The Unam Sanctam "Problem" Resolved (Can Non-Catholics Be Saved?)

FidoNetRC ^ | 1997 | Phil Porvaznik

[bornacatholic]

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth. In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in , n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, , in , n. 1677).

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.

*That doesn't read like a rigorous upholding of U.S.

Hearing the Church explain Doctrine is not twisting anything. Hearing the Church straighten things out is more like it

[bornacatholic]

Thank you for the kind words, brother.

[bornacatholic]

No. This thread is explicitly against that idea.

[bornacatholic]

Does this mean Pope Benedict is automatically excommunicated because he is friend with a Feenyite monk?

*I would have to know more about the friendship. If our Holy Father, during the courxe of his friendship, was served some poor quality wine by the Feenyite and the Pope drank it without spitting it out, it would, to me at least, recall some ancient theological speculation that a heretic COULD be a Pope.

At this juncture, I am not prepared to decide

[Hermann the Cherusker]

That Hermann reads Unam Sanctam in a very rigorist Roman manner, does not mean that I sold you a bill of goods unless you privilege Hermann's reading over mine a priori.

I don't think our readings are different at all, since you appear to be saying the same thing I am - that the force of the words is aimed at those who deny all entrustment of a particular group to St. Peter, not those who dispute what such an entrustment gives St. Peter's successor the right to do.

Therefore, this declaration is not aimed at the Orthodox and other Easterners who accept the primacy of Rome over the whole Church in some sense, nor is it aimed at Anglicans or Lutherans in a similar position.

The bull makes several simple definitions and draws several simple theological conclusions.

1) There is one Church
2) It is Catholic and Apostolic
3) There is no salvation outside it
4) There is no remission of sins outside it
5) All members of the Church were entrusted to St. Peter
Conc.) Therefore those who deny being entrusted to St. Peter are not part of this one Church.
6) The spiritual power of the Church stands in judgement of the moral conduct of the temporal power of the state
7) This power is held by St. Peter and his successors by commandment of Christ giving power to bind and loose
8) It is necessary for salvation for all to be subject to St. Peter's successors.

It really is a very clearly different thing to say as a Protestant does that there is not one Church, the Pope is not the head of it, and we are certainly not subject to him, and to say as the Orthodox and Anglo-Catholics do that the Pope is the head of the Church being its first primate, and we would like to be subject to him, but we fear his lording it over us like a slave-driver as some Popes have attempted in the past.

The Protestant is unwilling to live unity in charity with his fellow Christians, therefore he is empty of charity. The Anglo-Catholic and Orthodox are already living unity in charity, since they profess the same faith, celebrate the same sacraments, and have a desire to be completely united under the same head.

It is impossible to see how the proclimation of Unam Sanctum would condemn a group such as the Tradtional Anglican Communion or Forward-In-Faith, which although not formally part of the Catholic Church, nevertheless wishes to be and recognizes the Pope as Pope.

Unam Sanctum is aimed at those who deny the truths of the faith contained in St. Matthew 16 and St. John 21.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

For those posters on this thread who insisted that Unam Sanctam has nothing to do with Protestant denials of Petrine authority, I would caution that although the Protestant Reformation was 2 centuries into the future, some of the sects of the Middle Ages also denied virtually all Petrine authority on biblical grounds, and, as pointed out in the article, incipient nationalism was building toward the eventual denial of it on nationalistic grounds as happened in England in the 1530s.

The progenitors of the extreme Protestants were already in existence then or would come into existence shortly - the Waldensians, the Fratricelli, the Bogomils, the Hussites, the Wycliffites. The Protestants proudly claim these people as their forebears.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Men who reject the Church, the Faith, and Rome with a violent mental denial are neither ignorant nor wishing to be united with us in anyway.

It is even more difficult to speak of these men as "invincibly ignorant" as if it were truly beyond their power to learn about Catholicism, or as if they did not know the claims of Catholicism and positively reject them, or as if they are not aware of the fact that there Church is a recent invention sprung off from the Catholic Church.

Having been raised a Protestant, I think I know far more of the mental state of the typical Protestant than someone who was born a Catholic, friend.

Those united to the Church in a non-formal manner will always display a charitable bond towards Catholics, since it is the Love of Christ that binds us together.

[Kolokotronis]

Touchy, touchy, D! I assure you I wasn't preparing to lead a demonstration outside the bishop's office over this! :) I will freely admit, by the way, that the older I get the more invincibly ignorant I get. I never understood the term "invincibly ignorant" as used in this context to include people who were quite aware of the position of the Latin Church but nevertheless rejected it. It is apparent that I was wrong.

