Good post. As Catholics we are bound to give irrevocable assent to some Magisterial teachings, and recognize them as irreformable. All Catholics know this, that's why even conservative Catholics are shocked at the attempts to legitimize ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, contraception, divorce and remarriage etc at the recent synod. Modern Catholics simply are unaware of similar irreformable teachings on religious freedom, Church-state relations, ecuмenism and the like.
Nonetheless, another one of those irreformable Magisterial teachings, also a part of divine revelation, is the perpetuity of the Magisterium itself until the end of time in the Church. Thus, we cannot admit the thesis that the Magisterium, the ecclesia docens, has disappeared either.
Theologians admit there can be apparent discrepancies with prior Magisterial teaching in docuмents of the "authentic" Magisterium. In this case, the burden of proof falls squarely back on the authorities to either resolve the contradiction or correct the confusion.
The faithful in general, and theologians in particular, have the right and duty to point out these discrepancies to the Magisterium and ask for a resolution. This is exactly what the Society's theologians have done. We want to see the Church return to proclaiming the Social Kingship of Christ, the duty of every State to be Catholic, to see error not as a right to which liberty is due, but as an evil which can only be at times tolerated if there is sufficiently grave reason, the obligation of the members of the dissident sects to convert, the impossibility of a "dialogue" that puts truth and error on equal footing.
For many decades, liberals had maintained that Catholic teaching was "changed" and that there now truly was a right to error, something traditional Catholics know is impossible. On this point, Bishop Fellay said, ""since the Council we have this apprehension that there is something wrong with the Church, a movement, strong movement which is no longer giving the Catholic line, but from people who are in positions, and so who give the impression it is the Catholic Church ... The Religious liberty is used in so many ways and looking closer I really have the impression that not many know what really the Council said about it ... in our talks with Rome, they clearly said that to mean that there would be a right to error or right to choose each one his religion, is false." which vindicates what we'd always known from Tradition, that there could be no right to error.
Religious liberty as a natural right as such can exist only for the members of the true religion, as Pope Leo XIII explains, Another liberty is widely advocated, namely, liberty of conscience. If by this is meant that everyone may, as he chooses, worship God or not, it is sufficiently refuted by the arguments already adduced. But it may also be taken to mean that every man in the State may follow the will of God and, from a consciousness of duty and free from every obstacle, obey His commands. This, indeed, is true liberty, a liberty worthy of the sons of God, which nobly maintains the dignity of man and is stronger than all violence or wrong - a liberty which the Church has always desired and held most dear. This is the kind of liberty the Apostles claimed for themselves with intrepid constancy, which the apologists of Christianity confirmed by their writings, and which the martyrs in vast numbers consecrated by their blood. And deservedly so; for this Christian liberty bears witness to the absolute and most just dominion of God over man, and to the chief and supreme duty of man toward God.
Likewise on "ecuмenism", the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII, "Therefore the whole and entire Catholic doctrine is to be presented and explained: by no means is it permitted to pass over in silence or to veil in ambiguous terms the Catholic truth regarding the nature and way of justification, the constitution of the Church, the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and the only true union by the return of the dissidents to the one true Church of Christ. It should be made clear to them that, in returning to the Church, they will lose nothing of that good which by the grace of God has hitherto been implanted in them, but that it will rather be supplemented and completed by their return. However, one should not speak of this in such a way that they will imagine that in returning to the Church they are bringing to it something substantial which it has hitherto lacked. It will be necessary to say these things clearly and openly, first because it is the truth that they themselves are seeking, and moreover because outside the truth no true union can ever be attained."
One thing that has been proposed is a Papal docuмent condemning some errors arising from the Conciliar texts, like a new Syllabus, condemning the erroneous notions very widespread in the mainstream Church, like "there is a right to error", (which they already admitted is false, but refuse to condemn openly) "there is no duty for every state to be confessionally Christian, i.e. Catholic", "there is no obligation for the members of the dissident sects to convert", "Catholics may "dialogue" with their "separated brethren" without the intention of converting them" etc to correct the errors caused by the Council.