Subjection to the Roman Pontiff

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron_Conte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ron_Conte

Guest
“Moreover, that every human creature is to be subject to the Roman pontiff, we declare, we state, we define, and we pronounce to be entirely from the necessity of salvation (‘de necessitate salutis’).”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, n. 9

“And since it arises from the necessity of salvation (‘de necessitate salutis’) that all the faithful of Christ are to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, just as we are taught by the testimony of the divine Scriptures and of the holy Fathers, and as is declared by the Constitution of Pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, which begins ‘Unam Sanctam,’ for the salvation of the souls of the same faithful, and by the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff and of this holy See, and by the unity and power of the Church, his spouse, the same Constitution, being approved by the sacred Council, we renew and approve.”
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, 19 December 1516.

“For it is revealed that subjection to the Roman Pontiff is from the necessity of salvation (‘de necessitate salutis’).”
Saint Thomas Aquinas, opusc. contra errores Graec. fol. 9.
 
The Necessity of Being Catholic
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

One of the most controversial papal documents ever released was the bull Unam Sanctam, issued in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII. Today the most controversial part of the bull is the following infallible pronouncement: “Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.”

This doctrine is extraordinarily controversial. Some Catholic extremists claim (contrary to further Church teaching, including a further infallible definition) that this means everyone who is not a full-fledged, professing Catholic is damned. Non-Catholics find the claim offensive, sectarian, and anti-Christian in sentiment.

Most Catholics who are aware of the definition find it embarrassing, especially in today’s ecumenical age, and many try to ignore or dismiss it, though even liberal Catholic theologians admit it is a genuine doctrinal definition and must in some sense be true.

Its truth was reinforced by Vatican II, which stated: “This holy Council . . . **asing itself on Scripture and Tradition . . . teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation. . . . [Christ] himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16, John 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it” (Lumen Gentium 14).

Follow the link above for the rest of this great article.**
 
God calls us to unity and to salvation, and both are in the Church. And just as a body is not without a head, so is the Church not without Peter.
 
So what defines “subjection to,” and what would constitute lack of it? Disagreement with something? Open defiance of it? Making your own Bishops because you don’t think Rome will send you a good one? Varying from the Liturgical norm, and if so, by how much? One word? Three words? Where does one draw the line?
 
That’s very interesting that Aquinas said that prior to Boniface! :o
 
DOShea said:
So what defines “subjection to,” and what would constitute lack of it? Disagreement with something? Open defiance of it? Making your own Bishops because you don’t think Rome will send you a good one? Varying from the Liturgical norm, and if so, by how much? One word? Three words? Where does one draw the line?
Click to expand...
There is always some interpretation, even in the case of an infallible teaching, such as in how to apply that teaching to our lives, and in how that teaching relates to other teachings. It is not entirely certain the exact extent and meaning of subjection to the Roman Pontiff. It is the task of the theologian, and of all the faithful, to meditate upon the teachings of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium, to seek an ever better understanding of the Faith, and to benefit the Church by sharing those insights with one another.

All of the teachings of the Church require interpretation and opinion in order to be understood and in order to be applied to our lives. It is not possible to live the holy Catholic Faith without any interpretation or opinion. Nor is it possible to present or to discuss the teachings of the Faith without any interpretation or opinion.

It is the task of every Roman Catholic theologian and of every member of the faithful to continually learn the Faith, ever more profoundly, by means of the interpretation and the development of theological or pious opinion based on Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium.

So the teaching of Unam Sanctam and of the Fifth Lateran Council that every human person must be subject to the Roman Pontiff is not only an infallible teaching to which we must adhere, but also a starting point for us to continue to learn the Faith ever more fully.
 
Ron_Conte said:
There is always some interpretation, even in the case of an infallible teaching, such as in how to apply that teaching to our lives, and in how that teaching relates to other teachings. It is not entirely certain the exact extent and meaning of subjection to the Roman Pontiff. It is the task of the theologian, and of all the faithful, to meditate upon the teachings of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium, to seek an ever better understanding of the Faith, and to benefit the Church by sharing those insights with one another.
This part I can agree with entirely.

