Flawless?

[LoneWolfRadTrad]

Then how can we ever maintain the flawlessness of the Church without such a distinction?

I'm not 100% sure I understand you. Do the laity not comprise the Church as well?

Well, when I hear "The Church did this bad thing!" it's usually not ACTUALLY the Church that's to blame, rather clergy who are doing bad things DESPITE the Church's teachings. 

[Mithrandylan]

Then how can we ever maintain the flawlessness of the Church without such a distinction?

I'm not 100% sure I understand you. Do the laity not comprise the Church as well?

Well, when I hear "The Church did this bad thing!" it's usually not ACTUALLY the Church that's to blame, rather clergy who are doing bad things DESPITE the Church's teachings. 

Yes, and that's what I'm saying.  There must be a distinction, however small or subtle from the Church and Her members-- otherwise, the Catholic Church is no different from any other man-made Church.  Vetus, I know what you're saying-- the Church is made up of members, but I guess what I'm saying is that it is not dependent on them.  It is a Godly institute, not one of man.  In this way I mean to say that there is a distinction and one that protects her substantially from error.

[INPEFESS]

The Church Herself is the spotless Bride of Christ. To claim otherwise is to contract 2000 years of infallible teachings as well as the mark of sanctity by which we recognize the true Church. If the Catholic Church as an institution is flawed, then Her teachings are not guaranteed to be free from error, and hence even the teaching that She is not flawed could be flawed. To go down such a path is undo the very foundations upon which the Church guarantees Herself to be the sole deposit of the divinely-revealed religion. 

The Church is comprised of members, yes, but their imperfections do not define the Church. The Church as a divine institution necessarily incorporates men but is in no way limited by them. The Church was created to perfect men; men weren't created to perfect the Church. If the Church is no better than the men it is supposed to be perfecting, then it is useless in its mission to perfect anyone. That the effects of Original Sin result in the accidental imperfections of the various members of the Church in no way interferes with Her substantial inviolability. The Eucharist, as a symbol of the unity of the various members of the Church, is comprised of countless imperfect particles meetly and fitly compacted together. Holistically speaking, however, the transubstantial reality of the Eucharist extends to each particle binding them in a perfect union. Hence, these individual particles retain their imperfect accidental qualities, but they are substantially perfected by their participation in the transubstantial reality of the flawless Body of Christ.

If the Mystical Body of Christ--in Her teachings, laws, disciplines, sacraments, institutions, structures, offices, devotions, liturgy, and authority--is not perfect, then it lays no claim to that Church which was prophesied in the Old Testament. This is why many traditional Catholics contest the acceptance of the Novus Ordo institution as being in any way part of that One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

The conciliar institution, however, which sits as an abomination in the Holy Place, now implies rather boldly that the very structures of the Catholic Church, which is the most complete manifestation of the Church of Christ, are flawed; that the Church itself (and not just its imperfect members) bears some of the guilt for the divisions within it; that the separated communities have on occasion better developed certain aspects of truth than the Catholic Church; and that the Catholic Church requires the various contributions of separated Churches to "fully accomplish its intrinsic catholicity." This is nothing short of an implicit denial of the Catholic Church's claim to be the sole deposit of truth.
 

[...]

This realistic and humble view is found above all in Lumen gentium 8, where the Council with the words “subsistit in” allows not only for elements of the church outside of its visible boundaries but also for sinful members and sinful structures within the church itself.[14] The people of God also incorporates sinners within its fold, with the result that the spiritual essence of the church does not rightly shed its light upon the separated brethren or the world. Thus the church bears some of the guilt for the divisions, and slows down the growth of the Kingdom of God (UR, 3 ff.). On the other hand, the separated communities have on occasion better developed individual aspects of the revealed truth, so that the Catholic Church, under the circumstances of division, is unable to fully accomplish its intrinsic catholicity (UR, 4; UUS, 14). Therefore the church is in need of purification and renewal, and must constantly walk the path of penance (LG, 8; UR, 3 ff., 6 ff.; UUS, 34 ff., 83 ff.).
Source

[Ray M Facere]

The conciliar institution, however, which sits as an abomination in the Holy Place, now implies rather boldly that the very structures of the Catholic Church, which is the most complete manifestation of the Church of Christ, are flawed

Aren't you doing the very thing you railed against in your first four paragraphs, namely suggesting that the personal opinion (or personal errors) of one churchman implies a failure for the full "conciliar institution"? Clearly the link you provided is to a personal intervention on ecumenism given at a conference, not an action of the Magisterium.

