Does JPII's Catechism of the Catholic Church contradict Pope Boniface's Unam Sanctam

[andrew2101]

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.”

CCC Part 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, 819: "…Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

 

[TrueLight]

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.”

CCC Part 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, 819: "…Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

 

[andrew2101]

 

[Sirach2]

There is no contradiction, because in 1302, there was only one faith - Catholic. The Reformation occurred a couple centuries later, creating thousands of denominations over time. The children born years later into these religions have no culpability for having deliberately separated themselves in the Reformation, and are innocent of schism or apostacy. In their heart, they were brought up to believe what they were taught, and are for the most part, ignorant of the fact they are not in a true faith.

In God’s Divine Mercy, the Holy Spirit moved upon the Council to deliberate the condition of these second generation christians, and ruled that they are part of the Mystical body of Christ due to their baptism. For this reason, the Church never rebaptizes them when they enter Catholicism. One baptism is valid, if done in the Trinitarian formula with water.

The passage you cite is incomplete and you need to quote the previous sentence:
“Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”

The footnote in the CCC states that this passage is from Lumen Gentium 15. This document is a Dogmatic Constitution solemnly ratified by the Councilors and promulgated by Paul VI under his seal.

 

[pewpew]

There were more churches than just the One, also in 1302 (eg the orthodox, and heretical ‘ecclesial communities’ in the west). However, the CCC also states that all the graces and truth found in other churches derive from the grace and truth invested in the Apostolic Church, so that there is no salvation outside of her. Furthermore the CCC affirms ‘extra ecclesiam…’ in paragraph 846. Of course the graces and truth of Christs Body, but found in other churches can only lead to salvation if the person is unaware of where the true Church is.

 

[Sirach2]

That’s true. I forgot about the Orthodox. Generally speaking, though, we did not have thousands of religions as are in existence today. The Church pastorally addressed this problem and LG15 is the teaching.

In paragraph 846 that you cited, the keword is “knowing.” *Hence they could not be saved who, **knowing *that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

It is not JPIIs Catechism - it is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In fact, the actual result could be rightly and properly attributed to then Cardinal Ratzinger and other members of the commission charged with its preparation. It was also embraced by the Magisterium before being promulgated.

Forgiveness asked if I have read too much into that characterization.

That said, there have already been some cogent and insightful comments made here.

 

[FaithBuild18]

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.”

CCC Part 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, 819: "…Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

The statement “Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation,” might not necessarily mean that those practicing other faiths will themselves be saved. Christ may use these communities as a pathway to Catholicism, and eventually then to Salvation for those who end up in full communion with the Church. Or He might use these communities to strengthen the beliefs of Catholics, which will then save the Catholics. In my experience actually, it was a protestant who most strongly reinforced my devotion to the Catholic Church. In this way, the Lord may have employed this man and his community as a means of my salvation.

 

[triumphguy]

Does JPII’s Catechism of the Catholic Church contradict Pope Boniface’s Unam Sanctam?

No. The magisterium does not contradict itself.

 

[Gorgias]

Is is just me, or is there a recent uptick in the number of EENS questions around here?

 

[Sirach2]

Yeah, they’re coming out of the woodwork, Gorgias. Maybe they don’t know how to use the search facility?

 

[pewpew]

Does JPII’s Catechism of the Catholic Church contradict Pope Boniface’s Unam Sanctam?

No. The magisterium does not contradict itself.

Though the CCC is, I believe, not part of the infallible magisterium. Though I don’t know if that matters

 

[triumphguy]

Though the CCC is, I believe, not part of the infallible magisterium. Though I don’t know if that matters

Let’s see what John Paul II says:

The Doctrinal Value of the Text

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority,** is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm** for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!

The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represent a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus’ disciples (cf. Lk 22:32 as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith.

Therefore, I ask all the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. I Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.
English Translation of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church for the United States of America © 1997, United States Catholic Conference, Inc.

Doesn’t get much more authoritative than that.

 

[MarkThompson]

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.”

CCC Part 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, 819: "…Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

Despite the misconception often held by people who are only familiar with its last sentence, Unam sanctam was about a controversy between Catholics as to political and ecclesiastical authority; it had nothing to do whatsoever with non-Catholic religions and doesn’t discuss them in any way. As I previously wrote on this topic:
One must also understand what the bull Unam sanctam was actually about. Boniface VIII didn’t just wake up one day and decide to declare that non-Catholics can’t be saved. In fact, Unam sanctam has nothing to do with non-Catholics at all!

