Unam Sanctum question.

[Gregory_I]

I have a quick question about Unam Sanctum.

THis is not a loaded question.

THis is not a polemical question.

Is this Bull infallible, and is this phrase:

“We declare,say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Part of Catholic DOGMA? That is an irreformable position to be held as it is spelled out, for that is what dogma is.

 

[JReducation]

I have a quick question about Unam Sanctum.

THis is not a loaded question.

THis is not a polemical question.

Is this Bull infallible, and is this phrase:

“We declare,say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Part of Catholic DOGMA? That is an irreformable position to be held as it is spelled out, for that is what dogma is.

This falls under the Ordinary Magisterium. To be infallible it must be either Ex Cathedra, which it is not or it must be an established dogma.

The dogma here is that all need to be united to the Church founded upon the Apostle Peter, because salvation comes through the Church. There is no problem there

The problem arises if we try to use this statement to say that those who are not in communion with Peter will not be saved. The statement has to be taken along with other statements about those who are not in communion with Peter.

It’s very dangerous to take one sentence from a 2000 year tradition and make it THE LAW, when in fact there are many statements on the same subject. All of them have to be taken together. There are other statements that explain how someone who is not in communion with Peter can be saved. And there are further statements that describe degrees of communion with Peter. All of them must be taken as a whole.

By itself, this statement is a black and white statement about the Church built upon the Apostle Peter, but it is missing everything else that has been said about that Church and those who are outside of the physical Church or who are in an imperfect communion with the Church.

In simple English. It does not tell the whole teaching of the Church to this day. This whole issue has to be taken biblically, dogmatically, historically, and phenomenonlogically. Catholicism has a biblical and philosophical tradtion. You have to take the whole of it. This statement is part of the whole.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Fide_Roma]

The Bull was written by the Pope with the intention of defining an article of faith for the church. It is Intrinsically ex cathedra, because the head has spoken in his capacity as universal teacher to define a matter of faith and morals to be binding on the whole Church.

JREducation:

Does an absolute necessity admit of exception?

Are we bound to the exact wording of a dogma, including words like, say, ABSOLUTE?

THose who are not in communion with Peter will not be saved if they deny any part of Catholic dogma and are generally “sinners” who are unregenerate.

 

[Gregory_I]

Calm down Fide, They’re rollin’ heads around here…

It is a very tricky thing to discuss hard topics of faith on these forums, they don’t like it very much here.

I don’t say that to badmouth…just be cautious.

 

[JReducation]

The Bull was written by the Pope with the intention of defining an article of faith for the church. It is Intrinsically ex cathedra, because the head has spoken in his capacity as universal teacher to define a matter of faith and morals to be binding on the whole Church.

There is not such thing as “intrinsically ex cathedra”. Ex Cathedra has only been used to declare two dogmas and to canonize. Outside of that, it has never been invoked.

JREducation:

Does an absolute necessity admit of exception?

Yes it does.

Are we bound to the exact wording of a dogma, including words like, say, ABSOLUTE?

You are baiting, but I’ll play for a little while.

We are bound to dogmas. But we must take the dogmas as they have been explained by the Church throughout her history. If this were the only statement on this issue, it would be very black and white and very simple to run with it. However, it’s not the only statement made on this issue. We have to look at everything that has been said on this issue by different popes and councils without juxtaposing one against the other,.just because we like one better than the other. We have to examine what they are saying together.

THose who are not in communion with Peter will not be saved if they deny any part of Catholic dogma and are generally “sinners” who are unregenerate.

The Church does not say it this way. Read your CCC.

870 “The sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, . . . subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines”(LG 8).

Observe that it does not change the fact that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. However, watch this.

**
819 “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.” 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 Church does not deny her role in Salvation History and the need for the Church in order to be saved, but she also recognizes God’s desire to save and how he uses everything that is Catholic even though it may be found outside of the physical Church.

This latter part was not addressed by the statement above, because it was not the question on the table at that time. Today, this is a major question on the table. The Church has to preserve what has been handed down while answering the question with honesty and admit that there is much of her life outside of her boundaries.

To some people, these may look like exceptions. Tlo men like Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, who are experts in Church teachings, theology and philosophy, they see different questions being asked.

