[ultima ratio]

Nonsense. Vatican I and Trent were dogmatic councils that defined truths which were binding on all the faithful. Vatican II, on the other hand, while legitimate, was purely pastoral and made no attempt to bind the Church by any of its declarations. I don't question its legitimacy, only its wisdom.

Your confusion is on several levels. First, you seem to equate dogmatic councils, which deliberately set forth a set of definitions, with a council which is solely pastoral. That is mixing apples and oranges. Second, only those truths of faith which have been clearly defined are divinely protected--not each and every conciliar utterance without discrimination.

[nika]

First, you seem to equate dogmatic councils, which deliberately set forth a set of definitions, with a council which is solely pastoral.
--ultima ratio

You are confused. You seem to think that a pastoral council has no authority. It does: the same authority as Vatican I and Trent. It has the authority to change the liturgy.

You don't like Vatican II's liturgical changes, so you throw up this smoke screen claiming its being pastoral makes it non-binding. Its being pastoral does not inhibit its authority in any way.

What makes you think authorised liturgical changes have to be accompanied by dogmatic statements? Find me the dogmatic statements that accompanied the transition from a Greek liturgy to a Latin liturgy under Pope Damasus, or admit that according to your own logic the Latin liturgy was never authorised.

only those truths of faith which have been clearly defined are divinely protected
--ultima ratio

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and in a particular way, to the Roman Pontiff as Pastor of the whole Church, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, even should this not issue in an infallible definition or in a "definitive" pronouncement ...
--Cardinal Ratzinger