Disputed Questions on Papal Infallibility – Part 1

Voiced by Amazon Polly

Editor’s note: the genre of Quaestiones Disputatae is traditionally devoted, among true theologians of the Church, for resolving unresolved theological propositions. Part of the problem today is that 1.) many of the faithful assume that the following disputed questions are already resolved and 2.) our faith is so weak as to disallow for the degrees of certainty that theologians traditionally assign to these different propositions. As theologians debate the disputed questions, some of them are eventually and formally resolved by the Magisterium. In line with our editorial stance, we present the following first part of such a work, looking forward to the day when the Church will resolve the problem of hyperpapalism. Thank you to Nova et Vetera for their kind permission to republish this material from Dr. Joy.

Prologue

The First Vatican Council solemnly defined that the pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, from the chair of St. Peter, which is the chair of truth:

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and for the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approval of the sacred council, We teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, exercising his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and therefore, that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church. But if anyone, which God forbid, should presume to contradict this Our definition: let him be anathema.[1]

With this definition the question as to whether the pope is able to speak infallibly at all has been finally settled; since then, theological discussion has centered on the subsidiary questions as to how often and under what conditions he does so.

There are two errors to be avoided here. On the one hand, we must avoid the very real phenomenon which has been described as “creeping infallibilization,”[2] according to which almost every utterance of the pope is regarded as being at least practically infallible. On the other hand, we must beware the equally dangerous tendency to interpret arbitrarily the conditions for papal infallibility so restrictively as to render the dogma almost meaningless. Paradoxically, these opposite tendencies seem to be almost equally widespread amongst Catholics in general. For one constantly hears it said that the pope has only ever spoken infallibly twice (in defining the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary) and yet it also seems to be everywhere assumed (often by the very same people) that no pope could possibly teach anything false in any of his official teaching on faith or morals. The truth, as is often the case, lies somewhere in between. There are many questions involved here that need to be untangled and so I have chosen the format of the medieval scholastic disputation in an effort to bring some measure of greater clarity to the topic.

There are two main questions to be considered concerning the infallibility of the pope: the first concerns the extension and limits of papal infallibility in general; the second concerns particular cases of papal teaching. Here we are concerned only with the first question.

Question I:
On the Extension and Limits of Papal Infallibility

Concerning this first question, there are seven points to be considered: (1) whether the essential conditions for speaking ex cathedra are rightly enumerated as three; (2) whether the pope is able to teach any error at all in the exercise of his authentic magisterium; (3) whether the infallibility of the pope is limited to the exercise of his extraordinary magisterium; (4) whether the pope is able to speak infallibly when he confirms or reaffirms a doctrine already infallibly taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium; (5) whether the infallibility of the pope is limited to defining dogmas of divine and Catholic faith; (6) whether the infallibility of the pope extends to the canonization of saints; (7) whether the pope is able to speak infallibly without explicitly addressing the universal Church.

Article 1
Whether the Essential Conditions for Speaking Ex Cathedra Are Rightly Enumerated as Three?

Objection 1: It seems that the essential conditions for speaking ex cathedra are not rightly enumerated as three. For Cardinal John Henry Newman enumerates four conditions, saying: “He speaks ex cathedrâ, or infallibly, when he speaks, first, as the Universal Teacher; secondly, in the name and with the authority of the Apostles; thirdly, on a point of faith or morals; fourthly, with the purpose of binding every member of the Church to accept and believe his decision.”[3]

Objection 2: Furthermore, Joseph Fenton enumerates five conditions, saying that the pope is infallible when: “A) He speaks in his capacity as the ruler and teacher of all Christians. B) He uses his supreme apostolic authority. C) The doctrine on which he is speaking has to do with faith or morals. D) He issues a certain and definitive judgment on that teaching. E) He wills that this definitive judgment be accepted as such by the universal Church.”[4]

Objection 3: Furthermore, even if there are only three conditions given in the body of the definition of papal infallibility, we must add another condition, which is that the pope must be faithfully interpreting divine revelation and not inventing any new doctrine. For the First Vatican Council teaches that “the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”[5] And again, the Second Vatican Council also teaches that, “when either the Roman Pontiff or the body of bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with.”[6] And again: “The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents; but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.”[7]

On the contrary, Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser, in his official relatio explaining the intended sense of the definition of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council, enumerates three essential conditions that restrict the infallibility of the pope: “The infallibility of the Roman Pontiff is restricted by reason of the subject, that is when the pope, constituted in the chair of Peter, the center of the Church, speaks as universal teacher and supreme judge: it is restricted by reason of the object, i.e., when treating of matters of faith and morals; and by reason of the act itself, i.e., when the Pope defines what must be believed or rejected by all the faithful.”[8]

