Question about the RCC teaching of Outside the Church...

[Albion]

Sounds like I might take issue with the OP's approach. The CCC acknowledges that individuals on both sides were to blame. Hans Kung--whose Catholic teaching license was revoked in 1978, BTW--actually blames the Church. My Deacon--who is now seriously ill in the hospital--said that both sides were not listening well to each other.

Ultimately, the Reformation stimulated some reforms in the Catholic Church, somewhat belatedly. And it has brought back an emphasis on Holy Scripture.

My interest was more focused on the fact that he wasn't responding to anyone or defending his church from some supposed slander. He just went out of his way, feeling some need to tell members of EVERY Protestant church off. Yet no Catholic here cares, so long as it's done by one of their own to members of other churches.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I wonder, do any of you believe that historical context matters when reading documents from the past?

(Latin the One Holy, i.e. Church), the Bull on papal supremacy issued 18 November, 1302, by Boniface VIII during the dispute with Philip the Fair, King of France. It is named from its opening words (seeBONIFACE VIII). The Bull was promulgated in connection with the Roman Council of October, 1302, at which it had probably been discussed. it is not impossible that Boniface VIII himself revised the Bull; still it also appears that Aegidius Colonna, Archibishop of Bourges, who had come to the council at Rome notwithstanding the royal prohibition, influenced the text. The original of the Bull is no longer in existence; the oldest text is to be found in the registers of Boniface VIII in the Vatican archives ["Reg. Vatic.", L, fol. 387]. It was also incorporated in the "Corpus juris canonici" ("Extravag. Comm.", I, vii, 1; ed. Friedberg, II, 1245). The genuineness of the Bull is absolutely established by the entry of it in the official registers of the papal Briefs, and its incorporation in the canon law. The objections to its genuineness raised by such scholars as Damberger, Mury, and Verlaque are fully removed by this external testimony. At a later date Mury withdrew his opinion.

... continued here

​

In 1302 AD wasn't the west almost entirely Catholic? Do you think that may have been a factor in the wording? And could translation from Latin to English be an issue? Consider this translation, commonly used on web sites; It is correct?

The Document

We are obliged by the faith to believe and hold -- and we do firmly believe and sincerely confess -- that there is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that outside this Church there is neither salvation nor remission of sins… In which Church there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." At the time of the flood there was one ark of Noah, symbolizing the one Church; this was completed in one cubit and had one, namely Noah, as helmsman and captain; outside which all things on earth, we read, were destroyed… Of this one and only Church there is one body and one head -- not two heads, like a monster -- namely Christ, and Christ's vicar is Peter, and Peter's successor, for the Lord said to Peter himself, "Feed My sheep." My sheep He said in general, not these or those sheep; wherefore He is understood to have committed them all to him. Therefore, if the Greeks or others say that they were not committed to Peter and his successors, they necessarily confess that they are not of Christ's sheep, for the Lord says in John, "There is one fold and one shepherd."

And we learn from the words of the Gospel that in this Church and in her power are two swords, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the apostles said, "Behold, here" (that is, in the Church, since it was the apostles who spoke) "are two swords" -- the Lord did not reply, "It is too much," but "It is enough." Truly he who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter, misunderstands the words of the Lord, "Put up thy sword into the sheath." Both are in the power of the Church, the spiritual sword and the material. But the latter is to be used for the Church, the former by her; the former by the priest, the latter by kings and captains but at the will and by the permission of the priest. The one sword, then, should be under the other, and temporal authority subject to spiritual. For when the apostle says "there is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of God" they would not be so ordained were not one sword made subject to the other…

Thus, concerning the Church and her power, is the prophecy of Jeremiah fulfilled, "See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms," etc. If, therefore, the earthly power err, it shall be judged by the spiritual power; and if a lesser power err, it shall be judged by a greater. But if the supreme power err, it can only be judged by God, not by man; for the testimony of the apostle is "The spiritual man judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." For this authority, although given to a man and exercised by a man, is not human, but rather divine, given at God's mouth to Peter and established on a rock for him and his successors in Him whom he confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind," etc. Whoever therefore resists this power thus ordained of God, resists the ordinance of God… Furthermore we declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.

