I must confess, Kolokotronis, that I do not understand your rather inflammatory, "sell a bill of goods."
I gave what I do believe is the prima facie meaning of "si . . . fateantur." I explained why, grammatically, it could scarcely be read as asserting that all "Greeks" automatically deny any primacy to Peter (deny any "commissos Petro eiusque successoribus"), and therefore as permitting a distinction between Greeks who deny that Mt. 16 or Jn 21 involved some kind of general authority of Peter and his successors over the whole Church.
This I think is the most reasonable reading of those Latin words. It would deny salvation only to those who read Mt. 16 and Jn 21 as not involving an entrusting of the Church to Peter and his successors.
But, correct me if I am wrong, you, Kolokotronis, do not deny that Mt. 16 and Jn 21 represent Christ committing the shepherding of his sheep to Peter and his successors? Or do you? That would seem to me to be the crux of the issue. I thought you would accept some form of Petrine primacy, though you dispute the form of Petrine primacy that we Latin Catholics hold and that that is what currently divides our churches??
In any casek, I do not see Unam Sanctam's ipsissima verba as incompatible with the Vatican II declarations or with the condemnation of the Feeneyite narrow reading of Extra ecclesiam. The grammatical meaning of the Latin permits harmonization fairly readily. When one adds to that the historic context of Unam sanctam as explained in the original article, the compatibility seems more clear.
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.
If you do not automatically privilege Hermann's reading, then you need to show why the Latin I quoted cannot sustain a distinction between Greeks and others who deny all authority and honor to Peter and Greeks and others who admit some form of primacy but dispute the exact nature of that honor and primacy with the Latins.
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.
I must confess that I do not even quite understand your allegation--exactly how did you think I sold you a bill of goods?
"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."
Hermann is a far scarier guy than you are, D! :)
"If you do not automatically privilege Hermann's reading, then you need to show why the Latin I quoted cannot sustain a distinction between Greeks and others who deny all authority and honor to Peter and Greeks and others who admit some form of primacy but dispute the exact nature of that honor and primacy with the Latins."
You know, D, thrity-three years ago I graduated with an AB degree in Classics; wrote my graduation thesis on two works in medieval latin as a matter of fact. I can still read it and know the subjunctive from the indicative, the active from the passive. Your translation is quite correct and supports your interpretation of the relevant clause. The decree on the Feeneyites is quite specific, however, at least in English and would seem to be authoritative. Now I have said time and again here that Orthodoxy recognizes some sort of petrine primacy and that primacy is beyond mere primacy of honor but carries with it real, exercisable authority. But as I said before, I am one who, along with about 350,000,000 other Orthodox Christians, "withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth." I do this because he is in schism with my Orthodox bishops and he is in schism with them because he and they, traditionally, have not taught the exact same Faith, at least that has been the operative thesis.
"I must confess that I do not even quite understand your allegation--exactly how did you think I sold you a bill of goods?"
IQ saw it immediately. It is absolutely crucial that we Latins and Orthodox be rigorously clear about what our particular churches profess because there's no point in fooling ourselves into thinking there aren't particular problems when there are. 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.
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.
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.