[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.

[Snuffington]

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

Well I admitted I was being picky. :-)

I think the missing element in Blet's statement was the word "new."

Of course I do not understand the documents well enough to support or refute the revised statement either. But that seems to be the essense of the issue in dispute.

[Catholicguy]

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ382.HTM

Check out this link. Questions OPEN prior to the Vatican Two Council are now CLOSED due to the decisions taken at Vatican Two.