Replies

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?

I am sorry you don't get it. I will try again.

You misinterpret statements by Paul VI as to the binding nature of Vatican II because you don't like the new liturgy.
I responded with the fact that John XIII made it clear that Vatican II was to reiterate the ancient deposit of the faith in terms the modern world could understand and pointed out that according to your "logic" that ancient deposit of faith was then no longer binding.
You said you had no problem whatsoever with the Council's having REPEATED doctrines that formerly had been declared as binding by other councils or popes.
I pointed out that the deposit of faith consisted mostly of doctrines that had never been the subject of an "ex cathedra" statement or the canons of council documents.
I pointed out that the traditional, pre-conciliar belief of Catholics was stated in the Catholic Encylopedia in 1910:
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.
You avoided this inconvenient truth because you are in the awkward position of claiming to be the "traditional" Catholic yet your beliefs are contrary to the traditional belief of the Church.
You also ran like a scared rabbit from a discussion of the fact that in so far as Vatican II reiterated the ancient deposit of faith, which includes those truths that have never been the subject of "ex cathedra" papal statements or the canons of council documents, you have no good reason to deny it was infallible and binding according to the traditional, pre-conciliar beliefs of the Church. This because you aren't really a traditional Catholic. You are a heretic.

There. Do you get it now?

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