Replies

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

"You misinterpret statements by Paul VI as to the binding nature of Vatican II because you don't like the new liturgy."

What did Vatican II bind? Good luck producing one item that is not something all Catholics already knew.

It might help to actually read all the documents of Vatican II. In fact, I would like that question answered: Nika, have you read all the documents of Vatican II, or have you simply read the what laymen have said about them? Be honest. A total of two questions to answer, if you would. One, have you read all the documents, and two, what did you find in them that is new and not a restatement of known doctrine?

"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."

Actually, what you did was state that Pope John XIII made it clear that Vatican II was to reiterate what is in the Deposit of Faith, insert the hidden premise that modern people are not as intellectually well-formed as their ancestors were (which is probably true), and leaped forward with a really lousy attempt at a 'reductio ad absurdem' argument which didn't work.

"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."

Wherever it restates known doctrine, it is binding.

"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."

Fine... and:

"I pointed out that the traditional, pre-conciliar belief of Catholics was stated in the Catholic Encylopedia in 1910:"

It's a great encyclopedia, but it's not where we get our doctrine from; sorry.

"...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."

...which proves nothing for you, because you won't say what it is that Vatican II said that's new, that traditional Catholics didn't already know. You have not identified what is/are the teaching(s) of Vatican II which are unique to Vatican II, whereby you might differentiate your stance on Catholic truth & reality from ultima's. That there is a difference is clear; I would like to know exactly what that difference consists, between your Catholicism and ultima's, and what is the origin of that difference. We will then be well into the territory of what you think Vatican II said and what it didn't.

What you really, really want to say is that Vatican II says something that ultima doesn't accept, right? Well then... what is it? If there's nothing, then what the heck makes you a different kind of Catholic from ultima? There is a difference, isn't there? That's interesting.

Until you provide the proprietary doctrine(s) of Vatican II, the origins of which are found in Vatican II, you will be running in circles.

"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."

Which belief of ultima's is a denial of the truth?

"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."

Which reiteration of which doctrine in the Deposit of the Faith is ultima in denial of?

"This because you aren't really a traditional Catholic. You are a heretic."

This is the conclusion that you are working towards, no doubt.

Better get started.

Btw, I like the introduction of the heresy charge. I know a couple whopper infallible declarations that would make your head spin trying to lend your assent to them without, well, really lending your assent to them. We could squeeze the heresy thing for all it's worth. Would you like to see a few?

Vatican II today stands in a twilight. For a long time it has been regarded by the so-called progressive wing as completely supassed and, consequently, as a thing of the past, no longer relevant to the present. By the opposite side, the 'convervative' wing, it is, conversely, viewed as the cause of the present decadence of the Catholic Church and even judged as an apostasy from Vatican I and from the Council of Trent. Consequently demands have been made for its retraction or for a revision that would be tantamount to a retraction ... Over against both tendencies, before all else, it must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points. ...
Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils. ... It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils [ "Vatican II, after all, was a failed council." --ultima ratio ] and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called 'traditionalism', also in its extreme forms. [ this would be ultima ratio and pascendi --nika ] Every partison choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church ) which can only exist as an indivisible unity.
--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, On the tenth anniversary of the close of Vatican II
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
"John Paul II is the legitimate Successor of Peter."
--ultima ratio