[Snuffington]

...I would certainly defend his statement:

"this was not an impediment given that the Council had not promulgated any binding dogmatic definition."

Actually, to get a bit picky, I believe there may have been some binding dogmatic definitions that were promulgated by the Council. It's just that those particular dogmas had also been declared binding by previous Councils, and are not in dispute by the traditionalists.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm going from memory here.

[Tantumergo]

"I believe there may have been some binding dogmatic definitions that were promulgated by the Council. It's just that those particular dogmas had also been declared binding by previous Councils, and are not in dispute by the traditionalists."

I think you are right in the sense that in several places, the documents say "Following the Council of XYZ, this sacred synod teaches...etc."

However, I think the point that Both Ratzinger and Blet were making was that there were no new "binding definitions" in V II.

I certainly have not come across any previously defined dogmas that traditionalists object to.