So the reason that SVs in particular are so hostile to EENS (much more so than R&R) is because in their battles with R&R they ended up making the (age-old) error of moving to the opposite extreme, exaggerating the scope of papal infallibility practically to the point of absurdity, attributing to it an almost absolute inerrancy. See, if they conceded that a Pope can teach error in fallible statements, then their battle with R&R becomes whether the teaching of V2 meets the notes of inallibility ... which could go back and forth in see-saw fashion without any kind of clear winner. If they concede that any papal teaching can be erroneous, then why not 2, or 3, or 5? What's the limit? Is there a point at which a difference in degree becomes a different in kind? SVs tout the infallibility of theological consensus, but I've asked them to produce a single post VI and pre VII theologians who holds that popes can never err. You'll find exactly 0 ... and they just ignore the question.
In any case, due to their exaggeration of infallibility, for them the old Suprema Haec [sic] might as well be Pius IX's solemn dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception, for all intents and purposes. Father Cekada then also invented this theory about how the consensus of theologians also should be considered inerrant for all intents and purposes also ... something that both historical examples falsify and which a true theologian like Msgr. Fenton explicitly rejects. I then ask how it is that all theologians (with Bishop Guerard des Lauriers being the only exception that I now of) considered Vatican II Catholic and the New Mass Catholic ... and of course all theologians between VI and VII held that there theoretically COULD be some error in papal teaching.
Topic: Blocked by Novus Ordo Watch (Read 18474 times)