"Announcement made by the Secretary General of the Council, regarding the Vatican II documents and affirmed by the Council fathers: 'Taking into account the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present council, the sacred synod defined as binding on the Church only those matters of faith and morals which it has expressly put forth as such.'"
(Vatican Council II, 1988 Revised Edition, "The Explanatory Note", p. 423.)
LOL. You're going to put the words of an explanatory note up against the words of the Supreme Pontiff?
Is this alleged communication from the alleged Secretary General of the Council part of the papally-approved documents of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, itself? Did the bishops vote on this "document", and then did it receive the seal of the Fisherman, himself? No?
Yet, you give this "explanatory note" infallibility in interpretation over the entire Council??
The pope's not infallible, an Ecumenical Council's not infallible, but the "explanatory note" by a single archbishop is infallible??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
But, heck, just for kicks, ultima, let's look at this "infallible" pronouncement of the good archbishop, if he indeed did say it, or, if indeed that is the context, given your penchant for presenting the words of others in ways which mean directly the opposite of how they intended them.
The critical words are:
"defined as binding... only those matters... which it has expressly put forth as such."
And in his proclamation of the closing of the Council, Pope Paul VI says, "We decide moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by the faithful..."
That's "is to be religiously observed", not "may be observed", not "is suggested to be observed", not "it would be a good idea to observe", but rather "IS TO BE observed".
Sounds binding to me.
Well, I gotta give you credit for trying.
sitetest