In this my final commentary on the brilliant paper that Father Peter Damian Fehlner delivered at Fatima on May 7, 2005,1 I hope to wrap up my analysis of this extraordinary document. I will not have exhausted it, but I hope to have rendered it more accessible to the general reader because it is a theological treasure to be shared in these days of darkness.
I had a professor of metaphysics almost sixty years ago who used to repeat repetitio mater studiorum, which may be rendered “repetition is the mother of studies” or “of students”; it can be translated either way with the same basic understanding. So, I have chosen to repeat here the text with which I concluded my last installment.
No doubt a good many current practitioners of the theological trade and ecumenists would strongly disagree with this position and perspective. Nonetheless, “agreed statements” resting on consensus building rather than truth, however much they promise a realization of the long-desired oikumene just beyond the horizon, never reach that horizon. The illusion is fostered by describing religious pluralism and dogmatic indifferentism as diversity within unity, especially in reference to the maternal mediation of Mary Immaculate and a right to “de-dogmatize” the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, and by describing secular progress and a bene esse consisting in this-worldly prosperity as “eschatological fulfilment” or salvation.
But none of this will change a very simple fact (et contra factum non datur argumentum): the crisis, including above all its ecumenical and theological dimensions, will not only continue, but will worsen, until the Church confesses publicly the absolute priority of the cause of Mary Coredemptrix. This is, to adapt a famous Lutheran axiom, the articulus stantis aut cadentis Ecclesiae. Only thus can the root of secularism be exorcised and the new evangelization of the West, and the renewed civilization of love be genuinely, successfully initiated.
I wish here to include here further commentary on this final paragraph. It is here that Father Peter Damian once again showed himself to be a genuine prophet. He penned and spoke these words in the early days of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI when, to outward appearances, the situation in the Church seemed to be relatively stable, even though we now realize that underneath it was not. Now whoever has eyes to see and ears to hear can evaluate for himself the state of the crisis in the world and in the Church. It is far worse than it was in 2005. Confusion, irrationality and chaos reign. Father Peter was insisting on solid theological foundations that what seems to be a marginal matter is really crucial. Recognizing the explicit role given to Mary as the one who is to crush the head of the serpent (cf. Gen. 3:15) takes precedence over everything else.
Toward the end of his paper, Father Peter argued that no one at that stage could really deny the truth of Marian Coredemption and Mediation (contra factum non datur argumentum) because the tradition, the previous papal magisterium and the consensus of the symposium were so clear about the matter. Unfortunately, I do not believe that is any longer the case. Let me here outline the steps that have led to this situation.
The Present Atmosphere in Documents and Statements of the Holy See
- Already in the 1961 and 1962 redactions of the Prænotanda to the Schema of the document that would eventually become chapter eight of Lumen Gentium, the Council Fathers were forbidden by “higher authority” to use the words Coredemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces even though it was admitted that these terms were absolutely true in themselves [licet in se verissima], but could only be understood with difficulty by Protestants. Along with a few others, I believe that this was part of a certain tendency to doctrinal vagueness which pervaded a number of the Council documents and which after the council promoted a specifically lopsided ecumenism ready to compromise Catholic teaching, which is far from dead.
- Clearly, the Second Vatican Council did teach the doctrine of Marian Coredemption in Lumen Gentium nn. 56-58 and 60-61 in 1964 as I have often underscored throughout this series. Unfortunately, this data was deliberately ignored by the major commentators on the Marian teaching of the council.
- While it is true that Pope Saint John Paul II was a veritable champion of Marian Coredemption more than all of his predecessors, teaching about it with remarkable clarity and brilliance, yet he stopped using the word “Coredemptrix” and “coredemptive” in the year 1992, very likely under the influence of Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, the faculty of the Pontifical Faculty Marianum and the leadership of the Pontifical International Marian Academy. All the evidence for this abrupt turning away from the deepening theological tradition points to the practice of lowest-common-denominator ecumenism promoted ever since the Second Vatican Council. Nonetheless, John Paul II continued to teach the doctrine of Marian Coredemption to the end of his life. I believe that he followed his heart, which led him in one direction, while he tried to follow the obligatory ecumenical path, which restricted him.
