How would you explain the CCC?

[Courage_to_ride]

When you are talking to folks about the RCC, how do you explain the relevance and importance of the CCC?

Most protestants won’t believe or follow anything that is from the CCC because they see that as a “product” of the RCC, but they don’t see the Bible in the same light.

Peace.

Courage

 

[scylla]

It is an explanation of the faith, following Jesus’s command that we be one in faith, we are required to strive for unity of belief in our fidelity to God.

This requires a uniform understanding of our faith explained and available, so the Catholic Church in service of Jesus, makes the Catechism available.

If they reject this answer, then they must reject any commentaries or translations of the Bible as any help available to uniformly understand the faith must be rejected.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[francisca]

Firstly I would like to say, isn’t God is good that the CAF has comeback to life again? Praise the Lord.

I see CCC as a guide for teaching. As teachers we teach in accordance with CCC. Yet, CCC is not the subject. What is the subject? The subject is “the word of God”. Because the word of God is revealed to us, we can become teachers. Teachers need guidance in teaching. As teachers, we want to follow the teaching guidelines. But…

as pupils, we are very curious. We have to be. This is how we learn. So CCC, teaching guideline. The Word is, the subject.

 

[rr1213]

It is an explanation of the faith, following Jesus’s command that we be one in faith, we are required to strive for unity of belief in our fidelity to God.

This requires a uniform understanding of our faith explained and available, so the Catholic Church in service of Jesus, makes the Catechism available.

If they reject this answer, then they must reject any commentaries or translations of the Bible as any help available to uniformly understand the faith must be rejected.

In Christ
Scylla

The CCC is the essential teachings of the Catholic Church distilled into one document. No problem there. The issue with respect to Protestants is when Catholics debate theology and cite Protestants to the CCC. Unlike you, we do not accept the CCC except to the extent that we believe it is consistent with scripture. The comparison with commentaries is not a good one because Protestants do not accept a commentary as being anything more than persuasive. The commentary has the scriptural interpretation correct or it doesn’t. In contrast, Catholics hold the CCC as being authoritative, as opposed to merely persuasive.

 

[Fidelis]

The CCC is the essential teachings of the Catholic Church distilled into one document. No problem there. The issue with respect to Protestants is when Catholics debate theology and cite Protestants to the CCC. Unlike you, we do not accept the CCC except to the extent that we believe it is consistent with scripture. The comparison with commentaries is not a good one because Protestants do not accept a commentary as being anything more than persuasive. The commentary has the scriptural interpretation correct or it doesn’t. In contrast, Catholics hold the CCC as being authoritative, as opposed to merely persuasive.

That is actually a good point to be made because it points out the fact that Protestants (in general) do not recognize any authority (ultimately) except their own interpretation of Scripture. They wrongly think that this is the biblical model; that there can be be no authority outside what is written in the Scriptures, and their own subsequent fallible intepretation of it. The fact it may be fallible for everyone else but infallible to their own satisfaction seems not the bother them a whit.

Anyway, to answer the OP, I think an example from Scripture may help them. Recall Acts 15 and the big controversy with the Judaizers. Immediately the **leadership of the Church **was appealed to. When they finally reached a decision about the affair and agreed to dispatch an answer to the communities that were waiting for one, did they just send them a batch of Scripture citations and let them interpret them themselves? No, they formulated **an authoritative written response **that resolved the problem. When the communities in question received these instructions were they free to disregard them or interpret them in any way they saw fit? No, they “recieved them with joy” and, we may presume, in humble obedience to authority.

This episode is, in embryo, the basis for all subsequent written authoritative instruction from the legitimate leaders of the Church to the faithful, instruction that is binding on the conscience of those that are members of the Body of Christ. Of course the Catechism and other official teaching of the Church are much more comprehensive and lengthy than that first simple letter from the Council of Jerusalem, but the Church has been around for 2000 years and has faced a lot more situations than it did in those early days. However, the concept is the same.

 

[Loy]

When you are talking to folks about the RCC, how do you explain the relevance and importance of the CCC?

The CCC is a normative text for understanding important Catholic doctrine and some of the Church’s laws.

Most protestants won’t believe or follow anything that is from the CCC because they see that as a “product” of the RCC, but they don’t see the Bible in the same light.

That’s correct because many Protestants view scripture as the ultimate authority on Christian faith. As such, they do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church.