I answer that, the pope speaks ex cathedra, and hence infallibly, whenever three essential conditions are fulfilled, and these pertain to the subject, the object, and the act of the teaching. This is proved both from Bishop Gasser’s relatio at the First Vatican Council and from the Second Vatican Council’s reformulation of the doctrine, according to which: “The Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, in virtue of his office, enjoys this infallibility when, [subject:] as supreme shepherd and teacher of all Christ’s faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Lk 22:32), [act:] he proclaims by a definitive act, [object:] a doctrine concerning faith or morals.”[9]

Reply to Objection 1: To the first it must be said that the first two conditions enumerated by Cardinal Newman are really one, for the pope does not speak as universal shepherd and teacher otherwise than in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority. And this can be seen in the reformulation of the teaching in Lumen Gentium §25, which places the phrase “in virtue of his office” prior to and outside of the enumeration of conditions contained in the cum (“when”) clause, that is, the pope is infallible, when . . . etc.

Reply to Objection 2: To the second it must be said that the first two conditions enumerated by Fenton are really one in the same way as those enumerated by Cardinal Newman; and the last two conditions enumerated by Fenton are likewise only one: for whenever the pope as supreme head of the Church issues a certain and definitive judgment on a matter of faith or morals, then it follows as a necessary consequence that this definitive judgment is to be accepted as such by the universal Church. And this too can be seen in the reformulation of the teaching in Lumen Gentium §25, which does not include the phrase “to be held by the whole Church” within the cum clause where the conditions for infallibility are enumerated.

Reply to Objection 3: To the third it must be said that this argument reduces the dogma of papal infallibility to a meaningless tautology. For it amounts to saying that the pope is infallible whenever he speaks the truth, which is the same as saying that he always speaks truly when he speaks truly. But absolutely everyone is infallible in this sense. It should rather be understood that this “requirement” for the pope to speak in accordance with divine revelation when he defines a doctrine is not given as a condition by which to judge whether the pope has spoken infallibly, but as an assurance that when he does speak infallibly, then what he says will in fact be in accordance with divine revelation. This is why both Pastor Aeternus and Lumen Gentium place this teaching outside the enumeration of conditions for papal infallibility. Hence we should not say, that if the pope were to define by a solemn judgment that there are four persons in the holy Trinity, that he would not in that case have fulfilled the conditions for speaking infallibly, and hence that he could have, and in fact did, teach error; rather we should say, that because the pope is infallible when he defines a matter of faith or morals by a solemn judgment, God will therefore prevent him from promulgating such a definition. In other words, the dogma of papal infallibility does not account for, but rather rules out, this hypothetical possibility.

Article 2
Whether the Pope Is Able to Teach Any Error at All in the Exercise of His Authentic Magisterium?

Objection 1: It seems that the pope is not able to teach any error at all in the exercise of his authentic magisterium. For according to Joachim Salaverri, what is taught by the authentic magisterium of the pope is taught by the Church.[10] And the Roman Catechism states very simply that, “This one Church cannot err in faith or morals, since it is guided by the Holy Ghost.”[11] Likewise, the Baltimore Catechism says: “The Church can not err when it teaches a doctrine of faith or morals.”[12]

Objection 2: Furthermore, according to Pope John Paul II: “Alongside this infallibility of ex cathedra definitions, there is the charism of the Holy Spirit’s assistance, granted to Peter and his successors so that they would not err in matters of faith and morals, but rather shed great light on the Christian people. This charism is not limited to exceptional cases, but embraces in varying degrees the whole exercise of the magisterium.”[13] Therefore, etc.[14]

Objection 3: Furthermore, according to the Second Vatican Council, the faithful are required to accept the teaching of the authentic papal magisterium with a “religious submission of will and intellect.”[15] If, therefore, the pope were able to teach error in the exercise of his authentic magisterium, then Catholics could be required to accept something that is false, which would be opposed to the indefectibility of the Church. Therefore, etc.

Objection 4: Furthermore, the pope is the final judge in matters of faith and morals. Hence, there can be no legitimate dissent from any papal teaching nor appeal to any other authority. But this would place the faithful in an impossible situation if the pope were at all able to teach error. Therefore, etc.

