We decide moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… [W]e have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect…
There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility. But [the Council] has invested its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary magisterium is so obviously authentic that it must be accepted with docility and sincerity by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council as expressed in the nature and aims of the individual documents.
There are those who, under the pretext of a greater fidelity to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically refuse the teaching of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that stem from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under Our authority, willed by Christ. … It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would be in danger also because of the post-conciliar reforms and guidelines, which there is a duty to disobey to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? Does it belong to this group, and not the Pope, not the Episcopal College, not an Ecumenical Council, to establish which of the countless traditions must be regarded as the norm of faith!
Now, from Vatican I:
We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
[As Paul VI did in confirming and promulgating the documents and teachings of Vatican II.]
that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
[As Vatican II was intended to demonstrate, both by John XXIII and Paul VI.]
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
[Which was invoked by John XXIII and, especially, Paul VI, in convening, and confirming, Vatican II.]
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
[And again, Vatican II explicitly promulgated ecclesially universal teachings on faith and morals.]
he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
either every assertion in the teaching of Vatican II,
which was solemnly confirmed by Paul VI,
or its erroneous assertions (i.e. declarations which do not accord with the traditional Catholic Magisterium) were solemnly affirmed by the true successors of Peter,
which “would be bad.”
Just wanted to get that straight for a second.