Using the Church's authority to prove the Church's authority?

[Non_Serviam]

I didn’t respond to the point about examples, because you didn’t present an argument.

The key statement in Unam Sanctum says that the only people who can go to heaven are those who are subject to the Pope. If, elsewhere, Boniface made another statement that the only people who can go to heaven are those who are submissive to the Pope (which is a big if, but I’ll let that pass), you can’t point to that and say ‘See? That proves that “subject” means “submissive”.’

I presented the argument earlier that US is a seamless garment, and that while the definition at the end is a summary of that argument, Boniface laid out his argument in the entire letter, and therefore the entire letter telescopes into and interprets the final statement.

The support for that is found in the quotes from Pius and Cushing that we’ve already seen-they interpret the definition in light of US in its entirety as well. All three Boniface, Pius and Cushing make reference to those claiming to be Christian but not actively accepting the authority of Peter as being outside of the scope of Christ’s salvation.

The 1913 encyclopedia also supports that interpretation, but I know it isn’t a favourite of yours.

Are you claiming that your interpretation is correct and this august body of witnesses were all mistaken? Is US a coherent document with one argument running throughout its text? Or are you claiming that US should be subtitled “a miscellany on various, totally unrelated subjects, that have no bearing on each other”?

 

[Non_Serviam]

At least one of the 20th century Popes believed that only those who are submissive to the Pope can go to heaven. I’ll give the Traditionalist Catholics that much.

So does that make two Popes who taught that, or are you setting aside the internal evidence of US and stating that Pius misunderstood it?

So are you saying, if Pope Pius didn’t see it as a discredited document, then that proves that it wasn’t a discredited document? (I don’t know whether the claim in the other thread, about it being “discredited”, is correct or not; I’m just responding to the logic you’re using here.)

I’m suggesting it is a bit of convenient revisionism for some to make the claim that “no one took it seriously” when the Pope, the CDF and the Catholic Encyclopedia all make unreserved use of it as a reference document for the topics under discussion. That would be odd behaviour for those charged with teaching truth, wouldn’t it?

I think I agree with you, at least in part, here. Specifically, I do think there’s a certain amount of syncretism between “Traditionalist Catholics” and the rest of us Catholics. (Or, if we’re thinking specifically of those “Traditionalist Catholics” who aren’t in full communion with Rome, then you might say “false ecumenism” instead of “syncretism”.)

Let’s stick with the Traditionalists who are currently still residing within the big tent, even if they feel Vatican II ripped some holes in it. What we’ve got here is a topic that clearly shows a contradiction between prior Popes and current ones-a contradiction that calls into question Catholic claims about authority (since one authority now produces two different messages) and the ability to interpret the Apostles’ teaching (since there are now two different interpretations given).

Bringing that around to our original discussion-if the Roman Catholic church can be incorrect on such a key topic as who is a recipient of Christ’s salvation, can’t it also be in error about the authority it claims for itself?

 

[Peter_J]

So does that make two Popes who taught that, or are you setting aside the internal evidence of US and stating that Pius misunderstood it?

Let me take those one at a time. No, I’m not setting side the internal evidence of Unum Sanctum. I think you’re losing track of our conversation: I wasn’t challenging your general assertion about what Boniface believed; I was challenging your assertion that when he used the term subesse, he meant “be submissive to” rather than “be subject to”. (I’m still waiting to hear the “internal evidence” that would support that alternative translation.)

So does that make two Popes who taught that, or are you setting aside the internal evidence of US and stating that Pius misunderstood it?

To the last part of that question, I would say two things. First, I don’t care much for your grandstanding technique. Second, does the fact that I’m not a Traditionalist Catholic make me “not a real Catholic”, in your eyes?

I’m suggesting it is a bit of convenient revisionism for some to make the claim that “no one took it seriously” when the Pope, the CDF and the Catholic Encyclopedia all make unreserved use of it as a reference document for the topics under discussion. That would be odd behaviour for those charged with teaching truth, wouldn’t it?

I think you just confirmed my suspicions. Basically, you’re saying that anyone who doesn’t agree with Pope Pius (I forget now if it was XI or XII that we were talking about) 's view of Unam Sanctum, is a historical “revisionist”.

 

[Peter_J]

Let’s stick with the Traditionalists who are currently still residing within the big tent, even if they feel Vatican II ripped some holes in it.

That suits me.

What we’ve got here is a topic that clearly shows a contradiction between prior Popes and current ones

Correct.

-a contradiction that calls into question Catholic claims about authority

What else is new? Or are you unaware that people have been questioning those claims century-in century-out?

 

[Peter_J]

and stating that Pius misunderstood it?

As shocking as that possibility might be rolleyes, I would like to point out that the document in question (this 1949 letter) cannot be found on vatican.va (or, at least, I was unable to find it there).

So it’s possible that I’m not alone in entertaining the far-fetched possibility that Pope Pius XII might possibly have misunderstood something.

 

[Good_Fella]

I didn’t respond to the point about examples, because you didn’t present an argument.

The key statement in Unam Sanctum says that the only people who can go to heaven are those who are subject to the Pope. If, elsewhere, Boniface made another statement that the only people who can go to heaven are those who are submissive to the Pope (which is a big if, but I’ll let that pass), you can’t point to that and say ‘See? That proves that “subject” means “submissive”.’

To be subject or submissive to the Vicar of Christ means to subject and submit oneself to the authority of Christ and his teachings which have been conferred on and entrusted to the Pope. He holds the keys of the kingdom as Peter’s successor.

 

[Peter_J]

To be subject or submissive to the Vicar of Christ means to subject and submit oneself to the authority of Christ and his teachings which have been conferred on and entrusted to the Pope.

Yes, “subject” and “submissive” mean “subject” and “submissive”.

But the point is that Boniface said that the only people who can go to heaven are those who are “subject” to the Pope. He didn’t say that the only people who can go to heaven are those who are “submissive” (or “subject and submissive”) to the Pope.

 

[Good_Fella]

Yes, “subject” and “submissive” mean “subject” and “submissive”.

But the point is that Boniface said that the only people who can go to heaven are those who are “subject” to the Pope. He didn’t say that the only people who can go to heaven are those who are “submissive” (or “subject and submissive”) to the Pope.

Pope Boniface did not mean that those subject to the pontiff are strictly members of the Catholic Church. If he did, then he would have erred. Jesus commissioned Peter to feed his sheep (Jn 21:15-17) who include those who are outside the visible Church and the mystical body of Christ (Jn 10:16). ‘Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus’ has never meant that only Catholics who are faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ and his Church will be saved. Both Protestants and ultra-traditional Catholics misunderstand what the Church has always meant by this de fide teaching. Pope John Paul ll clarifies how this dogma is to be properly understood.

“The Church is the sacrament of salvation for all humankind, and her activity is not limited only to those who accept her message.”
Redemptoris Missio 20

PAX :harp: