N
neophyte
Guest
Check again, those are not the words that are used in the English translation.
You don’t have to recognise that you’re subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be subject to him.
Unam Sanctam - Protestants and Orthodox not going to be saved as Protestants and Orthodox Christians?
- Status
You don’t have to recognise that you’re subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be subject to him.
N
neophyte
Guest
There was never more than one Pope at a time, the others were imposters.
G
Genesis315
Guest
As others have mentioned, it is simply a clarification on the well-established dogma that belonging to the Church is necessary for salvation. It just clarifies which Church: the one subject to the Roman Pontiff (being subject to the Roman Pontiff means belonging to the Church subject to him). That’s why earlier in the same document the Pope discusses how Christ entrusted His flock to Peter–if you’re not in Peter’s flock, you’re not in Christ’s flock and vice versa.
St. John Paul II included this definition with the two other definitions of this dogma from the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence–it should be understood in the same sense as those:
St. John Paul II
Clearly one guilty of schism or heresy is separated from the Church and cannot be saved. Same for those without that faith without which it is impossible to please God. But Protestants and Orthodox in good faith are not guilty of schism or heresy and would be belong to the Church by virtue of their faith and baptism.
It should also be noted that all baptized persons, whether they like it or not, are subject to the Church’s–and therefore the Pope’s–jurisdiction forever. As a practical matter, the Church tends not to enforce or make ecclesiastical laws for those not yet in full communion (other than those who were in full communion and break it). The Catholic encyclopedia article on heresy sums this up:
“The fact of having received valid baptism places material heretics under the jurisdiction of the Church, and if they are in good faith, they belong to the soul of the Church.”
St. John Paul II included this definition with the two other definitions of this dogma from the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence–it should be understood in the same sense as those:
St. John Paul II
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP950531.HTM
Clearly one guilty of schism or heresy is separated from the Church and cannot be saved. Same for those without that faith without which it is impossible to please God. But Protestants and Orthodox in good faith are not guilty of schism or heresy and would be belong to the Church by virtue of their faith and baptism.
It should also be noted that all baptized persons, whether they like it or not, are subject to the Church’s–and therefore the Pope’s–jurisdiction forever. As a practical matter, the Church tends not to enforce or make ecclesiastical laws for those not yet in full communion (other than those who were in full communion and break it). The Catholic encyclopedia article on heresy sums this up:
“The fact of having received valid baptism places material heretics under the jurisdiction of the Church, and if they are in good faith, they belong to the soul of the Church.”
Last edited:
B
BenjaminDaVinci
Guest
In that case, I think the context within Unam Sanctam itself rules out your interpretation of the issue, for the simple reason that Pope Boniface VIII is specifically talking about subjection in the sense that the “Greeks” [the Orthodox] aren’t subject to the Pope, either back then or today. This is evidenced here:
“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”
This is quite clear and rules out any interpretation that the Orthodox today are subject to the Bishop of Rome in any way whatsoever. I get that you want to say that there could be this “invicible ignorance”, which is fine I think under the Orthodox view, but I think it’s ruled out under the Roman Catholic view given this bull.
So again, in what sense are the Orthodox not subject to the Bishop of Rome? Well, in the sense that Unam Sanctam says that they’re not subject but must be for salvation and in the sense that the Orthodox position entails that they’re not subject: they must be “confided to Peter and to his successors” and the Orthodox necessarily aren’t confideded to Peter and they say they’re not confided to Peter, which of course isn’t a verbal thing, but a position that you hold by being Orthodox.
This to me seems like the nail in the coffin since it’s clear that Unam Sanctam is talking about subjection in the sense of communion with the Bishop of Rome, and not of the invincibly ignorant kind, if there’s even such an animal.
Last edited:
B
BenjaminDaVinci
Guest
Please see my latest comments addressed to @ioannes_pius. Feel free to let me know what you think 
I
ioannes_pius
Guest
Let me be clear, I am not saying that the Orthodox Church and whole is properly subject to the Roman Pontiff and it should be, nor am I saying that every member of the orthodox churches is ‘covered’ by invincible ignorance.
