Binding on the Church - that is, irreformable and hence infallible. Non-infallible teaching is also binding - the contrary is a condemned proposition of the Syllabuses of Bl. Pius IX and St. Pius X.
Nothing JPII says can undo their doctrinal condemnations of precisely what he is trying to impose throughout his Church, even to the point of suppressing what is unique to Catholicism.
The Pope is not trying to impose syncretism and indifferentism on the Church. Even if we are to grant the Assisi events as examples of these errors, they were not imposed on the Church but merely the Pope's private actions.
But in discussing the council - syncretism and indifferentism are not taught in its documents.
You are engaging in gobbledegook. Sentence fragments do not communicate meanings. If binding means something is irreformable and infallible, how can their opposite-- fallible statements--be binding? You're playing with language. You've got mutually exclusive terms here!
As for the Pope's imposing syncretism and indifferentism on his Church--don't make me laugh! Whatever the Pope does of this sort, with this level of publicity and preparation, with this amount of dedication and energy, is highly important and significant. It has been profoundly influential--and we see this throughout the Church in every local diocese. Once the Rubicon has been crossed, everything is changed.
This is what is so insidious about modernism. It simply dismisses ancient tradition and introduces new practices without any doctrinal declarations that might prove embarrassing to the faithful. The Pope doesn't SAY he's changing doctrine and opposing his predecessors--he just DOES it. He doesn't say he doesn't care about the dogmas which distinguish Catholics from other Christians, he just behaves as if these do not matter and gives the okay to anything that might undermine them in practice. This has been very destructive of the Catholic faith.