Why should someone choose Orthodoxy over Catholicisma?

[Koineman]

I think you meant “meant their statement to be exclusive…”?

Well, I meant inclusive in this sense: You had written that “scholastics adhered to the principle of invincible ignorance, so it must be taken in that context.” So what I took you to be saying was that those old documents need to be understood as saying that salvation is inclusive of those who are invincibly ignorant.

Well, assuming Unam Sanctam was proclaiming a dogma, we know that dogmas are only meant to address matters that are at issue. If invincible ignorance was a generally accepted principle, why would there be a need to include it in the dogma?

For clarity, so that they would not be misunderstood.

But I’m curious, since you seem to take this approach that the idea of salvation including even the invincibly ignorant was generally accepted at those times, i.e., common knowledge and assumed to be true, what historical documents show that to be the case?

 

[Peter_J]

As someone who is exploring Catholicism, it has occurred to me: Why shouldn’t I consider the Orthodox Church? I’m not trying to stir up controversy by asking this. I really would like to know why.

This is sure to raise some hackles, but I thought I’d give an update.

Due to paragraphs 1260 and 847 of the Catholic Catechism, and their contradiction with Unam Sanctam as well as their contradiction of the NT teaching that faith in Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation, my enthusiasm for the Catholic Church has cooled down considerably, as these issues cause serious problems for the idea of papal infallibility. Consequently, I plan to intensify my search into Orthodox churches, particularly the OCA. I attended a liturgy this past Sunday and have sent a message via that church’s website to speak to the priest.

What is appealing to me about the OC is the fact that it avoids creating novelties to add to the faith but instead seems intent on only preserving apostolic teaching and not adding to it. I could have misunderstood them, but that is the impression I’ve gotten so far from the reading I’ve been doing online.

I am still attending RCIA at a local Catholic parish, as I hold on to the hope that I might, in time, come across some explanation about the above issues that resolves them for me. I also plan to continue attending mass on Sundays since I do like the worship (though I will not receive communion since I am now in strong disagreement with the CC on the issues indicated above).

Hi Koineman. I see that there have already been a number of replies concerning Unam Sanctum etc. I’m not sure if I ought to jump into that discussion, but I at least want to comment on your comments about controversy and raising hackles: personally, I don’t find this thread controversial because it’s about someone (namely you) contemplating *joining *Catholicism. If it were the other way around – if you were a Catholic contemplating *leaving *Catholicism – that I would call that controversial.

 

[Koineman]

Hi Koineman. I see that there have already been a number of replies concerning Unam Sanctum etc. I’m not sure if I ought to jump into that discussion, but I at least want to comment on your comments about controversy and raising hackles: personally, I don’t find this thread controversial because it’s about someone (namely you) contemplating *joining *Catholicism. If it were the other way around – if you were a Catholic contemplating *leaving *Catholicism – that I would call that controversial.

Thanks, Peter J. This is a difficult issue for me.

 

[Vico]

And this doesn’t eliminate the contradiction. If anything, it confirms it. The boldfaced parts above refer to what I mean. Belief in everything the church teaches cannot be done if one is outside the church, whether through ignorance or deliberately. Yes, it does go on to talk about those who reject the things to be held, but that doesn’t eliminate the meaning that everything the church teaches must be held.

The quote first posted explains, “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.” Do the original texts that say no salvation outside the church make this particular distinction between ignorant and not ignorant? I know Unam Sanctam does not. But do any others? If not, then the pope was making this distinction centuries after they were written.

Unam Sanctus was 1302 A.D. One hundred thirty nine years later in 1441 A.D. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, stated:The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…
Anyone that is saved is a member of the Christ’s Catholic Church, even when not a member of the visible Church. However those that are not in the visible Church are not subject to the Supreme Pontiff. Each person has until the end of their live to achieve this. And it may be through baptism of desire or baptism of blood or baptism of water.

 

[mardukm]

For clarity, so that they would not be misunderstood.

Well, that’s part of my point. What need for clarity for something that was generally clear to all. It may not be evident to us today, but that was the culture of the times.

But I’m curious, since you seem to take this approach that the idea of salvation including even the invincibly ignorant was generally accepted at those times, i.e., common knowledge and assumed to be true, what historical documents show that to be the case?

