For example, what kinds of things would a non-theologian Priest not know that a theologian would? Does this mean that a non-theologian cleric wouldn't know what a dogma, or a heresy is? Does this mean a non-theologian wouldn't even know how to defend the Faith well enough?

Just how much of a gap in knowledge is there between theologians and non-theologian clerics?

Is the difference in knowledge like, a theologian would be able to cite the Summa of St. Thomas off the top of his head, but a non-theologian cleric wouldn't have a clue?

It has been said that at Vatican 2 the bulk of the Bishops weren't theologians, only a select group of modernists who came in with an agenda, and the whole thing makes it seem like these non-theologian Bishops wouldn't know what heresy or error was if it hit them in the face and like they were helpless to know what modernism was.

For example, what kinds of things would a non-theologian Priest not know that a theologian would? Does this mean that a non-theologian cleric wouldn't know what a dogma, or a heresy is? Does this mean a non-theologian wouldn't even know how to defend the Faith well enough?

Just how much of a gap in knowledge is there between theologians and non-theologian clerics?

Is the difference in knowledge like, a theologian would be able to cite the Summa of St. Thomas off the top of his head, but a non-theologian cleric wouldn't have a clue?

To become a theologian, a priest needs to take additional courses in such things as dogmatic theology, Church history, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, Papal docuмents, canons and decrees, more philosophy, etc.   In recent tradition, it would also include a greater versatility with such works as the Summa Theologiae, not so much as to just 'quote it' verbatim, with reference part, question, objection, reply, but rather to be able to USE the principles and doctrines in specific applications.

A theologian should be able to find relevant references quickly, not only in Scripture but in other recognized works, some of which are not commonly referenced, to expose the fallacy of someone's assertion or to show how something is missing or mistaken, or perhaps to state that there is nothing opposed to the Faith in a given work.

It has been said that at Vatican 2 the bulk of the Bishops weren't theologians, only a select group of modernists who came in with an agenda, and the whole thing makes it seem like these non-theologian Bishops wouldn't know what heresy or error was if it hit them in the face and like they were helpless to know what modernism was.

Not all the 'experts' (periti) at Vat.II were Modernists, however, there were enough of them to make a difference, and it was specifically John XXIII who brought in many of the key players, with a strong will to do so, even though it was causing a lot of consternation among the traditionally-minded clerics in Rome.  His unprecedented action was the beginning of the problems, make no mistake about it.  It was as if he had secret manipulators who were telling him what to do, but he never revealed who they were, or how they got messages to him.  

As for the non-theologian bishops to be ignorant, you should remember that they had ALL taken the Oath Against Modernism, or else they would never have become priests, let alone bishops.  So the question should be, how could they have taken that oath and still have become subject to the heresy of Modernism?  

The answer to that difficult question seems to be the following:  they had taken the Oath while holding a MENTAL RESERVATION, one that said they only had to do this because it was required, but that they did not really believe that what the Oath contained was what they were promising to believe by taking it.  

If you know anything about the Oath, Sacrorum Antistitum from 1910 under Pope St. Pius X, you would know that the words in it seem to preclude anyone doing so.  Anyone who knows the meaning of the words should not be able to think that the whole thing means anything OTHER than what it says.  

This is why it is such a difficult question.  What would be the intention of a man to take that Oath and to have no real honest belief that he was acting in truth by doing so?  That is the sixty-four thousand dollar question.


.

.

Lest it be overlooked, the more one is given, the more will be expected of him.

Those who have become theologians should be capable of greater discernment, and of a more keen adherence to the Faith in the midst of confusion and subtlety.  

But that was not what happened at Vat.II.  The most highly educated periti were often times the most corrupt.  The ones supposedly most able to understand the doctrine of Sacrorum Antistitum were nonetheless those who sought to ignore its teachings and forgo their promise that they had made by taking it.


.