Catholic Catecisum

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steven_John
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SyroMalankara said:
It isn’t a “belief”, it is a theological opinion - one can hold it or chose to disagree with it and remain in good standing.
Click to expand...
So if our PP says it is in the Catechism so you need to believe it to be a Catholic i can say i dont agree and it does not make me outside of being Catholic?
 
Steven_John said:
So if our PP says it is in the Catechism so you need to believe it to be a Catholic i can say i dont agree and it does not make me outside of being Catholic?
Click to expand...
Except that the Catechism isn’t a doctrinal document; a lot of the content is Roman theologumenia.
 
As guanaphore has rightly said, the CCC is most definitely a publication for and by the Latin Church. While certainly some benefit can be obtained by use of the CCC, it is not an Eastern Catholic catechism.

The Eastern Churches have been exhorted to produce their own particular catechetical materials by Rome herself; were the CCC the “end of the road” catechetically speaking this exhortation would not make sense nor be necessary. The UGCC will be the first Eastern Catholic Church to produce its own particular Catechism, due for late 2010. Personally I use St. Peter Mohyla’s much more frequently than the CCC.
 
Steven_John said:
HELP please,
i thought Catholics had to believe in the Catholic Catechism and that it at some level was doctrinal belief for Catholics.

A person from the Eastern church has indicated that this may not be so.

That the Western Catholic church does and the eastern does not.

Can anybody speak truth on this and if possible reference your source 4 me.

B blessed and B guided
Click to expand...
Stop lying, Steve John, I’m sick of your false meekness. I stated that Eastern Rite is separate from the Roman Rite when it comes to the Mass.

Steve John, no matter how many times you pound it in his head and tell him God is the Trinity he tries desperately to use CCC 841 to indirectly with subterfuge say that Allah and the Trinity are the same. I started a whole new thread to explain this is not the case to him

I never said the Eastern Rite ignores the rule of Rome, we are under the Pope, but we have our own traditions and teachings that ARE UNIQUE AND ARE NOT CONTRARY TO THE TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. I stated that if the Catechism teaches the worship of Allah being the same as the Trinity than as a Eastern Rite Catholic in good conscience I will disobey the Catechism as St. Paul said anyone, even an angel, was to teach against the gospel let them be anathema.

I even told them this in my other PMs to him but apparently he is too ignorant or doesn’t care to understand.
 
YHWH glory will be shown through Yahooshua (pbwh)
Click to expand...
Cluny said:
But Jesus IS YHVH incarnate.

Don’t you get it?
Click to expand...
while i have an understanding of what you say,

what i posted was the undeniable truth from the beginning.

That’s why you don’t deny it, its in your heart.
 
St. Peter Mohyla’s
Click to expand...
what is this and where do i get one?

I have been searching Eastern Catholic info, I love you guys, i have always had a difference here in the Latin rite or western or what eva the terms.

But what i have seen about the eastern church wow, i don’t know this to be so yet but feel i want to migrate so i can go home.
 
This guy has confused me no end, i have tried to explain i am not real bright, with some things God just plonks them in me real clear other things i have to work for and they take time.
I have tried to b so polite understanding what God wants to speak into my life through him. It was not working out so i move away from him that’s why i started this thread, i have nothing against him.

Blessed am i that people help me and more blessed when they can show me stuff as simple as possible.
Steve John, no matter how many times you pound it in his head and tell him God is the Trinity he tries desperately to use CCC 841 to indirectly with subterfuge say that Allah and the Trinity are the same. I started a whole new thread to explain this is not the case to him
Click to expand...
I dont need the understanding of Trinity doctrine know it, know how bible is used to support it.

I know that Muslims are not trinity and RCC is bot east and west.

The 841 thing and the other reference i took to mean that Muslims are seeking the same God regardless if their understanding of Him is different or even wrong.
I dont think any Catholic will tell you they fully understand all that is God.
So we do the same thing, adore the same God.

Let me choose my words careful so i don’t get accused of lying.

I took from my first conversation with Brother Fat that eastern Catholics did not agree with this statement in the Catechism nor do they have to. (thats what i am trying to learn)

Lots of people here where i live don’t agree with it but believe as Catholics we must.

Being not real scholarly i needed simple answers but as you can see in this post he needs to link lots of things.
.
I even told them this in my other PMs to him but apparently he is too ignorant or doesn’t care to understand.
Click to expand...
Clearly i am ignorant or i would not ask i would tell, clearly i care or i would not ask. The whole line looks like a put down 2 me, i am not saying it is just jive my feeling.

To be honest i found his pms to be not in kindness he suggested i am a Muslim making jihad kept badgering me to make professions of faith to him telling me how i am open to Jesus and he can help me… it goes on. how since Jesus there are no angels…

This is all nice stuff (except the angel bit) to make me like him and why not everybody should want what see is good for others, i know i do.

But i only wanted and needed help with this difference between east and west.
 