I’m not sure if exact historical documents can be quoted, but here are some facts:
Thomism naturally includes acceptance of the principle of invincible ignorance. The Thomists of every age have insisted that knowledge is required for an act to be sinful. When Thomism was revived in the 19th century, invincible ignorance was a poignant part of its philosophy (so one cannot presume that V2 was the first time this principle was promulgated), evident in the writings of Pope Pius IX, and Pope Leo XIII.

Pope Boniface’s closest ally in the Cardinalate (who succeeded him as Pope Benedict XI) was a Thomist.

The Archbishop of Bourges who had a heavy influence on the contents of Unam Sanctam (some believe he actually wrote it) was a Thomist.

Pope Boniface VIII started the Studium university in Rome (to compete with other universities who he deemed were “rebellious”), which since its earliest days have had Thomists for its Master Theologian.

Pope Boniface VIII himself was one of the most eminent canonists of his age. If you understand the difference between the moralist approach to sin versus the canonist approach to sin, then it might be more conceivable to you that Unam Sanctam was written with the underlying principle of invincible ignorance in mind.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

no misrepresentation. Pre-V2 said you must be in the visible church, as the Council of Florence made clear:.

V-II, added the Church is also invisable, which it is. No “contradiction”!

Going by the boldfaced portions above, it’s clear they had in view that one must be in the visible church, since they say that only those in the church can benefit from the saving effects of the sacraments. You can’t receive the sacraments if you’re outside the church…

Read the link below.

The Church become fragmented, consideration of Catholics of the Reformation, Schism, heresy etc. all came into play.

The Reformation, how can we say today that their childrens, childrens, children are not in the invisable church? Many/Most are correctly Baptised and have a Triune belief, Bible literate, Love of God, they have many common bond with ours. They by choice choose to worship as they do. They aren’t responsible for 500 years ago and by large became subject to learned behavior as all of us do. Nevertheless we must realize as mainline Protestant evolved they have taken steps which have led them further away from us, womens ordination, homosexual partners etc. At the same time there are very good souls in these congregations who refuse to condone this deviation of Bible as a whole. Then the wider picture becomes the world and the understanding that the Creator is responsible for all of this regardless of where or who you are subjected to in culture.

None of this is unprecedented in History since heresy has been mentioned already perhaps we should consider St Athanasius and his followers and time period?

Point is we are called to contend with the period we are in. Just as each who came before us did and it will continue after us.

Unam Sanctam stated clearly that one must be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved. There’s no way anyone can be subject to the pope unless one is in the visible Catholic Church. You can’t be subject to the pope if you don’t know who he is because you’re ignorant of the church, much less if you’ve never even heard of the church…

The Church does not change, she develops. Linked below

You really have to spend some time reading through all this. Subject is called Communion with Rome. Communion is what opened Heaven from the start. As far as your last sentence that is the point of V-II and those who do not know Jesus will be judged according to their lives. There are many who have heard of Jesus and know of Him, who do not know Him; they don’t know that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Florence’s decree that no one outside the Catholic Church is saved is absolutely true in the sense that those who lack any and all connection to the Church are damned but one must understand this clearly. It is without a doubt possible to have an invisible link to the Church pointed out by the Reformation in example.

This was the understanding of St. Thomas Aquinas, who spoke of being in the Church in voto (in desire) rather than in re (in reality), and the Council of Trent, which taught that we can be justified and consequently saved by water baptism or a desire for it. In the last few centuries has come a refinement of the Church’s understanding of what constitutes the votum (desire) needed for in voto membership. An implicit desire is sufficient. A person who seeks and tries to conform himself to the truth has an implicit desire or votum for Christ and for the Catholic faith because, by seeking to conform himself to the truth, he is seeking to conform himself to Christ (who calls himself “the Way, the Truth, and the Life”) and his Church is the Mystical Body of Christ guided by the Hold Spirit. .

Florence’s statement concerning the inefficacy outside the Church of almsgiving and martyrdom is thus to be understood to refer to those who do these deeds in an external fashion that lacks the votum needed for in voto membership.

But then V2 comes along and says you don’t have to be in the visible church to be saved…

I believe I just addressed this.

And of course we can’t forget the tradition in the New Testament, that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation…

The NT is the Tradition of the Catholic Church which arrived 300+ years after the Liturgy. It is the CC which discerned the Bible.

The Lord doesn’t bring people into this world, to damn them. Our Lord is Love.

