This pope had more than just an issue of Mood. He was a rascal. And not in a cute good way.The teaching is independent of the (suppossed) bad will of the Pope. The teaching is protected by the Holy spirit despite the “mood” of the Pontiff.
But Pope John Paul II made some exceptions or clarified exceptions to the understanding as stated in Unum Sanctam. Also Cyprian may have understood his statement differently than Boniface VIIIThe teachings of Unam Sanctam were also taught by:
Hugh of St. Victor
St. Bernard of Clairvaux
St. Thomas Aquinas
St. Cyprian
The Council of Florence
The Fourth Lateran Council
and Pope John Paul II:
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).”
See this article:
catholicplanet.com/TSM/Unam-Sanctam-commentary.htm
It is a serious sin to make false accusations against a Pope.But Pope John Paul II made some exceptions or clarified exceptions to the understanding as stated in Unum Sanctam. Also Cyprian may have understood his statement differently than Boniface VIII
What false accusations have I made to what Pope? And how is making a false accusation against a pope greater that making a false accusation against anyother person?It is a serious sin to make false accusations against a Pope.
The personal understanding of any Pope is distinct from the truths that he teaches as an act of the Magisterium. The teaching of Unam Sanctam is the teaching of the Magisterium, and is entirely consistent with prior and subsequent teachings on the same subject.
There have been a number of wicked Popes. The fact that they did not promulate wicked doctrines is evidence of God’s protection of the Church.This pope had more than just an issue of Mood. He was a rascal. And not in a cute good way.
Each of our Popes has been a fallen human person, conceived with original sin, and guilty of some personal sins. Some Popes have been more sinful than other Popes. Some Popes are Saints and others are not.There have been a number of wicked Popes. The fact that they did not promulate wicked doctrines is evidence of God’s protection of the Church.
Would you say “by their fruits you should know them?” Well lets look at Benedict IX.Each of our Popes has been a fallen human person, conceived with original sin, and guilty of some personal sins. Some Popes have been more sinful than other Popes. Some Popes are Saints and others are not.
But there is no justification for calling any of our past Popes ‘wicked’.
St. Peter Damian described him as “feasting on immorality” and “a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest” in the Liber Gomorrhianus, a treatise on papal corruption and sex that accused Benedict IX of routine homosexuality and bestiality.
He was also accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of “many vile adulteries and murders.” Pope Victor III referred to “his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts.
The Turning Point Pope Boniface VIII (1294 1303)
After more than two years of deadlock, the cardinals elected an illiterate hermit as the new pope, Celestine V (1294). After five months of incompetent government, he resigned the office. His advisor, Benedict Caetani, was elected and took the name Boniface VIII.
Boniface reorganized canon law, more precisely defined papal authority vis a vis secular powers, and founded the University of Rome. In 1300, he declared the first Jubilee year, which brought many thousands of pilgrims. The extraordinary response to the Jubilee from across Christendom spoke volumes about the health of the Church and Christian society. Boniface proceeded as other popes in the thirteenth century, yet the secular powers in England and France were in a position to defy him.
When England and France went to war in 1294, both kings began illegally taxing their clergy to fund the war. Boniface issued Clericis laicos in 1296, forbidding such taxation without papal permission. Boniface purposely mentioned no one, hoping to strike a compromise that would allow some temporary taxation. In England, the problem was defused by the archbishop’s order that the payment should be left to individual conscience. In France, Philip IV allowed no such measure and indeed forbade the export of any funds outside of France, thus cutting off the papacy. Boniface and Philip Over the following years, Boniface attempted various compromises with Philip, allowing him to get the money while preserving the rights of the Church. Philip and his advisors began a campaign of slurs, claiming that Boniface had murdered his predecessor and that he was a heretic. In 1301, Boniface wrote to Philip, warning him that he was acting in a sinful manner, although obviously because of bad advice. Philip ignored this.
Boniface called a council in Rome, but less than half of the French bishops attended, fearful of the king.
