(LifeSiteNews) — Three days after the publication of my interview on LifeSiteNews by John-Henry Westen, the same website published, on Thursday, November 27, an article by Bishop Athanasius Schneider, a prominent and internationally renowned prelate.
The brief dissertation by His Excellency aims to refute the theses concerning the invalidity of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation, his impeded See, and the invalidity of the conclave that led to the election of Cardinal Bergoglio.
Before delving into Bishop Schneider’s arguments, I wish to highlight two points:
- The editorial stance of LifeSiteNews commendably demonstrates an openness to providing space for all perspectives regarding the current crisis in the Church. This includes positions affirming the invalid resignation of Benedict and the consequent invalid election of Francis – an intellectual openness regrettably missing in many other countries.
- The very existence of such a debate sheds light on the current moment: in the Catholic West, the issue of the illegitimacy of Francis’ Pontificate is gaining significant traction, to the point of prompting one of the most well-known conservative bishops to once again address the matter.
I wish to clarify from the outset that I do not intend to attack the person of Bishop Schneider, toward whom I feel sincere filial affection. I have had the honor of meeting him personally and hosting him multiple times during my tenure as prior of a Carmelite friary on the outskirts of Milan. There, he presided over the Holy Mass and delivered significant catechetical talks. I am convinced of his good faith and his sincere desire for holiness, which guides and motivates his pastoral work. However, I cannot refrain from noting, in light of objective evidence, that Bishop Schneider, adopting a strictly legitimist stance concerning Bergoglio’s papacy, exposes himself to a contradiction that I would like to highlight.
I now wish to analyze certain key passages of the article, seeking to identify the issues within the bishop’s argument while maintaining the respect due to his person and his episcopal ministry.
Let us consider the opening of his intervention:
The safest guiding principle in the crucial question regarding the validity of the papacy of Pope Francis is the prevailing practice in the history of the Church, with which were resolved cases of presumed invalid papal renunciations or elections. In this prevailing practice was shown the sensus perennis ecclesiae.
Already, I must express my perplexity: how can the mere comparison of historical events serve as the decisive method to understand how the Church must act today? Even more so considering that past irregularities primarily involved political pressures or acts of simony, whereas the present issue pertains to the very nature of the Petrine ministry.
First and foremost, it is necessary to consult the current Norm, not the prevailing practice; indeed, the former may contradict the latter, and this is precisely the case we will soon explore in detail.
From these opening lines, it becomes apparent that Bishop Schneider avoids considering the objective data found in the Code of Canon Law and the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, opting instead to support his thesis with arguments rooted in common sense.
Let us proceed:
The principle of legality appliedad litteram(to the letter) or that of juridical positivism was not considered an absolute principle in the great practice of the Church, since the legislation of the papal election is only a human (positive) law, and not a Divine (revealed) law.
The human law that regulates the assumption of the papal office or the dismissal from the papal office must be subordinated to the greater good of the whole Church, which in this case is the real existence of the visible head of the Church and the certainty of this existence for all the body of the Church, clergy and faithful.
Bishop Schneider is essentially stating that the Church’s laws governing the valid resignation and election of a Pope are “merely human laws.” Consequently, he suggests that there should be no insistence on restoring a valid papal election through the application of the current norms contained in Universi Dominici Gregis and the existing Code of Canon Law. This is because, according to him, a higher good exists beyond adherence to these laws, namely “the real existence of the visible head of the Church.”
But what, then, is the purpose of the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, promulgated by St. John Paul II in 1996, which meticulously regulates every aspect of papal election? What is the purpose of these binding laws if they can be disregarded in pursuit of a supposed greater good?
If we follow this reasoning, every time cardinals, bishops, saints, emperors, and rulers worked to restore the Petrine See when it was occupied by an antipope, would they not have been pursuing the greater good for the Church, namely the “real existence of the visible head of the Church”? However, it is clear that this head must be validly elected according to the laws in force at the time of the election. This is crucial to ensure the greater good for the Church.
The Church’s greater good is expressed in its current law, which is Canon Law. This law must be followed and respected in its entirety, without distinctions between “human laws” and “divine laws,” as His Excellency does, equating Canon Law with legal positivism. This approach implies that form can be divorced from substance and that one may selectively adhere to only the aspects of Canon Law found agreeable.
