text: Really?  Not even remotely?  😋
  
  In the article I cited, there were several issues of dogma that he seems to take issue with...In the first 3 points alone (knowledge of rising from the dead, revelation of the Blessed Trinity, virginal conception), his views are problematic with the Church.  The intent to found a Church was articulated by Vatican II (point 4) - yet he takes issue with that, too. He has even questioned teaching on the Eucharist.
  
  He profers dissent from doctrine and dogma, and expects not to be called on it?  As a member of a Religious Order, he VOWED obedience...and now he plans to defy that by publicly celebrating Mass.  Therefore he will also break his vows.  
  
  There is a lot more going on here than just the typical talking points concerning female ordination, sexual ethics, and celibacy.  It appears he would like us to believe there is not.
  
  Do you think there are not substantive differences that are rather questionable?