Does not all of this somehow take us back to the Fr. Wathen thread about BAPTISM being the INDELLIBLE MARK that even heretics and schismatics "cannot get rid of" because they were once truly adopted as Children of God? Can that be the "partial communion"?

No.  Father Wathen was wrong about that.  There is some "link" due to the character, but it does not put one in communion with the Church and allow them to receive the Sacraments.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Cantarella

Does not all of this somehow take us back to the Fr. Wathen thread about BAPTISM being the INDELLIBLE MARK that even heretics and schismatics "cannot get rid of" because they were once truly adopted as Children of God? Can that be the "partial communion"?

No.  Father Wathen was wrong about that.  There is some "link" due to the character, but it does not put one in communion with the Church and allow them to receive the Sacraments.

Yes, I do not believe that there is any such thing as "partial" communion with the Catholic Church for validly baptized heretics. They are formal heretics which place them outside the Church. If there is a rejection of a single one divinely revealed dogma explicitly, then there is no supernatural virtue of Faith, which means no "partial" communion.

Yes, this is my sticking point with Vatican II, Cantarella.  This is taught explicitly in Unitatis Redintegratio; it was only implied in Lumen Gentium.  I promise that I'll get back to that thread eventually.  UR also teaches that the "liturgical actions" of the non-Catholics can be salvific, which is also contrary to the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers and Ordinary Universal Magisterium.

It is hard to accept that canon 844 is an error but I find it irreconcilable in that respect. Well, catechisms are not infallible. They reflect the doctrine being taught at the time and have merit as long as they do not contradict infallible Magisterial Teaching. We are obviously very aware that there is a doctrinal error being taught across the globe: the denial of EENS via invincible ignorance / BOD and the other "progressive" loopholes that hide political Jєωιѕн agendas targeted to a "one world" religion.

844 is not a catechism but the Code of Canon Law, and the vast majority of theologians hold that Canon Law is protected by the Church's disciplinary infallibility.  And 844 derives directly from the principles laid out in UR and LG.  This is the error in Vatican II that I cannot explain away as hard as I might try.  It's is completely alien to the faith of the Fathers.

But, again, if people believe that the Orthodox can be saved, then partial communion MUST BE TRUE, Cantarella.  Why?

Major:  There can be no salvation outside the Church.
Minor:  Orthodox can be saved.
Conclusion:  Orthodox are not outside the Church.

Yet they are clearly not FULLY united with the Church due to their error and lack of subjection to the Holy See.

Thus a partial or imperfect union and belonging to the Church.

Then this extends to all others who can be saved.  People are more or less fully united to and within the Church depending on the degree of their material error.

There's no longer a binary "INSIDE vs. OUTSIDE" but rather a number of degrees along the spectrum.  That's where the term "separated brethren" comes from; they are in one sense "inside" (because they can be saved) but in another sense "outside".  They are formally within the Church even if materially separated.

It's an absolutely novel ecclesiology, and we see its fruits don't we?

If this guy wants to sell me on going to his chapel, he better start upholding the Catholic faith and quit teaching there is salvation outside of the Catholic Church for the ignorant through no fault of their own. Then have the audacity to criticize Bergoglio,  wow!

Nearly all traditional priests believe this. At least the ones I know of.