Am I the only one?

[Polaris]

Im just wondering if anyone is as confused to what truth is anymore as I am. I read…I read a lot, and the more I read the more confused I get. For example everyones favorite salvation outside of the church. I read information from around when it was declared and the following popes to see how they understand it and than I come into the present and see how we are suppose to understand it today according to the church. I find myself wondering are we talking about the same doctrine because this pope said this and this teaching document is saying the exact opposite of this popes statement. Than I get the well this is his interpretation of the teaching so its not infallible or it was a different time. OK so everyone is saying something different about it and some conflict and I am left with a string of words that mean something that I have to believe but what that means nobody knows.

 

[Spiller]

Im just wondering if anyone is as confused to what truth is anymore as I am. I read…I read a lot, and the more I read the more confused I get. For example everyones favorite salvation outside of the church. I read information from around when it was declared and the following popes to see how they understand it and than I come into the present and see how we are suppose to understand it today according to the church. I find myself wondering are we talking about the same doctrine because this pope said this and this teaching document is saying the exact opposite of this popes statement. Than I get the well this is his interpretation of the teaching so its not infallible or it was a different time. OK so everyone is saying something different about it and some conflict and I am left with a string of words that mean something that I have to believe but what that means nobody knows.

I think you have to pick your sources extremely carefully and then you have to be VERY careful with the interpretation. Always rely on the Church.

I stick with the Bible and the CCC.

 

[Polaris]

I usually try to read the documents in full, which is hard because translations are so horribly done. It will even leave you more confused as to what the truth is when you compare multiple translations because the one translating usually has an agenda, just try to read some of the works of the ECF in their entirity, and compare parts with the EO with RC favourite translations if you want to be really confused. I have seen clear demostrations where our translation was wrong and by correcting it, it changes the whole meaning and vice versa. Unfortunately I dont have time in my life yet to learn greek well enough to be able to do it myself to verify. Then I watch the butchery of theolgians taking only certian parts of those teaching that justify what they are saying, completely destroying what it meant in its context. Then when you question it, you get the answer they are not infallible either the ECF or theologian or they were wrong in this understanding but that part was right. Again you have no idea what is meant by anything. I also try to have a historical understanding of the time period. Thats hard enough to learn too, I only have maybe 40 more years to know the history of the world and possibly tree extinct languages. Im left wondering how am I suppose to know what the truth is. I hear listen to the church, well I do, but when and who in the church, I cant trust priest, bishops monks brothers, theologians, popes, or even parts of ecumenical councils because nothing they say is definitive or they may understand it wrong. What is the point of a religion that cant give a clear answer or expalin to you what a doctrine means? Should it not always mean the same thing if it is a doctrine? I sometimes feel like Im a gnostic just waiting for the secret knowledge that will make it all make sense.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

My advise is to read books and Church documents written prior to 1960. They were much more clear, and you will find a perfect harmony with virtually everything you read.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

You say everyone favors salvation outside the church. That’s not quite accurate. We know that anyone who knows the Catholic church is true and is not a part of it is seriously endangering his salvation.

To have a hope that God, who knows our souls, may somehow in His infinite mercy save those who are outside the Church through no fault of their own is not to deny that the Church was founded by Christ as the means of our salvation. Personally, we know we are to stay within the Church and to attempt to bring others to join us. We should look to ourselves and those with whom we come in contact and leave the others to God.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I find the Catechism fairly easy to understand.

I also understand what I have read of various Popes and they never contradict on doctrine. I may also recommend Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

 

[Dauphin]

Between the CCC and the strictest dogmatic definitions of the Middle Ages (eg. Unam Sanctam, Cantate Domino), I find absolutely no contradiction.

Salvation is in the Catholic Church alone. One must be baptised into this Church, at least by a baptism of desire, in order to be saved. Anyone who is baptised and has no stain of grave sin on their soul will be saved.

 

[thistle]

My advise is to read books and Church documents written prior to 1960. They were much more clear, and you will find a perfect harmony with virtually everything you read.

The CCC is perfectly clear and contains all the Church teachings.