From: Documents of the Christian Church, ed. Henry Bettenson, 2nd ed. (Oxford, U.K., Oxford University Press, 1963), pp. 159-161.​

 

[steve_bakr]

My interest was more focused on the fact that he wasn't responding to anyone or defending his church from some supposed slander. He just went out of his way, feeling some need to tell members of EVERY Protestant church off. Yet no Catholic here cares, so long as it's done by one of their own to members of other churches.

Of course I care about it, and I hope other Catholics do as well. So, under what category is Church History a subforum of? I'll see if I can get this Android phone to navigate to it.

 

[steve_bakr]

I wonder, do any of you believe that historical context matters when reading documents from the past?
(Latin the One Holy, i.e. Church), the Bull on papal supremacy issued 18 November, 1302, by Boniface VIII during the dispute with Philip the Fair, King of France. It is named from its opening words (seeBONIFACE VIII). The Bull was promulgated in connection with the Roman Council of October, 1302, at which it had probably been discussed. it is not impossible that Boniface VIII himself revised the Bull; still it also appears that Aegidius Colonna, Archibishop of Bourges, who had come to the council at Rome notwithstanding the royal prohibition, influenced the text. The original of the Bull is no longer in existence; the oldest text is to be found in the registers of Boniface VIII in the Vatican archives ["Reg. Vatic.", L, fol. 387]. It was also incorporated in the "Corpus juris canonici" ("Extravag. Comm.", I, vii, 1; ed. Friedberg, II, 1245). The genuineness of the Bull is absolutely established by the entry of it in the official registers of the papal Briefs, and its incorporation in the canon law. The objections to its genuineness raised by such scholars as Damberger, Mury, and Verlaque are fully removed by this external testimony. At a later date Mury withdrew his opinion.

... continued here

In 1302 AD wasn't the west almost entirely Catholic? Do you think that may have been a factor in the wording? And could translation from Latin to English be an issue? Consider this translation, commonly used on web sites; It is correct?
The Document

We are obliged by the faith to believe and hold -- and we do firmly believe and sincerely confess -- that there is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that outside this Church there is neither salvation nor remission of sins... In which Church there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." At the time of the flood there was one ark of Noah, symbolizing the one Church; this was completed in one cubit and had one, namely Noah, as helmsman and captain; outside which all things on earth, we read, were destroyed... Of this one and only Church there is one body and one head -- not two heads, like a monster -- namely Christ, and Christ's vicar is Peter, and Peter's successor, for the Lord said to Peter himself, "Feed My sheep." My sheep He said in general, not these or those sheep; wherefore He is understood to have committed them all to him. Therefore, if the Greeks or others say that they were not committed to Peter and his successors, they necessarily confess that they are not of Christ's sheep, for the Lord says in John, "There is one fold and one shepherd."

And we learn from the words of the Gospel that in this Church and in her power are two swords, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the apostles said, "Behold, here" (that is, in the Church, since it was the apostles who spoke) "are two swords" -- the Lord did not reply, "It is too much," but "It is enough." Truly he who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter, misunderstands the words of the Lord, "Put up thy sword into the sheath." Both are in the power of the Church, the spiritual sword and the material. But the latter is to be used for the Church, the former by her; the former by the priest, the latter by kings and captains but at the will and by the permission of the priest. The one sword, then, should be under the other, and temporal authority subject to spiritual. For when the apostle says "there is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of God" they would not be so ordained were not one sword made subject to the other...

Thus, concerning the Church and her power, is the prophecy of Jeremiah fulfilled, "See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms," etc. If, therefore, the earthly power err, it shall be judged by the spiritual power; and if a lesser power err, it shall be judged by a greater. But if the supreme power err, it can only be judged by God, not by man; for the testimony of the apostle is "The spiritual man judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." For this authority, although given to a man and exercised by a man, is not human, but rather divine, given at God's mouth to Peter and established on a rock for him and his successors in Him whom he confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind," etc. Whoever therefore resists this power thus ordained of God, resists the ordinance of God... Furthermore we declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.

