Giuse Phạm Thanh Liêm, S.J.

Table of Contents

Definition of Vatican I 2

Infallibility- unacceptable for modern men and women. 2

Aim, method and process of this paper 3

I. Truth and reality. 4

1. Reality and human reason. 4

2. True or false- attribute of judgment 5

3. Language and reality. 5

a.) Theories on the relation between concept and reality. 6

b.) Theory accepted implicitly in the Catholic Church. 7

II. Infallibility. 9

1. At the service of revelation and people of God. 10

2. Dogma- formula expressed in definitive time. 11

a.) Formula expressed in time. 12

b.) Development of dogmas. 12

3. Judgment of Pope- infallible. 14

III. Interpretation of dogma. 16

1. Finding meaning of dogma. 16

a.) The objects of infallibility. 16

b.) In what context 17

c.) Interpretation. 17

2. Consensus fidelium.. 19

3. Attitude of Christians. 20

Conclusion. 21

Bibliography: 24





Definition of Vatican I

The First Vatican Council in 1870, in the dogmatic constitution “Pastor Aeternus,” on the Church of Christ, defined the infallibility of the Pope as following:

“It is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of Blessed Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his church to be endowed in defining the doctrine concerning faith or morals;  and that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable of themselves, not because of the consent of the Church (ex sese, non autem ex consensu ecclesiae) …” (CF.839/DS.3073-3074).

Infallibility- unacceptable for modern men and women

The definition of Papal infallibility caused much discussion in Church history because of its special theological importance and moral influence.

Hans Küng called upon Luther’s position in the past: “In his answer to Prierias in 1518, Luther had frankly stated that both Pope and council can err.”[1] Hans Küng himself criticized Vatican II’s position: “the statement about an infallibility of the college of bishops, based on the traditional, unhistorical theory of a direct and exclusive apostolic succession of the bishops, exegetically, historically, theologically, have feet of clay.”[2]

            The dogmas in the Catholic Church, and especially the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope and of the bishops in the councils in communion with the Pope, seem to be irrational to modern men and women, because they claim to be true and irreversible. In fact, the human being is finite; his reason, his understanding and language are finite. Nobody is not mistaken: “Errare humanum est.” Any sentence spoken could be misunderstood. No language could express reality completely! So it would be wrong to claim that the Pope is infallible, even “ex cathedra,” that the college of bishops in communion with the pope is infallible, and that the people of God in communion with their bishop and with the Pope are infallible even on faith or morals. The dogma would not be true in every period using the human language, because the mentality of human beings changes with time, when people of different cultures understand differently defined formula!

Aim, method and process of this paper

            This paper first tries to make the dogma of Papal infallibility intelligible and then the Catholic dogmas acceptable for people today. This paper will use the correlative method. It will examine first the relation between truth and reality, second the meaning of the infallibility of the Pope, and finally the interpretation of the dogmas.

I. Truth and reality

            True and false are the words often used in daily life and in the religious language. The relation between reality and knowledge will be considered through the relation between reason, judgment and language with reality.

1. Reality and human reason

Everyone dies. One can do many things, but his strength does not belong to his will. He cannot understand all, as he wants. He cannot express totally to others what he understands. He experiences himself as limited.

The human being is finite. His reason and language are finite, too. The intelligence of human beings cannot grasp entirely reality; likewise, human language cannot express wholly reality. Judgment and language reflect only in certain measure reality.

Moreover if reality is a person or the absolute, then human intelligence cannot understand it completely! Free being is ineffable.

2. True or false- attribute of judgment

Truth and falsity are the attributes of judgment. Judgment is knowledge, but judgment might be true or false. “The falsity consists in saying yes to what does not exist and no to what exists, and the truth consists in saying yes to what exists and no to what does not exist.”[3] If judgment is not done, there is no falsity.[4]

“Truth is the adequation of intelligence to reality.”[5] Truth is always the truth of a judgment, and falsity is the falsity of a judgment. It cannot separate truth from judgment, not judgment from intelligence.

Judgment is one of many acts of human reason. Human reason is finite; thus it cannot grasp completely reality, so human judgment cannot cover completely reality. Human language thus cannot describe completely reality.