 

[belgianwaffles9]

I think you have to pick your sources extremely carefully and then you have to be VERY careful with the interpretation. Always rely on the Church.

I stick with the Bible and the CCC.

Not infallible papal declarations, or their encyclicals?

I’d stick to the Catechism of Trent.

 

[ravenonthecross]

The CCC is perfectly clear and contains all the Church teachings.

No it isn’t; I would recommend to all the solid Catechism following:
The Catechism of the Council of Trent
The Baltimore Catechism
The Douay Catechism
St. Pius X Catechism
Catechetical texts of St. Thomas Aquinas

(see this link for them-> cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/master2.htm)

 

[vocatio]

So several of you are claiming in essence that the most recent CCC is heretical and should not be trusted? Isn’t that heresy?

 

[EasterJoy]

The CCC is perfectly clear and contains all the Church teachings.

No it isn’t; I would recommend to all the solid Catechism following:
The Catechism of the Council of Trent
The Baltimore Catechism
The Douay Catechism
St. Pius X Catechism
Catechetical texts of St. Thomas Aquinas

(see this link for them-> cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/master2.htm)

Well, if the certain don’t agree, then that suggests there is cause for confusion.

I’m just wondering if anyone is as confused to what truth is anymore as I am. I read…I read a lot, and the more I read the more confused I get…OK so everyone is saying something different about it and some conflict and I am left with a string of words that mean something that I have to believe but what that means nobody knows.

I understand what you mean, but in practical terms, how much impact is this having on your actual day-to-day service of God? Are you in some moral dilemma, and don’t know where to turn? Find a good and holy spiritual director and confessor about it.

As to the intellectual side, be aware that you are trying, as I believe St. Augustine put it, to put the ocean into a bucket. God is a topic that is far beyond us.

The topic of what we are to do or not to do, what basic beliefs we are to have…these aren’t that complicated. The problem is that the application requires not only intellectual understanding, but also prayer, discernment, and continual guidance. You won’t find monasteries sending postulants off to be hermits. There is a reason for that. The final judgement won’t be looking back on how you did on your paper exams. It’s the practical stuff that separates the sheep and the goats. That’s what the catechisms are for. All of Scriptures give the edge to the simple over the wise. Again, a spiritual director will help you keep your eye on the real prize. That is where the simple have the advantage.

Also, be aware that the evil one can put on the parade dress of an angel of light. If Satan can use your study of the faith to make you superior, difficult, uncharitable, or even neglectful of your duties to pray and do good works, he’ll happily let you memorize all of Aquinas, if you’re up for it. That isn’t the normal course of things when one becomes enamored of topics theological, but it is a real peril. Go back and read St. Paul and the Gospels on a regular basis. If you aren’t doing that stuff in its most basic meaning, shut the books for awhile, and get with it. You’ll come back, but it will be with new eyes.

 

[thistle]

No it isn’t; I would recommend to all the solid Catechism following:
The Catechism of the Council of Trent
The Baltimore Catechism
The Douay Catechism
St. Pius X Catechism
Catechetical texts of St. Thomas Aquinas

(see this link for them-> cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/master2.htm)

First you are on thin ice here. If you read the Catechetical instructions of St Thomas Aquinas they contain opinions contary to Church dogma so why would you advocate this? For example, St Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. He maintained she was conceived in original sin but born free from original sin. That was his opinion and NOT the Church teaching.

Secondly, the CCC is the universal Catechism of the Church and all the Church teachings are summarised in it which must be accepted by all Catholics. Are you denying this?

 

[vocatio]

Well, if the certain don’t agree, then that suggests there is cause for confusion.

I understand what you mean, but in practical terms, how much impact is this having on your actual day-to-day service of God? Are you in some moral dilemma, and don’t know where to turn? Find a good and holy spiritual director and confessor about it.

As to the intellectual side, be aware that you are trying, as I believe St. Augustine put it, to put the ocean into a bucket. God is a topic that is far beyond us.

---

I like this.

