If I am a Protestant, which I am, and have not bowed the knee to the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, can I be truly saved? Not according to Bull Unam Sanctum:
Furthermore We declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all men that they submit to the Roman Pontiff. (Bull Unam Sanctum of Pope Boniface VIII, 1302. The Teaching of the Catholic Church, by Neuner and Roos, S. J., p. 204, No. 342)
If this is true, and still stands today, this really does not bode well for ecumenicism, unless of course by ecumenicism we mean that Protestants go back to Rome, and her Pope.
There is more, the Pope for Catholics is the embodiment of St. Peter, and thus he holds the keys to the kingdom. He alone decides orthodoxy, heterodoxy, and heresy. Note how high he is placed by Vatican Council I:
Hence We teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly Episcopal, is immediate, to which all, of whatever rite or dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters that pertain to faith and morals, but also in those that pertain to discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. (Vatican Council, pp. 224-225, No. 379)
I realize that Vatican II (1960’s) tried to “soften” the blow of such dogmatic statements, but if in fact we are going to be consistent and hold to continuity with the teaching of the Roman Pontiff’s; I don’t see how the above can be truly “softened.” If the above is true, again, any form of Ecumenicism, between Protestants and Catholics is going to have to be “one-sided.” In the sense that the Protestant side will necessarily have to recognize the “Supreme Authority” of the Pope’s office.
Any “bishop’s” authority, even Apostle’s authority, is subsidiary to his fidelity to the Gospel Message; insofar as the “Apostle” diverges from the simple Gospel message, then his “authority” is called into suspect. Of course this was the reason for the Protestant Reformation, wasn’t it? Furthermore, there is a whole complex related to the issue of assigning the label “Apostle” to anyone, post first century (i.e. those who actually saw the Resurrected Jesus). If we are to hold to an “Apostolic Succession,” of the kind that provides the basis and framework for the Pope and the Roman curia; then apart from just assuming a genetic continuum of sorts, there needs to be substantiation beyond an ad hoc self-proclamation—i.e. of the kind that Rome assumes.
The Face Of Christ 
Yeah, when I read Unam Sanctum I never feel more protestant. Though I think that Vatican II perhaps did more positive things than you do, this is still a problem.
However, one point of clarification, neither the bishops nor the pope are assigned the label “Apostle” by the Catholic church. They are thought to carry on the apostolic ministry, but are not themselves “Apostles” in the same sense that the 12 and Paul were.
Well welcome my Protestant brother š . It’s not that I don’t think Vatican II didn’t do positive things, it’s just that when I think about continuity between past encyclicals, dogmatic statements (such as Vatican I), etc. I have a hard time seeing how these things are commensurate with the “unity” that the papacy supposedly ensures for the “faithful.”
Thank you for clarifying my clumsy overstatement. I did realize that it is the “office” more than the “person” ex opere operato . . . which to me illustrates this point.
Yeah, honestly (and maybe this will answer your continued wonderings why I don’t become Catholic), I think that the rhetoric of unbroken continuity with the Papacy and Papal teachings really just can’t hold up to scrutiny. When we actually look at all the various things that have been promulgated by the teaching office we get a lot of stuff that no Catholic today would ever hold to (like burning heretics, and saying that the Pope can command nations to go to war and stuff like that). The problem is that even though “that’s not how it is anymore”, it seems pretty tough for the Catholic church as a whole to say, “Yeah, we were just totally wrong about that and we reject such teachings now.” Instead they find some convuluted way of saying, “No, actually we’ve always ever taught what we teach now” – which is just false. Admitedly JPII did a lot of stuff in the right direction, but I think there’s still more historical soul-searching that needs to be done. And probably by protestants, too.
Halden,
thanks for the insight. I am in complete agreement with what you are saying here, and in fact is one of the problematics that Catholics indeed need to struggle with. In fact I have spoken with some Catholics, off-line, and they do try to argue for “Marian dogma,” Papal infallibility, as if this has been continuous since Peter . . . which even a cursory glance at Church History debunks. I know that the motivation for this is to ensure the fidelity of “authority,” and subsequent unity, in short to ensure the fidelity of the gospel itself.
Protestants truly need to do soul-searching, as well. We are so static, and “in-grown,” it is becoming sad (understatement).
Maybe I’m having a rare moment of clarity here, but the real sentiment that I have behind all my posts on Protestant-Catholic relations is one of deep sadness over the division of Christ’s body. I see so much of the wholeness of the apostolic tradition that is present in the Catholic church, which I long for all Christians to experience, but I also see the inability of certain key movements of the Spirit in the Protestant churches to be recieved in the Catholic church on the basis of their theory and practice of authority and dogma. We are all impoverished in our division. It is that sense of poverty and brokeneness that is always behind my attempts to think about ecumenism. I imagine that such sentiments often don’t come out clearly in many discussions, unfortunately.
Well not that rare, but some-times I am confused (as I’m sure you are with me) by you; i.e. sometimes you sound more Catholic than Protestant—at least in the way you argue š .
But you know what, I share your sentiment. While in the undergrad, for Ecclesiology with Koivisto, we did, what he called “catholicity builders.” One of the churches I visited was Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox, when I left there, I had a sense of theological continuity and just an awareness of history (built into the liturgy) that I, as a Christian, had never experienced before—of course they wouldn’t let us partake in communion (just the bread crumbs š ). Anyway my point, I hear you on the “wholeness” of apostolic tradition. Another class in seminary that really opened things up for me, was “Patristic Theology,” with your favorite, Frost š . As a born “Fundamentalist” I felt so ripped off, after realizing the depth of my heritage as a “Christian.”
I think both Prot. and Cath. and Orthodox are totally in need of Christ, and like you, I really do long for more unity AROUND Christ. Again thanks for the transparency and clarification . . . I’ll try to be more transparent as well.
