[The author replies to criticisms of his work on the ordinary universal magisterium and to his interpretation of the work of Francis A. Sullivan. He offers further reflections on the ordinary universal magisterium based on issues stimulated by Gaillardetz’s reading of Sullivan. While acknowledging that the consensus of theologians can be a way to recognize the infallible teachings of the ordinary universal magisterium, the author argues that the consensus of theologians is neither necessary in order to know them, nor the only way to know them. He responds to Gaillardetz’s claim that a papal confirmation of the infallible teachings of the ordinary and universal magisterium should function like that of a notary.]