The topic of what we are to do or not to do, what basic beliefs we are to have…these aren’t that complicated. The problem is that the application requires not only intellectual understanding, but also prayer, discernment, and continual guidance. You won’t find monasteries sending postulants off to be hermits. There is a reason for that. **!!!**The final judgement won’t be looking back on how you did on your paper exams. It’s the practical stuff that separates the sheep and the goats. That’s what the catechisms are for. All of Scriptures give the edge to the simple over the wise. Again, a spiritual director will help you keep your eye on the real prize. That is where the simple have the advantage.

Also, be aware that the evil one can put on the parade dress of an angel of light. If **Satan can use your study of the faith to make you superior, difficult, uncharitable, or even neglectful of your duties to pray and do good works, **he’ll happily let you memorize all of Aquinas, [the problem here is that he has no power over us unless we give it to him] if you’re up for it. That isn’t the normal course of things when one becomes enamored of topics theological, but it is a real peril. Go back and read St. Paul and the Gospels on a regular basis. If you aren’t doing that stuff in its most basic meaning, shut the books for awhile, and get with it. You’ll come back, but it will be with new eyes.

I loved your post, but Satan has no authority over us the way you put it. But I think I know what you mean…and I agree. BUT at the same time we are supposed to learn the faith…not be simpltons. Thistle’s comment is right on too. As I posted earlier…some of us on here sound like we’re dabbling in heresy. I pray that we are strengthen in our commitment to God and His Church…

 

[EasterJoy]

I loved your post, but Satan has no authority over us the way you put it. But I think I know what you mean…and I agree. BUT at the same time we are supposed to learn the faith…not be simpltons. Thistle’s comment is right on too. As I posted earlier…some of us on here sound like we’re dabbling in heresy. I pray that we are strengthen in our commitment to God and His Church…

I wrote carelessly, you are right. Instead of “If Satan can use your study of the faith to make you superior (and so on)”, I should have written “If Satan sees that your study of the faith aggravates your spiritual faults and actually makes you more apt to act as if you are superior (and so on)”.

I did not mean that Satan has authority over us, but that he can choose which of our habits to openly attack. If we make a habit of an otherwise pious practice, but do so in a way that could lead to our own spiritual ruin and bring discredit upon the practice, Satan would have no reason to attack it. Why should he? Once the wagon is headed downhill, he might rather do all he can to get the “rocks” out of our way! If nothing else, he would be likely to let sleeping worms lie.

We should always examine ourselves and where possible seek guidance about what the fruits of our efforts are. If there is no good fruit, or if the fruit is bad, then at least the gardening practices need to be changed! If not, the blight or the fear of it might spread to other parts of the garden, Heaven forbid! Besides, very often we will find from a more experienced gardener that a rather small change in method will yield substantially better results.

 

[belgianwaffles9]

So several of you are claiming in essence that the most recent CCC is heretical and should not be trusted? Isn’t that heresy?

No; what he’s saying is that it is not written as well as, for example, the Catechism of Trent. It is not as clear or concise, and sometimes is a big ambiguous.

First you are on thin ice here. If you read the Catechetical instructions of St Thomas Aquinas they contain opinions contary to Church dogma so why would you advocate this? For example, St Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. He maintained she was conceived in original sin but born free from original sin. That was his opinion and NOT the Church teaching.

Thomas Aquinas’ beliefs are in accord with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. You have to dig deeper and understand the differences between physical and spirritual conception and what not. But in the end, the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not exclude Aquinas’ beliefs.

 

[thistle]

No; what he’s saying is that it is not written as well as, for example, the Catechism of Trent. It is not as clear or concise, and sometimes is a big ambiguous.

Thomas Aquinas’ beliefs are in accord with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. You have to dig deeper and understand the differences between physical and spirritual conception and what not. But in the end, the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not exclude Aquinas’ beliefs.

You are wrong about Aquinas. He was talking about physical and the dogma does exclude his views. The Immaculate Conception at the time of Aquinas was not a dogma and therefore discussion and opinion was allowed even if it was later shown to be wrong.

On the CCC if the other poster is simply saying the CCC in his opinion is not clearly written then that’s different. My impression was that he was denying the CCC (because it is post Vatican II) and that we do not have to accept the teachings contained therein.
I think the CCC is excellent, and clear. However if someone wants the Q&A version then there is the Compendium of the CCC.

