CathInfo.com

Similarly, it was held unanimously for 1500 years that explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity are necessary for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation.  If ANYTHING would constitute an infallible teaching of the OUM, that would be it.  But it's remarkable how many Cekadists, including Fr. Cekada himself, think it's OK to reject that teaching (held and taught Magisterially for 1500 years) and claim that unconverted infidels can be saved.  So something was infallibly true for 1500 years and then at a certain point in time became infallibly false?

Very good. Very simple. This is exactly to the point, and speaks better to our time than the St. Augustine "limbo infant suffers pains". I shall use it henceforth. Thanks.

No, this theory that I call Cekadism has no basis in Catholic doctrine.  Theologians are not part of the Ecclesia Docens and even a widely-held opinion has no authority.  It MAY with a bunch of other notes be considered as reflecting the faith of the Church, but that's as far as it goes.

From about the year 400 to 1100, every single theologian held the Augustinian position that unbaptized infants went to hell and suffered some (albeit very mild) pain.  This was first challenged by Abelard.  And the Church ended up siding with Abelard and overturning the Augustinian position.  Did Abelard commit a mortal sin in rejecting that opinion?  No, in fact, he did a great service to the Church in doing so.  BTW, Abelard also rejected Baptism of Desire.

Similarly, it was held unanimously for 1500 years that explicit faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity are necessary for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation.  If ANYTHING would constitute an infallible teaching of the OUM, that would be it.  But it's remarkable how many Cekadists, including Fr. Cekada himself, think it's OK to reject that teaching (held and taught Magisterially for 1500 years) and claim that unconverted infidels can be saved.  So something was infallibly true for 1500 years and then at a certain point in time became infallibly false?

Not only do some sedevacantists exaggerate the scope of infallibility with regard to the Magisterium, but they effectively extend this infallibility even to theologians.  Some have gone so far as to say that everything with an imprimatur on it must be held as certain truth.

This infallibility of theologians is made up out of whole cloth.

Oh, BTW, I defy you to find more than one theologian out of many thousands who rejected the errors of Vatican II.  You had a small handful of Traditional Catholics, but alas none of them were theologians.  So 99%+ of theologians upheld the teachings of Vatican II as perfectly orthodox.

 Lad, I certainly respect your intelligence and opinion, but I disagree with you on this matter, here is my response:

1) At least two of the theologians on Father Cekada’s list were part of the Ecclesia Docens and those two are also Doctors of the Church. I didn’t check to see if any of the others were bishops also.

2) The Ecclesia Docens tacitly approves the unanimous opinion of the theologians. Honestly, how could it be otherwise? Does the Teaching Church not realize what the theologians are saying especially when the opinion is unanimous?  If that wasn’t the case, then the Church would have no need at all for any theologian to explain or help interpret any council or any teaching for that matter. Also, the bishops rely on the theologians to instruct the seminarians. What you’re putting forward makes no sense, a superfluous bunch of theologians.

3) Father Cekada knew very well that the theologians are not part of the Ecclesia Docens in so far as the ones who are not bishops. This is a strawman.

4) As for the theologians who rejected VII,  it seems that most of the orthodox ones were caught off guard. At that early stage of the crisis, not many had the fortitude to resist the “pope”. Fr. Fenton, Cardinal Brown (I believe he was a theologian), Canon Berto, and Fr. Guerard Des Lauriers come to my mind for being critical of it. I’m sure there were many others who we do not know about.

5) To be clear, I hold that it is necessary to explicitly believe in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Redemption. This belief can be imparted to an individual by God unbeknownst to anyone.

Lad, I certainly respect your intelligence and opinion, but I disagree with you on this matter, here is my response:

1) At least two of the theologians on Father Cekada’s list were part of the Ecclesia Docens and those two are also Doctors of the Church. I didn’t check to see if any of the others were bishops also.

2) The Ecclesia Docens tacitly approves the unanimous opinion of the theologians. Honestly, how could it be otherwise? Does the Teaching Church not realize what the theologians are saying especially when the opinion is unanimous?  If that wasn’t the case, then the Church would have no need at all for any theologian to explain or help interpret any council or any teaching for that matter. Also, the bishops rely on the theologians to instruct the seminarians. What you’re putting forward makes no sense, a superfluous bunch of theologians.

3) Father Cekada knew very well that the theologians are not part of the Ecclesia Docens in so far as the ones who are not bishops. This is a strawman.

4) As for the theologians who rejected VII,  it seems that most of the orthodox ones were caught off guard. At that early stage of the crisis, not many had the fortitude to resist the “pope”. Fr. Fenton, Cardinal Brown (I believe he was a theologian), Canon Berto, and Fr. Guerard Des Lauriers come to my mind for being critical of it. I’m sure there were many others who we do not know about.

5) To be clear, I hold that it is necessary to explicitly believe in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Redemption. This belief can be imparted to an individual by God unbeknownst to anyone.

How do you address the two examples I gave ...

1) where a teaching was held unanimously for 700 years but then overturned by the Church?
2) where Fr. Cekada himself rejects something that was taught universally (and Magisterially) for 1500 years?

No, pointing out that theologians are not part of the Ecclesia Docens is not a strawman.  I'm drawing implications from that.  They don't have any Magisterial authority to require assent, so where does it come from?

You suggest that it's due to "tacit approval" by the Church.  Tacit approval is not a Magisterial act by any stretch.  Church history is replete with examples of opinions of theologians that were held for some time and then only much later rejected by the Church.  Letting theologians teach something is not tantamount to actually teaching it.  Historically the Church has allowed a significant amount of freedom on matters that have not been defined Magisterially ... until such a time as she considers it prudent.

Nor is your explanation for what happened at Vatican II satisfactory.  It really doesn't matter WHY all these theologians caved.  Fact is that they caved.  I can and have gone into great detail to explain WHY these theologians are mistaken about BoD.  This has nothing to do with fortitude or the lack thereof.  Either they're capable of being wrong or they're not ... regardless of the reason.

You'll notice that there's a broad range of opinion regarding the theological NOTE of BoD.  Well, I hold ... and can prove ... that the note of BoD is nothing more than a piece of speculative theology that has been tolerated by the Church.  It has not been revealed, nor has it been demonstrated to flow necessarily from other revealed truths.  I heard even an EWTN Novus Ordite, who speculated that people can be saved without membership in the Church, admit that this is speculation and not revealed.