Your citation is bunk. It does not lend credence to Lad's claim that "catechisms before Vatican I denied papal infallibility". Because, as we all know, the pope, is not infallible in temporal matters. Keenan is addressing temporal matters NOT doctrinal or moral matters.

What you call "disequilibrium" I call intellectual honesty.

If you gave me the citation thinking it proved his point as an honest mistake - np.

Johannes thank you for saying the bold, but don't you think you should lead with that.  If we just keep assuming the worst in people, then we will get the worst in people.

Is this helpful? (It was AI generated, so it might have some errors) 

Yes, many Irish catechisms and Catholic writings before Vatican I (1869-1870), which formally defined papal infallibility, either explicitly denied it or treated it as a matter of debate rather than a settled doctrine. This was particularly true in England and Ireland, where Gallican (or Gallicanism) ideas, which emphasized the authority of General Councils and bishops over the Pope, were prevalent. 

Here's a more detailed explanation: 

• Gallicanism:
  This theological perspective, common in some parts of Europe, emphasized the authority of General Councils and local bishops over the Pope in matters of faith and governance. It was not universally shared across all Catholic regions, and it was particularly associated with France and regions influenced by Gallican traditions.
• Prior to Vatican I:
  Before the formal definition of papal infallibility at Vatican I, there was a range of views within the Catholic Church on the extent and nature of papal authority, including whether the Pope's pronouncements were infallible. Many theologians and scholars, especially in England and Ireland, questioned the doctrine of papal infallibility, viewing it as an interpretation that was not universally accepted within the Catholic faith.
• Irish Catechisms:
  Many Irish catechisms before Vatican I reflected these views, often presenting papal authority in a way that did not explicitly endorse the doctrine of infallibility or treated it as a matter of ongoing debate within the Church. Some catechisms even explicitly denied or questioned the infallibility of the Pope's pronouncements.
• Examples from Ireland:
  For example, Bishop Baine stated in 1822, "In England and Ireland I do not believe that any Catholic maintains the Infallibility of the Pope". Additionally, Professor Delahogue, in his 1829 work "On the Church," stated that the doctrine of papal infallibility could be denied without loss of faith or risk of heresy. Berrington and Kirk's 1830 Faith of Catholics also stated that papal decrees did not obligate interior assent if not derived from a General Council or general acceptance of the Church.
• Vatican I:
  The First Vatican Council, convened in 1869-1870, formally defined the doctrine of papal infallibility, stating that the Pope, when speaking ex cathedra (from the chair of Peter), is preserved from error in matters of faith and morals. This definition was not universally accepted at the time, and it led to the formation of the Old Catholic Church by those who rejected the dogma.

In summary, prior to Vatican I, many Irish catechisms and writings reflected a diverse range of views on papal authority, with some explicitly denying or questioning papal infallibility. The formal definition of papal infallibility at Vatican I was a significant development that brought the issue to the forefront and led to continued discussion and debate within the Catholic Church and beyond.

Johannes you are always so full of questions and polls, but I want to know what exactly you believe is the truth about the current situation of the Catholic Church.

Bergoglio's entire persona, especially his choosing the name Francis, was crafted to cloak his heresies under the guise of compassion and tolerance. Those two virtues were twisted to result in the very opposite of their meaning. Compassion and tolerance are echoed in virtually every news story about him and in all the accompanying comments, especially by non Catholics. 
Obama used a similar facade, selling himself as the agent of "hope" and "change"
when what one got was just more marxism and a grab for raw power. 
Both men were known for persecuting their ideological enemies and a petty vindictiveness behind the glare of the spotlight. 
Whether affected or not Bergoglio's voice made my skin crawl. It was devoid of anything masculine, along with his squishy plump physiognomy. Praise God I won't have to hear it anymore.
Further news reports from the Vatican confirm that he didn't receive the sacraments and had a massive heart attack while in a coma so the likelihood of an act of contrition, much less a perfect one is extremely doubtful. 

I think Lad said that his evil died with him and it's time to move on. Nope, the evil he wrought will continue on 
until the restoration of the Church. He picked over 80% of the cardinals who will select his successor. He planned his
evil so it couldn't be undone after his death, but might ensnare more souls for generations to come.
Whether it was supporting climate change fairytales, blessing sodomite relationships, religious indifferentism, attacking the Tridentine mass, open borders, the WEF and Davos crowd couldn't have asked for a more willing and useful tool.
Truly, he was one of the worst human beings to ever slither across the earth