[Catholicguy]

Infallibility of a General Council is intrinsic to its very nature and does not depend upon defining dogmas to be an effective charism. There is a distinction that the SSPX fails to make in their facile separation of dogmatic and pastoral as an excuse to controvert the authority of an Ecumenical Council like schismatics and heretics from days of yore. That separation is between dogmas credenda and doctrines tenenda. Both are infallible and require the same degree of assent.

Vatican II taught several doctrines tenenda but no dogmas credenda. Doctrines tenenda do not require any particular formulas or specific language to be set forth as definitive and binding. (Or to use the oft-abused term "infallibly".) Thus by denying the Council’s teachings or refusing to assent to them is to sever oneself from the Church into a state of schism.

Not all teachings of the Council would fit this criteria of definitive status; however even the lowest level of authority among the documents (the decree of which nine of the sixteen documents were constituted) still are at the level of the authentic Magisterium requiring religious submission of will and intellect. To quote the Cardinal Prefect on the matter, teachings of the authentic magisterium are:

[A]ll those teachings - on faith and morals - presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error.

A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore "tuto doceri non potest". (Cardinal Rzatzinger Commentary of Professio Fidei)

At a bare minimum one can qualify the assertions of the SSPX as "erroneous", when they controvert the teachings of the Council in the various documents set forth.

The Decrees were primarily (though not exclusively) promulgated to warn against ideas incompatible with the truths of the faith and against dangerous opinions which can lead to error. The Declarations of teaching from the Council (of which there were three set forth) are even higher in authority then the Decrees. These were set forth primarily to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation (most notably Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate, which specifically set forth to develop doctrine). The Constitutions are of the highest authority and deal with fundamental aspects of the faith. Included among these fundamental documents is a Constitution on the Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium), and a primarily (but not exclusively) Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes). There were also two Dogmatic Constitutions as mentioned previously. (One on the Church and one on Divine Revelation which were promulgated by the Council to finish the work of Vatican I.)...

They were addressed with regards to several teachings contained therein that were clearly set forth definitively (and thus infallibly) in a non-defining manner. But levels of infallibility are not what makes these documents authoritative. Instead, what makes them binding is the authority of the Pope who promulgated them with his Apostolic authority as Pastor of the Universal Church in union with the Fathers of the Sacred Council.

Authority is not contingent upon a teaching being infallible. This ironically is a version of one of the errors condemned in Bl. Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus. Error twenty-two read as follows: "The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church." The modification of the modern ‘traditionalist’ error stems in presuming that infallibility is the criterion of truth. This is not true at all and has never been viewed as a legitimate opinion to hold by the Magisterium.

At a General Council the promulgation of a document by the Pope and the Bishops acting in union with him is sufficient to guarantee the protection of doctrinal or moral error. That does not mean that the documents are verbally inspired of course, only that they are protected from teaching doctrinal or moral error by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28).

<> Mimic the SSPX or be a faithful Catholic? Easy choice, for me. I stand with the Council and Tradition Catholicsm and I stand unsnookered.<>

[Tantumergo]

"I stand with the Council and Tradition Catholicsm"

I too stand with the Council, when interpreted in the light of all previous Councils as endorsed by the current Prefect of the CDF who you quote above:

"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council DEFINED NO DOGMA AT ALL, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a MERELY PASTORAL COUNCIL; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.

This idea is made stronger by things that are now happening. That which previously was considered most holy - the form in which the liturgy was handed down - suddenly appears as the most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can safely be prohibited. IT IS INTOLERABLE TO CRITICIZE DECISIOINS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN SINCE THE COUNCIL; on the other hand, if men make question of ancient rules, or even of the great truths of the faith - for instance, the corporal virginity of Mary, the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the immortality of the soul, etc. - nobody complains or only does so with the greatest moderation. I myself, when I was a professor, have seen how the very same bishop who, before the council, had fired a teacher who was really irreproachable, for a certain crudeness of speech, was not prepared, after the council, to dismiss a professor who openly denied certain fundamental truths of the faith.

All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something else without telling people. The one way in which Vatican II can be made PLAUSIBLE is to present it as it is; ONE PART OF THE UNBROKEN, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her faith."

Address by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, given July 13, 1988, in Santiago, Chile before that nation's bishops.

Even Uncle Jo claims that this was a MERELY PASTORAL COUNCIL. You can hardly blame Fr Blet for thinking likewise.