In all the discussions and debates I've engaged in with traditionalist, who I respect for their knowledge on the subject, they have shown me how everything that appears to be the opposite of what was consistently taught, actually can be interpreted according to tradition. It's an odd thing about Vatican II, it appears that the ambiguities are there as a snare for anyone that wishes to interpret Vatican II against 1900+ of consistent teaching, but they are not there for those who follow what the Cchurch has always taught:
Why God would allow these "ambiguities" to occur in Vatican II. ?
"Considering all that I have said thus far, especially concerning the ulterior motives of the liberal prelates and their virtual hijacking of Vatican II, I think Scripture has an answer as to why God would allow these "ambiguities" to occur. In short, there is an interesting working principle in Scripture. As a punishment for your sin, God will allow you to pursue, and be condemned by, what you sinfully desire. This is what I believe happened at Vatican II. The progressivist bishops and theologians sought for a way to push their heterodox ideas into the Church, so God allowed them to do so, as a witness and judgment against them. He would allow the Council to have its "ambiguities" so that those who would interpret them contrary to nineteen centuries of established Catholic dogma, would lead themselves into sin, and ultimately into God's judgment. Unfortunately, as is always the case, the sheep suffer for what the shepherds do wrong, and as a result, we have all been wandering in the spiritual desert of liberal theology for the past 40 years." (Article from Catholic Family News, Feb 2003, by Robert Sungenis)(1)
(1) In fact, the bad shepherds may be a chastisement for the sins of the sheep. Saint John Eudes, basing his words on Sacred Scripture, says that when God wants to punish his people, he sends them bad priests. See The Priest, His Dignity and Obligations, by Saint John Eudes, Chapter 2, "Qualities of a Holy Priest". (New York: P.J. Kenedy and Sons, 1947).
--------------------------------------------------------
I would not seek any answers about the Faith from Vatican II and would be leary of any theologian that exclusively refers to it.
Some argue the Second Vatican Council was merely pastoral and, therefore, not binding. How do you respond to this?
The problem here is the interpretation of the word “pastoral.” All councils are pastoral, in that they are concerned with the work of the Church — but this does not mean that they are merely “poetic” and therefore not binding. Vatican II is an official ecumenical council, and all that was said in the Council is therefore binding for everyone, but at different levels. We have dogmatic constitutions, and you are certainly obliged to accept them if you are Catholic. Dei Verbum discusses divine Revelation; it speaks about the Trinitarian God revealing himself and about the Incarnation as fundamental teaching. These are not only pastoral teachings — they are basic elements of our Catholic faith.
Some practical elements contained in the various documents could be changed, but the body of the doctrine of the Council is binding for everyone.[who is Catholic]
The emphasis was added as well as the portion in brackets for clarity. See the source.
Catholics should note this is Cardinal Mueller, who is still currently head of the Congregation of the office of Doctrine and Faith. So I think he should know what's "infallable" (or binding) and what isn't.
As I was perusing this thread before posting, I noticed verdugo (who is now banned) said the following in post 4:
Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)also stated that Vatican II was not infallible.
“Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II and which provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it, which give the impression that from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II. […] The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.” (Address to the Chilean Episcopal Conference, Il Sabato 1988)
Another translation of same Address:
“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.”
These words (by then Cardinal Ratzinger) are not in contradiction to those of Mueller. This is for the simple fact that both men are saying the same thing which is that Vatican II taught what the Church has always taught, it simply didn't define any dogma. However this doesn't necessarily mean the teachings there were/are not binding. Indeed it means the opposite, as to recognize consistent, historical, Traditional Church teaching is to recognize infallibility.
One must be careful not to conflate the fact that since VII didn't define dogma, this must mean it isn't binding to the Church Universal. This is not necessarily true, in every sense of the word "necessarily".