Yes. What was the church thinking, giving out doctorates in Sacred Theology? Church doctrines are all so easy to understand that we don't need any experts - just our own private judgment inspired by the Holy Ghost.
since when does the "living" Magisterium cancel-out previous teachings of the Church?
It doesn't.
Councils spoke clearly in the past. So did theologians. They did so for the sake of the faithful, simply because they knew it would be impossible to bind one's intellect to something ambiguous or lacking in clarity. There is not a line of Trent that is not clear. Contrariwise, Vatican II is full of fuzzy phrases of the sort anybody can drive a mack truck through. And the Pope writes as if the Archbishop were bound to believe whatever he or the Council asserted, regardless of its novelty. Did he think the Archbishop didn't know the difference between novelties like Assisi--which were in open contradiction to preconciliar warnings about indifferentism and syncretism-- and true Catholic Tradition?
You say there is no contradiction between the claims of JPII and traditional Church teachings? Then why does he berate the Archbishop for a faulty understanding of Tradition, speaking vaguely about development of doctrines, intimating a difference between his own understanding and the Archbishop's, suggesting a wholly new interpretation of doctrines which is never specified? Even as he charges the Archbishop with lacking understanding, he will not himself explain just what it is he is talking about. And in fact, he has never adequately explained Assisi, nor any of a host of other heterodox actions or how these could ever be reconciled with Tradition. Yet he dares to suggest they are. In other words, he insults our intelligence.
"Yes. What was the church thinking, giving out doctorates in Sacred Theology? Church doctrines are all so easy to understand that we don't need any experts - just our own private judgment inspired by the Holy Ghost."
Liberals always claim this. The simple people are too dumb to understand doctrines written in plain language--though it was the unschooled faithful who held onto the faith through the ages whenever the hierarchy failed. What you claim is the typical mantra of modernists. It is what the critical scholars claim when they dissect the Gospels and decide what we should or should not believe. They were the ones telling Mel Gibson he got his take on the Passion all wrong, that he needed experts to tell him how to think about the Gospels. The Pope did the same with Lefebvre. He didn't truly understand Tradition--experts were needed. Hogwash. Of the two men, Lefebvre had the wiser faith.