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.
We Do claim a "superiority" (a superiority by gift) in the "means of grace" (the sacraments), and that would be in terms of reliability or assuredness.
I'm up on this because at the request of my pastor I wrote an "epistle" to some Episcopalians who were thinking about converting and who needed to wrap their minds around what it meant when we said that their sacraments were invalid. I said, inter alia that we would not say that God had certainly NOT acted in those "attempts" at sacramental ministration, but only that he sho' 'nuff, you can take it to the bank, acts in those of the Catholic Church. (If you want, I can email you the article. It's good for sleeplessness. Most people read two sentences and doze right off.)In any event, claiming plene esse of churchiness is to be distinguished from claiming superiority across the board.
Okay, WE're patronizing and condescending? Have you read some of the characterizations on your side? "Anti-Christ"? "Whore of Babylon"? "Magicsterical"?
Now I don't think those are patronizing and condescending, as it happens, though some of them are needlessly and uselessly hostile. But let's look closer.
In general Protestants talk about an "invisible" Church, loosely attached or related (if it is attached or related at all) to ecclesial-type organizations. I would say you don't even want to be or think it possible to be what we mean by "The Church." So we AGREE with you that your organizations are not a Church as we think Church to be. It seems hard to call agreement arrogant and condescending. You don't even WANT to be what we think the Church is. There's a disagreement on the nature of "Church", and is it arrogant of us to think we're right but not arrogant of those who disagree with us to think THEY're right?
Anyway, a lot of the rest of what you're writing seems to me to confuse the claim of the plene esse of Church with moral superiority. The image I want is that of a lot of sick scoundrels and fools in charge of the best pharmaceutical supply-house in the world. And if somebody says, "How good can the medicines be if those guys are so sick?" I'll answer, "You should see them without the medicine!" If I haven't persuaded you of the distinction or that one in no way implies the other (not in my alleged mind, anyway) let me know.
But that one Church is only you guys and no one else ...
No. The FULLNESS of Church is only we guys. To me at any rate that's an important distinction.
You guys validly baptize. If someone who could show that he'd been baptized in water in the name of the Trinity in the "up-in-the-holler, snake-handlin', poison-drinkin', hard-shell, foot-washin', two-seed in the Spirit, baptized by fire, Holiness Gospel Assembly", we will NOT make OUR ceremony and sacrament of baptism a condition of admission to the sacraments. How much less so if he was baptized in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. You read most of the sho' 'nuff Scriptures. You pray, or some of you do (as a few of us do), devoutly, and you commend and commit your lives to Christ. A lot of what you teach and preach is very fine indeed, and the manner of its expression ought often to be an example and rebuke to some of our preachers and teachers. I can with real spiritual benefit listen to some evangelical radio stations.
We're not saying you ain't got nuthin'. We're saying you don't have it all, all of what the Church offers. I'm not trying to sell the Catholic Church here. I'm trying to clarify Dominus Iesus and the gloss that came out afterwards -- and to de-fang it a little.
As far as the Pope holding all aridly authority goes, if you have the time, check my tome on another thread. Such brilliance can not be repeated too often, it'd be like champagne for breakfast. (Not to self: confess lack of humility ...) To sum it up, I think the Lockean/Montesquieu-ian view of polity is not appropriately applied to the governance of the Catholic Church. And specifically, when the Pope, say, defines the Assumption, a lot of Protestants think of that as a kind of sua sponte, executive function, but it's way more like an exercise of what we in the US would think of as judicial function (if we want to try to force it into modern political categories). The question is nattered about for a hundred or a thousand years and the Pope is petitioned and nagged and counseled and advised and argued with, and finally he says, "Okay. Enough already. Here's what we teach: blah blah blah, I declare and define, blah blah blah. Roma locuta, causa finita, next case."
Jeesh, why don't we just discuss every important issue in one post and crash the system? But let's move on to faith and works:
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.
First of all, we should insert "ordinarily" before "required". If you get hit by a truck and in hyour expiring breath you conceive inwaqrdly that Jesus really IS Lord and you want Him for your personal savior, don't worry, you're in. (In purgatory, probably, but you're still in.) But if you miraculously recover, it would be a good idea to get Baptized.
Anyway, the hidden assumption is in the last prepositional phrase, "of a man". The "works" and their "merits" ARE graces. There's as fine a statement of this as I've ever read in this Month's (that is, April) First Things. I can't find my copy in the swamp here and it won't be online until next month's issue is published. But the author has the wisdom and perceptiveness to agree with moi that both works and their "merit" are gifts, not "earned" in any simple sense. If I do something right, (I'll let you know what that happens, if ever) it will be a gift from God, from conception to willing to performance. And the sequel, presumably beneficial to me somehow, will also be a gift.
Haven't you ever done something right and been flooded with not pride but gratitude? For it was Christ who xworked in you, both to will and to do.
As far as my take on Col 1:24 goes (and I do hold that Paul is, dramatically and not to be taken over-simply, saying that in some way there is room in Christ's work for Paul's suffering as a useful addition) I think the word "Rejoice" in "I rejoice in my sufferings" is overlooked. Paul's suffering and the works in which God summons us to walk are not burdens but gifts in which to rejoice. They are themselves salvation working in the "now", as one might say.
Sure because of our brokenness and failure of vision they sometimes seem like burdens we must carry, but they are privileges and gifts which God offers us.
I cannot help thinking that it will be good for the conversation to have discovered that you think WE separate works and faith and I think YOU do.
Enough already. I hope this was at least clear.
Sigh. I wonder what God thinks of all this. Must be Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross just wasn’t enough....Now we have to work our way in.