Catholics are convinced by quoting doctrine from authorities:
Cardinal Ratzinger's (today Pope Benedict XVI)address to the Chilean bishops in 1988:
"There are many accounts of it [the Second Vatican Council] which give the impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II. 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 super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."
re: Doesn’t Vatican II teach some things that are the opposite of the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church?
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).
--------------------------------------------------------
Because of the ambiguities and double speak in the Vatican II, and many of the documents that came from the post Vatican II bishops, using Vatican II to justify all kinds of changes, departures from antiquity/tradition, I would not advise just anyone to seek answers about the Faith from Vatican II and would be leary of any theologian that exclusively refers to it.
>> The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, <<
There’s quite a massive difference between defining no dogma, and containing no dogma. What Benedict is saying is that Vatican II neither contradicts nor adds to any dogma. There are certainly , however, doctrinal statements, which were approved by the consensus of bishops; Lumen Gentium has little to do with pastoral issues, for instance, and everything to do with doctrine.
What Benedict is doing in fact is precisely what you ought to be commending him for, yet instead insist he’s a heretic because of: he’s establishing that to the bishops that the ancient doctrine must be adhered to, and that any appearances of contradicting ancient doctrine are mere illusions based on poorly chosen or ambuguious wordings.
That’s MY position, not yours.
You’re the one insisting that it’s heresy, remember? You’re the one calling even Benedict a heretic.