Replies

Here's the link to the Bull:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.txt

And here's the oblique reference to the Orthodox:

"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.'"

This sentence, which Latin apologists pass over with a parenthetical comment, puts the lie to the entire edifice of sophistry they have created to gloss over the import of the final line of Unam Sanctam. While it is true that Protestantism didn't exist in 1302, the one , holy, catholic and apostolic church did exist east of the Adriatic. The simple fact of the matter is that Boniface has said that "the Greeks" are not saved. Now unless the Latin Church has a dogmatic alternative to damnation, and we know that isn't Limbo, if one isn't saved, one is damned, thus "the Greeks" are damned because they "...are not confided to Peter and to his successors...." (except perhaps at Antioch?).

Of course, in fairness, it should be remembered that the four Eastern Patriarchates had, by this time, cut off the popes of Rome as heretics and all the historical reasons for this aside, the theological basis for that anathema was the innovation of the filioque. As a practical matter, our patriarchs were basically saying that the Latins were "extra ecclesiam" and although the East has always resisted officially declaring that membership in The Church is the sine qua non of salvation, there certainly were those then and now who hold exactly that position. Though he declared this 150 odd years later, +Mark of Ephesus stated the Eastern position vis a vis Rome and those in communion with it,

"We have excised and cut them off from the common body of the Church, we have, therefore, rejected them as heretics, and for this reason we are separated from them"; they are, therefore, heretics, and we have cut them off as heretics."

Nearly 50 years ago as a first grader in Catholic school, I was on the receiving end of this when the nun who was my teacher quoted the last line of this Bull to me in front of the whole class. I've never forgotten that, but I have also never forgotten my father's rage at the comment and the kind and healing words of the old monsignor/pastor of the parish which ran the school to the effect that the nun was "a silly woman" and that the Bull didn't mean "Holy Orthodoxy". Of course, that's exactly what the Bull meant, in part, but it was a nice thing for an old Irish priest to say. I still smile when I think of that kindly, very good man.

It seems apparent that the theology of the Latin Church has developed away from this sort of medieval position. Personally I think the mental gymnastics necessary to on the one hand get beyond this attitude while at the same time maintaining the fiction that the Latin Church simply now better understands what Boniface was saying is unfortunate. The ecclesiology of the Latin Church makes this necessary. As we all know, its hard to walk across a wet floor once one has painted oneself into a corner. The bottom line is, if we Orthodox can come to a point where we can trust the Latin Church (not just the Pope; you all know I think +BXVI is spectacular)it would be best if we allow them whatever fig leaves they feel they need to deal with some of the unfortunate remarks of their popes and hierarchs.