[nika]

Vatican II, after all, was a failed council.
--ultima ratio

So you don't believe Jesus kept his promise to send the Holy Spirit to be with us forever. What else can I conclude? You either believe Church Councils have the protection of the Holy Spirit or you don't. I have to assume you do, because in the past you haved cited them to make your case. Yet you claim Vatican II was a failed council. So you must not believe that Jesus keeps His promises. I know. I know. Don't tell me: We don't really need Jesus and the Holy Spirit since we have you and Klaus Gamber, right?

[ultima ratio]

Of course I believe Jesus kept His promise--but not that the Holy Spirit would blow the winds of inspiration through every crackpot Modernist who comes down the pike. And I make a distinction you don't seem to appreciate, but which any theologian understands who is worth his salt: not everything a council says is guaranteed Divine Protection. Only those pronouncements which are specifically declared dogmatic are binding on the faithful. This means, first of all, there must be a clear intent on the part of the council fathers to make a doctrine binding; and secondly they must pronounce the doctrine in such a way that it is clearly understood. After all, how are we to bind our intellects to something murky and incomprehensible? In fact, one reason why Vatican II itself prescinded from declaring anything dogmatic was that it preferred to use a pastoral, ambiguous, sometimes emotionally descriptive language, rather than the language of syllogistic precision and clarity of expression. So maybe you should stash the pious rhetoric and try to get a grip on some of these theological niceties you don't seem to adequately appreciate.