UNAM SANCTAM and Vatican II: a question

[Cajun Huguenot]

I was born and baptized into the Roman Catholic Church, but just before I was to make my first Communion, my family left the RCC. From that time on I was raised Baptist. As an adult I have migrated from Baptist to the Reformed (i.e. Reformation) faith. Some of my old Baptist friends see my understanding on subjects like infant baptism and covenant to be “Catholic” like (or lite).

Those folks are mistaken, but still over the years I have looked into the RCC a good deal. I have read and listened to their apologists on a number of occasions and for many hours. I also subscribe to the Coming Home Network’s(CHN) newsletter, which I find very interesting and worth receiving. CHN is an RCC ministry that is headed by a former Protestant Pastor who converted to Rome. CHN labours to convert Protestant (especially ministers) and former Catholics to bring them back to the RCC. There was a time when I thought seriously about doing just that, returning to Rome, but I still have far too many problems with the RCC on some important issues. These issues keep me from making such a move today (returning to Rome), and I don't see such a move in the near future/ it ever, though I do attend Mass from time to time and hope attend RCIA classes soon.

Here is one of the items that keep me from returning to the RCC. I know many Roman Catholics today don’t hold to this ( e.g. UNAM SANCTAM, though some do), but it is still “official” doctrine. If Pope Boniface VIII spoke infallibly when he wrote this bull (And the Church, since Vatican I says he did), then it must still be so.

Below is a quote from Pope Boniface VIIIspeaking ex cathedra(i.e. infallibly):

UNAM SANCTAM(Promulgated November 18, 1302)

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles…

…Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep', meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' (NOTE: Boniface declares the Greek and other Orthodox/Eastern Churches to be outside of Salvation, because they are not under the Papacy.)

…Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Note: Boniface now covers everyone else who is not under Rome.)
--------------
In the Catholic Encyclopedia we read the following on this matter:

The Bull is universal in character. As its content shows, a careful distinction is made between the fundamental principles concerning the Roman primacy and the declarations as to the application of these to the secular power and its representatives. In the registers, on the margin of the text of the record, the last sentence is noted as its real definition: "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, and it was declared in the same sense by the Fifth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran, in 1516: "De necessitate esse salutis omnes Christi fideles Romano Pontifici subesse" (That it is of the necessity of salvation for all Christ's faithful to be subject to the Roman pontiff).
--------------
What Boniface stated and the Catholic Encylopedia then affirms is restated basically at the First Vatican Council (1870). Salvation is in the Roman Church alone and one MUST be in submission to the Roman Pontiff in order to have salvation.

Vatican II, I think, contradicts Boniface (and Vatican I) when it says: "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."

I don’t know how the statements of Boniface (and that of Vatican I) and the statement above from the Second Vatican Council can both be true, because they are, I think, clear contradictions of one another. Yet, according to Rome (and Vatican I, which declared the Pope infallible when speaking ex cathedra) we have a number of infallible declarations that obviously, as far is I can see, contradict one another.

The Roman Catholic Church at Vatican I declares that the Pope's ex cathedra pronouncements are with out error. Those pronouncements must be accepted as true, but then Vatican II comes along and directly contradicts Pope Boniface VIII (and Vatican I as well), yet Boniface and Vatican II must both be infallibly true!

If this is so, (Boniface and Vatican II are both true) than we must purge from the laws of logic the Law of non-contradiction, because if Boniface and Vatican II are both true than the law of non-contradiction is false.

How I am I wrong on this? How are these things not contradictory?

Dominus Vobiscum,
Kenith

 

[anawim]

I don’t know how the statements of Boniface (and that of Vatican I) and the statement above from the Second Vatican Council can both be true, because they are, I think, clear contradictions of one another. Yet, according to Rome (and Vatican I, which declared the Pope infallible when speaking ex cathedra) we have a number of infallible declarations that obviously, as far is I can see, contradict one another.

The Roman Catholic Church at Vatican I declares that the Pope's ex cathedra pronouncements are with out error. Those pronouncements must be accepted as true, but then Vatican II comes along and directly contradicts Pope Boniface VIII (and Vatican I as well), yet Boniface and Vatican II must both be infallibly true!

If this is so, (Boniface and Vatican II are both true) than we must purge from the laws of logic the Law of non-contradiction, because if Boniface and Vatican II are both true than the law of non-contradiction is false.

How I am I wrong on this. How are these things not cotradictory?

Dominus Vobiscum,
Kenith

I see a development of doctrine. Boniface (and others) stated that outside of the church, no salvation. Vat II is basically saying that we know where the Church is, but we do not know where it is not.

This is basically saying the same thing as Jesus says in Lk. 9:50 and Mk. 9:40 "Do not prevent him, for whoever is not against you is for you." Also, Jesus goes on to say in Mk. 9:41 "Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward.

So, if Jesus is saying that someone who performs a work of mercy will not lose his reward, then they are part of Christ's church, even if they do not recognize her as such.

