Two other points.
1. Yes, there can be infallible teachings without the usual dogmatic formulae--but this in no way means the Council ever presented the faithful with such teachings. It did not.
The very fact that there has been a forty-year dispute throughout the Church on this matter illustrates how ambiguous the Council's pronoucements actually were--and THIS IN ITSELF argues AGAINST anything the Council affirmed as being intellectually binding.
2. Wm. Most sets up a straw man when he says, "It is often claimed that Vatican II meant only to be pastoral - and so we could ignore its teachings as we wish." Nobody is ignoring teachings at random. But there is such a thing as "religious assent"--which is given to non-infallible pronoucements. This is a far cry from being bound to doctrines which are infallibly true. Ultimately, it means that such non-infallible doctrines, while calling for our assent, may legitimately lose the adherence of our consciences over time as the evidence mounts showing them to be false.
I didn't think for a minute that I or anyone else would actually be able to open your mind to the truth. I know you have chosen to remain locked up in a mental prison of your own creation.
Even though you have lost the ability to see it, Fr. Most has given us a calm and reasoned view of the extent to which Vatican II is binding on the faithful while acknowledging the disclaimers you point out with such excitement.
By the way, he was an implacable foe of modernists in the church, and your calling him "liberal" and a "modernist" is quite amusing.
There is no doubt modernism is the enemy of the Church and must be contended with. Fr. Most was faithful and fought the good fight until he died. He made much progress and helped many to keep the faith. You didn't stay and fight. You jumped ship. That didn't help at all.