The Catholic Church has contradicted both its own teachings and those of the New Testament. I’m not misrepresenting a thing…

How can you make such a rash statement. When obviously this is not a learned topic for you and as you admit you are trying to understand?

We quickly lose sight of the essentials here, LOVE is what our Faith is all about and how does Love express itself? One word sums it up best…Sacrifice. Sacrifice is about directing our thoughts away from ourselve’s and to the Lord, the Holy Family and His will and His Church. No one would contend the Lord willed the Church to be ONE. And the Church has been One in all its cultural difference.

Vatican II has been greatly taken out of it’s original context/content thus intent. And in many areas. I find no fault with Pope Pauls work.

That doesn’t mention Trent, so I think you posted the wrong URL.

I meant the earlier link which does mention Trent, as I have on this post in its relationship. I just added more information for you.

Here’s a read about the proposed contadiction theory. Which mimicks your points.

search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7n4oXnVQRm4An49XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEycWVlN3ZkBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1lTNzBfODc-/SIG=122hjdbne/EXP=1349897896/**http%3a//www.philvaz.com/apologetics/debate9.htm

 

[Koineman]

But I’m curious, since you seem to take this approach that the idea of salvation including even the invincibly ignorant was generally accepted at those times, i.e., common knowledge and assumed to be true, what historical documents show that to be the case?

Too bad. I was hoping there that some clear proof that this was common knowledge at the time. It just might resolve the issue for me.

but here are some facts:
Thomism naturally includes acceptance of the principle of invincible ignorance. The Thomists of every age have insisted that knowledge is required for an act to be sinful. When Thomism was revived in the 19th century, invincible ignorance was a poignant part of its philosophy (so one cannot presume that V2 was the first time this principle was promulgated), evident in the writings of Pope Pius IX, and Pope Leo XIII.

Pope Boniface’s closest ally in the Cardinalate (who succeeded him as Pope Benedict XI) was a Thomist.

The Archbishop of Bourges who had a heavy influence on the contents of Unam Sanctam (some believe he actually wrote it) was a Thomist.

Pope Boniface VIII started the Studium university in Rome (to compete with other universities who he deemed were “rebellious”), which since its earliest days have had Thomists for its Master Theologian.

Pope Boniface VIII himself was one of the most eminent canonists of his age. If you understand the difference between the moralist approach to sin versus the canonist approach to sin, then it might be more conceivable to you that Unam Sanctam was written with the underlying principle of invincible ignorance in mind.

Blessings,
Marduk

Unfortunately, none of this conclusively proves that invincible ignorance was assumed in the document. What they show is that Boniface himself might have believed in invincible ignorance to some degree, but that does not even begin to prove that he had that concept in mind when he wrote/produced Unam Sanctam and intended that it be understood in that document. They also don’t show that it was common knowledge and assumed as true by most of the church during the time, just that Boniface himself (and some others) held to it. So, as I see it, what would be needed to prove that invincible ignorance was intended to be understood in Unam Sanctum would be to show that 1) Boniface himself definitely and wholeheartedly held to it, and 2) the entire church at that time held to it as common knowledge, as common as the knowledge that Christ died on the cross for our sins. Otherwise we’re jumping to the conclusion that the idea of invincible ignorance was intended (and assumed) in Unam Sanctam.

Do you see what I mean?

 

[mardukm]

Unfortunately, none of this conclusively proves that invincible ignorance was assumed in the document. What they show is that Boniface himself might have believed in invincible ignorance to some degree, but that does not even begin to prove that he had that concept in mind when he wrote/produced Unam Sanctam and intended that it be understood in that document. They also don’t show that it was common knowledge and assumed as true by most of the church during the time, just that Boniface himself (and some others) held to it. So, as I see it, what would be needed to prove that invincible ignorance was intended to be understood in Unam Sanctum would be to show that 1) Boniface himself definitely and wholeheartedly held to it, and 2) the entire church at that time held to it as common knowledge, as common as the knowledge that Christ died on the cross for our sins. Otherwise we’re jumping to the conclusion that the idea of invincible ignorance was intended (and assumed) in Unam Sanctam.

