Unam Problem with Unam Sanctam

Bible Brian
12 minutes ago
9 min read

A commonly cited prooftext for Sola Scriptura is 1 Corinthians 4:6. Personally, while I think it works as a single brick in a well-built wall, I don't think it can singlehandedly carry the weight. However, even being among one of the weaker proofs of Sola Scriptura, it is certainly one of the stronger proofs that Roman Catholicism is a fraudulent institution.

Before explaining how, it’s worth pointing out that there is a bit of debate over exactly how this verse should be translated. The translation you choose will inevitably affect how you interpret it. And of course, even if you read the original Greek, it’s ultimately guaranteed that you will translate it into a language you actually speak. For sake of both simplicity and generosity, I have chosen the KJV for purposes of this article.

The KJV, while it uses interpretive inserts, is possibly the weakest translation of the verse as far as this article goes. It says “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.”

I say this is the “weakest” translation because it provides the narrowest possible scope for what is intended. It specifies “not to think of men beyond what is written”. This is not in the original Greek, but it actually is supported by the context. Paul is directly addressing sectarianism in the early Church, noting how the Corinthians - according to reports he had received - were identifying themselves with the individual Apostles. “I am of Paul”, “I am of Apollos”, and, yes, “I am of Cephas” (i.e. Peter). As Christians, we must regard such petty bickering as intolerable. Divisions, Paul regards as carnal (1 Corinthians 3:3). Unity, by contrast, is literally what Christ Himself prayed for (John 17:20-23).

The context, then, seems to justify the KJV’s insertion. And if we allow for this insertion, the scope of meaning is inherently narrowed. No longer do we have “do not think beyond what is written”, which would sweepingly eradicate all unwritten traditions, but rather, only those which pertain to men. As Paul is referring to himself and Apollos, we can safely say that this applies not “even” to the Apostles, but especially to the Apostles.

It’s worth noting that this same Paul would write, in a subsequent epistle, that he is inferior to the most eminent Apostles in nothing (2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11). Peter, his fellow elder (1 Peter 5:1), was no doubt covered by this. Aside from John being the disciple Jesus loved (John 13:23, 19:26), Peter himself is quite prominent. Paul himself notes Peter as among three who “...seemed to be pillars...” (Galatians 2:9). Conveniently, he said this a mere two verses before giving this same Peter a well deserved telling off… So, if Paul was inferior to Peter in nothing, we are already left with the necessary flip side: Peter was superior in nothing. In other words, even without pointing out the simple fact that there was no Papacy in the first century, and that role has been retroactively ascribed to Peter, what is written of these two men is that they are equals.

Fast forward a few centuries, that equality is forgotten. The bishops of Rome became increasingly hungry for power, not only over their local church, but over the entire Church. Initially, resistance was faced. Over time, however, the Papacy developed, and prevailed, with subsequent Popes becoming increasingly bombastic and audacious.

In 1302 A.D., Pope Boniface VIII promulgated a Papal Bull by the name of Unam Sanctam. In it, we find this damning statement: “Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (1)

Where is this written? Technically, you can say “well, Unam Sanctam”. But citing a Papal Bull in defence of the Papacy is definitionally circular. I ask it again, where is this written? Does Scripture so much as hint at the existence, much less salvific necessity, of the Papacy? Heck, I’ll lay it on the line: Even if we assume that Peter was a Pope in this form, where is it even written that he has a successor? “Irenaeus said…” Irenaeus wasn’t around in the first century. More to the point, he doesn’t even describe the succession of which he speaks in the same way Catholics do it. He casually alludes to the succession of other Churches, saying it would be a monumental task to describe their lines of succession, but most notable for his list of Roman succession, he actually starts from “...the two most glorious Apostles...”(2). Which two? Peter is included, but also… Paul. He’s right there in the context. He’s right there in the passage. He’s right there in the exact same place, in the exact same line of succession, even directly next to Peter. So, if you want to contend Irenaeus is describing a line of Papal successors, guess who you have to slide in there somewhere as a Pope… Get your white Zuchetto, Paul, the Catholics want to put you in Peter’s chair!

But Irenaeus is interesting for another reason. See, you can argue he spoke about tradition, preserved by succession of presbyters. Of course, already, this causes a bit of a headache, because the emphasis is on preserved. When you interpret this in light of what else he said, suddenly the Catholic interpretation becomes impossible:

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”(3).

That phrase “ground and pillar of our faith” will not be unfamiliar to Catholics. They have been taught to understand it a particular way, not because Irenaeus says it, but because the Bible itself uses that phrase. They conveniently “authoritatively interpret” it to mean the Church authoritatively interprets Scripture. But if that’s what the phrase means, then when Irenaeus says the Scriptures are the ground and pillar of our faith, he must mean Scripture authoritatively interprets Scripture.

