The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia says: "The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for the attainment of eternal salvation, the position of the Pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the Pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation. - in the writings of non-Catholic authors against the definition of Papal Infallibility, the Bull ...
was used against Boniface VIII as well as against the papal primacy in a manner not justified by its content.
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.
'Unam' is frequently quoted, and misquoted, by anti-Catholics trying to prove that Boniface VIII, and Popes in general, are arrogant and evil men, intent on extending their own power."
Now we see another view of these quotes and in what context.
This again is interpretation. The CE affirms that the Bull teaches submission to the Pope as being required in order to attain salvation, which Lumen Gentium”reformulated” and which RCs have different interpretations of.
Nor does your providence of historical context refute my contextual statement on “the ethos of Rome during times when it wielded its unScriptural sword of men against theological adversaries,” as the fact is that while you can fault our interpretation of Rome’s desire, Rome did advocate torture, etc. or killing of theological opponents. And we have good reason to assume it would still do so if it had not lost its physical sword, and which some of your Traditional RCs advocate it should use.
Liberal Muslims also argue that the sanction and example of physical harm to enemies by Muhammad was contextual, but the fact remains he sanctioned it and they have good ground for physical Jihad.