Replies

Neither you--nor this unnamed site you indicate as a source--seem to be able to reason clearly. I say this because it was THE POPE HIMSELF, Paul VI, who ordered that his notice be read to the Council Fathers, prohibiting them from promulgating anything binding on the Church without prior notice. As it turned out, no such prior notice was ever given about anything. Therefore nothing was ever declared infallible. What part of this can't you understand? Here is what the Nota Praeva said once again:

"Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the PASTORAL PURPOSE of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it SHALL OPENLY DECLARE TO BE BINDING. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation."

Once again, nothing was openly declared binding by the Council. Therefore nothing was ever binding. Any talk of infallibility is consequently nonsense. But you can keep posting these non-sequiturs, if you wish--though they have no authority whatsoever except to present the opinions of those who oppose Catholic Tradition and who want everybody else to click heels and follow behind. We've seen where they've been leading the Church for forty years--over the cliff to disaster. No thanks.

Vatican II was unique in a number of ways from all other councils. None other was self-described as pastoral nor proscribed by the pope for this reason from declaring that anything was binding. Vatican II was also unique in the descriptive and metaphoric language it used, deliberately designed to inspire rather than to instruct. For this reason much of what it declared was ambiguous and subject to extremely diverse interpretations. Of their very nature, moreover, such declarations cannot bind intellectually. Only clearly presented doctrines can do that.

To say this is clearly threatening to some, which is why they frequently use invective, rather than reason, to argue their points. These are the same people who have constructed their vision of a renewed Church on the chimera of some "Vatican II Spirit"--which is turning out to be not so much a renewal as a calamity. So is talk of anything having been taught infallibly by the Council, or talk about a "New Advent" or a "New Pentacost." For true Catholics, the old Pentacost was sufficient; so was the first and only Advent. Anything over and beyond the traditional faith, expressed in such bogus terms, is obviously suspicious and probably should be rejected.