The beam and the mote...

The Vatican declaration on the validity of other churches has stirred up a hornet's nest (see Ruth Gledhill's blog).  Most striking phrase for me:  "these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation".
       Is this an implication that the Catholic Church alone does not "suffer from defects" ? What?

Comments

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Is this [Summorum Pontificum] an implication that the Catholic Church alone does not 'suffer from defects?'
- Libby, July 11, 2007

It depends on what you understand by the term 'defects', Libby. Faulty teaching? No, the Church does not suffer from any such defect. Human sinfulness? Yes, the Church does indeed suffer from this defect. But then Our Lord did not promise His Church that she would be impeccable, only infallible in her teaching of His gospel. In so far as other ecclesial communities differ from, and indeed contradict, the teaching of the Catholic Church, they can not be regarded as part of the Church established by Jesus Christ. This particularly applies when, as the document SP specifies, such bodies
have severed the apostolic succession by abrogating the episcopacy and the priesthood.

[Kieran]

Hi Libby,

He's saying that in their beliefs and liturgy, Protestant churches are defective, whereas the Catholic Church CAN'T be defective in these matters, since it's the Church which Jesus founded and protects.

Obviously, though, Catholics are defective, as my missus would happily tell you!

[perfectbod]

It seems obvious that if you define your Church as infallible and perfect then you have to define others as fallible and perfect where they dissent from you. The issue must then become (a) is it a good idea, ethically, to have such superb self-confidence, or is ecumenism a Good Thing, and (b) How do you know?

Remember that people often are convinced they are right, that in itself tells us very little. George Orwell defined a lunatic as " a minority of one".

[Geoffrey Smith]

No, Perfectbod, we do not define the Catholic Church as 'infallible and perfect' in the sense that you mean. Infallibility applies only to a doctrinal definition by the Pope, which is not exactly of frequent occurrence - the last time was in 1950, and the one before that in 1870. It most certainly does not mean that the Pope is infallible in all his words and actions.
Such a qualification means that the Church is far from perfection, at least in human terms. However, mandated by Christ to preach the Gospel to every creature, she has the authority to pronounce on who or what conforms to that Gospel.

[perfectbod]

Your last sentence is precisely what I did mean, Geoffrey.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Why don't you pay attention to the whole post, Perfectbod, and not just a small part of it which you mistakenly think supports your agenda?

[perfectbod]

Geoffrey, I was trying to explain politely that most of your post was answering a question which I had not put. You say "No, Perfectbod, we do not define the Catholic Church as 'infallible and perfect' in the sense that you mean" and then go on to define my meaning for me, but unfortunately, incorrectly. My meaning was precisely as you set out in your final sentence "However, mandated by Christ to preach the Gospel to every creature, she has the authority to pronounce on who or what conforms to that Gospel."

Now that we have that clarified, do you have any thoughts on my question? which I may say is a serious one and not, as you rather insultingly suggest, prompted by some "agenda".

[Geoffrey Smith]

Perfectbod, would you be considerate enough to let us know your full name, please? You have nothing to hide, have you?
I take it, therefore, that you agree with my final sentence that the Catholic Church has the authority to pronounce on who or what conforms to the Gospel of Jesus Christ? As opposed to any other Christian body, that is?
Now that we have that clarified, I can attend to your question:
a) Yes, it is an excellent idea to have such superb confidence in Our Lord and His Church,
b)No, ecumenism is a bad thing,
c)The proof of the pudding is in the eating (Matt. 28:18-20)

[perfectbod]

For the record, I dont agree with your final sentence, I suspect you know that. But thank you for clarifying the logic behind your thinking.

[Martin]

Geoffrey, you have conflated two documents. Summorum Pontificum is the motu proprio on the use of the Old Rite. You are referring to the question-and-answer document issued by the CDF.

[Bill]

Jesus loves everyone, but I'm His favourite.