All of the teachings of the Church require interpretation and opinion in order to be understood and in order to be applied to our lives. It is not possible to live the holy Catholic Faith without any interpretation or opinion. Nor is it possible to present or to discuss the teachings of the Faith without any interpretation or opinion.
I would add that, since people can only understand things relative to their own personal life experience, ever transcending personal spiritual experience is required for understanding ever deeper aspects of Faith.

It is the task of every Roman Catholic theologian and of every member of the faithful to continually learn the Faith, ever more profoundly, by means of the interpretation and the development of theological or pious opinion based on Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium.
Again, I don’t believe theological opinion and interpretation amounts to much without profound spiritual experience by the theologian in question - as well as by the recipient of the theologian’s conclusions.

So the teaching of Unam Sanctam and of the Fifth Lateran Council that every human person must be subject to the Roman Pontiff is not only an infallible teaching to which we must adhere, but also a starting point for us to continue to learn the Faith ever more fully.
Again, without direct spiritual experience, a person is only learning to parrot words.
At best, adhering to behavioral teachings and/or loyally proclaiming belief statements can be a good preparation for genuine spiritual experience.

No Faith, Catholic or otherwise, can be experienced fully by mere loyalty and submission to a titled hierarchy.
Click to expand...
 
Refusal to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is an objective mortal sin.
Abandonment of the Roman Catholic Faith, subsequent to baptism, is at least the mortal sin of heresy, if not apostasy.

The claim that one needs a profound spiritual experience does not nullifiy the requirements set by God for salvation in the Church.

Persons who know that the Church is the means to salvation chosen by God do not have the option of joining or leaving. Those who act in ignorance might not be committing an actual mortal sin by rejecting the Church; but they at least commit an objective mortal sin.
 
Ron_Conte said:
Refusal to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is an objective mortal sin.
Abandonment of the Roman Catholic Faith, subsequent to baptism, is at least the mortal sin of heresy, if not apostasy.

The claim that one needs a profound spiritual experience does not nullifiy the requirements set by God for salvation in the Church.

Persons who know that the Church is the means to salvation chosen by God do not have the option of joining or leaving. Those who act in ignorance might not be committing an actual mortal sin by rejecting the Church; but they at least commit an objective mortal sin.
Click to expand...
Obviously we’ve come to different conclusions regarding sin.
That’s perfectly OK by me - I’m not here to lure anyone away from the Catholic Church.

I do happen to believe there is the clear possibility of true spiritual growth there, as evidenced by people like Padre Pio.
And if the Catholic spiritual path requires certain beliefs and loyalties as part of traveling that path, that’s fine also.
Personally, I can’t sincerely claim loyalty to many of the beliefs and therefore can’t follow the standard CC path.

None of that changes the fact that to truly understand the spiritual experiences described by the more advanced saints, you have to personally experience the same thing directly.
Descriptions and interpretations and belief statements can, at best, awaken a curiosity about those spiritual states and convince one that they are real and worth pursuing.

So, keep your loyalties and keep your beliefs, but know that those are only giving you the basis for deciding to start traveling the spiritual path of someone like Padre Pio.
You haven’t necessarily walked 10 feet on that path merely by the proclamation of loyalties to beliefs and the hierarchical structure of the CC.
 
Ron_Conte said:
Refusal to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is an objective mortal sin.
Abandonment of the Roman Catholic Faith, subsequent to baptism, is at least the mortal sin of heresy, if not apostasy.

The claim that one needs a profound spiritual experience does not nullifiy the requirements set by God for salvation in the Church.

Persons who know that the Church is the means to salvation chosen by God do not have the option of joining or leaving. Those who act in ignorance might not be committing an actual mortal sin by rejecting the Church; but they at least commit an objective mortal sin.
Click to expand...
It can also revolve around the Power of the Keys, "What is Bound on Earth is Bound in Heaven … " Thus an excommunication would have the effect of keeping someone OUT of heaven Until & Unless certain criteria were met & the person readmitted to the Church.

It clearly applies to All Catholics. Those taught by Protestants have issues that could revolve around this also.

The Teachings of the Pontiff & the Magisterium ( infallably) constitutes a Burden of Mandatory Compliance / Submission on our part. In so much as We claim to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, those that claim to be a part of it would inherently assume the mantle of the responsibilities associated with membership. Thus placing our Cafeteria Catholics at high risk. This might even extend to some Protestant denominations - Lutherans & Anglicans come to mind and perhaps those that claim some level of apostolic session even if they were part of the “hidden Church” that some other Protestant groups claim. .

