Replies

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

You understood me all right. Here is what I said originally:

"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."

You are right--I have no problem whatsoever with the Council's having REPEATED doctrines that formerly had been declared as binding by other councils or popes. But my challenge is fairly straight-forward. I ask you to show me exactly on what new doctrine the Council Fathers have bound the universal Church. And remember, no fair listing materials requiring "religious assent"--which is given to non-infallible doctrines--you've already tried that. We are talking about Vatican Council II's OPENLY BINDING US ALL INFALLIBLY. The operative word here is "openly"--publicly, specifically, directly, without ambiguity, with complete clarity--just as Pope Paul VI specified.

"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." --Paul VI.

Notice how Paul VI speaks of DEFINING something as binding. There can be no implication here of the Council's defining all over again definitions of previous popes or councils. It might describe these doctrines differently or otherwise present them in different contexts, but there would be no effort to re-define anything. So your bizarre suggestion that according to my "narrow interpretation of Paul VI's remarks, Paul VI made the entire ancient and Apostolic faith non binding" is ludicrous.