Replies

First, not only are you wrong about the infallibility of Vatican II, but you are now being intellectually dishonest, playing a game of bait-and-switch, pretending to have been talking about something we were never talking about in the first place. Here are some direct quotes from two of my earlier posts:

"But if you think something the Council said IS infallible teaching--then it would be incumbent on you to tell the rest of us what you believe had suddenly been made binding on all Catholics. Name, if you will, the specific dogmatic teaching. REMEMBER, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DOGMAS ALREADY DECLARED BY PREVIOUS POPES OR COUNCILS WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN MERELY REPEATED by the bishops in the documents. We're talking about a newly declared doctrine that is suddenly made binding on all the faithful. It would be very strange to claim the Council had made such a pronouncement yet not be able to come up with a specific teaching that qualifies. Yet nobody ever does. Nor will you be able to do so, since no dogma was ever specifically pronounced by Vatican II."

And later I repeat the word, "new", suspecting you might try to twist the argument to mean I meant doctrines which had been binding before Vatican II had even opened:

"I still repeat my challenge to you, however: If you believe Vatican II was sometimes dogmatically binding in its pronoucements--which teachings would these be, in your opinion? What NEW DOGMAS were presented which were binding? You can't name a single one, because none were ever so declared."

So you knew all along what I was talking about. But now that you can't meet the challenge, you are trying to squirm out of the intellectual hole you've dug for yourself by pretending I meant something else. That is intellectually dishonest.

Second, in answer to your question about the Pontiff, are you imagining I may, perhaps, be a sedevacantist to put me in another one of your mental boxes? If so, I will disappoint you: John Paul II is the legitimate Successor of Peter. What's more, if you had ever read any posts of mine before this thread--which go back over a year and a half or two years, you would know I have never denied his legitimacy--and neither does SSPX.

Now suppose you answer MY question instead of posting phony arguments: tell me, what NEW doctrine was OPENLY declared binding by Vatican II--and I am not talking about the deposit of faith nor any other dogmatic declaration repeated by Vatican II which had already been binding on the Church.

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.
--ultima ratio
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."
--nika
... later I repeat the word, "new", suspecting you might try to twist the argument to mean I meant doctrines which had been binding before Vatican II had even opened.
--ultima ratio

So, you have no problem with Vatican II in so far as it reiterated the "substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith" in terms the modern world could understand. Right? In other words, all that it taught, as long as that teaching wasn't a "new" dogmatic teaching, was infallible and binding. Right? That is what you believe. Correct?

Let me be sure I understand you before I respond to your challenge to list all the new dogmatic teachings of Vatican II.

John Paul II is the legitimate Successor of Peter.
--ultima ratio