That is by no means an "ex-cathedra" pronouncement! My gosh! Talk about ultra-montane!
I have only ever heard that two things have been considered to have been pronounced "Ex-Cathedra" and both of those are the Marian doctrines. And this is from theologians prior to the evil second Vatican Council. In fact, the definition of the IC by Pius IX was allegedly a "test case" of whether the pope can define doctrine.
In the second place, again, even IF it is "ex-Cathedra" the historical context in which that statement appears tells you what Boniface is attempting to do. Matters of salvation--mean--that the pope, not the king is the ultimate authority in the Church. I am growing tired of explaining this to you.
So are seriously trying to say that the only two dogmas Catholics are bound to believe are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption and that everything else is up for grabs?
Have you even read the Bull? Of course Una Sanctam was Dei fide. Look at the language;
"Urged by faith, we are OBLIGED to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins"
"Furthermore,
we declare, we proclaim, we DEFINE that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that
every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
Clearly the Bull is universal in nature. The language is declaratory in regard to Faith and morals, it is meant for the entire Church, and is done with the authority of the papal office.
The "historical context" tact is one used by modernists to try to contextualize and dilute Church teaching so as to say that dogmas "evolve" according to circumstance. Evolution of dogma has been condemned by "obscure" popes in the past which you ignore or have never heard of.
Here is the problem as I see it: today, there is simply TOO much information, TOO much data. A good argument can be made for anything, no matter how absurd. What information and arguments do you trust, what don't you trust? This refers to anything from vaccines, to gender theory, to biblical teaching on homosexuality, to God, to the Church to anything.
In regard to Church teaching, I trust the magisterial teaching of the Church as it has been consistently been taught for nearly 2000 years.
So the Protestant who does "due diligence" and "research" (whatever that means in your mind) goes to Catholic Answers, say, and finds refutations of the standard Protestant arguments. Then they get to thinking "Maybe there is something to Catholicism." Then they go to a Protestant website that refutes those arguments--and--does so quite well. Tit for tat kind of a thing.
My point? With all the data--how is someone who is uncertain, or, even Protestant---supposed to navigate all this data?
I believe the RCC is the Church of Christ. That does not mean I think all of the Protestant arguments have been sufficiently answered or that Protestants have nothing intelligent in the way of defending some of their position. Sure---some of their assertions are patently absurd--the "Catholics worship Mary" nonsense, or "Catholics worship statues." As if we are stupid. But that is more from the fundamentalist end of things that clearly have no idea what they are talking about.
But I have read some powerful defenses of Sola Scriptura and intelligent interactions with Catholic arguments from Protestants who actually have researched Catholicism and attempt to interact with it in a meaningful and intelligent way. What is my point? My mind is made up. At some point you have to make up your mind--becasue there is just too much data out there. As I said, you can find a good argument for ANY position, no matter how absurd. At some point you have to make a leap of Faith--which I have done.
You just seem to think you have all the answers for everything. The reality is, sir, you don't--you just think you do. Sometimes we have to be comfortable with gray areas-----and content to find out when we die. I am willing to grant Protestants of good will and good hearts the benefit of the doubt. You, with an answer for everything are not.
I have never heard a "powerful" defense of Sola Scriptura.
Invincible ignorance has nothing to do with the dogma of
extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. I believe in the possibility of there being people of good will who are
invincibly ignorant of the truths of the Catholic Faith and that sincerely observe the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and have never committed any mortal sin, that can obtain a baptism of desire. I believe this because that is what the Church teaches and has always taught.
How many of these people there are that are invincibly ignorant and obtain this baptism of desire is known only to God.
But invincible ignorance is not a golden ticket to heaven and it is not a means of salvation.
In the same encyclical,
Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, in which the "obscure" Pope Pius IX speaks of the invincibly ignorant, he also says;
"Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching."
"Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff"