When discussing faith issues with Protestants, I think the CCC is most useful in either of the following two circumstances:

1. 
   *]If someone has misconceptions about what the Catholic Church teaches, the CCC is a convenient reference to set the record straight.
   *]The teachings expressed in the CCC may be offered as an alternative viewpoint to someone who is open-minded.
   I hope that helps!

 

[mercygate]

I use the CCC as a tool with Protestant friends. 90% of what we believe – essentials on the Holy Trinity, etc. are shared. I give them the Catechism and tell them they will not find better explanations of the basics than in this book. A Plymouth Brethren friend of mine told me how impressed he was that all the teachings are solidly backed up by Scripture . . . .

So you could give your friends the CCC and say, “I’m giving you this because if you want Scriptural foundations for basic Christian doctrine, you won’t find it laid out better anywhere.”

 

[scylla]

The CCC is the essential teachings of the Catholic Church distilled into one document. No problem there. The issue with respect to Protestants is when Catholics debate theology and cite Protestants to the CCC. Unlike you, we do not accept the CCC except to the extent that we believe it is consistent with scripture. The comparison with commentaries is not a good one because Protestants do not accept a commentary as being anything more than persuasive. The commentary has the scriptural interpretation correct or it doesn’t. In contrast, Catholics hold the CCC as being authoritative, as opposed to merely persuasive.

Good point, this is a huge point that must be addressed.

Most Protestants do not believe that truth is necessary for Salvation. Or else they would be Catholic. Or else Jesus was just making an inane comment when He prayed that we would be of one faith. And this is true many people don’t take the words of our Lord seriously.

So not only do you need to address the point that the Catechism is an explanation of the Authority that Jesus gave to His Church, but that truth is necessary for Salvation or else we can believe whatever we want.
And decide what Jesus taught, or in other words define what God is according to our perception. Which is creating our own God instead of submitting to God.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[rr1213]

Most Protestants do not believe that truth is necessary for Salvation. Or else they would be Catholic. Or else Jesus was just making an inane comment when He prayed that we would be of one faith. And this is true many people don’t take the words of our Lord seriously.

I’m afraid that this is the type of simplistic and (to use your word) inane comments that do nothing better than get people riled up. Protestants believe that they have the truth based on Scripture and Catholics believe the same based on Scripture and Tradition. From the Protestant viewpoint, if I believed the Catholic Church to be true I would be Catholic. I don’t and I’m not. The fact that our current division exists is due to differences in opinion regarding the truth, not a failure on the part of Protestants to believe that truth is necessary for salvation…or, for that matter, a failure on the part of Catholics to believe the same either.

 

[scylla]

I’m afraid that this is the type of simplistic and (to use your word) inane comments that do nothing better than get people riled up. Protestants believe that they have the truth based on Scripture and Catholics believe the same based on Scripture and Tradition. From the Protestant viewpoint, if I believed the Catholic Church to be true I would be Catholic. I don’t and I’m not. The fact that our current division exists is due to differences in opinion regarding the truth, not a failure on the part of Protestants to believe that truth is necessary for salvation…or, for that matter, a failure on the part of Catholics to believe the same either.

There is the problem, a Catholic would not have an opinion of truth but a submittal to it. There is no opinion of truth there is just a recognition of it. Now getting it from Scripture is possible but then it must go beyond that or else it is just opinion. Or else Scripture is the basis of truth which makes no sense.
(I can explain that if you like)

God wants us to have truth, if we sincerely seek it we will find it.

So once it is recognized it must be submitted to. It cannot contradict so there must be one understanding of the faith. Or else Jesus didn’t testify to the truth and we can just believe opinion.

A Catholic should never think that truth is opinion but an infallible fact that God has given us. God has the power to maintain it and let us know it exists, we just have to trust Him to seek it.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[jburgherr]

There is the problem, a Catholic would not have an opinion of truth but a submittal to it. There is no opinion of truth there is just a recognition of it. Now getting it from Scripture is possible but then it must go beyond that or else it is just opinion. Or else Scripture is the basis of truth which makes no sense.
(I can explain that if you like)

That was the most elloquent way of putting the understand of truth that I have ever heard…I have learned much just for this one paragraph.

Thank you so much!

God Bless!!

 

[rr1213]

A Catholic should never think that truth is opinion but an infallible fact that God has given us. God has the power to maintain it and let us know it exists, we just have to trust Him to seek it.

