Note the language which you also have quoted:
"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"
Protestants DO KNOW the gospel of Christ. Thus, by the terms of this statement, they are included within the 'affirmation.'
They do know the Gospel, but they don't know the visible Church. Your, "thus" implies that your conclusion logically follows, when it does not.
None the less, I accept that you will probably supply clarification that isn't necessarily evident from your prior statement. Am I to believe that this constitutes an opinion that is opposed to your prior one (stated above), or will you merely be clarifying an opinion that you have held consistently?
The language of the Unam Sanctam is clear and unequivocal, with respect to the issue of salvation. Based on the common, denoted meaning of the words used therein, there is no reasonable ground for misunderstanding. Let's look at it again, as cited in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"""Declaratio quod subesse Romano Pontifici est omni humanae creaturae de necessitate salutis" (It is here stated that for salvation it is necessary that every human creature be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff). This definition, the meaning and importance of which are clearly evident from the connection with the first part on the necessity of the one Church for salvation, and on the pope as the one supreme head of the Church, expresses the necessity for everyone who wishes to attain salvation of belonging to the Church, and therefore of being subject to the authority of the pope in all religious matters. This has been the constant teaching of the Church . . ." [emphasis supplied]
And the language used elsewhere is clear and unequivocal in stating that the Church mentioned is not limited to the "visible church". By definition, within the Church's self-understanding, all believers are joined in the Body of Christ. Whether or not some may choose an incomplete union while living on this earth is a seperate matter, and has no bearing on whether they may attain salvation through Christ.
beamishboy said:
I don't care what you say AFTER the Unam Sanctam. That's what it says and I'm asking you again, are you willing to be honest enough to say it's wrong? Don't say my interpretation is wrong (which is what RCs are so good at saying; how else can YOU interpret it?)
This is a ridiculous question. Basically, from what I can tell, you want someone to prove you wrong
using only your assumptions and those resources which you allow. Why would we even want to use your assumptions?
Here is a little proof:
P1) The issue is "what is Catholic dogma?"
P2) The Catechism of the Catholic Church, by definition, holds Catholic dogma.
P3) Your interpretation is not, and opposes, that of the Catechism.
---
Conclusion: Your interpretation is not Catholic dogma.
beamishboy said:
I'm sorry I can't let it go because it's not true. This is what the Unam Sanctam says "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." My conclusions are not wrong. How else can you conclude from that? Let me try Thekla's method. "Necessary" does not mean "necessary"? How do you interpret that sentence if mine is wrong? Go ahead and try. You will see that either you say the Unam Sanctam is dead wrong or you have to do this incredible balancing act that robs the RCC of credibility. Come all RCs, interpret this:
To be subject to something doesn't require your consent, it is a matter of authority. You can disagree with the Pope all you want, but the simple fact that you disagree, on its own, doesn't make the Pope wrong.
Taken on a wider scale, Protestant Christians may not acknowledge papal authority. But that doesn't invalidate that authority. If that authority only applied to those who accept it, it would be the equivalent of moral relativism, because any given Christian could choose to disagree with that authority and still be right (in an absolute sense), simply by virtue of disagreeing.
I think the bigger issue here, is whether the Pope has that authority...
-cue can of worms-
