+Sanborn says:
And elsewhere:

Well, from what I can tell, it was a pretty "normal" pre-Vatican II position.

Even +Lefebvre said in his "Open Letter to Confused Catholics",

"It is true that one can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by that religion. One can be saved in it despite that religion, and by the Catholic religion, to which anyone who is saved belongs, even if he does not know it. He is saved by the grace of God which is given to him in view of his good faith, of his fidelity to the natural law and to his conscience, if he is in invincible ignorance of the true religion.”

Some good points about the development of opinions here:
https://archive.org/details/necessityofchurc0000king

Well, from what I can tell, it was a pretty "normal" pre-Vatican II position.

Sorry, but your husband is wrong about the Pope not being the Proximate Rule of Faith. By replacing the "living Magisterium" (the role played by the Pope) with static Dogma, your husband falls into the error of the Old Catholics.

On the Cathinfo page you linked to, your husband said the following:

"Authority is an attribute of the Church primarily and only secondarily and accidentally an attribute of the pope. Those who make the pope the rule of faith have a problem when he is a heretic with the exercise of authority. Those who make dogma the rule of faith can deal with the corruption of authority."

On Magisterium.com (a mainstream Catholic AI good for Catholic 101 stuff like this) the question was asked,

"Is the Pope the proximate rule of faith?"

The concept of the "rule of faith" in Catholic theology refers to the authoritative standard by which the deposit of faith—divinely revealed truths contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition—is known, interpreted, and proposed to the faithful. The remote rule of faith is Scripture and Tradition themselves, while the proximate rule is the living Magisterium of the Church, which authentically interprets and guards these sources under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.¹ Within this framework, the Pope, as the successor of St. Peter and the visible head of the Church, holds a unique and supreme role as the proximate rule of faith, particularly in resolving doctrinal questions and defining truths for the universal Church. This authority is not absolute in a personal sense but derives from his office, exercised either extraordinarily (ex cathedra) or ordinarily, ensuring unity and fidelity to the apostolic faith.^{2 3 4}

The Pope's Primacy in Teaching Authority

The Catholic Church teaches that the Roman Pontiff possesses full, supreme, and universal power over the Church, jure divino (by divine right), as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the care of the entire flock (cf. Jn 21:15-17).^{56 7 8} This includes the responsibility to "feed, rule, and guide the universal Church," making him the principal teacher of all Christians.⁵ As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, the Pope's authority extends to issuing authoritative judgments on matters of faith "sententialiter determinare" (decisively), so that they may be held by the whole Church with "unshaken faith."² This role ensures there is "but one faith of the whole Church" (1 Cor 1:10), preventing schisms by resolving disputes that arise.^{2 4}

St. Robert Bellarmine further clarifies that the Pope, as the Pastor and universal Teacher of the Church, can define matters of faith even without a council, for he "cannot err when he teaches ex cathedra; otherwise the whole Church would err."³This underscores the Pope's position as the proximate norm for the faith, where his definitive teachings bind the consciences of the faithful irrevocably, preserving the purity of the Gospel.^{9 10}

Distinctions in Magisterial Authority

Not every papal statement constitutes the proximate rule of faith; the Church distinguishes between levels of authority. Infallible teachings—whether through solemn definitions (extraordinary Magisterium) or the ordinary and universal Magisterium—form the primary and secondary objects of infallibility and demand the full assent of faith (fides divina or fides ecclesiastica).¹ The Pope's ex cathedra pronouncements, as defined by Vatican I, meet this criterion, protecting revealed truths from error.¹¹ Even non-infallible teachings in the ordinary Magisterium require religious submission of intellect and will, as they contribute to the Church's doctrinal development and safeguard against harm to faith and morals.^{1 12 13}

For instance, Pope Leo XIII affirms that "questions which arise touching faith should be determined by him who presides over the whole Church," and his sentence "must consequently be accepted without wavering."⁴ This primacy is echoed in Vatican I's declaration that the Pope is the "supreme judge of the faithful" in ecclesiastical matters, with no higher authority, such as an ecuмenical council, to which one may appeal.¹⁴ Historical errors, like the Gallican articles suggesting papal judgments need the Church's consent to be unalterable, have been condemned as void.¹⁵

