CathInfo.com

It's not illegitimate for anyone to be upset or opposed to Vat.II because of what it is and because of what it has produced. The fruit of Vat.II is bad fruit and by that alone we can know that it was bad.
.
However, sedevacantism has likewise shown its character by the fruits it produces, namely, a lot of logically undisciplined followers who reject the Pope, using excuses. Therefore they part with Tradition by refusing to pray for the Pope and imagine how many graces the Pope is deprived of because of that bad fruit of sedevacantism.
.
Here this thread is a good example of how sedevacantists all too often do not want to pay attention and learn the facts of what has happened. They've made up their mind and they only dare to look at what will support their a priori conclusion. In that way they're a lot like the flat-earthers, really. It would come to me as no surprise to learn much sympathy sedevacantists hold with flat-earthism, even if they're unwilling to admit it. Yet.
.
Vat.II was a punishment on the Church allowed by God. And God would never allow something so detrimental to the Church unless He were also able to repair the damage it does. Therefore we must pray to God for His solution to the crisis, as it is beyond the power of mortal man to repair the damage. 
.

Oh, wow, Paul VI contradicted himself.  Shocking!  (Sarcasm alert).  What's your point?  You asked where the term "pastoral" came from; it came from Paul VI.

It's irrelevant how Paul VI, or anybody, described the council.  The only thing that's relevant is that V2 did not infallibly define or clarify any doctrinal statement, which fulfilled the REQUIREMENTS of V1, therefore it's not infallible, in a solemn way.  

Certain of its statements, if they agree with "what has always been taught" would then be part of the universal and perpetual magisterium and would be infallible.  But most of V2 is novel, and does not agree with Tradition, therefore we ignore it.

.
It has now become known that the only reason they bothered to put a few things into Vat.II that "agree with what has always been taught" was to later be able to CLAIM that there are infallible pronouncements therein. Ironically, infallible definitions also fall under that umbrella, but with a difference. (We're not supposed to understand the difference according to the wiles of liberalism.)
.
This is true what you have written, Pax Vobis, and even so, even while you and I and others like us know that Vat.II made no infallible definitions nor contributed to clarify any doctrinal statement, that did not stop the liberals from attempting to attribute doctrinal authority to the (wayward) council. I recall seeing a priest giving a speech, claiming that Vat.II was "dogmatic" because of the English titles of the sections, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) and Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum).
.
Never before in the history of the Church had portions of a general council been characterized based on the vernacular translation of section titles into a foreign language. That's another "first" for Vat.II.
.
And such speeches were made without any responsible bishops stepping in to reel in the dissident because the bishops were dissidents, too. It's been a real mess.
.