The question of whether the pope possesses an “ordinary Magisterium” became a point of contention during Francis’s pontificate.

Among those who have argued against the idea that the pope can is Dr. Edward Peters who, in an influential 2018 article for Catholic World Report (CWR), offered his opinion that the pope may not promulgate a non-definitive teaching on faith and morals on his own initiative and questioned the obligation of the faithful to give religious assent to such teachings. Dr. Peters — who was among the three seminary professors recently dismissed in the Archdiocese of Detroit — made his argument in the context of his disagreement with Pope Francis’s teaching on the death penalty. In his article, Dr. Peters makes a striking claim: that there is “no such thing as a ‘purely papal, ordinary, Magisterium.’” Since the publication of the article, Dr. Peters has reasserted this claim on social media as recently as 2024.

Although this article was written in 2018, I have seen it cited recently to argue that Pope Francis (and every other pope) did not have his own papal “Magisterium” (For example, see the July 28, 2025 comment by CWR editor Carl E. Olson in reply to a recent article in Catholic World Report). This objection surfaces frequently in response to references to the “Magisterium of Pope Francis” in discussions of his official teachings and documents. Crisis editor Eric Sammons has contributed to this narrative, arguing that it is incorrect to refer to the Magisterium of any individual pope, claiming, “There is the single magisterium of the Church, and each pope may contribute to it.”

I would like to respond to this claim.

Dr. Peters’s Argument

Dr. Peters accurately notes that Catholics have argued that Francis’s teaching on the death penalty, as part of his Magisterium, requires religious submission of mind and will. He cites Canon 752 as the basis of this argument (emphasis mine throughout this article):

“A religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act.”

Dr. Peters argues that this canon is “very new in the canonical tradition. It was not present in the 1917 Code and the Legislator himself offers no foundations for it before the 1950s.”

Next, he correctly distinguishes between “extraordinary Magisterium” and “ordinary Magisterium.”

However, he erroneously argues that although the extraordinary Magisterium can proceed “solely-papally or papally-episcopally,” the ordinary Magisterium “can proceed only papally-episcopally.”

He then concludes that there is “no such thing as a purely papal, ordinary, Magisterium”:

“How to sum up the traditional understanding of this matter so far? Maybe thus: If it’s not extraordinary, it’s at most ordinary, but if it’s ordinary, it requires popes and bishops around the world and over a long, long time, and not just a pope in a claim or two.”

Therefore, according to Dr. Peters, Francis’s teaching on the death penalty cannot demand the submission of mind and will required by Canon 752. For him, this means that the formulation of this canon is inadequate:

“In light of the foregoing, then, it is easier to see why the present formulation of Canon 752 seems wanting: its language appears (I say appears, because scholars are divided over the meaning and implications of Canon 752) to regard as possible the obligation of ‘religious assent’ being owed to a single, undoubtedly non-infallible, purely papal, no-matter-how-unprecedented, assertion regarding faith and morals. I, for one, frankly doubt that is what the Church meant to say although I grant that seems to be how her new law presently reads.”

Distinguishing Between “Ordinary and Universal Magisterium” and “Ordinary Magisterium”

Peters’s error arises from conflating two categories: the “ordinary and universal Magisterium” and the “ordinary Magisterium.”

No one claims that Francis’s teaching on the death penalty belongs to the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Rather, it is part of the ordinary Magisterium of the pope—the existence of which Dr. Peters seems to deny.

The Church recognizes several levels of Magisterium, and the first two enjoy an infallible degree of certitude and demand an assent of faith:[1]

1. Extraordinary Magisterium: exercised by the pope when defining dogmas ex cathedra, or by ecumenical councils in their decrees. Dr. Peters, therefore, is correct in asserting that this level proceeds solely-papally (ex cathedra) or papally-episcopally (ecumenical councils).
2. Ordinary and Universal Magisterium: exercised by all bishops in union with the pope when teaching definitively on faith and morals. Dr. Peters focuses on this category and insists Francis’s teaching cannot fall under it, since it is not papally-episcopal but solely papal.

But there is a third level of Magisterium:

3. Ordinary Magisterium of the pope (or a bishop): this is different from the “ordinary and universal Magisterium.” It is not infallible, but still authoritative, and requires religious submission of mind and will.

This is the level that Dr. Peters seems to reject, and to which Canon 752 refers.

Magisterial Sources for the Distinction

This distinction between different levels of Magisterium is affirmed in the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium (no. 25).

Lumen Gentium alludes to the second level, the ordinary and universal Magisterium:

“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.”

However, the same text also addresses the third level, the ordinary Magisterium of the pope:

“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”

In 1998, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), issued a Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei—the Profession of Faith, an oath of fidelity taken when assuming an office in the name of the Church.

This commentary also makes a distinction between the different levels of the Magisterium.

Namely, it specifies that the first and second paragraphs of the Professio Fidei concern doctrines “to be believed as divinely revealed or to be held definitively.” In other words, these are doctrines taught with infallible certainty.

The Commentary further explains that such infallible teachings can be proposed “with an act which is either defining or non-defining.”

A defining act pertains to the extraordinary Magisterium, while a non-defining act pertains to the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Regarding the latter, it states:

“In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph).”

But the Commentary also explains that teachings in the third paragraph of the Professio Fidei belong to the ordinary Magisterium:

“The third proposition of the Professio fidei states: ‘Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act’.

To this paragraph belong all those teachings – on faith and morals – presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgement or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect.”