Historians generally agree that Scholasticism was at its height and had a tremendous influence on the thought of Western Europe from the 11th - 15th centuries. The influence of Thomism is equally tremendous and pervasive in the 14th and 15th centuries. Scholastics in general and Thomists in particular believed in the principle of invincible ignorance. You can look it up on google rather easilty (though there are Traditionalists today who try to prove that St. Thomas did not believe in the principle of invincible ignorance by taking certain passages from him out of context). Scholasticism pervaded the curriculum of every institution of higher learning during these times. You are right that there is no direct proof that Boniface VIII believed in the principle of invincible ignorance, but, on the other hand, I think it is hard to even imagine that he did not, since he had the benefit of the best education throughout his life where scholasticism was taught - moreso because of his area of expertise, canon law.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Schism_hater]

Why choose Orthodoxy? Celebrity endorsement…

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/208165_388610081208960_952468819_n.jpg

“I realize how it is important and great to have the opportunity to go to church to reflect on those important issues that make you Orthodox, and the answer, that Orthodoxy offers.”
T. Hanks

One can only hope that Mr. Hanks did a better job choosing his church than he has his movie roles (lately).

 

[Schism_hater]

Historians generally agree that Scholasticism was at its height and had a tremendous influence on the thought of Western Europe from the 11th - 15th centuries. The influence of Thomism is equally tremendous and pervasive in the 14th and 15th centuries. Scholastics in general and Thomists in particular believed in the principle of invincible ignorance. You can look it up on google rather easilty (though there are Traditionalists today who try to prove that St. Thomas did not believe in the principle of invincible ignorance by taking certain passages from him out of context). Scholasticism pervaded the curriculum of every institution of higher learning during these times. You are right that there is no direct proof that Boniface VIII believed in the principle of invincible ignorance, but, on the other hand, I think it is hard to even imagine that he did not, since he had the benefit of the best education throughout his life where scholasticism was taught - moreso because of his area of expertise, canon law.

Blessings,
Marduk

Scholasticism was just gaining dominance over the older Augustinian tradition in 1302 when Unam Sanctam was promulgated. St. Thomas had been deceased barely 28 years, so Thomism was just getting a foothold. But this is all beside the point, because “invincible ignorance” as an alternate way of salvation over explicit membership in the Roman Church was, I believe, unknown to either shcolasticism or the theology of St. Thomas. St. Thomas taught “invincible ignorance” only in the very limited sense of ignorance of crucial facts as an excuse in moral theology. For example, one might not be an adulterer if one is invincibly ignorant that a woman one is sleeping with is married. I am unaware of any passage where St. Thomas applied invincible ignorance to excuse a failure to be a member of the Catholic (Roman) Church. I am, however, aware of several passages where St. Thomas indicated that an explicit faith in the dogmas of the Catholic Church were necessary for salvation for an adult. In some passages, he addresses concerns about those who have never heard the Catholic faith taught by saying that God would surely give a special revelation of the faith to those who were pure of heart but ignorant.
Mardukm is correct, however, that Boniface VIII was influenced by St. Thomas. In fact, the final dogmatic sentence of Unam Sanctam was lifted almost verbatim from St. Thomas short treatise against “The Greeks” (i.e. Orthodox) Contra Errorem Graecorum (which St. Thomas wrote under orders from his pope. St. Thomas, in fact, had taught that subjection to the Pope was necessary to salvation, and Boniface VIII dogmatized that teaching in US.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Koineman,

Too bad. I was hoping there that some clear proof that this was common knowledge at the time. It just might resolve the issue for me.

One thing that might help is that the Decree at the end of Unam Sanctam is based on a a clear syllogism, having its premise in the fact that the Church is necessary for salvation.

I think the problem that many have in assessing the decree is that the last statement in the Bulla is often taken out of context. Taken out of context, it makes it seem as if subjection to the Pope per se is necessary for salvation, and leads to the conclusion that even if the Pope were to preach heresy, we are bound to follow him (a charge that I have heard too often, and even used myself, when I was not yet joined the Catholic communion). But subjection to the Pope as a private person is not the point of the decree. Can it happen that a Pope is outside the Church due to heresy? Yes, it can happen, and in those instances, the decree does not and cannot apply. Taken in context, the decree is actually teaching submission to the Church, where the Pope just happens to be head bishop and thus representative of the Church. Only in the context of the Church as necessary for salvation can the decree be fully and necessarily understood.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Schism Hater,

Scholasticism was just gaining dominance over the older Augustinian tradition in 1302 when Unam Sanctam was promulgated. St. Thomas had been deceased barely 28 years, so Thomism was just getting a foothold.

