Can dogmas be 're-formulated'...(changed)?

[JReducation]

It seems that the Catechism suggests a ‘change’ to dogmatic teaching whereas it states in section 846: “re-formulated positively”.
It is my understanding as a Catholic that dogmatic teaching CANNOT be changed under any circumstance…even by a Pope.
Yet clearly the current Catechism suggests ‘changing’ the dogma “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” by its use of the word “reformulated”.
I checked the Latin translation which supports this wording, so it is not a ‘translation’ error. Seemingly, Blessed John Paul II attempted to ‘change’ dogmatic teaching, which of course is contrary to Catholic teaching. I should note that the Catechism bears the Imprimatur of the then Cardinal Ratzinger who of course is the current Pope.
I fully understand the intention of the Pope, but I am concerned that this ‘loophole’ can cause Catholics to question every dogma of the church.
Any thoughts or (name removed by moderator)ut on this would be appreciated!!!

My suggestion is that you take everything that has been said in this thread as comments made in good faith as people understand the issue.

Then go to an expert on the matter. Read The Development of Christian Doctrine by Bl. John Henry Cardinal Newman. He’s an expert on this subject. In fact, the Holy Father often refers to him when discussing this point.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Godfollower]

It seems that the Catechism suggests a ‘change’ to dogmatic teaching whereas it states in section 846: “re-formulated positively”.
It is my understanding as a Catholic that dogmatic teaching CANNOT be changed under any circumstance…even by a Pope.
Yet clearly the current Catechism suggests ‘changing’ the dogma “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” by its use of the word “reformulated”.
I checked the Latin translation which supports this wording, so it is not a ‘translation’ error. Seemingly, Blessed John Paul II attempted to ‘change’ dogmatic teaching, which of course is contrary to Catholic teaching. I should note that the Catechism bears the Imprimatur of the then Cardinal Ratzinger who of course is the current Pope.
I fully understand the intention of the Pope, but I am concerned that this ‘loophole’ can cause Catholics to question every dogma of the church.
Any thoughts or (name removed by moderator)ut on this would be appreciated!!!

Your counter statements make no sense and to argue with you is but a distraction in as much as you don’t seem to get the point of my issue with the catechism.
Recently, the church revisited the Roman Missal and rewrote many parts of it finding error in the translation. Who is to say that the church didn’t err by its choice of wording in the catechism. Dogmas are unchangeable. That fact is established. To reformulate ANY dogma (positively) is to change its very nature. The catechism should not use the tactic of reformulating to ‘water down’ any dogma to make it more palatable. That tactic should be used in other areas of discussion, that hold less teaching authority and more speculation for deeper understanding.
The church is suffering from the loss of 85% of its members as ‘inactive’. Perhaps this kind of error is the cause of it. Change dogma…change the church…change devotion.

I’m afraid you’re reading it wrong. “Reformulated positively” is synonymous with “In other words” or “Another way to say it is . . . .”

Try it:

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? [Putting it another way], it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

It is not some weird, backhanded way of saying “Oops! We didn’t mean it!”

Theologians “reformulate positively” all the time. Here’s a “reformulation” of the Ten Commandments (keeping in mind that some began positive to begin with):

I am the Lord your God; you shall not have strange gods before me.

I am the Lord your God; you shall worship Me alone.​

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

Always use My Name properly.​

Remember to keep holy the Lord’s day.

Do not profane the Sabbath.​

Honor your father and your mother.

Never dishonor your parents.​

You shall not murder.

Take care to avoid violence toward your fellow man.​

You shall not commit adultery.

Be chaste, and honor your vows.​

You shall not steal.

Honor the rights of others.​

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Always speak truthfully.​

You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.

Honor all marriage vows, even those to which you are not a party; and do not lead others astray.​

You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.

Be content with what you have, and do not succumb to envy.​

There’s nothing sinister about it; it’s a useful teaching technique – and, after all, the Catechism is a teaching tool.

 

[JReducation]

It also means that we explore the layers of what has been revealed and discover layers that were always there, from the beginning, but we did not understand, missed, did not have the language to explain, explained incorrectly (the explanation was wrong, not the truth), or we explained it so narrowly or so broadly that we confused ourselves.

