95.X.7. gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Mandock) wrote: :But Mr. Nemeth, I beg you to call me somehow otherwise than in this formal tone, although several times I may seem hostile in my postings. I am 21 years old, and I imagine you of the age of my father. : surely you quote out of context. A closer look at _Unam Sanctam_ :of Boniface VIII (18 November 1302) reveals the following. [...] I will go into details some screens later. :Now what are we to learn from _Unam Sanctam_ if not that the :universal and apostolic Church is the one, valid confector of :the sacraments, without which salvation is impossible, : for if there were no renewal of the sacrifice of Calvary under :the manner of the Last Supper as taught by the Gospels and St. Paul, Does the Bible teach that "the Sacrifice of the Calvary is being under the manner of the Last Supper?" This wording is nothing more than a try of several generations to reconcile their doctrine about the Lord's Supper being a "valid sacrifice" with the biblical testimonies about the uniqueness, oneness, unrepeatableness of the cross. You reach out for a debated allegation to prove another one. I don't want to convince any Catholic of the erroneousness of the former, because they think that the Bible is to be interpreted according to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers, who, in turn, used the Bible to support their interpretation. Believing this, Catholics are caught up in an unrecognized vitious circle. :then the application of Christ's one, eternal :sacrifice to the forgiveness of sins of individuals here and :now would not be accomplished and we would still be in our sins? :The sacrifice of the Mass makes possible the forgiveness of :sins to all who are righteous regardless of their religious :affiliation or lack thereof. [...] Maybe I don't see what is obvious: why do we need the "renewed sacrifice" to have our sins forgiven if they are already forgiven, provided that we are righteous as a result of the cross and faith in it? The relevant verses about continual repentance, taking up the cross daily, confessing our sins can hardly be linked with the Lord's Supper. I read in the Bible that our sins have been nailed to the cross, not to the Eucharist. I read that Christ died for the remission of our sins, and not that we partake of His blood and flesh for our sins to be forgiven. ------------------- :Thus whether the faithful of the world acknowledge it or not, :they are all subject to the spiritual sword of the Roman :Pontiff, if not perfectly as full members of the universal :Church, then imperfectly as members of Christ's Mystical :Body by virtue of righteousness as illuminated by Scripture :(according to current Catholic teaching). There is a little problem with your reasoning. Boniface claims that no one outside the Catholic Church can be saved if he maintains that he is not under the pope's headship. So you misunderstand him when you interpret the bull as "whether the faithful of the world acknowledge it or not". I'll prove it later, after the sentence in frame. ------------------------------------------------------------------ And doesn't the council of Florence (1438-45) belong to the "current Catholic teaching?" ? Decree for the Jacobites ? The holy Roman Church believes, professes and preaches that "no one ? remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews ? or heretics or <>, can become partakers of eternal life; but ? they will go to "the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil ? and his angels", unless before the end of life they are joined to the ? Church. For union with the body of the Church is of such importance ? that <>; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the ? exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards for them alone. ? And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he ? sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the ? bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. From: The Church Teaches; Denzinger number 714 <> here obviously contradicts your argument. Saying that the are of NO effect outside the Catholic Church ruins half of Unitatis Redintegratio. Did the Church then become donatist? You also wrote: * Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim <> every * human creature that <> * entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff. [Denzinger 468-469] My ultra-conservative compilation of dogmas has a different translation, not contemplating in generality on the consequences of the Theory of the Two Swords but rather adding this sentence to the bull as an utter rejection of schismatics: @ Further, We declare, say, define, and pronounce that <> the salvation of every human creature @ <> subject to the Roman Pontiff. From: The Church Teaches (Documents of the Church in English translation) Whether or not this book was committed by its authors to resist the spirit of Vatican II. (1st edition: Herder Books Co., 1955, 2nd edition: TAN Books and Publishers, 1973) I can't decide, but it has an imprimatur etc. OTOH, if Boniface could hear your defense of him, he would be at least dissatisfied! He wanted the Colonnas (rebellious cardinals) and the king of France to submit to him. The polite interpretation of