 

[JReducation]

The CCC is an excellent compendium of the Catholic faith. In fact it makes references to the many writings that came before it, including the Early Fathers and Mothers of the Church, councils, encyclicals, scripture, the Doctors of the Church and other prominent works of Christian literature.

I believe the reason many people find it ambiguous or difficult to understand is because it is written in theological language. It was not meant to answer questions. That’s what the companion does. It was mean to lay out the faith of the Catholic Church in a systematic form, using the best language of theology and philosophy.

If one is not used to reading theological rhetoric or philosophical rhetoric, much of it will be difficult to understand. Also one may not be reading the references and that makes it difficult. Again, the companion is the best book to have as it exlains things very succinctly.

There is also the issue of the CCC being published as the model of everything that a Catechism must contain today. It was ment to be more of a reference book than a book for those looking for straightfoward responses in their most succinct form. For this there are the companion and there is a new edition of the Baltimore Catechism which is also very good.

There is a very good catechism put out by the the Bishops of the United States called the Catechism for Adults. It is succinct and is based on the CCC.

Finally, there is a very good book out Catholicism for Dummies. It comes from the publishers of the Dummies series. But it is an excellent book and is promoted by people who are well versed in Catholic theology as a good reference for quick answers. However, like the other catechisms that came before the CCC, it will not go into the theology and philosophy of our faith.

The previous catechisms and Catholicism for Dummies really give you the conclusions. By this I mean, what you should know. But they do not give you the background, system, or the resources that the CCC does.

Nonetheless, those who ignore the CCC as a valuable tool are ignoring the Church’s desire to see this catechism become the model for all catechetical instruction and writing.

If one reads it without analyzing it, just letting yourself go with the flow of the test, it is actually very poety and in the end you actually understand it.

You must also read each section as a it relates to the title of the unit. For example, when it covers the Lord’s prayer, everything in the CCC must be looked at in the light of the Lord’s prayer. If you take it out of that context, you may become confused or not understand it.

Get a companion to the CCC and see how that helps.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Jeanette_L]

Nonetheless, those who ignore the CCC as a valuable tool are ignoring the Church’s desire to see this catechism become the model for all catechetical instruction and writing.

If one reads it without analyzing it, just letting yourself go with the flow of the test, it is actually very poety and in the end you actually understand it.

You must also read each section as a it relates to the title of the unit. For example, when it covers the Lord’s prayer, everything in the CCC must be looked at in the light of the Lord’s prayer. If you take it out of that context, you may become confused or not understand it.

Get a companion to the CCC and see how that helps.

Fraternally,

JR

I so agree with the above! Before I became Catholic, I had been wrestling with the claims of Catholicism as being the fullness of truth in Christ, I happened upon the The Catechism of the Catholic Church series on EWTN. It was a very long series, taught by Fr. Corapi, but I started watching it and in no time was hooked.

I had been studying the Christian faith for many years, scouring as many Protestant theological works as I could get my hands on, and no where in all the Christian world is there a work so beautiful and so complete as the CCC. I knew there was no where else to go. The Holy Spirit surely was present where this wonderful Catechism was born. It was at that point, as they say, a no brainer.

 

[belgianwaffles9]

The CCC is an excellent compendium of the Catholic faith. In fact it makes references to the many writings that came before it, including the Early Fathers and Mothers of the Church, councils, encyclicals, scripture, the Doctors of the Church and other prominent works of Christian literature.

I believe the reason many people find it ambiguous or difficult to understand is because it is written in theological language. It was not meant to answer questions. That’s what the companion does. It was mean to lay out the faith of the Catholic Church in a systematic form, using the best language of theology and philosophy.

If one is not used to reading theological rhetoric or philosophical rhetoric, much of it will be difficult to understand. Also one may not be reading the references and that makes it difficult. Again, the companion is the best book to have as it exlains things very succinctly.

Actually, the reason I find it ambiguous is because it tries to be too “nice” about our faith. The modern world is too politically correct. The CCC is too accomodating and watered down.

I prefer the Catechism of Trent.