[dragonwriter]

A claim by a lay philosopher that something has been infallibly taught is not the same as an actual infallible teaching, and if you even casually follow Catholic debates, you will find a lot of conflicting claims about what has an has not been infallibly taught.

Arguably, the most these writings about what has been implicitly infallibly taught and therefore cannot be changed by a Pope despite the absence of an explicit dogma tell you is what the author is very concerned that there is an insufficient commitment to among the heirarchy and probably a risk of imminent change by a Pope, which the author is lobbying against.

(Or, as in this case, what has recently been actually changed by a Pope that the author wishes everyone to pretend has not.)