3. Language and reality

The relationship between reason, concept, judgment, and language to reality is an important problem.

a.) Theories on the relation between concept and reality

            Some theories exist about the relationship between concept and reality. Platonic theory presumes that the ideas are real, the changing world is the image created in the form of the world of ideas. With this theory, ideas are real but the changing world in which human beings live is not real. This theory assumes that ideas exist already in human beings when they are born. Knowledge is reminiscence for Plato’s theory.

Aristotelian theory presumes that this changing world is real. Concepts are formed by experiences through the five senses of human beings in this world. The concepts reflect reality. Thomas Aquinas adopted this theory. Moderate realism of St. Thomas supports that there is a certain relation between concept and reality. To have knowledge, human beings have to experience reality to construct concepts and then knowledge.

The third theory assumes that a concept is created by human intelligence. The relation between ideas and this changing world is convention. It is something similar with the relation between traffic signs and its meaning. All depends upon the human being. There is no intrinsic relation between concept and reality.

b.) Theory accepted implicitly in the Catholic Church

The Church has taught that dogmas are true, irreversible, and then she accepts implicitly the intrinsic relation of idea and language to reality. So the Church accepts Aristotle and Thomas’ theory on knowledge. When affirming the dogma is true and irreversible for all times, that means, judgment and language can reflect reality.

Asian cultures do not support this understanding. In no way can human languages express totally reality. “The Truth people can talk of is not the unchanging truth; the Name people can call is not the unchanging Name.” (Tao Te Ching, 1, 1). A human being approaches the reality, but cannot grasp it completely by his reason, concepts, and language. As a result, if people do not live and accept this western ideology informed by Plato and Aristotle’ philosophies, then it is very difficult –or impossible- to accept the infallibility of the Pope or of the college of the bishops in the councils.

Asian mentality does not regard dogma as important, because it understands each religion to have different but valid and unique views of the absolute reality. There are different understandings, various expressions, and different doctrines; for example, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Jewish, Islamic, and Christian tradition.

In this century of fast communication, Asian philosophy is influencing Europe and America. Though St. Thomas talked about the negative affirmation when human beings talk of God, it is not so strong as in Asian cultures. In this mentality, human reason cannot grasp totally reality, but only approaches and describes it. Moreover, human beings from different regions and cultures grasp the reality in different viewpoints and aspects, and then they expressed it in different languages and levels and aspects. For example, Hinduism expresses the reality as Atman who is transcendental and immanent, Buddhism utters the reality as Nothingness or Nihility, which as a principle embraces all, and Taoism articulates the reality as the ineffable Truth or Name.

A shift in ideology necessitates a shift in expressions, even Catholic dogmas, so that people in the new mentality could understand it. Human intelligence cannot grasp it totally; furthermore human language cannot communicate it entirely. However, dogmas always reflect the ineffable reality that is God in a certain measure.

A Catholic must accept the infallibility of the Pope and of the college of bishops in councils, as well the dogmas in the ideological system which conceives and utters it. In all ideological systems, human beings have to use the concepts and languages to express the absolute reality. And so, there are some formulas that reflect reality well, and some expressions that do not expose reality properly. The problem to find the best formulas is still there. Until the Church find the best formula to express the Reality, the existent formulas must be used to express it. And even when the Church has found the best formulas, the former ones would still have their value, at least historically. Therefore, Catholics must try to understand correctly the formulas and help others in different cultures and ideological systems understand them.

Reality is always the standard to recognize what is true or false. Judgment is true in so far as it reflects more or less reality.

II. Infallibility

            Infallibility is not only a great grace of the Pope but also of the college of bishops in the councils when they exercise their charge of teaching in the name of his function. The Second Council Vatican taught that:

“Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves with Peter’s successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.

This is still more clearly the case when, assembled in an ecumenical council, they are, for the universal Church, teachers of and judges in matters of faith and morals, whose decisions must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith.

This infallibility, however, with which the divine redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining doctrine pertaining to faith and morals, is co-extensive with the deposit or revelation, which must be religiously guarded and loyally and courageously expounded.

The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful- who affirms his brethrens in the faith- he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church…” (L.G.25)

1. At the service of revelation and people of God

            The most important reality is God. Understanding God will help human beings to recognize the love of God for humankind and to be happy.

