Unam Sanctam

Pope Boniface VIII saith:

[W]e declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

This is understandably a big deal for Protestants, who are not subject to the Roman Pontiff. I suppose it could be attacked as being unscriptural, but more often than not, the complaint is rather that the Catholic Church has contradicted herself, given that today, the Church (also) teaches persons not subject to the Pontiff may be saved.

Catholics sometimes try to weasel their way out of this by claiming that the proclamation by this pope was not infallible. Thus, it is claimed, the Church was free to change her mind about those not subject to the Roman Pontiff. While the Church is certainly free to change her mind on non-infallible teachings, this tact doesn’t seem to be adequate, for the following reason. Whether this statement by the pope is infallible or not is irrelevant, given the fact that it is only a restatement of the Church’s teaching that outside the Church, there is no salvation (EENS). The dogma that EENS is infallible. So there is no weaseling out of this.

First, in defense that Unam Sanctam is a mere restatement of EENS…baptism is normatively necessary for salvation (John 3:5). Baptism incorporates into the Church. There is only one Church, and she is Catholic. Thus, it is normatively necessary to be “in the Church” to be saved. And to be “in the Church” means, among other things, to be subject to the pope, the Roman Pontiff. Thus it is normatively necessary to be subject to the pope to be saved. Thus Unam Sanctam is only a restatement, under different terms, of EENS.

Now the thing to note is that the Church still teaches EENS. It’s there in big bold letters in the Catechism (# 846). The teaching, however, has certainly undergone some development over time, in response to the changing conditions of the world. But the current teaching is in line with the past teaching. How? It must be remembered that the Church’s statements were made over a two thousand year period, and that therefore each statement is historically conditioned. We must therefore take into account the historical situation in which a statement was made in order to understand the intent of the statement’s author. And when we do that in this case, we are struck in particular by two facts.

The first of these facts is that the statement was primarily aimed at King Phillip the Fair of France, in defending the pope’s rights over and against him. However, the statement in question does say that it is necessary for “every human creature” to be subject to the pope, so the fact that this statement is aimed at a specific person does not always carry much weight with the Protestant.

The second fact is more general, and more important. Namely, it is that the statement was made at a time when the “world” was Catholic. To the mind of Pope Boniface, writing in 1302, all of the known world was Catholic. The fact that there was only one Church was then well known, and it was well known that the pope was its earthly head. The assumption that therefore rests at the root of Unam Sanctam is that those who remain outside the Church do so knowing full well that in so doing, they are choosing to remain outside the body that Christ established as our means of salvation. In other words, the assumption is that those who remain outisde the Church are not doing so out of ignorance, but out of well reasoned deliberate consent.

That vast continents existed outside of the Catholic world, populated by millions of people ignorant of the Gospel, would only later become known. And as the existence of those people became known, the Church’s teaching would continue to develop, until today the fullness of EENS has been brought out by our broad multicultural and multireligious world. That the pope, by saying what he did, intended to convey the notion that all those people ignorant of the Gospel were therefore doomed is laughable. Similarly, the Church’s current teaching also understands that those who remain outside the Church (i.e., “not subject to the Roman Pontiff”) through invincible ignorance are not, by that fact alone, consigned to hell. It is certainly more difficult for them to be saved, as they are working with a serious deficit of truth. But not impossible. Because, for God, all things are possible. And people’s consciences may, in fact, “excuse them” (Rom 2:15).

~ by Rob on May 10, 2007.