The formula belongs to a tradition visible in Gregory the Great’s correspondence. It combined a definite Christian theological position with legal limits on the treatment of people who did not accept the Christian faith. It should not be confused either with religious indifferentism or with a complete anticipation of modern citizenship.
The distinction between norm and enforcement is central. A renewed protection can show that the principle endured while also showing that danger recurred. Papal commands depended for practical effect on local authorities whose willingness and capacity varied. A failed attempt at protection is not the same act as an order to attack, and an effective protection should not be omitted because other places suffered violence.
For historical assessment the text provides a standard against which particular actions can be measured. It is evidence against treating physical persecution as a single continuous official purpose of the Church. It does not prove that every Christian official or crowd obeyed. The responsibilities of popes, bishops, rulers and individual perpetrators must be identified through their actual decisions.
The theological significance is that the Church’s confession of Christ did not require an unrestricted use of force against unbelievers. Aquinas’s later discussion of unbelief and the baptism of children supplies related scholastic distinctions. Reading these sources together makes it possible to defend traditional Catholic doctrine while refusing to substitute a general accusation against either the Church or a people for the evidence of particular acts.