[Kolokotronis]

"6) The spiritual power of the Church stands in judgement of the moral conduct of the temporal power of the state
7) This power is held by St. Peter and his successors by commandment of Christ giving power to bind and loose
8) It is necessary for salvation for all to be subject to St. Peter's successors."

As to 6 & 7, Orthodoxy believes this power is given to all the bishops who rightly teach The Faith (Matt 18:18). Orthodoxy I suppose accepts 8 in the sense that proper ecclesiology requires that the Pope of Rome be the "leader among (but not over) the bishops". On the other hand, the conclusion in 8 is at least arguably problematic from an Orthodox pov since +Peter's position as primus is quite clearly dependant on his profession of faith (Matt 17). If the Pope should abandon the Faith, then of course he cannot exercise that primacy. Certainly Rome doesn't believe it ever abandoned the Faith, but the other four patriarchates believe that is in fact what happened. It seems likely that both "sides" have "adjusted" their positions over the past 100 years or so; certainly the enthusiam one sees in Orthodoxy, even among educated laymen and lower clergy, for +BXVI would seem to indicate something of a sea change in relations between these particular churches. And I must say the respect and reverence for Orthodoxy evinced by so many Latin Rite Catholics bodes well for the future.

[AlaninSA]

Don't be sorry about the clearly poor education you've received both in English and in theology.

You're beyond help if you can't see the gaping holes in your theological statement. Maybe you should stop attending that televangelist wannabe "church" you're going to and attend something more faithful (like an Orthodox or Catholic one).

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

You know that Catholics claim jurisdiction for the bishop of Rome that you belief to be erroneous, correct?

You do not "know" that the bishop of Rome has the sort of jurisdiction that Latin Catholics claim he has. You know that they claim he has this jurisdiction. But you do not know that he has this jurisdiction in the way that they know. You know their claims and you reject them, which means you do not accept/know/believe that their claims are true. So you "know" their claims as an object, not as a subjective, active reality that compels your belief. If your not-knowing these claims in the second sense results from rejecting knowledge you at some point had, you are culpable for the deliberate rejection because you made a knowing choice. But if your not-knowing results from rejecting what others say but what you yourself never "believed" or authentically even entertained as possibly true, then you never truly chose not-to-know, rather, you simply have been in a constant not-knowing/not-believing state vis-a-vis these claims.

The difference can be slight and hard to pin down. No outsider can say for sure just what motivates you or any other non-Catholic in his "not-knowing" or "not-believing" of Catholic claims.

But only those who know (believe, accept, agree, hold as dogma) that the bishop of Rome has the primacy of jurisdiction that Latin Catholics and Eastern Rite Catholics believe (i.e., know) he has and yet, despite believing/knowing that he has this jurisdiction, reject these claims, only those are condemned in the Letter of the Holy Office of 1949. Presumably people who were raised Catholic, confirmed, participated in Catholic sacraments at some point "knew" (believed, truly held) the Catholic claims about the pope. Having then been reprimanded for error about nulla salus by the pope whose claims to authority they said they adhered to and in defiance of that disobeying him, they are condemned.

This is stated clearly in the Holy Office letter: "that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member [leaves room for schismatics], but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing."

And the next paragraph says that "this desire need not always be explicit, . . . but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, . . ." Pius XII, Mystici Corporis is then cited.

One qualifier is given a few paragraphs later: one must be animated by perfect charity in one's invincible ignorance. But charity is required for anyone to get to heaven. A Catholic who is explicitly and formally a member of the visible Catholic Church in communion with the bishop of Rome and who holds doggedly to the Catholic claims for the successor of Peter's jurisdiction but lacks charity/selfless love for God will end up in hell.

Only you can judge whether the reason you do not hold the same beliefs as Catholics in communion with the bishop of Rome, whether your adherence to Orthodoxy and the concomitant deliberate refusal to accept Latin claims about the pope's jurisdiction is motivated by genuine charity, just as only an individual Catholic who assents to all those Latin claims for papal jurisdiction and formally adheres to Roman rite or Eastern Rite Catholicism is animated by genuine charity rather than pride, fear, anger etc.

But Unam Sanctam is compatible with the 1949 Letter and with Mystici Corporis and a series of 19thc statements with regard to third and fourth and eighth generation Protestants whose adherence to groups out of communion with the bishop of Rome was not the result of knowing rejection but the result of holding sincerely contrary beliefs and, through no fault of their own, never actually entertaining, really epistemologically entertaining, the possibility that the Catholic claims might be true.

Deliberate, knowing adherence to schism damns to hell. The issue is just when a schismatic is a schismatic because of deliberate choice and when he is out of fellowship having never truly entertained alternative ways of seeing things and never really realizing that he has not truly entertained them.