From: Documents of the Christian Church, ed. Henry Bettenson, 2nd ed. (Oxford, U.K., Oxford University Press, 1963), pp. 159-161.

You do have a point about the historical context. The West WAS Catholic at that time. The Reformation had not happened yet. So, its citation by Protestants would seem out of context.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You do have a point about the historical context. The West WAS Catholic at that time. The Reformation had not happened yet. So, its citation by Protestants would seem out of context.

I agree that the historical context does influence the meaning of the document. I also raised the question of translation on the strength of an argument presented here which, offers this translation from a Cardinal in 1875 AD - take special note of the red & bold words at the end. The author of the page offers his own translation of that paragraph thus "9. Moreover, that every human creature is to be subject to the Roman pontiff, we declare, we state, we define, and we pronounce to be entirely from the necessity of salvation."

Unam Sanctam:

Boniface, Bishop, Servant of the servants of God.
For perpetual remembrance :

1. Urged on by our faith, we are obliged to believe and hold that there is one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. And we firmly believe and profess that outside of her there is no salvation nor remission of sins, as the bridegroom declares in the Canticles, " My dove, my undefiled, is but one; she is the only one of her mother; she is the choice one of her that bare her." And this represents the one mystical body of Christ, and of this body Christ is the head, and God is the head of Christ. In it there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. For in the time of the Flood there was the single ark of Noah, which prefigures the one Church, and it was finished according to the measure of one cubit and had one Noah for pilot and captain, and outside of it every living creature on the earth, as we read, was destroyed.

2. And this Church we revere as the only one, even as the Lord says by the prophet, " Deliver my soul from the sword, my darling from the power of the dog." He prayed for his soul, that is, for himself, head and body. And this body he called one body, that is, the Church, because of the single bridegroom, the unity of the faith, the sacraments, and the love of the Church. She is that seamless shirt of the Lord which was not rent but was allotted by the casting of lots.

3. Therefore, this one and single Church has one head and not two heads, - for had she two heads, she would be a monster, - that is, Christ and Christ's Vicar, Peter and Peter's successor. For the Lord said unto Peter, " Feed my sheep." "My," he said, speaking generally and not particularly, " these and those," by which it is to be understood that all the sheep are committed unto him. So, when the Greeks or others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they must confess that they are not of Christ's sheep, even as the Lord says in John, " There is one fold and one shepherd."

4. That in her and within her power are two swords, we are taught in the Gospels, namely, the spiritual sword and the temporal sword. For when the Apostles said, "Lo, here," - that is, in the Church, - are two swords, the Lord did not reply to the Apostles " it is too much," but " it is enough." It is certain that whoever denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter, hearkens ill to the words of the Lord which he spoke, "Put up thy sword into its sheath." Therefore, both are in the power of the Church, namely, the spiritual sword and the temporal sword ; the latter is to be used for the Church, the former by the Church ; the former by the hand of the priest, the latter by the hand of princes and kings, but at the nod and sufferance of the priest.

5. The one sword must of necessity be subject to the other, and the temporal authority to the spiritual. For the Apostle said, " There is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of God " ; and they would not have been ordained unless one sword had been made subject to the other, and even as the lower is subjected by the other for higher things. For, according to Dionysius, it is a divine law that the lowest things are made by mediocre things to attain to the highest. For it is not according to the law of the universe that all things in an equal way and immediately should reach their end, but the lowest through the mediocre and the lower through the higher.

6. But that the spiritual power excels the earthly power in dignity and worth, we will the more clearly acknowledge just in proportion as the spiritual is higher than the temporal. And this we perceive quite distinctly from the donation of the tithe and functions of benediction and sanctification, from the mode in which the power was received, and the government of the subjected realms. For truth being the witness, the spiritual power has the functions of establishing the temporal power and sitting in judgment on it if it should prove to be not good. [1] And to the Church and the Church's power the prophecy of Jeremiah attests: " See, I have set thee this day over the nations and the kingdoms to pluck up and to break down and to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant."

