"you inhabit a contradictory world in which Tradtion both teaches the Magisterium is infallible and erroneous."
No that isn't the world I inhabit. It was the Fathers of Vatican II who said there could be deficiencies in the formulation of doctrine, not me!
But if you won't take the word of the Council on this, maybe you will take the word of the Pope. In this commentary on Gaudium et Spes n.17, the then Cardinal Ratzinger (who is now the Pope BTW) not only accuses the Council of ripping Scripture out of context (deficiency), he also accuses it of teaching Semi-Pelagianism (heresy):
"The section on freedom [in Gaudium et Spes] … is one of the least satisfactory in the whole document. The entire New Testament doctrine of freedom was completely excluded after Text 5, and as a result the standpoint adopted is, for the Christian, quite simply an unreal one.
The omission of Christology from the doctrine of the image and likeness of God, with which the idea of freedom is linked here, once again imposes its consequences. The attempt to lead up to the Christian doctrine of man from outside, and thus to render what faith affirms about Christ gradually accessible, has led to the mistaken decision to leave aside for the present what essentially belongs to the Christian faith, as being supposedly less susceptible to dialogue.
[The interpretation of the texts used, Ecclus 15.14 and 2 Cor 5.10] transfers the text from the perspective of faith to that of natural theology, which is also that of the Sirach passage. Through the latter, recourse had been had to that trend in late Jewish wisdom theology ..marked by ethical optimism. It developed something resembling a theologia naturalis, or, even more, an ethical naturalis. This …must be read in the light of the critical wisdom theology of Job and Ecclesiastes, which both …criticize the optimistic wisdom doctrine. … It is impossible to prescind from the fact that the promised life ultimately came not from freedom in fulfilling the law but from the death of him who allowed himself in accordance with the Law to hang on the tree as a transgressor of the Law (Gal 3.12) ff.). To tear Ecclus 15.14 from these contexts in the history of revelation and to use it in support of a colourless philosophical doctrine of freedom, represents not only an unhistorical reading of Scripture, but an unhistorical and therefore unreal view of man. The general doctrine of freedom developed in the conciliar text cannot therefore stand up either to theological or to philosophical criticism.
Philosophically speaking, it by-passes the whole modern discussion on freedom. It simply takes no account of that overshadowing of freedom of which psychology and sociology at the present time inform us in such a disturbing way. Consequently it shuts itself off from the factual situation of man whose freedom only comes into effect through a lattice of determining factors.
Theologically speaking, it leaves aside the whole complex of problems which Luther, with polemical onesideness, comprised in the term ‘servum arbitrium’. The whole text gives scarcely a hint of the discord which runs through man and which is described so dramatically in Rom 7.13-25. It even falls into downright Pelagian terminology when it speaks of man as ‘seese ab omni passionum captivatate liberans finem suum persequitur et apta subsidia … procurat.’ That is not balanced by the following sentence ….which speaks of a wound inflicted by sin but regards grace only as a help to make the will once more ‘plene actuosam.’ …the formula ‘plene actuousus’ means that an at all events semi-Pelagian representational pattern has been retained.”
[The will to optimism has led to] “anodyne formulas …. If optimisms in John XXIII’s sense means readiness for today and tomorrow …. it does not in any way impose the platitudes of an ethics modelled on that of the Stoa. Here it would have been possible to learn from Marxism about the extent of human alienation and decadence.” [All it does is disguise from man] “the gravity of his situation.”
Cardinal Ratzinger, Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II: Volume V. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler, pp. 138-139
So you see, bornacatholic, I and other traditionalists simply inhabit the same world as Pope Benedict, which is commonly known as the Catholic Church. There is room in here for you too if you want to join us.
* Brother, you cite the, unofficial, theologizing of Cardinal Ratzinger as Doctrine. It ain't. Even a man as great as he has no authority as a Teacher. In the Catholic Church the Pope and the Bishops in union with him are Teachers.
As to your assertion I ain't Catholic I can only respond with laughter. Hearty laughter. My disagreeing with your personal opinions and spin does not make me a heretic.
Now, take a breath and wait to see whether or not Pope Benedict speaks as Pope the way he wrote privately as a theologian.
Sheesh. I can't believe what I read from you guys.