Just as with Vatican II, Sheeben is to be considered an authority when he agrees with Drew and mistaken (no longer an authority) where he disagrees with Drew. Drew subjects Vatican II to the same criterion or truth/falsehood, his own private judgment and superior theological (and reading comprehension) skills ... unlike that bumbling idiot +Guerard who, with his multiple degrees and credentials, can't hold a candle to Drew.
Such puerile reasoning as this could be understood if coming from prots or NOers, I guess, sadly, coming from sedes is also to be expected.
Like the Baltimore and other Catechisms, most of what the catechisms teach is good and holy and agrees with what the Church has always taught, yet there are some teachings within the catechisms that need correcting - the same applies to theologians. Even the greatest of all theologians, the Angelic Doctor of the Church St. Thomas Aquinas, admits this.
Sheeben along with van Noort, Guerard, Fenton and etc. are to be considered an authority when they agree with the Church, not with Drew. Drew, as well as the rest of us, agree with the theologians when the theologians agree with the Church's teachings, and we disagree with them when they disagree with the Church's teachings, same as the catechisms. It's not complicated.
The problem is that you believe that all of the teachings of those 19th/20th century theologians are actual teachings of the Church - which is entirely wrong and wrong headed, but this false idea has, as +ABL said, permeated all the manifestations of the Church, and it is this same false thinking which you embrace, that has lead billions to accept those false theological speculations as if they are official teachings of the Church, in turn leading them to lose their faith - and YOU, in spite of being corrected umpteen times, are guilty of promoting those same false ideas as if they are actual teachings of the Church -poop head.