The marks of the Church remain, the Church has not been destroyed.

The pope is a Modernist - he said what Modernists are expected to say -i.e. nothing but sounds like something to the unknowing. He can say whatever he wants to say - we know the new liturgy is not reversable, nor is it forwardable. It is evil and needs to be abolished, not reversed, as if such a thing was even doable.

Bilbo, we understand the propaganda that has been perpetrated upon the ignorant. We know what is meant when those who refuse to accept the reality of the situation say that it was a ""pastoral" council because no new dogmas were defined." This is not what DZ is saying. He wants anyone who can, to show where it is taught anywhere that it was a pastoral "council", and for that matter, to prove that pastoral has anything to do with whether it is infallible or not.
People often say JXIII said it was pastoral but he did not. He said V2 was an act of the Magisterium which is pastoral in nature.

John XXIII: “which selfsame Magisterium, taking account of the errors, necessities and opportunities of our age, is, by means of this very Council, being presented to all men, as many as be in the world, in extraordinary form at the present time.”

John XXIII: “For the Deposit of Faith itself or the truths contained by our venerable doctrine are one thing, but the manner in which they are enunciated (albeit with the same sense and the same meaning) is another.  It is precisely to this latter manner that the majority (of our attention) will have to be given; and, if need arise, it will have to be patiently exerted therein.  In other words, there will need to be introduced those methods of explaining things which are more in keeping with a Magisterium whose native character is primarily pastoral.”

Paul VI: “It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia (of the Church) and of defining it, that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council.”

Paul VI: “But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force…”

Paul VI: “Errors were condemned, indeed, because charity demanded this no less than did truth…”

Paul VI: “This council hands over to posterity not only the image of the Church but also the patrimony of her doctrine and of her commandments, the ‘deposit’ received from Christ and meditated upon through centuries, lived and expressed now and clarified in so many of its parts, settled and arranged in its integrity.”

Paul VI: “… the Moslems profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day, as the Second Vatican Council solemnly declared.”

“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger: “It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II.  Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation.  And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms.”

It is painfully obvious that if you have zero faith in the doctrine of infallibility and if you had a shred of faith in the doctrine of infallibility or even knew what it is, you could not say something so ridiculous as a General Council can teach error to the entire Church.
See...we can both play your "games".

Yeah, that's not vague at all...

It is referred to as such, at least by you.

Why should I either care, or find what you assert credible?

non-responsive to what was actually posted.

Please don't do that again.

That's two.

What does one thing have to do with the other?

I "need", or positively need, many things; so what?