But though I ain't no canonist, thanks be to God, I know that an infallible dogma has to be intended, not locally or temporarily, but to be binding always, for all.
Plus, it can't flatly contradict what was already (previously) taught as binding, because then you would run afoul not of Church Law but of Natural Law, in fact the principle of logic known as the Law of Non-Contradiction. In which case, I don't know if you'd lose our soul, but you would definitely lose your mind.
A papal pronouncement that one absolutely must be a visible ecclesiastical subject of the See of Rome to be saved, would contradict the canonized saints who lived before there even was a See of Rome. The deacon/martyr St. Stephen, for instance, and the bishop/martyrs James of Jerusalem and Ignatius of Antioch. And many more.
My other guess is that what these popes were legitimately asserting would be the necessity of being within the union of the Church, and the grave sin of intentionally breaking that unity. Anyone who has not personally and willfully cut himself off from the Church, is not guilty of that sin; and anybody who has been baptized, is already "en famille."
That would be an interpretation harmonious with all the Catechisms, from VII to VI to Trent to Nicaea and Athanasius and back to the Didache, I think.
BTW thanks for that Ratzinger Fan Club quote. Admirable for brevity and wit.
You can hardly dispute that “We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam) very explicitly conforms to the formula infallible teaching are know by,
Plus, it can't flatly contradict what was already (previously) taught as binding, because then you would run afoul not of Church Law but of Natural Law, in fact the principle of logic known as the Law of Non-Contradiction.
But a contradiction is a clarification when Rome provides it, despite what so many TradCaths contend.
A papal pronouncement that one absolutely must be a visible ecclesiastical subject of the See of Rome to be saved, would contradict the canonized saints who lived before there even was a See of Rome.
Not so, for Rome can argue that just as in times part Jews were saved without any explicit knowledge of Christ, but once He was manifest then this was necessary, so also souls prior to the papacy could be saved, but once that was manifest, then submission is necessary. If Rome can actually argue that OT and NT believers engaged in praying to created beings in Heaven , then she can certainly argue what I stated.
My other guess is that what these popes were legitimately asserting would be the necessity of being within the union of the Church, and the grave sin of intentionally breaking that unity.
No, the language of statements I provided collectively go beyond being within the union of the Church in some way V2 makes Prots to be so, and instead require one to be in the bosom of Rome, and in submission to the pope, and make the RCC to be the mystical body of Christ.
That would be an interpretation harmonious with all the Catechisms, from VII to VI to Trent to Nicaea and Athanasius and back to the Didache, I think.
Rome's position is that all is harmonious with tradition no matter what you think.
Oh REALLY???
I seem to recall a certain LETTER that the Leaders of the Church wrote in ACTS chapter 15.
(No need for that pesky 'Call no man father' thing here...)