Are Orthodox Heretics?

[SedesDomi]

Is it? Let’s see what Pius XII had to say about it in this encyclical?

Can neither see nor find eternal salvation-so did we have 2 mistaken Popes?

Well, let me ask you this (and please read this statement literally): is it absolutely necessary for each and every single person – regardless of their status of invincible ignorance --, in order to find salvation, to be a visible member of the Catholic Church as vicared by the Roman Pontiff?

I would suggest that the only way the two Popes’ statements can be accurately and properly understood, within the context of correct Church Teaching, is if their statements are interpreted as being incorrect if interpreted merely literally, but correct if interpreted with the proper understanding and context.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t have a problem with your saying that Unam Sanctum contains no infallible statement. (As I’ve said on other threads, different Catholics have different opinions about whether or not Unam Sanctum contains an infallible statement.)

But I do take issue with:

… the Church Teaching. That is, it is not absolutely necessary for salvation that every human be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

I don’t believe that can be called “Church Teaching”. The way I see it, the only people who can go to heaven are those who are “in the Church” (whether through water baptism or baptism of desire), and all those who are “in the Church” are subject to the Pope’s authority (see Vatican I’s statement on U.O.J.) Ergo, every person who is heaven-bound, is subject to the Pope’s authority.

If you want to say that Boniface actually meant something else other than what is actually written, one could do that.

You mean like the Feenyites do?

 

[Non_Serviam]

Well, let me ask you this (and please read this statement literally): is it absolutely necessary for each and every single person – regardless of their status of invincible ignorance --, in order to find salvation, to be a visible member of the Catholic Church as vicared by the Roman Pontiff?

I would suggest that the only way the two Popes’ statements can be accurately and properly understood, within the context of correct Church Teaching, is if their statements are interpreted as being incorrect if interpreted merely literally, but correct if interpreted with the proper understanding and context.

Boniface doesn’t appear to permit invincible ignorance in his statement, Pius appears to permit it, but explicitly excludes those who believe that Christ founded His church and yet do not submit to the Pontiff, then we have the third view from the Catechism of “profound communion” with the Orthodox.

Are you also saying that Archbishop Cushing and the Catholic Encyclopedia were mistaken in their interpretation of these papal documents, or were they writing “non-literally” as well?

Seems to me that you are invoking special pleading here, rather than accepting the evidence as its written.

 

[SedesDomi]

I don’t believe that can be called “Church Teaching”. The way I see it, the only people who can go to heaven are those who are “in the Church” (whether through water baptism or baptism of desire), and all those who are “in the Church” are subject to the Pope’s authority (see Vatican I’s statement on U.O.J.) Ergo, every person who is heaven-bound, is subject to the Pope’s authority.

So you’re saying that to be “subject to the Pope’s authority” includes both those who have been water baptized and those who have been baptized by desire (and thus not visibly part of the Church)? Which would mean that there might be many people not visibly part of the Church (or under visible subjection to the Pope’s authority) and yet because they “desire” the Truth, they are “invisibly” subject to the Pope’s authority.

If one interprets Boniface’s statment in that way, I could see how one would agree with Boniface. (But I doubt Boniface himself had that in mind.)

 

[Non_Serviam]

I don’t have a problem with your saying that Unam Sanctum contains no infallible statement. (As I’ve said on other threads, different Catholics have different opinions about whether or not Unam Sanctum contains an infallible statement.)

But I do take issue with:

I don’t believe that can be called “Church Teaching”. The way I see it, the only people who can go to heaven are those who are “in the Church” (whether through water baptism or baptism of desire), and all those who are “in the Church” are subject to the Pope’s authority (see Vatican I’s statement on U.O.J.) Ergo, every person who is heaven-bound, is subject to the Pope’s authority.

You mean like the Feenyites do?

And how do you deal with Pius stating that it isn’t simply a matter of being subject, but also a matter of submitting-as he puts it in his encyclical

1. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.

“adhering loyally” again calls for an active response on the part of those who are subject.

 

[SedesDomi]

Boniface doesn’t appear to permit invincible ignorance in his statement, Pius appears to permit it, but explicitly excludes those who believe that Christ founded His church and yet do not submit to the Pontiff, then we have the third view from the Catechism of “profound communion” with the Orthodox.

