Detraction plain and simple.  I guess John Daly is a V2 liber as well.  Right Ladislaus.  He respects Fenton and his theology on BOD and quotes him at length on the issue.

Well, there are only two logical possibilities, Lover of Heresy, when Fenton claims that Vatican II ecclesiology does not change traditional Catholic ecclesiology and even improves upon it:

1) Fenton's ecclesiology IS in fact identical to that of Vatican II

OR

2) Fenton was too stupid to understand that Vatican II had changed Catholic ecclesiology.

You yourself implied #2, saying that Fenton lacked the "benefit of hindsight".  What hindsight?  Vatican II ecclesiology was laid out in black and white.  Did Fenton not know how to read?  Was he not a trained theologian who could be trusted to properly "understand" the actual text of Vatican II?

In either case, #1 or #2, this discredits Fenton as an authority on ecclesiology.

Oh, wait, I forgot, there is a THIRD possibility:

Fenton neither had a modernist Vatican II ecclesiology nor did he fail to understand Vatican II, but Fenton was right and V2 ecclesiology is perfectly Catholic and sedevacantism is just a bunch of schismatic crap.

Correct.

As I pointed out, the notion of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium was not very well understood before Vatican I defined it later.  Had St. Alphonsus been active after Vatican I, he would not have held this position.  Just as St. Thomas Aquinas was mistaken on the Immaculate Conception, but would not have held that view had he been active after its definition by Pius IX.

Correct.

I rest my Case.  Ladislaus says Alphonsus was mistaken on whether all four beliefs are intrinsically necessary under all circuмstances and each individual. And all he did was present what had been taught on the issue.  He must be a Pelagian as well.

And John Daly who relies on Fenton?  Liber? Ladislaus?

Get out of here.  Spend your time doing something other than undermining the Church.

Refute the following:

Detraction plain and simple.  I guess John Daly is a V2 liber as well.  Right Ladislaus.  He respects Fenton and his theology on BOD and quotes him at length on the issue.  

He fought tooth and nail to keep the V2 ecclesiology out of it.  He and the minority who fought this fight clearly lost.  And you act like he is a V2 liber.  You are incredibly dishonest because Fenton refutes your modern "theology" invented by Feeney in the 40's. 
 
Fenton, whose diaries I read myself in Washington DC.  Never thought the stuff would go through a V2 because he was convinced that a valid Pope could not approve it.  When it got approved he figured the problem was with him and not the "Pope".


That is humility.  Something you are not familiar with.

What is incorrect above?  Lover of your own intellect.

Yeah, that's right, I almost forgot; Fenton lived in an age when Church docuмents were etched on stone tablets and one had to trek across the globe on the backs of camels to get access to copies of them.

Internet dingbat.  Internet.  Again pretending the point isn't valid when it certainly is.  He figured if it was approved by a valid Pope it could not contradict doctrine.  
You idiots act like valid popes can officially promulgate error.  

Another calumny rooted in sheer stupidity.  St. Alphonsus believed that all four were necessary under all circuмstances.  He was not mistaken on that.  He was mistaken about lending any semblance of probability to the contrary opinion.  He was wrong not about the substance of the teaching but about the theological note he assigned to the contrary opinion.

I do as he.  He presents all the teachings and says the one that is less probable is "probable enough".  

You admit he was, according to you "mistaken".  

I do as he.  He presents all the teachings and says the one that is less probable is "probable enough".  

You admit he was, according to you "mistaken".  

What a complete and utter moron!  He was NOT mistaken on the substance of the issue because HE HIMSELF BELIEVED IN THE FOUR ARTICLES.  He was mistaken in his assignment of theological note to the contrary opinion ... which he did NOT hold.

You are a complete and utter idiot, Lover of Truth.  I have to explain EVERY FREAKING THING to you fifteen times because you are too dull witted to get it the first fourteen.