- The next major assault in the agenda arsenal against Marian Coredemption was the launching of the “Częstochowa Declaration,” which was signed by twenty-three theologians (including five non-Catholics) during the 12th Mariological Congress in Częstochowa, Poland in August 1996, but only released on 4 June 1997. However courteous this consultation may have seemed toward our separated brethren, those outside of the household of faith are not full-fledged representatives of the sensus fidei, and in this case would be expected to be promoters of lowest-common-denominator ecumenism. Recall that the second paragraph of this declaration states:
Even if the titles [Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate] were assigned a content which could be accepted as belonging to the deposit of the faith, the definition of these titles, however, in the present theological situation would be lacking in clarity, as such titles and the doctrines inherent in them still require further study in a renewed Trinitarian, ecclesiological and anthropological perspective. Finally, the theologians, especially the non-Catholics, were sensitive to the ecumenical difficulties which would be involved in such a definition.
As I have already stated, the first and most important fact to be kept in mind about the declaration and the two accompanying commentaries is that they are not official documents of the Holy See and one will look for them in vain in the Acta Apostolicæ Sedis, although they were published in L’Osservatore Romano as well as in the weekly English and other language editions of that paper. Unfortunately, it should also be kept in mind that this declaration has become the de facto official position of the Vatican Secretariat of State and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Note well that from the statement in the Prænotanda issued in 1961 and 1962, the position has gone from the title “Coredemptrix as being absolutely true in itself” to “such titles and the doctrines inherent in them still requiring further study,” a move from certitude to lack of certitude.
- The next move against the concept of Mary Coredemptrix was the subsequent publication of the Pontifical International Marian Academy for the new millennium: The Mother of the Lord: Memory, Presence, Hope as indicating the way forward for all Marian studies. Here are paragraphs 69 and 70 from that guidebook:
Genuine ecumenism does not compromise or change the depositum fidei on the Blessed Virgin Mary, but proposes, through shared and sincere study and dialogue, to help the brothers and sisters of other Christian confessions to know the full revelation concerning Mary of Nazareth and to ponder their situation in view of our historical and cultural explanation of the image of the Virgin Mary. We believe that it would be a serious disappointment if the current discussions on the Mother of God would be an obstacle to rather than a factor for promoting Christian unity.
Relying on the teaching of John Paul II, we believe it opportune to recall some principles and norms which should guide theologians in mariological questions. They should follow the lines traced out in Vatican II’s decree Unitatis reditegratio and the constitution Lumen Gentium, which urge theologians to “carefully refrain from whatever might by word or deed lead the separated brethren or any others whatsoever into error about the true doctrine of the Church.” …
This requires that Marian studies:
– avoid long-standing prejudices (through a purification of the historical memory) and eliminate “expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult”; …
– refrain from imposing on brothers and sisters not in full communion with the Catholic Church “any burden beyond that which is strictly necessary (cf. Acts 15:28), a counsel especially applicable to doctrinal matters concerning Mary which are disputed even among Catholic theologians themselves.
– use carefully, with great surveillance, terms and formulas related to the Virgin Mary (purification of language). Words or formulas which are not of ancient provenance or are not accepted by a great number of Catholic theologians do not promote mutual understanding; moreover, they arouse grave uneasiness among our brothers and sisters who are not in full communion with the Church; it is best to use terms which express the doctrine precisely and effectively without allowing the possibility of false interpretations.
Of course, “Genuine ecumenism does not compromise or change the depositum fidei on the Blessed Virgin Mary,” but the “experts” effectively go on to imply that any teaching on Mary’s active collaboration in the work of the redemption and mediation of grace is merely an in-house dispute and would be upsetting to our separated brethren. The “experts” were also clever in their selective citing of John Paul II. For instance, the International Theological Commission under the guidance of the then-Cardinal Ratzinger produced a document entitled Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past in 1999 as a preparation for the Jubilee Year of 2000 and it was followed up by John Paul II, who openly confessed the faults of the Church in the past and asked forgiveness for them. The “experts” seized upon this terminology and proposed “a purification of the historical memory” and even more specifically of a “purification of language” i.e., “words or formulas which are not of ancient provenance or are not accepted by a great number of Catholic theologians” and which obviously “do not promote mutual understanding.” They had already stated that “terminology and images used by many theologians before Vatican II” should be eschewed. Then they went a step further and implied that such terminology as coredemption and mediation should be avoided as a “purification of language” as if it were offensive.