I would like to suggest that before focusing on the question of papal supremacy, one must first address three questions: (1) Is the Church divinely constituted as a visible society? (2) Does the historic episcopate belong to the esse of the Church? (3) Is the Church, precisely as a visible, ordered society, necessary to salvation?
If one can answer “yes” to each of these three questions, then the question of papal supremacy becomes interesting. But if one cannot, then the question of papal supremacy is irrelevant, and the Roman claims must always be seen as bogus.
Unam Sanctam is a challenging document, but it needs to be noted that Catholics do not generally believe that it contains an infallible dogmatic definition. Having never researched the question, I cannot tell you why this is so. I only register what seems to be the case. Not everything a Pope says enjoys irreformable status. I reference here John Henry Newman’s (pre-Vatican II!) Letter to the Duke of Norfolk.
But Catholics do assert that the Bishop of Rome has been entrusted by Christ Jesus with unique and decisive authority within the Church Catholic. Maybe we’re wrong, but we ain’t going to abandon the claim for the sake of ecumenical relations.
Al, I agree that those three questions are crucial indeed. I would probably venture a cautious ‘yes’ to the first and last questions, with a definite ‘no’ to the second. I can’t see my way to the idea that the episcopate belongs to the esse of the church when the episcopate as we know it today was not established from the begining of the church, and for at least a good period of time there were churches with and without bishops who were in communion with one another. On this point I’ve been influenced by the work of Raymond Brown.
Fr. Kimel,
1. Yes/No
2. No
3. In a sense, but not in an unqualified way.
Thanks for your comment.
Thanks, gentlemen. You both agree that the historic episcopate, presumably in any form, is not necessary to the right ordering of the Church. Hence you dissent from both Catholic and Orthodox (and Anglo-Catholic) claims. I remember in seminary, which now seems so long ago as to be beyond all memory, some of my classmates and I wrestling mightily with this question of the historic episcopate, with Raymond Brown’s *Priest and Bishop* in hand. Fortunately, Archbishop Michael Ramsey was a guest-lecturer at our seminary for two semesters during my time in seminary. He directed us to his wonderful book *The Gospel and the Catholic Church*, which persuaded me that despite our historical ignorance of the shape of the Church during the first century of the Church’s existence (the so-called “tunnel period”), I had to take seriously the establishment of the episcopal office, not as adventitious to the Church but as constitutive of it. Ramsey reminds us that the same Church that canonized the Scriptures and composed the creeds also established the episcopal office. This office has taken different shapes and configurations over the past two millenia, but the one constant is the bishop/pastor ordained in apostolic succession. I have been confirmed in this conviction by John Zizioulas’s doctoral dissertation, *Eucharist, Bishop, Church*. I do not assert that the apostolic succession can be historically proven beyond a reasonable doubt–the first century evidence is so fragmentary as to prevent us from asserting very much at all about the structure and polity of the apostolic Church. On this point, as on so many others, I think we ultimately have to trust the judgment and decision of the post-apostolic Church.
For me, Ramsey offers the clinching argument. When asked if bishops belong to the esse or bene esse of the Church, Ramsey replied: “They belong to the esse of the Church, because they clearly do not belong to its bene esse.” š
If we accept, for purposes of argument, that bishops belong, in some sense, to the esse of the Church, and if we then combine with this tenet the consensual patristic belief that baptism and Church are necessary to salvation (extra Ecclesia nulla salus), then perhaps the logic of the salvific necessity of bishops becomes a bit more reasonable, remembering at the same time that the absolute assertion of baptism must be properly nuanced and qualified, as has been done by both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
In any case, if one disbelieves the catholic claim that the Episcopal office belongs to the esse of the Church, then the Roman claim that Christ has ordained a visible episcopal center of unity must appear preposterous and unwarranted.
Maybe Avery Dulles’ Models of the Church would be a good read.
1) “Bow the knee to the pope of Rome”–that’s quite a lot of hype, don’t you think?
2) Vatican II did not simply “soften the blow” (that is, if we accept your premise that Unam Sanctam actually precluded the possibility of a Protestant being saved). It is very clear that the RCC believes that a baptized Christian living out their faith in Jesus will go to heaven, by God’s grace and providence. Indeed, I can imagine another blog post where you criticized the Church for being too “universalist” in suggesting that the gates of heaven are open to non-Christians. It’s irritating (a la Chesterton) when the Church is being criticized for opposite things (being too exclusive and too inclusive) by the same kinds of people.
3) The context of Unam Sanctam is very different than contemporary Protestant-Catholic dialogue. And, by the way, the attitude towards Protestants is not simply a realization of Vatican II. You can find many pre-Vatican-II “official” documents which talk about Protestants being saved (regardless) because of their ignorance that the RCC was the Church founded by Christ. So…the hermeneutic of discontinuity must take that into account (or, better, be rejected).
4) Your point about the Church’s apostolicity is an erroneous construal of the Church’s teaching. I will post that separately since I will simply quote the Catechism…it’ll be a bit long.
Fr. Kimel,
I believe there was an Episcopal office that belongs to the esse of the Church, and that witness lives on through the deposit of Holy Scripture. I see what you’re saying, don’t really want to argue with you on this, at least at the moment (I’m not even on my own computer, out of town right now). Thanks for your informed and charitable tone, I always appreciate that about you.
Matt,
1.) yeah, whatever . . . a little rhetoric never killed anybody.
2.) Ok, if it didn’t soften the blow, it changed the whole trajectory of the blow. I was just trying to be charitable—not disingenuous, btw.
3.) Well if words have any kind of meaning, and have any straightforward sense, then you’ll need to provide a context which changes the prima facie sense that unam sanctum communicates.
4.) Go ahead and substantiate, I’m all ears.