Certainly this is something that Most would tend to shy away from given the attempts to reconcile with the East & Protestants, not to mention the Politically Correct crowd.
However some clarification on it would be nice but doubtful at this point in time.

Just my Understanding & opinion. If I screwed it up let me know… 😉
 
Excommunication does not prevent someone from going to Heaven. If the person committed an actual mortal sin, and died without repenting, then he would be sent by God to Hell. But excommunication itself does not condemn to Hell. St. Joan of Arc died under a sentence of excommunication by a Bishop, but is a canonized Saint.
 
Ron_Conte said:
Excommunication does not prevent someone from going to Heaven. If the person committed an actual mortal sin, and died without repenting, then he would be sent by God to Hell. But excommunication itself does not condemn to Hell. St. Joan of Arc died under a sentence of excommunication by a Bishop, but is a canonized Saint.
Click to expand...
You make my point about the Power of the Keys. It was bound & then loosed.
But your point is well taken. I would say she may be the exception though rather than the rule. Afterall outside the Church there is no Salvation in most instances.
But this is all off topic
TY again,
Regards
 
imkingdad said:
Afterall outside the Church there is no Salvation in most instances.
Click to expand...
The Church infallibly teaches that outside the Church there is no salvation. This was taught at the Council of Florence and the Fourth Lateran Council. But excommunicated persons are not necessarily outside the Church. Neither are non-Catholics or non-Christians necessarily outside the Church.

“Belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation.” Pope John Paul II
 
Ron_Conte said:
Excommunication does not prevent someone from going to Heaven. If the person committed an actual mortal sin, and died without repenting, then he would be sent by God to Hell. But excommunication itself does not condemn to Hell. St. Joan of Arc died under a sentence of excommunication by a Bishop, but is a canonized Saint.
Click to expand...
A valid excommunication does indeed condemn one to Hell if one does not make an act of perfect contrition before death. It is not God who sends people to Hell, people send themselves to Hell by their own mortal sins including final impenitence.

Now, with that said, certainly an excommunication (either ferendae sententiae or latae sententiae) can be invalid if it is not warranted as was the case with St. Joan of Arc and many other Saints who have been wrongly accused of heresy and other offenses. When such an excommunication is wrong, then it never took place in the first place. It is invalid, much like how marriages can be invalid, in which they never took place in first place and the couple, the priest, and others mistakenly believed there was a valid marriage. Now, certainly, the faithful and the clergy are to be under the presumption that the excommunication is valid until it be officially declared null and void by either the same authority or a higher authority (e.g. a local Synod, the Pope himself, or Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or Apostolic Penitentiary, or Ecumenical Council, etc.). In regards to latae sententiae excommunication, usually this is incurred for very grave offenses, heresy, and apostasy. Such excommunications would be infallible because they regard faith or morals. But, then some latae sententiae excommunications regard less serious offenses. For example, there was a tendency of some of the Medieval Popes to attach a latae sententiae excommunication to those who merely refused to publish or distribute a Papal Bull. I could understand that it would be legitimate for definitive pronouncements on doctrines of faith or morals and also for legitimate disciplinary decisions. But, What if it had nothing to do with faith or morals and promoted some immoral discipline or political action like torture for example (e.g. Pope Innocent IV’s Bull)? Such an excommunication is invalid and an abuse of the use of such an instrument that ought to be reserved for very serious offenses.

May God Bless you.
 
Roman_Army said:
A valid excommunication does indeed condemn one to Hell if one does not make an act of perfect contrition before death. It is not God who sends people to Hell, people send themselves to Hell by their own mortal sins including final impenitence.
Click to expand...
Like so very many posts in this discussion group, you state serious doctrinal errors, and you present no support whatsoever for your claim.

A valid excommunication does not imply that an actual mortal sin has been committed. A person might be excommunicated for committing an objective mortal sin, but some decrease in culpability can occur for various reasons, so that the excommunicated person might still be in a state of grace. The Church has never taught that excommunication is only valid if the offense is an actual mortal sin. The Church has never taught that excommunication removes the state of grace.