READ: Is Francis really the pope? — The debate
I cite here some important interventions by recent Popes on the significance of Canon Law. Paul VI, in his “Address to Participants in the Second International Congress of Canon Law,” September 17, 1973, stated:
As you know, certain ill-considered opinions have cast a shadow of suspicion over the Church’s Law: some believe that, as a visible society, the Church should have no need for her own law and could adhere to mere regulations or internal ordinances; others, however, have failed to see, in light of Vatican II, that this Law is profoundly rooted in the very mystery of the Church.[1]
John Paul II, presenting the new Code of Canon Law on February 3, 1983, stated:
Law, therefore, must not be regarded as a foreign body, nor as a superstructure now obsolete, nor as a remnant of alleged temporalist claims. Law is intrinsic to the life of the Church, to which it is indeed most useful: it is a means, an aid, and also—in delicate matters of justice—a safeguard. [2]
Bishop Schneider’s text continues, stating:
This visible existence of the head and the certainty about it are required by the very nature of the Church. The universal Church cannot exist for a considerable time without a visible Supreme Shepherd, without the successor of Peter, since the vital activity of the universal Church depends on its visible head […].
For His Excellency, the consequences of the invalidity of the 2013 election are deemed too grave for such a possibility to be true. This position confuses the practical consequences of a fact with its ontological truth. It is akin to saying, “Since it is extremely serious for a father to die—because in that case, he would leave his wife and children alone, could no longer care for his elderly parents, wouldn’t pay off the mortgage, and would leave a void at work and in society—it is therefore impossible for a father to die.”
The fact that an event has negative, harmful, or even disastrous consequences does not render it impossible, and denying the reality of facts does not help resolve the situation.
Bishop Schneider’s reflections seem to disregard the prevailing laws of the Church. The Code of Canon Law contemplates the possibility of an invalid election (CIC cann. 153 §1; 189 §3; 332 §2; and UDG articles 33; 76-77; 79-82). Even the situation of a vacant See is foreseen, and the Code does not specify a maximum duration for this period. To His Excellency, as to all of us, the times we are living through seem interminable, and rightly so. The consequences of this situation seem extremely grave and irreparable—this is true—but the gravity of the situation cannot alter the nature of its cause.
Moreover, it is not strictly accurate to describe the condition we are in as a “Church in a state of sede vacante” because under Canon Law, this particular state must be formally declared by the College of Cardinals. As we all know, this has not yet occurred. In fact, since the death of Pope Benedict XVI, the College of Cardinals has not fulfilled its duty to announce the sede vacante in accordance with articles 37 and 84 of Universi Dominici Gregis, as amended by Normas Nonnullas.
Let me now make an important observation: among those who defend the validity of Francis’ pontificate and those who challenge it, many adopt the same attitude toward the Church’s law: “Universi Dominici Gregis is a human law and cannot resolve this crisis.”
Bishop Schneider, as we have just heard, argues that the non-juridical principle of universal peaceful acceptance is sufficient and more decisive than Church laws in justifying Bergoglio’s validity. Similarly, others argue that the laws on the election of the Pope are merely human laws, that the cardinals will not intervene, and therefore, we must act outside the pathways contemplated by law.
The first group believes they can resolve the problem by clinging to the principle of universal acceptance or pursuing a supposed greater good contrary to what the Magisterium indicates. The second group, on the other hand, escapes into schism.
These two opposing factions, however, fall into the same error: they diminish and, in essence, reject the bond of faith and obedience we owe to the Church. The Church is both human and divine, and this unity is also reflected in the integration of divinely descended law and reformable law, for it is both divine and human law without dichotomies or dualisms. This unity is expressed in the Church’s Magisterium and in Canon Law, which is an expression of the same Magisterium in the Church’s governing authority.
But Paul VI, in the aforementioned “Address to Participants in the Second International Congress of Canon Law,” stated:
All institutional and juridical elements are sacred and spiritual because they are animated by the Spirit. In reality, the ‘Spirit’ and the ‘Law’ are united at their very source, where the spiritual element is determinative. The Church of ‘Law’ and the Church of ‘Charity’ are a single reality, whose inner life is outwardly signified by the juridical form. It is therefore evident that this union must be preserved in the fulfillment of every ‘office’ and authority within the Church, because every activity of the Church must manifest and promote spiritual life. This applies to canon law as well as to any other external activity of the Church, which, while being a human activity, must be imbued with the Spirit.