Creation is the act of God who is love. By the gift of the only Son of God, human beings recognize God’s love for them. This deposit of the revelation is entrusted to the Church, concretely in the authoritative teachings of the Church, so that the integrity of revelation is protected. Therefore, the magisterium has charge to protect that truth. So whatever causes faithful to understand wrongly revelation and Jesus Christ, the magisterium has the duty to make signs to the faithful. Otherwise, the magisterium does not accomplish its charge.

The magisterium serves revelation, that is, to teach and keep entirely revelation that was done in Scripture and in Tradition, both written and non-written. The Magisterium is not superior to Scripture or Tradition, but recognizes what God spoke to human beings and transmits it and keeps it integral to this and oncoming generations.

The Church is always under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and always understands correctly the revelation entrusted to it. Thus, to be faithful to the doctrine expressed by the Church in the past is a sign of being the right way for the Church today. Our faith is apostolic, that is, what the apostles believed, we believe, too. In some fields the coming generations can understand and express revelation more clearly and deeply, but the understanding and the expression of faith of the first generations was not wrong. Jesus Christ and the inspired Scriptures are always the norm which helps the faithful to understand correctly revelation in history.

2. Dogma- formula expressed in definitive time

            Dogma is a formula about faith and morals which is revealed and defined by the Pope or the college of bishops in council (fide divina and catholica), or which is defined because it is very important and necessary to protect the Catholic doctrine (fide catholica).

a.) Formula expressed in time

Dogma is a formula expressing the beliefs of Christians in a definitive time and space.

The Congregation for the doctrine of the Faith wrote in its 1973 declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae:

“With regard to this historical condition, the meaning of the pronouncements of faith depends upon the expressive power of the language used at a certain point in time and in particular circumstances.”[6]

This document shows that dogma is dependent upon the language of some generations, so human beings have to try understanding it correctly. This statement is very good and appropriate to people today.

Human beings in the world are from many different races, educational systems, and cultures. So they look at reality with different view and express it with different language and terms. Therefore, to understand dogmas correctly, it is necessary to interpret them in the cultural context of hearers, or the hearers have to embed the culture of the dogma.

b.) Development of dogmas

Dogmas reflect incompletely reality. Thus, the development of dogmas can be performed.

“Moreover some dogmatic truth is first expressed incompletely (but not falsely), and at a later date, when considered in a broader context of faith or human knowledge, it receives a fuller and more perfect expression. In addition, when the church makes new pronouncements she intends to confirm or clarify what is in some way contained in sacred scripture or in previous expressions of tradition; but at the same time she usually has the intention of solving certain questions or removing certain errors.”[7]

The new dogmas do not exclude former dogmas. St. Thomas talked about the negative way in theology. The language about the absolute reality is analogical language. For example, God is three persons but the divine “persons” are not the same as human “persons”. The dogma signifies the reality, but is not identified with the reality.

            The dogmatic formulas are limited, so they cannot express totally the reality. Formulas or dogmatic expressions are not synonymous with reality but are not wrong.

“In view of the above, it must be stated that the dogmatic formulas of the church’s magisterium were from the very beginning suitable for communicating revealed truth, and that as they are they remain forever suitable for communicating this truth to those who interpret them correctly. It does not however follow that every one of these formulas has always been or will always be so to the same extent. For this reason theologians seek to define exactly the intention of teaching proper to the various formulas, and in carrying out this work they are of considerable assistance to the living magisterium of the church, to which they remain subordinate.”[8]

The dogma is understood correctly in the Tradition and needed to be explained, but human beings who do not have many occasions to live in Tradition cannot understand it correctly if the culture or ambiance changes. The formulas need to be taught or to be reformulated. Irreformability is predicated of their meaning, not of dogmatic formulas as such.