[1] This passage is based almost word for word upon Hugo de St. Victor, De Sacramentis, II. 2, 4.

7. And if the earthly power deviate from the right path, it is judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power deviate from the right path, the lower in rank is judged by its superior ; but if the supreme power [the papacy] deviate, it can be judged not by man but by God alone. And so the Apostle testifies, "He which is spiritual judges all things, but he himself is judged by no man."

8. But this authority, although it be given to a man, and though it be exercised by a man, is not a human but a divine power given by divine word of mouth to Peter and confirmed to Peter and to his successors by Christ himself, whom Peter confessed, even him whom Christ called the Rock. For the Lord said to Peter himself, " Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth," etc. Whoever, therefore, resists this power so ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God, unless perchance he imagine two principles to exist, as did Manichaeus, which we pronounce false and heretical. For Moses testified that God created heaven and earth not in the beginnings but " in the beginning."

9. Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the Roman pontiff, - this we declare, say, define, and pronounce to be altogether necessary to salvation.

​

 

[Yab Yum]

Hear! Hear! This reminds me of a conversation I once had with a Jesuit priest in plain clothes who had been sent, along with a plain clothes nun, to defuse a street preacher who was a former Catholic. I questioned this priest concerning uniquely Catholic dogma, all of which he completely denied. For example, he told me that the Catholic Church does not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, does not venerate her more than they do any other Christian, does not believe in Purgatory, does not believe in papal infallibility, and does not believe that the Catholic church is the One, True, Church. If had not introduced himself to me as a Jesuit priest I would not have been interested.

This was my second such encounter, the first being in a public forum where a Jesuit priest from Fordham University spoke.

If you know anything about the Jesuits these days this is hardly a surprise.

 

[tz620q]

I agree that the historical context does influence the meaning of the document.

9. Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the Roman pontiff, - this we declare, say, define, and pronounce to be altogether necessary to salvation.

​

MoreCoffee,
I would be interested in your opinion on Unam Sanctam in this regards: though it states an infallible doctrine, was it an infallible declaration as outlined in the Vatican I definition of infallibility? My reading on this has led me to believe that it was not an infallible declaration because of the limited scope intended by Boniface VIII. Thank you for any thoughts that you could share.
Byron

 

[steve_bakr]

My interest was more focused on the fact that he wasn't responding to anyone or defending his church from some supposed slander. He just went out of his way, feeling some need to tell members of EVERY Protestant church off. Yet no Catholic here cares, so long as it's done by one of their own to members of other churches.

OK, I checked out the thread and also the author's other threads. I do not think he is a Catholic, because he has written material which is offensive to Catholicism as well as--and even more so--than Protestantism.

He refers to the "pulpit" of a Catholic Church, but we don't have pulpits; only the ambo where the readings are given. I would suggest that this material be ignored, or perhaps the more offensive material reported.

 

[Albion]

OK, I checked out the thread and also the author's other threads. I do not think he is a Catholic, because he has written material which is offensive to Catholicism as well as, and even more so, than Protestantism. He refers to the "pulpit" of a Catholic Church, but we don't have pulpits; only the ambo where the readings are given. So, I would suggest that this material be ignored, or perhaps the more offensive material be reported.

Well, someone else suggested that it's a new name for an old troublemaker so, that could be it. Some Catholic churches do continue to have pulpits, though, I think, so that might not be a giveaway clue...or, as I suspected, there's no telling where he got this text or when it was written.

 

[Rick Otto]

The alleged "limited scope of intent" behind Unam Sanctum is made ineffectual by the entire document itself.
That " declare, define, & proclaim" are not explicit enough to determine - in a document as important as a Papal Bull, which you admit states an infallable doctrine, is not itself an exercise of papal infallability seems absurd.

