Worse than deja vu all over again: Vatican caves

“Certainly, we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local traditions: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense.”

--Pope John Paul, while still Bishop of Krakow, as quoted in Mon Ami: Karol Wojtyla. P. 220

When last we left the saga of the Novus Ordo Missae, Pope John Paul II promised Catholics worldwide that a new set of instructions to correct liturgical abuses would be drawn up and issued by the Holy See as a follow up to his Ecclesia de Eucharistica encyclical letter. This caused many well-meaning Catholics in the Novus Ordo community to jump up and down for joy, believing that the long awaited crackdown from Rome was forthcoming. Some commentators said at the time that the Pope’s encyclical letter was just the word “we needed” to have during the Easter season. Others of us said that the Holy Father’s encyclical letter made many of the same points as his 1980 Holy Thursday letter to priests, Dominicae Cenae, which promised a set of instructions to correct liturgical abuses.

Well, if a news report from Catholic World News’s website is to be believed, the forthcoming document from Rome about the liturgy is worse than deja vu all over again. The 1980 instruction, Inaestimabile Donum, issued by the then named Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, did list the major abuses in the new Mass and called for them to be corrected. This gave much hope to those of us who did not then have the grace of tradition. Indeed, I waved copies of Inaestimabile Donum in the faces of offending priests for a year or two before I realized that Rome wasn’t going to enforce anything, including the reaffirmation of the ban on girl altar boys. Many of us did not realize at the time that the abuses were simply manifestations of the false presuppositions of a synthetic liturgy that sought to empty the Mass of its authentic tradition while claiming positivistically that tradition had been maintained as it was “updated.” There was no correcting the Novus Ordo then. There is no correcting it now. There will never be any correction of abuses in the Novus Ordo.

According to the CWN.com news story, the new document from Rome dealing with the liturgy will not mandate any disciplinary measures against liturgical abuses. It will merely call for an adherence to existing norms by “proper training” in the liturgy. If true, this is actually worse than Inaestimabile Donum. All of the thunder made by Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, in the immediate aftermath of the Pope’s encyclical last year was merely rhetoric, which yielded in the final instance to the desires of the ideological descendants of the late Archbishop Annibale Bugnini to keep exploding the liturgical time bombs that Michael Davies has noted with great precision were placed into the Novus Ordo as it was being created synthetically by the Consilium. Although this was entirely predictable, the fact that the new document will not represent the salvation of the Novus Ordo, which admits of so many legitimate adaptations and exceptions as to make any discussion of a liturgical “rite” an absolute oxymoron, should give traditionally minded priests who remain in the diocesan structure a wake up call. Rin Tin Tin and the Cavalry are not coming from Fort Apache.

All discussion of a “universal indult” for priests to offer the Traditional Latin Mass evidently has disappeared from the final text of the soon to be released liturgical document. Of course, Quo Primum is the only universal and perpetually binding indult any priest has ever needed to offer the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. The powers that be in Rome, however, do not want to admit that on behalf of the Holy Father, who must give his approval to the new document. Thus, those traditionally minded priests who thought that they were going to get a golden parachute from the Holy See so as to be able to offer the Traditional Latin Mass in the daylight rather than in the underground have been deceived. As good sons of the Church, many of these priests wanted to wait and see, although the outcome was predictable. Now that the outcome is clear, it is time for these priests to respond to this wake up call. They will receive no help from this pope.