Q. “Is the Church necessary for salvation?”
A. “Absolutely.”

Q. “Can non-Catholics be saved?”
A. “Yes, because there is much of the Catholic Church to be found in non-Catholic traditions and God uses that to save. God so desires to save, that he will use every possible means, even a thread. God will save those who are faithful to those Truths that they know and turn away from that which they know to be a sin.”

That’s where you get into the whole area that gives the appearance of being exceptions, but are not really exceptions. They are realities that were not spoken, because the question was not asked at that time.

We have to be theologically honest and present everything that the Church says, not some parts. When they appear to contradict each other, we must always assume that the failure is on our part, not the Church. It is we who are not understanding and that’s why it appears as a contradiction. We must never be so proud as to place our understanding above that of the popes and the bishops in communion with them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jbeck43]

There is not such thing as “intrinsically ex cathedra”. Ex Cathedra has only been used to declare two dogmas and to canonize. Outside of that, it has never been invoked.

Yes it does.

You are baiting, but I’ll play for a little while.

We are bound to dogmas. But we must take the dogmas as they have been explained by the Church throughout her history. If this were the only statement on this issue, it would be very black and white and very simple to run with it. However, it’s not the only statement made on this issue. We have to look at everything that has been said on this issue by different popes and councils without juxtaposing one against the other,.just because we like one better than the other. We have to examine what they are saying together.

The Church does not say it this way. Read your CCC.

870 “The sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, . . . subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines”(LG 8).

Observe that it does not change the fact that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. However, watch this.

**
819 “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.” 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 Church does not deny her role in Salvation History and the need for the Church in order to be saved, but she also recognizes God’s desire to save and how he uses everything that is Catholic even though it may be found outside of the physical Church.

This latter part was not addressed by the statement above, because it was not the question on the table at that time. Today, this is a major question on the table. The Church has to preserve what has been handed down while answering the question with honesty and admit that there is much of her life outside of her boundaries.

To some people, these may look like exceptions. Tlo men like Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, who are experts in Church teachings, theology and philosophy, they see different questions being asked.

Q. “Is the Church necessary for salvation?”
A. “Absolutely.”

Q. “Can non-Catholics be saved?”
A. “Yes, because there is much of the Catholic Church to be found in non-Catholic traditions and God uses that to save. God so desires to save, that he will use every possible means, even a thread. God will save those who are faithful to those Truths that they know and turn away from that which they know to be a sin.”

That’s where you get into the whole area that gives the appearance of being exceptions, but are not really exceptions. They are realities that were not spoken, because the question was not asked at that time.

We have to be theologically honest and present everything that the Church says, not some parts. When they appear to contradict each other, we must always assume that the failure is on our part, not the Church. It is we who are not understanding and that’s why it appears as a contradiction. We must never be so proud as to place our understanding above that of the popes and the bishops in communion with them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br. JR, when you pass over the veil, I was wondering if you could will over to me your brain…you are one smart pastry…

 

[MarkThompson]

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:
I]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.

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR, when you pass over the veil, I was wondering if you could will over to me your brain…you are one smart pastry…

Not really that smart. Just a faithful son of St. Francis.

Our Holy Father taught his sons and daughters very well. One of the things that he taught us was to remember who we are and who runs the Church. He always said that we must never try to question the Church. This is not our role. Our role is to understand what the Church teaches. However, when we do not understand, we still have a duty to assent. But we never have the right to assume to know better than the Church.

He also taught his brothers and sisters to remember that God wanted us to focus on converting from sin, not on trying to impose on others. That’s why Brother Leo said about him that he preached always, but only when necessary did he use words. That statement has been erroneously attributed to St. Francis. In fact it was said about him, not by him.

It was said, because the brothers were impressed by Francis’ strong proclamation of the Gospel while saying very little about specific situations. It’s rather interesting. He lived during a time in the history of the Church that was very similar to our own time.

Yet, if we examine the collection of his writings and that of his brothers, his focus is on personal holiness. There is never a single mention of the problems and errors around him. There were many. But our Holy Father was as Pope Benedict has said, “The most faithful expression of the First Beatitude” in Church history. “He was totally poor. Not only did he detach from material possessions, be he detached from all claims to power and authority over anyone except his brothers.”

Francis did not sit in a constant state of analysis and dissection of everything that the Church said and didn’t say. On the contrary, he was opposed to such behavior, because it took away from the life of prayer and interior silence.

He understood that the only way to become a saint was to live a life of penance and obedience. The obedient man is not a judge, but a servant of the Church.

