T
thessalonian
Guest
Bye.
- Status
J
jjwilkman
Guest
are you a catholic???
A
aridite
Guest
I didn’t see that that was clearly shown. Perhaps you could post on that thread and point it out to me.
I’m sure all of the crusaders were paragons of virtue who died martyrs’ deaths. My point is that it seems to me that those who do not want Muslims to be worshiping the same God they do are harboring biggotted views toward Muslims (i.e., as suicide bombers). This is only furthering the biggotry that Muslims have for Westerners and Christians (i.e., as crusaders). Where is the love, as in love thy enemy?
A
Aesq
Guest
Expecting a reaction is one thing. Insulting the person posting is another. There are non-Catholics on this forum. Is insulting people who disagree with us the way we should be presenting our faith. Is that how we wish to be seen by the world. (you disagree with us and we will insult you, not explain to you why you are mistaken) Or are you saying that it is ok not to respond calmly because the other person started it. That sounds like a rationalization for hate to me. It is ok to be angry. It is ok to be upset. It is ok to forcefully argue. Is it ok to insult and attack the individual because they see or present things differently. I think not. Where does the Church teach that? Point that out. Show me where the Church says it is ok to lash out in anger at an individual because they make us mad or they insult the Church. It is God’s Church. He does not lash out in anger. He is constantly reaching out to those who attack His Church. Should we be doing less?
S
SusanL
Guest
I agree. I haven’t liked the insults either. Let’s keep the debate to the topic.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Swiss Guard said:
FWIW - Pius XII in 1947 made a change from the Tridentine Catechism of 1566, in respect of its teaching about the matter for the sacrament of ordination.
It taught that the matter for the ordination of priests was the handing to the ordinand of paten & chalice. He taught that the matter should henceforth be - as it had been, before the 10th century (IIRC) - the imposition of hands:papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SACRAO.HTM
- As regards the Sacrament of Order, of which We are now speaking, it is a fact that, notwithstanding its unity and identity, which no Catholic has ever dared to question, in the course of time, according to varying local and temporal conditions, various rites have been added in its conferring; this was surely the reason why theologians began to inquire which of the rites used in conferring the Sacrament of Order belong to its essence, and which do not; it also gave rise to doubts and anxieties in particular cases; and as a consequence the humble petition has again and again been addressed to the Holy that the supreme Authority of the Church might at last decide what is required for validity in conferring of Sacred Orders.
- All agree that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible signs which produce invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they produce and produce the grace which they signify. Now the effects which must be produced and hence also signified by Sacred Ordination to the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy, namely power and grace, in all the rites of various times and places in the universal Church, are found to be sufficiently signified by the imposition of hands and the words which determine it. Besides, every one knows that the Roman Church has always held as valid Ordinations conferred according to the Greek rite without the traditio instrumentorum; so that in the very Council of Florence, in which was effected the union of the Greeks with the Roman Church, the Greeks were not required to change their rite of Ordination or to add to it the traditio instrumentorum: and it was the will of the Church that in Rome itself the Greeks should be ordained according to their own rite. It follows that, even according to the mind of the Council of Florence itself, the traditio instrumentorum is not required for the substance and validity of this Sacrament by the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established.
That Sacred Ordination is to be numbered among the Sacraments of the Church, the Council of Trent has established by the same line of reasoning as we have already used several times. Since a Sacrament is a sign of a sacred thing, and since the outward action in this consecration denotes the grace and power bestowed on him who is consecrated, it becomes clearly evident that Order must be truly and properly regarded as a Sacrament. Thus the Bishop, handing to him who is being ordained a chalice with wine and water, and a paten with bread, says: Receive the power of offering sacrifice, etc. In these words, pronounced along with the application of the matter, the Church has always taught that the power of consecrating the Eucharist is conferred, and that a character is impressed on the soul which brings with it grace necessary for the due and proper discharge of that office, as the Apostle declares thus: I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands; for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of sobriety.
cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-o.htm
If the teaching of one Catechism can be amended - then so can that of another. The CCC is of great authority: it is a stretch to call it infallible, especially as the Pope did not do so. There is no clear sign that it is, & several indications that it is not: so it would be hasty to give it a weight that has not been claimed for it.
Authoritative =/= infallible ##
U
UKcatholicGuy
Guest
Wow. Everyone on this thread needs to calm down. I read some major knee-jerk reactions. USCatholic did not “slam” the Church. He simply said he wants to see a revision of the Catechism. And what’s wrong with that? Mistakes are made when translating from Latin into other languages. There’s already been a second edition of the Catechism for that reason. I’m not even saying that I agree with USCatholic’s post; whether I agree or not is irrelevant. But it’s schocking to see how hateful people were to him right from the start! The Vatican can make mistakes in translations of Catechisms. It can use incorrect and even confusing language that should be revised-- it is NOT “slamming” the Church to say this. The Church readily admits this! Why else would it have to already print a second edition of the Catechism? Calm down and take a deep breath. No one is “slamming” the Church. Geez!
