*Come on...post a link where you have either argued Vatican II is part of Tradition or post a link where you cite a theologian defending Vatican II as part of Tradition.
The piece by Marra was pure B.S. I posted the Tradition illustrating it was BS because Marra was inventing words to provide an escape clause for those unwilling to be obedient to the Living Magisterium
Mershon's masters' thesis was on the compatibility of Dignitatis Humanae with preconciliar teaching: "Dignitatis Humanae & Vatican II Reaffirm the Traditional Teaching of Christ’s Kingship Over Hearts, Minds and Wills, Families and Societies". See here.
"*Come on...post a link where you have either argued Vatican II is part of Tradition or post a link where you cite a theologian defending Vatican II as part of Tradition."
I'll take up the challenge and cite Vatican II as being consistent with Holy Tradition in denying the possibility of new doctrine pertaining to the deposit of faith:
From LG n.25:
"But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) BUT A NEW REVELATION THEY DO NOT ACCEPT AS PERTAINING TO THE DIVINE DEPOSIT OF FAITH(47*)"
Here it is exactly in line with the Vatican I Constitution Pastor Aeternus.
Unfortunately the Holy Father does not appear to be aware of this as he suggests Vatican II violates both itself and Vatican I. To requote the passage that Mershon quoted:
"Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the council's continuity with tradition, especially in POINTS OF DOCTRINE which, perhaps because THEY ARE NEW, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the church."
As Vatican II and Vatican I both testify, "new doctrine" cannot pertain to the deposit of faith and therefore there is no obligation on any Catholic to accept it.
So either:
A) The Holy Father is right, VII contains "new" doctrine which the faithful are not obliged to accept because VII itself says this cannot be part of the deposit of faith.
or
B) The Holy Father is wrong, VII contains no "new" doctrine in which case there is no justification for any post-conciliar changes which were premised on the existence of putative "new" doctrine.
In either case the Novus Ordo version of the Church is shown to be built on sand and will eventually self-destruct due to its own inherent internal inconsistencies.
Looks like Vatican II will come out on the side of tradition after all.
;)