After Vatican 2 loyal theologians in their humility figured that the council could not have erred as it was approved by (as far as they knew at the time) by a valid pope. So their theology was tweaked so as to not contradict what was taught or approved infallibly and or authoritatively by a valid pope.
The figured if there is a contradiction between what a valid pope approves and a theologian, the valid Pope wins. This is the way any good Catholic would think. And theologians know that they can't contradict what the pope has taught.
Of course bad theologians were happy with the changes and pushed for more. The good ones were simply confused by them but figured they must not be erroneous. That was 1968. I believe we have a bit more hindsight on the topic know in regards to Paul 6 and his validity.
If you are attempting to mitigate what Fenton proposed, it does not fly. Vatican II's "New Theology" was on its face heterodox and non-Traditional. If this man was an "approved" Catholic theologian, he should never have been approved in the first instance. Either that or his thinking had been corrupted by the Modernist thought which was had infected the Church at large in that period. The pope had nothing to do with his error. That was his own as was his approval of Vatican II.
Topic: Question for the so-called 'Lover of Truth' (Read 7486 times)