Replies

Hello ultima ratio:

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 problems 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?
--nika
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.
--ultima ratio

No. No. No. That is not what we are talking about. John XXIII was talking about the "substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith," most of the individual items of which neither Church Councils nor Popes have ever held up for scrutiny and then formally declared the given item as binding on us. Most of the individual items that comprise the deposit of faith have never been the subject of a statement of the Pope speaking "Ex Cathedra" or expressed as a canon in an ecumenical church council document. Keep in mind the traditional (pre-Vatican II) belief in the infallibility of church councils:

All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope.
--GENERAL COUNCILS, Section VIII. INFALLIBILITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910

So, in so far as Vatican II reiterated the "substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith" in terms the modern world could understand (whether or not a particular item in the deposit of faith had ever been formally declared as binding by other councils or popes), you fully accept Vatican II according to the pre-conciliar understanding of its authority^* cited above from the Catholic Encyclopedia? Right?

*This is the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar belief for genuine Catholics.

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

You are obviously woefully out of your depth and hope that by setting up a smoke screen of verbal gobbledegook, I will tire of the discussion.

1. First you cite me, then you cite John XXIII, then you cite yourself, then myself, then yourself, then myself. You make no logical connections among these citations, but you write as if expecting me to miraculously intuit your point. You hint at some connection, for instance, between my argument that Vatican II was not infallible and the statement by John XXXIII about the bishops' need to guard the deposit of faith--but you don't make clear what the connection is between my point and the Pontiff's. And since you won't do this, neither will I.

2. Then you present this incredibly obscure and syntactically involuted statement: "That is not what we are talking about. John XXIII was talking about the 'substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith,' most of the individual items of which neither Church Councils nor Popes have ever held up for scrutiny and then formally declared the given item as binding on us." Say again? This makes absolutely no sense as good English, let alone good theology. But I hope you don't mean that nobody in the Church had ever bothered to look into the truths of faith before Vatican II came along.

3. In any case, I'm still waiting for this list of doctrines Vatican II SPECIFICALLY DECLARED BINDING. Don't give me vague nonsense about "the substance of ancient doctrines," etc. etc. Just type out the new teaching that is binding. Just one new doctrine will do. One little teentsy-weentsy doctrine. I'm still waiting very very patiently. It shouldn't be so hard for you to do. Tell us clearly and unambiguously what great truths were infallibly defined by Vatican II.

Cat got your tongue?