But unlike dogmas that need never be contextualized, these condemnations do because, unlike dogmas that are universal truths, these are not necessarily so.
Sophistry. This is an implicit statement of relativism. It’s at heart the same epistemological nonsense that the SSPX have used to deny John 3:6 and the Athanasian Creed to preach the possibility of salvation without faith and baptism.
A “universal truth”? As opposed to another kind?
Please provide an example of a true statement which is not true everywhere and for all time in the sense in which it is intended.
We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church.
Sorry, but Exsurge Domine clearly states that the ideas it condemns are not Catholic but against doctrine and tradition.
Heresy or not, can they be against the doctrine and tradition of the Church but not “universally” so? It’s a cognitively meaningless string of vacuous words on your part.
By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected . . .
Teaching on faith binding upon the whole Church ... oops.