Thursday, March 26, 2009

Unam Sanctam (part 2)























Anonymous said...

I think the Q is what is meant by "for salvation"

One angle to take is along the lines of "all the saved" are in fact subject to the RP, and someone who is following their conscience, and is invincibly ignorant, is also subject to the RP implicitly.
Another is that souls in purgatory are made subject to the RP, and all the souls in heaven are subject to the RP.
As Sheen said, millions reject what they wrongly think is the Church and only a few really knowingly reject the Church.

BONIFACE said...

Well, I am going to address this in a future post...but, to give you a sneek peek, yes, I think I am going more along the lines of your train of thought with this.

Anselm said...

Would we really say that the souls in Purgatory and in Heaven are subject to the Roman Pontiff?

Seems rather strange to me...

Mr S said...

The Pontiff is in charge, as Chief Steward, until the return of the King to His Kingdom.

Christ has already "returned"... individual judgment.... to those whose time has ended. Their salvation is assured. Their life will be eternal in the presence of the beatific vision. They owe allegiance to none.

BONIFACE said...


No, I wouldn't follow the train of thought that far.

Alcuin said...

If salvation requires the Church, and the Church requires the Pope as its head, then every human creature is subject to the Roman Pontiff whether they like it or not.

So must one acknowledge that they are subject to the Pope to be saved? Unum Sanctam says, "yes".


I suppose it then comes down to what Anonymous said about invincible ignorance. Does it count as invincibly ignorant if you are convinced that the Church's claims are not true?

Bobby Bambino said...

Great, very cool. I'm excited to read more about this, as this is indeed difficult to reconcile with some teachings. God love you.

Alexander said...

Why such mental gymnastics on the part of the anonymous apologist? Why not apply the same to recent documents?

We see that in the CCC and Vatican II an ambiguous explanation of salvation. See my recent post as to why people take Vatican II and declare salvation is possible outside the Church. It is very easy to do so simply by using Unitatis Redintegratio.

The solution is to simply say that if anyone who is outside the Church is to be saved this must happen by being joined to the Church before they die; in ways only know to God and of course this is purely speculative – we will never know for sure. Hence they cease being outside the Church.

In this way all past infallible teachings do not need such rigorous interpretation to line it up with recent documents that are not infallible. The thing here is that neo-cons think that Vatican II is infallible in every instance. If this is the case then VII and US contradict each other on the surface. The solution then is to take one and reinterpret it in light of the other.

Why not then take UR or the CCC and perform some mental gymnastics to line it up with past teaching instead?

One reason, of many, is that the underlying attitude of recent Papacies, through their ambiguous ecumenical and inter-religious events can suggest that salvation is possible outside the Church. But they only imply it because none of these Popes have ever given an explicit “yes.”

To the neo-con Vatican II appears to be “so clear” on this subject, the CCC (a text that is supposed to interpret these documents and other Catholic teachings) remains “clear” on this, US is dated and must bow to clearer “developed” explanations that come later (Vatican II), and the actions of recent Papacies imply the correct attitude and interpretation of the issue.

The logical conclusion is, when you have this kind of mindset, US must be interpreted away because of the clear teachings of recent documents and implicit affirmations by recent Popes.

I mean seriously, UR states:


This is one of the hardest parts of Vatican II. Notice that the council declares that people who are in “imperfect communion” and have been justified by a valid baptism are members of the Body of Christ. But the Mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church are one and the same. So that means they’re Catholic? Nope, Vatican II says they are not Catholic while at the same time saying they are members of Christ’s Body. As if to say the Catholic Church and the Body of Christ are not one and the same but different entities. And how dare anyone say that someone who is a member of the Body of Christ is not saved.

BONIFACE said...


That is a difficult conundrum indeed...

Anonymous said...

I would be willing to say that those souls in Purgatory and in Heaven are subject (in a certain sense) to the Roman Pontiff, whomever he may be.

Matthew 18:18


But I would also argue that it is irrelevant for them. They have achieved their salvation, and as such, their prayers for the Church Militant have much more affect on us than their subjection to the Roman Pontiff has on them.