Objection 5: Furthermore, according to Bishop Gasser’s relatio on papal infallibility, the First Vatican Council raised to a dogma the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine regarding the extent of papal infallibility.[16] But Cardinal Bellarmine held it to be a pious and probable opinion “that the Sovereign Pontiff not only cannot err as Pontiff, but also that as a particular person he cannot be a heretic, by obstinately believing something false contrary to the faith.”[17] Therefore, it is now a dogma of faith that the pope is in no way able to teach error in matters of faith or morals.[18]

Objection 6: Furthermore, according to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), propositions contrary to the non-definitive teaching of the authentic magisterium, “can be qualified as false or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore ‘tuto doceri non potest’.”[19] But if all speculative propositions contrary to the teaching of the authentic magisterium are false, then all such propositions taught by the authentic magisterium must be true. Therefore, etc.

Objection 7: Furthermore, according to Cardinal Franzelin, in addition to the gift of “infallible truth,” which protects the ex cathedra definitions of the pope, there is also the gift of “infallible security,” which guarantees that all authentic papal teaching, even if not infallibly true, is at least infallibly safe, so that it would always be safe for the faithful to embrace it and could never be safe not to embrace it.[20] Therefore, the authentic magisterium of the pope is at least practically infallible.

Objection 8: Furthermore, according to Cardinal Billot, the non-definitive exercise of the authentic magisterium consists in probabilistic rather than in certain judgments. Thus, when the pope teaches a doctrine of faith or morals without intending to proclaim it definitively, he is to be understood as proposing that this doctrine is probably true (and therefore safe to hold) in light of current knowledge. Such teaching is “reformable” in the sense that the Church, enlightened by new knowledge, could later teach that the reverse is true. And yet this would not make the previous teaching false, since it was rightly considered probable at the time. Therefore, even the reformable teaching of the pope cannot be said to be in error. As Billot says: “That which is not safe now, looking at the present state of the question, can later become safe, when new evidence has appeared: and thus the decision declaring as safe that which was said before not to be safe, would not strictly speaking be a reformation of the sentence, but a new declaration not contrary to the prior one.”[21]

On the contrary, according to Pope John Paul II, “The non-infallible expressions of the authentic magisterium of the Church should be received with religious submission of mind and will.”[22] But if there are non-infallible expressions of the authentic magisterium, then it is possible for the authentic magisterium to teach error. For what is not infallible is fallible; and what is fallible is able to fail.

I answer that, it is possible for the pope to teach error in the exercise of his authentic magisterium, although the divine assistance granted to him in virtue of his supreme office prevents this from occurring frequently. The charism of infallibility is bestowed on the Church by God in order to protect the faithful from being forced by holy obedience into error in matters of faith or morals. Since the solemn judgments or definitions of the pope are strictly binding in conscience, if the pope were able to err in such judgments, then all Christ’s faithful could be obliged to believe something against the faith, which would be contrary to the indefectibility of the Church, according to the words of Christ, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18). But when the pope teaches a matter of faith or morals in his authentic magisterium without speaking ex cathedra, then he does not require a definitive assent from the faithful; hence, if he should err in such teaching, the whole Church would not necessarily be led astray by the error. Therefore, it is not necessary that this kind of teaching should be absolutely protected from all error. Yet it is more fitting that even this kind of teaching should be protected from frequent error, lest anyone be led to conclude that the Church “does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission.”[23]

Moreover, according to the Second Vatican Council, the response owed by the faithful to the authentic magisterium of the pope when he is not speaking ex cathedra is a “religious submission of will and intellect.”[24] According to the official notes on this text provided by the Theological Commission at Vatican II, this is intended to be understood in reference to non-infallible teaching. First, there is a note that this clause was added “in order to determine further what assent ought to be given to the teaching of the authentic magisterium below the grade of infallibility.[25] And again, when the text was later relocated, there is a note that “it seemed better to treat of the non-infallible magisterium of the Roman pontiff in the context of the magisterium of the whole episcopal body.”[26] Thus it is clear that, according to the intended sense of Lumen Gentium §25, the authentic magisterium is not always infallible, which means that it may sometimes teach error.

This religious submission of will and intellect, which is normally due to the teaching of the authentic magisterium, is a genuine interior assent of the mind, which has the character of opinion rather than knowledge, since the doctrine is to be accepted as true though with the awareness that it could possibly be false.[27] This assent may legitimately be withheld in certain cases, although to do so merely on the basis of one’s own private judgment would be rash and dangerous.[28] However, assent must be withheld when the teaching in question clearly conflicts with any irreformable doctrine of the Church, i.e. a doctrine that has been taught infallibly. This is because, in the case of conflicting obligations, precedence must always be given to the stricter obligation (as the obligation to obey traffic laws may give way to the obligation to save lives); and the obligation to give definitive assent to the irreformable teaching of the infallible Church is a stricter obligation than the religious submission due to the non-infallible teaching of the authentic magisterium of the pope or bishops. This may be understood by analogy with the obligation of children to obey their parents. For just as children have a duty to obey their parents in all things, as long as their commands do not conflict with the higher law of God, so too the faithful children of the Church have a duty to accept the magisterial teaching of the pope and the bishops in union with him as long as their teaching does not conflict with the higher law of God’s own revelation and the irreformable teaching of the Church.

