Pope Boniface VIII; Unam Sanctam

[JD27076]

Pope Boniface VIII infallibly stated:

“Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that is is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Second (Or First maybe) Vatican Council said that Protestants can be saved or something in that nature.

But Protestants do not subject themselves to the Roman Pontiff, how can they be saved if Pope Boniface VIII says otherwise?

Thanks
-Justin.

 

[snarflemike]

The concept of being “subject to” does not necessarily involve cooperation or agreement. It is a statement of valid authority. One can be born in a country, and thus subject to the laws of that country, while rejecting everything that country stands for.

To be subject to the pope means to be a member in some fashion of the Catholic Church. All who are saved are saved by Christ through his Church, even if they are not formal members of the Church. This is why the Catholic Church is known as the “sacrament of salvation”. Protestants in particular are subject to the pope (members of the Church) via their baptism.

Note one can also say that all who are saved must be subject to Jesus Christ. That applies even to those who never heard of Christ.

 

[wasserfall]

Pope Boniface VIII infallibly stated:

“Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that is is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Second (Or First maybe) Vatican Council said that Protestants can be saved or something in that nature.

Before we continue this discussion, please provide evidence that the Second (or First maybe) Vatican Council ever said such a thing.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Pope Boniface VIII infallibly stated:

“Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that is is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Amen!

Second (Or First maybe) Vatican Council said that Protestants can be saved or something in that nature.

I don’t think either council said anything so specific, but yes we can hope for their salvaiton.

But Protestants do not subject themselves to the Roman Pontiff, how can they be saved if Pope Boniface VIII says otherwise?

Thanks
-Justin.

Pope Boniface VIII did not say that Protestants could be saved. For one thing there were no Protestants at his time. But he didn’t say anything that would mean Protestants cannot be saved.

We need to keep both of these truths in mind. First, the responsibility of submitting oneself to the authority of the Roman Pontiff is a grave one, morally culpable refusal of which until the end of life would lead to damnation. Second, some people who never do submit themselves to the Roman Pontiff in life do so out of invincible ignorance, and so are not morally culpable for it. We may hope for the salvation of such people. There is no contradiction here.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The concept of being “subject to” does not necessarily involve cooperation or agreement. It is a statement of valid authority. One can be born in a country, and thus subject to the laws of that country, while rejecting everything that country stands for.

To be subject to the pope means to be a member in some fashion of the Catholic Church. All who are saved are saved by Christ through his Church, even if they are not formal members of the Church. This is why the Catholic Church is known as the “sacrament of salvation”. Protestants in particular are subject to the pope (members of the Church) via their baptism.

Note one can also say that all who are saved must be subject to Jesus Christ. That applies even to those who never heard of Christ.

It seems to me this interpretation would deprive the Pope’s binding teaching of any practical meaning.

 

[snarflemike]

It seems to me this interpretation would deprive the Pope’s binding teaching of any practical meaning.

That all salvation comes through Christ’s Church is not a trivial teaching.

Don’t be in such a hurry to deny the possibility of salvation to 99% of the people who have ever lived.

 

[triumphguy]

Since this Bull was written in a time of great tension between Church and State it needs to be read in that context.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

That all salvation comes through Christ’s Church is not a trivial teaching.

Don’t be in such a hurry to deny the possibility of salvation to 99% of the people who have ever lived.

I’m not saying all salvation coming through the Church is a trivial thing, and if you’ve read my first post you’ve seen that I don’t discount the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics.

My point is, if baptized non-Catholics can be considered subject to the Roman Pontiff and if this kind of subjection fulfills what Pope Boniface was talking about, then what point was there in him making such a declaration? Why not just teach something about the importance of baptism?

I’m no authoritative interpreter, but it seems clear to me that the Pope was exhorting Christians not to rebel against the Papacy. That suggests a willing subjection to the Roman Pontiff as faithful Catholics is what is being required.

 

[Hesychios]

Pope Boniface VIII infallibly stated:

"Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that is is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Actually, it is a misapplication.

This (quote above) was ultimately not about theology.

It was a political claim, for a political purpose. The Pope (Boniface at the time) was engaged in a bitter long running feud against the king of France. This was the occasion for the bull.