- I would prefer not to have to deal with the three occasions in which Pope Francis has thus far explicitly denied that Mary may legitimately be recognized as the Corredemptrix of the human race, which is deeply embedded in the Catholic Tradition, the teaching of the saints and of his predecessors, but this would be dishonest.
a. In his homily on the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, 12 December 2019, Francis stated that
Faithful to her Teacher who is her Son, the only Redeemer, she never wished to appropriate anything of her Son for herself. She never presented herself as a Co-redeemer. No, a disciple. … When they come to us with stories that it was necessary to declare this, or do this other dogma or this, let’s not get lost in nonsense: Mary is a woman, she is Our Lady, Mary is the Mother of her Son and of the Holy Mother hierarchical Church and Mary is mestizo, woman of our peoples, but who mestizo God.
Of course, Mary never intended to appropriate anything to herself, but that does not mean that she did not redeem the world in union with her Son or that God did not will this. Franics’ use of language here is not the precise language of recent popes who made appropriate distinctions, but rather careless and “off the cuff.” Pope Benedict XV in his Letter Inter Sodalicia of 22 May 1918 stated: “Mary suffered and, as it were, nearly died with her suffering Son; for the salvation of mankind she renounced her mother’s rights and, as far as it depended on her, offered her Son to placate divine justice; so we may well say that she with Christ redeemed mankind.” What can one make of Francis’ reference to the theological tradition of the Church as nonsense? As to the mestizo reference to Mary, Francis argues that Mary appeared as a mestizo at Guadalupe. As to calling God a mestizo, I leave that to others.
b. In his homily on the commemoration of Our Lady of Sorrows, the Friday before Good Friday, 3 April 2020 he said:
Our Lady never asked anything for herself, never. Yes, for others: let us think of Cana, when she goes to speak with Jesus. Never did she say: “I am the mother, look at me: I will be the queen mother.” She never said it. She never asked anything important for herself within the apostolic college. She agrees simply to be a Mother. She accompanied Jesus like a disciple, because the Gospel shows that she followed Jesus: with her friends, pious women, she followed Jesus, she listened to Jesus. One time someone recognized her: “Ah, here is the mother.” “Your mother is here” (see Mk 3:31) … She followed Jesus. All the way to Calvary. And there, on her feet… surely, the people would have said: “But, poor woman, how she must be suffering,” and the evil ones surely would have said: “But, she is guilty too, because if she had brought Him up well he would not have ended up this way.” She was there, with the Son, with the Son’s humiliation.
Honor Our Lady and say: “This is my Mother,” because she is a Mother. And this is the title she received from Jesus, right there, at the moment of the Cross (see Jn. 19:26-27). Your children, you are Mother. He did not make her prime minister or give her “functional” titles. Only “Mother.” And then, the Acts of the Apostles show her in prayer with the apostles as Mother (see Acts 1:14). Our Lady did not want to take away any title from Jesus; she received the gift of being His Mother and the duty to accompany us as Mother, to be our Mother. She did not ask for herself to be a quasi-redeemer or a co-redeemer: no. There is only one Redeemer and this title cannot be duplicated. She is merely disciple and Mother. And thus, it is as Mother we need to think of her, seek her and pray to her. She is the Mother. In the Mother Church. In the maternity of Our Lady we see the maternity of the Church who welcomes everyone, the good and the evil ones: everyone.
Although this text raises many questions, I just raise these: Did Mary choose her own role or mission? What do these words of Simeon prophesy: “Your own soul will be pierced by a sword so that the thoughts of many hearts may be laid bare” (Lk. 2:35)? Is Mary’s primary role to be a disciple?
c. On the 24th of March 2021 Francis said:
Today the catechesis is dedicated to prayer in communion with Mary. It occurs precisely on the Vigil of the Solemnity of the Annunciation. We know that the main pathway of Christian prayer is the humanity of Jesus. In fact, the confidence typical of Christian prayer would be meaningless if the Word had not become incarnate, giving us in the Spirit His filial relationship with the Father. We heard in the Scripture of the gathering of the disciples, the pious women and Mary, praying after Jesus’s Ascension. The first Christian community was awaiting Jesus’ gift, Jesus’ promise.
