All-
Certain recent threads have brought out a point I've always wondered about.
Some will say that "Vatican II is not a dogmatic Council and isn't binding". These people are generally "Traditionalist" Roman-rite Catholics who use this as a basis to reject one or another Council document or to reject the broader ecclesiastical trends which has taken place since the 1960s.
This statement has never made sense to me. Reasons include (and I could be wrong on any of the following):
1. it seems to presuppose that the main purpose or value of a Council is to define dogmas, and implies that its other actions not only are subject to (private?) interpretation but are much
less relevant than the "dogma".
2. Ecclesiologically, it seems based on my reading that Vatican II DID define the Church's teaching on certain issues and point the Church in a particular direction. For instance, it seems to me that Lumen Gentium has a bit to say on Papal Infalibility.
3. this kind of thinking seems to quickly lead down the path of "Catholicism is a matter of what elements you believe. Catholics believe in A, B...Y, Z. We must preserve the integrity of A to Z, and you are not Catholic and are a heretic if you believe in A, B...Y but don't believe in Z" and makes Catholicism a constant fight against heresies. Assuming you're interpreting A to Z correctly, this mindset reduces Catholicism to a set of things to believe, most of which could probably be put into a list and easily memorized. This is way too narrow, reductionist, and combatively apologetic of a religion for me. I'm not saying right belief isn't important, but it seems this way of thinking puts too much emphasis on ensuring you believe the right things.
Thus, statement seems illogical to me. Nevertheless, though I know the statement's wrong, I don't know how to address this issue head on.
So, my question is: what is fundamentally wrong about that statement?