That’s why I always direct people three great thinkers on this question:

St. Bonaventure’s Theology of History In St. Bonaventure

Bl. John Henry Newman’s Development of Christian Doctrine

and

Pope Benedict XVI Introduction to Christianity

The each point you to the important fact that history unfolds for us what has been revealed from the beginning. It helps the theologian understand that dogma does not change, because truth is eternal. However, how much we understand, how we explain it, and how God leads us to understand is dynamic.

Bonaventure uses a wonderful example, the hypostatic union. He goes on to explain that the Apostles knew that Jesus was. truly Lord and truly human. They saw him die and they saw him three days later. In the paschal mystery the fullness of the Incarnation is revealed. Nothing new can be added. He is human and divine.

However, it took the Church 400 years to understand the hypostatic union and to define it clearly enough so that it could be included in the Creed, that’s why we have two editions of the Creed. The Apostles’ Creed is very him.

"He was born of the Virgin Mary

Crucified

Died

Rose again from the dead

We believe in the Holy Spirit"

The Nicene Creed is a much more developed doctrinal expose of what the Apostles believed, taught but did not fully understand, because they did not have the language.

"Conceived by the Holy Spirit

Died

Rose as predicted by the scriptures

the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son"

Chalcedon and Nicea have a richer understanding of what the Apostles believed and handed down.

The dogma did not change, but the formulation of the dogma did change, because it gets into the details that were not understood before this time.

The theologian in Bonaventure, Newman and Ratzinger make a distinction between what is dogmatic and what is taught (doctrinal). We cannot teach that which is contrary to dogma or that which may not be contrary to dogma, but is not dogma either. It’s nonsense.

However, the “doctrina” or the teaching changes, while the essence remains eternal. Unfortunately, in the world of the non-theologian the terms dogma and doctrine have become interchangeable. In the world of theologians they mean two different things.

Dogma is the truth and doctrine is how you teach the truth. The latter can and does change as our understanding changes and the former is eternal

The three works that I cited above are three of the best works on theology of history or better said, how through history the Holy Spirit leads us into a deeper and clearer understanding of what has been revealed. There is no new revelation. There is certainly growth in our understand, which requires that we reformulate our explanations.

The best bet for anyone who really wants an expert’s response, not an amateur’s response to this very essential question, it to go to the masters on the Theology of History.

I certainly do not profess to be such a master. That’s a highly specialized area of theology that very few people go into, because it’s very difficult to study. It’s the theological equivalent to astrophysics. I took a few courses on it and it’s fascinating. Had I the brains for it, I would have gone that route.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Alfonsus]

The best example of course is if when you teach your children about faith.
You don’t force a 5 year old to swallow a dogmatic definition and adopt philosophical model used to formulate the dogma.

You need, by what ever means, to reformulate the truth, the dogma, using different philosophical model and philosophical language a 5 year old kid can understand.

While the Church adopts several philosophical model and use one or two of them more (Aristotelian for instance), she did not raise the philosophical model as divine. Truth is, she always used several models, and can adopt and discard philosophical model as needed. Those are tools to convey and formulate dogma.

Now, it is true that one model can convey dogma better or worse. Thus several formulation are kept using philosophical model that the Church think best for the moment. The implication is, theologian must interpret it within the model boundaries. Otherwise we will arrive at a wrong understanding.

I think it is like Math. If you use Cartesian coordinate to pin point a location, be sure to always consistent interpreting it using Cartesian coordinate. Don’t use Polar coordinate system. Sometimes translation to one model to another is not always exact, that is a problem we have with every model and language (whole number in this model but irrational number in that model so you need to make rounding).

 

[westboro]

The best example of course is if when you teach your children about faith.

You don’t force a 5 year old to swallow a dogmatic definition and adopt philosophical model used to formulate the dogma.

You need, by what ever means, to reformulate the truth, the dogma, using different philosophical model and philosophical language a 5 year old kid can understand.

While the Church adopts several philosophical model and use one or two of them more (Aristotelian for instance), she did not raise the philosophical model as divine. Truth is, she always used several models, and can adopt and discard philosophical model as needed. Those are tools to convey and formulate dogma.

Now, it is true that one model can convey dogma better or worse. Thus several formulation are kept using philosophical model that the Church think best for the moment. The implication is, theologian must interpret it within the model boundaries. Otherwise we will arrive at a wrong understanding.

I think it is like Math. If you use Cartesian coordinate to pin point a location, be sure to always consistent interpreting it using Cartesian coordinate. Don’t use Polar coordinate system. Sometimes translation to one model to another is not always exact, that is a problem we have with every model and language (whole number in this model but irrational number in that model so you need to make rounding).

I think this is the best example to articulate what I have been attempting to say. This response and the ones from Br JR have been very helpful.
Faith is passed from father and/or mother to children. Children DO NOT NEED to understand dogmas to accept that they are true. They do need to swallow them though. They only need credible parents to accomplish this. That’s why I like the Baltimore Catechism. It is simplistic and straightforward, just as parents need to be. It is also bold and daring, as a catechism ought to be.
When we try to better understand the reason that s-o-o-o many cradle Catholics have left the church, we need to look at what ‘changed’ since the golden days when Catholicism was popular. Namely…Vatican II. It seems to me that one of the keys lies in the watering down of the church, itself. What happened? Can anyone explain it?
It is just a personal opinion and may or may not bear any weight as I have had very little formal education and I am afraid that it shows badly but I am not altogether disappointed in my lack of education.
I would never want to become educated beyond the scope of simple faith and understanding. I don’t miss what I don’t know.
Education has its purpose but only in God. Theologians are terrific but only if they meet the needs of those who need deeper understanding. The average child needs only to know that he/she can trust their parents on matters of faith. It is that simple! If parents do not prepare themselves through prayer and the use of the sacraments to parent children, NO AMOUNT of education will help them pass this simple faith onto their children!!!

 

[JM3]

Namely…Vatican II.

sigh

 

[Alfonsus]

I don’t know about Catholics away from faith. What I know is, here in this part of South East Asia, people seek the Catholic church more after Vatican II. I think the same can be say regarding Africa.

Well, in the end, we need to have global perspective. Truth is, Catholic faith is waning on Europe and many Western countries, but blooming on the other part of the globe.

 

[westboro]

I don’t know about Catholics away from faith. What I know is, here in this part of South East Asia, people seek the Catholic church more after Vatican II. I think the same can be say regarding Africa.

Well, in the end, we need to have global perspective. Truth is, Catholic faith is waning on Europe and many Western countries, but blooming on the other part of the globe.

Alfonsus, thanks for your thoughts.
To be clear…I do think that Vatican II itself produced immense fruit for the church and all Catholics and non Catholics alike throughout the world. I have always felt that way.
That said, there were many dissenting bishops and theologians who since then have twisted and rejected the doctines that were put forth by Vatican II all or in part and that is where the problem is.
Thus my concern over words like reformulate in the catechism istself rather than using such words in other offerings, such as seperate dissertation on the dogma.
I could not help but wonder if such wording put forth in the catechism might have become a gateway for doubters and dissenters to ‘reject’ dogmas whereas we cannot maintain true Catholic identity if we reject any part of dogmatic teaching of the church.

 

[Cristiano]

…Education has its purpose but only in God. …

I think that this is a great point. It is consistent with the letters to the Romans and with the 1st Vatican Council when they addressed the relationship between the use of reason and faith. Originally the scope of education (before and independently from Christianity) was to bring the student to a contemplative life.

 

[JReducation]

When we try to better understand the reason that s-o-o-o many cradle Catholics have left the church, we need to look at what ‘changed’ since the golden days when Catholicism was popular. Namely…Vatican II. It seems to me that one of the keys lies in the watering down of the church, itself. What happened? Can anyone explain it?

Thus my concern over words like reformulate in the catechism istself rather than using such words in other offerings, such as seperate dissertation on the dogma.
I could not help but wonder if such wording put forth in the catechism might have become a gateway for doubters and dissenters to ‘reject’ dogmas whereas we cannot maintain true Catholic identity if we reject any part of dogmatic teaching of the church.

There is a necessity for the Church to constantly examine what has been revealed and to reformulate how it has explained it. That’s what the term means. The term is not new. It was never said within the hearing of laymen, because once upon a time, it was believed that the laity could not understand theology and much less understand theological jargon.

This term goes way back to St. Bonaventure in the 13th century who spoke of reformulating doctrine. The term was adopted by the mendicant scholars and handed down. It was used mostly by them until Bl. John Henry Newman came along and wrote an entire work on the concept.

The excerpt in the CCC is borrowed from the writings of John Henry Newman, because the Holy See felt and still feels that no one has said it better than he.

