A RC response is to argue that this was not a contradiction of defined doctrine, but an open, undefined theological question which was later condemned by subsequent Popes as heretical. Which is what the OP article postulates. It is likewise argued this was not an infallible teaching, and to hold it as one is to be guilty of the ultramontanist position:
This view was rejected by the Council (yet many Orthodox and Protestants think this is what was adopted). The danger of such a theological position is not only the ultra-monarchist, dictatorial overtones but the inevitable historical problems of the past popes who obviously erred—the most notable examples being Pope St. Liberius, Pope Vigilius, Pope Honorius I, Pope John XXII, Pope Sixtus V, Pope Paul V, Pope Clement XIII, and Pope Pius VIIII. http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/10/03/the-infallibility-of-the-pope-and-the-magisterium/
In any case , it seems one rule that must be followed by devout RCs is that the pope must be protected at any cost from Protestant allegations, unless RC laity themselves dissent from him.
No, I was not referencing that debate—the source I referenced takes a different approach to the topic than Staples did there; but thank you for the link.