The bull was part of a fierce and longrunning political dispute between Boniface, a rather impolitic pope, and Philip the Fair of France, who wanted to tax the clergy and exert more control over religious institutions. Two two traded diplomatic barbs for several years: Philip sought to try the bishop of Pamiers for treason; Boniface shot back the condescending bull Ausculta Fili (“Now you listen to me, kiddo”).

Eventually Boniface issued Unam sanctam. Again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with non-Catholics. Everyone involved here was Catholic. It is about the relationship between temporal rulers, like kings, and the spiritual authorities. So he writes:

*t is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. . . . Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal.
. . .
Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man . . . . Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God.
That, in a nutshell, is what the bull is about. Now, it would be quite strange for Boniface to have written a whole bull about the hierarchy of temporal and religious authorities, and then to tack on as a total afterthought the dogma that some think they see here: “Oh yeah, and by the way, apropos of nothing, everybody in the world must be a Catholic to be saved. Just thought I’d throw that out there.”

This is not to say that it isn’t true that people must be Catholic to be saved – what do I know? – only that Unam sanctam is simply about a totally different topic altogether. So phrases like “be subject to the Roman Pontiff” have to be understood in terms of what Boniface was actually trying to do with the bull and the message he was attempting to communicate about temporal authority; it’s misleading if we try to pretend he was writing this on a completely different subject matter.

Oh, and by the way, after this, Boniface excommunicated Philip, who then sent mercenaries to attack him and plunder his palace. Boniface died a month later from the trauma. It’s easy to read the high-sounding and rather bombastic language of Unam sanctam and think, “Wow, those were the days! What majestic papal power!” In fact, this period was a real nadir of papal authority, from which it would never fully recover.​

*

 

[pewpew]

Let’s see what John Paul II says:

Doesn’t get much more authoritative than that.

Don’t want to sound like a know-it-all, but actually it does . Things such as dogmatic declarations are infallible, and things such as sermons by the pope are less authoritive. CCC is of course the norm and very authoritive, but not infallible if I understand correctly.

 

[pewpew]

Despite the misconception often held by people who are only familiar with its last sentence, Unam sanctam was about a controversy between Catholics as to political and ecclesiastical authority; it had nothing to do whatsoever with non-Catholic religions and doesn’t discuss them in any way.

Well this is not the only magisterial document declaring ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ . The Catholic Encyclopedia provides a nice summary of different pronouncements of the same doctrine across the ages in the article " church ".
" This doctrine of the absolute necessity of union with the Church was taught in explicit terms by Christ. Baptism, the act of incorporation among her members, He affirmed to be essential to salvation. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mark 16:16). Any disciple who shall throw off obedience to the Church is to be reckoned as one of the heathen: he has no part in the Kingdom of God (Matthew 18:17). St. Paul is equally explicit. “A man that is a heretic”, he writes to Titus, “after the first and second admonition avoid, knowing that he that is such a one is . . . condemned by his own judgment” (Titus 3:10 sq.). The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This saying has been the occasion of so many objections that some consideration of its meaning seems desirable. It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven. It is true such acts could not possibly be elicited by one who was aware that God has commanded all to join the Church, and who nevertheless should willfully remain outside her fold. For love of God carries with it the practical desire to fulfill His commandments. But of those who die without visible communion with the Church, not all are guilty of willful disobedience to God’s commands. Many are kept from the Church by ignorance. Such may be the case of numbers among those who have been brought up in heresy. To others the external means of grace may be unattainable. Thus an excommunicated person may have no opportunity of seeking reconciliation at the last, and yet may repair his faults by inward acts of contrition and charity.

It is instructive to observe that this doctrine has been proclaimed at every period of the Church’s history. It is no accretion of a later age. The earliest successors of the Apostles speak as plainly as the medieval theologians, and the medieval theologians are not more emphatic than those of today. From the first century to the twentieth there is absolute unanimity. St. Ignatius of Antioch writes: “Be not deceived, my brethren. If any man followeth one that maketh schism, he doth not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walketh in strange doctrine, he hath no fellowship with the Passion” (Philadelphians 3). Origen says: “Let no man deceive himself. Outside this house, i.e. outside the Church, none is saved” (Hom. in Jos., iii, n. 5 in P.G., XII, 841). St. Cyprian speaks to the same effect: “He cannot have God for his father, who has not the Church for his mother” (Treatise on Unity 6). The words of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran (1215) define the doctrine thus in its decree against the Albigenses: “Una est fidelium universalis Ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur” (Denzinger, n. 357); and Pius IX employed almost identical language in his Encyclical to the bishops of Italy (10 August, 1863): “Notissimum est catholicum dogma neminem scilicet extra catholicam ecclesiam posse salvari” (Denzinger, n. 1529)."

 

[Melchior_1]

Things such as dogmatic declarations are infallible,

Things, like say, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church?