I agree but, like other Protestants, have been lead to a different church for the expression of that truth. Look, I don’t have a problem with anybody saying that they believe that the teachings of their Church is truth…I would hope that they would believe that or go to another church. I do have a problem with statements like that below which are NOT the truth.

“Most Protestants do not believe that truth is necessary for Salvation. Or else they would be Catholic. Or else Jesus was just making an inane comment when He prayed that we would be of one faith. And this is true many people don’t take the words of our Lord seriously.”

 

[scylla]

I agree but, like other Protestants, have been lead to a different church for the expression of that truth. Look, I don’t have a problem with anybody saying that they believe that the teachings of their Church is truth…I would hope that they would believe that or go to another church. I do have a problem with statements like that below which are NOT the truth.

“Most Protestants do not believe that truth is necessary for Salvation. Or else they would be Catholic. Or else Jesus was just making an inane comment when He prayed that we would be of one faith. And this is true many people don’t take the words of our Lord seriously.”

Your statement above mine has expressed the validity of my statement. In this way…
If you don’t have a problem with someone going to another Church even though the doctrines are not the same, then you do not believe that truth matters for Salvation. Either absolute truth is necessary for Salvation or I can go to any Church which suits me personally.
So either I conform to the reality of truth or I believe that truth is subjective and not necessary for Salvation.
For example,
Either Purgatory exists or it doesn’t. One of us is blaspheming by stating that it doesn’t exist by attributing a lie to God’s truth or not. Either way it does matter because we must be of one faith that affirms the same belief in order to truly follow Jesus and take His words seriously. If I don’t take His words seriously, I would then believe that they would pass away and His truth wouldn’t endure.

Does it matter what I believe and is it all up to me to decide what is God’s truth, which incidently puts me above God.

Please consider this carefully because truth does matter.

In Christ,
Scylla

 

[rr1213]

Your statement above mine has expressed the validity of my statement. In this way…
If you don’t have a problem with someone going to another Church even though the doctrines are not the same, then you do not believe that truth matters for Salvation. Either absolute truth is necessary for Salvation or I can go to any Church which suits me personally.
So either I conform to the reality of truth or I believe that truth is subjective and not necessary for Salvation.
For example,
Either Purgatory exists or it doesn’t. One of us is blaspheming by stating that it doesn’t exist by attributing a lie to God’s truth or not. Either way it does matter because we must be of one faith that affirms the same belief in order to truly follow Jesus and take His words seriously. If I don’t take His words seriously, I would then believe that they would pass away and His truth wouldn’t endure.

Does it matter what I believe and is it all up to me to decide what is God’s truth, which incidently puts me above God.

Please consider this carefully because truth does matter.

In Christ,
Scylla

No, truth is not subjective. I don’t know of any bible-believing Christians, Protestant or Catholic, who would think it is subjective. But the fact that truth is absolute does not mean that everyone comes to the same understanding of the truth. When it comes to Catholic teaching, my understanding is different from yours. One of us, most likely, is wrong. I can accept that.

What I don’t accept is your statement that “Protestants do not believe that truth is necessary for Salvation. Or else they would be Catholic.” I could say the reverse, couldn’t I?—“Catholics do not believe that truth is necessary for Salvation or else they would be Protestant.” I don’t say that because I don’t think it is true. What IS true is that Catholics (devout ones at least) follow what they believe to be true. Likewise, devout Protestants follow what they believe to be true. Your position, on the other hand, asserts that by remaining outside of the Catholic Church that Protestants actively choose what they know to be false. That’s not the case. On one level, it is false because (in my opinion) Protestants choose the truth in actuality. On another level, if the Protestant position in actuality is false, your statement is still untrue because Protestants choose what they believe to be true. In both cases, what is sought is The Truth.

 

[scylla]

This is an interesting conversation as we really can never solve it, unless we interview all Protestants. I will concede the point to this extent to say that every single Protestant I have known, knows that their Church isn’t the Church Jesus founded and continues in it regardless of whether it is true or not.

But lets continue as this is entertaining to me…

I would never agree to the second statement the reverse never works, as no Catholic would join a Protestant group for truth but because of opinion, as no Protestant group I know of professes infallibility. They might go because of personal opinion but submitting to infallible truth is impossible for a Catholic to do and move to a Protestant belief system. There is either fact or opinion.

