If the Vatican regularises the SSPX and they could do so, it will not have cleared up the doctrinal issue.It will be also be assumed that the SSPX accepts Vatican Council II with the doctrinal error, with heresy
Comment on the blog 1Peter5:Abp. Pozzo on SSPX: Disputed Vatican II Documents Are Non-DoctrinalChris Ferrara
Oh PLEASE stop the Chinese water torture. If the disputed documents are not doctrinal--big surprise, I've been saying that for the past 20 years because it is completely obvious---then the adherents of SSPX already are "in full communion."
Lionel: If in principle hypothetical cases are considered objective in 2016 then Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.The Council itself is not doctrinal.
If this error in reasoning is not
there, then Vatican Council II
is in harmony with Tradition( the
dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, an ecumenism of
returun and the traditional
ecclesiology on religious
liberty, the Nicene Creed etc).
And yet Benedict XVI declared in connection with the lifting of the excommunications that the obstacle to "full communion" IS doctrinal, but without specifying the "doctrine" at issue. Except that the disputed points were clearly never doctrinal in the first place, as Pozzo now admits.
Lionel: The 'doctrine at issue' is the theological innovation which changes traditional Catholic doctrine.The innovation is accepted by Pope Benedict, Archbishop Pozzo and the SSPX.
When will the nonsense and the double talk end? Enough already. Just issue the piece of paper that regularizes their canonical situation exactly the way it is.
Lionel: If the Vatican regularises the SSPX and they could do so, it will not have cleared up the doctrinal issue.It will be also be assumed that the SSPX accepts Vatican Council II with the doctrinal error, with heresy.
Talk about Pharisees and doctors of the law! Good grief.
Lionel: The same doctrinal error is made by Christopher Ferrara, John Vennari and Michael Matt, whose writings I otherwise appreciate.