Are you also saying that Archbishop Cushing and the Catholic Encyclopedia were mistaken in their interpretation of these papal documents, or were they writing “non-literally” as well?

Seems to me that you are invoking special pleading here, rather than accepting the evidence as its written.

I’m suggesting that the Church undergoes “the development of doctrine”, such that the Church undergoes greater and greater levels of understanding of Truth. What this means is that sources like Boniface or Archbishops or Encyclopedias made statements that, though true in some sense, do not communicate the whole truth and, as such, must be interpreted in ways that include the Church’s fuller understanding of Truth.

In other words, one can’t read Boniface in a sola scriptura way. One has to read Boniface, or Archbishops, or Encyclopedias, with the mind of the Church.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I’m suggesting that the Church undergoes “the development of doctrine”, such that the Church undergoes greater and greater levels of understanding of Truth. What this means is that sources like Boniface or Archbishops or Encyclopedias made statements that, though true in some sense, do not communicate the whole truth and, as such, must be interpreted in ways that include the Church’s fuller understanding of Truth.

In other words, one can’t read Boniface in a sola scriptura way. One has to read Boniface, or Archbishops, or Encyclopedias, with the mind of the Church.

So black can “develop” into white? It seems there wasn’t much development on the view of the Orthodox from Boniface to Pius (636 years)-but in less than 50 years they can go from not finding salvation to “profound communion”?

BTW, Catholics here on CAF have worn out the sola scriptura bogeyman-it’s been used to mean so much, it no longer means anything. We’re talking about clear language and grammar-either both Popes were wrong, or the *Catechism *is. One says “black” and one says “white” You don’t have the option of saying “Both say gray”.

 

[Peter_J]

(or under visible subjection to the Pope’s authority)

That’s a good way to put it. Unam Sanctum said that everyone must be subject to the Pope in order to be saved, but it didn’t say everyone must be visibly subject to the Pope. In other words, it didn’t say that everyone must be aware that they are subject to the Pope.

If one interprets Boniface’s statment in that way, I could see how one would agree with Boniface. (But I doubt Boniface himself had that in mind.)

I don’t doubt that Boniface believed a lot of other things which he didn’t say in Unam Sanctum. (If you have a chance to watch Fr. Groeschel’s program this week, note what he says about the anti-Franciscan Boniface.)

 

[SedesDomi]

So black can “develop” into white? It seems there wasn’t much development on the view of the Orthodox from Boniface to Pius (636 years)-but in less than 50 years they can go from not finding salvation to “profound communion”?

I don’t know about “profound communion”, but it’s pretty clear that the CCC states that someone may be saved who is not visibly a member of the Church. One could argue that Boniface got the basic idea right, but that his statement should not be understood absolutely literally. Even the statements of the Popes should be understood as not being the last word on a given subject.

BTW, Catholics here on CAF have worn out the sola scriptura bogeyman-it’s been used to mean so much, it no longer means anything. We’re talking about clear language and grammar-either both Popes were wrong, or the *Catechism *is. One says “black” and one says “white” You don’t have the option of saying “Both say gray”.

Well, if you want clear language, Boniface gives it. Now, the question becomes, should Boniface’s language be understood on its own, divorced from historical context (a type of sola scriptura), or should it be understood from the perspective of the Church’s current understanding? I’m no defender of Boniface, but since Boniface is/was Catholic, perhaps the Catholic Church should have some (name removed by moderator)ut into how Boniface should be interpreted.

 

[ralphinal]

I would still love to see where the CHurch called them heretics.

 

[valient_Lucy]

From a Catholic standpoint, they are schismatic, but not heretical.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Peter,

That’s a good way to put it. Unam Sanctum said that everyone must be subject to the Pope in order to be saved, but it didn’t say everyone must be visibly subject to the Pope. In other words, it didn’t say that everyone must be aware that they are subject to the Pope.

This is problematic in surprising ways.

It seems that Boniface was attempting to make a vassal out of Philip the Fair. Unu Sanctam was directed solely to that king.

Boniface himself makes that quite clear. He describes the two swords and introduces the idea that the temporal sword should be subject to the spiritual sword! This is declared prominently in the main part of the second paragraph and summarized with a one-line paragraph all to itself.