Indeed, Pope John Paul II is wedded to the liturgical revolution, and has been since the Second Vatican Council. He is not going to be leading the cavalry over the hill. The late Father Vincent Miceli gave me a very important insight into the mind of the Holy Father back in January of 1983. As a self-deceived Catholic conservative who held out high hopes for the pontificate of the former Karol Cardinal Wojtyla when he was elevated to the Throne of Saint Peter on October 16, 1978, I was flabbergasted that the Pope had appointed the then Archbishop of Cincinnati, Joseph Bernardin, to succeed the late John Cardinal Cody as Archbishop of Chicago. Bernardin? Chicago? That was the stuff of Father Andrew Greeley. I had written a priest-friend in Canada in 1979 at around the time Greeley began to push Bernardin for Chicago, that “this will never happen in the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. Father Miceli took a few bites out of his meal at a diner in Massapequa Park, Long Island, New York, looked at me and said, “The Pope’s a liberal. Bernardin is a friend of his from the Second Vatican Council. They are fellow progressives. Don’t kid yourself.” He continued eating his meal in perfect peace. Well, although I filed Father Miceli’s wise counsel away, I didn’t want to believe it at the time. He was, of course, quite right.

To wit, I received a letter from a reader of Christ or Chaos (which is going to become an online publication by the end of February) that contained a nugget from a 1980 book, Mon Ami: Karol Wojtyla, written by a fellow named Malinski and published in France:

"In 1965—when Pope John Paul II was still the Bishop of Krakow, he discussed the phenomenon referred to as inculturation with a friend, saying: 'Certainly, we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local traditions: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense.'" (page 220)

The reader, Mr. A. E. Newman, had a pithy comment or two of his own in his letter to me: “Tell me, what hope is there from a man who thinks like this–what hope for a stable liturgy, for upholding of age long traditions? What hope from a man who flies in the face of his predecessors? Now that his reign is drawing to a close I can answer that [there is] no hope! My own view is that in the eyes of history the last three popes will bear a heavy responsibility for our present shambles and [the loss] among the faithful of millions. Just at the moment when Islam is strong. We can credit him for one thing: he followed through! God will deal with him, but we [will deal] with the deformation of our Faith.”

Although the fodder for an entire series of articles, the comments of the then Archbishop of Krakow are quite instructive. They should serve as a sobering reminder to good priests and laity who believed that the Novus Ordo can be reformed that the problem rests in the new Mass itself. Not much time needs to be wasted on this as the proverbial handwriting is really on the wall. Those traditionally minded priests who have remained in the Novus Ordo structure should stop believing that their words or even their presence can counteract entirely the harm to the Faith contained within the new Mass, admitting that there are priests within the diocesan structure who are zealous for the salvation of souls and who spend themselves tirelessly for the flock entrusted to their pastoral care. They should, as painful as it may be for them to consider, simply follow the courageous examples of Father Stephen P. Zigrang and Father Lawrence Smith. They should assert their rights under Quo Primum no matter what unjust ecclesiastical consequences might befall them. Many of their sheep will follow them, and those sheep will provide for their temporal needs, as is happening at Our Lady Help of Christians Chapel in Garden Grove, California, where hundreds upon hundreds of fed-up Catholics have found their way to the Catholic underground simply by word of mouth. It is simply time to force the Novus Ordo structure, built on quicksand, to collapse of its own intellectual dishonesty and liturgical incompleteness. It is time for good priests to say goodbye to a synthetic concoction and to bravely embrace the glory of Tradition.

Each priest must make his own decision in this regard. It is, though, a grave disservice to the faithful to try to pretend that the Novus Ordo itself is not the problem and/or that the problems will get better over the course of time. They will not. The Novus Ordo remains the prisoner of its own false presuppositions and of the devolution of liturgical decision making to local level, as was envisioned in Paragraph 22 of Sacrosanctum Concilium itself on December 1, 1963.

What applies to priests applies as well to the long-suffering laity who have waited for such a long time to see the abuses that have their origin in the Novus Ordo itself come to an end. So many good people, who dearly love God and want to save their souls, have fought valiant but ever failing efforts in most instances to keep the liturgical time bombs from exploding in their own local parishes and dioceses. Some of these people have tried to equip themselves with the latest “information” from Rome about what is licit and illicit in the context of Holy Mass. What these good people need to realize, though, is that the Novus Ordo is impermanent and unstable of its very nature. The new Mass is entirely predicated upon the idiosyncratic predilections of a bishop or a priest or diocesan and/or parish liturgical committees.