 

[MoreCoffee]

MoreCoffee,
I would be interested in your opinion on Unam Sanctam in this regards: though it states an infallible doctrine, was it an infallible declaration as outlined in the Vatican I definition of infallibility? My reading on this has led me to believe that it was not an infallible declaration because of the limited scope intended by Boniface VIII. Thank you for any thoughts that you could share.
Byron

I did a little checking and this is what I found. DENZINGER numbers 468 & 469 present a Unum Sanctam's text; Ott Part 2, chapter 5, section 20 lists as "de fide" membership of the church as "necessary for salvation" and comments that " it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God." (quoting from Denzinger number 1647) which Ott reasons as meaning that hope is held out to those who are in fact not actual members of the Catholic church can achieve salvation.

Ott comments that the necessity of membership is not an absolute necessity but it is a hypothetical one. He goes on to observe that in special circumstances, such as invincible ignorance or incapacity, actual membership can be replaced by the desire for membership. Such desire need not be explicit, reasons Ott, but can be included in "the moral readiness faithfully to fulfill the will of God"

Ott wrote his book (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma) in the early 1950s so his comments do not have the benefit of the teaching of Vatican II to draw upon thus it is, in my opinion, useful to read what he said with some reserve and to augment his designation of the belief as "de fide" and his reasoning about the belief with the explicit teaching of Vatican II.

Unitatis redintegratio (The decree on Ecumenism) says

CHAPTER III - CHURCHES AND ECCLESIAL COMMUNITIES SEPARATED FROM THE ROMAN APOSTOLIC SEE

13 We now turn our attention to the two chief types of division as they affect the seamless robe of Christ.

The first divisions occurred in the East, when the dogmatic formulae of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were challenged, and later when ecclesiastical communion between the Eastern Patriarchates and the Roman See was dissolved.

Other divisions arose more than four centuries later in the West, stemming from the events which are usually referred to as "The Reformation." As a result, many Communions, national or confessional, were separated from the Roman See. Among those in which Catholic traditions and institutions in part continue to exist, the Anglican Communion occupies a special place.

These various divisions differ greatly from one another not only by reason of their origin, place and time, but especially in the nature and seriousness of questions bearing on faith and the structure of the Church. Therefore, without minimizing the differences between the various Christian bodies, and without overlooking the bonds between them which exist in spite of divisions, this holy Council decides to propose the following considerations for prudent ecumenical action.

[skipping the material on the churches in the east - to avoid exceeding the maximum length for a single post - I pick up the document's teaching on western Christianity]

II. Separated Churches and Ecclesial Communities in the West

19 In the great upheaval which began in the West toward the end of the Middle Ages, and in later times too, Churches and ecclesial Communities came to be separated from the Apostolic See of Rome. Yet they have retained a particularly close affinity with the Catholic Church as a result of the long centuries in which all Christendom lived together in ecclesiastical communion.

However, since these Churches and ecclesial Communities, on account of their different origins, and different teachings in matters of doctrine on the spiritual life, vary considerably not only with us, but also among themselves, the task of describing them at all adequately is extremely difficult; and we have no intention of making such an attempt here.

Although the ecumenical movement and the desire for peace with the Catholic Church have not yet taken hold everywhere, it is our hope that ecumenical feeling and mutual esteem may gradually increase among all men.

It must however be admitted that in these Churches and ecclesial Communities there exist important differences from the Catholic Church, not only of an historical, sociological, psychological and cultural character, but especially in the interpretation of revealed truth. To make easier the ecumenical dialogue in spite of these differences, we wish to set down some considerations which can, and indeed should, serve as a basis and encouragement for such dialogue.

[LA] [UR 19]
20 Our thoughts turn first to those Christians who make open confession of Jesus Christ as God and Lord and as the sole Mediator between God and men, to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We are aware indeed that there exist considerable divergences from the doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning Christ Himself, the Word of God made flesh, the work of redemption, and consequently, concerning the mystery and ministry of the Church, and the role of Mary in the plan of salvation. But we rejoice to see that our separated brethren look to Christ as the source and center of Church unity. Their longing for union with Christ inspires them to seek an ever closer unity, and also to bear witness to their faith among the peoples of the earth.

