Still need context. "Dialogue" and "unity" are legitimate terms and depend on context. "Full communion" can be also understood in a number of different ways. So, with a quick glance, the first use of the term constrasts the baptized with catechumens, stating that the baptized who profess the faith are in full communion, but that catechumens are united to the Church (in less than full communion due to lack of Baptism). This is not illegitimate, as Catholics theologians have referred to catechumens having a partial or imperfect membership in the Church. So it's not enough to find a buzzword to establish your case.
This shoot-from-the hip hurling of heresy accusations is one of the worst aspects of dogmatic sedevacantism.
Ah, so you're now decided I am a dogmatic sedevacantist and you've accused me of making "shoot from the hip hurling of heresy accusations". No, not shooting from the hip, but thanks for your shooting from the hip accusations.
How about you just do a search for those words for the context you so sorely need. It's simple.....CtrL F.
It is interesting how you're so quick to defend a JPII Code of Canon Law. Do you really think the 1983 version is the only one infected with Vatican II theology? Do you really think that if he promulgated this code that the correct understanding of those words is being used?
Topic: Were there any changes to the eastern rites of ordination? (Read 6071 times)