Two things that interest me from this interview with Bishop Fellay of the SSPX:
1. It is true that this Doctrinal Preamble cannot receive our endorsement, although leeway has been allowed for a “legitimate discussion” about certain points of the Council. What is the extent of this leeway? The proposal that I will make in the next few days to the Roman authorities and their response in turn will enable us to evaluate our remaining options. And whatever the result of these talks may be, the final document that will have been accepted or rejected will be made public. Since the note that accompanies (the Preamble) foresees the possibility of making clarifications, to me it seems necessary to ask for them instead of refusing them a priori. This in no way prejudges the response that we will give.
2. These studies (by numerous Italian Catholic intellectuals who are calling for a more in-depth examination of the Council) highlight the doctrinal difficulties caused by Vatican II and consequently show why adherence to the Council is problematic. In Rome itself, the evolving interpretations given to religious liberty, the modifications that have been made on this subject in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the Compendium of it, the corrections that are currently being studied for the Code of Canon Law… all this shows the difficulties that you run into when you try to abide by the conciliar documents at all costs, and from our perspective this nicely shows the impossibility of adhering in a stable way to a doctrine in motion.