Philip the Fair (interesting name) was the unique recipient of this Bull, it was addressed specifically to this king by name. Pope Boniface was asserting political hegemony over the Civil Authority. The contest was not going well, and he was utilizing his ‘nuclear option’ (threatening damnation). King Philip was not amused, and hunted him down.

One must read the entire Bull to understand this, pay attention to the ‘Two Swords’ analogy.

Ultimately, Pope Boniface lost out on this, after the brief reign of one successor (who might have been murdered) king Philip was able to get one of his supporters or favorites elected Pope in the person of Raymond Bertrand de Guoth, who took a reign name of Clement V.

Clement V promptly moved the papal court to France, and there was no more talk about this Unam Sanctum bull. It was all but forgotten.

Interestingly, soon after Clement V became Pope, he declared Celestine V a saint, this was a slap at the memory of Pope Boniface, possibly to please king Philip. This was considered fitting because it was widely believed in those days that Pope Boniface had ordered Saint Celestine’s murder. Pope Clement V had also attempted to initiate a trial of his predecessor (even though the man was already dead), but it was postponed and then never held.

Dante consigned Pope Boniface VIII to a place in hell in his great trilogy ‘Divine Comedy’. Dante had his own reasons, but it didn’t affect the popularity of the books.

I think the Bull was mostly forgotten after the Popes repudiated any claim to hegemony over the civil authorities (the original purpose of it), and was only resurrected in more recent times by apologists who make use of it for a different reason.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Actually, it is a misapplication.

This (quote above) was ultimately not about theology.

It was a political claim, for a political purpose. The Pope (Boniface at the time) was engaged in a bitter long running feud against the king of France. This was the occasion for the bull.

Philip the Fair (interesting name) was the unique recipient of this Bull, it was addressed specifically to this king by name. Pope Boniface was asserting political hegemony over the Civil Authority. The contest was not going well, and he was utilizing his ‘nuclear option’ (threatening damnation). King Philip was not amused, and hunted him down.

One must read the entire Bull to understand this, pay attention to the ‘Two Swords’ analogy.

Ultimately, Pope Boniface lost out on this, after the brief reign of one successor (who might have been murdered) king Philip was able to get one of his supporters or favorites elected Pope in the person of Raymond Bertrand de Guoth, who took a reign name of Clement V.

Clement V promptly moved the papal court to France, and there was no more talk about this Unam Sanctum bull. It was all but forgotten.

Interestingly, soon after Clement V became Pope, he declared Celestine V a saint, this was a slap at the memory of Pope Boniface, possibly to please king Philip. This was considered fitting because it was widely believed in those days that Pope Boniface had ordered Saint Celestine’s murder. Pope Clement V had also attempted to initiate a trial of his predecessor (even though the man was already dead), but it was postponed and then never held.

Dante consigned Pope Boniface VIII to a place in hell in his great trilogy ‘Divine Comedy’. Dante had his own reasons, but it didn’t affect the popularity of the books.

I think the Bull was mostly forgotten after the Popes repudiated any claim to hegemony over the civil authorities (the original purpose of it), and was only resurrected in more recent times by apologists who make use of it for a different reason.

While it may have been politically motivated, the teaching it defines is about salvation.

 

[Hesychios]

UNAM SANCTAM

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, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,’ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: ‘Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.’ [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23- 24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep’ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’ We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: ‘Behold, here are two swords’ [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard’ [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: ‘There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God’ [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.
For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. 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. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms’ and the rest. 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, according to the testimony of the Apostle: ‘The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man’ [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven’ etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Boniface VIII to Philip IV of France - promulgated November 18, 1302

 

[Hesychios]

While it may have been politically motivated, the teaching it defines is about salvation.

Actually, it is very clear. Regardless of creed or background one must be politically subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved. Pagan, Schismatic and Muslim kings are not exempted.

The Papacy has long since abandoned this position, within five years of Pope Boniface VIII’s death.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Actually, it is very clear. Regardless of creed or background one must be politically subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved. Pagan, Schismatic and Muslim kings are not exempted.

The Papacy has long since abandoned this position, within five years of Pope Boniface VIII’s death.