From what I understand, the scholasticism does not include merely Thomism. Scholasticism in general preceded St. Thomas, though many say St. Thomas perfected it. The underlying principle behind all scholastic schools of thought was the importance of knowledge and reason in the sphere of faith. Invincible ignorance was a poignant feature of Scholasticism in general, not just Thomism, and scholasticism was the dominant paradigm of the Latin Church since the 11th century.

But this is all beside the point, because “invincible ignorance” as an alternate way of salvation over explicit membership in the Roman Church was, I believe, unknown to either shcolasticism or the theology of St. Thomas. St. Thomas taught “invincible ignorance” only in the very limited sense of ignorance of crucial facts as an excuse in moral theology. For example, one might not be an adulterer if one is invincibly ignorant that a woman one is sleeping with is married. I am unaware of any passage where St. Thomas applied invincible ignorance to excuse a failure to be a member of the Catholic (Roman) Church. I am, however, aware of several passages where St. Thomas indicated that an explicit faith in the dogmas of the Catholic Church were necessary for salvation for an adult. In some passages, he addresses concerns about those who have never heard the Catholic faith taught by saying that God would surely give a special revelation of the faith to those who were pure of heart but ignorant.

I agree with everything you write here, except one thing - the assumption that “explicit faith in the dogmas of the Catholic Church” is absolutely equated with formal membership in her.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Scholasticism was just gaining dominance over the older Augustinian tradition in 1302 when Unam Sanctam was promulgated. St. Thomas had been deceased barely 28 years, so Thomism was just getting a foothold. But this is all beside the point, because “invincible ignorance” as an alternate way of salvation over explicit membership in the Roman Church was, I believe, unknown to either shcolasticism or the theology of St. Thomas. St. Thomas taught “invincible ignorance” only in the very limited sense of ignorance of crucial facts as an excuse in moral theology. For example, one might not be an adulterer if one is invincibly ignorant that a woman one is sleeping with is married. I am unaware of any passage where St. Thomas applied invincible ignorance to excuse a failure to be a member of the Catholic (Roman) Church. I am, however, aware of several passages where St. Thomas indicated that an explicit faith in the dogmas of the Catholic Church were necessary for salvation for an adult. In some passages, he addresses concerns about those who have never heard the Catholic faith taught by saying that God would surely give a special revelation of the faith to those who were pure of heart but ignorant.
Mardukm is correct, however, that Boniface VIII was influenced by St. Thomas. In fact, the final dogmatic sentence of Unam Sanctam was lifted almost verbatim from St. Thomas short treatise against “The Greeks” (i.e. Orthodox) Contra Errorem Graecorum (which St. Thomas wrote under orders from his pope. St. Thomas, in fact, had taught that subjection to the Pope was necessary to salvation, and Boniface VIII dogmatized that teaching in US.

The Summa and the Catechism are in agreement on invincible ignorance.

St.Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

I–II, 76, 3 Whether ignorance excuses from sin altogether?For such like negligence renders the ignorance itself voluntary and sinful, provided it be about matters one is bound and able to know. Consequently this ignorance does not altogether excuse from sin. If, however, the ignorance be such as to be entirely involuntary, either through being invincible, or through being of matters one is not bound to know, then such like ignorance excuses from sin altogether.
I–II, 76, 4 Whether ignorance diminishes a sin?I answer that, Since every sin is voluntary, ignorance can diminish sin, in so far as it diminishes its voluntariness; and if it does not render it less voluntary, it nowise alleviates the sin. Now it is evident that the ignorance which excuses from sin altogether (through making it altogether involuntary) does not diminish a sin, but does away with it altogether. On the other hand, ignorance which is not the cause of the sin being committed, but is concomitant with it, neither diminishes nor increases the sin.
II-II, 2, 7: Whether it is necessary for the salvation of all, that they should believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ?
After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above (Question 1, Article 8). As to other minute points in reference to the articles of the Incarnation, men have been bound to believe them more or less explicitly according to each one’s state and office.
newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article7

newadvent.org/summa/2076.htm
**
Catechism of the Catholic Church**“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​

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s a link which may help. St Thomas is mentioned and addressed in the comment section at the bottom.

search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7muwnHZQhU4AvY9XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyczA1bHM0BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1lTNzBfODc-/SIG=1309rdq7g/EXP=1349979440/**http%3a//iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2007/09/extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus-and.html

 

[Koineman]

But subjection to the Pope as a private person is not the point of the decree. Can it happen that a Pope is outside the Church due to heresy? Yes, it can happen, and in those instances, the decree does not and cannot apply. Taken in context, the decree is actually teaching submission to the Church, where the Pope just happens to be head bishop and thus representative of the Church. Only in the context of the Church as necessary for salvation can the decree be fully and necessarily understood.