[Scriptorium]

The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. She is a perfect society. Her nature is not found in Her members, but in Her Founder. She's holy and perfect because Christ is holy and perfect. Furthermore, even if members sin, as long as they have not cut themselves off from the Body of Christ, they do not detract from the sanctity of the Church.

Now when listening to someone, we have to understand that they may not be using "Church" to mean Her Holy Foundation, but referring to the majority of members. So even when traditionalists say, "The Church has lost her way," they mean many of the members. Or at least they should. Church is a word used in many different meanings.

[INPEFESS]

The conciliar institution, however, which sits as an abomination in the Holy Place, now implies rather boldly that the very structures of the Catholic Church, which is the most complete manifestation of the Church of Christ, are flawed

Aren't you doing the very thing you railed against in your first four paragraphs, namely suggesting that the personal opinion (or personal errors) of one churchman implies a failure for the full "conciliar institution"? Clearly the link you provided is to a personal intervention on ecumenism given at a conference, not an action of the Magisterium.

Those are the principles upon which the Novus Ordo structure conducts its ecumenical efforts. BXVI himself stated that the Second Vatican Council was ambiguously designed to be complemented by these very texts. 

"The text on the Church was kept open primarily because it was to be supplemented by a text on ecumenism which would develop a viewpoint only hinted at in the Church text. Taking both texts into account, we can view in a positive light the undeniably admitted ecumenical outlook of the schema on the Church."¹

That is the whole point of the new ecumenism. The "Decree on Ecumenism" is just one such text that was designed to outline the founding principles upon this new ecumenism was to be--and is being--implemented. It is, as the title indicates, a decree on the founding principles of the new ecumenism.

"According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavour of the Sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, n. 27). ... In the search for re-establishing unity [between both Churches] there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation."²

"The question of the salvation of non-Catholics is now no longer answered personally as in Mystici Corporis on the basis of the subjective desire of single individuals, but institutionally on the basis of objective ecclesiology. ... The Catholic Church continues to claim, as it always has, to be the true church of Christ Jesus, in which the entire fullness of the means of salvation are present (UR, 3; UUS, 14), but it now sees itself in a context of dialogue with the other churches and ecclesial communities. It does not propound any new doctrine but establishes a new outlook, abandons triumphalism and formulates its traditional self-concept in a realistic, historically concrete – one could even say, humble – manner. ... Non-Catholic Christians are therefore not outside of the one church, they already belong to it in a most fundamental way (LG, 11, 14; UR, 22). ... The consequence of this distinction is that the aim of ecumenism is not directed towards amalgamation but has as its goal a communion which does not mean either reciprocal absorption or fusion."³

The conciliar institution at large is carrying out these ecumenical gestures in its interactions with the various "separated Churches." In fact, this same structure goes so far as to encourage communicatio in sacris,⁴ which has always and everywhere been condemned by the Church as contrary to the divine law.⁵ The consistent actions taken by the Holy Office throughout the centuries is a reflection of the Holy Ghost's unwavering guidance of the Church in Her sacred application of Her own teachings, which application itself bears out the marks of the Church for all to see and recognize. It can't teach one thing and then do another.

These ecumenical texts are not the mere opinion of some censured prelate doing penance in a secluded monastery for the rest of his days. These serve as the guiding principles for the new course taken by the entire Novus Ordo structure, approved by the post-conciliar popes themselves. One cannot compartmentalize the indefectibility of the Church to mere ex cathedra statements or extraordinary magisterial declarations. The Church is protected from promoting, fostering, sanctioning, or otherwise giving any assent whatsoever to that which is contrary to Her divine mission. Individuals may fail; but the individuals can't lead the Church to fail, too, much less lead Her off course. God would never let that happen. If what purports to be the Church strays from its unwavering and constant course, then there is a serious question to that institution's claim to be the Church.

St. Pius X's warning could be likened to a prophecy:

"[The Modernists'] real aims, their plots, the line they are following are well known to all of you, . . . What they propose is a universal apostasy still worse than the one which threatened the century of Charles (Borromeo), from the fact that it creeps insidious and hidden in the very veins of the Church and with extreme subtlety pushes erroneous principles to their extreme conclusions.

