[ultima ratio]

I ask again--what is it Vatican II commands us to believe? If you can't answer that simple question--why introduce anything about levels of infallibility or authority? It is a simple question. Most of those who say they support Vatican II have no idea what it wants us to believe except that we should be nice to everybody.

[Bellarmine]

You bring up a good point. It is also interesting to me that those who charge others with not accepting Vatican II do not realize just how much of Vatican II's teachings the church no longer accepts.

For example, Vatican II outlined pastoral measures for reforming the Roman Rite. Yet, no one could seriously argue that the Novus Ordo Missae represents the application of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Pope Paul VI decided to ignore the outline set forth by Vatican II and instead reformed the mass the way he saw fit.

The same can be said for Dei Verbum. Could anyone argue that the modernist filth issuing forth from the Pontifical Biblical Commision is in line with Dei Verbum?

Or even further, what about Assisi I and II? There is no way to justify these events based on Dignitatis Humanae, even as liberal as that document is.

I say that I accept all of the teachings of Vatican II, but what in the world does that mean? How can I keep track of all of its directives that have already been abandoned, and how can I know which ones will be abandoned in the future?

[Saint Athanasius]

Did you read the article?

No...

Let us start off with a simple question

Are there any errors in the Council? No! Agree or Disagree?

I am not talking preference... aka Tridentine vs. NO...

I am asking about errors... are there any?