The faithful must take care, therefore, to be well formed in the tradition of the Church, especially the sacred Scriptures, the common teaching of the fathers and doctors, and the infallible decrees of popes and councils, so that they may not be led astray if the bishops, or the pope, or even an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to that which we have received from the apostles (cf. Gal 1:8).

Reply to Objection 1: To the first it must be said that when the pope or bishops exercise their merely authentic (non-infallible) magisterium, this is only said to be the teaching “of the Church” in an improper sense. When the pope teaches infallibly, then it can be said simply and properly that “the Church” teaches. But when the pope exercises his authentic magisterium without speaking infallibly, then it should be said more properly that the pope teaches. And thus if he should err in such teaching, we would say that the pope has erred and not that the Church has erred. An indication of this can be seen in the concluding formula of the Profession of Faith, which speaks in the first two paragraphs of the definitive assent owed to the infallible teaching “of the Church,” whereas the third paragraph speaks of the religious submission of will and intellect due to the non-definitive teaching “of the pope or college of bishops.”[29]

Reply to Objection 2: To the second it must be said that in the same series of general audiences, Pope John Paul II distinguishes the ordinary (merely authentic) papal magisterium, which is exercised continually, from the extraordinary or solemn papal magisterium, which is exercised only in ex cathedra definitions,[30] and then proceeds to say that the pope is infallible “only when he speaks ex cathedra.”[31] But if the pope is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedra, then he is not infallible when he does not speak ex cathedra, and therefore he is able to teach error, even in matters of faith or morals, in his authentic magisterium, when not speaking ex cathedra. In order to uphold the objection, therefore, one would have to deny what Pope John Paul II teaches here, which would be to attribute error to the teaching of his authentic magisterium in a matter pertaining to faith, in which case the objection would fail. The charism of the Holy Spirit’s assistance, about which the pope speaks in the passage quoted, cannot, therefore, be understood as an absolute protection against error, such as is given in the case of infallible teaching, but rather a grace of office which the pope must avail himself of in order to benefit from, just as grace is given to the justified so that they would not sin, but not so that they could not sin.

Reply to Objection 3: To the third it must be said that this same religious submission is also due to the teaching of the individual bishops, who are certainly not infallible.[32] Indeed, the heretic Nestorius was a bishop. But if the response due to the teaching of individual bishops, who are not infallible, is this same religious assent (or religious submission), then we cannot conclude that the pope is infallible in all his authentic teaching simply from the fact that a religious submission of will and intellect is owed to it.

Reply to Objection 4: To the fourth it must be said that although the pope is the final judge in matters of faith and morals, he is not always acting as final judge even in his official teaching, but only when he speaks ex cathedra. Hence, if there should be controversy over a doctrine taught by the pope in the exercise of his merely authentic magisterium, whereby he proposes a doctrine of faith or morals as true but not in the form of a solemn or final judgment, then the faithful are not left without recourse. They can appeal to the same pope (or a future pope) to issue a definitive judgment on the disputed point and so remove all doubts. And as long as the pope does not do so, it is clear that he does not demand an absolute assent to his teaching.

Reply to Objection 5: To the fifth it must be said that this argument assumes that the First Vatican Council, by raising Cardinal Bellarmine’s so-called “fourth opinion” to the status of a dogma, must also have dogmatized all the further reasons adduced by him in support of his conclusion, of which one indeed was that extreme opinion of Albert Pighius which Bellarmine calls “pious and probable.” But this does not follow. And it is especially absurd to suppse that it entails an endorsement of precisely that opinion which Gasser explicitly rejects as being contained in the meaning of the definition:

As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. . . . From this it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion.[33]

Reply to Objection 6: To the sixth it must be said that this doctrinal commentary carries no juridical authority. For it was issued without the seal of papal approval by which, according to Donum Veritatis §18, the doctrinal decrees of the CDF participate in the ordinary (i.e., authentic) magisterium of the pope. It is therefore permissable to hold that it simply errs on this point. Instead of describing propositions contrary to non-definitive magisterial teaching as false, it would be more accurate to describe all such propositions—and not only those of the prudential order—as rash or dangerous and therefore not able to be safely taught. For this would correspond more closely to the limited but real authority of the kind of teaching in question. That is, since it is not infallible, it could occasionaly be false, and thus the contrary could be true; but because it is authoritative, there is a strong presumption of truth in its favor, on account of which it would be rash and dangerous to hold the contrary without sufficiently grave cause.

