I would appreciate if someone would, please, help me understand...

I have been researching and found that Paul VI actually, explicitly, said that the Council of Vatican II did not possess dogmatic or infallibility ratification.

So, if V.II does not contain dogma or absolute truths, then why does the Vatican require the SSPX to accept it to be in full communion when other rites and confessions (Anglicans, etc.) do not recognize V.II and, yet, are considered in full communion?

Specifically, which elements of V.II does the Vatican require FSSPX to recognize in order for the Vatican to proclaim that the FSSPX is again, in full communion with Rome?

And, more importantly, why would it be wrong for the FSSPX to accept full communion with the Vatican, if V.II does not carry dogmatic or infallibility ratification?

Unless a dogma or an absolute truth is proclaimed in a doctrine, we Catholics are not bound by that doctrine that raises only to the level of "consuetudine" (I don't know how to translate this from Italian) and, therefore, cannot be cause for excommunication.

Please help me understand if and where my logic is flawed.

I would appreciate if someone would, please, help me understand...
I have been researching and found that Paul VI actually, explicitly, said that the Council of Vatican II did not possess dogmatic or infallibility ratification.

So, if V.II does not contain dogma or absolute truths, then why does the Vatican require the SSPX to accept it to be in full communion when other rites and confessions (Anglicans, etc.) do not recognize V.II and, yet, are considered in full communion?

Firstly, the terms "full communion" (and partial communion) are novel terms; they have only existed in V2 era.  They were invented to explain/threaten Traditionalists who were in "full communion" with ETERNAL ROME (i.e. 2,000 years of orthodoxy), but who are against CURRENT new-rome.  In reality, new-rome is schismatic and heretical. 
.

Specifically, which elements of V.II does the Vatican require FSSPX to recognize in order for the Vatican to proclaim that the FSSPX is again, in full communion with Rome?

New-rome wants everyone to be part of one, big, happy, ecuмenical, religious family.  They just want the new-sspx to accept V2 IN GENERAL, and to be "quiet" about those issues where they disagree (similar to how most indult'ers don't criticize new-rome anymore).
.

And, more importantly, why would it be wrong for the FSSPX to accept full communion with the Vatican, if V.II does not carry dogmatic or infallibility ratification?

It would be wrong for a number of reasons. 
1) Wrong because of scandal.  V2 is a mix of truth and error.  You cannot accept ANY amount of error, for any reason.
2) Wrong because of purpose.  V2's purpose is to replace true Catholicism with a new humanistic, protestant version of Catholicism.  To "accept" it, in any degree, is to join the new, one-world religion.
3) Wrong because of goal.  All Traditionalists are doing what God wants them to do - to preserve the Faith.  There's no reason to join new-rome, because the only outcome would be a compromise to one's Faith.  All Traditionalists should stay with the status quo, until new-rome converts and we get a good pope elected.  Joining new-rome is ѕυιcιdє.
.

Unless a dogma or an absolute truth is proclaimed in a doctrine, we Catholics are not bound by that doctrine that raises only to the level of "consuetudine" (I don't know how to translate this from Italian) and, therefore, cannot be cause for excommunication.

Please help me understand if and where my logic is flawed.

I don't know anything about that term, but yes, one cannot be excommunicated for ignoring a non-doctrine.

.I don't know anything about that term, but yes, one cannot be excommunicated for ignoring a non-doctrine.

Well, technically, one can be excommunicated for anything ... even if perhaps unjustly.

Correct, and yet many of you R&R continue to attribute this garbage to Holy Mother Church.

Even a sedeprivationist would recognize V2 as a legal council.  We just don't recognize it as morally binding, both because 1) it does not hold the marks necessary to be morally binding, and because 2) most probably Paul VI was spiritually impounded and did not hold spiritual authority.  But the overall reason, in my mind, is that "religious submission" is a legal idea; it's not a moral theology principle.  So, V2 is part of the Church's history, but only in a legal sense.  It's not part of "Holy Mother Church" in the spiritual sense.

This may help, at least to understand a little better what V2 was about.

Thank you. I truly appreciate the time that you are spending or, rather investing, to educate me.
I feel so lost. The more I read the more I feel that I know less. It's like a reverse study: the more I research and the more I feel ignorant and the more I need to research.
This raises a daunting though... if someone who is spontaneously curious and willing to invest so much time in research and study finds that there is so much that was veiled and that needs to be carefully studied and understood, then ... how can the multitude, the majority, of our Catholic Brothers discover and understand these matters?
How can the Church have gotten away, literally, with murder?

I am falling in into a great spiritual conflict: if only a few of this community's comments ware to be correct, theologically, then I would be in sin even by merely attending Novus Ordo Mass.

I LOVE my Church as my mother. I feel that she's my home... and, now, I feel as if someone is telling me that my own, my very own, mother is not my real mother but an impostor. And the more I research the more I feel that she is an impostor. It is so painful.

Thank you. I truly appreciate the time that you are spending or, rather investing, to educate me.
I feel so lost. The more I read the more I feel that I know less. It's like a reverse study: the more I research and the more I feel ignorant and the more I need to research.
This raises a daunting though... if someone who is spontaneously curious and willing to invest so much time in research and study finds that there is so much that was veiled and that needs to be carefully studied and understood, then ... how can the multitude, the majority, of our Catholic Brothers discover and understand these matters?
How can the Church have gotten away, literally, with murder?

We feel your pain - you should have seen it when the revolution first began, talk about chaos and confusion - for 20 years! Also, the Church did not do this, always remember that the Church is Christ, they are one and the same. It is an enemy that hath done this.  

You ask: "how can the multitude, the majority, of our Catholic Brothers discover and understand these matters?"