[LA] [UR 20]
21 A love and reverence of Sacred Scripture which might be described as devotion, leads our brethren to a constant meditative study of the sacred text. For the Gospel "is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and then to the Greek".(39)

While invoking the Holy Spirit, they seek in these very Scriptures God as it were speaking to them in Christ, Whom the prophets foretold, Who is the Word of God made flesh for us. They contemplate in the Scriptures the life of Christ and what the Divine Master taught and did for our salvation, especially the mysteries of His death and resurrection.

But while the Christians who are separated from us hold the divine authority of the Sacred Books, they differ from ours-some in one way, some in another-regarding the relationship between Scripture and the Church. For, according to Catholic belief, the authentic teaching authority of the Church has a special place in the interpretation and preaching of the written word of God.

But Sacred Scriptures provide for the work of dialogue an instrument of the highest value in the mighty hand of God for the attainment of that unity which the Saviour holds out to all.

39. Rm 1,16, [LA] [UR 21]
22 Whenever the Sacrament of Baptism is duly administered as Our Lord instituted it, and is received with the right dispositions, a person is truly incorporated into the crucified and glorified Christ, and reborn to a sharing of the divine life, as the Apostle says: "You were buried together with Him in Baptism, and in Him also rose again-through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead".(40)

Baptism therefore establishes a sacramental bond of unity which links all who have been reborn by it. But of itself Baptism is only a beginning, an inauguration wholly directed toward the fullness of life in Christ. Baptism, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith, complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and finally complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion.

Though the ecclesial Communities which are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism, and though we believe they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Orders, nevertheless when they commemorate His death and resurrection in the Lord's Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and look forward to His coming in glory. Therefore the teaching concerning the Lord's Supper, the other sacraments, worship, the ministry of the Church, must be the subject of the dialogue.

40 Col 2,12 cf. Rm 6,4 [LA] [UR 22]
23 The daily Christian life of these brethren is nourished by their faith in Christ and strengthened by the grace of Baptism and by hearing the word of God. This shows itself in their private prayer, their meditation on the Bible, in their Christian family life, and in the worship of a community gathered together to praise God. Moreover, their form of worship sometimes displays notable features of the liturgy which they shared with us of old.

Their faith in Christ bears fruit in praise and thanksgiving for the blessings received from the hands of God. Among them, too, is a strong sense of justice and a true charity toward their neighbor. This active faith has been responsible for many organizations for the relief of spiritual and material distress, the furtherance of the education of youth, the improvement of the social conditions of life, and the promotion of peace throughout the world.

While it is true that many Christians understand the moral teaching of the Gospel differently from Catholics, and do not accept the same solutions to the more difficult problems of modern society, nevertheless they share our desire to stand by the words of Christ as the source of Christian virtue, and to obey the command of the Apostle: "And whatever you do, in word or in work, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, giving thanks to God the Father through Him".(41) For that reason an ecumenical dialogue might start with discussion of the application of the Gospel to moral conduct.

41. Col 3,17 Col 3, [LA] [UR 23]
24 Now that we have briefly set out the conditions for ecumenical action and the principles by which it is to be directed, we look with confidence to the future. This Sacred Council exhorts the faithful to refrain from superficiality and imprudent zeal, which can hinder real progress toward unity. Their ecumenical action must be fully and sincerely Catholic, that is to say, faithful to the truth which we have received from the apostles and Fathers of the Church, in harmony with the faith which the Catholic Church has always professed, and at the same time directed toward that fullness to which Our Lord wills His Body to grow in the course of time.

