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.
Really. Why do traditionalists, including priests, try to claim that can. xiii of the Decree on the Sacraments of the Seventh Session of Trent outlaws changes to the liturgy, even by the Pope? Isn't Trent so clear that no one could misunderstand it?
And the Pope writes as if the Archbishop were bound to believe whatever he or the Council asserted, regardless of its novelty.
Again: he's talking about religious liberty and ecumenism (according to the documents - which do not justify Assisi!). Cardinal Oddi denounced Assisi and the Pope didn't go after him.