yours omits this political aspect. Imagine: "Dear Colonnas, you won't be saved unless you eat the flesh of the Lord and drink His blood, and I am appointed to administer these to you, so no matter you acknowledge it or not, you are all subject to me." Do you think seriously that such a subtle sentence would make any effect on worldly authorities? By no means, I am convinced. The introduction from TCT says: ^ Out of an unfortunate and turbulent period of Church history ^ comes this very clear definition of the unity of the Church, its ^ necessity for salvation [1], its divine origin, and the foundation of ^ the authority of the Roman Pontiff. This bull of Boniface VIII ^ (1294-1303) also contains the well-known reference to the ^ two swords, the spiritual and the temporal. At this time the ^ hierocratic theory [2], that is, that the temporal power was be- ^ stowed by God through the mediation of the pope, was a ^ common, though by no means universal, theory among the ^ canonists. The theologians, such as St. Thomas and John ^ Quidort (John of Paris) did not generally hold with the ^ canonists.Boniface states the hierocratic theory in its extreme ^ form, but as a theory, not as a dogmatic definition [3]. ^ The theologians (and some canonists) held that the tem- ^ poral society is autonomous, though its end is inferior in dignity ^ to the end of the spiritual society, the Church. The difficulty ^ arose from the need of safeguarding the dictinct finality of the ^ temporal society and the pre-eminence of the spiritual society. ^ God is the source of both powers; the two theories differed in ^ explaining how that power is conferred. Remarks: [1] - The "necessity of salvation" indicates that the Jesuit Fathers (who translated the document in my book) had a different opinion from yours. They didn't try to explain away the final statement as you did. They underline in this sentence that the membership of the CC is essential for salvation. Note that they wrote this commentary before Vatican II but it was issued for the second time with approval after the Council. [2] - Did he propose a debated theory to his very militant enemies to convince them of his spiritual primacy? [3] - As I read the last sentence on the cover, the authors think that "The non-Catholic interested in the Catholic Church can find in this book the answer to his question: >What _does_ the Church teach?"< So, if Boniface stated a theory in an extreme form to prove his primacy, doesn't the present dogmatic certainty level of the latter make the theory used for supporting it - more than a theory? If not, then doesn't the fact that mean that papacy used dirty means to grasp what was, nevertheless, "promised to him by God"? Doesn't it indicate the devotion to the principle "the means is justified by the goal"? Papal tyranny over Europe (which was manifest by the massacre of the Albigenses, threatening and excommunicating the German emperor, persecuting the Jews, destroying the Hagia Sophia etc.) seemed then to be shaken. The king of France loathed Boniface and planned to have him removed. ---------------------------------------------------------------- About the Two Swords Theory: : Therefore, each is in the power of the Church, that is, a : spiritual and a material sword... Remember, it is in the power of the Church. And in what sense? Based on the sacramental importance? We'll see it later. : ... the latter by the hand of kings and soldiers, but at the : will and sufferance of the priest. Not as wrong and cynical as it seems first. For example, I can imagine it quite fitting the following situation: "We are slaughtered for Your sake every day" prayed the Albigenses under the persecutions, and added: "and at the will and the sufferance of the (human) priest." : ...For, as truth testifies, spiritual power has to establish earthly : power, and to judge if it was not good... : ...Therefore, if earthly power deviates, it will be judged by : spiritual power; ... That means that papacy is to punish those who revolt against the "divine order", but how? Depriving them of sacraments? Let's read further. : ...But this authority, although it is given to man and is : exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, : and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself : and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an : established rock, when he said to Peter himself: "Whatsoever : you shall bind," etc. [Mt 16:19]. Therefore, "whosoever : resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of : God" ..."(see Rom 13:2)", as TCT indicates the source of quotation in an utmost theological anguish. It is too strong to refer to spiritual power. Namely, because in the Bible it refers to political authorities who have the God-given right to behead evildoers. However twisted interpretation you give to this (obviously wilful) papal misquotation, the fact remains: the pope demanded the physical right over his enemies with this verse. :Pope Boniface's letter, if read within the context of Apostolic :Tradition, is nothing but a call to unity which recognizes that :temporal authority receives moral authority to govern only from :spiritual authority, which derives ultimately from God. Sorry, Randal, you failed to convince me. God bless you. Ferenc