[Catholicguy]

http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/debates/sippo/index.htm

<> I just discovered this onlne and sped-read it. This is, admittedly, a lengthy debate over whether or not the Documents of Vatican Two are Infallible. The two debaters disagree but even the gentleman that thinks the Documents are not Infallible agrees one must accept Vatican Two Documents with a religious submission of the mind and will.

Understandably so, that IS the Catholic position. It is NOT catholic to reject an Ecuemnical Council.<>

[Catholicguy]

http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/debates/sippo/index.htm


I hope this works

[ultima ratio]

Either a council is infallible or it isn't. If it isn't, and if its teachings clash with past teachings, religious submission of mind is impossible.The Council chose to use modern, rather than traditional, scholastic, phraseology. As a consequence much of what it stated is ambiguous. Which of two opposing possibilities of any given statement would be its true meaning? The meaning given to it by the present ordinary magisterium? What if that interpretation clashes with past magisteria? Can you see the problem? The faithful have been put in an impossible situation!