As I read the document it appears clear to me that the content of the teaching is theological: an instruction on the doctrine that outside the Church there is no salvation and an application of this to several matters, including the ecclesial situation of the Greeks and the relationship between spiritual and temporal power.

I’m pleased to see that the document, which I had never read before except in small excerpts, is consistent with the impression of the proper theoretical relationship between Church and State that I have held for a long time. In any event, the document is explicitly theological in nature and teaches something regarding salvation in language strongly suggesting Papal infallibility comes into play.

If I may interpret the political application a bit, I’d say that political submission to the Roman Pontiff is necessary when the Pope himself demands it by virtue of his spiritual authority, and that therefore submission to the Pope’s spiritual authority implies a submission to any temporal applications of this authority that he demands, even if it’s hoped and expected that the Pope will ordinarily respect the competency of secular governments and therefore not be heavy-handed in this regard.

Of course, the usual exception applies that the Church does not have the authority to order you to sin, and this could also come into play in a political situation.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

I particularly like this answer about Unam Sanctam:

“For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.”

2 Corinthians 5:14-15

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Unam Sanctam, Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302

Suppose a Conqueror lands on a previously unexplored continent, and annexes the whole of it under the banner of His King. Settlers of the Kingdom arrive. The Conqueror then leaves a Governor to take care of the settlers. However, there are natives in that continent. Since these natives lived in the continent before the Conqueror and the settlers arrived, logically these natives automatically become citizens of the kingdom, and thus under the jurisdiction of the Governor.

This is the case also with the Catholic Church. Since Jesus Christ “died for all” humans, all humans, even though they do not know it, can be bestowed with saving grace through means outside the Catholic Church. This was affirmed by the encyclical Sublimus Dei (“We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge”) which echoes the words of Jesus Christ Himself: "“I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice.” (John 10:16a)

However, there is a caveat here. Since all humans can be bestowed with saving grace outside the usual means of the Catholic Church and thus become the Lord’s sheep, all of the human race must necessarily be under the authority of the Pope.

Why? In continuing the above passage, Jesus Christ also said, “There will be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16b), the One Shepherd being Jesus Christ. And yet it was only to St. Peter whom Jesus said: “Feed my lambs…Tend my sheep…Feed my sheep.” (John 21:15, 16, 17). Therefore, Jesus left to St. Peter’s, and his successors’, care all of His sheep, in the fold (formally Catholic) or not.

In other words, each and every one human creature in the whole world is a Catholic in one sense or another.

And oh yes, another caveat: each and every Person in heaven is a Catholic

God bless us all.

 

[reconman]

+JMJ+

I particularly like this answer about Unam Sanctam:

Yea, and besides this whole argument can be put to rest:

CCC1260: … " Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved…"

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Yea, and besides this whole argument can be put to rest:

CCC1260: … " Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved…"

And to put to rest the assertions that that particular doctrine of the Catholic Church is relatively new:

“We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek: logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos]are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid.” (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 46, c. 150 AD)

 

[Hesychios]

+JMJ+

And to put to rest the assertions that that particular doctrine of the Catholic Church is relatively new:
“We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek: logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos]are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid.” (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 46, c. 150 AD)

Good post.

 

[triumphguy]

I just read the book of Jonah to my kids.

It’s only 4 short chapters.

I suggest everyone read it with this thread in mind.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Pope Boniface VIII infallibly stated:

“Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that is is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Second (Or First maybe) Vatican Council said that Protestants can be saved or something in that nature.

But Protestants do not subject themselves to the Roman Pontiff, how can they be saved if Pope Boniface VIII says otherwise?

Thanks
-Justin.

Catholic apologist and writer Jimmy Akin wrote an article dealing with this very issue. See the below link.

The Necessity of Being Catholic
by Jimmy Akin

How then would a Catholic go about proving it is necessary to be a Catholic and subject to the pope? The answer is that both these things are refinements of what it means to be a Christian. To be a Christian it is normatively necessary to be a formal member of the Church Christ founded. This is the Catholic Church. And to be a formal member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be formally subject to the earthly leader Christ established for it: the pope.

A Catholic thus might construct an argument for Unam Sanctam’s definition like this:

1. To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
2. To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ’s Church.
3. To be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
4. To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
5. Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.