Yeah, yeah, so you say.  But what's YOUR motivation for turning this into your personal crusade ... to the point of dedicating an entire website to it?  Did you have a close relative pass away outside the Church?  That's usually it for the zealous anti-EENSers.

Just bumping this since Augustinus tried to derail this point with a completely irrelevant comment.

Garbage.  For 800 years a false Augustinian position was held unanimously by theologians, something which was eventually questioned by one Abelard, the same one who rejected BoD (not Peter Lombard).  Church endorsed Abelard's position and overturned the Augustinian position that had been held for 800 years.  Peter Lombard ended up going with the Hugh of St. Victor position in favor of BoD.  And it's from him that the scholastics picked it up.  Just because something has become a widely accepted position in speculative theology doesn't make it Catholic doctrine.

"Faithless" my foot.  And to think I had given you more credit than that.

No, the Augustinian position is not a matter of substantial teaching but a mere detail, the nature of the precise pain that infants in hell suffer. And that detail was actually never repealed because Pope Benedict XIV recognized the right of Italian Augustinians to teach the opinion.
I am not condemning you or calling you a heretic Laudislaus. I came across that quote indirectly without agenda. These issues certainly are complex and there is a lot of history behind them. 
Why don't you consult the pre-Vatican II theological manuals to inform you as to the weight of theological unanimity?

Let me ask another question since this last one came up pretty short of any real answer. Should Catholics have confidence in bod?    

 
Bod is obviously not a common occurrence. The Church simply teaches we must believe it is possible.
 

You have found some good quotes confirming the Church's teaching on the unanimous consent of theologians, and they clearly disprove Ladi. As you are discovering, he refuses not only the most clearly written proof such as you provided, but ALL proof, if it threatens his position in the least. He would also fight you to the death arguing the sky is not blue. That's just what he does and you have to take it with a grain of salt.

 

Obviously we are all trying to be faithful to Jesus Christ, I think we need to remember that and not impugn bad will to others too quickly. But constant ad hominem attacks certainly do no good and destroy charity.
Seriously, the issues I discuss have no bearing on persons or their integrity, I just want to have clear discussions with others that aid in me personally clarifying the faith to myself and can only hope that the process is being mirrored in the other person to their benefit.
One thing I don't respect in others is the unwillingness to see what is placed before your eyes, and this is all around, not directed to any individual:
"Hey this is interesting, look what was taught before Vatican II!"
"That wasn't taught."
"Uh, its in 5 theology manuals by Pohle, Tanqueray, Spinoza, Etc. Sure it was."
"No, that's an invention."
"...ok... that's not what every priest and bishop in the world said in 1930."
"Doesn't matter."
"Right..."
How can I take that seriously?

Check out what Fr. Francis Connell said. Sounds a lot like what Bumphrey has been saying.
Fr. Francis Connell of the Redemptorists wrote in 1963: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1448

"Now, it is true, theologians as such do not belong to the Ecclesia docens and accordingly have no right to speak authoritatively in the name of the Church. Nevertheless, the fact that the Church allows theologians unanimously (or with practical unanimity) to teach a certain doctrine for a considerable period of time is equivalent to a positive approbation of that doctrine. As J. Salaverri, S.J., expresses it: "The consent of theologians in matters of faith and morals is so intimately connected with the teaching Church that an error in the consent of theologians would induce an error in the universal Church."7 Indeed, the authority of theologians properly understood is one of the loci theologici.

In other words, if the Church permitted theologians unanimously (or with practical unanimity) to teach for a long time as Catholic truth a doctrine that is false, the infallible teaching authority of the Church in its ordinary and universal magisterium would be endangered. Now, for centuries Catholic theologians with moral unanimity taught that there are certain revealed doctrines that are contained only in unwritten tradition, not in Sacred Scripture. Hence, the new opinion, teaching the contrary, is at least difficult to reconcile with the infallibility of the Church."

So the Theologians unanimity is authoritative precisely because the Church cannot be passive in the face of error over so many centuries.

Interestingly enough isn't this what Bosco and Bumphrey were saying?

Hmmm...

Yes, nado and bosco say this, and Fr. Feeney did not have a high opinion of Fr. Connell's theology, remember that Fr. Connell was one of those "well respected" 20th century theologians that helped usher in this crisis.

Note the double talking half truth: "Nevertheless, the fact that the Church allows theologians unanimously (or with practical unanimity) to teach a certain doctrine for a considerable period of time is equivalent to a positive approbation of that doctrine." This idea is what has permeated the bosco's and nado's of the world into misquoting catechisms and speculative teachings of theologians and saints etc. as if they are infallible, while completely ignoring binding, infallible teachings, effectively making them a waste of time.   


Compare what Fr. Connell says above, with what Pope Pius IX taught below:

Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith.