Unam Sanctam

  • Thread starter Thread starter Augustine3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Augustine3

Guest
The papal bull issued by Pope Boniface VIII states “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff”. I have a few questions.


  1. *]Since this was a papal bull, does that full under the pope’s charism of infallibility?

    *]How could this be since the Church now teaches salvation is extended to non-Catholics (under certain conditions of course)?
 
The papal bull issued by Pope Boniface VIII states “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff”. I have a few questions.


  1. *]Since this was a papal bull, does that full under the pope’s charism of infallibility?

    *]How could this be since the Church now teaches salvation is extended to non-Catholics (under certain conditions of course)?
    1. Yes, it is infallible.
    2. The Church teaches that those outside of the Church may be, in some way that the Church does not know, connected to the Church.
 
The papal bull issued by Pope Boniface VIII states “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff”. I have a few questions.


  1. *]Since this was a papal bull, does that full under the pope’s charism of infallibility?
    *]How could this be since the Church now teaches salvation is extended to non-Catholics (under certain conditions of course)?

  1. The same teaching was infallibly defined by a subsequent Ecumenical Council:

    “And since it arises from the necessity of salvation 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)

    So it is infallible. The subjection of the faithful to the Pope is a necessary part of the plan of salvation, just as all seven Sacraments are a necessary part of that plan. However, this does not imply that non-Catholics cannot be saved. They can be saved by being members of the Church non-formally, in other words by a mystical membership in the Church, even if they outwardly reject Her.

    Fourth Lateran Council: “There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

    Pope John Paul II: “Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ – ‘outside the Church there is no salvation’ – stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull ‘Unam Sanctam’ of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351). The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14). For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical ‘Redemptoris Missio,’ salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. Redemptoris Missio, n. 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded. In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a ‘yes’ to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. Thus it can also be said that ‘sine ecclesia nulla salus’ – ‘without the Church there is no salvation.’ Belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation.” (All Salvation Comes through Christ, General Audience, 31 May 1995.)
 
The papal bull issued by Pope Boniface VIII states “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff”. I have a few questions.


  1. *]Since this was a papal bull, does that full under the pope’s charism of infallibility?

    *]How could this be since the Church now teaches salvation is extended to non-Catholics (under certain conditions of course)?

  1. It is infallible.

    The Church has always taught that nonCatholics have a chance at salvation. But technically you still have to be Catholic to go to heaven, because all salvation comes through the Church. What I mean is everyone who is saved is “Catholic”, even if technically that person wasn’t Catholic for most of their life.
 
The papal bull issued by Pope Boniface VIII states “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff”. I have a few questions.


  1. *]Since this was a papal bull, does that full under the pope’s charism of infallibility?

    *]How could this be since the Church now teaches salvation is extended to non-Catholics (under certain conditions of course)?

  1. Ron Conte in post 4 & 5 gave you the answer. There is a proviso however. All those of good will, who through no fault of their own are not formal members if the Church, can be saved and indeed many not formally Catholic will be saved. Even Atheists of good will can be saved and many will be saved. 👍
 
Ron Conte in post 4 & 5 gave you the answer. There is a proviso however. All those of good will, who through no fault of their own are not formal members if the Church, can be saved and indeed many not formally Catholic will be saved. Even Atheists of good will can be saved and many will be saved. 👍
That is not true. Anyone who consciously rejects Christ and his Church and dies unrepentant will not be saved.
 
🍿 i have been wondering this too.
let the truth FLY!
When I came into the Church I was taught there were only three infallible proclamations by Popes, one of which was the Immaculate conception and the Assumption. I don’t remember the 3rd.

Popes would rather allow people to believe many teachings are infallible but not declare outright that they are so that the past Popes opinions do not bind the future Popes opinions.

Afaik, only the Pope can even answer the question.
 
40.png
Linusthe2nd:
Even Atheists of good will can be saved
That is not true. Anyone who consciously rejects Christ and his Church and dies unrepentant will not be saved.
It would seem that there’s some middle ground between these two statements. Linus’ statement addresses atheists – that is, those who have no belief in God. Thistle’s statement addresses those who consciously reject Christ and the Church.

It would seem that there are those who do not believe in God, yet have not had the opportunity to receive the message of Christ (and therefore, cannot be said to have consciously rejected him). Moreover, it would seem that the notion of invincible ignorance would apply to some who are atheists. Finally, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to characterize some atheists as those who are willing to accept the notion of God, but have not yet found anything that has convinced them of His existence; these, it would seem, are among those referred to in Lumen gentium #16: “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.” That is, it would seem not outlandish to suggest that those who seek the Good are really seeking God – even if they don’t realize this, themselves.

So, it would seem that it may not be as certain a case as you assert…
 
That is not true. Anyone who consciously rejects Christ and his Church and dies unrepentant will not be saved.
In the quote that I gave above, Pope John Paul II says that some persons can be saved “without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her” even if they “outwardly reject her.”

