I am going to cut to the chase on this issue. If you think that some people at the council purposely made things ambiguous okay. If you don’t that is fine too. I simply want to point out that the ambiguity (if there) is not as big a deal as it once was 50 years ago.
What I want to mention is that a lot of things are ambiguous. St. Paul’s Letters are ambiguous enough that even St. Peter himself in his letters tells us to be careful reading them. Even the council of Nicaea was not as clear on the divinity of the Holy Spirit as it was on Christ’s divinity. (Look up how much Nicaea’s creed says on the Holy Spirit and how much the Constantinople Creed does)
Yes, there is a valid point or observation to be made here. St. Paul’s ambiguity was not on purpose, and Nicaea was not really ambiguous as it simply did not really say anything on the subject. I can agree to those points but they won’t stop my major idea here. Why?
Because if Vatican II is ambiguous in its documents, that claim must also be made to the subsequent 50 years of Papal documents which often dived deeply into, promoted, extended and which drew heavily upon Vatican II.
I personally believe that all the ambiguous statements in Vatican II have counter parts given by the Holy Spirit within a few paragraphs before or after the fuzzy parts that can refute any heterodox or heretical interpretations. Thus, the real ambiguity if it is to be taken advantage of must be by someone of dubious character. – well not always dubious – the culture today (or yesterday) may feed into someone reading Vatican II with less continuity of the faith from the past than is desired.
So what is the point. To claim that the ambiguity in Vatican II is extreme or at a level that makes it heretical must also insist that the last 3 post Vatican II Popes were also giving into ambiguous doctrine and teachings by promoting and developing Vatican II theology throughout their pontificates.
Thus, if there were those at the council with purposeful willingness to create ambiguity, the last 50 years have had a chance to clarify the meaning. So if you think that Vatican II was ambiguous or not, we are no longer just talking about Vatican II but an entire series of Papal documents and even Saint Popes. Have Popes clarified Vatican II? In some cases yes, in others not really. We have to realize that with each passing document and year, the teaching of Vatican II is entering even more deeply into the ordinary magisterium of the Church which requires religious assent and is guarded against grave error.
So what do we do about it? My response is not to be afraid. If the Holy Spirit wanted things clarified I think they would have been or will be soon enough. What we are really called to do is stop worrying about being wrong – or falling into the ambiguities – and just follow the Popes leads. If they don’t see they need after 5 Pontificates and 3 saint Popes to offer large corrections of Vatican II -perhaps to be holy and do God’s will we don’t need the clarification either. Let’s face it – to be holy today how much does the ambiguous passages of Vatican II really effect you? Are they really preventing you from being holy if 3 out of 5 Pro Vatican II Popes have become saints?
In conclusion, I don’t mind tackling the issue of ambiguity in Vatican II, but as more Popes continuously write Vatican II inspired documents the ambiguity become not much of a big deal as it was 50-60 years ago. Do not be afraid – holiness can be found.