You make a good point, if read with proper Catholic formation, it makes sense. However, it may lead to misinterpretation by others.
Again, this just my opinion, but they may have wanted the documents to be more readable by the laity.
That said, a lack of precision will occur. For example, when a physician speaks to a patient about a medical condition, it is often done in a way that promotes general understanding only.
This is the core of Radaelli's criticism, isn't it?
In Radaelli's view, the current crisis of the Church is not the result of a mistaken application of the Council, but of an original sin committed by the Council itself.This original sin is claimed to be the abandoning of dogmatic language - proper to all of the previous councils, with the affirmation of the truth and the condemnation of errors - and its replacement with a vague new “pastoral” language.
So the reunification must indeed proceed with dogmatic anathemization of the wayward fruit of Vatican II and in so doing it will become a return to firm Tradition back from "pastoral" intentional vagueness:
In order for this goal to be reached, Radaelli presupposes two things:- that Rome would guarantee to the Lefebvrists the right to celebrate the Mass and the sacraments exclusively according to the rite of St. Pius V;
- and that the obedience required for Vatican II would be brought back within the limits of its “false-pastoral” language, and therefore be subject to criticisms and reservations.
But before this culmination - Radaelli adds - two other requests would have to be granted:
- the first, advanced in December of 2011 by the bishop of Astana in Kazakistan, Athanasius Schneider, is the publication on the part of the pope of a sort of new "Syllabus,” which would strike with anathemas all of the "modern-day errors";
- The second, already proposed by the theologian Brunero Gherardini to the supreme magisterium of the Church, is a “revision of the conciliar and magisterial documents of the last half century,” to be done “in the light of Tradition.”
And this is what will signal true reunification to be on hand:
Errors that Radaelli lists on a page of his book as follows, calling them “real and proper heresies”:“Ecclesiology, collegiality, single source of Revelation, ecumenism, syncretism, irenicism (especially toward Protestantism, Islamism, and Judaism), the modification of the 'doctrine of replacement' of the Synagogue with the Church into the 'doctrine of the two parallel salvations,' anthropocentrism, loss of the last things (and of both limbo and hell), of proper theodicy (leading to much atheism as a 'flight from a bad Father'), of the meaning of sin and grace, liturgical de-dogmatization, aniconology, subversion of religious freedom, in addition to the 'dislocation of the divine Monotriad' by which freedom dethrones the truth.”
I don't understand some of these, given in shorthand in the article. But those that I do recognize, I agree, are in dire need of dogmatic condemnation.