Blessings,
Marduk

Sorry, Marduk, that is not the intention of the statement. If he had meant “submission to the church,” I think he would have said that.

At any rate, even if your reading is correct, it still begs the question: How can someone submit to the church if one is ignorant of the church? The bull is talking about formal submission to the visible church (or Pontiff, taking the text for what it actually says), and that such formal submission is necessary for salvation. But that necessarily contradicts V2’s statement that those who are outside the church (who "do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church) can be saved, since those who are ignorant of the church are obviously not in formal membership.

 

[GaryTaylor]

it still begs the question: How can someone submit to the church if one is ignorant of the church?

some of the gentiles have been saved by having “implicit faith through believing in Divine providence.” above link.

 

[Koineman]

some of the gentiles have been saved by having “implicit faith through believing in Divine providence.” above link.

I’m afraid you completely missed my point. Please read carefully my explanation after the quoted part.

Your answer is simply a repeat of other answers I’ve heard, and it boils down to this: making an exception to Unam Sanctam. The idea is that Unam Sanctam does not refer to those who have never heard of the church, i.e., those with invincible ignorance. I am not sure that exception was intended. Some in this thread have shown that the pope might have had invincible ignorance in mind when he produced that bull, and others have shown that the idea was in existence at the time, but none of that justifies this exception to Unam Sanctam because it doesn’t prove conclusively that such an exception was intended. At best it shows that such an exception might have been intended. It’s conjecture, not proof.

 

[ConstantineTG]

One can only hope that Mr. Hanks did a better job choosing his church than he has his movie roles (lately).

Hopefully he produces a religious film inspired by Orthodox tradition.

Tom Hanks presents, BAND OF BROTHERS…

 

[GaryTaylor]

The idea is that Unam Sanctam does not refer to those who have never heard of the church, i.e., those with invincible ignorance. I am not sure that exception was intended. Some in this thread have shown that the pope might have had invincible ignorance in mind when he produced that bull, and others have shown that the idea was in existence at the time, but none of that justifies this exception to Unam Sanctam because it doesn’t prove conclusively that such an exception was intended. At best it shows that such an exception might have been intended. It’s conjecture, not proof.

Where such an exception might have been intended imho is seen in the backdrop of the history of the Bull as suggested. I see your point though.

What have you read in relation to the Bull and its history which you believe supports your thinking? I understand you’ve read the Bull, yet are you viewing it at face value? In other words I’m trying to view this from an Orthodox perspective which usually the point misunderstood or debated there becomes “subject to the Roman Pontiff.” But visably subject I’ve not heard. Also subject doesn’t mean subjects of the Pope. I’ll listen to some other’s points on this and yours.

Peace

 

[Koineman]

Where such an exception might have been intended imho is seen in the backdrop of the history of the Bull as suggested. I see your point though.

“Might have” are the key words here. “Might have” is not sufficient, IMO.

What have you read in relation to the Bull and its history which you believe supports your thinking?

Just what others have referred to on here. Now if you’re thinking of replying, “See, that’s not enough. You have to consider the historical context more in-depth than that,” then I say, If you would like to add to what they’ve already provided, then feel free.

I understand you’ve read the Bull, yet are you viewing it at face value?

I’ve been going by what the text of the bull actually says.

In other words I’m trying to view this from an Orthodox perspective which usually the point misunderstood or debated there becomes “subject to the Roman Pontiff.” But visably subject I’ve not heard. Also subject doesn’t mean subjects of the Pope. I’ll listen to some other’s points on this and yours.

Peace

I take the words for what they mean: subject to the Roman Pontiff means visibly subject, part of the visible church, submitting oneself to the authority of the church. It’s impossible for it to mean merely “a part of the mystical body of Christ apart from being a part of the visible church” as I’ve seen posited elsewhere, since “subject” means owing allegiance or obedience to, referring obviously to people who are subjects under another’s authority.