CathInfo.com

You dont understand what a theological note of certainty is do you.

Stop with the idiotic gaslighting.  He obviously understand what it means ... but simply disputes the theological note that some theologians have assigned to it (we notice that you truncated Father Cekada's list where the majority do not assign it any theological note at all).

At the end of the data, however, you're R&R-ish, right? ... since you're Resistance?

I'll entertain these debates with the Dogmatic SVs who assert that Pius XII is infallible every time he passes wind, etc. ... since at least they're consistent.

But for you to bloviate about theological consensus when ... for the past 60+ years, every theologian (other than Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, whom you despise) has agreed that Vatican II and the New Mass are Catholic and can be reconciled with Tradition, and all but a couple of bishops who were bishops at the time of Vatican II, and a long series of Popes, "saint" Popes no less ... they ALL assert that Vatican II is sound Catholic doctrine and that the Novus Ordo Missae is in fact a Catholic Mass.

But I love it how you can claim all this, but then claim that a bunch of (mostly manualist) theologians somehow represent a dogmatic consensus.  That's typical of the BoDers, a confirmation bias, where when theologians agree with what they hold, then they have authority, but when you disagree with what they hold, then you pretend they don't even exist.

So, some regional Catechisms that even the SV types have to admit are not infallible (not a few of them explicitly rejected papal infallibility before Vatican I, but then were updated afterwards), these for you are somehow obligatory rule of faith, when they are meant to be nothing other than a didacted / catechetical aid, but then you just blow off an Ecuмenical Council and 60+ years of "papal" (according to you) Magisterium?

You're disqualified from arguing from theological "authority" in this debate.  SVs are not, but you are.  So if you want to go ahead, consistent with R&R-ism, to explain why BoD was held always and everywhere by all Catholics (the typical R&R formula), then proceed to demonstrate this.  Now, it could be that you lean on "authority" (selected according to your criteria) because it's easy to debunk any kind of "universal" believe, since the majority of Church Fathers rejected BoD.

At least SSPX, where it comes to that debate about the validity of New "Holy Orders", they do NOT use what could in fact be THE strongest argument, namely, that if a legitimate Pope promulgated it, then it MUST be valid, since if a legitimate Pope promulgated it, then it also cannot be displeasing to God and harmful to souls.  So they know that it would be inconsistent of them to appeal to disciplinary infallibility when ... they've spent several decades attempting to undermine and reject disciplinary infallibility.