 

[triumphguy]

Don’t want to sound like a know-it-all, but actually it does . Things such as dogmatic declarations are infallible, and things such as sermons by the pope are less authoritive. CCC is of course the norm and very authoritive, but not infallible if I understand correctly.

It’s the “sure norm” and “sure and authentic reference text.”

The CCC consists of both infallible doctrine and the basic teachings of the Church, (whether defined as infallible or not), and so is a deposit of the ordinary universal and extraordinary Magisterium of the Church.

A catechism should faithfully and systematically present the teaching of Sacred Scripture, the living Tradition in the Church and the authentic Magisterium, as well as the spiritual heritage of the Fathers, Doctors and saints of the Church, to allow for a better knowledge of the Christian mystery and for enlivening the faith of the People of God. It should take into account the doctrinal statements which down the centuries the Holy Spirit has intimated to his Church. It should also help to illumine with the light of faith the new situations and problems which had not yet emerged in the past. CCC 2 Arrangement of the material

Our role is to assent to this teaching :

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. Lumen Gentium 25:1

So what we need to do us give our “religious submission of mind and will” to the CCC since it is a product of the “authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra”

So, like I said: It doesn’t get much more authoritative than that.

 

[triumphguy]

Well this is not the only magisterial document declaring ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ . The Catholic Encyclopedia provides a nice summary of different pronouncements of the same doctrine across the ages in the article " church ".
" This doctrine of the absolute necessity of union with the Church was taught in explicit terms by Christ. Baptism, the act of incorporation among her members, He affirmed to be essential to salvation. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mark 16:16). Any disciple who shall throw off obedience to the Church is to be reckoned as one of the heathen: he has no part in the Kingdom of God (Matthew 18:17). St. Paul is equally explicit. “A man that is a heretic”, he writes to Titus, “after the first and second admonition avoid, knowing that he that is such a one is . . . condemned by his own judgment” (Titus 3:10 sq.). The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This saying has been the occasion of so many objections that some consideration of its meaning seems desirable. It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven. It is true such acts could not possibly be elicited by one who was aware that God has commanded all to join the Church, and who nevertheless should willfully remain outside her fold. For love of God carries with it the practical desire to fulfill His commandments. But of those who die without visible communion with the Church, not all are guilty of willful disobedience to God’s commands. Many are kept from the Church by ignorance. Such may be the case of numbers among those who have been brought up in heresy. To others the external means of grace may be unattainable. Thus an excommunicated person may have no opportunity of seeking reconciliation at the last, and yet may repair his faults by inward acts of contrition and charity.

It is instructive to observe that this doctrine has been proclaimed at every period of the Church’s history. It is no accretion of a later age. The earliest successors of the Apostles speak as plainly as the medieval theologians, and the medieval theologians are not more emphatic than those of today. From the first century to the twentieth there is absolute unanimity. St. Ignatius of Antioch writes: “Be not deceived, my brethren. If any man followeth one that maketh schism, he doth not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walketh in strange doctrine, he hath no fellowship with the Passion” (Philadelphians 3). Origen says: “Let no man deceive himself. Outside this house, i.e. outside the Church, none is saved” (Hom. in Jos., iii, n. 5 in P.G., XII, 841). St. Cyprian speaks to the same effect: “He cannot have God for his father, who has not the Church for his mother” (Treatise on Unity 6). The words of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran (1215) define the doctrine thus in its decree against the Albigenses: “Una est fidelium universalis Ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur” (Denzinger, n. 357); and Pius IX employed almost identical language in his Encyclical to the bishops of Italy (10 August, 1863): “Notissimum est catholicum dogma neminem scilicet extra catholicam ecclesiam posse salvari” (Denzinger, n. 1529)."

The Church has always, and continues to teach that if Catholics become schismatic or heretical then their salvation is not assured.

But you’re going off topic aren’t you?

The CCC cannot contradict Pope Boniface’s Unam Sanctam since it (the CCC) represents the authentic teaching of the Church, so US must be read in light of the CCC.

 

[MarkThompson]

Well this is not the only magisterial document declaring ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ . The Catholic Encyclopedia provides a nice summary of different pronouncements of the same doctrine across the ages in the article " church ".

That’s true. In that regard, the harmony between traditional doctrine and ¶ 819 of the Catechism (and the portions of Lumen Gentium upon which it relies) can be understood by considering the sense in which “the Church,” writ broad, subsists in the organization we call “the Catholic Church,” which I have discussed here, and the senses in which one can be said to “belong” to the Church and in which the Church’s graces can be present outside the organized Catholic Church, which, conveniently, I have discussed over here.