Francis also had a very powerful ecclesiology. He understood that the Church was bigger than decrees, encyclicals and councils. The Church and her faith is the totality of everything that has been revealed and everything that has been taught by the Church, not isolated statements. He deliberately avoided using them or referring to them in his writings and in the formation of his brothers and sisters.

His approach always was to ask, “What is the question? Who is asking? Why are they asking? Why do they need to know? Why can’t the inquirer accept what the Church is saying? Is the inquirer above the Church? Does the inquirer know more than the Church? Does the inquirer have the authority to question the Church?” He had a very interesting practice. If you could not answer these questions, then he would not answer your question. He would tell you that you needed to first detach from your ego and from your belief that you have something to say, for the only person who has something important to say is the Holy Spirit and he speaks to us through the Pope and his bishops.

Our Holy Father was as profound in his understanding of the authority and the wisdom of the Church as he was charming in his manner of communicating his ecclesiology. He never tried to teach it. He lived it.

He wrote something very beautiful and very powerful in our rule. It’s a little long, so I’ll paraphrase it. Even if you believe that the pope, bishop, superior or other person in authority is wrong, unless he asks you to sin, you must submit, because such humility is pleasing to God and man. Take advantage of this opportunity to offer your discomfort as a penance for your pride.

This inspired one of our General Ministers, Bonaventure, to develop the Theology of History, which is one of Pope Benedict’s doctoral theses. The other was on Augustine’s theology. The one thing that I learned in theology of history is that the teachings of the Church span 2,000 years of history. One cannot simply lift a piece out of its historical context. As St. Francis inspired St. Bonaventure to write, if you lift a piece of Church teaching out of its historical context, you run the risk of losing the message and the meaning.

Like Francis, we have to learn to seek holiness first, not to spend time on analysis of things that we have no need to analyze. That’s why St. Bonaventure wrote about Francis, “He, like Christ can say, ‘learn from me for I am simple and humble of heart’, because he had learned to imitate Christ’s humility in all things.”

When I look at these spiritual giants (Francis, Bonaventure, Pope Benedict, et al) I feel that I am in no position to question and analyze what they have accepted in faith and with great grace.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

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:
I]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.

Your history is correct. You left out one single detail, which is very important. It was at this time that the Church declared that religious orders had Pontifical Rights. Boniface placed them at a distance from the laity and the local bishops to protect them from being controlled, manipulated, contaminated with the politics of the day and robbed of their resources. This is still in place today. Boniface was not a diplomat, but he was tough. He demanded that the secular financially support the monasteries and religious orders, but that they dare not touch them or become involved in their affairs at the risk of excommunication. The emperor tested the waters and got burnt.

Those times make the relations between laity and religious, Church and state of today look like a walk in the park on a Sunday in spring.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[thirddec]

I’m very simple and practical and to me having a statement as clear as that in our teaching and then saying ignore it if you want look at what else we say as well is like having your cake and eating it. Lets face it if two statements directly and unequivacably oppose each other surely one or both is wrong. It would make more sense to clearly define the Churches position and say we got it wrong on that if we did. Maybe the Church itself should exercise more humility at times. i feel a thunderstorm comming my way

 

[JReducation]

I’m very simple and practical and to me having a statement as clear as that in our teaching and then saying ignore it if you want look at what else we say as well is like having your cake and eating it. Lets face it if two statements directly and unequivacably oppose each other surely one or both is wrong. It would make more sense to clearly define the Churches position and say we got it wrong on that if we did. Maybe the Church itself should exercise more humility at times. i feel a thunderstorm comming my way

That’s why I would point you to someone like Francis of Assisi or Mother Teresa of Calcutta. These were spiritual giants, unlike us on these threads. They understood that the simplest point is often the most difficult to explain. Therefore, they did not expect to find a one line answer to every theological question. They knew that most of the time, this is impossible. However, they also knew that we do not become saints through the knowledge and understanding of deep theological points. Even Aquinas said this at the end of his life. We become saints through daily conversion away from sin and toward the perfection of charity.

It is not necessary to have everything crystal clear. It’s not always possible. Some things are too complex and others are simply a mystery. When St. Anthony of Padua asked St. Francis for permission to open a house of studies for the brothers and teach them theology, Francis responded that they could study theology as long as it did not interfere with prayer.