 

[garydench]

While I see Vatican II as purely pastoral, one could argue that all Christians are part of the Church through their baptism (and thus able to attain salvation) but once they reject the truth held by the Church, then they separate themselves from her totally.

 

[Paul S]

While I see Vatican II as purely pastoral, one could argue that all Christians are part of the Church through their baptism (and thus able to attain salvation) but once they reject the truth held by the Church, then they separate themselves from her totally.

Which is the teaching of the Church. Those baptised remain part of the Church until they commit the mortal sins of heresy, schism, or apostasy, which require full knowledge and consent. Thus, some Protestants may remain only material heretics, not formal heretics, and part of the Church.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Which is the teaching of the Church. Those baptised remain part of the Church until they commit the mortal sins of heresy, schism, or apostasy, which require full knowledge and consent. Thus, some Protestants may remain only material heretics, not formal heretics, and part of the Church.

? -- Can you explain more? and what of the Eastern Churches to whom Boniface is addressing?

Thanks for the comments. I am trying to understand things better.

In Christ,
KEnith

 

[Paul S]

? -- Can you explain more? and what of the Eastern Churches to whom Boniface is addressing?

Thanks for the comments. I am trying to understand things better.

In Christ,
KEnith

An Orthodox Christian is not guilty of the mortal sin of schism unless he has the required full knowledge and consent, which are two of the three elements required for mortal sin (the third is grave matter, which is objective). If they reject the papacy through no fault of their own, there's no sin - God does not expect the impossible. But if their ignorance is vincible, then they separate themselves from the Church through schism.

Extra ecclesiam nullus salus remains true, as it is an infallible doctrine of the Church. The Church has also always taught that non-Catholics are not automatically doomed to hell if they do not convert. Vatican II just emphasised that it's possible for Protestants and Orthodox to be material heretics or schismatics (holding to heretical or schismatic beliefs), while not being formal heretics (committing the mortal sins of heresy or schism), because they may lack the full knowledge and consent needed for mortal sin.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

An Orthodox Christian is not guilty of the mortal sin of schism unless he has the required full knowledge and consent, which are two of the three elements required for mortal sin (the third is grave matter, which is objective). If they reject the papacy through no fault of their own, there's no sin - God does not expect the impossible. But if their ignorance is vincible, then they separate themselves from the Church through schism.

Extra ecclesiam nullus salus remains true, as it is an infallible doctrine of the Church. The Church has also always taught that non-Catholics are not automatically doomed to hell if they do not convert. Vatican II just emphasised that it's possible for Protestants and Orthodox to be material heretics or schismatics (holding to heretical or schismatic beliefs), while not being formal heretics (committing the mortal sins of heresy or schism), because they may lack the full knowledge and consent needed for mortal sin.

Very interesting. I do agree with St. Cyprian that (ordinarily) "Extra ecclesiam nullus salus."

Thanks again.

Dominus vobiscum,
Kenith

 

[Paul S]

Very interesting. I do agree with St. Cyprian that (ordinarily) "Extra ecclesiam nullus salus."

Vatican II didn't really change anything, except in matters of discipline. What happened was the modernists in the Church used the ambiguities in the documents after the Council to give their interpretation of them. The Council defined no new doctrine.

 

[RhetorTheo]

Perhaps, then, the Greeks and Protestants are subject to the Roman Pontiff? Isn't there a different between being "subject to" and "in submission to"?

But yes, I think the current teaching is not very hopeful for those outside the Church. I think it is worded in an ecumenical and embracing way, but nonetheless the wording is consistent with few (if any) saved outside the visible Catholic Church.

 

[RhetorTheo]

Vatican II didn't really change anything, except in matters of discipline. What happened was the modernists in the Church used the ambiguities in the documents after the Council to give their interpretation of them. The Council defined no new doctrine.

I think those VII ambiguities on salvation outside the church were intentional.

 

[RhetorTheo]

Do the Orthodox reject the Papacy? If they and Rome agree that the East and West are two lungs of the same Church, and that the Pope has the position of highest honor, are they outside the Church? If they were outside the Church, would Rome allow them communion?

 

[QuantaCura]

Perhaps, then, the Greeks and Protestants are subject to the Roman Pontiff? Isn't there a different between being "subject to" and "in submission to."

Yeah, I liken it to someone born in some remote area of a kingdom and never told about the king. The person is subject to the king even though they don't realize it.

It's the same concept as everyone is subject to Christ the King, even if they don't know. They can rebel and no longer become subjects and therefore be cast out of the kingdom.

 

[Paul S]

Do the Orthodox reject the Papacy? If they and Rome agree that the East and West are two lungs of the same Church, and that the Pope has the position of highest honor, are they outside the Church? If they were outside the Church, would Rome allow them communion?

The "other lung" of the Church is the Eastern Catholic Churches, not the Orthodox, who reject the papacy (just ask over in TAW). They certainly reject Vatican I, which defined papal infallibility.

 

[Paul S]

I think those VII ambiguities on salvation outside the church were intentional.

Oh, good. Someone else said it this time, not me.