Any decree of a Roman Congregation is a good example of this.  As stated in the book linked below, such decrees ordinarily require internal submission under pain of sin.  If a learned man has a good reason for thinking something in it is false, he is not bound to assent internally, but cannot dissent from it openly.  He cannot express to anyone his opinion that the decree is in error, without a grave sin of disobedience, temerity, and scandal; and he should be denied the sacraments while openly dissenting against such decrees.


https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/'the-roman-congregations'-by-thomas-slater-s-j-(1911)

"The obligation of submission, in this case, is not satisfied by saying and doing nothing contrary to such decrees. Ordinarily, at least, there must also be an internal submission under pain of falling into the sin of temerity and pride, in preferring one’s own opinion to that of a competent authority which is empowered to decide such questions. But inasmuch as the Roman Congregations are not infallible, it may possibly happen that a particular decree of some Congregation is false, and a learned man may see good reason for thinking that it is false. Such a one is not bound to assent to what, with good reason, he thinks is false; he should not openly attack the decree, but he may propose his reasons to the Congregation whose decree is in question, and await the result."
...

"Although John did not publicly write against this decree, he nevertheless adhered to his opinion, and openly told friends that he thought the Commission had made a mistake. When his parish priest and confessor heard this, he was puzzled how to treat John, who said nothing about the matter in confession."
...

"John does not, indeed, impugn the decree of the Biblical Commission, but he openly says that in his opinion it is a mistake. Therefore he does not submit to it, and he can hardly be excused from a grave sin of disobedience, temerity, and scandal, especially as his friends doubtless look up to him as an authority on Biblical subjects. Yet John says nothing about this in the confessional. His confessor, who is also his parish priest, can not allow him to go on receiving the sacraments of the Church while openly refusing to accept her authoritative teaching."

Any decree of a Roman Congregation is a good example of this.  As stated in the book linked below, such decrees ordinarily require internal submission under pain of sin.  If a learned man has a good reason for thinking something in it is false, he is not bound to assent internally, but cannot dissent from it openly.  He cannot express to anyone his opinion that the decree is in error, without a grave sin of disobedience, temerity, and scandal; and he should be denied the sacraments while openly dissenting against such decrees.


https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/'the-roman-congregations'-by-thomas-slater-s-j-(1911)

"The obligation of submission, in this case, is not satisfied by saying and doing nothing contrary to such decrees. Ordinarily, at least, there must also be an internal submission under pain of falling into the sin of temerity and pride, in preferring one’s own opinion to that of a competent authority which is empowered to decide such questions. But inasmuch as the Roman Congregations are not infallible, it may possibly happen that a particular decree of some Congregation is false, and a learned man may see good reason for thinking that it is false. Such a one is not bound to assent to what, with good reason, he thinks is false; he should not openly attack the decree, but he may propose his reasons to the Congregation whose decree is in question, and await the result."
...

"Although John did not publicly write against this decree, he nevertheless adhered to his opinion, and openly told friends that he thought the Commission had made a mistake. When his parish priest and confessor heard this, he was puzzled how to treat John, who said nothing about the matter in confession."
...

"John does not, indeed, impugn the decree of the Biblical Commission, but he openly says that in his opinion it is a mistake. Therefore he does not submit to it, and he can hardly be excused from a grave sin of disobedience, temerity, and scandal, especially as his friends doubtless look up to him as an authority on Biblical subjects. Yet John says nothing about this in the confessional. His confessor, who is also his parish priest, can not allow him to go on receiving the sacraments of the Church while openly refusing to accept her authoritative teaching."

Any decree of a Roman Congregation is a good example of this.  As stated in the book linked below, such decrees ordinarily require internal submission under pain of sin.  If a learned man has a good reason for thinking something in it is false, he is not bound to assent internally, but cannot dissent from it openly.  He cannot express to anyone his opinion that the decree is in error, without a grave sin of disobedience, temerity, and scandal; and he should be denied the sacraments while openly dissenting against such decrees.