So if there is an absolute fact that is part of revealed truth such as Purgatory then it must be believed. To go to a rejection of it would be an acceptance of opinion which the Catholic can certainly do, and commonly does. But never going away to an infallible truth as that is part of Catholicism.

Regardless of your understanding of Catholicism if it is wrong then you are not submitting to truth, but to an erroneous opinion. See I could reject Catholicism because of the opinion that they are idol worshippers, which is me using my erroneous opinion to reject the truth that Catholics do not worship idols.

Which is why bad understandings or different opinions do not change truth but rather are just a rejection of God’s truth that is available to us if we just are open to God’s truth. To deny that would be to say that God is powerless to provide us with undenyable truth and He doesn’t have the power to let us know it with certainty.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[rr1213]

This is an interesting conversation as we really can never solve it, unless we interview all Protestants. I will concede the point to this extent to say that every single Protestant I have known, knows that their Church isn’t the Church Jesus founded and continues in it regardless of whether it is true or not.

But lets continue as this is entertaining to me…

I would never agree to the second statement the reverse never works, as no Catholic would join a Protestant group for truth but because of opinion, as no Protestant group I know of professes infallibility. They might go because of personal opinion but submitting to infallible truth is impossible for a Catholic to do and move to a Protestant belief system. There is either fact or opinion.

So if there is an absolute fact that is part of revealed truth such as Purgatory then it must be believed. To go to a rejection of it would be an acceptance of opinion which the Catholic can certainly do, and commonly does. But never going away to an infallible truth as that is part of Catholicism.

Regardless of your understanding of Catholicism if it is wrong then you are not submitting to truth, but to an erroneous opinion. See I could reject Catholicism because of the opinion that they are idol worshippers, which is me using my erroneous opinion to reject the truth that Catholics do not worship idols.

Which is why bad understandings or different opinions do not change truth but rather are just a rejection of God’s truth that is available to us if we just are open to God’s truth. To deny that would be to say that God is powerless to provide us with undenyable truth and He doesn’t have the power to let us know it with certainty.

In Christ
Scylla

The dispute will be resolved, just not by us and not here on earth. To respond futher to your post, I agree that Protestant Churches do not claim infallability (at least the ones where rational thought still exists…there are some that probably do claim it…after alll 33,000 denominations, right? ).

As for “the Church that Christ founded”, I’ve found that Catholics take that postion quite literally, not so for Protestants. Christ founded a church. That church continued down the ages, with many bumps in the road, fights against heresy and perseverance not withstanding leadership at times by very ungodly men. That Church split almost a thousand years ago into Western and Eastern branches. Where, then, was the Church Christ Founded then? It was contained in both branches to the extent that they taught the truth and, not contained therein, if they taught falsehood. Later the Western branch split again during the Reformation. Again, where was the Church Christ Founded? Again, in both branches, to the extent that they taught the truth. I know that you know all of this, although you wouldn’t agree with the way I have characterized it.

What does your Church currently teach? That the Truth fully subsists in the Catholic Church, but that elements of the truth can be found in other Christian faiths (and, for that matter, non-Christian faiths) to the extent that those faiths also teach/share aspects of the truth as taught by the Catholic Church. I don’t know about this for certain, but I suspect that many Protestants would actually agree with that concept if you subsituted “universal church” for the term “Catholic Church”.

 

[scylla]

You make some good points as truth can only be one understanding. Since God gave us truth there must be one understanding that it subsists in. Any sharing of understanding is also true.

So if the Catholic Church understood from the beginning that Jesus=God then every split from the Catholic Church that shares that also affirms truth, the infallible truth though many would not express it that way.

That is why I can embrace another believer in their belief of Jesus as that comes from the truth that is given to us from God regardless of their rejection of other parts of it. Now the rejection of truth must be remedied and that is where we discuss differences in faith systems.

So with the Orthodox if they do believe everything the same as Catholics even though they might not have defined terms the same then they are probably first in line to unite back with the Church, and that is what we have to do if we are to follow Jesus truthfully. Pride and misunderstanding stand in the way among both sides, but that doesn’t change truth, just peoples attitudes and disposition to accepting it.

Now if someone rejects the fact that Mary was ever-virgin then that is something that must be proven by showing how to deny that is to deny Jesus’s divinity, and a recent innovation of belief.
Rather than an affirmation of truth.

I suspect we\I have wandered quite off the subject of the CCC so sorry about that.

In Christ
Scylla