Now if you're telling me that a few Genevans and Scotsmen--who didn't even make up the majority of Reformation theology--were competent to pronounce the rest of Christendom from the Apostles to Trent, from India to Ireland in heresy I will have a nice good laugh about it.
So it is your position, then, that Calvin's belief about the harrowing of hell could theoretically be incorrect exegesis but is not heretical per se because it does not involve a significant misunderstanding about God?
Read John 6 carefully yourself. Do not look at the party line. Then, after actually reading the text, ask yourself if it is arguing for a guy in a fancy bathrobe with a big hat waving his arms around and chanting latin (”I can play dominos better than you can”) and that somehow causes biscuits and wine to become Jesus. That is what we mean when we say the Catholic Church imposes its meaning and intent upon the text (isogesis, not exogesis), in order to get a result they need from the text. Shameful.
And, yes, I don’t think Calvin’s view of that matter is that consequential. What difference did it make in your life today? I can tell you the transubstantiation racket makes a lot of difference to a lot of people today when they think they are eating Christ’s body and drinking His blood in REALITY. Now, that’s heresy. Repent Rome!!