[ultima ratio]

I'm just being logical, not dogmatic. Paul VI stated in the Nota Praeva, which was read aloud at the Council, that nothing the Council decided was to be considered binding unless openly declared as such. Since nothing the Council said was openly so declared, it taught nothing infallibly.

If I'm wrong, I would be happy to admit it. All you have to do is prove I am wrong by explaining which Vatican II doctrines were declared openly as binding on the Church. Actually a single binding declaration will do, no need to go on and on. If you believe you are right, that should be a cinch for you to specify. Simply name the doctrine which had been openly declared by Vatican II as binding on the Church according to the standard provided by Paul VI himself.

And please don't post more foolish articles and modernist propaganda instead of proving your point. It's unnecessary and proves nothing--especially when you lift articles from sites dedicated to bashing Catholic Tradition and intimidating unsuspecting Catholics with such nonsense. So simply name the doctrine or doctrines that were openly declared binding at Vatican II. I'm waiting--with bated breath.

[nika]

I'm just being logical, not dogmatic. Paul VI stated in the Nota Praeva, which was read aloud at the Council, that nothing the Council decided was to be considered binding unless openly declared as such. Since nothing the Council said was openly so declared, it taught nothing infallibly.
--Pope Ultima Ratio I

The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously. ... 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. ... The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.
--John XXIII in his opening address to Vatican II

John XXIII makes it clear that the Council was to reiterate the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith to the modern world, yet in perfect conformity to authentic doctrine. So, according to your narrow interpretation of Paul VI's remarks, Paul VI made the entire ancient and Apostolic faith non binding, because "... nothing the Council decided was to be considered binding unless openly declared as such. Since nothing the Council said was openly so declared, it taught nothing infallibly."

Hmmm... Let's see ... Could there be a problem with your interpretation? According to your "logic," the prohibition against murder got thrown out at Vatican II, since "nothing ... was to be considered binding" and that prohibition was part of the "substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith" taught by Vatican II.

Before you give us the benefit of your lame response, answer me this: Who, according to you, is the current, legitimate successor of St. Peter?