I see no unfounded assumptions about you perspective, as i showed out that your rejection of V2 on the basis that it is not infallible is inconsistent with Catholic teaching on submission to noninfallble teaching, and V2 in particular.
And that Denzinger is not an infallible list, and that what all is infallible remains an issue of contention (and to basically hold to sola infallibilis makes an infallible list more needful), as said of articles of faith:
Not every revealed truth is an article of faith, nor are theologians agreed on what constitutes any truth an article of faith. Some would limit these articles to the contents of the Apostles' Creed. Others say that every truth defined by the Church, or in any other manner explicitly proposed for our belief, is an article of faith. De Lugo describes them as the principal or primary truths which are the basis of other revealed truths or principles. — http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01755d.htm
And that even with the contradictory V2 not being infallible but to which religious submission of mind and will is required, then if you hold it as contradicting infallible teaching, then it leaves Rome leading souls into error.
And it leaves the RC in the position of having to engage in interpretation, both of what is infallible, and what parts of each teaching that are (which protection is not guaranteed for the arguments behind them), and what magisterial level other teachings fall under, and to some degree their meaning.
Consider what the Doctrinal Commission on Lumen Gentium stated when asked about the doctrinal note of LG. It referred the questioner back to its own declaration of March 6, 1964:
"Considering the Conciliar custom and the pastoral goal of this Council, this Holy Synod defines that only those things about matters of faith and morals are to be held by the Church which it will have declared clearly as such. As to other things which the Holy Synod proposes as the doctrine of the Supreme Magisterium of the Church, all and individual faithful persons must accept and embrace them according to the mind of the Holy Synod itself, which becomes known either from the subject matter or from the manner of speaking, according to the norms of theological interpretation." - http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=10&ChapNum=1
The same need can be said for the CCC.
VCII opened up the doors and windows of the Church to the prevailing winds of modernism and liberalism. This was supposed to be a good thing. It was to bring about a “springtime” in the Church. That was what we were told. However, by the fruits we know what VCII did to the Church. Just look into the goings on in any given parish, the results are not good. If you look closely at the proponents of the changes that took place after the Council, there is strong evidence that the Lodge was involved, especially in the recruitment of homosexual priests. That man-caused disaster has done much to bankrupt the Church.
Thus in the light of your dismissal of V2 thus i asked you whether you are SSPX or a sedevacantist. I actually sympathize with your position, as i do see contradictions in RC teaching, past vs present, and that Rome is overall liberal, and thus separation is required, though i must disagree Scripturally with Rome's traditions both sides hold to.
Have you read any of St Francis De Sales yet?
Is that infallible, or God-inspired teaching?
An infallible document has to have the proper form. Just because the documents of VCII are not in the infallible form, does not mean that I reject them. I am merely recognizing them for what they are. They may contain many previously defined dogmas which have always been held by the Church, and that is fine, but I was making the point that since they use ambiguous language in many places, they cannot be compared to previous infallible statements in order to produce a contradiction, since that would be an apples to oranges comparison. The point I was making was that if you could find one infallible document that contradicts another infallible document, that would suffice to show that the supposed infallibility that corresponds to the office of the See of Peter is bogus. But you have produced no such example.
Thankfully the Faithful are not tasked with determining what constitutes infallible teaching, that office belongs to the bishop of Rome.
However, there is room for what some might call a healthy anti-clericalism, as almost every heresy that has arisen in the Church started with a Catholic priest (e.g. Martin Luther).
As St Francis De Sales puts it, the human reason can be used as a negative rule of Faith. Some might call his work “The Catholic Controversy” inspired, as I think he converted over 70,000 souls back to the Church motivated by love of God and neighbor. But very few would call it infallible because that is not a faculty that he would have possessed. He may speak the truth, and his teachings might be inerrant, but we can only ascribe to them what is called a “human faith”. “Catholic faith” is placed in infallible Church teachings, and has a level of divine certitude insofar as we believe that Jesus Christ, who can neither deceive or be deceived, revealed them through His Church, his chosen instrument, His only one, a dove, spotless and without blemish...