Dr. Peters questions the pedigree of Canon 752. Yet the authority of this canon is drawn from additional magisterial sources such as these. That is the reason why it reads as it does, as even Dr. Peters admits.

The Reality of a Purely Papal, Ordinary Magisterium

Additionally, the claim that the pope lacks a Magisterium does not hold water. The pope does, in fact, have an ordinary Magisterium exercised solely by him. This is confirmed by multiple magisterial documents and papal interventions.

For example, Donum Veritatis—an instruction on the ecclesial vocation of the theologian (1990)—also issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger, states:

“Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and in a particular way, to the Roman Pontiff as Pastor of the whole Church, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, even should this not issue in an infallible definition or in a ‘definitive’ pronouncement but in the proposal of some teaching which leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals and to moral directives derived from such teaching.”

In his encyclical Caritas in Veritate, Benedict XVI mentions:

“A fresh reading of Populorum Progressio, more than forty years after its publication, invites us to remain faithful to its message of charity and truth, viewed within the overall context of Paul VI’s specific Magisterium.”

St. John Paul II, also emphasized the importance of the pope’s ordinary Magisterium in a 1993 General Audience:

“But it must be noted that in the conciliar texts we are explaining, a distinction is made between the ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary’ Magisterium, emphasizing the importance of the first, which is permanent and ongoing, while the second, which is expressed in definitions, could be called exceptional. 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.

The conciliar texts also point out how serious is the Roman Pontiff’s responsibility in exercising both his extraordinary and ordinary Magisterium.”

It is also noteworthy that Pope Leo XIV recently revamped the Vatican website. Among the updates on the home page is a large and centrally-located button titled “Magisterium,” which — at the time of the writing of this article — provides links to Pope Leo’s teachings exclusively: his Angelus addresses, audiences, homilies, letters, messages, and speeches.

Since none of these interventions contain infallible definitions, since they are taught “solely-papally” rather than “papal-episcopally,” and since the button points only to Leo XIV’s own teachings (and not those of previous popes), it is reasonable to conclude that Leo regards these as expressions of his own ordinary Magisterium.

It is, therefore, incorrect to claim that popes do not have an ordinary Magisterium. Several popes have stated otherwise.

Is Pope Francis’s teaching on the death penalty a part of his ordinary Magisterium?

It is important to note that the most prominent example of Pope Francis’s teaching on the inadmissibility of the death penalty is his revision of the Catechism 2267. On this point, it is important to recall Joseph Ratzinger’s words in his book Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church[2]:

“The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receives no other weight than that which they already possess.”

In other words, determining whether this revision belongs to Pope Francis’s ordinary Magisterium requires looking beyond the Catechism itself.

The revision cites Francis’s Address to Participants in the Meeting Promoted by the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization on October 11, 2017. As an official papal address on faith and morals, this qualifies as an act of the ordinary Magisterium.

Furthermore, the Catechism revision was accompanied by a Letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explaining the change. At the end, the letter states: “Sovereign Pontiff Francis, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 28 June 2018, has approved the present Letter (…) and ordered its publication.”

In this context, it is noteworthy that Donum Veritatis 18 affirms:

“The Roman Pontiff fulfills his universal mission with the help of the various bodies of the Roman Curia and in particular with that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in matters of doctrine and morals. Consequently, the documents issued by this Congregation expressly approved by the pope participate in the ordinary Magisterium of the successor of Peter.”

Finally, Francis reiterated his teaching on the death penalty in his encyclical Fratelli Tutti 263.

Encyclicals, too, are a significant expression of the pope’s ordinary Magisterium. As Ven. Pope Pius XII explained in Humani Generis:

“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: ‘He who heareth you, heareth me’; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”

In short, Francis’s teaching on the inadmissibility of the death penalty clearly belongs to his ordinary Magisterium and therefore demands religious submission of mind and will from the faithful.

Conclusion

The overwhelming evidence from papal statements and authoritative documents demonstrates that the pope does indeed possess an ordinary Magisterium exercised solely by him, which must not be confused with the “ordinary and universal Magisterium.”

While not infallible, this Magisterium is authoritative and requires religious submission of intellect and will, per Canon 752.

Pope Francis’s teaching on the inadmissibility of the death penalty is a clear expression of his ordinary Magisterium and should, therefore, be adhered to by the faithful with religious submission of intellect and will “according to his manifest mind and will” (Lumen Gentium 25).

It should be further noted that if the pope requires the consent of the bishops to teach authoritatively in his ordinary Magisterium, then he does not possess “the full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the whole Church” that the Council of Florence affirmed in 1439 (Denz.-H, 1307).

It would also mean that the Roman Pontiff does not have the supreme power that the First Vatican Counil defined “as ordinary and immediate over either each and every Church or over each and every one of shepherds and faithful” (Denz.-H, 3064).

Ultimately Dr. Peters’s position undermines the full power of papal primacy, a power that Vatican II described as “full, supreme, and universal” over the whole Church, a power that the pope is “always free to exercise” (Lumen Gentium 22).

References

[1] Sheehan, Michael. Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine. Edited by Peter Joseph. London: Baronius, 2009, p. 206.

[2] Ratzinger, Joseph, and Christoph von Schönborn. Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1994, p. 26.

---

Image: Pope Francis signs his 2020 Encyclical Fratelli tutti, before the tomb of St Francis of Assisi, after celebrating Holy Mass. Vatican Media.