There are now two roads Catholics can take, both of which I am very comfortable with as a Christian. The first is to flat out admit that Irenaeus is teaching that the Scriptures are the ground and pillar of the faith, it’s just that 1 Timothy 3:15 does not mean what they wish it meant. At that point, they have to drop one of their favorite arguments, and we get to discuss what it actually means.

But we all know that’s not the route they want to go down. So what's the alternative? Throw this “Doctor of the Church” under the bus. They can admit Irenaeus held this view, but assert that he’s wrong in this case. Personally, I can live with that. After all, neither side contends Irenaeus is actually infallible. But this causes just as much of a headache for Rome, for two reasons. The first is that they’re basically admitting Sola Scriptura is not an invention of the Reformation after all. The second is that it dislodges the Church “Fathers”, no matter how prominent, from the sand upon which Catholics have laid them as a foundation.

No matter which option the Catholics choose, the fact that Irenaeus says this is significant. It shows he relied very heavily on the Scriptures, as did the rest of the early Church. Irenaeus himself would go on to say that heretics, when they “...are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce”. (4). That is, "by word of mouth".

Conveniently, Catholics, when they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. They even allege that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but by word of mouth. In other words, they behave almost exactly the same as the heretics in Irenaeus’ day.

But more to the point, here is evidence that Irenaeus took 1 Corinthians 4:6 very seriously. He didn’t even narrow it down just to “do not think of men beyond what is written”. He only said that Apostolic tradition, by will of God, was delivered not vivâ voce, but by written documents, namely by the Scriptures, which are the pillar and ground of our faith. So, rather than being early written evidence of the Papacy, Irenaeus is early written evidence against the entire concept.

But it gets far worse. It’s not just that, for over 1200 years, it was entirely unwritten that the Papacy is essential for salvation. The Gospel, by this time, was more than 12 centuries old. The Bible in which its saving message - the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3) - is presented in simple terms, had been circulated around the world for over a millennium. And as the head of the Roman Catholic Church, this greedy little tyrant was in the best position to access it of any living person of his era.

But what does it say? Again, it’s not just that the bombastic claims of “Pontifex Maximus” were never written, and therefore fall afoul of 1 Corinthians 4:6, it’s that this particular claim reduces the Bible to toilet paper. There is no other name under which we are saved (Acts 4:12)! Not Pope Boniface VIII! Not Pope Leo XIV! Not even Peter! Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Son of God, Son of Man, Son of David, He, and He alone, saves. And He saves all who believe on Him. You will never see Him give this glory to another (Isaiah 42:8). Nor His Apostles. No one, certainly of any Godly character, has ever said that it is necessary for salvation to submit to the Pope.

But Boniface did. To his everlasting shame, and his eternal doom, Boniface went to the judgement seat of God as a treasonous whelp, soon discovering that submission to the Roman Pontiff could not save even the Roman Pontiff.

See, a genuine Apostle of the Lord told us very clearly, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians‬ ‭1‬:‭8‬-‭9‬).

Note, “even if we”. The word “we” is designed to be self-inclusive. It is typically used to describe a group to which one’s own self belongs. In this case, Paul refers to the Apostles. This would include Peter. Conveniently, the same Peter Paul would rebuke just one chapter later, not even for preaching a different gospel, but for acting out of step with the one he already preached. So, if neither Paul, nor Peter, had authority to preach another gospel, how much less authority did Boniface have? How much less authority does Leo have? And if this same Paul commands that we judge these same Apostles by this Gospel, by what kind of logic can they then “authoritatively interpret” their way out of it? The entire Catholic system is backwards! And it has lead a tragic number of people to their eternal demise.

How, then, do Christ’s true flock defend themselves from these savage wolves who spare not the sheep (Acts 20:29-30)? By fleeing to His word! "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy‬ ‭3‬:‭14‬-‭17‬).

From the very beginning, the devil has twisted, cast doubt on, and opposed the commands of the Holy One. But where Adam fell, Christ succeeded. In the garden, the devil asked Eve “did God really say?” And Adam fell. In the wilderness, the devil said “it is written”. But the Son of God replied “it is written also…”. And so the greatest defence against the deception that holds so many souls captive to the ancient serpent is to use the full advice of 1 Corinthians 4:6: “Nothing beyond what is written.” That which has no authority from Scripture, we may as easily despise as approve. When it comes to the Papacy, the wiser approach is most assuredly to flee from it.