[pascendi]

"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?

[nika]

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

Believe me, I can tell it's not where you get your doctrine from. Official Church councils aren't where you get your doctrine from either. Neither is traditional Catholicism. You guys do your own thing. You refuse to submit to the authority of the Church, making your own private and incorrect opinions your ultimate authority. You make yourselves Pope.

Are you really denying the authority of Church Councils when they are in union with the Successor of St. Peter? Obviously, you are either intellectually dishonest and cowardly, or are all bluff and don't really know anything about Catholicism -- or both.

So keep blathering on and whatever the case may be will soon be evident to all.

[gbcdoj]

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?

What are these?