You believe, apparently, that you have truly entertained the Latin claims and have knowingly rejected them and that that, in our eyes, condemns you to hell but obviously does not condemn you to hell in your eyes because you are convinced the Latin claims are erroneous.

We do not assume anything one way or the other about you. We believe the key is whether you have actually openly entertained these claims that you reject or whether you have rejected them out of unrecognized pre-judgment. If you were aware that you remain Orthodox out of deliberate prejudgment, that would be a sin against truth on your part. But I can't know exactly what combination of knowledge, will, choice, prejudice, misinformation etc. has gone into your very intentional and clear adherence to Orthodoxy.

You were misinformed about Unam Sanctam by a nun who did you a disservice, sinned against truth (unless she was in fact a silly old woman who didn't know what she was doing, in which case the people who fed her misinformation may be responsible for her injury to you) and fueled a prejudice against Unam Sanctam and against Latin Catholics--that alone could count as a significant source of "invincible ignorance" on your part.

But now the Unam Sanctam claim has been cleared up. You, in my view, are still misinformed about and are prejudiced toward what you see as a blatant contradiction between the Feeneyite letter and Unam Sanctam and you yourself insist that you simply do not understand the "invincible ignorance" concept. That to me would point toward the fact that you are indeed not entirely "knowing" in your rejection of the bishop of Rome's claims as we Catholics hold them.

I have no doubt that you believe you know what we claim and believe about the bishop of Rome. And certainly you know a lot of what we claim. But this interchange over Unam Sanctam and the 1949 Holy Office letter suggests that you view these matters from a perspective influenced by your upbringing, your father's strong Orthodoxy, and a host of other experiences and sources of knowledge that together might mean you never yet, through no fault of your own, have truly encountered the claims of Catholics with authenticity.

I and others have sought to present these claims accurately. But then other Latin Catholics offer counter-interpretations of Unam Sanctam and the 1949 letter--as do the Lefebvrites and the heirs of Fr. Feeney and others.

What exactly you would have to do to have succeeded in honestly and authentically sorting through this welter of information such that you truly have encountered these claims and then knowingly rejected them, I cannot say. Only you and God can say. The Catholic church refuses to play God on this. Objectively Orthodox and Catholics are in schism. They are not sharing sacraments. Exactly why each of us in schism are in schism from each other, only God and the individual can say. Many Catholic adherents could end up in hell, many Orthodox adherents could end up in heaven. Beyond that, we Catholics do not presume to say which ones are which but we exhort all, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants alike--and I exhort myself--always to ask myself, have I honestly and humbly and with integrity been listening to the various claims for the truth about the Church and have I been truly open to following whatever path honest knowledge of that Truth requires?

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

Western Catholics also recognize that nos. 6 and 7 apply to all bishops. Our claims for the bishop of Rome are that he exercise this kind of authority granted to all bishops but also stands at their head for the sake of a focus permitting unity to be maintained. His role of "confirming the brethren" (his brother bishops) is simply that--not lording over them but at their head for the sake unity leading the universal episcopal college and serving as the ultimate point of reference for resolving differences among them because unity is so important (Jn 17).

That, then, is the sense in which no. 8 applies. Adhering to Peter and his successors is another way of saying that the college of bishops, all of whom are authorized by Christ to govern in their dioceses in ways included under 6 and 7 and in a lot of other ways, voluntarily submits, in case of genuine disagreement among them, to Peter's successor for the sake of unity.

Cyprian already made clear that each bishop is a Peter in his own diocese and that they colletively bear responsibility for governing the Church, but that in the face of real schism and unresolved disagreement, Peter's successor as bishop of Rome has a special role, for the sake of unity. Exactly how that role gets played out (the details of Petrine jurisdiction), that's what we are arguing about most of the time. And it is not carried out the same way vis-a-vis the Roman rite as it is vis-a-vis the Eastern rite Catholics. And we recognize that it can benefit from further clarification. We just won't let go of the basic claim.

[bornacatholic]

Brother Hermann. I not only intimately know Protestants, I used to have conjugal relations with one. Then, my Bride converted.

I love you as a brother. I admire your intellect and knowledge. I admire your zeal for the Faith. I admire your concern for the souls of those not Christian Catholic.

Nevertheless, you ought be more humble is thinking your explanations of Catholic Dogma and Doctrine is definitive.

Catholic Catechism

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

[InterestedQuestioner]

Dion and Herman,

I believe that I misread Hermann's posts earlier.