Christ is the Mediator, Christ is the bridge that we cross to turn to the Father (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2674). He is the only Redeemer: there are no co-redeemers with Christ. He is the only one. He is the Mediator par excellence. He is the Mediator. Each prayer we raise to God is through Christ, with Christ and in Christ and it is fulfilled thanks to his intercession. The Holy Spirit extends Christ’s mediation through every time and every place: there is no other name by which we can be saved: Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and humanity (see Acts 4:12).
Due to Christ’s one mediation, other references Christians find for their prayer and devotion take on meaning, first among them being the Virgin Mary, the Mother of Jesus. …
Mary is completely directed toward Him (see CCC, 2674) to such an extent that we can say she is more disciple than Mother. The directions she gave at the wedding at Cana: “Do whatever he will tell you.” She always refers to Christ. She is the first disciple. …
Jesus extended Mary’s maternity to the entire Church when He entrusted her to his beloved disciple shortly before dying on the cross. From that moment on, we have all been gathered under her mantle, as depicted in certain medieval frescoes or paintings. Even the first Latin antiphon — sub tuum praesidium confugimus, sancta Dei Genitrix: the Madonna who ‘covers,’ like a Mother, to whom Jesus entrusted us, all of us; but as a Mother, not as a goddess, not as co-redeemer: as Mother. It is true that Christian piety has always given her beautiful titles, as a child gives his or her mamma: how many beautiful things children say about their mamma whom they love so much! How many beautiful things. But we need to be careful: the things the Church, the Saints, say about her, beautiful things, about Mary, subtract nothing from Christ’s sole Redemption. He is the only Redeemer. They are expressions of love like a child for his or her mamma — some are exaggerated. But love, as we know, always makes us exaggerate things, but out of love.
What does all of this mean in the light of Catholic Tradition? Happily, this has been dealt with in a very gracious and scholarly manner in the excellent article “Observations on Pope Francis’ ‘March 24’ Comments” by Dr. Robert Fastiggi.
In the light of these very unfortunate tirades I believe it is necessary to clarify some very fundamental issues.
- Too many Catholics too readily assume that every word of the pope is effectively infallible, but there are very serious limits to papal infallibility. Such declarations do not meet them. Statements of popes, which contradict the received teaching of their predecessors, need to be scrutinized with very great care. The Tradition develops; it cannot contradict what is already established. Popes are to be guardians of the Tradition; they have no authority to change it.
- I believe that these statements of Pope Francis can in no way be held to be irreversible or infallible teaching, but unfortunately Catholics who do not know their faith well can be easily misled. For this reason, the struggle against the powers of darkness for the definition of the fifth Marian dogma has been rendered much more difficult because the impression has been given that the “official” Church opposes it in favor of political ecumenism.
Father Peter Damian’s Solution
Even though Father Peter Damian did not foresee this final stage of darkness in 2005 when he wrote this essay, he was still on the right track. Here is the heart of what he proposed:
On the basis of what I believe, on the basis of what I have heard during this Symposium in so holy and so Marian a place, and in the light of history, I would offer this suggestion for consideration as a conclusion to this Symposium. The first bears on doctrinal aspects of our Lady’s “unique cooperation in the work of salvation” and it is this: That the entire Church commit itself to preparing for a definition, as her number one priority absolutely. Only thus will Christ’s command to Francis “to rebuild His Church” (still valid), repeated to Sr. Lucy in slightly different form, viz., that all must work for the triumph of Immaculate Heart in the Church, that this triumph is the condition for all the blessings promised, be fulfilled. This in fact corresponds exactly to St. Paul, Eph. 5:27: Christ gave His life for the Church that she might be sine macula et sine ruga, that is, a reflection and extension of His Virgin Mother, the Immaculate Conception.
