EVERY Catholic theologian teaches that the Magisterium is the proximate rule of faith.
I love if how Stubborn dismisses with a wave of his hand any 19th/20th century theologian (who doesn't agree with him).
Actually Lad, the point here is that you are the one who believes
this opinion from Van Noort, which is shared with some other 19th/20th century theologians, to be dogma. This "dogma's" validity wholly depends upon on the "totality of bishops doctrine", which was never a teaching of the Church, you will not find this "totality doctrine" in any Church teaching. The only place you WILL find it officially taught, is in the teachings of V2 as I already posted. It is a teaching, nay a dogma of the NO that you are attempting to defend.
It most certainly is not a teaching of "EVERY Catholic theologian", only *some* 19/20th century theologians - and it most certainly has never been a teaching of the Church. You will never prove it is a teaching of the Church. If you take the time to actually research it, you'll discover that you can only prove that this "doctrine" is strictly confined to two main sources - 1) certain "well respected" 19/20th century theologians and 2) the Conciliar church. That's it.
The tip off that it is heresy, is that it rejects time. It abhors time. Time is it's enemy - more properly stated, the universality of tradition is this "doctrine's" avowed enemy.
What I mean is that because whatever all the bishops in union with the pope (your "magisterium") teach is infallible, then you are bound to blindly follow whatever they teach and whenever they teach it, *without any regard whatsoever* to scripture and tradition, solemnly defined dogmas and all other truths contained in the Church's magisterium - unless the current "magisterium" explicitly permits it.
That is simple reality which even you have zero faith in - because if you had any faith in it whatsoever, you would be a NOer.