How many Catholics do you know that are guilty of...
private interpretation of Tradition?
We all routinely criticize the Protestants for their "private interpretation of Scripture" but why is it OK for laymen to privately interpret the other source of our Faith, Tradition?
It's not OK.
Priests study the various sources of the Faith and Catholic doctrine. There are the Fathers of the Church, Doctors of the Church, there is philosophy, theology, Canon Law, and Logic to hold it all together.
Reading just one passage, even if it seems crystal-clear to you, doesn't give a layman permission to start a new sect of Catholicism, avoiding communion with all others who disagree.
For example, a layman might read this:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Pope-Pius-VI-Ambiguity-a-Tactic-of-InnovatorsAnd conclude that "Pius VI condemned ambiguity as heretical. Therefore Vatican II was heretical. You have to say Vatican II is
heretical, or I'm not going to attend Mass at your chapel."
This is problematic, because there are different theological censures, mirroring the different degrees of Theological Certainty.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Theological-Degrees-of-CertaintyJust because something is "wrong" doesn't mean it's heretical.
Moreover, Vatican II can't be
heretical since it was a
pastoral council. It declared no new dogmas. Heresy is the denial of a dogma of the Faith.
Now said layman is well within his rights to expect a good priest to OPPOSE ambiguity, to condemn it, as well as oppose Vatican II in general -- the thing needs to be thrown out. All it did was accomplish what the protestant reformation tried to do. But don't ask him to say something that isn't technically accurate or true.