The Magisterium teaches that a person who commits a mortal sin, such as the mortal sin of rejecting Christ or His Church, only loses the state of grace if it is an actual mortal sin, which must include full knowledge of the grave immorality of the act, and full deliberation (full consent). So if someone rejects the Church with invincible ignorance or at least with enough reduction of knowledge as to make it only a venial sin, then they would not be guilty of an actual mortal sin. they would not lose the state of grace, and they could still be saved.

Anyone who dies unrepentant from actual mortal sin will not be saved.
 
Thistle doesn’t hear ya,Gorgias. Next time there’s another thread about salvation, he’ll be here to repeat it.

I’m amazed — we managed to get through about a week or so without any more salvation threads!

St. Paul echoed St. Peter’s statement to Cornelius, “There is no respect of persons with God.” Do we dismiss the natural law that is able to justify those outside the Church?

drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=52&ch=2&l=11-18

🍿
 
It would seem that there’s some middle ground between these two statements. Linus’ statement addresses atheists – that is, those who have no belief in God. Thistle’s statement addresses those who consciously reject Christ and the Church.

It would seem that there are those who do not believe in God, yet have not had the opportunity to receive the message of Christ (and therefore, cannot be said to have consciously rejected him). Moreover, it would seem that the notion of invincible ignorance would apply to some who are atheists. Finally, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to characterize some atheists as those who are willing to accept the notion of God, but have not yet found anything that has convinced them of His existence; these, it would seem, are among those referred to in Lumen gentium #16: “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.” That is, it would seem not outlandish to suggest that those who seek the Good are really seeking God – even if they don’t realize this, themselves.

So, it would seem that it may not be as certain a case as you assert…
Atheists by definition do not believe in God, meaning that is a conscious decision they make. Atheists consciously reject God and if they die unrepentant they will not be saved.
Living a “good” life has no merit when you die if you have rejected Christ and his Church.

As for the silly comment by Sirach2 I think he/she should learn what the Church actually teaches!!
 
It is infallible.

The Church has always taught that nonCatholics have a chance at salvation. But technically you still have to be Catholic to go to heaven, because all salvation comes through the Church. What I mean is everyone who is saved is “Catholic”, even if technically that person wasn’t Catholic for most of their life.
Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews”. (John 4:21-22)
 
Atheists by definition do not believe in God, meaning that is a conscious decision they make. Atheists consciously reject God and if they die unrepentant they will not be saved.
Living a “good” life has no merit when you die if you have rejected Christ and his Church.

As for the silly comment by Sirach2 I think he/she should learn what the Church actually teaches!!
Gorgias, St. Paul, and St. Peter are not talking about atheists. Nor am I. The statement you made only applies to those who, as you said, “rejected Christ and his church.” Why are you misreading our words and misapplying them as if everyone outside the church is atheist or has rejected Christ?
 
Atheists by definition do not believe in God, meaning that is a conscious decision they make. Atheists consciously reject God and if they die unrepentant they will not be saved.
Living a “good” life has no merit when you die if you have rejected Christ and his Church.

As for the silly comment by Sirach2 I think he/she should learn what the Church actually teaches!!
Thistle, you have provided no magisterial quotes or citations to support your claim that “the Church actually teaches” the position that you expressed. You also have not replied to my argument that a conscious choice of an objectively grave sin must meet all the conditions of actual mortal sin in order to result in a loss of sanctifying grace and a loss of salvation if the person does not repent.

Do you believe that all atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and other non-Christians, as well as all Protestants, will be condemned to Hell IF they know about Christ and the Catholic Faith, AND do not choose to convert? Or would you allow some instances in which a person knows of Christ and Catholicism, does not convert, and yet is saved?
 
Thistle, you have provided no magisterial quotes or citations to support your claim that “the Church actually teaches” the position that you expressed. You also have not replied to my argument that a conscious choice of an objectively grave sin must meet all the conditions of actual mortal sin in order to result in a loss of sanctifying grace and a loss of salvation if the person does not repent.

Do you believe that all atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and other non-Christians, as well as all Protestants, will be condemned to Hell IF they know about Christ and the Catholic Faith, AND do not choose to convert? Or would you allow some instances in which a person knows of Christ and Catholicism, does not convert, and yet is saved?
I’m not Thistle, nor do I play Thistle on TV. 😃

However, I offer this:

CCC
776 As sacrament, the Church is Christ’s instrument. “She is taken up by him also as the instrument for the salvation of all,” “the universal sacrament of salvation,” by which Christ is "at once manifesting and actualizing the mystery of God’s love for men."199 The Church “is the visible plan of God’s love for humanity,” because God desires "that the whole human race may become one People of God, form one Body of Christ, and be built up into one temple of the Holy Spirit."200
“Outside the Church there is no salvation”
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, 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 that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
Do you believe that all atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and other non-Christians, as well as all Protestants, will be condemned to Hell IF they know about Christ and the Catholic Faith, AND do not choose to convert? Or** would you allow some instances in which a person knows of Christ and Catholicism, does not convert, and yet is saved**?
It doesn’t appear that the Church teaches this.
 
It is my opinion that athiests are not absolved even with the principle of invincible ignorance because the Catholic Church teaches, as have all the orthodox Fathers down through history, that recognition of the existence of God is placed in the very NATURE of man (i.e., it is of the Natural Law). If athiests reject this inner impulse, it can only be through a willful rejection.