Implications for the Faithful

The Pope's role as proximate rule of faith means Catholics are bound to adhere to his authoritative teachings on doctrine, morals, and governance, fostering communion and obedience.⁶ This is not a diminishment of the bishops' role—who, with the Pope, form the college of authentic teachers—but a recognition of Petrine primacy, which "presides in love" over the universal Church.^{11 8} As Pope Pius XII taught, this obedience extends to all pastors and faithful, ensuring "one flock under one supreme shepherd."⁶ In practice, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith assists the Pope in promoting and safeguarding this integrity, examining potential errors and providing rebuttals.^{16 9 10}

In summary, yes, the Pope is the proximate rule of faith in his magisterial office, serving as the divinely appointed guardian and interpreter of the depositum fidei for the entire Church. This ensures doctrinal unity amid contemporary challenges, always in service to the truth revealed by Christ.¹⁷

For deeper exploration, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (nn. 85-100) outlines the Magisterium's role comprehensively.

[1] D'Costa's Hermeneutics page3
[2] St. Thomas Aquinas and the Origins of the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility page42
[3] Controversies of the Christian Faith (Disputationes de Controversiis) page453
[4] Sapientiae Christianae 23
[5] The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Enchiridion Symbolorum) 3059
[6] Ad Apostolorum principis 46
[7] Evangelii Nuntiandi 67
[8] Satis Cognitum 13
[9] Regulations for Doctrinal Examination - Ratio Agendi 1
[10] To promote and safeguard the faith
[11] Catechism of the Ukrainian Catholic Church: Christ – Our Pascha 291
[12] Falliable Teachings and the Assistance of the Holy Spirit Reflections on the Ordinary Magisterium in Connection with the Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian page21
[13] CCC 2050
[14] The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Enchiridion Symbolorum) 3063
[15] The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Enchiridion Symbolorum) 2284
[16] Praedicate Evangelium Art. 69
[17] 10 December 2000: Jubilee of Catechists - Homily 3


And then a follow up question was asked,

Does the error of the Old Catholics attempt to replace the Pope as the proximate rule of faith with static dogma?

Yes, the error of the Old Catholics can be understood as an attempt to replace the Pope's role as the proximate rule of faith—embodied in his living magisterial authority to interpret and guard the deposit of faith—with a static conception of dogma limited to pre-Vatican I teachings, which they regard as the unalterable and exhaustive expression of the "ancient Catholic faith." This position undermines the dynamic, Spirit-guided development of doctrine under Petrine primacy, reducing the Church's teaching authority to a fixed historical corpus without the Pope's supreme interpretive function.^{1 2}

Historical Context of the Old Catholic Schism

The Old Catholics emerged in the late 19th century as a direct response to the First Vatican Council's definition of papal infallibility (1870), which they denounced as an "innovation contrary to the traditional faith of the Church."¹ Led by figures like Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger and Johann Friedrich von Schulte, they issued declarations rejecting the dogma and organized separate communities in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and elsewhere, convening congresses (e.g., Munich, 1871) to affirm adherence to what they called the "ancient Catholic faith" while repudiating "new dogmas."^{1 3}They elected their own bishops, such as Joseph Hubert Reinkens in 1873, and sought state recognition in places like Prussia, Baden, and Hesse, framing themselves as the true preservers of Catholicism against "Ultramontanism"—a term they used pejoratively for the enhanced role of the Roman Pontiff.¹

In their synodal constitutions and resolutions, the Old Catholics emphasized a return to the "constitutions of the ancient Church," rejecting not only infallibility but also elements like mandatory confession, clerical celibacy, and the Roman liturgy in favor of local adaptations.^{1 3} Pope Pius IX condemned this in Etsi Multa (1873), accusing them of "attack[ing] and pervert[ing] the true power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff" and asserting that the Pope and bishops had "fallen into heresy" by approving Vatican I.² They boldly claimed the Church's visible head and hierarchy had "erred," necessitating a "restoration" of a "legitimate episcopacy" outside Roman communion, which Pius IX described as entering "not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber."²

