“Happy Birthday, Unam Sanctam”

“I’m the boss of you!”

Steven Wedgeworth has weighed in:

“Unam Sanctam is a dogmatic declaration if ever any existed”…

Today marks the 711th anniversary of Boniface VIII’s infamous bull. … Let us make just a few observations to demonstrate that Boniface’s bull was not merely a historical or “political” document, but rather that it was founded on exegesis, traditional Roman Catholic philosophy, and its understanding of both the nature of both spiritual and temporal power. The bull even concludes with a moral and soteriological imperative, thus giving it the character of a de fide proclamation…

There is no need to defend the quality of this exegesis. We frankly believe it to be ridiculous, severed entirely from both the literary and historical-grammatical context of the gospels. …

Three claims are made here. 1) Both swords, the spiritual and material, belong to the power of the Church, 2) The material sword is administered by the kings and soldiers as they are guided and instructed by the will of the clergy, 3) Temporal authority must be subordinated to spiritual. This is the clear meaning of the text and certainly the sense which the pope intended. All three claims are grounded in the Holy Scriptures….

CONCLUSION
Unam Sanctam concludes with a clear and definitive statement about the necessity to submit to the pope in order to be saved:

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

Notice the key terms: “declare,” “proclaim,” “define,” and “absolutely necessary for salvation.” This was not merely earthly politics, nor was it meant to be the opinion of only one administration. Unam Sanctam is a dogmatic declaration if ever any existed, meant to claim universal jurisdiction over the church with an absolute and perpetually binding authority. Failure to comply with this declaration is, according to its claims, a damning offense.

Practically speaking, Unam Sanctam is simply ignored [by Roman Catholics who seem to be embarrassed by it]. It was this way from the beginning, as Philip IV’s response was to sack the Lateran palace and create a new papacy for himself. Still, the claims have never been renounced by the Roman church, and after the definition of papal infallibility at Vatican I, it does not seem that they can be.