I can see a hope for an avowed agnostic, but not for an avowed athiest. I have met avowed “athiests” who do acknowledge a higher Principle, but simply don’t acknowledge that higher princiiple to be a PERSONAL principle (OR maybe such “athiests” are really agnostics). IMO, this particular brand of “ahiest” can be accomodated under the mitigation of invincible ignorance.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Not pointing fingers at anyone here, but I just read a beautiful post today by Brother JReducation that would be helpful in this thread.
Salvation does not exist outside the Church, but elements of the Church can be found in some very unexpected places. This is a part of that dogma that was never clearly developed until more recent times. It’s a perfect example of what Bl. John Henry Newman wrote when he wrote about the development of Christian doctrine, what St. Bonaventure means when he speaks about a theology of history, what Bl. John Paul meant when he said that in the past, neither Catholics nor non Catholics were very kind to each other and both sides conveniently failed to mention some truths out of sheer anger and frustration.

Pope Benedict, at the opening of the celebration for the anniversary of Vatican II spoke about Jews and Muslims and repeated, that they do not need to be proselytized by Catholics, because God has a plan for their conversion. What they need is our prayers that they will see and follow the plan. He also made mention that the Church can extend herself to those outside of the physical boundaries, because she is also divine, not just temporal. God lives outside of space and time. We have no way of knowing how far the Church’s “umbrella” extends.

In essence, he is saying that salvation comes through the Church, even for non Christians. we don’t know how; but we must never put handcuffs on God. It is the duty of every man, including non Christians to walk the journey toward union with the Divine as best he understands it. A dereliction of duty is not a pass, nor even for those who are baptized.

The problem that we have right now is that there are two extremes among Catholics and both are equally dangerous. The one extreme is indifference toward the salvation of souls, including one’s own. It’s an attitude that believes that God is not too concerned about our deliberate sins.

The other extreme is an excessive preoccupation with Jews and Muslims among Christians. It borders on an obsessioin as if to say, “We’re right and you’re wrong.” The problem with such obsessions is that people who get into that mode of thinking often spend more time destroying people’s faith, as weak as it may be, rather than building it up. Instead of finding the good in that other person’s faith and building on it, they find the weaknesses and chop at it at the risk of pushing the person into agnosticism at best and atheism at worse.

It is often best to evangelize through prayer and living example and keep one’s mouth shut, unless one know HOW to evangelize. Many of us know WHAT to say. But we’re like bulls in china shops delivering the package.

If I had met 20 of the people on CAF when I was Jewish, I would have remained a Jew, because of the arrogance and judgmentalism that so many Catholics project or I may have been convinced that Judaism was a bad thing, but would not have bought into Christianity either, because from the standpoint of the Jew, Christianity is a child of Judaism. Based on some observations, it comes across as the wayward child.

I thank God that I was exposed to the Capuchin Franciscans who used their Franciscan charm, kindness, silence, witness, and above all the example of their father Francis to draw me closer to the Church. Once I bought into them, they could sell me Solomon’s temple and I would have purchased it. They earned my trust, my respect, my affection, and above they awakened in me a curiosity about what made them tick the way they did.

Once I learned about Francis, then I understood everything I had ever heard about Jesus. No one ever told me what was wrong with Judaism. On the contrary. I was told of how much Francis loved the Jews and Muslims and how the friars have served Jews and Muslims for 800 years. I was taught that they were my brothers and I did not have to be Catholic to be their brother. Their brotherhood had no boundaries. They protected me from segregation and its evil effects. They gave me an example of prayer, faith, austerity, fidelity to their creed without ever complaining about anyone or anything. I felt as if I had died and gone to Disney. I wanted to know more. That’s how you evangelize.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9982342&postcount=45
 
But no one has yet refuted these two points:
  1. The Magisterium teaches that a grave sin does not cause the loss of the state of grace unless it is committed with full knowledge and full deliberation.
  2. Pope John Paul II taught that some persons can outwardly reject the Church, and yet still be saved by their mystical membership in the Church.
Thistle’s position speaks only of a “conscious” rejection of the Church, not of a rejection committed with full knowledge and full deliberation. A consciously committed grave sin does not necessary include full knowledge and full deliberation.

I should also add that Vatican II and various post-Conciliar documents do not take the position that Jews and Muslims, who know about Christ and His Church, must convert to be saved.
 
But no one has yet refuted these two points:
  1. The Magisterium teaches that a grave sin does not cause the loss of the state of grace unless it is committed with full knowledge and full deliberation.
  2. Pope John Paul II taught that some persons can outwardly reject the Church, and yet still be saved by their mystical membership in the Church.
Thistle’s position speaks only of a “conscious” rejection of the Church, not of a rejection committed with full knowledge and full deliberation. A consciously committed grave sin does not necessary include full knowledge and full deliberation.
Your post gives us much to reflect upon with respect to the truth of point 1. Are you able to point to Pope JPII’s encyclical so we can see the full context? I would tend to agree with your thinking so far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top