The Mass of Tradition has always been beyond even the realm of a bishop to change for reasons of “inculturation” or the “genius of the peoples.” The Immemorial Mass of Tradition gives God the fitting and solemn worship that is His due, communicates clearly and unequivocally the nature of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice for human sins, and provides a permanence and stability that are reflective of the nature of God Himself and of man’s need for Him and His unchanging truths. It is time for good lay people themselves to say goodbye to the angst and confusion and anger generated by all of the problems associated with the Novus Ordo Missae.

What follows is a good summary of infallible teaching and an explanation of why to what extent Vatican II is binding.
--nika

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE CHURCH

By Wm.G.Most. (c)Copyright, 1994, by Wm.G.Most

...

Doctrinal Authority of Vatican II

...

     It is often claimed that Vatican II meant only to be
pastoral - and so we could ignore its teachings as we wish. Is
this true? To get a start, we need to see that there are four
levels of teaching in the Church.

1. Four levels of teaching:

     a)Solemn definition.LG 25: No special formula of words is
required in order to define. Wording should be something solemn,
and should make clear that the teaching is definitive. Councils
in the past often used the form:'Si quis dixerit...anathema sit."
That is:" "If someone shall say....let him be anathema." But
sometimes they used the formula for disciplinary matters, so that
form alone does not prove. Further, they also could define in the
capitula, the chapters. Thus Pius XII, in Divino afflante Spiritu
(EB 538) spoke of such a passage of Vatican I (DS  3006 -- saying
God is the author of Scripture) as a solemn definition. 

     The Pope can define even without the Bishops. Of his
definitions LG 25 said: "His definitions of themselves, and not
from consent of the Church, are rightly called unchangeable, for
they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an
assistance promised him in blessed Peter. So they need no
approval from others, nor is there room for an appeal to any
other judgment." So collegiality even in defining is not
mandatory. Yet most definitions of the Popes have been taken in
collegiality, that is, with consultation of the Bishops. Even the
definitions of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption were
such, for the Popes did poll the Bishops by mail.

     b)Second level: LG 25:"Although the individual bishops do
not have the prerogative of infallibility, they can yet teach
Christ's doctrine infallibly. This is true even when they are
scattered around the world, provided that, while maintaining the
bond of unity among themselves, and with the successor of Peter,
they concur in one teaching as the one which must be definitively
held." This means: (1) The day to day teaching of the Church
throughout the world, when it gives things as definitively part
of the faith, (2)If this can be done when scattered,all the more
can it be done when assembled in Council. Thus Trent (DS 1520)
after "strictly prohibiting anyone from hereafter believing or
preaching or teaching differently than what is established and
explained in the present decree, " went on to give infallible
teaching even in the capitula, outside the canons. 

     To know whether the Church intends to teach infallibly on
this second level, we notice both the language -- no set form
required - and the intention, which may be seen at times from the
nature of the case, at times from the repetition of the doctrine
on this second level.

     c)Third Level: Pius XII,in Humani generis: "Nor must it be
thought that the things contained in Encyclical Letters do not of
themselves require assent on the plea that in them the Pontiffs
do not exercise the supreme power of their Magisterium. For these
things are taught with the ordinary Magisterium, about which it
is also true to say, 'He who hears you, hears me.' [Lk 10.16]...
If the Supreme Pontiffs, in their  acta expressly pass judgment
on a matter debated until then, it is obvious to all that the
matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs,
cannot be considered any longer a question open for discussion
among theologians."
     We notice: (1) These things are protected by the promise of
Christ in Lk 10.16, and so are infallible, for His promise cannot
fail. Though that promise was first given to the 72, it is
certain that the Apostles were in the group,and as the trajectory
advanced, it became clear that the  full teaching authority was
only for them - the mission given to the 72 was preliminary,and
the full meaning was made clear later when the Apostles were
given the authority to bind and to loose. This was part of the
broader picture: Jesus wanted only a gradual self-revelation. Had
He started by saying: "Before Abraham was,I am", He would have
been stoned on the spot.  (2)Not everything in Encyclicals, and
similar documents, is on this level - this is true only when the
Popes expressly pass judgment on a previously debated matter, (3)
since the  Church scattered  throughout the world can make a
teaching infallible without defining - as we saw on level 2 -
then of course the Pope alone, who can speak for and reflect the
faith of the whole Church, can do the same even in an Encyclical,
under the conditions enumerated by Pius XII. Really, on any
level, all that is required to make a thing infallible is that it
be given definitively. When a Pope takes a stand on something
debated in theology and publishes it in his Acta,that suffices.
The fact that as Pius XII said it is removed from debate alone
shows it is meant as definitive.