            About the fear of relativism, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said:

 “The faithful therefore must shun the opinion, first, that dogmatic formulas (or some category of them) cannot signify truth in a determinate way, but can only offer changeable approximations to it, which to a certain extent distort or alter it; secondly, that these formulas signify the truth only in an indeterminate way, this truth being like a goal that is constantly being sought by means of such approximations. Those hold such an opinion do not avoid dogmatic relativism and they corrupt the concept of the church’s infallibility relative to the truth to be taught or held in a determinate way.”[9]

Some theologians do not agree with this view. One can state the relativity of the dogma, but not fall into relativism. This is exact if someone understands dogmas, as Rahner did, who did not fall in dogmatic relativism.

3. Judgment of Pope- infallible

            Richard R. Gaillardetz said that:

“Any consideration of the infallibility of the extraordinary magisterium must begin with the honest admission that we are dealing with the development of a doctrine that cannot be found explicitly in Scripture... It would be historically irresponsible to claim that the early Church explicitly professed the doctrine of infallibility for either Pope or council.”[10]


“the influence of the Church of Rome and its bishop on other Churches is evident already by the end of the second century.”[11]

The whole Church is infallible. The Pope is a member of the Church, and the college of bishops that includes Pope is a member of the whole Church, too. If the Church is infallible, but nobody in the Church, for example the Pope or the college of the bishops, is infallible, then this infallibility is very vague. It is very appropriate for the Pope as a special member of the Church, a representative bishop of all the college of bishops to have the grace of infallibility. Therefore, the infallibility of the Pope may be seen as based on the infallibility of the whole Church which the Holy Spirit is always with and guides.

When the Pope speaks ex cathedra on faith or moral subjects, he is infallible. The Pope is not wrong in judgment, but this does not mean that others can understand correctly his expression! His expression depends upon his natural and scientific knowledge, his education and culture; and the understanding depends on the hearers’ educational system and culture. Therefore, interpretation of dogmas is an important work for the Church today.

III. Interpretation of dogma

            This is similar to the revelation in the Scripture. What is revealed is true, however Scriptures are also the books of human beings, thus their expressions are conditioned by the authors’ cultures, education and generations. The expressions are true, but that does not ensure that all people of all generations understand it correctly.

            The faithful believe that they are true, and must try to understand them correctly.

1. Finding meaning of dogma

            Many Christians are influenced by modern mentality and Asian culture, so theologians today must try to understand the dogmas correctly, then try to make it intelligible to people today.

a.) The objects of infallibility

The Pope, the ecumenical councils, and bishops dispersed in the entire world united with their head, that is the bishop of Rome, are infallible only on moral and faith problems in teaching in the name of his function. Hence Scripture does not essentially teach us scientific knowledge but comprehension of God and ways to live rightly. The function of the Pope, of the ecumenical councils and of the college of bishops is the same. When they teach on other problems, they are as fallible as anyone else. For example, someone may want to find in the scripture the proof against the theory of evolution, or against of the theory that “the earth turns around the sun”.

To interpret correctly the authoritative teaching of the Church, interpreters have to recognize exactly what belongs to the objects of the infallibility.

b.) In what context

To understand appropriately the dogmas, Christians have to understand in what context were the dogmas defined. So it is necessary to understand history in order to understand what the dogmas signify, for example the heresies against which the dogmas were formulated.

Someone in eastern culture is difficult to understand the dogmas uttered in western culture and Greek philosophy. To understand the dogmas someone has to understand the culture and the implicated philosophy.

There is special context that documents were made. Christians need to understand the contexts to discern exactly what they signify.

c.) Interpretation

The magisterium defined dogmas so that people of God know to live rightly and freely according to God’s will in this world. The magisterium defined dogmas to serve people of God, not to show the truth in sake of the truth.

To understand dogmas correctly, the faithful have to recognize or to weigh the level of the authoritative teachings. Thus the faithful must ask[12]:

·        who is speaking? Is that a Pope? Or is it a council? Is it an ecumenical council or regional council? Or is it a bishop in his local church?

·        what do they want to teach? Is it on faith or morals, or something else?

·        to whom is this teaching addressed? If it is a papal teaching, then did he teach to the universal Church or to a local Church? If it is an ecumenical council, then did it teach to the universal Church or local Church?

·        what kind of document is issued? Is it a constitution, or a decree, or a declaration, or an encyclical?

·        what is the goal of this teaching? Is it to react against a heresy, or is it an intervention in a theological discourse, or is it a definition on faith or morals?