For example, heresy has the penalty of automatic excommunication. But a person might fall into heresy thinking, incorrectly, that they are adhering to truth, and so that person avoids actual mortal sin.

See this article on excommunication:
newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
and the Summa:
newadvent.org/summa/5.htm

Also, if a person is in a state of both actual mortal sin and excommunication, perfect contrition is not the only path to salvation. He could have imperfect contrition and have the penalty lifted during confession with the appropriate confessor (one who can lift the excommunication and forgive the sin). He could have imperfect contrition at the hour of death and have both the excommunication and the sin forgiven by any priest.

Also, you seem to imply that no excommunication is valid unless an actual mortal sin has been committed. There is no such teaching in the doctrine of the Church, nor any such rule in Canon Law. And the Ecumenical Councils that treated of excommunication said nothing of the kind.
 
Ron_Conte said:
Like so very many posts in this discussion group, you state serious doctrinal errors, and you present no support whatsoever for your claim.

A valid excommunication does not imply that an actual mortal sin has been committed. A person might be excommunicated for committing an objective mortal sin, but some decrease in culpability can occur for various reasons, so that the excommunicated person might still be in a state of grace. The Church has never taught that excommunication is only valid if the offense is an actual mortal sin. The Church has never taught that excommunication removes the state of grace.

For example, heresy has the penalty of automatic excommunication. But a person might fall into heresy thinking, incorrectly, that they are adhering to truth, and so that person avoids actual mortal sin.

See this article on excommunication:
newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
and the Summa:
newadvent.org/summa/5.htm

Also, if a person is in a state of both actual mortal sin and excommunication, perfect contrition is not the only path to salvation. He could have imperfect contrition and have the penalty lifted during confession with the appropriate confessor (one who can lift the excommunication and forgive the sin). He could have imperfect contrition at the hour of death and have both the excommunication and the sin forgiven by any priest.

Also, you seem to imply that no excommunication is valid unless an actual mortal sin has been committed. There is no such teaching in the doctrine of the Church, nor any such rule in Canon Law. And the Ecumenical Councils that treated of excommunication said nothing of the kind.
Click to expand...
Okay, thank you for clarifying that. Keep in mind, that I was merely stating what my fallible limited understanding is. I will read up on the matter again.

Now, in regards to my comment of perfect contrition, I was primarily thinking of a circumstance where confession with a priest was not possible prior to death. So, a perfect contrition would be necessary in such a case.
 
Roman_Army said:
Okay, thank you for clarifying that. Keep in mind, that I was merely stating what my fallible limited understanding is. I will read up on the matter again.

Now, in regards to my comment of perfect contrition, I was primarily thinking of a circumstance where confession with a priest was not possible prior to death. So, a perfect contrition would be necessary in such a case.
Click to expand...
Yes, if a priest is not available, perfect contrition is the only way.

You might want to take a look at my thread at catholicplanet.net on the spiritual and temporal authority of the Church.
 
Ron_Conte said:
The Church infallibly teaches that outside the Church there is no salvation. This was taught at the Council of Florence and the Fourth Lateran Council. But excommunicated persons are not necessarily outside the Church. Neither are non-Catholics or non-Christians necessarily outside the Church.

“Belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation.” Pope John Paul II
Click to expand...
I believe the CCC refers to those that are outside of the Church, Heathens that have never through any fault of their own heard or rejected the word of God. They are to be judged by God based upon their adherence to the Natural & Moral Laws etched into the Hearts of all Men.

Excommunication removes one from the Practical Body of the Church until some act of Repentance is completed ( and often more than that ). Cuts them off from the some of the
Sacraments, though neither of us can pass judgment upon their soul nor the State of Grace it may or may not have been in at the time of their demise.

Seems we agree on Principals but vary on the semantics & how God will administer His Judgment on those within The Church, & Those outside the Church. ( that would include heretics that were justly excommunicated, sinners that die out of a state of Grace, etc.)
But I trust ( as do you) God’s Judgment will win out… and I’m not here to pass judgment upon any soul that has departed this realm, just to deal with what Church teaching is according to the best understanding that is available. ( I certainly have no guarantee of Truth or Understanding outside of God’s Grace & Mercy.)

I always enjoy your posts as they are informative & thought provoking.

Regards, Yours in Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top