     In this connection, we note that LG 12 says: "The entire
body of the faithful, anointed as  they are by the Holy One,
cannot err in matters of belief."  This means: If the whole
Church, both people and authorities, have ever believed (accepted
as revealed) an item, then that cannot be in error, is
infallible. Of course this applies to the more basic items, not
to very technical matters of theological debate. But we note this
too: If this condition has once been fulfilled in the past, then
if people in a later age come to doubt or deny it -- that does
not make noninfallible what was once established as infallible.
Many things come under this ,e.g., the existence of angels. 

     This does not mean, however,that the Pope is to be only the
echo of the faithful.

      d)Level 4: LG 25:"Religious submission of mind and of will
must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of
the Roman Pontiff even when he is not defining, in such a way,
namely, that the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to
according to his manifested mind and will, which is clear either
from the nature of the documents, or from the repeated
presentation of the same doctrine, or from the manner of
speaking."

     We note all the qualifications in the underlined part The
key is the intention of the Pope. He may be repeating existing
definitive teaching from Ordinary Magisterium level - then it is
infallible, as on level 2. He may be giving a decision on a
previously debated point - as on level 3, then it falls under the
promise of Christ in Lk 10.16, and so is also infallible. Or it
may be a still lesser intention - then we have a case like that
envisioned in Canon  752 of the New Code of Canon Law: "Not
indeed an assent of faith, but yet a religious submission of mind
and will must be given to the teaching which either the Supreme
Pontiff, or the College of Bishops [of course, with the Pope]
pronounce on faith or on morals when they exercise the authentic
Magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim it by a
definitive act." If they do not mean to make it definitive, then
it does not come under the virtue of faith, or the promise of
Christ,"He who hears you hears me". Rather,it is a matter of what
the Canon and LG 25 call "religious submission of mind and of
will." What does this require? Definitely, it forbids  public
contradiction of the teaching. But it also requires something in
the mind, as the wording indicates. This cannot be the absolute
assent which faith calls for - for since this teaching is, by
definition, not definitive, we gather that it is not absolutely
finally certain.
     How can anyone give any mental assent when there is not
absolute certitude? In normal human affairs, we do it all the
time. Suppose we are at table,and someone asks if a dish of food
came from a can, and if so, was it sent to a lab to check for
Botulism. It is true, routine opening of a can would not detect
that deadly poison. Yet it is too much to check every can, and
the chances are very remote, so much so that normal people do not
bother about it - yet their belief takes into account a real but
tiny possibility of a mistake. Similarly with a doctrine on this
fourth level. And further,the chances of error on this level are
much smaller than they are with a can of food. Similarly,in a
criminal trial, the judge will tell the jury they must find the
evidence proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He does not demand
that every tiny doubt be ruled out, even though it may mean life
in prison or death.

     If one should make a mistake by following the fourth level
of Church teaching, when he comes before the Divine Judge, the
Judge will not blame him, rather He will praise him. But if a
person errs by breaking with the Church on the plea that he knew
better - that will not be easily accepted.

2.On what Level does Vatican II Teaching Come?
     a)We notice the distinctions of the kinds of documents -
constitutions, decrees, declarations.  Even the least of these
would qualify for level four.

     b)Early statements on its authority tend to minimize the
level.
      
