Hubert Wolf's account of the First Vatican Council, especially of the debate on papal infallibility
and the thesis of an alleged “invention of the ordinary magisteriumö, are in central
aspects questionable and contrary to the facts. His claim of a “dual magisterium of bishops
and professors of theologyö as an old traditional doctrine proves to be dubious and historically
faint. The arguments quoted by Wolf are actually speaking to the opposite. Wolf’s
narrative generally suffers from historical inaccuracies and factual errors. This article hints
to some of these deficiencies, arguing that Wolf’s biography of Pius IX emerges as “fake historyö
in the service of church politics.