Sed Contra 2

The Contrarians' Review

An Online Journal of Ideas and Controversy. Published By Flying Ostrich Press. John F. Triolo, Editor.

Unam Sanctam Ramblings-- 15 August 2008

The document 1302 document Unam Sanctam of Pope Boniface VIII is one of the stickiest points in ecumenical dialogue with other Christians, Protestants and Orthodox alike. The statement in the closing sentence of the bull that declares that obedience to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation has been the basis of much discussion and many questions from multiple angles. From the traditionalist Catholic perspective, the question is whether or not more recent pontifical pronouncements on ecumenism, many of which seem at the outset to be in contradiction to Unam Sanctam, can be reconciled with the 1302 bull. From the progressive Catholic standpoint, Unam Sanctam becomes an embarrassment, something to be brushed aside or ignored with contempt. Protestant and Orthodox Christians see the bull as related to the issue of papal infallibility and the ecumenical movement, usually in the context of being a stumbling block, for it is usually understood to say point blank that only Roman Catholics can go to heaven.

There is way too much to address every issue relating to the document, but we can set a few questions to rest. When I was in college (Ave Maria College, a Catholic school), I recall my history professor telling us about Unam Sanctam. I raised my hand and asked, “Is that Bull infallible?” He laughed and said, “No. I certainly don’t think so.” I might have been an undergrad in a freshman history course, but I knew enough about theology to recall that Unam Sanctam seemed to meet the requirements of an infallible statement. Let’s see the statement in Denzinger:

“We declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff” ( D 478).

The bull is certainly universal in scope, proclaimed “to every human creature.” Furthermore, it contains the language traditionally associated with an infallible pronouncement: “We declare, define, and proclaim…” Is the statement of Unam Sanctam a part of the deposit of faith and an infallible declaration?

The very fact that it appears in Deniznger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma seems to lend great credence to the probability that it is. It also appears twice in Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, though Ott does not cite the verse specifically, only references the bull, once as evidence that membership in the Church is necessary for salvation, and once in support of the doctrine that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.¹ The fact that Unam Sanctam is cited in support of the doctrine of the Mystical Body establishes that the Mystical Body is identified with the Church which is subject to the Roman Pontiff; i.e., the Roman Catholic Church. The document is, as to be expected, neglected by the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church and not is not even referenced by the famous 1928 encyclical Mortalium Animos of Pius XI on religious unity. Nevertheless, the fact that the bull has been studiously ignored in recent decades ought not to diminish it’s place in among the most important teachings of the Catholic hierarchy. Given the formula “we declare, define and proclaim” (declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus) and the bull’s place in Denzinger’s Sources, as well as it’s reference in Ott and other pre-20th century sources secure it’s place as an infallible declaration of the Church. My history professor was wrong.

But why was he led to believe that Unam Sanctam was not part of the Church’s teaching? Well, for one, the fact that it has not been drawn upon by recent pontiffs might lead one to believe that the bull is irrelevant, or that it applied only in that particular time and society but means very little for the modern Catholic. While society certainly has grown more complex (and made the interpretation of Unam Sanctam more delicate), the truth expressed in the bull remains as pertinent as the day it was penned.

The fact of the matter is that Unam Sanctam is an embarrassment to some Catholics. There are a great many in the Church, spurred on by heretical and disobedient bishops, who have taken the errant position that all religions lead equally to God, and that the Church embraces persons of any faith as believers co-equal with the Bride of Christ. That there are many who believe this needs no proof, nor will I waste time refuting this argument here. But when these same Catholics are reminded of Unam Sanctam, the strict injunction to all men to be subject to the Roman pontiff seems narrow, intolerant and exclusivist. It immediately hearkens back to the age when the words of the popes brought down the thrones of kings and brings to mind a very undesirable aspect of the Church’s history (from the progressivist standpoint).

The document brings to the fore an essential question: we know that being incorporated into the Church in some way is necessary for salvation, but to what degree must one be incorporated into it? The Feenyites would claim that “outside the Church there is no salvation” means actual membership in the Church and submission to the Roman pontiff, which a cursory reading of Unam Sanctam might seem to suggest. Is this the most accurate reading? Let’s take a look at the document.

First, we need to realize that Unam Sanctam is not primarily about the Church or salvation, but is a statement made in response to the anti-papal aggression of King Philip IV of France against Boniface VIII. The bull is actually about the proper relationship between Church and State, not about who can be saved. It is a statement about the right relation between the kings and the institutional Church, a relationship which the Catholic encyclopedia states is of a “purely historical character” and is “based on the actual conditions of medieval Europe.” This would mean that the relationship between the temporal and spiritual powers (the “Two Sword” doctrine) as set forth in the bull does not represent the perennial teaching of the Church was something peculiar to the Middle Ages.
Yet the bull uses the infallible truth about the necessity of membership in the Church to establish this political conclusion. All men must belong to the Church for salvation. The Church was entrusted with the two swords by Christ, political and spiritual power: the former subject to the latter. The kings of the world are part of the temporal sword, and as such are judged by the spiritual sword, which is itself judged only by God. Therefore, in keeping with God’s order, the head of the temporal realm (the king) must be subject to the head of the spiritual realm (the pope). Any king who denies this relation is actually striving against God. A king is not exempt from obeying Christ and His Vicar. This is the message of the bull.

However, the bull makes this statement universally. It does not say, “It is necessary for salvation for Christian kings in medieval Europe to be obedient to the Pope.” This is no doubt the gist of the bull, but the wording makes a universal claim, one binding on “every human creature.” So we run across a conundrum: are we to go with the literal wording of the bull or with the intent of the bull, even if what the pope intended is not specifically spelled out in the wording?

The doctrine of papal infallibility compels us to stick with the literal wording of the bull, for the freedom from error promised to the pronouncements of the popes pertains to nothing other than the wording of their infallible statements. This is what infallibility comes down to. We make a mockery of it if we say, “Yeah, the pope said ‘every human creature’ but what he really meant was ‘Christian kings of medieval Europe.’” Whatever the pope’s motivation might have been for drafting this bull, in the end we are left with an infallible universal declaration about the salvation of men in general.

While we are on this topic, let’s take a look at the actual wording, because it is of utmost importance. We know that in some way it is necessary to be subject to the pope, but what type of necessity is it? Is it absolute, binding on every person everywhere under all circumstances, or is it relative to other factors? Or is it somewhere in between? This is basically asking whether the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation is a necessity of precept (necessitas praecepti) or a necessity of means (necessitas medii)?

But before we look at that, let’s examine the wording.

There are two divergent interpretations of the Latin text of the bull going around. Let’s look at a few of them. First, the text of the bull as it appears in the Medieval Sourcebook at Fordham University:

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”²

Now, from the online Denzinger collection, where the bull appears as number 469:

“Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” ³

Just for fun, let’s look at Wikipedia (this one is probably taken from the Fordham University translation, since it is listed as a source):

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” ^₄

Now let’s look at the English translation in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia that is taken directly from the Vatican Archives:

“Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff." ⁵

Do you notice a difference in the translations here? The non-Catholic sources cited here have the word absolutely before the word necessary. The Catholic sources (Denzinger and the Catholic Encyclopedia) do not make use of this word. Look at just this clause again in the four translations:

•    Fordham University: absolutely necessary for salvation
•    Wikipedia: absolutely necessary for salvation
•    Catholic Encylcopedia: necessary for salvation
•    Denzinger: by necessity for salvation

Who do the Catholic translations not have the word “absolutely” in them? Probably because Denzinger and the Catholic Encyclopedia are based directly on the original Latin in the Vatican archives, which reads:

Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis. ⁶

The divergent English translations suggest there is some ambiguity on the translation. Any Latin word resembling the English “absolutely” does not appear (absolute, absolutius, absolutissime). The ambiguity probably centers around the translation of omnino, which can be rendered entirely or altogether.

