[quote=Rising_Suns]Are such opinions as the above listed perfectly permissible and acceptbale for a Catholic to think?
Let’s take a look
[quote=Rising_Suns]Some suggest it was a “mistake”, or a “bad idea”.
I think the distinction should be made between the council and the implementation. This can be confusing. Still, I do think that one may disagree with the decision to have a council in the first place.
Pope Paul himself said “the opening to the world has become a veritable invasion of the Church by worldly thinking. We have perhaps been too weak and imprudent.” – Speech, November 23, 1973
[quote=Rising_Suns]Some periodically make it a point to note that it defined no dogma, but was only pastoral…
I’m certain its okay to make this point since Pope Paul himself made it on more than one occasion. Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral. --Pope Paul VI, August 6, 1975, General Audience
Pope Benedict has spoken about this as well. In 1988 he said: 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 superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.
[quote=Rising_Suns]or that it was not infallible
This too is okay to say since Pope Paul has said it: …in view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility. `` Audience of 12 January, 1966
[quote=Rising_Suns]that it contradicts Tradition, that it is ambiguious, and so on
This is a little hairer. But Pope Benedict has said: The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as part of the entire living tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. [font=Arial]Again, I think he is speaking to the implementation of the Council rather than the council itself. But this poor implementation, this “Spirit of Vatican II” was aided by the ambiguity of many of the documents. I think that has to be admitted, and I think it is okay to say. The Council can be interpreted in the light of tradition, which is why even Archbishop Lefebvre signed the documents. We know, however, that oftentimes they haven’t been interpreted that way.
I hope that helps.