It’s not a matter of the Church having made a mistake and contradicting herself. It’s a matter of questions that are very different from each other being asked at different times in history. Therefore, the answers are going to seem contradictory; but in fact, they are not. They answer different questions at different times. Since we don’t always understand the big picture, we must be humble enough to trust those who do and move along with the business of becoming saints, not analysts. Let the doctors of theology do the analyzing and debating. Let the popes do the sorting out. You and I can make greater progress toward sanctity by focusing on our conversion from sin and toward the perfection of charity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Sirach2]

JReducation:

Francis did not sit in a constant state of analysis and dissection of everything that the Church said and didn’t say. On the contrary, he was opposed to such behavior, because it took away from the life of prayer and interior silence.

Well said, JR.

Pedantic analysis is the absolute ruination of one’s prayer life.

Such a person may enter the forum with a chip on the shoulder before beginning to post. I’ve been there at times, and know how destructive it can be. God sees the interior of the heart, and the intention, often hidden even from the questioner’s own mind as they engage in subterfuge of the Magisterium’s teachings.

These egos are almost impossible to correct unless they submit in absolute humility and admit there may be truths they just do not yet understand fully enough to expound them accurately.

Since God resists the proud, it should be little wonder that prayer becomes ineffective -
often lacking fervency and joy in the Holy Spirit.
To those who love the first places in the synogogue, Jesus says, “Amen, they have received their reward.”

 

[InspiritCarol]

That’s where you get into the whole area that gives the appearance of being exceptions, but are not really exceptions. They are realities that were not spoken, because the question was not asked at that time.

Beautiful explanation … and simple. This is my favorite part.
Thank you.

I think a lot of people harm themselves by not reaching out with love to the humanity around them. In so doing we can see that there are those who simply can not be *directly * “subject to the Roman Pontiff” for a plethora of reasons such as (but not limited to):

• physical limitations such as the situation of a repressive political regime, or simple poverty
• mental limitations such as those who have been raised on lies regarding our faith; or those who have been badly wounded in such a way that, though able to love God and do God’s work, they can not do so in full communion with us.

Keeping that in mind, and giving Romans a good read, especially chs. 4-8 where Paul’s words really hit home: (“For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” )
we can’t help but admit that the human language is supremely insufficient in expressing the magnitude that is God and any efforts to put him in a box with words such as this small excerpt from a much bigger picture, are contrary to and in direct conflict with our spiritual well-being and fullness of life.

Let the doctors of theology do the analyzing and debating. Let the popes do the sorting out. You and I can make greater progress toward sanctity by focusing on our conversion from sin and toward the perfection of charity.

This really is an amazing gift God has given us with the Church. I don’t “get” everything, I don’t “like” everything; but I know that if I trust in God, he will see to it that His church leads me where I need to go.

 

[dmorgan]

From SINGULARI QUIDEM, Pope Pius IX

“4. You see, dearly beloved sons and venerable brothers, how much vigilance is needed to keep the disease of this terrible evil from infecting and killing your flocks. Do not cease to diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors. Saturate them with the doctrine of Catholic truth more accurately each day. Teach them that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the community of His children.[2] There is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord,[3] outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church.[4] Thus, there can be no greater crime, no more hideous stain than to stand up against Christ, than to divide the Church engendered and purchased by His blood, than to forget evangelical love and to combat with the furor of hostile discord the harmony of the people of God.” from www.papalencyclicals.net

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm

papalencyclicals.net/Leo12/l12ubipr.htm

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13satis.htm

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM

There are many, many more defenses of the One True Church in the writings of the Holy Fathers.
Every Catholic should spend time reading and studying the writings of the Holy Fathers to see where our continuity lies and where we have strayed.

“But it is pride which exercises an incomparably greater sway over the soul to blind it and lead it into error, and pride sits in Modernism as in its own house, finding sustenance everywhere in its doctrines and lurking in its every aspect.” Pope St. Pius X

 

[JReducation]

From SINGULARI QUIDEM, Pope Pius IX

“4. You see, dearly beloved sons and venerable brothers, how much vigilance is needed to keep the disease of this terrible evil from infecting and killing your flocks. Do not cease to diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors. Saturate them with the doctrine of Catholic truth more accurately each day. Teach them that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the community of His children.[2] There is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord,[3] outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church.[4] Thus, there can be no greater crime, no more hideous stain than to stand up against Christ, than to divide the Church engendered and purchased by His blood, than to forget evangelical love and to combat with the furor of hostile discord the harmony of the people of God.” from www.papalencyclicals.net

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm

papalencyclicals.net/Leo12/l12ubipr.htm

papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13satis.htm

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM

There are many, many more defenses of the One True Church in the writings of the Holy Fathers.
Every Catholic should spend time reading and studying the writings of the Holy Fathers to see where our continuity lies and where we have strayed.