·        what is the level of the authority involved? Is it a simple teaching, or a declaration, or a solemn definition?

The interpretation will be realized in the following framework[13]:

1) the historical factors of this document

2) the meaning of the word and the text in its structure

3) the fitting with the biblical message and with the doctrinal text in the history

4) expressing the understanding in concepts and terms comprehensively.

2. Consensus fidelium

The Church is a living reality animated and guided by Holy Spirit in any time at any vicissitudes of history. The Church must be always ready to listen to the Holy Spirit who talks through signs to the generation. The people of God are always in truth and the love of God.

The Council of Trent defined the canon of Scripture, but before that Christians in the entire world had accepted Scripture as it was in that time. One can say that the Council of Trent publicized what all the Catholic Church had received and already believed. All dogmas were accepted by the Catholic Church, but it could not be concluded that the reception of dogma is condition “sine qua non” so that a dogma defined to be a dogma.

The reception of the dogma will take place if a theological expression is defined as dogma, otherwise it would not be a dogma. If an traditional expression is not accepted then Christians explain it so that people today can understand it correctly, for example, the formula “nulla salus extra ecclesiam”. It is in the historical context that this statement must be understood. The dogma is received by all the Church, because of the sensus fidelium[14], that is, the people of God recognize the dogma as their belief which God has revealed. If one so-called dogma was not accepted by the people of God, thus this so-called dogma would be reexamined.

The Church today decides what are the meanings of the dogmas. The tradition constituted by faith expressed in history of the Church is very important. It helps the Church today to recognize what is the essential faith of the Church. In defining dogmas, the Pope or councils do not need the consensus of the people, but in fact they do not contradict the people’s thinking if they are true dogmas. The whole Church is infallible, too.

3. Attitude of Christians

            If the authoritative teachings defined something as the divine and catholic truth, then the faithful have to believe it with firm faith. If the authoritative teaching taught definitively something as truth, then the faithful has to take it firmly. If the authoritative teaching taught something even non-definitively, then the faithful have to obey with free will and intellect.[15]

The magisterium is important for Christians because bishops receive the teaching office from God by sacrament. Christian believes that Scripture is the words of God, which shows the relationship between God and human beings, allowing human beings to know themselves, and teaches human beings how to live happily. But there are various interpretations of Scripture that are contrary each other. To recognize what is true, Christians have to base on the whole Scripture, tradition, and magisterium of the Church.


Within Catholicism there exists many different definitions of theology. Saint Anselm defined theology as “fides quaerens intellectum.”[16] According to Francis A. Sullivan, “a theologian is a person who is committed to seeking a contemporary understanding of his or her faith,”[17] so “a Catholic theologian is a person who is committed to seeking a contemporary understanding of the faith from within the Catholic tradition.”[18] David Tracy has described the goal of all systematic theology as “the reinterpretation of a religious tradition by committed and informed thinkers in that tradition.”[19] According to Schillebeeckx, “the new theology can be positively defined as a science which is based on a rational, empirically deduced theory which can only be formulated after the results of religious sociology and psychology have been fully assimilated and worked out.”[20]

In fact, many theologians have not agreed with various positions of the magisterium. Many theologians, named pluralists, affirm themselves as within Catholic Tradition, but the magisterium regard them as separate from the Tradition, that is, their teaching or theology are not conform to Catholic doctrine. There are tensions between magisterium and theologians. That happens probably because:

·        magisterium and some theologians have different audience,[21]

·        they have different conception on truth and knowledge of the absolute reality.

The audience of theology is as varied as Catholic faithful, academic audience, faithful of all religions, or people in modern time, and even atheists. Pluralist theologians want to have as their audience the members of all world religions. The magisterium has as their audience Catholics. Rudolf Bultmann, Edward Schillebeeckx, and some other theologians fix their eyes on modern people. To avoid the inconvenient tension and bad judgment on one another, theologians need to affirm clearly their audience and appropriate language.

            There are various religions in the world. Each religion expresses the absolute reality in different concepts, languages, cultures, and ideological systems. Yesterday Pope John Paul II entered a Muslim temple to pray; that is a sign to see God is everywhere and in every religion. Catholics must respect other religions and have a high opinion of their theologies, too.