What is happening now among the theologians, especially monks, friars and even some secular clergy is that there is a growing question as to whether Vatican II was correct in its assumption that the laity was ready to listen to these discussions which have been taking place since the time of the Apostles and academically ready to engage in them. There are scholars who say “No. Today’s layman is actually less educated than the laity of the Renaissance or the Victorian Era when people were well educated in the classics such as: rhetoric, philosophy, Greek, Latin, literature, writing and theology.”

There is an argument that most theology programs offered to the laity are trimmed down for the sake of brevity and cost. For example, for us to get a Master’s Degree in theology, we must have a four-year BA in philosophy + a secular science. It’s a double major. Then we must go through a 96 credit Master’s program, do a pastoral internship, write a thesis, pass two sets of comprehensive examinations with two different teams reading them. At the end, we have only a Master’s Degree and may not call ourselves theologians. To be a theologian, you must go on afterward for another five years to achieve an STB, STL and finally an STD.

The layman can become a theologian without the undergraduate philosophy degree. He can get a two-years master’s degree, which is usually 32 to 40 credits and a PhD with is another 50 credits or two more years. He gets a doctorate in the time that a monk or mendicant gets a master’s.

This is an issue, because these programs were originally meant to lay people and religious who were going into catechesis, not theology. The disaster came when they simplified the requirements, called them theology degrees and on top of that, many universities assigned non-theologians to teach these programs. They were assigning PhDs to teach. Many of these people with PhDs had a PhD because they couldn’t pass mustard in an STD program or because they were not orthodox enough to graduate with an ecclesial degree.

These programs were originally meant to form religious educators and lay people who wanted to cooperate in ministry, not to form theologians. Many religious communities, especially women, took advantage of these programs, because there were less expensive and shorter than the traditional route. Many people who took advantage of these programs did not pay attention to who was teaching them and many colleges and universities were gaga over the novelty and excitement of having not just male religious in their programs, being open to everyone. Being open to everyone is not always a good thing, if it means watering down you criteria for admission to theological studies and worse, your criteria for hiring professors.

I have no problems with teaching theology to the laity. In fact, I did so for 35 years. I taught laymen, religious and diocesan seminarians together. But in our programs, everyone had to go through the classical program of studies. Today, I’m retired, because of my health so I teach in a modest program just for my religious community. I recently had a protest from a lay department head in my diocese (whose name shall go unmentioned). She protested that the formation program of our brothers takes too long, because it takes them 8 to 10 years to complete before they’re ready to go into full-time ministry. Her argument was that you don’t need to be that educated to do the job. My argument was that ministry is not a career, but a sacred duty to God’s people.

This is the story behind much of what we have seen in theological education. Many religious communities, seminaries, universities and houses of formation are finally waking up from their slumber. We’re saying that those who want to teach theology must be well educated to do so. There is no such thing as a crash course in brain surgery. There should not be one in the anatomy of the soul either.

OK, I’ll take that back. We do have some physicians who read Medicine for Dummies.

PS. Catholicism has never had golden days, just shifting phases.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[westboro]

Thanks so much, Br JR!
That is one of the best explanations of ‘what happened’ that I have ever come across!
It reminds me of the origin of the rosary, which was once called Mary’s Salter. My understanding is that the rosary was the ‘short form’ of praying the 150 Psalms as was customarily done by those educated enough to know the Psalms. The commoners would find the short prayers of the rosary easy to memorize and yet very meaningful, engaging in deep meditative prayer, which of course is why there were 150 Hail Marys in the traditional Joyful, Sorrowful, and Glorious mysteries. That number corresponded with what the ‘educated’ people would pray while essentially achieving parallel grace in doing so.
As I said before, I feel a lot of shame for NOT being highly educated and have trouble articulating my thoughts but you seem to fully understand that we are all one body, whether theologian or commoner and we all have something to offer.
Something tells me, from your dissertation that you can appreciate my thoughts and concerns even though I am not very educated. I am grateful for your insight and the respect you have demonstrated toward my very real interest in the church I love so deeply!

 

[Leon_Bloy]

“The words are not the dogma itself.” -Leon Bloy

Leon, you are in for the shock of your life:

DOGMA FROM THE FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL:

**If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema. **

Dogmas are solemn definitions, Leon and definitions are made up of words!!!

Don’t try and rope a dope the good people here.