Reply to Objection 7: To the seventh it must be said that Franzelin was concerned to emphasize the authority of the authentic papal magisterium against those who would feel themselves free to disregard everything except infallible teaching. But he failed to consider the possibility of authoritative papal teaching that would be in conflict with the previous teaching of the Church.

Reply to Objection 8: To the eighth it must be said that this objection proves only that non-definitive doctrinal judgments can be true even in cases where they are later reversed due to changing circumstances. But it does not prove that they must be true, which would be required in order to uphold the thesis that the pope cannot err in the exercise of his authentic magisterium.

 

[1] Vatican Council I, First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ Pastor Aeternus (1870), ch. 4.

[2] See Wolfgang Beinert, “Unfehlbarkeit,” in Lexicon für Theologie und Kirche, 3rd ed., ed. Walter Kasper, vol. 10 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1993–2001), 390: “Im Anschluß ans Konzil setzte ein Prozeß der ‚schleichenden Infallibilisierung’ ein: Mit dem Anwachsen der päpstl. Lehrautorität (Enzykliken) wächst die Neigung, ihren Äußerungen definitiven Charakter zuzuerkennen.” See also Augustin Schmied, “‘Schleichende Infallibilisierung’: Zur Diskussion um das kirchliche Lehramt,” in In Christus zum Leben befreit: Festschrift für Bernhard Häring, ed. Josef Römelt and Bruno Hidber (Freiburg; Basel; Vienna: Herder, 1992), 250–72.

[3] John Henry Newman, A Letter Addressed to His Grace the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone’s Recent Expostulation (London: Pickering, 1875), 115; cf. Joachim Salaverri, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi (Madrid: Biblioteca Autores Cristianos, 1955), n. 594.

[4] Joseph C. Fenton, “Infallibility in the Encyclicals,” American Ecclesiastical Review 128 (1953): 186.

[5] Pastor Aeternus, ch. 4.

[6] Vatican Council II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium (1964), §25.

[7] Ibid.

[8] The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser at Vatican Council I, trans. James T. O’Connor, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008), 49.

[9] Lumen Gentium, §25.

[10] Salaverri, De Ecclesia Christi, nn. 657–60; 892.

[11] Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566), I, a. 9.

[12] Baltimore Catechism (1891), n. 526.

[13] Pope John Paul II, General Audience (Mar. 24, 1993).

[14] Stephen Walford makes this argument in “The Magisterium of Pope Francis: His Predecessors Come to His Defense,” Vatican Insider (Feb. 7, 2017).

[15] Lumen Gentium, §25.

[16] See The Gift of Infallibility, 59.

[17] Robert Bellarmine, Controversies of the Christian Faith, trans. Kenneth Baker (Keep the Faith, 2016), 970.

[18] Emmett O’Regan makes this argument in “The Heretical Pope Fallacy: The Official Relatio of Vatican I on the Dogmatization of St. Bellarmine’s ‘Fourth Opinion’,” Vatican Insider (Dec. 11, 2017).

[19] CDF, Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Profession of Faith (1998), §10.

[20] See Johann Baptist Franzelin, Tractatus de divina traditione et scriptura (Rome: Marietti, 1870), 116.

[21] Louis Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. 1, 3rd ed. (Prati: Giachetti, 1909), q. 10, th. 19, p. 437.

[22] Pope John Paul II, Address to the Bishops from the United States of America on Their Ad Limina Visit (Oct. 15, 1988).

[23] CDF, Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian Donum Veritatis (1990), §24.

[24] Lumen Gentium, §25.

[25] Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani Secundi (Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1970–99), II/1, 255. My emphasis.

[26] Acta Synodalia III/1, 250. My emphasis.

[27] Cf. Thomas Aquinas, De veritate, q. 14, a. 1.

[28] Cf. Donum Veritatis, §24–31; Salaverri, De Ecclesia Christi, n. 675.

[29] CDF, Profession of Faith (1998).

[30] Pope John Paul II, General Audience (Mar. 10, 1993).

[31] Pope John Paul II, General Audience (Mar. 24, 1993).

[32] Lumen Gentium, §25.

[33] The Gift of Infallibility, 58–59.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email