     (1)John XXIII in his opening address to the Council said:
"Often errors vanish as quickly as they arise, like fog before
the sun. The Church has always opposed these errors. Often she
has condemned them with very great severity. But today, the
Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy
rather than that of severity. She considers that she meets the
needs of today by demonstrating the validity of her teaching
rather than by condemnations."(AAS 54.792)
     Hence the Council never used the classic formula: "If anyone
says... let him be anathema."

However, as noted above, there can be infallible teaching even
without this formula - no special wording is required, only that
there be an intention to define, made clear in any way.

If it is not made clear, it is not to be considered as a definition.

        (2)Yet John XXIII did not mean to contradict any previous
teaching. In the same speech he said:
"The greatest concern of
the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of
Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more
efficaciously." And he added: "But from the renewed, serene and
tranquil adherence to all the teachings of the Church in its
entirety, transmitted with the precision and concepts which are
especially the glory of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, the
Christian, Catholic and Apostolic spirit of all hopes for a
further step in the doctrinal penetration, in faithful and
perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine." [emphasis added]
-- We notice two things: (1) He wants perfect fidelity to past
teaching, (2)He wants further doctrinal penetration.

         (3) He added:"The substance of the ancient doctrine of
the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is
presented is another." Hence the Decree on Ecumenism 6
says:"If...there have been deficiencies in the way that Church
teaching has been formulated -- to be carefully distinguished
from the deposit of faith itself - these can and should be set
right at the opportune moment."
     So the language of presentation may need improvement - but
the substance is not to be changed. Hence Paul VI, in Mysterium
fidei, Sept 3,1965, 23-24: "The norm...of speaking which the
Church...under the protection of the Holy Spirit has established
and confirmed by the authority of the Councils...is to be
religiously preserved, and let no one at his own good pleasure or
under the pretext of new science presume to change it.... For by
these formulae...concepts are expressed which are not tied to one
specific form of human civilization, nor definite period of
scientific progress, nor one school of theological thought, but
they present what the human mind...grasps of realities and
expresses in suitable and accurate terminology.... For this
reason these formulae are adapted to men of all times and all
places" (AAS 57.758).

     Of course, the fact that the ancient language expressed
truth correctly, even if not always in the best possible way,
does not excuse us from studying what the terms meant at the time
they were written - for languages do change over time. We must
not impose a modern meaning on an ancient expression.

     We should notice too: At times we can see that some things
were in the minds of the writers, which they did not set down on
paper, e.g,the Aristotelian-Thomistic notions of substance and
accidents. But Divine Providence protects only what is set down
on paper - not also what is merely in the minds of the writers.
God has made two commitments - to protect the teaching, and to
allow human freedom. At times He must as it were walk a tight
line, protecting what is really written, but not what is merely
in the minds of the drafters of the text. (Cf.also the case of
Gregory XVI, Pius IX, and Leo XIII in their statements on
Church-state, as compared with Vatican II's Declaration on
Religious Liberty.)

        (4)Paul VI,in an address to the opening of the second
session on Sept 29,1963 said (AAS  55.848-49):"It seems to us
that the time has come to explore, penetrate and explain more and
more the doctrine about the Church of Christ; but not with those
solemn statements which are called dogmatic definitions, but
rather in the form of declarations in which the Church in more
explicit and considered teaching presents that which she holds."
        (5)The Secretary of the  Council on Nov.29,1963, when the
Council was to vote on the Constitution on Liturgy and the Decree
on the Media for Communication, said (Osservatore Romano
Nov.30,1963.p.3): "The schemas which are to be voted and
promulgated the next Dec.4 are of a solely disciplinary nature."
We note one of these was a Constitution - which really contains
little of dogmatic nature - it is mostly legislative.