I’m saying that it’s possible that individual members of these churches are invincibly ignorant and of good will, and are thus united to the soul of the Church and subjected to the Roman Pontiff in that way, though lacking the visible bonds of communion with him.
Have you not read @Genesis315’s post above?
G
Genesis315
Guest
The problem with your interpretation is it has never been the interpretation of the Church. The Church has ascribed it no different meaning than the axiom “outside the Church there is no salvation” has ever meant. Boniface is pointing out that wanting to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff is the same as wanting to withdraw from the flock of Christ, which is true.
He is simply describing the sin of schism, which excludes from salvation. But like any mortal sin, schism requires a properly formed act of will. You can’t innocently commit schism and exclude yourself from salvation. Just as someone can be subject to a civil power while mistakenly denying it, so can someone be subject to the spiritual power in the same way.
If we look at it from a less subjective perspective, the case against your personal interpretation is even stronger. Baptism, which intorduces one into the Lord’s flock (and therefore Peter’s) is indelible, and so a bond with the Church always remains, which is why heretics and schismatics have always been considered still subject to the Church’s jurisdiction, why the can be punished, why they can be absolved without re-baptism, etc… See for example, the Fourth Lateran Council under Innocent III which addressed the separated Greeks as disobedient subjects its 4th Constitution, applying various penalties. Likewise, in the letter Arcano Divinae Providentiae, Pius IX addresses the separated Greeks, noting his office required him to care for them saying any people who have been “introduced to the Lord’s flock through the sacred waters of baptism, justly claim for itself all our vigilance.” Note, it’s a matter of justice, not just charity.
The Church today explains its coercive jurisdiction applies to all the baptized, based on the canons of Trent, in the following canons:
He is simply describing the sin of schism, which excludes from salvation. But like any mortal sin, schism requires a properly formed act of will. You can’t innocently commit schism and exclude yourself from salvation. Just as someone can be subject to a civil power while mistakenly denying it, so can someone be subject to the spiritual power in the same way.
If we look at it from a less subjective perspective, the case against your personal interpretation is even stronger. Baptism, which intorduces one into the Lord’s flock (and therefore Peter’s) is indelible, and so a bond with the Church always remains, which is why heretics and schismatics have always been considered still subject to the Church’s jurisdiction, why the can be punished, why they can be absolved without re-baptism, etc… See for example, the Fourth Lateran Council under Innocent III which addressed the separated Greeks as disobedient subjects its 4th Constitution, applying various penalties. Likewise, in the letter Arcano Divinae Providentiae, Pius IX addresses the separated Greeks, noting his office required him to care for them saying any people who have been “introduced to the Lord’s flock through the sacred waters of baptism, justly claim for itself all our vigilance.” Note, it’s a matter of justice, not just charity.
The Church today explains its coercive jurisdiction applies to all the baptized, based on the canons of Trent, in the following canons:
The Christian faithful (Christifidelis) are defined as follows:
However, the Church chooses to only apply her laws at this time to this class of person, despite her jurisdiction including the broader group described above.
Last edited:
S
SpaghettiCowboy
Guest
I’m sorry for having come so late to the discussion, but I just noticed the topic. I’d like to offer some general comments not specific to any particular post.
As a serious Catholic for my entire adult life-- perhaps until now, but that’s another story-- this is the kind of thing that the Church does that drives me absolutely crazy.
Two very clear statements are quoted in this thread:
Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam, “… we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Earlier in the document it also says, “… 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.”)
And, attributed to St. Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258) in a letter, “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.”
To this, we may add another clear statement, from the Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441): “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the ‘eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity… can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
I maintain that the clear meaning of these statements was the prevailing view of both clergy and laity for most of Church history until modern times. To conclude otherwise requires you to stretch the concept of “invincible ignorance” far beyond its historical meaning and to cite theological and canon law esoterica that have shifted over time.
If the Church says now that there is a path to salvation for Jews and schismatics, that’s wonderful. But the position constitutes, at the least, a significant change in the emphasis of Church teaching, and at the most, a modification of dogma. Why can we not admit this?