Only the College of Cardinals is entitled to ensure the proper functioning of the Apostolic See and to intervene to defend it, as outlined in article 33 of Universi Dominici Gregis. This is now the law of the Church—the sole law that can be applied to ensure the valid election of the future Pontiff.
His Excellency’s text continues:
The acceptance of the possibility of a prolonged time of a vacancy of the Holy See (sedisvacantia papalis) easily leads to the spirit of sedevacantism, which ultimately constitutes a kind of a sectarian and quasi-heretical phenomenon that has appeared in the past sixty years due to the problems with Vatican II and the conciliar and post-conciliar popes.
I believe that we can steer clear of this sedevacantist spirit by advocating for the rights of Peter through adherence to the official and current Magisterium, as represented by Universi Dominici Gregis, blessed by St. John Paul II and updated by Benedict XVI, who respectively promulgated and revised this Apostolic Constitution. I would like to add that, personally, I have never criticized the Second Vatican Council; on the contrary, I have always defended it—both against modernist interpretations and the defeatist attacks of those who seek to find in it a malignancy that is not there.
Furthermore, the illustrious example of the saints of the past serves as a safeguard against the sedevacantist error. Many times before – such as during the Great Western Schism – cardinals, bishops, the clergy, and the people of God worked to restore the Petrine See.
Today, I point to the Code of Canon Law and call upon the cardinals to act, without any unfounded schismatic theological theses animating me.
I shall now continue with the reading of Bishop Schneider’s text:
The spiritual good and eternal salvation of the faithful is the supreme law in the normative system of the Church. For this reason, there is the principle of supplet ecclesia (“the Church supplies”) or of sanatio in radice (“healing at the root”), that is, the Church completes what was against the human positive law, in the case of the sacraments, which demand jurisdictional faculties, e.g. confession, marriage, confirmation, the burdens of the intentions of the Masses.
Guided by this truly pastoral principle, the instinct of the Church has also applied the principle of supplet ecclesia or sanatio in radice in cases of doubts about a renunciation or a pontifical election. Concretely, the sanatio in radice of an invalid pontifical election was expressed in the peaceful and morally universal acceptance of the new Pontiff by the episcopate and the Catholic people, and in the fact that this elected, supposedly invalid, Pontiff was named in the Canon of the Mass by practically the entire Catholic clergy.
The Universal Peaceful Acceptance (UPA), invoked by Bishop Schneider as a concretization of the principle of Ecclesia supplet in cases of a dubious papal election or resignation, is merely a theological opinion. It has no codification in canon law, nor is it defined in the official documents of the Magisterium. Therefore, there is not even a single, definitive definition of it.
To elevate the UPA to a necessary and infallible truth, some refer to the Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei of 1998, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This document addresses the assent owed to Magisterial pronouncements. It specifies that certain doctrinal pronouncements, although not declared infallible, must receive assent due to their connection with Revelation.
The only point in the Commentary that mentions the election of the Pope is this (my emphasis):
With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations.
In the document, there is no reference to the UPA (Universal Peaceful Acceptance), which is an entirely different matter from what is addressed in the Doctrinal Commentary. There is no explicit mention of the UPA nor any indication that the Church intends to automatically include it among truths requiring infallible assent. The dogmatic fact is the legitimacy of the Pope’s election, not the UPA. While it is undeniable that the UPA represents an important aspect of Catholic theology and is closely tied to the legitimacy of the Pope’s election, sources do not indicate that it constitutes a dogmatic fact in the strict sense as described by theology. Neither the 1998 Commentary nor other Magisterial documents support such an interpretation.
One must not confuse the Church’s doctrine of infallibility in declaring a Pope legitimate with the notion of the potential rectification (sanatio) brought about by the UPA.
Why do I refer only to the case of rectification? The statement, “The Church could not err in considering someone who is not Pope as Pope,” also implies that, if a non-Pope were to sit on the See of Peter, he could not receive universal peaceful acceptance, which would then serve as proof that his election bore defects so significant that they could not be rectified by the UPA. This is the only practical application of the UPA consistent with the Church’s doctrine.
