Subject: Re: Unam Sanctam (1302) From: gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Mandock) Date: 25 Sep 1995 wrote: >: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 >renewed under the manner of the Last Supper?" Yes. >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. Go right on debating it if you like. The Catholic Church has accepted it for nearly 2,000 years and will for another 2,000 if Christ does not return before then. >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. The unanimous agreement of all Church Fathers who spoke to a given doctrine is only *one* type of criterion which is used as evidence that the doctrine is to be belived with "divine and Catholic faith." There are others, foremost among them the record of Scripture. We Catholics may disagree with you, but I am not certain that the basis for our disagreement may be so easily brushed aside as a "vicious circle." Better men than I have accepted it. >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? Who says that they are already forgiven? Mine are not. Those of my Catholic friends are not. Not, that is, until they are sacramentally absolved by penance. The sacrifice of the cross re-presented daily all over the world (Mal 1:11) makes this forgiveness possible. Cf. Rv 8:3-4. >The relevant verses about continual >repentance, taking up the cross daily, confessing our sins can hardly be >linked with the Lord's Supper. No, they are linked with the sacrament of penance and with the virtues, particularly the theological and cardinal ones. >I consider the passage from John "unless >you eat my flesh..." as the nourishment of the new man in us, and not as a >means of expiatory event in order to cover the works of the corrupt nature >which is once for all buried in the immersion. His flesh is real food and His blood real drink - it indeed nourishes him who feeds on it. The sacrifice of the Mass is not an expiatory event that covers sins, as the scapegoat ceremony may have been for the Israelites, but rather it reminds God of Christ's worthy sacrifice on the cross in the manner of the Last Supper, the beginning of His passion. >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. ON THE CONTRARY, NO ONE CAN EAT FROM THE LORD'S SUPPER >WITH PROFIT UNLESS HE HAS A GOOD CONSCIENCE. Good conscience comes from >repentance. It contradicts your words about "application of sacrifice." No, it doesn't. Catholics must review their conscience on the way to the altar so that they may guard against eating judgment on themselves (1 Cor 11:23-32). >Then doesn't the teaching of the council of Florence (1438-45) >belong to the current Catholic doctrine? >? 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 <? remaining in it[...] Interesting. But the same decree also says the following: D 707 "Besides it anathematizes the madness of the Manichaeans... D 710 It, moreover, anathematizes, execrates, and condemns every heresy that suggests contrary things. And we must note even in D 714, which you quote, that this decree *only* applies to those who _had been_ Catholics, but who had then left the faith for whatever reason: ...and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation... and that no one...can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. All of these quotations from the Bull "Cantada Domino," on 4 Feb 1441, add up to two conclusions: (1) Heretical _ideas_ were condemned, and (2) persons who *left* the Church to pursue heretical doctrines were excommunicated from the sacraments; i.e., from the life of the Church. I challenge you to show how this conflicts with "current" Catholic doctrine. For example, it was less than a year ago that the CDF reiterated Church teaching on the illegitimacy of administration of the sacraments to those remarried Catholics who may be divorced in the eyes of civil society but remain married in the eyes of the Church. These are living a heretical notion that God sanctions divorce. Thus they too are included in the above decree. Turning one's back on the faith is considered as serious an offense against God today as it was five centuries ago. >Damning schismatics here obviously contradicts your argument. I do not see the decree damning anyone, but merely warning heretics of the folly of rejecting a faith they once embraced. If you think that the Church has ever damned anyone by name to hell, produce the evidence or retract your assertion. The most she has ever done is to excommunicate persons who cease to be Catholic in their public profession of what they believe. The purpose of colorful language in those days was to remind them of the fate that might await them should they remain outside the body of faith which they had previously sworn allegience to. >Saying that the sacraments are of NO effect outside the Catholic Church >ruins half of Unitatis Redintegratio. How so? The decree was addressing only the sacraments that are repeatable, not those that cannot be repeated. Besides, as I said above, the sacrament of Eucharist most certainly *is* of benefit to those outside the Catholic Church because all are _able_ to be nourished in faith as a consequence of it. Recall that Dignitatis Humanae n. 1 says: ...We believe that this one true religion continues to exist in the Catholic and Apostolic Church...All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold to it as they come to know it. The sacred Council likewise proclaims that these obligations bind man's conscience. Truth can impose itself on the mind of man only in virtue of its own truth, which wins over the mind with both gentleness and power. So while the religious freedom which men demand in fulfilling their obligation to worship God has to do with freedom from coercion in civil society, it leaves intact the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies towards the true religion and the one Church of Christ. And note that Unitatis Redintegratio n. 3 says: ...However, one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these communities and in them [dissenting communities which had become separated from full communion with the Catholic Church] are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church...But even in spite of them [serious obstacles to unity] it remains true that all who have been jusfified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ [Council of Florence, session 8, 1439, Denzinger 695-696]; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church....For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. Two