[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

[pascendi]

"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."

You were aware that the Novus Ordo Mass did not come from Vatican II, right?

[ultima ratio]

You don't know what you're talking about. The radical change in the Liturgy came later, after Vatican II closed. What liturgical changes do you imagine Vatican II mandated? It made a few harmless suggestions--and laughed out of the hall Bugnini's first version of the Novus Ordo--but in the end said nothing radical, not even at its most ambiguous--such as when it suggested the Church had "always venerated" the Body of Christ on the altar just as it "venerates" Sacred Scripture. It doesn't--and never did, since it adores Christ in the Blessed Sacrament on the one hand but shows only due reverence to Scripture on the other. But the word "venerate" cleverly conflates the enormous difference in Catholic attitudes between worship and showing respect--deliberately--thus eliminating the theological disparity between us and Protestants, between the Real Presence and the Virtual Presence of Christ. Nice semantic trickery--of the sort that made Vatican II a field of anti-Catholic land mines ready to detonate at a later date--and another reason for true Catholics to be wary about the ambiguous declarations of Vatican II which, while appearing harmless, can be interpreted any which way. At any rate, Novus Ordo came later--after the Council closed and modernists took up its so-called "spirit" as the excuse they needed to wreck two thousand years of Catholic Tradition.