Q the Ninja Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 I can see it being infallible, but I don't think it's Ex Cathedra...no definition attached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Are you laboring under the misconception that the Pope must use a particular phrase, or that he must use the word "define" in a pronouncement in order for it to be a solemn definition, because if you are I suggest you read Bishop Gasser's [u]Official Relatio[/u] delivered to the Fathers of the First Vatican Council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q the Ninja Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 I don't think he has to use the word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Pope Boniface's declaration is pretty clear: "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." I don't see how this can be thought of as simply an optional teaching, nor can I see how it can be viewed as an infallible act of his Ordinary Magisterium. It is clearly an [i]ex Cathedra[/i] pronouncement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q the Ninja Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 But what if it runs contrary to what is already taught? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Similarly, Pius II's [u]Execrabilis[/u] is an [i]ex Cathedra[/i] definition, and to dissent from it means that one falls into heresy, the heresy of conciliarism to be precise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 [quote name='Q the Ninja' date='Jun 17 2005, 09:53 AM']But what if it runs contrary to what is already taught? [right][snapback]614493[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Since Boniface VIII's infallible definition is connected to the doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, I don't see how it can be contrary to anything previously taught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q the Ninja Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 So absolutely no one can be saved who's not under the authority of the Holy Father? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 I would add that Vatican II's teaching that the one Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church is also connected to Boniface VIII's teaching in [u]Unam Sanctam[/u], because you will notice, that both the Dogmatic Constitution [u]Lumen Gentium[/u] and the Decree [u]Unitatis Redintegratio[/u] connect the doctrine of the Catholic Church as the sole subsistence of the one true Church with the doctrine of the Pope as the head of the Church and successor of St. Peter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q the Ninja Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 It would almost seem as though the definition changed somewhat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 [quote name='Q the Ninja' date='Jun 17 2005, 09:59 AM']So absolutely no one can be saved who's not under the authority of the Holy Father? [right][snapback]614500[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes, that is a [i]de fide credenda[/i] teaching of the Church. Just as it is a [i]de fide credenda[/i] teaching of the Church that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Clearly if a man is invincibly ignorant of the true faith, it follows that he will not necessarily be condemned and will be judged by God accordingly; but if a man knows that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary for salvation, which by definition also requires submission to the Roman Pontiff, and then either fails to enter the Church, or if he is already a member of the Church, fails to remain in her, he will beaver dam himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 [quote name='Q the Ninja' date='Jun 17 2005, 10:05 AM']It would almost seem as though the definition changed somewhat. [right][snapback]614511[/snapback][/right] [/quote] There have been no substantial changes in this or any other doctrine of the Church, because if there has been a substantial doctrinal change, it follows that the faith has been corrupted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now