It appears to me that you are both on the same page with regards to Unam Sanctam not being a blanket condemnation of the Greeks. Dion has argued that a reasonable reading of the original document does not support a blanket condemnation, and Hermann has followed up with the assertion that neither does the historical context of the Bull. If I'm understanding your posts, you two are in agreement, and your statements are mutually supportive.

I erroneously stated that your opinions were at odds, and apologize for my misunderstanding and any confusion it has caused.

-iq

[InterestedQuestioner]

"Your precise and excellent translation supports the idea that Unam Sanctam and by extension the Latin Church does not hold a blanket condemnation of Holy Orthodoxy or the Orthodox. The condemnation of the Feeneyites, which I assume is authoritative as I said, pretty clearly does. I am assuming you knew about that condemnation before you posted to me."

Kolo,


Dion isn't being dishonest. I know of no blanket condemnation of the Greeks today, and the question has been whether or not their was a blanket condemnation in 1302 in Unam Sanctam. Dion began by stating that he was not certain what Pope Boniface's intention was, but he has asserted that it is reasonable to interpret Unam Sanctam as not being a blanket condemnation. If he is correct (and I believe Hermann supports him on this,) There was no blanket condemnation in 1302, and there is none now.

Dion has said that there are individuals who would disagree with him, but he states that he feels those individuals are mistaken in their interpretation.

You've cited the interpretation of the axiom "no salvation outside the Church," put forth in the letter from the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in reference to the Feenyite matter, from 1949. Now this letter makes no reference to Holy Orthodoxy, and is aimed very specifically at the Feenyites. The document states:

"...the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, "outside the Church there is no salvation," was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities."

After identifying the problem as one of misinterpretation and disobedience on the part of a specific group, the Congregation asserts that axiom of no salvation outside the Church, which we consider infallible dogma, "... must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it."


Then comes the rub:

"Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth."

Now I can certainly see your concern upon reading this. I'd like to call your attention to the wording "submit to the Church, or Witholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff.

Presumably we have little difficulty agreeing about submission to the Church, in the sense it is described here. The problem rests on the second condition What does it mean to withhold obedience from the Roman Pontiff? Now the letter notes that there can be restrictions upon this principle, and on this matter, I think Dion's assessment is a good one:


"The Feeneyite condemnation only applies to you if you already were an adherent of the Latin communion and had professed obedience to the Bishop of Rome and accepted the claims of the Catholic, rather than Orthodox, side of the schism."

I think Dion's point is supported by the letter itself, which speaks of people who are not Roman Catholic fulfilling these conditions. It also notes that the Feenyites are particularly culpable because "...they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine...".

Your point about honesty and trust is an excellent one, and it is well taken. However, I think Dion's posts were completely above board. As you've noted, however, Dion seems to have entered into a special category in terms of the standards which apply to his posts. Whereas, as you've noted, a lot of posts are simply considered hot air or uninformed opinions, Dion seems to have quickly achieved a status that few Freepers achieve in terms of credibility and interest. I've also noticed a lot less proof texting of St. Augustine around here since he started posting. ;-)

[bornacatholic]

God Bless you. That was one of the best and most insightful posts I have ever read in FR. I am pinging others who should read your thoughts.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"You do realize that Christ himself chastised the Pharisees, and Sadducee's for being more concerned with traditions, and Sacraments than they were in people, and ministry.";

Well, we recognize that Christ chastised the Pharisees for a lack of charity, and the Sadducees for a lack of theological understanding. As far as the Sacraments go, He never chastised anyone for being concerned about those. Rather, Christ established the Sacraments, and their importance could not have been underscored more in the Scriptures. Recall that the last thing he did with his disciples before going to the Garden of Gethsemane was to institute the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, which is a foretaste of Heavenly union with Christ. As you know from Scripture, the Holy Eucharist is an encounter with Christ Himself.

Charity is paramount, and ministry is very important, but the importance of the Sacraments would be difficult to overstate, WOL.

[Kolokotronis]

"We just won't let go of the basic claim."

At this point in history, or so I have been informed, Orthodoxy isn't asking you to, Dion.

[whispering out loud]

Until you're ready to address a particular point of my theology don't attempt to attack my faith. I hold my theology, and faith on the word of no pastor, no instead I discern the scriptures for myself, I take no man's word as absolute. Your attack by the way on my theology seems very Christlike.

[whispering out loud]

every time the Pharisees and Sadducee's attacked someone for not revering one of their traditions, they were called down by Christ. Need I remind you of the ox in the ditch on the Sabbath, or of the disciples not washing their hands before the meal? Traditions set by man are just that, traditions, He said if we love first the rest of Christian life will fall into place. That is how I make my focus in my Christian walk, against such there is no law right?