Catechism Catholic Church

[puer.dei]

Some people do not like Trent because the wording is crystal clear and cuts like a knife.

That’s an amazing conclusion to come to, just because people are recommending the current Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Which, by the way, was promulgated by Saint Pope John Paul II.

 

[Gorgias]

If one was versed in Trent, these things would fall into place.

If one were the audience for that catechism, sure.

But – and I don’t know about you – I’m not a member of the Catholic clergy in the 16th century.

I am someone who studied theology in the 20th century: and so, I’m a member of the audience for the Catechism of the Catholic Church. My personal experience is that, if you’re unfamiliar with Catholic teaching, the CCC can read a bit dense and be a tad difficult to parse. (After all, it really was geared toward bishops and those who develop local catechisms, as well as toward those who teach the faith.)

And, I’m an American adult in the present day, and so I’m the audience for the USCCB’s United States Catechism for Catholic Adults.

Both of these are good resources (although I tend to recommend the USCCA for casual readers or folks new to the faith).

I prefer Trent because of the clarity.

Fair enough. You prefer it. Doesn’t mean it’s the “gold standard” for all, though…

The Gold Standard actually is Trent. It is what every other Catechism was written and will be.

So… think about that assertion for a second: if it’s “the gold standard”, then why did JPII ask for a new CCC to be written? Did he figure that his theologians and bishops had too much free time on their hands? Was it not, rather, that he saw a need for an updated catechism, and one which spoke to us in our manner of speaking? Did he not want the developments of 400 years to be reflected in an up-to-date catechism?

The deposit of faith does not evolve.

It develops. You might do well to read up on St John Henry Newman’s “An essay on the development of Christian doctrine”.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

It develops. You might do well to read up on St John Henry Newman’s “An essay on the development of Christian doctrine”.

Thank you! My mind wasn’t awake enough yet this morning to bring back that word, develops. I was stuck on evolves, which I think is perfectly suitable (but I understand some folks get hung up on misunderstanding that word).

We’re an evolving society of evolving people, so of course our understanding evolves, too. A good catechism will have the teaching (both noun and verb) of the Church. The teachings (noun) I would agree are unchanging; the teachings (verb) insomuch as how we understand the teachings (noun) darn well better keep pace with how our minds can understand and relate to things, as well as what we learn over time.

 

[NSmith]

I hate to jump in here because it might seem as though I am fermenting discord, but I wanted to let you know that “evolution of dogma” was explicitly condemned by Pope Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis. I think it much safer to stick to the word develops, and to the criteria established by St. John Henry Newman, when describing the process. As a new convert to the faith from a tradition rather hostile to Catholicism I had many friends and former teachers using the development of the church’s doctrine as an assault the credibility of the church, so I’ve had to be very precise in my study of it.
The reasoning is that the word evolve necessarily implies a progressive process, however the development of doctrine is by nature conservative, in the sense that the principles involved are never obscured, lost, or transformed, but are more clearly explained and applied.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

Agreed; I was in that same situation when I entered the Church, but I suppose since that was 25+ years ago, I’ve “fought the battles” and do my own thing no matter what anyone else thinks. And I don’t say that to trivialize your point; just a feeble attempt to justify myself.

 

[Mchristian]

Thank everybody for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
Pax ><>