18 November 1301 A.D. Happy
Birthday Unam Sanctam
Happy Anniversary Unam Sanctam
Today marks the
711th anniversary of Boniface VIII’s infamous bull. Richard Cavendish wrote a summary of the bull and its historical occasioning a few years ago, and the full text of Unam
Sanctam can be found here. Few people are aware of this document today,
and many of those who are would rather that they not be. Most defenders of the
current state of the papacy attempt to dismiss Unam Sanctam as
either purely historical (and not de fide) or as an infelicitous
example of the ecclesial statesmanship of less mature times which we have now,
thankfully, developed beyond. Even the editorial preface at the Fordham website
says this: “The statements concerning the relations between the spiritual and
the secular power are of a purely historical character, so far as they do not
refer to the nature of the spiritual power, and are based on the actual
conditions of medieval Europe.” This is, of course, flatly contradicted by the
actual text of the bull, some of which we will highlight below. It is also
important to understand the broader theological (not just historical) context
which produced Unam Sanctam. J A Watt’s essay, “Spiritual and Temporal Powers,” is
perhaps the best introduction to that.
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 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.
Exegetical Grounding for the Unity and Singularity of the Church
The bull begins
with the defense of the unity of the Church, but it makes it clear that this
unity is summed up in Petrine primacy and that those who are not under the
jurisdiction of Peter and his successors out not members of the Church:
Therefore, of
the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a
monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of
Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep’ [Jn
21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular,
whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the
Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his
successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord
says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’
Exegetical Grounding for the “Two Swords”
Next comes the
defense of the Two Swords doctrine. This doctrine, it must be understood, is
not an affirmation of the separation of the swords, but, at least in the case
of Unam
Sanctam, the unity of the two swords. And this too is grounded by
the bull in the text of Scripture:
We are informed
by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two
swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say:
‘Behold, here are two swords’ [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since
the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many,
but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the
power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: ‘Put
up thy sword into thy scabbard’ [Mt 26:52].
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. All that is necessary is to show that Unam Sanctam was
citing these verses in defense of its doctrine. The argument is that Christ
himself gave both swords, understood to symbolize the two kinds of government,
to Peter and then, through him, to his successors.
The bull
continues to explain that the swords exist in a hierarchical relationship with
the temporal in submission to the spiritual:
Both, therefore,
are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material
sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by
the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of
kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.
However, one
sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected
to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: ‘There is no power except from
God and the things that are, are ordained of God’ [Rom 13:1-2], but they would
not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the
inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.
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.
The Divine Hierarchy
To this (rather
questionable) exegesis, Unam Sanctam adds the
philosophical framework of a distinct strand of the Roman tradition, its reading
of Dionysius and the “law of divinity”:
For, according
to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things
reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the
universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the
lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must
recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in
nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal.
From this
hierarchy, two privileges are concluded for the ministry of the church: the
tithe and the establishment and continual confirmation of temporal power:
This we see very
clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but
the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with
truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the
terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good.
Additional
exegetical grounding is also given to these claims with citations of Jeremiah
1:10 and 1 Corinthians 2:15. This is finally summed up in the nature of the
authority itself:
This authority,
however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not
human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to
him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying
to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in
Heaven’ etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by
God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus
two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to
the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that
God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1].
This is all
based on claims regarding the nature of law itself. The universe is created in
this manner, and the added “divine word” gave such authority to the chair of
Peter.
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. 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. While it is not necessary for Protestants to
try to insist that individual Roman Catholics affirm and embrace Unam
Sanctam, the very nature of truth and intelligibility does make it
necessary for contemporary Roman Catholics to give some rational account of its
doctrine. Unam Sanctam ought to be recognized for what it is,
a dogmatic statement about both faith and the nature of political power, and
not hidden, ignored, or brushed aside.
No comments:
Post a Comment