In so many words? Across the board superiority? I really don't think so.
I ask not to pick nits but because I want the claims to be understood precisely. I'd be glad if I understood 'em precisely myself, as a matter of fact.
I've said before, one would think that the best way to assess hospitals would be on length of stay and mortality rates. But one of the reasons good hospitals lose a lot of patients is that they get the ones no one can heal.
I used to say to myself, "Don't confuse the salesman with the product." Now I'd add, and don't confuse the customers with the product either. The weak, the not very thoughtful, those who relapse into sin often ( Margaret of Cortona comes to mind) MAY come to the RC Church because they can't even pronounce pre-destination, but they can hear that God loves them, they can experience that love in the sacraments and devotions, and little by little, in ways marred by habitual vices and disabilities, they may show only to God and the really discerning the spiritual change in their lives, while all we note is the garrulousness, querulousness, and B.O..
Christ says "my Church" which you interpret to mean ONLY your particular Church. If that's what Christ really meant, then I would expect to see a difference between "your people" and "my people".
Um, we have more parties? with better wine? (Okay, The Episcopalians have us beat on that ....)
But seriously, it would be nice if our adversaries more often took the trouble to hurl back at us what we really do say, and not paraphrases which, intentionally or not, end up being tendentious. It is especially remarkable since there was a great deal of Protestant outrage over the "clarifications" to Dominus Iesus when they came out. I can't find the thread now.
I THINK what we say is there IS only one Church, period. The "fullness" of that one Church and her benefits (for example, all the sacramental means of grace) is available in the catholic Church (NOT just the RCC). Other ecclesial assemblies have access to a hindered communion with the catholic Church and similarly impeded access to the sacramental means of grace. For example baptism and (I think marriage (under certain broad circumstances -- for example, no RCC person has suggested that the boss-lady and I need to get re-married) are valid and bona fide and so forth.
That is not the same as, it's different in important ways from, saying that we are the ONLY Church and you are no church at all.
Further -- I tried this before -- the clergy do not claim so to speak "personal" gifts. Ordained, they rise up from their knees the same idiotic poltroons that they were when they knelt before the bishop. But now they are idiotic poltroons marked with and for an office.
Clipping a dog's ears may in fact hinder rather than help him track with his nose (since a hound's ears trap air around his face so he can enjoy the bouquet of eau de deer-poop or fox-sweat) but it won't change his orneriness. Neither will the "character indelibilis" of ordination make a tractable and intelligent poodle out of a froward mutt. It'll just make a mutt with tidy ears.
We trumpet from as high and acoustically gifted a place as we can, "We have this treasure in earthen vessels!" Indeed one of the proofs of the earthen-ness is not the simplicity of a Cure d'Ars or the persistence of a DeSales, but the asininity of the priest or bishop or cardinal or abbot who acts like he's the bees-knees.
One more wheeze: Abbots and Bishops present themselves to Dominic to assist, they say, in the work of evangelism. They have retinues and are splendidly mounted. We all admit this is embarrassing. But if we must boast in our men, let us first acknowledge the luxurious clergy and only then boast in Dominic who not only invites but persuades these men who want to lord it over others to send their horses and retinues home and to join him barefoot on the road.
We may have suffered with the shame of slave-holding Jebbies, but we also have a bishop who put a southern parish under interdict when it refused to integrate. That's not so very shabby.
But I guess I can see how one might think we do.
In so many words? Across the board superiority? I really don't think so.
Actually, "yes" in so many words, and virtually across the board. :) Here is an excerpt of some words from a Catholic source: Catholic Church alone is one, true church, says Vatican congregation .
Noting that churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church “suffer from defects,” the doctrinal congregation acknowledged that “elements of sanctification and truth” may be present in them. (emphasis added)
FK: Other Christian faiths MAY have an element of truth. It must have taken true Christian courage to go that far. :) Continuing:
“........ These ecclesial communities [Protestant churches] which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called churches in the proper sense,” it said.
FK: I don't worship in a Church of God (God's Church). Continuing:
In a “commentary” issued with the document, the congregation said that “ecumenical dialogue remains one of the priorities of the Catholic Church.”
FK: Obviously. :) Continuing:
The congregation noted that, while "Catholic ecumenism might seem, at first sight, somewhat paradoxical,” [FK note: understatement of the year :)] the Second Vatican Council has sought to “try to harmonize two doctrinal affirmations” that, despite existent Christian divisions, “the church of Christ continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church” and that “elements of sanctification and truth do exist … in ecclesial communities that are not fully in communion with the Catholic Church." (emphasis added)
Remember, all of the above is from a Catholic source, thinking it was reporting a positive story. That whole episode last summer sealed my opinion, which I expressed. The Church's efforts, which I'm sure were heart felt, at ecumenism were at best patronizing and condescending. At worst, I'd rather not say. The claim by the Church of literal superiority is set in stone.
I used to say to myself, "Don't confuse the salesman with the product." Now I'd add, and don't confuse the customers with the product either.
Yeah, but the above comes with the blessing of the Pope himself. Given the organizational structure, I have to conclude that this is the "official" position of your Church. In essence, the Pope IS the product in the sense that he holds all earthly authority to define the product, and what Catholicism is "selling" is very different from what we are "selling".
But seriously, it would be nice if our adversaries more often took the trouble to hurl back at us what we really do say, and not paraphrases which, intentionally or not, end up being tendentious. It is especially remarkable since there was a great deal of Protestant outrage over the "clarifications" to Dominus Iesus when they came out. I can't find the thread now.
I had thought of and quoted my above before reading this part, so I hope I have accommodated here. :) Although I didn't break any windows or anything, I was among the "outraged" when that came out. :) It confirmed what I already thought.
I THINK what we say is there IS only one Church, period. The "fullness" of that one Church and her benefits (for example, all the sacramental means of grace) is available in the catholic Church (NOT just the RCC). Other ecclesial assemblies have access to a hindered communion with the catholic Church and similarly impeded access to the sacramental means of grace. ...
But that one Church is only you guys and no one else (except the Orthodox). To my understanding you all do not believe in God's invisible Church, the Church of all believers. Here again we see the claim of superiority in that the only measure of anything to be of value FOR us is to what extent we can glom on through your Church.
That is not the same as, it's different in important ways from, saying that we are the ONLY Church and you are no church at all.
Unfortunately, as the "clarifications" plainly spell out, that is PRECISELY what your Church says, that we are no church at all.
You (remarkably, at least to me) suggest that WE make a too hard distinction between works and faith! But to me, it is the heirs of Reform who set down so strict a distinction that when Trent says "not faith alone" they say that MUST mean that we think works save us -- and call us idolatrous and proud. As I tried to suggest last night, why, we even see Faith as a kind of work, a kind which comes with merit, even though it is also a grace and gift. Do WE separate faith and works? I don't think so.
I think you guys have a works-based salvation because the Church denies the totality of the atonement on the cross. If Christ really truly died once and for all for the sins of the elect, then further human atonement would not be necessary. Since the Church teaches that after belief future works are required to be saved, then the threshold of salvation being certain for all time will only be crossed based on a work of a man.
To me that means that the Church believes that faith and works are totally different, or at least totally independent, things. Supporting my supposition is that the Church believes a man may have true faith but lose his salvation. That could only be through a lack of man's action, and it MUST mean that Christ's sacrifice was insufficient to truly save permanently. The bottom line on salvation being certain, according to the Church, is always with men and works.