By the concept of relationship between reality, concept and language in chapter one, it is possible for Christians to accept other religious traditions in the world, and to resolve the problem of dogmas and of the infallibility of the Pope and of the college of the bishops in the councils. However, it is very difficult to shift from one to the other and back.

The dogmas and the infallibility of the magisterium still are means to help Christians in Christian culture to approach the absolute reality. However the Church must also present the Good News in other cultures; thus, the Church has to use a different language to talk with them through her theologians who are members and sons or daughters of the Church.











Richard R. Gaillardetz, Teaching with Authority: A Theology of the Magisterium in the Church, (Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1997)

Hans Küng, Infallible? An Inquiry (New York, 1971)

Edward Schillebeeckx, The Understanding of Faith: Interpretation and criticism (New York: Seabury Press, 1974)

Edit. Ted Schoof, The Schillebeeckx Case: Official Exchange of Letter and Documents in the Investigation of Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1976-1980 (New York: Paulist Press, 1984)

Francis A. Sullivan, Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church, (New York: Paulist Press, 1983)

Francis A. Sullivan, Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, (New York: Paulist Press, 1996)

F-J. Thonnard, Précis d’histoire de la Philosophie, DESCLÉE et Cie, PARIS 1966

David Tracy, The Analogical Imagination, Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism (New York: Crossroad, 1981)





Chúc bạn an vui hạnh phúc.

Giuse Phạm Thanh Liêm, S.J.

[email protected]



[1] Hans Küng, Infallible? An Inquiry (New York, 1971) 193

[2] Ibidem, 86

Quoted by Francis A. Sullivan, Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church, (New York: Paulist Press, 1983) 35

[3] ARISTOTE, Meùtaphysique, IV, 7

Cf. F-J.THONNARD, op. cit., p. 93

[4] St.Thomas, Kant and Husserl accepted the same.

Cf. F-J. THONNARD, Preùcis d’histoire de la Philosophie, DESCLEÙE et Cie, PARIS 1966, p. 1022.

ARISTOTELES, VI Metaphys., c.4: 1027, b, 25-29 quoted by ST.THOMAE AQUINATIS S.T., I, q.16, a.1: “Sed contra est quod Philosophus dicit quod verum et falsum non sunt in rebus sed in intellectu”.


·         a.1, corp.: “Quod autem dicitur quod veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus, potest ad utrum pertinere ... Sic ergo veritas principaliter est in intellectu; secundario vero in rebus, secudum quod comparantur ad intellectum ut ad principium”;

·         a.2, 1: “Praeterea, Ysaac dicit, in libro de Difinitionibus, quod veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus”.

[6] Mysterium ecclesiae, pp. 12-14 quoted by

Francis A. Sullivan, Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, (New York: Paulist Press, 1996) 34-35

[7] Declaration in defence of the Catholic doctrine on the Church against certain errors of the present day, Vatican City, 1973, chap.5, p. 12-14

Quoted by Francis A. Sullivan, Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church, (New York: Paulist Press, 1983) 34-35

[8] Ibidem

[9] Ibidem

[10] Richard R. Gaillardetz, Teaching with Authority: A Theology of the Magisterium in the Church, (Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1997) 193

[11] Richard R. Gaillardetz, Teaching with Authority: A Theology of the Magisterium in the Church, (Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1997) 204

[12] Cfr. Francis A. Sullivan, Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church, (New York: Paulist Press, 1983) 20-22

[13] Ibidem, 110 ff

[14] Richard R. Gaillardetz, Teaching with Authority: A Theology of the Magisterium in the Church, (Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1997), 230

[15] Cfr. Code of Canon Law, #750. 752

[16] Francis A. Sullivan, Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, (New York: Paulist Press, 1996) 5

[17] Ibidem 7

[18] Ibidem 8

[19] David Tracy, The Analogical Imagination, Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism (New York: Crossroad, 1981) 66

[20] Edward Schillebeeckx, The Understanding of Faith: Interpretation and criticism (New York: Seabury Press, 1974) 136

[21] Edit. Ted Schoof, The Schillebeeckx Case: Official Exchange of Letter and Documents in the Investigation of Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1976-1980 (New York: Paulist Press, 1984) 119