As a serious Catholic for my entire adult life-- perhaps until now, but that’s another story-- this is the kind of thing that the Church does that drives me absolutely crazy.
Two very clear statements are quoted in this thread:
Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam, “… we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Earlier in the document it also says, “… 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.”)
And, attributed to St. Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258) in a letter, “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.”
To this, we may add another clear statement, from the Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441): “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the ‘eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity… can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
I maintain that the clear meaning of these statements was the prevailing view of both clergy and laity for most of Church history until modern times. To conclude otherwise requires you to stretch the concept of “invincible ignorance” far beyond its historical meaning and to cite theological and canon law esoterica that have shifted over time.
If the Church says now that there is a path to salvation for Jews and schismatics, that’s wonderful. But the position constitutes, at the least, a significant change in the emphasis of Church teaching, and at the most, a modification of dogma. Why can we not admit this?
Last edited:
S
StudentMI
Guest
Thanks for posting. It brought it back to the top. I hadn’t encountered this thread before.
Very interesting read, this thread. I’ve learned a lot. Also reminds me to read Ralph Martin’s book Will Many Be Saved?
Very interesting read, this thread. I’ve learned a lot. Also reminds me to read Ralph Martin’s book Will Many Be Saved?
Crusader13
New member
I don’t believe doctrine nor dogma have changed. However, there’s been an attempt to broaden the use of Invincible Ignorance in a way that it applies to everyone who is not Catholic. Even those that outright reject the faith are placed under this universal umbrella.
It nullifies the Gospel of Salvation and gives support to a view that is not biblical. Which in turn reduces the Catholic Church from being necessary to merely preferred.
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
Very true. And then the next sentence from them is ‘Hell is therefore empty’. Not a chance.
A
AlNg
Guest
Thanks for this reference but there could be a problem.
- The book is unavailable now.
- The book was published in 1958.
A
AlNg
Guest
I am not sure that non-Catholic Christians would welcome this.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
I find it hard to believe that Jesus only died for Catholics, and only their sins can be forgiven.
R
ReaderT
Guest
But then there are people like Saint Paisios who explicitly rejected the Roman Pontiff in Spiritual Counsels (his published dialogues), yet he was undeniably a holy man - he had the documented power to read thoughts, which is a power that can only come from God (the devil can’t mimic it). So, will he be in hell, even while God showed His clear favor to him?
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
OK. The original link was to Amazon. The book was published in 1958 before VII? In your opinion is it out dated or still a good reference?
I
ioannes_pius
Guest
I don’t know where he is, I can’t judge his fate or the state of his soul.
D
Dovekin
Guest
Fr Fenton, the author of The Catholic Church and Salvation, was a respected theologian who taught at Catholic University (USA) for 25 years.
His views appear to be right of center from the wiki biography. He was a peritus, theological expert, for Cardinal Ottaviani during Vatican II. He was on the preparatory commission for the Council, whose work was rejected by the Council in favor of writing new documents from scratch. Apparently he opposed The teaching on religious freedom of John Courtney Murray which is reflected in the Council’s decree on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanis.
More recently, Scott Hahn has updated his work on fundamental theology. And The Catholic Church and Salvation was reprinted the SSPV, which I assume is the sedevacantist group. So there is interest from diverse parts of the Church, but I am not sure what that says about him.
His views appear to be right of center from the wiki biography. He was a peritus, theological expert, for Cardinal Ottaviani during Vatican II. He was on the preparatory commission for the Council, whose work was rejected by the Council in favor of writing new documents from scratch. Apparently he opposed The teaching on religious freedom of John Courtney Murray which is reflected in the Council’s decree on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanis.
More recently, Scott Hahn has updated his work on fundamental theology. And The Catholic Church and Salvation was reprinted the SSPV, which I assume is the sedevacantist group. So there is interest from diverse parts of the Church, but I am not sure what that says about him.
R
ReaderT
Guest
That is true. But I think as a godly miracle-worker (before and after death) he probably went to heaven
- We also canonized him
Last edited:
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
- Status