The final paragraph recaps the argument attempting to use Dionysios the Areopagyte for support. As you may know this “pseudo” Dionysios was (seemingly) a Monophysite who wrote a neo-Platonic work that became very popular in the west during the Middle Ages, wherein he introduced the “nine choirs of Angels” and his ideas about the hierarchy of heaven.

Boniface was having difficulties with his own political agenda in Italy, the Pope had alienated the Colonna family and king Philip was competing with him on several levels.

What Boniface wanted was for the king to back out of Italy and resume the flow of bullion, or he would excommunicate the king and by extension threaten his eternal wellbeing! It was a purely political situation. What looks to be a pretty concise summary appears here.

Too get an idea of just how complex (and interesting) the political situation was in Europe, and just how often Popes were either dragged into these conflicts or jumped in willingly, I suggest reading this article which covers the years leading up to (but not including) the year Unum Sanctam was sent to Philip. And this one which focuses on the Italian City States across the period.

BTW, another interesting article on Catholic Spirituality of the day is accessible from that same website. These three articles are great material for anyone whom, like me, is a big fan and student of the Divine Comedy.

(If you have a chance to watch Fr. Groeschel’s program this week, note what he says about the anti-Franciscan Boniface.)

I would like to do just that, if I had access to it.

What is so interesting to me is that Boniface, a very good legal mind, was opposed to (among other things) Pope Saint Celestine V and the Spirituals movement. Once Boniface had gone on to his great reward there was one very shortly serving Pope of his party. Then the pendulum swung the other way and Pope Clement was elected. It was Clement who had the most unfortunate Pope Celestine Canonized and a general undoing of Boniface’s legacy began. Rome was now in the “pocket” of Philip the Fair and he no longer feared excommunication.

The Bull, Unum Sanctam, was quietly set aside by Clement V and the new team in the Curia for many, many years and nearly forgotten. To this day it’s political claims have been repudiated by everyone including the Papacy even into modern times. The way it is being used by apologists today was not the original intent or focus.

View attachment 5286

 

[VARC]

,

 

[Peter_J]

^^ Very interesting, Hesychios.

Your post also seems to shed some light on something I’ve wondered about: namely, why Unam Sanctum didn’t make Klaus Schatz’s list of ex cathedra statement (see here).

 

[SedesDomi]

^^ Very interesting, Hesychios.

Your post also seems to shed some light on something I’ve wondered about: namely, why Unam Sanctum didn’t make Klaus Schatz’s list of ex cathedra statement (see here).

How does one know that Schatz’s list of infallible statements is itself infallible?

 

[Peter_J]

How does one know that Schatz’s list of infallible statements is itself infallible?

Hey, don’t make me come over there.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Very interesting developments. It’s nice to see that Hesychios recognizes the legal brilliance of US-Boniface put together a doozy of an argument in that document and didn’t leave any wiggle room-save the “black is white” argument proposed earlier under the heading of “development of doctrine”.

If we accept Hesychios’ historical construct we end up with a Pope who used his power very much for his own ends and flirted with a dogmatic definition to meet those ends as well. And played a bit fast and loose with church tradition to ensure he was bulletproof in his argument.

We also have Pius quoting him in his encyclical as an authority on the relationship of the church to salvation-this could at best be described as a profound lack of good judgment on the part of Pius at best, and in the interest of the season I’ll refrain from speculating as to the worst. (Cushing ends up on the bad judgment bandwagon as well, but that’s of lesser importance to us)

So one either ends up with contradiction between US and its supporters and the CCC, or a “black is white” attempt to harmonize them or accepting US as a human-inspired anomaly that casts a black mark on the judgment of two Popes-whichever way you slice, it isn’t pretty.

I’m thinking whomever started this thread might have been better leaving it be.

 

[SedesDomi]

So one either ends up with contradiction between US and its supporters and the CCC, or a “black is white” attempt to harmonize them or accepting US as a human-inspired anomaly that casts a black mark on the judgment of two Popes-whichever way you slice, it isn’t pretty.

Well, no one said Popes were perfect.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Well, no one said Popes were perfect.

A few people have tried to sell me on that idea, and gotten rather upset when I didn’t bite.

Thanks for being willing to follow the evidence-makes for better discussion and I think we all learned some things from it.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Hey, don’t make me come over there.

Aw, is someone picking on your fallible list of infallible statements?

(teasing)