God bless,Unam Sanctam in 1302 laid out completely Philip’s, and every other Christian’s, duty to obey the pope in matters of sin. “There is only one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” The pope as the Vicar of Christ is the head of that Church. Those who deny that are not of the Church. The two swords are given to the Church by God for the service of his people and the salvation of souls. The spiritual must act when the temporal moves to sin. “It is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Philip was given a year to repent. Philip called councils of French clergy, who condemned Boniface as a murderer and heretic. Troops entered Anagni in September 1303, just before the pope was to excommunicate Philip, and arrested the pope. He died shortly thereafter. Although armed with papal prerogatives, elaborate theological and philosophical justifications, and meticulously developed canon law, the popes were now faced with the brute force of new and vital kingdoms.
DOESNT MATTER!!! He could be a terrible horrible person. It is the teaching the Holy Spirit protects.This pope had more than just an issue of Mood. He was a rascal. And not in a cute good way.
John Vidmar, OPHi Sambos,
Where are you getting your information on Boniface?
The fact that there have been horrible Popes and they have not taught against the magesterium yet seems to be an indicator. What would you say to a Pope who told you to become Muslim? Would it matter then?DOESNT MATTER!!! He could be a terrible horrible person. It is the teaching the Holy Spirit protects.
It would be interesting to read what he says. I’ve gotten a great deal from Madden’s work, but he doesn’t dwell too much on the real scandalous behaviour of popes except for some notable exceptions.John Vidmar, OP
The fact is for years the papacy had been fighting different rulers to avoid caesaro papism but a strong Pope like Inocent III made a flip to where the Pope has authority over civil authorities. The fact that the papacy lost some of this over the years befor Unam Sanctam and the disposition of the pope that forwarded it makes me sceptical. Was it a power grab or was it really intent on the faithful and their salvation. I believe attitudes like this has lead to the scandals that we are now faced with.It would be interesting to read what he says. I’ve gotten a great deal from Madden’s work, but he doesn’t dwell too much on the real scandalous behaviour of popes except for some notable exceptions.
As for Unam Sanctam, I think that you have to see it in its political context. Madden seems to be indicating that it was really about a power struggle between the rising power of the French and English Monarchies who were appropriating church funds to finance wars that the Holy See did not approve of. Especially given the fact that both these monarchies were Catholic at the time. I think understanding this helps clarify what Boniface was trying to say.
Is it the scandalous behaviour of the Popes that bothers you, or the fact that a scandalous pope wrote Unum Sanctam, causing you to doubt that it is from the Holy Spirit?
God bless,
Ut
Good questions. I personally would not want to see a return to the days of Papal Monarchy. In the struggle for autonomy from secular rulers, the Papacy often took on the trapings of secular rulers. This was not a good thing, in my opinion.The fact is for years the papacy had been fighting different rulers to avoid caesaro papism but a strong Pope like Inocent III made a flip to where the Pope has authority over civil authorities. The fact that the papacy lost some of this over the years befor Unam Sanctam and the disposition of the pope that forwarded it makes me sceptical. Was it a power grab or was it really intent on the faithful and their salvation. I believe attitudes like this has lead to the scandals that we are now faced with.
From a moral perspective, I believe this is true. But I don’t see how this is workable from a legal perspective. The temporal must judge itself, I’m thinking.Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power;
From a moral perspective again, I agree with this, but I don’t see how this can be true from a legal perspective. If a priest if convicted of pedophilia, then that priest must be condemned by the church, but it is up to the temporal authority to bring that person to justice. Unum sanctam does acknowledge that there is real secular authority.but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power;
I can’t see how this can be an absolute claim. If the pope were a murderer or a thief, then the pope would be subject to both religious and secular sanction.but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: ‘The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man’ [1 Cor 2:15].
When it comes to matters of faith and morality, I agree with this statement. But I do not agree that Peter was given absolute freedom from prosecution.This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven’ etc., [Mt 16:19].
In a sense, I agree with this. I do not think that conciliarism can provide unity. The church is one, and in a sense, the pontif is a living symbol of that unity.Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1].
There are a lot of concepts in this bull that are open to interpretation. What falls under the scope of “for salvation”? In my opinion, this is limited to matters of faith and morals. But not matters of juridical authority, except when that juridical authority errs in matters of morality, and even faith. I owe no secular ruler submission when what that ruler declares is contrary to the moral law as formulated by the church, and agreed to by my conscience.Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
you dont understand the Church’s teaching.The fact that there have been horrible Popes and they have not taught against the magesterium yet seems to be an indicator. What would you say to a Pope who told you to become Muslim? Would it matter then?