Utter nonsense. You don't understand the Catholic theology behind this definition. R&R injects this meaning into that passage in a self-serving way.
The teaching from V1: For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter, not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the Apostles.
I understand it perfectly, it is accurate to say that I disagree that the Catholic theology behind this definition means anything other than exactly what the definition means. IOW, the reason it is worded the way it is, is in fact driven by and is in perfect harmony with Catholic theology.
Enter certain 19th/20th century theologians to tell us what it reeeeaally means, and the next thing you know people are accusing the teaching to mean what it does not say - just as if it were one of the teachings from V2!
As it is written, it's meaning is perfectly clear and yes, as such, it most certainly does serve R&R and kill SV - because it actually means what it actually says, no injection permitted or required by anyone - not even 19th / 20th century theologians. As it is written, it admits the reality that it is entirely possible that popes can teach new doctrines, i.e. error - notice that what it does not say, is that popes cannot teach new doctrines. It does not say that.
One absolutely *MUST* resort to certain "well respected" theologians' interpretations and explanations in order to determine that it does not actually mean what it actually says, because reading it without their unwanted, unneeded and just plain screwed up interpretations, it's meaning stands crystal clear on it's own, just as it was divinely designed to do.
When it is understood according to the
theologians' theology behind it, then confusion, as is today's reality, leads to all sorts of wild ideas.