Ahhh.  So earlier, you posted that an ecuмenical council was infallible, but I proved that wrong from actual article you posted.  Now you're using the term "general council" as opposed to "ecuмenical" to avoid the contradiction with NewAdvent.com?  I see your agenda.

"Pastoral magisterium" (i.e.  made up theological term) = fallible, not-protected-from-error=able-to-be-heresy theological opinion,  

Formulae were a person act and was not some teaching issued to the Universal Church.

A true council, guided by the Holy Ghost, such as Vatican 1, is not there to deceive, nor to be a legal quagmire of complexity.  We must take an infallible council as the word of God:  "If the pope fulfills x, y, and z, then he is infallible".  
.
It is not left to the laity or clerics to "second guess" or to "re-interpret" what the Holy Ghost "left out" or "forgot to say".
.
Any opinion or interpretation you have related to the above is of hubris alone.  It's the height of arrogance that you can criticize a doctrine in the way you do.  It is truly schismatic.

New Advent disagrees with you.  Your lack of theological distinctions sinks your arguments.

That's not what he said.  He said that for years he believed that it was a question of ambiguity and that it could be interpreted in an orthodox manner applying the hermeneutic of continuity.

I confess it with serenity and without controversy: I was one of the many people who, despite many perplexities and fears which today have proven to be absolutely legitimate, trusted the authority of the Hierarchy with unconditional obedience. In reality, I think that many people, including myself, did not initially consider the possibility that there could be a conflict between obedience to an order of the Hierarchy and fidelity to the Church herself. What made tangible this unnatural, indeed I would even say perverse, separation between the Hierarchy and the Church, between obedience and fidelity, was certainly this most recent Pontificate.

I cited the part of CE which clearly states that an Ecuмenical Council must be considered infallible due to the protection of the Holy Ghost promised to the Church

Lawler: First, what are you saying about Vatican II? That things have gone downhill fast since then is certainly true. But if the whole Council is a problem, how did that happen? How do we reconcile that with what we believe about the inerrancy of the magisterium? How were all the Council fathers deceived? Even if only some parts of the Council (e.g. Nostra Aetate, Dignitatis Humanae) are problematical, we still face the same questions. Many of us have been saying for years that the “spirit of Vatican II” is in error. Are you now saying that this phony liberal “spirit” does accurately reflect the work of the Council?
.
Archbishop Vigano: I do not think that it is necessary to demonstrate that the Council represents a problem: the simple fact that we are raising this question about Vatican II and not about Trent or Vatican I seems to me to confirm a fact that is obvious and recognized by everyone. In reality, even those who defend the Council with swords drawn find themselves doing so apart from all the other previous ecuмenical councils, of which not even one was ever said to be a pastoral council.

It is a council that, differently from all those that preceded it, called itself a pastoral council, declaring that it did not want to propose any new doctrine, but which in fact created a distinction between before and after, between a dogmatic council and a pastoral council, between unequivocal canons and empty talk, between anathema sit and winking at the world.

In this sense, I believe that the problem of the infallibility of the Magisterium (the inerrancy you mention is properly a quality of Sacred Scripture) does not even arise, because the Legislator, that is, the Roman Pontiff around whom the Council was convened, solemnly and clearly affirmed that he did not want to use the doctrinal authority which he could have exercised if he wanted. 

There is another equivocation that must be clarified. If on the one hand John XXIII and Paul VI declared that they did not want to commit the Council to the definition of new doctrines and wanted it to limit itself to being only pastoral, on the other hand it is true that externally—mediatically or in the media, we would say today—the emphasis given to its acts was enormous

This emphasis (...by the media...) served to convey the idea of a presumed doctrinal authority, of an implicit magisterial infallibility, even though these were clearly excluded right from the beginning. 

If this emphasis occurred, it was in order to allow the more or less heterodox instances to be perceived as authoritative and thus to be accepted by the clergy and the faithful. 

 Let us recall that Catholics do not worship a Council, neither Vatican II nor Trent, but rather the Most Holy Trinity, the One True God; they do not venerate a conciliar declaration or a post-synodal exhortation, but rather the Truth that these acts of the Magisterium convey