Of that I have no doubt, Madrid is a post Vatican II Modernist who subscribes to the new, novel redefinition of "Viva Voce". He is free to disagree. I would not expect otherwise.
I think he's probably a more cogent authority on Catholic doctrine than you are.
That could be true, or it could not be.
Here is exactly what Trent says in the 4th session.
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, —wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,—whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,—hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.
Yet Rome itself interprets Matthew 16:18 in violation of it's own stated principle. As is already noted, two early church fathers, of whom they belong to the overwhelming majority in their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 disagree with Rome's later interpretation, and contradict Rome with an overwhelming majority voice.
Seems that Rome has been doing a lot of defining of terms and dogmatic declarations.