          (6)Doctrinal Commission on Lumen Gentium: Nov
16.1964.The Commission was asked about the doctrinal note of LG.
It referred the questioner back to its own declaration of March
6,1964: "Considering the Conciliar custom and the pastoral goal
of this Council, this Holy Synod defines that only those things
about matters of faith and morals are to be held by the Church
which it will have declared clearly as such.
As to other things
which the Holy Synod proposes as the doctrine of the Supreme
Magisterium of the Church, all and individual faithful persons
must accept and embrace them according to the mind of the Holy
Synod itself, which becomes known either from the subject matter
or from the manner of speaking,according to the norms of
theological interpretation."

        (7)Paul VI,opening speech to Third Session (AAS 56,808-
09), referring to coming work on the Constitution on the Church:
"In this way the doctrine which the Ecumenical Council Vatican I
had intended will be completed.... It is proper for this solemn
Synod to settle certain laborious theological controversies about
the shepherds of the Church, with the prerogatives which lawfully
flow from the episcopate, and to pronounce a statement on them
that is certain. We must declare what is the true notion of the
hierarchical orders and to decide with authority and with a
certainty which it will not be legitimate to call into doubt
[emphasis added]." From the underlined words, it seems there was
an intention to be definitive, and so, infallible, even without
the solemn form of a definition.

     c)Later statements:

        (1)Paul VI:General audience of Jan 12,1966:"In view of
the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary
statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility,
but it still provided us teaching with the authority of the ordinary
Magisterium, which must be accepted with docility...."

        (2)Paul VI,Allocution to Consistory of Cardinals,May
24,1976 (Osservatore Romano,English,June 3,l976), complained: "It
is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding."

     c)Conclusion on teaching level of Vatican II. Paul VI said
it falls on Ordinary Magisterium level, as in the quote above
from audience of Jan 12,1966. This means we have nothing on level
l, solemn definitions.
But we can find things on levels 2, 3, or
4. An item that is quite new, never taught before, such as some
things in the Declaration on Religious Liberty, probably are on
level 4. But the Constitutions on the Church and on Divine
Revelation seem to have the intention to settle debated points --
cf.the text of Paul VI (b.6 above) in his speech to the opening
of Third Session, saying the Constitution on the Church intended
to complete the work of Vatican I on that topic,and to settle    
certain debated points. [ Third level of infallibility. ]

He mentioned some of them - as to others,
each one would need individual study.

What is instructive is the hypocrisy of the very people who claimed Vatican II was infallible after it closed. These were the very same Modernist churchmen who had urged their more conservative peers to enter into discussions on many novel and even radical issues by reminding them over and over that the Council was, after all, only Pastoral and not binding. Once the Council closed, however, they reversed field and made claims for its infallibility.

But John XXIII clearly intended that it be pastoral when he opened the Council:

“The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a council was not necessary. [...] The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly PASTORAL IN CHARACTER.” (Opening Address, October 11, 1962; Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 715)

And Here is Paul VI in the Nota Praeva which was read before the entire Council:

“In view of the conciliar practice and the PASTORAL PURPOSE of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church ONLY WHEN the Synod itself openly declares so.” (Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 98)

Of course the Council never did so, and so nothing was ever declared binding. And here again is Paul VI in an address given when he closed the Council:

“Today we are concluding the Second Vatican Council. [...] But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, EVEN THOUGH NOT WISHING TO ISSUE EXTRAORDINARY DOGMATIC PRONOUNCEMENTS, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man's conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of PASTORAL CHARITY; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.” (Address during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, December 7, 1965; AAS 58; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6tolast.htm)

And here is Cardinal Fellici, the General Secretary of the Council at the closing ceremonies:

“And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought TO MEET THE PASTORAL NEEDS and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family. […] We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. […] Given in Rome at St. Peter's, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.” (In Spiritu Sancto, Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 738-9)

The documents of the Council therefore called for "religious observance", according to Fellici, which, as theologians all know, is the assent given to non-infallible teachings. Nowhere did the Council fathers expressly command the binding of the Church on any matter.

So it's immaterial to me how many liberal theolgians you quote. The facts were plain from the beginning: this was to be a pastoral, not a dogmatic, council.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.