significant points are made in this decree on ecumenism of the 2nd Vatican Council: (1) those who at present are born into the non-Catholic Christian communities cannot be charged with the sin of formal heresy, and (2) the means of salvation used by the Holy Spirit in these communities derives its efficacy from the existence of the Catholic Church on earth. >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 it to the bull as an utter >rejection of schismatics: >@ Further, We declare, say, define, and pronounce that <@ absolutely necessary for>> the salvation of every human creature >@ <> subject to the Roman Pontiff. >From: > The Church Teaches (Documents of the Church in English translation) I don't know how "ultra-conservative" this book is, but it sits on my shelf gathering dust due to its lack of completeness. I prefer the original Denzinger documents for my source. I wonder if anyone besides yourself sees any difference in content between selections in that Jesuit book and Deferrari's translation of the Denzinger documents. That said, you have found yourself a good source of orthodox doctrine nonetheless in TAN's republication. I should think that a beginner at Catholicism would benefit more from the more authoritative 1992 Catechism than from a Jesuit textbook in dogmatic theology. Why not have a look at it? >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. There is *nothing* contrary to the 16 documents of Vatican II contained in that Jesuit textbook. I assure you that you will be unable to prove otherwise. >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. I no longer deal in politics in a religious forum, but you may feel free to spout anything you like. Dignitatis Humanae grants you that privilege. Or haven't you got around to reading that far into the Vatican II documents yet? >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." I knew that part would get *someone's* goat! Heh heh. >Do you think seriously that such a subtle sentence would make any >effect on worldly authorities? By no means, I am convinced. Yes, I agree with you that those 15th-century popes felt the need to spice up the rhetoric in some of their teaching documents. The Catholic popes have always striven to adapt the language of official documents to the times in which they lived. >[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. I tried to explain something away? Me? Membership *by Catholics* in the Catholic Church *is* necessary for salvation. It always has been. Write back again after you have reviewed Pope Pius XI's 1873 encyclical _Etsi multa luctuosa_ on the "Twofold Power on Earth" (wherein Pius quotes Tertullian as saying, "...for he [Caesar] himself belongs to Him to whom belong heaven and every creature), a statement of the second theory of how power is conferred. In addition to this, you ought to educate yourself about the subject of invincible ignorance. To this end, I assign you the task of reading TCT 173-175, found on pp. 80-81 of this book. Read as well TCT 178 on p. 82, which warns that liberal indifferentism is a serious error opposed to Catholic truth and explains in additional detail the true meaning of "no salvation outside the Church." By the way, what makes you the judge of whether any dogma has "changed" since Vatican II? Vatican II, if you were not aware of this, was a _pastoral_ council (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 1) and defined no new dogmas. >[2] - Did he propose a debated theory to his very militant > enemies to convince them of his spiritual primacy? Who cares? That theory is ancient history, perhaps suited to the times, but now long out of date. Why dwell on it? A gloss in Deferrari states: Philip IV, King of France, made ill use of this bull when he said that it was defined by it that the Pope had direct power over kings; but Boniface by no means intended this; in a consistory held on this matter he expressly declared that the statement was falsely applied to him, "that we had ordered the king to recognize his kingdom as from us. For forty years we have been experienced in the law, and we know that there are two powers ordained by God. Therefore, who should or can believe that such foolishness, such folly is or has been in our head? We say that we wish to usurp the jurisdiction of a king in nothing; and this did our brother Portuensis say. It cannot be denied that a king or any other person among the faithful is subject to us by reason of sin." Cf. Du Puy, _Histoire du differend, etc., 77. Is this a clear enough statement for you, or not? >[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 > (100%) make the theory used for supporting it - more than a theory? No way on earth. The dogma is certain; supporting statements are not of necessity so. > If not, then doesn't the fact that debatable reliability to prove his point> 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"? You sound a little like old Philip, the King of France, here. :) But what if he would have used "dirty means" in his dealings with kings? He is not listed as a saint in my sources. Besides, Catholics gave up on that Donatist heresy centuries before Boniface arrived on the scene. >He rather wanted to express: "ACKNOWLEDGE that you are under my yoke! >Otherwise you don't have salvation." >I'll back up my statement with quotes from your version. Go ahead, but you cannot deny what Boniface himself had to say in the consistory. :) >..."(see Rom 13:2)", as TCT indicates the source of quotation in >terrible 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. Huh? Where does the TCT show this anguish? Immediately below the last sentence in the bull? No. For in the gloss there, Clarkson et al. write: Pope Boniface takes them in this last sense to point the contrast between the Catholic doctrine according to which there is but one omnipotent source of all power, and the Manichaean doctrine, according to which there are two absolute sources of poer, a good and an evil one. I ask you: where is the anguish? Where is the "obviously wilful" misquotation? The fact remains: the Pope said himself that his authority over a king or any other person *among the faithful* pertained solely by reason *of sin*. Who is being willful here, I ask? >: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. Well, if I cannot convince you, maybe Boniface himself can. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Tomorrow will take care of itself.