From earlier in your link.  Guess you didn't like this part, or you didn't understand it.
.
.
Papal headship the formal element of councils
It is the action of the pope that makes the councils ecuмenical. That action is the exercise of his office of supreme teacher and ruler of the Church.
.
Wait...so if the pope doesn't exercise his office as supreme teacher (which he didn't in V2), then is V2 even ecuмenical?  According to this article, no.

Why do you say that Paul IV doesn't exercise his office as supreme teacher, when actually he explicitly invokes his apostolic authority? Do you want to deceive your readers? Do you think they didn't read the quotes and fall for your denial?

The pope didn't speak ex cathedra, and nothing was binding on the whole Church (which is why they used the novel term 'pastoral' because V2 was a novel council).  Therefore, it's not ecuмenical.  V2 is the most unique council in history, except having parallels with the famous "Robber Council" that was afterwards condemned, as +Vigano pointed out.

The Vatican Council has defined that the Pope is infallible when teaching ex cathedra. The Vatican Council has never ever defined that nothing else is infallible.

I believe, Pax Vobis, you should read again what was posted. The pope doesn't need to speak ex cathedra for a general Council to be infallible:

Infallibility of general councils

All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope. For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life-energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the Holy Ghost. Such was the mind of the Apostles when, at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:28), they put the seal of supreme authority on their decisions in attributing them to the joint action of the Spirit of God and of themselves: Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis (It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us). This formula and the dogma it enshrines stand out brightly in the deposit of faith and have been carefully guarded throughout the many storms raised in councils by the play of the human element. From the earliest times they who rejected the decisions of councils were themselves rejected by the Church. Emperor Constantine saw in the decrees of Nicaea "a Divine commandment" and Athanasius wrote to the bishops of Africa: "What God has spoken through the Council of Nicaea endureth for ever." St. Ambrose (Ep. xxi) pronounces himself ready to die by the sword rather than give up the Nicene decrees, and Pope Leo the Great expressly declares that "whoso resists the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon cannot be numbered among Catholics" (Ep. lxxviii, ad Leonem Augustum). In the same epistle he says that the decrees of Chalcedon were framed instruente Spiritu Sancto, i.e. under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. How the same doctrine was embodied in many professions of faith may be seen in Denzinger's (ed. Stahl) "Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum", under the heading (index) "Concilium generale representat ecclesiam universalem, eique absolute obediendum" (General councils represent the universal Church and demand absolute obedience). The Scripture texts on which this unshaken belief is based are, among others: "But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth . . ." John 16:13) "Behold I am with you [teaching] all days even to the consummation of the world" (Matthew 28:20), "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it [i.e. the Church]" (Matthew 16:18).

Papal and conciliar infallibility

[...]

The Divine constitution of the Church and the promises of Divine assistance made by her Founder, guarantee her inerrancy, in matters pertaining to faith and morals, independently of the pope's infallibility

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

Why do you say that Paul IV doesn't exercise his office as supreme teacher, when actually he explicitly invokes his apostolic authority? Do you want to deceive your readers? Do you think they didn't read the quotes and fall for your denial?

There are various reasons why a pope invokes his apostolic authority, doctrine being only a subset.  There are also governmental and canon law reasons.  
.

The pope doesn't need to speak ex cathedra for a general Council to be infallible:

Absolutely, positively, 100% ridiculous.
.
If the pope is infallible beyond the definitions of Vatican 1, please let us all know.
.
And let the record confirm that +Vigano confirms that V2 was not infallible.

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

The only categories acceptable in a doctrinal dispute in the Catholic Church of Rome are those of "heretic" for those who do not adhere to the Dogma and the pastoral Magisterium which is closely connected to it as taught by the Dogmatic Magisterium, and "Catholic" for those who adhere to it. There are no other categories.

Correction:

The only categories acceptable in a doctrinal dispute in the Catholic Church of Rome are those of "heretic" for those who do not adhere to Dogma and "Catholic" for those who adhere to it. There are no other categories.
.
"Pastoral magisterium" is just another phrase for V2 heresy.

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

The whole gibberish about fallible/infallible is superfluous. The point is, whether fallible or infallible, a general Council of the Church is never heretical.

You may have a point, but until the Church says otherwise, it's just your opinion.

I already have a point now, since what I said is the case and what you said is not the case.

+Vigano has multiple decades of Church study and knowledge greater than ourselves.  Maybe it's possible he knows more than us?

Viganò has confessed 50 years of worship of men! He even admits to have known that the Council is heretical, but suppressed his knowledge of truth out of love for men.