"But both have the same origin in 'the enemy who,' ever alert for the perdition of men, 'has oversown cockle among the wheat' (Matt. 13, 25); of both revolts the ways are hidden and darksome, with the same development and the same fatal issue... Truly a spectacle full of sadness for the present and of menace for the future . . . especially for those who foment with the most activity or who tolerate with the most indifference this pestiferous wind of impiety."⁶

¹ Theological Highlights of Vatican II, Joseph Ratzinger, (Paulist Press, New York, 1966), p. 66.

² JIC, Communiqué: Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion, n. 15; June 1993. (The full paragraph reads: "While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remain secure, in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation. There is a question of achieving together the will of Christ for his own and the design of God for his Church by means of a common quest by the Churches for a full accord on the content of the faith and its implications. This effort is being carried on in the current theological dialogue. The present document is a necessary stage in this dialogue.") See here.

³ PCPCU: The Decree on Ecumenism [Read Anew After 40 Years], 11 November 2004.

⁴ Pontificium Consilium ad Christianorum Unitatem Fovendam, (Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism), nn. 118-119.

⁵ See here.

⁶ Editae Saepe, May 26, 1910, emphasis added. 

[Ray M Facere]

Those are the principles upon which the Novus Ordo structure conducts its ecumenical efforts. BXVI himself stated that the Second Vatican Council was ambiguously designed to be complemented by these very texts

It very well may have been the human intentions of its authors to insert "time bombs," into the actual Magisterial interventions but it certainly can't be said to be the intention of the Church. However, since these supplemental "texts" don't carry any Magisterial authority, we are well within in the bounds of legitimacy to send these non-Magisterial texts to the waste bin. Again they do not point to a failure on the part of the the entire "conciliar church."

The "Decree on Ecumenism" is just one such text that was designed to outline the founding principles upon this new ecumenism was to be--and is being--implemented.

I think that it is self-evident that UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO (i.e., the VII "Decree on Ecumenism") does not go as far as the JIC or Cardinal Kasper think it does. So far as I can see the only actual Papal document you cited is Slavorum Apostoli. This document of JPII does contain the phrase "neither absorption nor fusion," but it cannot stretch to mean what the JIC thinks it means, because the same paragraph concludes: "Every particular tradition, every local Church must remain open and alert to the other Churches and traditions and, at the same time, to universal and catholic communion; were it to remain closed in on itself, it too would run the risk of becoming impoverished." In other words, by 'not absorption,' the Pope is merely saying that like the Eastern Catholics, they should be able to retain their valid Rites. At the same time, fusion would seem to allow for them to continue in their heretical doctrines, which would be the branch theory heresy, so that cannot be allowed either.

In fact, this same structure goes so far as to encourage communicatio in sacris,

Your citation doesn't support this. The first section from which your citation is drawn specifically says the norms in question concern non-sacramental worship: "The concern here is non-sacramental worship." (PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM AD CHRISTIANORUM UNITATEM FOVENDAM #116)

It can't teach one thing and then do another.

I'm curious if there is anything to support this? I don't know if there is ... that's why I'm asking... I simply recall Our Lord's words in Matthew 23 concerning the divine authority at that time: "[1] Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, [2] Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. [3] All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. " (Matthew 23:1-3 DRV)

These ecumenical texts are not the mere opinion of some censured prelate doing penance in a secluded monastery for the rest of his days. These serve as the guiding principles for the new course taken by the entire Novus Ordo structure, approved by the post-conciliar popes themselves.

I guess that's my point -- where do the Popes take it as far as these individual opinions? Let there be no mistake, I think things are bad ... I just don't believe they have risen to the level of heresy in Her teaching office like you seem to suggest.

[INPEFESS]

The Church, as the sole caretaker of the divinely-revealed religion, can't say one thing and do another; She is indefectible. This is a central tenet of the Catholic religion. If you aren't convinced that the Church can't betray the teachings of Christ in Her actions, then I'm afraid there is little promise of there being a premise upon which we can agree.

May God bless you.

[Ray M Facere]

If you aren't convinced that the Church can't betray the teachings of Christ in Her actions, then I'm afraid there is little promise of there being a premise upon which we can agree.

No ... I think you misread what I said. Of course the Church is indefectible. My questions is based on the quote from Matthew I provided -- are the occupants of the See of Peter's actions always to be considered the "actions" of the Church? Seems like you would deny free will to say they are, plus Our Lord said an analogous situation -- a failure of will, which is not a failure of the teaching office -- already happened with Pharisees.

[INPEFESS]

If you aren't convinced that the Church can't betray the teachings of Christ in Her actions, then I'm afraid there is little promise of there being a premise upon which we can agree.

