Differences between the Catechism of Council of Trent and the current CCC

  • Thread starter Thread starter olive456
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

olive456

Guest
I have noticed there is a difference between the Catechism of Council of Trent and the current CCC.
The following is a quote from the Trent Catechism about restitution

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/TenCommandments-seventh.shtmlBut as the law of making restitution to the injured party is binding not only on the person who commits theft, but also on all who cooperate in the sin, it is necessary to explain who are indispensably bound to this satisfaction or restitution. There are several classes (who are thus bound).

The first consists of those who order others to steal, and who are not only the authors and accomplices of theft, but also the most criminal among thieves.

Another class embraces those, who, when they cannot command others to commit theft persuade and encourage it. These, since they are like the first class in intention, though unlike them in power, are equally guilty of theft.

A third class is composed of those who consent to the theft committed by others.

The fourth class is that of those who are accomplices in, and derive gain from theft; if that can be called gain, which, unless they repent, consigns them to everlasting torments. Of them David says: If thou didst see a thief, thou didst run with him.

The fifth class of thieves are those who, having it in their power to prohibit theft, so far from opposing or preventing it, fully and freely suffer and sanction its commission.

The sixth class is constituted of those who are well aware that the theft was committed, and when it was committed; and yet, far from mentioning it, pretend they know nothing about it.

The last class comprises all who assist in the accomplishment of theft, who guard, defend, receive or harbour thieves.

All these are bound to make restitution to those from whom anything has been stolen, and are to be earnestly exhorted to the discharge of so necessary a duty.

This differs to what is written in the current CCC:

2412 In virtue of commutative justice, reparation for injustice committed requires the restitution of stolen goods to their owner:
2412 In virtue of commutative justice, reparation for injustice committed requires the restitution of stolen goods to their owner:
Click to expand...
Jesus blesses Zacchaeus for his pledge: "If I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold."193 Those who, directly or indirectly, have taken possession of the goods of another, are obliged to make restitution of them, or to return the equivalent in kind or in money, if the goods have disappeared, as well as the profit or advantages their owner would have legitimately obtained from them. Likewise, all who in some manner have taken part in a theft or who have knowingly benefited from it - for example, those who ordered it, assisted in it, or received the stolen goods - are obliged to make restitution in proportion to their responsibility and to their share of what was stolen.
Click to expand...
Which catechism takes precedence in this case?
 
Your link doesn’t work. I tried to find your site, and see if they are legitimate, as in an approved apostolate and could not get any information. Does anyone know about this site?
 
Joe_5859 said:
What is the difference you see between the two?
Click to expand...
I have the same question. The two catechisms say about the same thing, only in different styles of writing.

The more recent one is concise. Specifically it does not list every class of sin related to theft, but instead describes “Those who, directly or indirectly, have taken possession of the goods of another…” and “Likewise, all who in some manner have taken part in a theft or who have knowingly benefited from it - for example, those who ordered it, assisted in it, or received the stolen goods…”. That covers all the classes described in the older catechism, doesn’t it?
 
Joe_5859 said:
What is the difference you see between the two?
Click to expand...
Beryllos explained it well:
Beryllos said:
Specifically it does not list every class of sin related to theft, but instead describes “Those who, directly or indirectly, have taken possession of the goods of another…” and “Likewise, all who in some manner have taken part in a theft or who have knowingly benefited from it - for example, those who ordered it, assisted in it, or received the stolen goods…”. That covers all the classes described in the older catechism, doesn’t it?
Click to expand...
 
I’m not sure how to answer the question of precedence when it seems the two catechisms cover the same ground and do not contradict one another. If they communicate the same truths, there is no precedence.
 
Beryllos said:
I’m not sure how to answer the question of precedence when it seems the two catechisms cover the same ground and do not contradict one another. If they communicate the same truths, there is no precedence.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure though if the ‘‘classes’’ as you mentioned earlier are still applicable under the latest CCC.
 
I think they are still applicable. Where the CCC says “directly or indirectly” and “all who in some manner have taken part,” those are broad terms that cover all 7 classes described in the Trent catechism. I admit I have only examined it quickly, not very deeply, but I think it is possible to fit each of those 7 under one or both of the general terms given in the CCC. Go down the list and see if you can connect each item in the Trent with one of the categories in the CCC. If you are not sure about one point or another, let me know and I’ll take a closer look and discuss it further.

I think each of these catechisms is true, and each is useful in its way. If you read only the CCC version, you would have to think carefully about how to apply the general terms of this passage to specific circumstances in your life. The Trent catechism may be easier to understand because it more clearly spells out several ways in which one might be culpable (or responsible) for theft.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top