Replies

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

1. While all councils are potentially infallible in their declarations, not all councils necessarily exercise this power. Vatican II did not, in accordance with the strictures of Paul VI. Nothing it said was therefore infallible EXCEPT for what it repeated regarding the perennial doctrines of the Catholic Church. But these declarations were not new definitions; the content of such teachings were already binding on all Catholics. I would be the first to agree with the Cardinal that insofar as Vatican II repeats past infallible teachings of the Church, such teachings are to be obeyed.

2. But Vatican II also made many ambiguous declarations which are problematic and which do not bind and can never bind any Catholics intellectually. In objecting to these passages in conciliar documents, traditional Catholics have legitimate reservations about how they are to be interpreted. It is, after all, impossible to give intellectual consent to an argument that may be interpreted as contradicting past Church teachings, one that is simultaneously subject to two opposing interpretations, one traditionally Catholic and one opposed to Catholic tradition. It is owed to all Catholics that such decrees be clear and unambiguous. Anything less cannot demand assent.

3. I never argued Vatican II was not a legitimate council. I said it was a failed council--which is nothing less than the truth. Saying the council is legitimate is not the same thing as saying it was successful. Legitimate authority can make all kinds of foolish statements and mistakes in judgment--and has done so many times throughout Church history. Who would argue this--or pretend that Vatican II has not actually failed, plunging the Church into a host of unprecedented crises instead of renewing the Church as expected? The Holy Spirit, after all, has not been promised to protect authority from foolishness, only from error when a council formally defines something as binding on the Church. In other words, the Holy Spirit may well leave councils and popes to suffer the consequences of their own lack of wisdom.

4. As for the final quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, we've been through this over and over. You can quote a hundred more such passages--but this wouldn't make you any less wrong. All this encyclopedic passage says is that popes and councils have Divine protection. But this is given only UNDER CERTAIN VERY PROSCRIBED CONDITIONS. Not everything Church authority does or says is infallible. Some popes and councils may choose to NEVER exercise this ability--as Vatican II did not. So, for the thousandth time, if you think Vatican II has issued some new definition which is binding on the universal Church--I challenge you again to tell me what it is. I've been waiting for a week now for you to come up with a single example of an infallible teaching--one which does not merely repeat the infallible teachings of other popes or councils. Yet you neve do.