The UPA can never be considered a “ratification” of a valid election nor an “additional requirement” for validity beyond adherence to the laws governing the Conclave.
Submission to – and therefore acceptance of – a validly elected Supreme Pontiff is a necessity of faith for a baptized person. Universal acceptance by all the faithful of the Pope is thus the necessary consequence of a valid election.
This is evident when we consider the historical context that theologians reference when formulating this theory: the Great Western Schism, during which three Popes simultaneously claimed the title. The Council of Constance deposed two of them (while the third abdicated voluntarily) and elected Martin V, restoring unity to the Church. In this climate of ecclesial confusion, the heretical doctrines of John Wyclif and Jan Hus emerged, among which were criticisms of the authority and moral legitimacy of the papacy. Martin V, in the bull Inter cunctas (February 22, 1418), proposed a list of questions to be posed to suspected heretics. Question 24 read:
Do you believe that the Pope canonically elected, for as long as he is in office, once having chosen his name, is the successor of Blessed Peter and possesses supreme authority in the Church of God? (Denz. 1264).
Thus, Martin V legislated precisely in the opposite direction of the interpretation that the UPA serves as a kind of “ratification” of the validity of an election. A faithful person, to avoid being considered heretical, had to recognize the authority of a Pope who was canonically elected.
There are indeed cases where the UPA (Universal Peaceful Acceptance) can rectify an illegitimate election. In this sense, Bishop Schneider cites instances of dubious elections or resignations from the past where this principle was applied. However, caution is needed: improper use of historical analogies to justify a present situation must be avoided. The UPA cannot be applied universally to all possible cases. To argue otherwise would be akin to claiming that, because some accused of murder have been acquitted, murderers should no longer be tried. This is a logical fallacy, specifically anargumentum ad exemplum (argument from precedent).
While it is true that, historically, Popes elected under dubious or irregular circumstances (e.g., Gregory VI, Urban VI, Boniface VIII) were eventually recognized as valid, each situation must be treated as unique. The fact that there have been other historical cases, which occurred in undoubtedly different contexts, has no bearing on the current case of Pope Francis. Bishop Schneider seems to underestimate contemporary doctrinal and juridical differences. Historical precedents may serve as a general reference but do not resolve the specificities of the current situation.
To affirm the validity of Francis’ papacy, the canonical and theological doubts must be addressed directly, without relying on historical analogies that risk trivializing the issue.
There are instances where an election or resignation is so gravely flawed that the UPA could never rectify it. Here are some examples:
- The See is not vacant. This is the case I analyzed in my argument regarding the invalidity of Benedict XVI’s resignation. If, as I have written, the papal See was not truly vacant at the time of the 2013 conclave, the UPA could not rectify Francis’ election. Without a vacant See, any papal election is null ab origine. The Church does not recognize any possibility of rectifying what would be a true invalidity, not a mere electoral irregularity. Historically, the UPA has only functioned in the Church as a remedy for minor procedural irregularities, not to legitimize the election of a new Pope while a reigning Pope is still in office.
- Violation of established invalidating procedures. Another scenario arises when procedures used for the election directly violate norms that prior Popes have declared, clearly and unequivocally, to invalidate an election. In such a case, the presence of the UPA could not rectify the election because doing so would contravene the will and laws of the Pope. This would render null and void the Pope’s divine power to “bind on Earth and in Heaven.” An example would be an election that violates the norms of Universi Dominici Gregis.
In such cases, the UPA cannot override clear and absolute declarations made by the authority of the Church, as doing so would undermine the divine and juridical integrity of the papal office and its laws.
- A third example arises when members of the Church have been deceived or misinformed, and therefore lack the essential information to make a truly informed decision regarding the acceptance of the newly elected Pope. In such a case, the UPA would amount to a false and entirely ineffective acceptance. It would contradict both common sense and divine justice to consider a “peaceful acceptance” valid if one or more individuals were deceived and deprived of accurate knowledge. For instance, if I were to put poison in a glass of water and offer it to an unsuspecting person, I could hardly defend myself on the grounds that my victim accepted to drink it.
In Catholic philosophy and theology, knowledge is a fundamental element in determining the responsibility and effectiveness of certain actions.
