Well, so we had a pope who wanted to bind us to heresy but we did not listen to him. What crime or sin are we guilty of?

You didn't have a pope that bound you to heresy.  That's the point.  R&R continues to push that true Catholic popes require Catholics to be bound to heresy.  It's getting to the point that it's downright offensive. 

And I'm NOT getting into this pointless debate with you.

None of the process issues have anything to do with whether the General Council was binding.

The process changes do matter, to a degree.  They prove that V2 was unique and can't be compared 1:1 with history. 

At the end of the day, what matters is papal approbation.

No, it goes further than this.  Vatican 1 tells us that infallibility is not simply "papal approval" but there are additional requirements the pope must meet to ensure/communicate his apostolic authority, and also the wording of his teaching must be clear, unambiguous and firm.

Putting aside infallibility, to just focus on Papal Authority...any papal command must be clear, authoritative, address the audience who must obey, and give a penalty for disobedience.  V2 does none of this.  And no V2 official has ever declared that one will go to hell or commit a mortal sin for ignoring this council.  (they don't even believe in hell, nor mortal sin).  The only 'penalty' they repeatedly threaten is 'not being in communion with' the new-church...yet the docuмents of V2 state that persons of any Faith can still be saved, so is this a penalty?    Can't see how it is.

They could have met without the Pope even being involved or present, and if the Pope endorsed and approved the Council, it would be an Ecuмenical/General Council.

Yes, in theory.  But the V2 docuмents themselves are contradictory, ambiguous, non-defining, etc.  So what did the pope approve, exactly?

2Vermont cited Montini declaring unequivocally that Vatican II was binding.

But it's not binding in the sense that it demands a 'certainty of faith', nor is it damnable to question the docuмents.  They re-defined what binding means.  How can a council which is not-infallible, not-doctrinal and contradictory be binding?

Did the pope approve the reiteration of EENS?  Or did he approve the watering-down of it, by universal salvation, only a few paragraphs later?  Or did he approve both?

Is it possible to approve a docuмent which contradicts itself?  Of course not.  These Modernists just play word games.

I hold that both John23 and Paul6 were not legitimate popes (anti-popes, non-popes, whatever you want to call them) spiritually speaking.  They may have been validly elected, but only for the physical/govt/human office (but that's another topic and besides the point).

But...even if they were valid popes (temporally and spiritually), that V2 was not infallible, not binding (in the normal, historical sense of the word) and not unquestionable.

Why do I argue this?  Because I believe that God would not allow even anti-popes to *appear* to teach formal error.  (Formal teaching = apostolic authority, doctrinally binding, under pain of sin, loss of salvation). 

Evidence of this are the many indult communities who accept the pope as legit, but who are still allowed (by both law and the various admittances by new-rome officials), to question/critique V2 and also the new mass.  If any group of catholics would have to swallow 100% the errors of V2, it would be the indulters (since the typical novus ordo type could care less about V2 or religion in general)...but, they are allowed to question this liturgy and council, as a rule, even if they are pressured (by various means and contradictory actions) to not question them.

If the new-rome rule was a strict acceptance, then the indult communities (and the sspx) would've been excommunicated (with no dialogue, or discussions) long, long ago.  But the indult communities remain.

but that, at the same time, WOULD allow Popes to ACTUALLY teach error?

  Never said this.

apart from splitting these nonsensical hairs

It’s not splitting hairs, it’s being wise as serpents.  It’s understanding that Modernists lie, bend the truth and play word games.  Its understanding that they are masters of legal mindgames and propaganda.  Just like the Pharisees of Christ's day.  

But at the end of the day, the law is the law.  We can read what it says and what it doesn’t say.  And they have to follow it.  And they can’t add or subtract what’s in the law unless they change it in the right way.