|
Forums26
Topics35,535
Posts417,725
Members6,187
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Try Boniface VIII Unam Sanctam.
Then quit trying to raise the bar!
Fr. Serge Thanks Fr. Serge, I'll read it again. What do you think is specifically not taught by the Catholic Church today that was taught in Unam Sanctam ? Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Read Unam Sanctam. If you don't recognize its most notorious passage, you have a problem.
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Father, here is the most infamous passage: Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. I imagine that a typical theological response today would be to say that it is normally necessary to be subject to the Pope for salvation, but those with "invincible ignorance," are excused." However, if this is what Pope Boniface VIII meant, then why did he say "absolutely necessary?" What is the significance of "absolute" in the context of this bull. On another note, the bull asserts that the church has both spiritual and temporal power and that the temporal power (in the hands of kings and rulers) must be subject to the direction of the priestly power. Yet, an intro from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia says this: The statements concerning the relations between the spiritual and the secular power are of a purely historical character, so far as they do not refer to the nature of the spiritual power, and are based on the actual conditions of medieval Europe What is the basis for saying this? I read the bull and it seems that the Pope is defining the nature of the church's spiritual and temporal power very clearly. And if we say that this is all "historical," meaning not applicable, then why not say, with regard to Humanae Vitae that the absolute prohibition against non-rhythm method forms of birth control is historical in character and does not into account the significant development of our understand of biology as well as the Church's growing understanding of the importance of the unitive aspect of marriage? Why not say that it is the Pope Paul's VI's elevation of the unitive aspect of marriage that is definitive and the rest of the encyclical is just "historical?" Joe Here's the full text of the Bull http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html
Last edited by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy; 09/26/08 06:36 PM. Reason: Added Link
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
I have not said one word to defend Unam Sanctam. I have offered it to you as an example of a "binding" statement of dogma which the Church would certainly not stand by today.
Now I'm asking myself what you are really looking for. If you look in the footnotes of Vatican II, you will find some reference to the "Letter to the Archbishop of Boston", in which, in impeccable pre-conciliar language, it is made clear that even then the Church did not, repeat, not, claim "that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
While we are on the subject, in several theological dialogues the Church has stated her willingness to look again at some condemnations of the past.
But again, at no time have I accepted any obligation to defend Unam Sanctam.
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
I have not said one word to defend Unam Sanctam. I have offered it to you as an example of a "binding" statement of dogma which the Church would certainly not stand by today.
Now I'm asking myself what you are really looking for. If you look in the footnotes of Vatican II, you will find some reference to the "Letter to the Archbishop of Boston", in which, in impeccable pre-conciliar language, it is made clear that even then the Church did not, repeat, not, claim "that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
While we are on the subject, in several theological dialogues the Church has stated her willingness to look again at some condemnations of the past.
But again, at no time have I accepted any obligation to defend Unam Sanctam.
Fr. Serge Fr. Serge, I know you aren't defending Unam Sanctum. But I wonder, looking at the language of the Bull (which clearly seems ex cathedra to me), how it is that a Catholic is supposed to know what is indeed unchangeable and what may change in the future? Perhaps one can never know and the whole point is simply to obey the Pope whatever he says if another Pope comes along later and changes it, then let the future generation worry about it. Joe
Last edited by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy; 09/26/08 07:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Much depends on what it means to be "subject to" the Roman Pontiff. From reading Unam Sanctam in context, it appears that the real issue is to what extent a secular ruler would be "subject to the Roman Pontiff." According to Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma, Boniface VIII himself denied the meaning attributed to the document by Phillip IV who said that the Pope had direct power over kings. Boniface in reply said: "...We say that we wish to usurp the jurisdiction of a king in nothing...[but] it cannot be denied that a king or any other person among the faithful is subject to us by reason of sin." I guess I really don't see anything in Unam Sanctum that indicates anything other than what is said in Dominus Iesus: Above all else, it must be firmly believed 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 (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”.77 This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.78
The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”,79 since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God's plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being.80 For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”;81 it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.82
21. With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”.83 Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully. Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding better God's salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished. However, from what has been stated above about the mediation of Jesus Christ and the “unique and special relationship”84 which the Church has with the kingdom of God among men — which in substance is the universal kingdom of Christ the Saviour — it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God. Since the Pope is at the service of the Church of Christ which subsists in the Catholic Church, I claim that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is to adhere to the teaching set forth in Dominus Iesus.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 48
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 48 |
Can someone explain to me the difference between the authority of the Pope over the Byzantine Catholic Church vs the Roman Catholic Church.. (or however the heck I am supposed to be labeling things)? For instance does the Catechism of the Catholic Church have the same authority over the whole Catholic Church, East and West? If the Pope writes an encyclical on "just war" is that in some way binding on the whole Church? Is my question clear? Hello, YES, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is binding on ALL rites of the Catholic Church. This is why there are numerous references in the Catechism to the eastern rite churches. IF the Pope writes an encyclical on a "just war" it is binding on all Catholics. This is why we are Catholic and follow the chair of St. Peter. IF we could discard or shrug off the Pope and his authority we would be called Orthodox. Actually, I am curious if you have anything that backs that up. I AM genuinely looking for facts not just opinion and it seems to me if the CCC is equally binding on all rites and all papal encyclicals are as well there ought to be something to substantiate it. And that IS what I am trying to find. So I would appreciate something to back that up if you do have it and it is more than just your opinion or understanding of things. <<<<Yes, I have the teaching of the Catholic Church to back that up. The Pope IS our shepard, he is our direct leader. This is a fairly simple understanding. Sorry that my previous post has offended you but you should not be so sensitive to the truth. The Orthodox listen to what the Pope has to say, to them however, it is non-binding and they can choose to either say "good point" or roll their eyes. We as eastern Catholics can not take what our Supreme Pontiff has to say with the proverbial grain of salt. If you would like to have this freedom, join the Orthodox Church. Good luck and God bless. >>>>>> Oh you misunderstand. I am not sensitive to the truth. I am sensitive to haughtiness, arrogance and a deliberate twisting of what someone says with a pat answer in response.
Last edited by Saponaria; 10/07/08 09:39 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