“But it is pride which exercises an incomparably greater sway over the soul to blind it and lead it into error, and pride sits in Modernism as in its own house, finding sustenance everywhere in its doctrines and lurking in its every aspect.” Pope St. Pius X

I agree with you, there is a great deal written on the nature of the Church and the subsistence of the catholic church within the Catholic Church. It doesn’t begin with the Fathers either. It goes back to the Gospels and nor does it does end with Pope Pius X. It comes all the way up to Pope Benedict XVI. Every piece of writing answers a different question, for a different audience, at a different time in history, but all on the same subject, the nature of the Church.

We truly understand the nature of the Church and her mission, one has to understand these great truths woven together as a tapestry, each in its proper place. That’s what Theology of History and Ecclesiology do for us. Ecclesiology helps us understand the true nature of the Church, her mission, structure, essence and anatomy. Theology of History helps us understand the importance of each historical moment and each piece of Revelation as it is discussed in different hisotrical contexts. If one does not understand the theological nature of history, one runs the risk of intepreting revealed truths out of context.

That’s why it’s important to get the whole picture. Sometimes, we’re unable to do that, because it’s too much. As someone above so beautifully put it, words can’t always express it all. Equally important, we can’t always understand it all. That’s where the scholars and the popes come into the picture. The scholars help to explain it and the popes sort through it and confirm what is to be believed and taught.

Happy Easter!

Br. JR, OSF

 

[dmorgan]

We truly understand the nature of the Church and her mission, one has to understand these great truths woven together as a tapestry, each in its proper place. That’s what Theology of History and Ecclesiology do for us. Ecclesiology helps us understand the true nature of the Church, her mission, structure, essence and anatomy. Theology of History helps us understand the importance of each historical moment and each piece of Revelation as it is discussed in different hisotrical contexts. If one does not understand the theological nature of history, one runs the risk of intepreting revealed truths out of context.

That’s why it’s important to get the whole picture. Sometimes, we’re unable to do that, because it’s too much. As someone above so beautifully put it, words can’t always express it all. Equally important, we can’t always understand it all. That’s where the scholars and the popes come into the picture. The scholars help to explain it and the popes sort through it and confirm what is to be believed and taught.

Happy Easter!

Br. JR, OSF

A blessed Easter to you also!

Concerning the above quote, from a historical and continuity approach, from the establishment of the Church by our Lord Jesus Christ until roughly 1964 the majority of the Popes, Doctors of the Church and most of our most revered Saints taught of Only One Church, With One Apostolic successor. After Vatican II we developed “subsists in” theology and other sects are now accepted. What revelation led to this? What newly discovered, newly interpreted teaching gave us this change in what was taught for almost 2000 years? Is “subsists in” ex cathedra?
We are often cautioned that early teaching must be considered within context, that we must understand the moment. We must understand the time frame pertaining to the events leading to the teaching. We are cautioned that it must be considered in totality with all teaching.
Then we are told of the V-II teaching, we are pointed to the Catechism of 1994, we are told of Lumen Gentium and the debate must stop. All is settled now.
Why? Why did the Council of V-II and the Catechism of 1994 trump all that preceded them? Where is continuity and organic development?
Why does the “new” teaching now have the final answers and all that went before is history for the shelves? How did 3 years in the 1960’s trump 1961 years of organic development of Catholic theology?

 

[valoriuslobo]

Perhaps I’m wading into muddy water here, but I am saddened when I see the zealous hanging onto doctrines & dogma that seemingly damn non-Catholics to Hell. I often see threads about salvation, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, etc. I myself used to be those types of people who so readily accepted that, I thought everyone was lost outside of union with Peter. Yes, we know that the Church is Christ’s Body, that we need baptism, and that only the One True Church contains the fullness of the Holy Ghost, and only the Church is the surest route to salvation, but let’s not be quick to damn. We mustn’t place limits on God’s mercy.

As Treebeard said “Don’t be hasty.”

This is made in response to no one and nothing in particular. I’m just offering my meaningless two cents.