I did not realize that the First Vatican Council issued its decrees in English words! That truly is a shock indeed.

Actually, Albino (and I hope you will never disgrace your namesake, who was a gentle, kind man), your translation of the quote from Vatican I has nothing to do with what I said. Dogmas never change, but it is often the case that the Church words them in multiple ways while retaining the same meaning. Anything else would be absurd: i.e. we must always say “Christ was resurrected from the dead,” never “Christ arose from the dead,” or “Jesus rose from the dead,” etc.

Words can express and contain the truth of dogma. Words, put together, express ideas, such as truths. The Church can and does articulate them in words, which can be translated, or paraphrased, as long as (according to the legitimate Church authority) that meaning is not judged, in any particular wording, to distort the truth.

God’s identity and nature are not the sum total of the words that speak about Him in the Nicene Creed. However, the Nicene Creed articulates truths about God.

 

[JReducation]

One of the finest examples of the reformulation of dogma without changing the dogma is to look at the Apostles Creed next to the Nicene Cree.

The dogma does not change, but the formulation is certainly different. To the early Christians the term “consubstantial” had no meaning and yet they knew that Jesus existed from the beginning and that he was God. They knew that he sent the Holy Spirit and that he too was God.

Dogmas can be and are reformulated through the centuries. Most often, they are reformulated in response to questions about them. The hypostatic union would never have been defined had there not been a question about Jesus’ nature and his death.

When questions, heresies and different nuances arise, the Church has to reformulate in order to say what has always been said, but say it in a way that the person in the present moment can understand it. What good is it for the Church to state a dogma in language that only someone living in the 4th century would understand?

You’re not changing the dogma. This is what John Henry Newman tells us so well in his work on the development of Christian Doctrine. There is always more to understand and there will always be new questions to answer. The dogma remains the same, but the questions change and our understanding improves as we answer those new questions, hopefully.

As St. Bonaventure proved, through history man goes deeper into the mind of God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[LoyalChristian]

Your counter statements make no sense and to argue with you is but a distraction in as much as you don’t seem to get the point of my issue with the catechism.
Recently, the church revisited the Roman Missal and rewrote many parts of it finding error in the translation. Who is to say that the church didn’t err by its choice of wording in the catechism. Dogmas are unchangeable. That fact is established. To reformulate ANY dogma (positively) is to change its very nature. The catechism should not use the tactic of reformulating to ‘water down’ any dogma to make it more palatable. That tactic should be used in other areas of discussion, that hold less teaching authority and more speculation for deeper understanding.
The church is suffering from the loss of 85% of its members as ‘inactive’. Perhaps this kind of error is the cause of it. Change dogma…change the church…change devotion.

I agree with you. It wasn’t until the pope changed the words of mass that I became involved in sites like this to understand why the changes. As for me, I take the statement of faith seriously and the mass. Yes, I have questioned the Church since.

 

[westboro]

One of the finest examples of the reformulation of dogma without changing the dogma is to look at the Apostles Creed next to the Nicene Cree.

The dogma does not change, but the formulation is certainly different. To the early Christians the term “consubstantial” had no meaning and yet they knew that Jesus existed from the beginning and that he was God. They knew that he sent the Holy Spirit and that he too was God.

Dogmas can be and are reformulated through the centuries. Most often, they are reformulated in response to questions about them. The hypostatic union would never have been defined had there not been a question about Jesus’ nature and his death.

When questions, heresies and different nuances arise, the Church has to reformulate in order to say what has always been said, but say it in a way that the person in the present moment can understand it. What good is it for the Church to state a dogma in language that only someone living in the 4th century would understand?

You’re not changing the dogma. This is what John Henry Newman tells us so well in his work on the development of Christian Doctrine. There is always more to understand and there will always be new questions to answer. The dogma remains the same, but the questions change and our understanding improves as we answer those new questions, hopefully.

As St. Bonaventure proved, through history man goes deeper into the mind of God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

My pastor has told me that the catechism from which I quoted (released by Blessed John Paul II) was written expressly for the bishops…NOT the average person.
He further explained that the catechism is a teaching tool for the bishops to catechize their charges. That makes sense.
The problem seems to be that the bishops have not taken their teaching tool ( the catechism) and created a translation in simple language for the average person, as you explained earlier.
Therefore I highly recommend the old Baltimore catechism especially for young children and those who view themselves as children…which, of course…was Jesus’ recommendation to us all.
Leave the ‘heavy’ stuff to those called to become theologians (bishops) and those who need to reformulate the dogmas to understand and/or accept them!!!

