On the other hand, not a single theologian, post Trent, holds Father Feeney’s position. Subsequently, Father Cekada was right, since, according to you, he said ‘you must accept it under gave sin’ and not heresy. Now, you must admit that the unanimous opinion, post Trent, is that the Church, at the very least, teaches it and since the Church teaches it, we are bound to believe it by our duty of obedience to the Church. Please show me if you think this is incorrect.
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.