 

[MarkThompson]

From SINGULARI QUIDEM, Pope Pius IX

“4. You see, dearly beloved sons and venerable brothers, how much vigilance is needed to keep the disease of this terrible evil from infecting and killing your flocks. Do not cease to diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors. Saturate them with the doctrine of Catholic truth more accurately each day. Teach them that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the community of His children.[2] There is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord,[3] outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church.[4] Thus, there can be no greater crime, no more hideous stain than to stand up against Christ, than to divide the Church engendered and purchased by His blood, than to forget evangelical love and to combat with the furor of hostile discord the harmony of the people of God.” from www.papalencyclicals.net

The section I have highlighted above – which is really the crux of why you posted this, I assume – is a bad translation. The Latin says:
“. . . et una est vera, sancta, catholica, Apostolica, Romana Ecclesia . . .”
This means
“and there is one true holy, catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church,” or
“and the true holy, catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church is one (i.e., all together, united).”
Please note that the Latin is not anything like the translation given above, which would require something like
et exstitit tantum una vera, sancta, catholica Ecclesia, quae est Apostolica Romana Ecclesia.
It frankly beggars belief that anyone would offer what you posted as a literal translation of the Latin.

The point can be made clearer by considering the Eastern Catholic Churches, which (at least some) are Apostolic, and which of course are true Churches. Pius would never have said what you quoted: “there is only one true Catholic Church – the Apostolic Roman Church.” This would simply be a falsehood; no pope would ever think that. What he would have said is what I have translated: that “there is only one true Apostolic Roman Church,” a significantly different point. It ties in with the overall point he is making in this paragraph, which is about dividing the Church.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Perhaps I’m wading into muddy water here, but I am saddened when I see the zealous hanging onto doctrines & dogma that seemingly damn non-Catholics to Hell. I often see threads about salvation, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, etc. I myself used to be those types of people who so readily accepted that, I thought everyone was lost outside of union with Peter. Yes, we know that the Church is Christ’s Body, that we need baptism, and that only the One True Church contains the fullness of the Holy Ghost, and only the Church is the surest route to salvation, but let’s not be quick to damn. We mustn’t place limits on God’s mercy.

As Treebeard said “Don’t be hasty.”

This is made in response to no one and nothing in particular. I’m just offering my meaningless two cents.

While I agree that we should not be quick to damn, we also should avoid the assumption that there is “good hope” for the salvation of those outside of the Holy Mother Church - the very proposition was condemned in Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors.

 

[Iotaunum]

I have a quick question about Unam Sanctum.

THis is not a loaded question.

THis is not a polemical question.

Is this Bull infallible, and is this phrase:

“We declare,say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Part of Catholic DOGMA? That is an irreformable position to be held as it is spelled out, for that is what dogma is.

In short, Yes. in fact this is the first time I have ever heard anyone arguing that it was not infallible. I admit that I am surprised, although in our day and age this does not happen too often. The statement meets all the requirements for an infallible statement laid out by Pope Pius IX when he defined the dogma of Papal infallibility.

If we look at what the Catholic Encyclopaedia said on the issue:

"The Bull is universal in character…the last sentence is noted as its real definition: “Declaratio quod subesse Romano Pontifici est omni humanae creaturae de necessitate salutis" (It is here stated that for salvation it is necessary that every human creature be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff). This definition, the meaning and importance of which are clearly evident from the connection with the first part on the necessity of the one Church for salvation, and on the pope as the one supreme head of the Church, expresses the necessity for everyone who wishes to attain salvation of belonging to the Church, and therefore of being subject to the authority of the pope in all religious matters.”

The article goes on to mention the fact that the fith Lateran Council also repeated the definition.

The Pope here is teaching in his official capacity as pastor and teacher of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity. Further, the matter is one of faith and morals, and binding on all Christians. This makes it infallible. It is clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. The interpretation will obviously be intimately connected with that of the dogma: Extra ecclesiam nullus salus, which as we all know is one which alot of people disagree on.

Generally, when the Pope is speaking to all and says; *“We declare, pronounce, and define that ect” *- you can bet it is infallible. If Pope Benedict XVI were to say that “We declare, pronounce, and define that men alone are capable of being ordained to the priesthood and women cannot receive these Holy Orders” ( for example) - I would say the Pope was protected by the Holy Ghost from speaking error and therefore infallible. An anathema or mention of the word dogma is not necessary.