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.
Dear Ultima Ratio,
This thread that you started rang a bell with me and I realized that the quote “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” had once again been taken right out of context in order to further the writer's agenda. This quote without context has been used in other essays previously posted on FR by those who wish to kick and rail and cause dissention and discord among the faithful.
This is a fuller and more contextualized quote of the quote Mr. Droelsky uses somewhat dishonestly in order to create another essay of discontent. It is taken from an Una Voca website in case you want to verify it.
In 1965, when still Bishop of Cracow, John Paul II showed he was bewildered about which direction the liturgical reform would take, particularly in Africa. "Where will it end?" he asked, "Certainly we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local tradition: words, gestures, colours, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is enormous ... " (Malinskl, Mon Ami, Karl Wojtyla, Paris, 1980, p.220.)
My reading of this fuller quote evokes the understanding that JPII, while still bishop, realized that by reforming the Latin Rite Mass in order to include some elements of local custom, the reform was not specific enough to stop the coming abuses done in the name of inculturation. He saw even in 1965, the abuses that would be forthcoming.