Moving from theory to practice: Is there genuine universal acceptance of Pope Francis?
His Excellency Bishop Schneider, often and with great sorrow, acknowledges the doctrinal errors of “Pope Francis.” Yet at the same time, he is determined to uphold Francis’ papacy at all costs. The result is a position that appears inconsistent with the doctrine of obedience to the Church, which he himself seems intent on defending.
Let us recall what the Code of Canon Law prescribes regarding obedience to the Pope:
Can. 752 – While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.[3].
Bishop Schneider has taken a critical stance toward Pope Francis from the very beginning and has often highlighted, over the years, his divergences from sound and correct doctrine, including matters concerning authentic Magisterium. How can this behavior be reconciled with the fact that the authentic Magisterium of the Holy Father requires “religious submission of intellect and will”?
Let us consider what Cardinal Billot writes regarding the foundations of the doctrine of the UPA:
… the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows.[4]
The Church cannot universally and peacefully adhere to a false pontiff because this would amount to a defection of the Church from the Catholic faith, effectively undermining the dogma of the Church’s indefectibility. Adhering to a man as Pope is inseparable from adhering to him as the rule of faith. Therefore, when the Church submits to a man as the “living rule of faith,” that man must necessarily be the Pope.
But does the Church truly offer such universal and peaceful adherence to Pope Francis? Does the Catholic Church universally adhere to Francis as the “living rule of faith”? Do the cardinals, the bishops, and even Bishop Schneider adhere to Francis as the “living rule of faith”?
Here I follow Matthew McCusker’s excellent treatment in his articles for LifeSiteNews concerning the “proximate rule of faith” and the “remote rule of faith”[5].
The proximate rule of faith is represented by the Magisterium of the Church—that is, the official teaching authority of the Catholic Church, expressed through the Pope and the bishops united with him. The remote rule is constituted by Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. The Catholic Church, in its faith in the promises of Jesus Christ, holds that the Magisterium (proximate rule) can never contradict Scripture and Tradition (remote rule), as its role is to interpret them faithfully and preserve them from error.
When we speak of submitting to the Pope as the “living rule of faith,” we mean that we regard him, together with the bishops teaching in union with him, as the “proximate rule” of what we are to believe.
In his articles McCusker wrote:
But today, faithful Catholics do not approach Francis in this way. Instead, they continually compare his doctrine to that contained in Scripture and Tradition, the “remote rule of faith,” to judge for themselves whether it is orthodox. They do this because they know, as a result of his public departure from the Catholic faith, that he is not a legitimate teacher of the faith. […] “this is a clear inversion of the proper relationship between the pope and the faithful, between the teacher and the taught, and it clearly manifests that Catholics do not take Francis as their living rule of faith.
This issue does not concern only the lay faithful. There are numerous examples of cardinals and bishops who have publicly taken a critical stance toward Francis’ teachings. I believe it is not inaccurate to say that such a phenomenon has never occurred with the previous Popes I have known.
- Amoris Laetitia has divided bishops on the interpretation of whether divorced and remarried individuals are permitted to receive Holy Communion. The Polish bishops issued a declaration supporting the traditional doctrine of the Church. On September 19, 2016, Cardinals Brandmüller, Burke, Caffarra, and Meisner submitted dubia to the Pope regarding the interpretation of the encyclical.
- On August 2, 2018, Francis formally amended the Catechism of the Catholic Church to entirely exclude the legitimacy of capital punishment. Yet the Catholic Church has consistently taught that the use of capital punishment by the state is legitimate under certain circumstances. On May 31, 2019, a statement signed by Cardinals Burke, Pujats, Archbishops Peta, Lenga, and Bishop Schneider publicly rejected Francis’ teaching, appealing to the “remote rule” of faith.
- In July 2023, Cardinals Brandmüller, Burke, Sandoval Íñiguez, Sarah, and Zen Ze-kiun submitted five questions to the Pope requesting clarification on matters concerning the interpretation of Divine Revelation, the blessing of unions of same-sex couples, synodality as a constitutive dimension of the Church, the ordination of women, and repentance as a necessary condition for sacramental absolution.
- Following the publication of Fiducia Supplicans, dozens of Episcopal Conferences declared that they would not implement the document in their territories.