No ... I think you misread what I said. Of course the Church is indefectible. My questions is based on the quote from Matthew I provided -- are the occupants of the See of Peter's actions always to be considered the "actions" of the Church? Seems like you would deny free will to say they are, plus Our Lord said an analogous situation -- a failure of will, which is not a failure of the teaching office -- already happened with Pharisees.

Mr. Facere, I am not sure what part of my point I am failing to clearly communicate. Let me put it another way. This is not merely about the sex abuse scandal (though, I must admit it is an interesting correlation); this is about the very mission statement of the conciliar institution--that is, as an organizational body of teachings, laws, disciplines, sacraments, structures, offices, practices, principles, devotions, liturgies, theology, philosophy, and hierarchical structure. I would be hard-pressed to find something in that list that hasn't been tampered with, updated, changed, or modernized.

This institution itself--not merely the people who run it, though they are certainly responsible for the invention and implementation of it--has abandoned the divine mission entrusted to the Catholic Church by accepting a new course where, as Paul VI put it in his closing address to the Second Vatican Council, "the religion of the God who became man has met the religion (for such it is) of man who makes himself God. And what happened? Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none" (Pope Paul VI, Address During The Last General Meeting Of Vatican II, December 7, 1965). That isn't just a man talking. That is the leader of the post-conciliar church introducing us to the "new direction" taken by this institution. That is the whole point of the Novus Ordo, from its new council to its new sacraments, from its new theology to its new teachings, and from its new laws to its new social, political, and religious orientation.

No, the Catholic Church is not on board with that and neither am I. Yet, as Paul VI noted, that "the Church of the council has been concerned, not just with herself and with her relationship of union with God, but with man -- man as he really is today: living man, man all wrapped up in himself, man who makes himself not only the center of his every interest but dares to claim that he is the principle and explanation of all reality" is the new direction taken by this conciliar institution. That is part of its mission statement, as given to by its leader on the closing day of the council, which council served as the authority to which they would later appeal to justify all their unholy reforms. That is not the mission it was given by our holy Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ; that is the mission of the Modernists who seek to turn man in on himself and find God in Himself.

With the Novus Ordo revolution, man caught a glimpse of God when he looked into the mirror of humanity, and he fell in love with his own reflection. This man-centered reality is manifested in all the reforms, changes, the novelties that have been promulgated in the name of the Catholic Church, profaning Her immaculate bosom, scandalizing Her name before the whole world, eclipsing Her illustrious light, and rending the seamless tunic of Our Lord's Mystical Body. Predicated upon condemned principles, it has given us liturgies that fly in the face of the apostolicity of the Church (the new mass); disciplines that violate the very sanctity of the Church by fostering sacrilege, abuse, and profanation of the sacraments (communion to non-Catholics, communicatio in sacris, and specious grounds for annulments); a new theology to replace the Church's official theological school (Scholasticism) that obfuscates the simple faith of the Church's universality (the nouvelle theologie); and ambiguous teachings that shake the very foundational pillars upon which the unity of Faith is secured (Second Vatican Council). The Novus Ordo institution, with all of its works, pomps, and humanistic baggage, is an abomination in the Holy Place giving itself out as if it were God.

One can try to trump this up to mere human imperfection, but the fact remains that the new teachings, new laws, new disciplines, new sacraments, new structures, new offices, new practices, new principles, new devotions, new liturgies, new theology, new philosophy, new hierarchical structure, and new ecclesiastical focus and "direction" in which "the Church now sees itself in a new context of dialogue" with other religions, abandons triumphalism, and, as they say, adopts a more "humble" approach, represent the official codified norms of the conciliar church, as if to say that the Church's previous mission, for which She has every reason to be triumphalist, was proud. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that I know would never accuse itself of being proud by abandoning Her core beliefs in Herself as the only Bride of Christ (i.e. triumphalism) and adopting a more "humble" course. Individuals can abandon the Church; they cannot cause the Church Herself to abandon Her triumphalistic mission by legitimately establishing from within Her that which errs in matters of faith and morals or turns the Church from Her course; neither can those codified norms, laws, and institutions themselves, which serve to further these unholy ends, erode the four marks of the Church by which She is known to be the Catholic Church to all who seek for Her. But it has. Whatever it is that apes the Catholic Church from its headquarters in Rome today in no way resembles the practice of the Church as manifested in Her 2000 year history of unadulterated unity, sanctify, universality, and apostolicity.