[LA] [UR 24]
25 It is the urgent wish of this Holy Council that the measures undertaken by the sons of the Catholic Church should develop in conjunction with those of our separated brethren so that no obstacle be put in the ways of divine Providence and no preconceived judgments impair the future inspirations of the Holy Spirit. The Council moreover professes its awareness that human powers and capacities cannot achieve this holy objective-the reconciling of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ. It is because of this that the Council rests all its hope on the prayer of Christ for the Church, on our Father's love for us, and on the power of the Holy Spirit. "And hope does not disappoint, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us".(42)

Each and all these matters which are set forth in this Decree have been favorably voted on by the Fathers of the Council. And We, by the apostolic authority given Us by Christ and in union with the Fathers, approve, decree and establish them in the Holy Spirit and command that they be promulgated for the glory of God.

Given in Rome at St. Peter's, November 21, 1964
​

In conclusion I think that the words in Unum Sanctam must be read with great care because of both their historical setting in a time when in the west there was in fact only one Church and also because of the further clarifications given by popes and councils since 1302 AD.

I do not think that an a-historical reading Unum Sanctam should be considered either defide or ex cathedra.

Cheers.

 

[tz620q]

The alleged "limited scope of intent" behind Unam Sanctum is made ineffectual by the entire document itself.
That " declare, define, & proclaim" are not explicit enough to determine - in a document as important as a Papal Bull, which you admit states an infallable doctrine, is not itself an exercise of papal infallability seems absurd.

Rick, Is this any less absurd than Protestants who want Papal Infallibility to be a much broader target for their arrows and therefore reject any Catholic arguments behind a narrower definition? They insist that Papal Infallibility conforms to their own infallible determination of what is infallible and not to what the Catholic definition, as stated in 1870, says. I am not directing this at you personally; but at others on this forum that I have had to debate in the past on this topic. They approach the subject with the hard heart of a Pharaoh and will not budge in their stance. I finally realized that when someone holds the illogical position of being adamantly against Papal Infallibility, yet just as adamantly against any limitation on the number of documents that have been labeled Infallible through Papal decree, one just has to dust off your sandals and move on.

God's Blessings be with you today,
Byron

 

[Standing Up]

Rick, Is this any less absurd than Protestants who want Papal Infallibility to be a much broader target for their arrows and therefore reject any Catholic arguments behind a narrower definition? They insist that Papal Infallibility conforms to their own infallible determination of what is infallible and not to what the Catholic definition, as stated in 1870, says. I am not directing this at you personally; but at others on this forum that I have had to debate in the past on this topic. They approach the subject with the hard heart of a Pharaoh and will not budge in their stance. I finally realized that when someone holds the illogical position of being adamantly against Papal Infallibility, yet just as adamantly against any limitation on the number of documents that have been labeled Infallible through Papal decree, one just has to dust off your sandals and move on.

God's Blessings be with you today,
Byron

So, what's being said?

Unam Sanctum is not infallible dogma?
Unam Sanctum is infallible dogma?

Either way, this means:

Unam Sanctum, per RC opinion, no longer applies to all (RC, EO, Anglican, Protestant) Christians today.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So, what's being said?

Unam Sanctum is not infallible dogma?
Unam Sanctum is infallible dogma?

Either way, this means:

Unam Sanctum, per RC opinion, no longer applies to all (RC, EO, Anglican, Protestant) Christians today.

Unam Sanctam is not a hot issue; it from the late middle ages. Folk who get worked up about what it says are about seven hundred years too late.

By the way, the name of the document is Unam Sanctam.

 

[Standing Up]

Unam Sanctam is not a hot issue; it from the late middle ages. Folk who get worked up about what it says are about seven hundred years too late.

By the way, the name of the document is Unam Sanctam.

Okay, so, this means

UnamSanctam was infallible at that time, but Unam Sanctam is not infallible today.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=tz620q;Rick, Is this any less absurd than Protestants who want Papal Infallibility to be a much broader target for their arrows and therefore reject any Catholic arguments behind a narrower definition?