Ludwig Ott states in Fundamentals that the necessity of belonging to the Church, while a necessity of means and not or precept, is nevertheless not absolute. If it were, it would apply to all men universally without any distinctions due to intention or circumstances, and the possibility of persons. However, membership in the Church is a necessity of means only hypothetically, the way that baptism is “absolutely necessary for salvation,” and yet we can admit of varying ways in which persons can receive this grace without having undergone the rite. Aquinas taught that baptism must at least be present in desire, for which God would count the desire as the deed.⁷

In the same manner, the necessity of belonging to the Church is a true necessity, but admits of degrees of incorporation. It is the difference between three men trying to get to a certain golf course: one has the directions, goes directly there and gets there quickest. Another has no directions, but a general idea of where the course is and makes it there (with some dead ends) after a while. The third man has no idea where the golf course is and winds up there by sheer accident, as it were, in spite of himself and only after much wasted time, carried on through all his failures only by his desire to actually find the thing he is seeking. All of these people in perfect and less perfect ways arrived at the golf course. While Unam Sanctam points out that it is necessary that we all arrive at the golf course, it does not delve into to the varying ways one can get there, nor does it specifically define at what point one actually arrives. Is it when we pull into the parking lot? When we see the sign from the road? When we walk through the door?

It says we must be “subject to the Roman Pontiff,” and this is seen merely as an extension of the necessity of all men to belong to the Church. So, if you belong to the Church, then of course you are under the Roman Pontiff. But knowing that belonging to the Church formally is not taken as an absolute necessity, then what of the necessity of being submitted to the Roman Pontiff?

Well, then we’ve come to a real sticky place: affirming the existence of persons who are incorporated into the Church and somehow subject to the Roman Pontiff even though they are not actually members of the visible Church and do not know they are submitted to the Roman Pontiff. Just as there are degrees of incorporation into the Church, there are degrees of submission to the Roman Pontiff. In James Akin’s essay on this document, he constructs the argument this way:

“To be a Christian it is normatively necessary to be a formal member of the Church Christ founded. This is the Catholic Church. And to be a formal member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be formally subject to the earthly leader Christ established for it: the pope.

A Catholic thus might construct an argument for Unam Sanctam's definition like this:

1) To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
2) To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ's Church.
3) To be a member of Christ's Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
4) To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
5) Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
In this argument, the necessities are all normative necessities and the kind of membership being discussed is formal membership. The argument has a logically valid form…meaning that the truth of its conclusion depends only on the truth of the premises it contains.” ⁸

If we admit (as we must)⁹ that number three above is possible to be fulfilled without formal membership in the Church, then the same must be true of number four. So would we be then left with people subject to the Roman Pontiff but “invincibly ignorant” of it? As bizarre as this sounds, it seems to be the case. Anybody who is baptized or desires baptism is incorporated into the Church in some way, and if you are connected to the Church in some way, then in some way you must be subject to Peter in some way, even if you are ignorant of it.

Are you as befuddled as I am? I set out in this essay trying to clarify something and have succeeded only in confusing myself. I think much of the confusion evaporates if we keep a few points in mind: (1) Persons saved by “desire” or “invincible ignorance” are the exception, not the rule (2) We have absolutely no words from Christ or the Church on how wide this exception is made for people, but we ought to bear in mind Christ’s words that the way is narrow (3) It is possible for a person to be incorporated into Christ’s Church without formal membership, but this is not a desirable position to be in, nor a safe one. The impetus to evangelize remains (4) Finally, Unam Sanctam is not contradicted by anything that came later. Even Aquinas and Trent taught the possibility of salvation outside of the formal Church. Unam Sanctam merely defines the normative means of salvation without speculating on the exceptional means. The confusion on the matter comes from our society’s preoccupation with exceptions and peculiarities and its disdain for norms and standards, which has created such a division between the norm and the exception that they are often perceived to be contradictory when really they are not.
---------------------------------------------------

Notes:

1) Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Tan Books: Rockford, Ill. pp 292, 312

2)http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

3)http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma5.php

4)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unam_sanctam

5)http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm

6) Kirsch, Johann Peter. "Unam Sanctam." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 14 Aug. 2008 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm>.

7)St. Thomas Aquinas, STh, III, 68:2

8)http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/necessit.htm

9) “[T]hose who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church . . . by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer" (Mystici Corporis 103).

Phillip Davis for Volume I., Issue 7.