**Catechism of the Catholic Church 1821

We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere “to the end” and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for “all men to be saved.” She longs to be united with Christ, her Bridegroom, in the glory of heaven:
Code: 
Hope, O my soul, hope. You know neither the day nor the hour. Watch carefully, for everything passes quickly, even though your impatience makes doubtful what is certain, and turns a very short time into a long one. Dream that the more you struggle, the more you prove the love that you bear your God, and the more you will rejoice one day with your Beloved, in a happiness and rapture that can never end.
**

:angel1:
Yes !
 
If the CCC is simply a Latin publication for Latins, as some posters have suggested, why does it at places quote Eastern Fathers, incorporate Eastern theology, and at times explicitly compare Latin and Eastern perspectives? Will these Eastern catechisms quote Latin Fathers and incorporate Latin theology?

Of course the Eastern Churches should promulgate their own catechisms. It is true that Rome has encouraged this. It is also true, however, that Rome has encouraged the various national Latin Churches to promulgate their own adapted catechisms as well. The fact still remains that the Holy See intended the CCC to be universal - but with the clear intention that local and ritual adaptations should be produced. Again, Eastern Catholics contributed to the CCC. As I mentioned earlier, the CCC is intended for general use; it is thus reasonable that it would be more Latin than Eastern in flavour as 98% of the intended readership is Latin.
 
I appreciate your post twf it gives me good clarity with the other offerings in this thread.

Bless ya
 
It is written by the Church for the Latin hierarchs and Catechists. It’s focus and terminology is Latin.

The Hierarchs need to be aware of he whole of the church, east and west, but because the majority of those it is aimed at are Latins, it needs to focus on those elements the Latins focus on.

The other churches’ catechisms will teach the same dogmatic and mostly the same doctrinal material (tho each church sui iuris may make doctrinal certain things that are not universal, but only for their own faithful). But the emphasis will be different, and a good bit of the explanatory materials will differ widely.
 
Cluny said:
But Jesus IS [the Name] incarnate.

Don’t you get it?
Click to expand...
Will you both please stop using the Tetragrammaton? It’s really not appropriate. It’s supposed to be unspeakable, and in keeping with both Jewish and Christian tradition, it shouldn’t be written when it isn’t necessary. I understand that you did it to clarify a point, Cluny, but Steven John, this is really inappropriate. It is the very name that was written into the commandment: " Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain." It, in fact, doesn’t say LORD. It says what you wrote. Don’t speak it, and write it only when necessary. To do otherwise is to use it in vain.
 
It is true that Rome has encouraged this. It is also true, however, that Rome has encouraged the various national Latin Churches to promulgate their own adapted catechisms as well.
Click to expand...
Not a particular Catechism as in the case of the UGCC, but rather an expansion of the CCC applied to a specific language and culture still intended for a Latin audience. There is a very significant difference.
If the CCC is simply a Latin publication for Latins, as some posters have suggested, why does it at places quote Eastern Fathers, incorporate Eastern theology, and at times explicitly compare Latin and Eastern perspectives? Will these Eastern catechisms quote Latin Fathers and incorporate Latin theology?
Click to expand...
Of course the Eastern Churches should promulgate their own catechisms. It is true that Rome has encouraged this. It is also true, however, that Rome has encouraged the various national Latin Churches to promulgate their own adapted catechisms as well. The fact still remains that the Holy See intended the CCC to be universal - but with the clear intention that local and ritual adaptations should be produced. Again, Eastern Catholics contributed to the CCC. As I mentioned earlier, the CCC is intended for general use; it is thus reasonable that it would be more Latin than Eastern in flavour as 98% of the intended readership is Latin.
Click to expand...
Why does everything have to be tit for tat? This exposes an essential lack of respect and trust for the Eastern Catholic Churches. We are a particular Church in communion with Rome and not a Latin Church.

Rome has exhorted us to produce our own particular Catechism. The CCC is a Latin publication for Latins. The inclusion of Eastern citations and collaboration is commendable, but it is still a Latin publication by Latins and for Latins. Can some use be made of the CCC by Eastern Catholics? Of course, but it is not the catechism of our own particular Church (in my case the Kyivan represented by the UGCC).

If the Latin Church wishes to include Fathers of the universal Church of the Patristic Era, that is wonderful and I would even add necessary.

While certainly some patristic aspects are universal (Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement, etc.) and certain fathers such as St. Augustine are important, we have our own catechetical needs and no one outside of our hierarchy and catechetical commission should dictate what specifically needs to be included from outside of our received tradition. We have not presumed to dicate to the Latins what was to be included in the CCC and I hope the same respect is returned.
 
FrancisB said:
Will you both please stop using the Tetragrammaton? It’s really not appropriate. It’s supposed to be unspeakable, and in keeping with both Jewish and Christian tradition, it shouldn’t be written when it isn’t necessary. I understand that you did it to clarify a point, Cluny, but Steven John, this is really inappropriate. It is the very name that was written into the commandment: " Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain." It, in fact, doesn’t say LORD. It says what you wrote. Don’t speak it, and write it only when necessary. To do otherwise is to use it in vain.
Click to expand...
Ok I though Tetragrammaton meant with vowels
i meant no offence and did not intend it vain, apology to you and all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top