 'merely authentic') can.

Even if you want to argue that VII is not infallible, but fallible, it could not have ever been detrimental or harmful to the faithful, once promulgated by legitimate authority.

Same contradiction as above.
Further, you are falsely equating the word 'ecuмenical' with the nature of infallibility, which is wrong.  They are separate attributes.  Ecuмenical just means the council represented all the diocese of the world, in contrast to councils which are locally focused.

A council's language and form MUST follow procedures in order to bind the faithful.  V2 is constantly using passive phrasing and non-authoritative language, which 1) does not indicate apostolic authority, 2) does not promote clarity in its 'teachings', 3) does not bind anyone to follow anything.  It was meant to be ambiguous!  And ambiguous language is NOT BINDING, nor is it legally valid.  And certainly, it is more than fallible, it is erroneous.

Here is the opening sentence from the 1st Session at the council of Trent (and we all know that Trent was an infallible council):

Doth it please you,--unto the praise and glory of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost ; for the increase and exaltation of the Christian faith and religion; for the extirpation of heresies; for the peace and union of the Church; for the reformation of the Clergy and Christian people; for the depression and extinction of the enemies of the Christian name,--to decree and declare that the sacred and general council of Trent do begin, and hath begun?

Is this infallible?  yes/no.

Well, Pax, I'm not sure what kind of Church you believe in.  Perhaps you could call it the Church of Stubborn.  But I don't believe in a Church whose Pope and Bishops could gather in Ecuмenical Council and teach to the Church a radically flawed ecclesiology and soteriology that we must reject in order to preserve our faith, and I don't believe in a Church where the Pope could promulgate a Rite of Mass that's harmful to our faith.  I don't believe in a Church where we must in conscience reject 50 years of their Magisterium and reject their Universal Discipline in order to save our souls.  It's really that simple.  Do I believe that every single little statement or sentence in every Ecuмenical Council must be regarded as infallible.  No, of course not.  But the whole thing is radically flawed and harmful to faith.  That is not compatible with the indefectibility of the Magisterium and of the Church.

Well, Pax, I'm not sure what kind of Church you believe in.  Perhaps you could call it the Church of Stubborn.  But I don't believe in a Church whose Pope and Bishops could gather in Ecuмenical Council and teach to the Church a radically flawed ecclesiology and soteriology that we must reject in order to preserve our faith, and I don't believe in a Church where the Pope could promulgate a Rite of Mass that's harmful to our faith.  I don't believe in a Church where we must in conscience reject 50 years of their Magisterium and reject their Universal Discipline in order to save our souls.  It's really that simple.  Do I believe that every single little statement or sentence in every Ecuмenical Council must be regarded as infallible.  No, of course not.  But the whole thing is radically flawed and harmful to faith.  That is not compatible with the indefectibility of the Magisterium and of the Church.

In fact, if you had tried to articulate your R&R theses during the time of St. Robert Bellarmine, you would have been burned at the stake.  This sounds exactly like what most of the Prot "reformers" were saying.

Pax, please re-read the previous citation I made from Msgr. Fenton regarding the infallible safety of the Magisterium.

It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility."

Well, Pax, I'm not sure what kind of Church you believe in.  Perhaps you could call it the Church of Stubborn.  But I don't believe in a Church whose Pope and Bishops could gather in Ecuмenical Council and teach to the Church a radically flawed ecclesiology and soteriology that we must reject in order to preserve our faith, and I don't believe in a Church where the Pope could promulgate a Rite of Mass that's harmful to our faith.  I don't believe in a Church where we must in conscience reject 50 years of their Magisterium and reject their Universal Discipline in order to save our souls.  It's really that simple.  Do I believe that every single little statement or sentence in every Ecuмenical Council must be regarded as infallible.  No, of course not.  But the whole thing is radically flawed and harmful to faith.  That is not compatible with the indefectibility of the Magisterium and of the Church.

I get what you're saying; but I want to keep going down the road of distinguishment.  Your above comments are too general.  We have to look at the details.
For example, your statement:  and I don't believe in a Church where the Pope could promulgate a Rite of Mass that's harmful to our faith.

On the surface, any good catholic would say: "Heck yeah, that's impossible; it could never happen."  But, post V2 it did happen.  How can that be?  We have to distinguish between our general understanding of things and the actual, specific law of the Church.  "The devil's in the details".

The modernists issued a valid, legal missal (Paul VI's) which was promulgated (made law).  This missal did not violate Quo Primum (QP) because QP never outlawed a pope CREATING a new missal, it only outlawed USING any other missal than its own.  So, technically, Paul VI's missal was legal.  But...Paul VI could not FORCE anyone to use this missal (since QP was still in force).  This is why Paul VI's constitution did not specify that his missal
1) applied to the whole latin church, or anyone really.  He just said "here is my missal and start using it on the first sunday of Advent".
2) was authorized by his apostolic authority (he authorized the missal according to the authority of V2, which is circular logic),
3) had to be used, under any kind of penalty.  (there is no penalty in his constitution for those who ignore his missal, which is unlike any other missal constitution since QP).

So, in this example, we can see that TECHNICALLY the pope did promulgate a missal that was harmful to the faith.  BUT, the catch is that it was not obligatory.  A gray area of the law.
What the modernists have done is to split the 'letter' from the 'spirit' of the law.  This can be done legally, which is what the pharaisees did in Christ's day, but as St Paul said 'the letter of the law kills' if it does not have the spirit.  The novus ordo religion 'by the letter' can be argued to not have changed OFFICIALLY church law/teachings, even though, without the true spirit of the law, the novelties imposed lead to a destruction of the faith.  So, V2, while not TECHNICALLY against the 'letter' (because it's a fallible council) goes against the spirit because those who 'interpret' the council have a mind to destroy the faith.

The only way to look at this is through legal technicalities because the modernists are sons of the pharaisees, who were masters of the legal system, just as satan is the master of lies.

If I can remain a Catholic in complete submission to the Church and follow her Universal Discipline, then I can simply critique those statements respectfully from within the Church. 

All trads are in complete (and perfect) submission to the laws of the Church and her Universal Discipline and thus, their crtiques are made from within the Church.
1.  Is the true mass outlawed?  No.  Can I attend it without sinning?  Yes.
2.  Do I have to attend the novus ordo, under pain of sin?  No.
3.  Do I have to accept V2, under pain of sin?  No.
4.  Is there any (even one) requirement of the V2 'church' that I must follow, which requires me to sin?  No.
5.  Is there any requirement of the pre-V2 Church which I am prevented from following by the V2 'church'?  No.

If, however, I must refuse submission to the hierarchy that taught these things, then it's crossed the line into indefectibility.

The above questions apply here.  The new V2 'church' is all 'smoke and mirrors'.  The only penalty which can possibily exist is 'lack of jurisdiction' and this only applies to priests, not to the laity.  Since canon law allows for supplied jurisdiction in cases of emergency, and since the 'salvation of souls is the supreme law' then trads are within their rights to request and receive sacraments from non-doubtful priests.