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

How about Unam Sanctam?

Here are three quotes from Unam Sanctam that demonstrate that it teaches temporal supremacy as a matter of dogma.

“We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal.”

"For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgment if it has not been good."

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

The Council of Ephesus doesn't even come close. The False Synod of Ephesus, the "Latrocinium" or "Robber's Synod", where violence and the threat of violence were employed by Dioscoros of Alexandria to prevent the reading of the Letter of Pope Leo, as well as to prevent the accusers of Eutyches from being heard in council is the best analogy. Pius IX employed the same strategy to rig the First Vatican Council (albeit in more refined manner), so why is Ephesus II the "Latrocinium" while Vatican I is "ecumenical"?

Another example of a rigged synod would be "Ignatian" synod of 869-870, which was repudiated by both Constantinople and Rome at the "Photian" synod of 879-880. It is interesting that Rome excepted the latter council for more than two centuries, but after 1054 it somehow became a "latrocinium" in its own right, even though it was far better attended and more open than its predecessor.

Doesn't pass muster because it is not a bull addressed to the universal Church.
It was addressed to a particular monarch (whom i can't remember off-hand).

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I believe that was between Pope Boniface VIII and Philip the Fair (the French king)I believe. When the prestige of the Papacy had seriously started to fall.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

As every Pope between Boniface and Pius XII upheld it, it's hard to disassociate the Church from that position (see what I mean about not always right but never wrong?). In 1958, Pius XII finally put a wooden stake through its heart by dismissing it in an offhanded statement that it was a necessary and perhaps inevitable doctrinal development, but not part of the transcendent deposit of faith. In the meanwhile, just how many people did the Church condemn over the intervening centuries because they refused to acknowledge this transient bit of doctrinal development?

Wrong. Reread the part about "absolutely necessary for salvation." If that doesn't qualify a statement as being a matter of dogma, then nothing does. Furthermore, the language about "every human creature" shows that the intended scope of Unam Sanctam was universal.

Glory to Jesus Christ!



Dear Athanasius the L,

There is a lot of historical nuance one has to understand about the surrounding events and happenings of the time. Pope Boniface VIII was a Pope who was thinking that the world was still in the height of Medieval Papal power when Popes could bring kings to their knees. He did not understand that times had already changed from just the previous century when dealing with King Philip IV (aka the Fair I believe). By this time in history the prestige and power had move from Rome to the Kings and rulers of the Western European kingdoms. Before this Bull came out, there had been an escalating tension between Pope Boniface VIII and King Philip IV in which Philip kept disregarding and counter measuring the decrees of the Pope. The culmination of that Bull was the last attempt (he was in process of excommunicating Philip when Philips men captured and beat the Pope to try to sign a document that he was guilty of false accusations Philip made against him and he soon died after that because of his injuries and never wrote/finished the excommunication) was the last attempt to bring King Philip back into line. He used the strongest language possible to get Philip to submit but to no avail. At best, in understanding the historical circumstances, one can say that this language was simply used to bring a flippant king back into line or at the most that this stretches to Roman Catholics only. Let us try our best to not take quotes out of so much historical context.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

I really don't need the history lesson. I hold two graduate degrees in theology-one of them in historical theology. I stand by what I've written. The language about the necessity to salvation demonstrates that the pope intended to raise this teaching to the level of dogma. The language of "every human creature" shows that the scope was intended to extend beyond the feud between the Pope Boniface and Philip the Fair.

Indeed, Unam Sanctum was believed to be ex-cathedra (prior to Vatican II that is):

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra" “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”[Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, 468-469.]

Athanasius,

Do not misunderstand. YOU may have such learning, but not all of us do. I have just recently learned this interesting bit of history. If you felt I was condescending, which it seems that is how you received my last message, than please know that was not my intention. None the less, the person from whom I have learned is just as learned as you and a Roman Catholic as well (I'm assuming you are Roman Catholic from your comments). I also stand by what I have recently learned. I may not have the extended education you do, but I trust the people from whom I learn.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

i know what it says. If you hold two degrees, then you know that a binding dogmatic papal statement must be addressed to the entire universal Church. Clearly, Unam Sanctam was not. Vatican I clearly stated what makes an infallible teaching of a pope. There are several criteria. Unam Sanctam fits some of those criteria, but not all of them.

If this is de fide dogma, then it is irreformable so that we now have a problem with Stuart's statement about Pius XII.

If this is, as you say, then according to your criteria, Pius XII becomes a heretic with his affirmation.

Dogmatic statements cannot "intend". They must explicitly state that a dogmatic definition is being sought, that this definition is irreformable in the future so that no new development may occur, that it is an article of faith to be held defintively by all the faithful, and must be addressed to all the faithful, by definition.

Unam Sanctam fails in the last regard because the bull was not promulgated to all Christians, but to specific individuals. This dis-qualifies it as being qualified for classification as a de fide dogma.

Once again, they may not always be right, but they are never wrong. I went to a Jebbie university, though, and am largely immune to this sort of stuff, now.

Notice, though, that there never is any historical nuance floating around Vatican I--even though the entire council makes no sense without an understanding of the rise of the nation-state and the Italian risorgiamento.

That's fatuous. If applied with rigor, half of the Tradition would fall outside the realm of dogma.

That is interesting since according to Denzinger it used to be considered ex-cathedra, and Ludwigg Ott lists it as one of the proofs of the "de fide" dogma that outside the church no man will be saved.