Ray,
The entire Bull (letter) is not - infallible. The only infallible statement is the very last line (�we define and pronounce�) while the entire preceding portion is a �we believe and hold� (fallable) thing and is used as general interpretation of pertinent history and gospel based allegory - with clear intent to set the stage for the concluding infallable pronouncement.
I am very loath to admit, or at least exagerate, the distinction often made by people between "infallible" and "non-infallible" parts of official ecclessiastical documents, particularly when they are emmanations of the Church's Highest teaching authority (whether they be from an Ecumenical Council, or decrees of the Sovereign Pontiffs.)
In the strictest sense, yes, only the definition itself is "infallible" (absolutely guaranteed not to be in error.)
However, this is not simply true of Papal Bulls or great Encyclicals - this is true of the documents of Ecumenical Councils themselves. Only the "definitions", and not the explanatory materials are quote "infallible."
However, the Church's infallibility is not simply embodied in the extraordinary magisterium (dogmatic definitions), but also in the "ordinary magisterium." This means, whatever is part of the ordinary teaching of the Church, should also be recognized as being of supreme authority. This of course is more nebulous, since it's not being pinned down to any one thing. However, when combined with the teaching that we are to receive the teachings of the Church with docility (and that only sufficiently qualified theologians are competent, with due respect, to argue the merits of this or that Church document), I think it means we should be very hesitant about "blowing off" such documents because they go against our private understanding of a subject.
To do otherwise creates a situation of lawlessness and confusion.
It is well known that the Bull (letter from office of the Pontiff) was issued in responce to the imminent possibility of a forced temporal division of the church in France. This then should be its major context.
Yes, but the basic subjects being dealt with apply well beyond the context of a potential French schism. Most dogmatic definitions or more specifically articulated doctrines were a response to something bad in the world - this does not undermine the universality of their significance.
The portion which states �that outside of her there is no salvation nor remission of sins,� has the meaning �There are no valid sacraments outside of proper apostolic church authority nor is there any valid Confession (�remission of sins�).�
I think I get what you're trying to say, but I think you're putting the cart in front of the horse. Let us simply recognize for now, that what it says is quite clear - it says what it says; outside of the Catholic Church (which visibly is that Church in communion with the Holy See) there is no salvation nor remission of sins. That is undoubtedly what the text is saying. That's not ALL that can be said on this topic, but that is definately what is being said.
To any member of the church at the peak of Christendom - the �remission of sin� is only one thing - it is the sacrement of confession - the pre-requisite (conditioning of conscience) to all sacrements.
"Remission of sin" would also (in fact would primarily) refer to Holy Baptism as well. It would also refer to the forgiveness of venial sins which comes via prayer.
While I have great affection (as does this current Pope, obviously) for our Eastern Orthodox friends, there are some hard truths which also need to be stated - without which, texts like
Unum Sanctum become impossible to understand.
Objectively speaking, the seperation of the Orthodox Churches from the Holy See and those Bishops in communion with him, does constitute (and still constitues) a
schism. Schism is at the very least, a
material sin - that means some part of justice is being violated, even if the individuals involved do not
understand that they are committing a sin (thus the difference between "material" and "formal" sin...it's an issue of culpability or blameworthiness.)
According to the likes of St.Augustine, and later St.Thomas Aquinas (though may great Fathers taught on this topic), when a validly ordained Bishop or Priest goes into schism, they do not cease being a Priest; that can never be "undone." However, because of the lawlessness of what they've done, those receiving sacraments from them and who knowingly participate in their schism, may receive "valid sacraments", but they do so unfruitfully.
"Unfruitfully" - what does this mean? It means that while they receive real sacraments, they do not benefit from them; if anything, they only increase their sins. I'll give an example that has nothing to do with schism to illustrate the point...
Let's say we have a man who says he wants to become a Catholic, but only for social reasons. In reality, he is not sorry for anything he has ever done (in fact he actually relishes in his sins), and he looks at the teachings of the Church with an incredible degree of cynicism. This man goes through the motions of catechesis, and then one Saturday afternoon receives Baptism.
This man, really does receive Baptism - a real sacrament took place, validitly administered.
However, because he had placed obsticals in his soul, while he received a real baptism and the "character" of this sacrament, he would not have received the "infusion of grace" which comes with this sacrament and is what causes the remission of sins. If anything, this man only sinned all the more, effectively being guilty of sacrelige.
Schism creates similar impediments to receiving the sacraments with benefit, including even the sacrament of Baptism.
Thus, in principle what Pope Boniface VIII articulates in
Unum Sanctum is 110% correct. There is
no remission of sins apart from the Church, the unique Ark of Salvation; there is only desolation.
However, we must return to that question of
culpability. The reality recognized by the Holy See (particularly in recent decades) is that you cannot realistically look at the Orthodox, particularly centuries removed from the original schisms which divided them from the Holy See, and say with much confidence that here we have a collection of people who "know better." And this is really the crux of the problem people have when they read
Unum Sanctum and allow themselves to be scandalized, or feel the need to try and explain it away - they forget the Catholic principle that
conscience is king.
If a person's conscience is somehow erroneous (not understanding that they're participants to an objective sin), that they personally are not culpable of a sin. It's much like forgetting it's Friday (in the Latin Church) and not abstaining from meat or doing some equivelent pious work, and taking a bite of a hamburger; if the person genuinely forgot, the person is not culpable (though objectively, if one was committed to keeping the fast, it HAS been violated.)
In short, the Church has always recognized that
invincible ignorance also known as "inculpable ignorance" of something causes the person to not be guilty on a specific point. The basic working assumption of the Pope right now, is that the vast majority of Orthodox are not aware or their
obligation toward the Holy See. It's not even that they are not aware that this is what the Church (Catholic Church) teaches (though many do not, or have a grave misunderstanding of this); it could simply be that they sincerely do not understand their obligation here. Ultimatly, judgements on their real blameworthiness as individuals will be made by the Almighty.
"Schism" is something which as a sin, exists within the moral realm - a realm of the conscience.
However, the sacraments (if they are real, valid sacraements) are
one. There is not two different Christs being offered at the Altar - one for the Orthodox, one for the Catholics. It is one Christ. The same is true of Baptism; wherever someone is validly Baptized, there is only one Christ they are being Baptized into - and by default, one Church, since His Body is the Church. This of course is true also of validly Baptized Protestants.
The point is, that no one who is truly Baptized is Baptized into anything other than the Catholic Church. That some such persons do not have the fullness of the Church's teachings or labour under misconceptions (which is true in differing ways of both the Orthodox and validly Baptized Protestants), does not change that fact - at best, such persons are like ill-catechized Catholics.
Those who are
guilty of schism, are like dead members of the Church who are such for other sins. Those who are not so culpable, are in an irregular situation as regards the Holy See, from the Pope's p.o.v.
That there have always been some Orthodox throughout time who
are aware of their obligation toward the Holy See, is manifest by the fact that there have always been Orthodox who sought out union with the Holy See - whether it be the contemporary of the Palamite controversies, Demetrios Kydonas (who wrote a wonderful pro-union work), the Ukranians at the Union of Brecht (despite what some Orthodox conspiracy theorists may say, this was a free will decision on their part), or the momentum which was spread through much of the intelligentsia of the Russian Orthodox Church prior to the revolution (which unfortunatly put something of a kibosh on this) toward union with the Holy See.
Augustine