 

[JReducation]

My pastor has told me that the catechism from which I quoted (released by Blessed John Paul II) was written expressly for the bishops…NOT the average person.
He further explained that the catechism is a teaching tool for the bishops to catechize their charges. That makes sense.
The problem seems to be that the bishops have not taken their teaching tool ( the catechism) and created a translation in simple language for the average person, as you explained earlier.
Therefore I highly recommend the old Baltimore catechism especially for young children and those who view themselves as children…which, of course…was Jesus’ recommendation to us all.
Leave the ‘heavy’ stuff to those called to become theologians (bishops) and those who need to reformulate the dogmas to understand and/or accept them!!!

Your pastor is correct. The CCC was written for the bishops and theologians.

However the American bishops did put out a layman’s edition of the CCC. Have you seen it? It’s very well done and easy to follow.

Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

It’s formatted like the Baltimore Catechism with 158 questions and answers. It keeps the sections of the CCC so that you can go back and forth between the two. It also gives you the references so that you can see where the short answers came from if you want to go read the long documents and books that they used.

It costs about $15 or less.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Cristiano]

Your pastor is correct. The CCC was written for the bishops and theologians.

However the American bishops did put out a layman’s edition of the CCC. Have you seen it? It’s very well done and easy to follow.

Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

It’s formatted like the Baltimore Catechism with 158 questions and answers. It keeps the sections of the CCC so that you can go back and forth between the two. It also gives you the references so that you can see where the short answers came from if you want to go read the long documents and books that they used.

It costs about $15 or less.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Just to add to your post I want to remind to the cheapskates like me that the compendium can be found online too,

Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[TrueLight]

My pastor has told me that the catechism from which I quoted (released by Blessed John Paul II) was written expressly for the bishops…NOT the average person.

Your pastor is correct. The CCC was written for the bishops and theologians.

Interesting. I don’t see what is hard about the CCC?

With the advent of the internet and not to mention the fact that a lot of people have college degrees, I think the average person is very well educated.

Now the Summa Theologica, is another matter…

 

[Cristiano]

Interesting. I don’t see what is hard about the CCC?

With the advent of the internet and not to mention the fact that a lot of people have college degrees, I think the average person is very well educated.

Now the Summa Theologica, is another matter…

Well, this thread is already an example of what can be hard with the CCC. If we do not have a solid background about the cultural history of the Church we can become confused. For example (as you pointed out) the Latin Church and most of the western Christians follow a Thomistic approach however an educated person from another culture could have some difficulties following that approach.

 

[westboro]

Your pastor is correct. The CCC was written for the bishops and theologians.

However the American bishops did put out a layman’s edition of the CCC. Have you seen it? It’s very well done and easy to follow.

Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

It’s formatted like the Baltimore Catechism with 158 questions and answers. It keeps the sections of the CCC so that you can go back and forth between the two. It also gives you the references so that you can see where the short answers came from if you want to go read the long documents and books that they used.

It costs about $15 or less.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I went to the Vatican website and found the following question and answer in the CCCC:

***171. What is the meaning of the affirmation “Outside the Church there is no salvation”?

846-848

This means that all salvation comes from Christ, the Head, through the Church which is his body. Hence they cannot be saved who, knowing the Church as founded by Christ and necessary for salvation, would refuse to enter her or remain in her. At the same time, thanks to Christ and to his Church, those who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ and his Church but sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, try to do his will as it is known through the dictates of conscience can attain eternal salvation.***

The answer stated above from the CCCC makes me wonder - what if any - is/was the purpose of missionaries who lived and died (some violently) in the pursuit of converting others to the Catholic religion over the centuries? Acording to this definition, ignorance is bliss and people should be left alone so that they can attain eternal salvation without the stringent dogmas of the Catholic religion to challenge their chances for the same! In other words, why not leave them alone???

I know there is something wrong with this thinking, so can you answer that question with some sort of short summary?

Also, the CCCC seems good for adult Catholics…but what about little children? Honestly, I taught CCD for some years and was appalled at the ignorance of children who, in the 5th and 6th grade didn’t even know the sign of the cross or basic prayers!!!