I would also suggest that in any discussion of this suggestion attention be given to the disciplinary or practical aspects of ecclesial life resting on the mystery defined. The point is this: that the mystery of Marian coredemption be seen as the basis for living total consecration of the Church and of every soul to the Immaculate Heart, where consecration to the Immaculate Heart means sharing in and basing one’s life on the compassion of the Sorrowful Mother at the foot of the Cross and by the side of the Altar. I want to stress the word living. The late Holy Father John Paul II has consecrated the Church and all peoples to the Immaculate according to her desires. He has done his part in this, but it remains for the rest of the Church to implement this consecration in daily life: not only of individuals, but of the entire Christian community. Implementation of this consecration in daily life on the basis of the coredemptive mystery is the only adequate grounds for preparing the Church to be what Christ wants it to be on His second, glorious, triumphant coming to judge the living and the dead, to royally reclaim His own (cf. Hopkins, The Wreck of the Deutschland, last stanza). A solemn definition of the Coredemption is the final guarantee that this is not a pious practice occasioned by a private revelation, but something rooted in and postulated by public revelation itself. It would, moreover, be a solemn, public expression, in the most exact of terms what the Spirit and the Bride and all who hear in faith have even since Pentecost cried out: “Come; Lord Jesus” And as the cry goes forth, even more solemnly, ever more publicly, so will the indefectible and infallible reply be heard: “I come and I come quickly” (cf. Apoc. 22:16-21).
 Father Peter Damian refers here to a proposal made by Avery Dulles, S.J. on December 6, 1974 in the form of a question raised in favor of ecumenical sensitivity: Could not the Catholic Church “during the coming Holy Year, consider the possibility that these two Marian doctrines (i.e., the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption), while still being taught as Catholic doctrine, might be officially acknowledged as demanding only a free assent from those who are personally convinced of their truth?” Cf. Bertrand de Margerie, S.J., “Dogmatic Development by Abridgement or by Concentration” Marian Studies, XXVII (1976) 92-98. In his latter years Cardinal Dulles retracted this proposal.
 Author’s note: “and against a fact there is no arguing.”
 Author’s note: “the point of the Church’s standing or falling.”
 Mariæ Advocatæ Causæ 564-565. Bold letters my own.
 Mariæ Advocatæ Causæ 568-571.
 Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Œcumenici Vaticani Secundi, Vol. I, Periodus Prima, Pars. IV (Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1971) 99; Ermanno M. Toniolo, O.S.M., La Beata Maria Vergine nel Concilio Vaticano II (Rome: Centro di Cultura Mariana «Madre della Chiesa,” 2004) 98-99; Dinko Aračić, La Dottrina Mariologica negli Scritti di Carlo Balić (Rome: Pontificia Academia Mariana Internationalis, 1980) 101.
 Cf. Brunero Gherardini, Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano II: Un Discorso da Fare (Frigento: Casa Editrice Mariana, 2009); Roberto de Mattei, The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story (Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto Publications, 2012); Serafino M. Lanzetta, Vatican II, A Pastoral Council: Hermeneutics of Council Teaching (Leominster, Herefordshire, UK: Gracewing, 2016). This latter volume deals specifically with the Marian issue 363-419.
 Cf. my studies: “Pope John Paul II’s Teaching on Marian Coredemption” in Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., (ed.), Mary Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate, Theological Foundations II: Papal, Pneumatological, Ecumenical (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 1997) 113-147; “Il Mistero di Maria Corredentrice nel Magistero Pontificio” in Autori Vari, Maria Corredentrice: Storia e Teologia I (Frigento [AV]: Casa Mariana Editrice «Bibliotheca Corredemptionis B. V. Mariae» Studi e Ricerche 1, 1998) 161-166; The Mystery of Mary the Coredemptrix in the Papal Magisterium,” in Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D. (ed.), Mary Co-redemptrix: Doctrinal Issues Today (Goleta, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 2002) 41-50; “Pope John Paul II’s Ordinary Magisterium on Marian Coredemption: Consistent Teaching and More Recent Perspectives” in Mary at the Foot of the Cross — II: Acts of the Second International Symposium on Marian Coredemption (New Bedford, MA: Academy of the Immaculate, 2002) 1-36; also published in Divinitas XLV «Nova Series» (2002) 153-185; “Marian Coredemption and the Contemporary Papal Magisterium: The Truth of Marian Coredemption, the Papal Magisterium and the Present Situation” in Maria “Unica Cooperatrice alla Redenzione.” Atti del Simposio sul Mistero della Corredenzione Mariana, Fatima, Portogallo 3-7 Maggio 2005 (New Bedford, MA: Academy of the Immaculate, 2005) 147-158; “Mary Coredemptrix: The Beloved Associate of Christ” in Mark Miravalle (ed.), Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons (Goleta, CA: Seat of Wisdom Books, 2008) 392-398; “Marian Coredemption as an Impetus to Marian Devotion” in Marian Studies Vol. LXV (2014) 264-273.
