Talk:Unam sanctam

General Commentary

An external link that contains a bunch of quotes taken out of context with no historical context or explanation other than a mis-leading title "The belief that all should submit to the Roman Pontiff" doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It's polemic and an overt attack on Catholics. It's non-encyclopedic. It's non-notable. It's POV. --Stbalbach 17:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This happens to be a case where sentences and paragraphs are so clear that they don't need Catholic apologists to deny their obvious meaning. The topic is so notable that Catholic apologists are labeling *these papal quotations as *hate speech.

A polemic is "a controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine." My desire to explain *The belief that all should submit to the Roman Pontiff is not a refutation or attack, unless of course, bringing scholarly attention and clarity to an ancient belief is a sure way to refute it.

There is no reason to suppose that a Wikipedia article on an interesting belief, supported by a list of papal paragraphs and their meaning, would be controversial because I would allow Roman Catholic scholars to explain it all in its historical context. My article would be similar to the Wikipedia article on *Papal Infallibility. --67.136.153.200 19:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Your external link is a self-link, you personally made it and change the contents of the document at will. Last I checked, it said some pretty nasty things directed towards Catholics. Your not a neutral source, your making a dogmatic sectarian attack against Catholics. If you want to create an encyclopedia article which anyone can edit, instead of a bunch of meaningless quotes that only you can edit as an external link, go for it. --Stbalbach 21:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Your claim of "pretty nasty things directed towards Catholics" from me is an untrue accusation. I have no desire to fabricate unjust anti-Catholic attacks. I am very satisfied to highlight and quote legitimate yet discarded and allegedly infallible Catholic dogma. Google's *cache copy of http://www.everythingimportant.org/seventhdayAdventists/PapalBull.htm only contains offensive papal statements. --67.136.140.194 00:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

An external link does not have to be NPOV, just the wikipedia article itself does. Wikipedia contains lots of links to the NPOV Catholic Encyclopedia (including this article) so I don't see the problem linking to a Protestant website. For example William Tyndale contains links to both Roman Catholic and Protestant views--Johnbull 20:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

A general question regarding Unam Sanctam today: I understand that this Bull, delivered ex cathedra, must still by devout adherents to the Roman Catholic Church be regarded as completely true. But does any well-educated Romanist seriously believe the content as other than a extreme effort by an angry man to wield power over others?

To the point of this article, then, is the effect of the Bull today (and the attitude of the issuing authority, the Roman Church, toward it today) worth mentioning? Those are facts which a non-Romanist would like to discover. Firstorm (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There have been only two ex cathedra statements in the history of the papacy this was neither of them! However all its parts are still held by the Catholic Church. (1) membership in the Church (ie being Baptized, possibly Baptism of Desire if they happen not to be Christian) is necessary for salvation (2) the Pope is per Christ's will supreme head of the entire Church upon earth, including the baptized who don't recognize him, nad even pagans in new guinea who've never heard of him (or Him for that matter) but have a Baptism of desire. (3) for someone who knows the above or should (ie not invincibly ignorant (sorry not my expression)) for example a Catholic King, to oppose his authority would be mortally sinful and thus, though no one under God knows for sure, potentially damning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.48.13 (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Following custom, the premises are not based on logical reasoning, but on allegorical interpretations of images in scripture, drawn from the Hebrew bible as well as the New Testament. The bull is brief, and anyone interested in it should read what survives of the original text (see links).

I have removed the text quoted above, because I found the "Following custom"-part rather offensive (and no, I'm not a Catholic), and I would like to request that someone does an NPOV-check on the rest of the article. -- ABoerma 01:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Allegory in the Middle Ages, it was more than customary. Perhaps "not based on logical reasoning" could be removed since that is a modernism, comparing them to us, which is of no relevance. -- Stbalbach 03:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I read it as "Catholic custom". I'll try to slightly clarify it, though. -- ABoerma 12:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Catholic is correct. What other religion was there? Who else was issuing Bulls? -- Stbalbach 23:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"What other religion was there?" Judaism was represented in mediaeval Europe; so was Islam; so, too, the Greek church, from which the Roman had broken off. (Of course, if "Stbalbach" employed "Catholic" in a strict sense, the Church universal rather than just the Roman Catholic denomination, there'd have been only Christians and a few Jews and Moslems, and fewer pagans and eccentrics, in mediaeval western and central Europe.) "Who else was issuing Bulls?" True, only the bishops of Rome, as heads of the Roman church. Firstorm (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Restorations

I have restored some text silently suppressed and reverted some insertions as follows:

• "...which some historians consider one of the most extreme statements of Papal spiritual supremacy." "Some" was entered and has been deleted. A historian who does not consider Unam Sanctam one of the most extreme statements of Papal spiritual supremacy should by all means be quoted, if one can be found. There must be some Catholic apologia that takes such an extreme view. Let us hear it quoted. Meanwhile the sentence follows the historical mainstream.
• "Following medieval custom, the premises 'are not based on logical reasoning, but on allegorical interpretations..." Deleting the bolded phrase distorts the point, which is intrinsically interesting and essential to understanding the medieval world-view. "Not based on logical reasoning" is not a modernism, nor does it compare anything to "us", but simply parses the characteristic medieval method of thought, exemplified in a quote.
• "Unam Sanctum often refers to "the one and one and holy". It just doesn't. --Wetman 05:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Translation of First Sentence

...As found on here:

Unam Sanctum in English

"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins..."

and also, in Wikipedia Commons, as linked on the article itself, which appears to be the more literal:

"WE ARE COMPELLED, OUR FAITH URGING us, to believe and to hold—and we do firmly believe and simply confess—that there is one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is neither salvation nor remission of sins..."

and in Latin:

"Unam sanctam ecclesiam catholicam et ipsam apostolicam urgente fide credere cogimur et tenere, nosque hanc frmiter credimus et simpliciter confitemur, extra quam nec salus est, nec remissio peccatorum..."

--Midnite Critic 00:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Modern Interpretation/Relevance

This article would benefit from a short paragraph on the relevance of this Papal Bull today. Do modern Popes still firmly assert that there is no salvation apart from that of Rome? Or have they, in any way repudiated this Bull ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Substar (talk • contribs) 20:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this anonymous commentator: a few sentences on the attitude of the Roman church today toward this doctrine would help the reader to place the entire subject into relevant context. Firstorm (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No the holy catholic church still teaches that it is still necessary for salvation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.200.103 (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible Clarification/Verification Source in "Gesta Treverorum"

In his 1880 translation of ecclesiastic sagas/tales from Icelandic to German (Islendzk Aeventyri by Hugo Gering), he attempts to verify points and sources related to Pope Boniface VIII and his "Auseinandersetzung" with cardinals Peter and Jacob in the notes following [Chapter XXII]http://www.archive.org/stream/rsislendzkaevent00geriuoft#page/69/mode/1up. One such source is an earlier edition of Gesta Treverorum (later German sources are at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesta_Treverorum). I hope this is useful.

Webistrator (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Tierney paraphrase

The following "which some historians consider one of the most extreme statements of Papal spiritual supremacy ever made." was added in 2004 but not supported on the cited page. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)