www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Why is the Immaculate Conception considered Ex-Catherda?

I disagree that Unam Sanctum being considered an infalliable ex-catherdra Papal Bull prior to Vatican II would lead one to the conclusion that its teaching was never held as dogma. It was being argued that Unam Sanctum was not binding because it was not intended to address the entire church. Is it now being argued that the Pope intended to bind one part of the teaching, but not the other parts? Is this information contained in the Bull?

Dear brother Bob,

As explained in my original post, his mention of a "minority" was not referring to the Minority Party (of which the Eastern and Oriental bishops were a part), but rather to the Neo-ultramontanists, who were a minority group within the Majority Party.

He threw away the conciliar documents because he thought that the Council was promoting the Gallican heresy. He felt the Council had made too many concessions to the Minority Party. If people reading this will take a moment and meditate on the significance of that fact, one will perhaps begin to have their eyes opened to the reality that the First Vatican Council does not actually teach what her non-Catholic detractors have made her out to teach. Vatican 1 did not teach or promote the Absolutist Petrine position, but rather the High Petrine position.

You may look anywhere on the I-net for a biography of Bishop Lecourtier (I haven't personally done so).

My source for the Vatican Council is Dom Cuthbert Butler, The Vatican Council 1869 - 1870, Newman Press (Maryland, 1930). This book was the primary influence that changed my whole mind about the papacy before I entered the Catholic communion. I had found it at a library sale for only 50 cents about 7 years ago. I think it currently goes for about $50 on Amazon. It was God's providence that I found this book.

Blessings

Dear brother Bob,

You may argue the other point with those who brought it up. There is another, greater, reason why people do not consider the Bull infallible, but I'm too tired to continue right now.

I will just suggest, however, that you read up on the doctrine of infallibility from the old Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent. It will explain to you that not all parts of an ex cathedra decree are infallible dogma, and which parts are. I had assumed this was common knowledge among all Catholics.

Blessings,
Marduk

I understand that, but if the Pope who wrote the Bull doesn't tell you which parts are and which parts aren't infallible how do you know? That is why I asked you if the Bull contained that information.

A question (as noted above) about the citation. My copy of Denzinger is Edition 31. The excerpts in the standard Denzinger are in the original languages, the above is in English and presumably a translation. I do not find the "ex cathedra" designation in my copy. Who, then, is actually giving the "ex cathedra" designation?

The issue is that from this, Denzinger (with its prestige) emerges as the source and designator.

Indeed.

Unfortunately, many thought that Limbo was dogma too.

More information on the publication having the words "ex cathedra" would help. The citation "Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, 468-469" has much in common with what would be cited for the edition in the original languages, however, I would have expected as the title the original "Enchiridion Symbolorum." Is a translator noted? An ISBN? etc.?

One can hardly blame for having thought Limbo was dogma, since it was taught at the Council of Florence.

Bob,
My point was that some things that were thought as dogma, were really actually not dogma all along, eventhough they were treated that way.

BTW, the teaching of the Council of Florence is still valid today. Limbo was a particular way to explain what the council taught of those who died in original sin only to explain the absolute necessity of water baptism with those who had done nothing personally sinful to merit their own damnation, so the two were brought together and Limbo was commonly understood to have a status that it never did.

Please clarify. Are saying that it is a still the teaching today that those who die with original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains? How does that differ from the doctrine of limbo?

Also please note that Pope Pius VI Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools the doctrine that rejects limbo.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:

“26. The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk; FALSE, rash, injurious to Catholic schools”

Yes, absolutely.

It is one particular explanation of the Council of Florence, but it is not the only one. As The Theological commission explained, several years ago when it released the document, The Hope of salvation for infants who die without baptism", that there are valid theological and liturgical reasons for the theological virtue of Hope (not faith) that the condition of their original sin can be remitted in other ways known to God, but not explicitly revealed.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

As part of the ITC's report, it stated that Limbo is still a valid theological opinion eventhough there are few if any who hold to that opinion anymore.
It only held the theological certainity of "common teaching" in Ludwig Ott's text. This grade of theological certainty is fairly low.

All that Auctorum fide did was to condemn those who said that Limbo was not valid theological speculation. He did not affirm that one must hold to that speculation as revealed truth. What Pius VI did was reject the limitation others wanted to place on theological thought in this area.

Are babies born with original sin?


This may have been what the commission stated but if "those who die with original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains," is still the teaching of the church, this would include unbaptized infants/children, since the church teaches that they have original sin alone . I don’t see how you cannot arrive at any other conclusion. Florence appears unambiguous on the matter.

It is interesting that this is being regulated to theological opinion, but the Immaculate Conception is an infallible pronouncement, which lacks pedigree and universal consent. Which brings me back to my original question.

Dear Brother Mardukm,

You do realize, I hope, that I placed the first two quotes with the last in order to demonstrate that when Pope Boniface dogmatically taught the necessity of being subject to the Roman Pontiff that he was not merely speaking about the religious authority of the papacy, but the temporal authority as well.

Blessings

Bob,

Yes, all are born into the state if original sin. You shoul read the ITC document as it addresses all of these Church documents. I think it is worthwhile reading.