[Saint Athanasius]

You have to remember PFKEY Ultimate is a traditionalist SPXXer...

And I mean no slander towards Ultimate...

But he has different take on Vatican II... He thinks the Pope is wrong and has been wrong from Vatican II until now...

Vatican II was a binding council on all Catholics...

Ultimate doesn't like Vatican II, so he refuses to follow it like a lot of Traditionalist here on FR.

Ultimate goes to SSPXer mass that is in schism with the Church...

He will deny this, but it is true ... but you don't have take my word for it, I can send you some articles...

But I am not sure if you want to get into Catholic Church debates.

[dsc]

"Ultimate goes to SSPXer mass that is in schism with the Church..."

If it's in schism, how come the Vatican says that SSPX masses satisfy the requirement to attend mass on Sunday?

[traditionalist]

Vatican II was a binding council on all Catholics...

Vatican 2 only binding in the sense that we owe religious submission to its doctrinal teachings and obedience to its dsciplinary decrees.

It is not binding in the sense that we owe any of its teachings the assent of faith. Paul VI himself proclaimed in a 1966 general audience that it did not teach anything infallibly.

[ultima ratio]

"Vatican II was a binding council on all Catholics."

What, pray tell, was "binding" about it? What single doctrine did it declare binding? Nothing was so declared. It was a pastoral counsel--and pastoral advice is non-binding and can compel no one. The advice, it turns out, was atrocious.

Of course, the fact is, there was nothing binding at all about Vatican II. You can't bind anyone's intellect unless you declare something definitively and unambiguously. This was never done.

The council was pastoral--and deliberately ambiguous in its own declarations. What it said on the one hand, it denied on the other. Not a single teaching was declared binding--nor was any believed to be by the council fathers.

Many Catholics are confused on this point. They think because a council is convened, the Holy Spirit protects it from all error. This is not true. The protection is only for dogmatic assertions which are binding. Since there were none, the possibility for error existed.