Were that simply the case, I'd shoot at the Vatican Bank & work my way back thru history with targets from at least 1870 to 1054, before I'd stop for lunch.
No, realy... I've heard a dozen definitions & two dozen non definitions. One undisputable, unquestionable, one infallible (lol) definition would suffice, And the Vatican didn;t HAVE one until about 1870, so let's not pretend this is about me having gas over targeting complexities. How Protestant do you think I am?

They insist that Papal Infallibility conforms to their own infallible determination of what is infallible and not to what the Catholic definition, as stated in 1870, says. I am not directing this at you personally; but at others on this forum that I have had to debate in the past on this topic.

That's OK, I take it personaly anyway, but I'm made of titanium/steel alloy shell, encasing a cold granite heart.
How easy to grok is that def, tho? Will it fit on a bumpersticker, 'cause if it did, people would know it & that wouldn't be problem. Is it too cryptic or do you soppose that people in general are just to apathetic or brain numbed to have this as common as the knowlege that the RCC &/or the EO is the one infallably true Church? Do you see how that in spite of any hedged definition, the force & momentum of infallability escape the confines of the definition & create an aura of invincible truthiness that enhances the glow of each 3 Catholicisms? Can you see how huge a problem that is for a new convert who has to pick a congregation to attend?

They approach the subject with the hard heart of a Pharaoh and will not budge in their stance. I finally realized that when someone holds the illogical position of being adamantly against Papal Infallibility, yet just as adamantly against any limitation on the number of documents that have been labeled Infallible through Papal decree, one just has to dust off your sandals and move on.

All techinal definitions & fine print aside, power perceived is power achieved, and the famous quote "Power corrupts, & absolute power corrupts absolutely." was by a highly respected Roman Catholic about the Infallability doctrin.

God's Blessings be with you today, Byrone

Back atchya, bro.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Okay, so, this means

UnamSanctam was infallible at that time, but Unam Sanctam is not infallible today.

Thanks for clarifying.

Unam Sanctam remains what it is; it hasn't changed. Unam Sanctam must be read with great care because of both its historical setting in a time when in the west there was only one Church and also because of the further clarifications given by popes and councils since 1302 AD.

I do not think that an ahistorical reading Unam Sanctam should be considered either defide or ex cathedra.

 

[Rick Otto]

I get it now. If I don't agree with the Magesterium, I'm being ahistorical.
Fascinating.
:/

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Unam Sanctam remains what it is; it hasn't changed. Unam Sanctam must be read with great care because of both their historical setting in a time when in the west there was in fact only one Church and also because of the further clarifications given by popes and councils since 1302 AD.

I do not think that an a-historical reading Unam Sanctam should be considered either defide or ex cathedra.

Tis all "latin" to me

http://www.christianforums.com/t6938607/
GT Response: Does Pope Benedict XVI deny Unam Sanctam

A thread has been started in GT regarding whether His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, has denied the doctrine of Unam Sanctam.

Here is the link:
http://www.christianforums.com/t6905007-15/#post43831307
Did benny deny the unam sanctum?


Here is the OP:

Originally Posted by mont974x4

http://www.ourcatholicfaith.org/thepope.html

The doctrine of papal primacy upholds the divine authority of the Successor of St. Peter to rule over the entire Church with ordinary and immediate jurisdiction. Two Magisterial texts are key to understanding its supreme nature and the obligation of all who are not invincibly ignorant of this truth to submit to Papal authority for the sake of their salvation.

Pope Boniface VIII, in his Bull Unam Sanctum (1302), spelled out the doctrine of the necessity of the Church for salvation and with it the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff. Regarding the primacy of authority of Peter and his successors he stated:

But this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God [cf. Rom. 13:2] ... Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.
​

I have asked this a few times in other threads and have never gotten a straight answer. Has benny denied this statement in the unam sanctum?
​

 

[MoreCoffee]

I get it now. If I don't agree with the Magesterium, I'm being ahistorical.
Fascinating.
:/

Some people read with a good grasp of history and receive a good understanding of the documents they read. Some people read with a poor grasp of history and receive a poor understanding of the documents they read.