I answer, by the same Providence that prompted you to come to discover and understand these matters. Once you come to believe that they don't know because they don't want to know, it is still difficult to accept - and if you try to tell them, you will find out the reason most of them have what they've got, is because that is what they really want. That's the short answer. Those who want to know will come to find out just as you did, and by the very same Providence.

I am falling in into a great spiritual conflict: if only a few of this community's comments ware to be correct, theologically, then I would be in sin even by merely attending Novus Ordo Mass.

I LOVE my Church as my mother. I feel that she's my home... and, now, I feel as if someone is telling me that my own, my very own, mother is not my real mother but an impostor. And the more I research the more I feel that she is an impostor. It is so painful.

Avoid the Novus Ordo like the plague that it is. Find yourself a traditional priest for the Traditional Mass and sacraments and go only there. That is where you will find Our Holy Mother, the Church - She was kicked out of all the diocsean buildings over 50 years ago. 
 

Firstly, the terms "full communion" (and partial communion) are novel terms; they have only existed in V2 era.  They were invented to explain/threaten Traditionalists who were in "full communion" with ETERNAL ROME (i.e. 2,000 years of orthodoxy), but who are against CURRENT new-rome.  In reality, new-rome is schismatic and heretical.
.New-rome wants everyone to be part of one, big, happy, ecuмenical, religious family.  They just want the new-sspx to accept V2 IN GENERAL, and to be "quiet" about those issues where they disagree (similar to how most indult'ers don't criticize new-rome anymore).
.It would be wrong for a number of reasons.
1) Wrong because of scandal.  V2 is a mix of truth and error.  You cannot accept ANY amount of error, for any reason.
2) Wrong because of purpose.  V2's purpose is to replace true Catholicism with a new humanistic, protestant version of Catholicism.  To "accept" it, in any degree, is to join the new, one-world religion.
3) Wrong because of goal.  All Traditionalists are doing what God wants them to do - to preserve the Faith.  There's no reason to join new-rome, because the only outcome would be a compromise to one's Faith.  All Traditionalists should stay with the status quo, until new-rome converts and we get a good pope elected.  Joining new-rome is ѕυιcιdє.
.I don't know anything about that term, but yes, one cannot be excommunicated for ignoring a non-doctrine.

Thank you for helping me understand.

> Re full/partial communion:
>> I understand and it makes sense...

> Re what part of V.II Rome wants the SSPX to accept.
>> Ok. I see. So Rome has never listed specific items that cause SSPX to be outside communion with Rome? Correct? There is no docuмent that I can read where I can understand the dogmatic, doctrinal, liturgic, etc problems that Rome contests to SSPX. Am I right? There has never been a specific indictment beyond the excommunication for the nomination of four bishops. Am I correct?

> Re why would it be wrong to accept communion with V2 if V2 is not dogmatic/infallible.
>> Is "scandal" a term with specific canon value?
>> You mention that "you cannot accept ANY amount of error, for any reason" and I would agree re canon, dogma and infallible teachings but religious orders have been approaching our Faith from different perspectives, with different liturgies, with different doctrines and different precepts for a long time. When I was a child I remember that Dominicans and Jesuits (I my early days I was home schooled by a Jesuit) had a different (or additional) canons, different Mass liturgy, even different precepts (for example they would teach the Rosary in different ways). Deviations from non dogmatic and non infallible norms did not lead to sin and excommunication.

> Re wrong because of purpose.
>> I can see the valid motive: if you let them take a finger, they will take the whole arm and replace Cathlicism with a new religion. But a counter motive, perhaps just as valid, could be that, given the dire circuмstances, it is better to unite the clans to fight the elefant in the room and then, later on, sort out minor differences. This latter argument is valid only if the reply to my original question is: V2 was not dogmatic or an infallible teaching. This latter argument is only valid if V2 does not, ipso facto, change our Catholic religion into a new religion but it is its interpretation that is the danger.

> Re wrong because of goal.
>> I can preserve Faith if I do not violate canon, dogma, infallible teachings and, yet, I change liturgy and precepts. I am not saying that it is GOOD. I am saying that it is inappropriate but not illicit.

> Re consuetudine means "custom" rather than rule or legal clause. It implies that, by violating a custom, one does not breach the law or the rule. Violating a consuetudine can be inappropriate but not illegitimate. a woman not wearing a veil at Mass is not violating canon or doctrine. She is being inappropriate but she does not have to confess herself.

I think that my last paragraph, up here, defines my question better than my original post:

If, from either perspective (conciliary and traditionalist), a faithful is being only inappropriate, is not in sin and does not need to confess, then why can't either side accept the other side? More to the point, what I am trying to understand, is if I can live with a foot in both shoes. I want to practice and follow traditional Catholic precepts without aburing Rome. I love my Church as my mother and I cannot bring myself to abiure Her.

What challenges me, way more, than precepts and liturgy errors is that my grandfathre was a Pontifical Noble Guard and stood outside the conclave. He used to tell me that there had been a "big mess" and used to joke about a very popular Italian common expression that goes something like: "When a Pope dies a new one is created". He used to joke saying that: "When a Pope dies a new one is created until you get the one that you like". In 1984 I met Monsignor Charles-Roux (I went to a Rosminian school) who affirmed in no uncertain terms that J.XXIII was an impostor. At the time I was too young to understand or care...

But, here, in this post, I am focusing only and exclusively on trying to understand the dogma vs the non dogma aspect of V2.

Please, do not see my contestational tones as being aggressive or trying to pick a fight. I am TRULY going through immense internal dilemmas and doubts and I am seeking help.

I feel as if someone had woken me up, one morning, and told me that my mother is not my real mother... I need time, love and patience from my brothers not anger and frustration as I am not trying to troll or upset anyone, I am simply and honestly in a state of great pain and confusion and I am only seeking to unerstand.