 Cf. the documentation on this declaration in my last installment in Missio Immaculatæ International, Vol. 17/No.4 July/August 2021, 24-29.
 Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church #91-93.
 To his credit Dr. Mark Miravalle included essays by Russian Orthodox Prof. Vladimir Zelinsky and Anglican Dr. John Macquarrie in his Mary Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate, Theological Foundations II: Papal, Pneumatological, Ecumenical (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 1997) and Lutheran Dr. Charles Dickson in his Contemporary Insights on a Fifth Marian Dogma; Mary Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate: Theological Foundations III (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 2000) as well as other essays on the proposed dogma and ecumenism in these collections of essays. These are valuable essays, but only reflect the positions of the respective authors.
 This Declaration was published in the English weekly edition of L’Osservatore Romano on 4 June 1997, p.12.
 “Richiesta della definizione del dogma di Maria Mediatrice, Corredentrice e Avvocata: Dichiarazione della Commissione teologica del Congresso del Częstochowa”; “Un nuovo dogma mariano?” Salvatore Perrella, O.S.M., “La cooperazione di Maria all’opera della Redenzione: Attualità di una questione,” L’Osservatore Romano [= OR] 4 June 1997 pp. 10-11. These were duly published in the English edition as well: “Declaration of the Theological Commission of the Pontifical International Marian Academy: Request for the definition of the dogma of Mary as Mediatrix, Coredemptrix and Advocate,” L’Osservatore Romano, weekly English edition, (first numeral — cumulative edition number, second numeral — page number) [= ORE] 1494:12; “A new Marian dogma?” ORE 1497:10; Salvatore M. Perrella, O.S.M., “Mary’s co-operation in work of Redemption: Present State of a Question,” ORE 1498:9-10.
 Translated by Thomas A. Thompson, S.M. (Staten Island: St. Paul’s, 2007). That guidebook insists on “The Commitment to Ecumenism [as] An Imperative of the Christian Conscience” proposing an effective elimination of topics like Marian Coredemption and Mediation from Catholic vocabularies and discussions with our separated brethren (103-107). The original Italian edition, La Madre del Signore: Memoria, Presenza, Speranza was published by the Vatican publishing house in 2000.
 Mother of the Lord 104-106. Bold my own.
 Acta Apostolicæ Sedis 10 (1918) 181-182 [Our Lady: Papal Teachings trans. Daughters of St. Paul (Boston: St. Paul Editions1961 #267].
 Missio Immaculatæ International Vol. 17/No. 2 March/April 2021, 22-25.
 Cf. Denzinger, Heinrich, Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals, 43rd Edition edited by Peter Hünermann for the bilingual edition and for the English edition by Robert Fastiggi and Anne Englund Nash. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012, #3065-3075; Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Baronius Press, translated by Patrick Lynch, edited in English by James Canon Bastible, fully revised and updated by Robert Fastiggi, 2018) 307-310; James T. O’Connor, The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relation on Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Gasser at Vatican Council I Translated with commentary and a theological synthesis on infallibility (Boston: St Paul Editions, 1986.
 Cf. Lumen Gentium, #25 on the levels of papal teaching. I do not believe that these statements of Francis qualify to receive “the loyal submission of the will and intellect” precisely because they contradict the teaching of his predecessors.
 “Without spot or wrinkle.”
 Mariæ Advocatæ Causæ 573-574. Bold my own.