Replacement of Proximate Rule with Static Dogma

In Catholic theology, the proximate rule of faith is the living Magisterium—the Church's authentic teaching office, headed by the Pope—which interprets Scripture and Tradition infallibly when exercising its full authority, ensuring doctrinal unity and development "in the same sense and the same meaning" (eodem sensu eademque sententia).^{4 5} The Old Catholics' error inverts this by subordinating the Magisterium to a static set of dogmas they deem "harmonious with the actual consciousness of the Church," excluding any post-1870 developments as invalid innovations.¹ This effectively elevates a selective, historical corpus of teachings—such as those from the early councils—above the Pope's ongoing role as the "supreme judge" and "universal teacher," who resolves faith disputes with "unshaken faith" binding the whole Church.^{6 7 8}

By denying papal infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church in its hierarchical teaching, the Old Catholics imply that the deposit of faith is fully captured in "static" dogmas without need for the Pope's proximate guidance.² They reject the idea that the Roman Pontiff, as successor of Peter, holds "full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church," instead promoting a more democratic or synodal model where laity and local bishops hold interpretive primacy.^{9 2} This mirrors condemned errors like Gallicanism, which limited papal authority to mere execution of conciliar decisions, but goes further by schismatically separating to enforce their vision.⁴ As a result, their communities devolved toward liberal reforms, ecuмenical alliances with Protestants and Jansenists, and eventual rationalism, losing any claim to Catholic orthodoxy.^{1 3}

Broader Theological Implications

This error not only fractures ecclesial unity but also contradicts the Church's teaching that dogmas are not isolated artifacts but living truths integrated within the "hierarchy of truths" and the Church's full life of worship and doctrine.⁵The Old Catholics' approach risks a "legal positivism" that freezes revelation, ignoring the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Magisterium for ongoing clarification amid new contexts.¹⁰ In contrast, Vatican I affirmed the Pope's primacy as essential for the Church's stability, ensuring that "the gates of Hell shall not prevail" against it.^{8 2} Their persistent small numbers and doctrinal drifts today (e.g., ordination of women, same-sex blessings in some branches) illustrate the instability of bypassing Petrine authority.¹

In conclusion, the Old Catholics' rejection of papal infallibility indeed seeks to supplant the Pope's dynamic role as proximate rule of faith with a static, selective dogma, leading to schism and a diminished understanding of the Church's indefectible teaching mission. This remains a cautionary example of how denying Petrine primacy fragments the faith.²

[1] Catholic Encyclopedia Old Catholics
[2] Etsi Multa
[3] Catholic Encyclopedia Schism
[4] Catholic Encyclopedia Dogma
[5] The Interpretation of Dogma B.III.3
[6] Catholic Encyclopedia Error
[7] Infideles et Philosophi: Re-Reading ST II-II, q. 2, a. 2, ad 3 page13
[8] The Bishop of Rome 3.134
[9] The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Enchiridion Symbolorum) 3059
[10] In the Name of Jesus Christ: A Few Historical Perspectives on the Functioning of Authority in Biblical Interpretation page25

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas"
 

The Extraordinary Magisterium
 
Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215): “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved…”
 
Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
 
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 – 1445): “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
 

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм20.htm
 
The First Vatican Council

• 4. On faith and reason
  
  • 1. If anyone says that
    
    • in divine revelation there are contained no true mysteries properly so-called, but that
    • all the dogmas of the faith can be understood and demonstrated by properly trained reason from natural principles:

let him be anathema.

• • 2. If anyone says that
    
    • human studies are to be treated with such a degree of liberty that their assertions may be maintained as true even when they are opposed to divine revelation, and that
    • they may not be forbidden by the church:

let him be anathema.

• • 3. If anyone says that
    
    • it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands:

let him be anathema.

• And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.
• But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this docuмent, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see.

Emphasis mine

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm
Pope Pius X - 1910
THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili,especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm.

Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical docuмents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .
 

St. Paul
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
[Galatians 1:8]