From these examples, two points emerge with great clarity:
- Francis publicly departs from the rule of faith proposed by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and
- a significant portion of the episcopate refuses to follow him as the “living rule of faith.”
Such a situation cannot, with any conviction or credibility, be described as the “universal and peaceful adherence” of the Catholic Church to Francis as the “living rule of faith.” Consequently, the argument of universal and peaceful adherence cannot be used to conclude that Francis is the Pope, as Bishop Schneider contends.
Before arriving at His Excellency’s conclusions, I will include two brief quotes from his intervention. In the first quote, Bishop Schneider assumes, for the sake of argument, the truth of the thesis I defend:
Another hypothetical situation: were all the cardinals nominated by John Paul II and Benedict XVI to die, the College of Cardinals would be composed only of cardinals appointed by Pope Francis. But according to the theory of the invalid pontificate of Francis, they would all be non-cardinals, and therefore there would no longer be a College of Cardinals. It would follow that there were no valid electors who could proceed to a new pontifical election. […] The Church would be in a dead end, a cul-de-sac.
His Excellency, referring to the norms of Universi Dominici Gregis, though without explicitly naming them, concludes that a deadlock would be reached in the event that all Cardinals appointed before 2013 were to pass away.
We return to the same flawed reasoning I highlighted at the outset: the consequences would be too grave for this to be true.
Instead, we must face reality and recognize that we still have the possibility of hoping for the intervention of Providence through the College of Cardinals, in accordance with the Church’s Magisterium, even though for too many years the Church has been infiltrated and poisoned by Freemasonry. We place our trust in the Dogma of the Church’s indefectibility and in God’s intervention—not in men, nor in human calculations and reasoning.
Bishop Schneider’s conclusion is surprising:
The way to react to the confusing behavior of Pope Francis is to admonish him publicly regarding his errors. That said, one must do this with all due respect. Then one must make a profession of faith by specifying those truths which Pope Francis has contradicted or undermined by his ambiguities. Then one must do acts of reparation. One must also ask God for the grace of Pope Francis’ conversion and for the Divine intervention to resolve this unprecedented crisis. Nevertheless, Pope Francis is certainly the valid Pope.
We have reached this paradoxical situation: a bishop known and followed worldwide for his defense of sound doctrine supports the thesis that a legitimate Pope can teach errors that contradict the profession of faith and be the cause of an unprecedented crisis within the Church.
This, in essence, means admitting the possibility of a papa devius a fide (a Pope deviating from the faith). Here, a broader discussion would open, which, due to space constraints, I must postpone.
However, I am convinced — following the insights of eminent canonists, among whom St. Robert Bellarmine stands out — that there cannot be a heretical Pope. If such a scenario were to occur, he would lose his office ipso facto.
Fr. Giorgio Maria Faré took vows a discalced Carmelite. He was ordained a priest in 2001 and holds a Doctorate in Theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. He was dismissed from his Order and excommunicated by Pope Francis in November 2024 for “schism,” having publicly denied that Jorge Bergoglio is a legitimate Pope.
READ: Italian priest excommunicated, another laicized for declaring Francis isn’t pope
Footnotes
[1] Paul VI, Allocuzione ai partecipanti al Il Congresso internazionale di diritto canonico, September 17, 1973, in «Communicationes» V [1973], pages 123-124 (author’s translation).
[2] John Paul II, Presentazione del nuovo Codice di Diritto Canonico (February 3, 1983), (author’s translation).
[3] Cf. “The magisterium of the Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops on matters of faith or morals, or truths closely connected to them, even when not intending to pronounce a doctrine through a definitive act, obliges the faithful to offer religious submission to such doctrine, carefully avoiding anything that is not in agreement with it. Mere external adherence is not sufficient: what is needed above all is internal adherence of the intellect and will. This does not preclude that the truth pronounced may be appropriately deepened, in accordance with canons 218 and 386, § 2. This deepening also includes ‘development,’ but eodem sensu eademque sententia”. (Luigi Chiappetta, Il Codice di Diritto Canonico, Commento giuridico-pastorale II, Dehoniane, Rome 1996², 3117).
[4] Louis Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, II, 1909.
[5] Disclaimer: This does not mean that I agree with every opinion of Matthew McCusker, but his explanation on this specific topic is very clear, which is why I am happy to quote him.