What were the clarifications about? The Preamble addresses doctrine, soo..........the clarifications supplied by the SSPX, and accepted by Rome are about doctrine as well? It is an interesting possibility.
You're taking as a premise the presumption that the "doctrinal Preamble"
addresses doctrine. And you proceed ahead from that foundation.
It's an exercise in thinking, I'll give you that.
However, what if the doctrinal Preamble does not really address Church doctrine?
What if it kicks around heretical doctrine, under the guise of Church teaching, like
Vatican II did -- isn't the unclean spirit of Vatican II the problem in the first place?
It seems to me that this is more than likely, because it goes a long way
to explaining why all the secrecy.
I mean, you're willing to acknowledge that Benedict XVI is practically hog-tied
to Vatican II, so why is it such a stretch to expect that he also harbors a great
attachment to promoting the
bad teachings of Vatican II? What else would
be the point of his "hermeneutic of continuity?"
This whole discussion could come down to what we mean when we say
"doctrine." The very title "doctrinal Preamble" would seem to be a docuмent
that addresses doctrine, and we presume it means good doctrine.
(Abp. Lefebvre made that mistake in 1965.)
But doctrine can be erroneous: if it were Buddhist doctrine, or Mohammedan
doctrine or Zoroastrian doctrine, for example. And take a second look at
the lineup of characters at Assisi III ... what about their doctrine?
When you rub elbows with axle grease, don't be surprised if your elbows
get greasy. You might still have your authority, but you'll have authority
with greasy elbows.