I might take the time to post if you can justify your demand that it be a pre-VI theologian. What happened at Vatican I that magically invalidates all theology after that time? Even then, it's a waste of my time because you simply dismiss as wrong and invalid anything that doesn't agree with your viewpoint.
It is actually not all that complicated.
You keep siting teachings of 19th/20th century theologians as if they represent teachings of the Church, or at least, as you wrongfully said: "all theologians", but they don't, the teachings you keep siting only represent post-V1 era theologians (aka "19th/20th century theologians") whose teachings became instrumental within novus ordo, used for malicious purposes and accepted by the masses as if they are actually doctrines of the Church.
The reality is that pre-V1, the theologians never taught the things many of the post V1 theologians taught because infallibility was always understood exactly as V1 defined it. The confusion enters into the minds of the people when you introduce the musings of the post V1 theologians as if their musings are in fact what the Church has always taught, but this is wrong.
It is exactly as
+ABL, said in the linked interview:
Q. But isn't the fact that Pope Paul VI occupies the seat of St. Peter enough for you to heed whatever the pontiff as the vicar of Christ on earth asks you to do, just as other Catholics do?A. "Unfortunately, this is an error. It is a misconception of papal infallibility because since the Council of Vatican I, when the dogma of infallibility was proclaimed, the pope was already infallible. This was not a sudden invention. Infallibility was then far better understood than it is now because it was well known then that the pope was not infallible on everything under the sun.....
Since sometime after V1, as +ABL said, infallibility has gotten misunderstood. Infallibility is no longer limited to the pope when he speaks ex cathedra, rather, SOMEONE (some theologians after V1) has wrongfully convinced the masses that *infallibility has been extended* to disciplines, to whatever the pope wants, says or teaches, to whatever the unanimity of bishops teach, to councils, canon laws, catechisms and even to theologians themselves.
Who was it that was instrumental in
"widely promoting" this gross misunderstanding of infallibility if not the post V1 theologians? You keep referencing them as an infallible authority and the masses believe as you do, yet as +ABL says and V1 dictates, they are wrong.
This is why I ask for you to post quotes from pre-V1 theologians. When you find there are no pre-V1 theologian or Church teachings whatsoever on a Disciplinary infallibility of the Church, you will be faced with the reality to conclude for yourself that the whole idea is new and only taught by post V1 theologians and consequently, the NO church.
Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 480217 times)