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
Look,if I am wrong I apologize,I just hate to see a Catholic slam the Church like that:nope: I am a convert and I hate to tell you this but this kind of thing fuels hatred within the protestant community from whence I came:nope: I love our late Holy Father and our current Holy Father,I love the Church,I do get rattled when someone slams the official Catechism.
L
Lillith
Guest
The Catechism is so old that it has to be translated? It’s not as old as the bible…so how old is it anyway?
1
1ke
Guest
UK, this is our third thread on this same vein started by these guys, and it goes WAY beyond correcting translation mistakes.
These guys have been using phrases such as “deception” and “lies” when referring to the Vatican and the Bishops. They have accused the Chuch of purposely misguiding its people on the teaching about Islam. They claim the Church is WRONG, not that the Catechism has been “mistranslated”. One said the Jews were “of the devil”.
Our reaction is proportional to the inflammatory and untrue statements made on several threads all related to Islam, the Catechism, and “salvation outside the Church”.
U
UKcatholicGuy
Guest
Whenever the Vatican issues an official document, it is always written in Latin. It’s then up to each individual country’s bishops to translate it into their tongue. The Catechism (this one anyway) is only 13 yrs old.
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
Peace be with you!
Did you even read his posts? He hasn’t said a word about a problem with translation…if that were the case no one would be mad. What he said was that the popes have made a mistake in Church doctrine. He said that the Vatican has LIED to us. This all stems from his personal hatred of Muslims and so he wants Holy Mother Church to change her infallible position on them so that it matches his own. I doubt he would be happy with the Catechism saying anything less than “We, as the Holy Catholic Chuch, conclude that all Muslims on earth are evil, false, heathen worshippers and will be damned to burn in the fires of hell for eternity.” That is why he wants the Catechism changed…because he disagrees with it. That is the same reason Martin Luther changed the Bible and wanted the Chuch to change their views–because he personally disagreed with them.
In Christ,
Rand
T
trth_skr
Guest
Rand Al'Thor:
Thanks for sticking up for the Church.
I am not sure the Catechism itself is infallible or doctrinal (though it contains many doctrines). I would like to see the Catechism talk about geocentrism, but it is considered too embarrasing for the modernist element in the Church.
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Finally, someone on this site agrees that the Church did not err in interpreting the Scriptures as saying that the earth is stationary and does not move! The three Popes were not wrong, nor the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.
Thanks for sticking up for the Church.
I am not sure the Catechism itself is infallible or doctrinal (though it contains many doctrines). I would like to see the Catechism talk about geocentrism, but it is considered too embarrasing for the modernist element in the Church.
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
A
Ann_Cheryl
Guest
When you attack, you loose no matter how righteous your stance.
A
Ann_Cheryl
Guest
I disagree with this statement. Exactly what did the Chruch correct in your opinion?
I disagree with this statement. The Catechism that was issued in 1984 was new not an amended version of a previous Catechism. What did you think was amended?
P
palmas85
Guest
Very interesting reading on this subject.
Since I was taught from the Baltimore Catechism, which has some things in it that others may not agree with, I have to ask a few questions. It may be distasteful for some but please bear with me.
I was taught that the Roman Catholic Church was the true Church. Not Islam, not Hinduism, not Judaism not Baptist or Methodist or anyone else. I was taught that Jesus gave the keys of his church to Peter not to Mohammed, or Martin Luther or Buddah or anyone else. I was taught the seven sacrements, I was taught that belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of the eternal God was an absolute must for salvation. I was taught there was no path to salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church.
From the Baltimore Catechism, NATIONS WILL RISE AND FALL. FALSE RELIGIONS WILL COME AND GO. BUT THE CHURCH WILL LAST FOREVER. .
lesson 12 166 All are obliged to belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved
lesson 12 167 When we say,“outside the church there is no salvation” we mean Christ made the Catholic Church,a necessary means to salvation and commanded all to enter it, so that a person must be connected with the Church in some way to be saved.
lesson 12 168 persons who are not members of the Catholic Church can be saved if through no fault of their own do not know that the Catholic Church is the true church, but they love God and try to do His will for in this way they are connected to the Church by desire.
I was taught to pray for the conversion of the Jews, the Muslims and all other non-believers to the Catholic faith.
Now as I said it may be distastefull to some, but consider this.
If the Catholic Church IS the one true Church, then how can other churches also be valid? And if the other churches are equal to and as sufficient as the Catholic Church in faith and salvation, why do we need the Church or the Pope or the Magesterium? If all churches are the same in the eyes of God what difference does it make what we believe? Was the Baltimore Catechism in error?
It may be distasteful to some, but at least think about it.
Since I was taught from the Baltimore Catechism, which has some things in it that others may not agree with, I have to ask a few questions. It may be distasteful for some but please bear with me.
I was taught that the Roman Catholic Church was the true Church. Not Islam, not Hinduism, not Judaism not Baptist or Methodist or anyone else. I was taught that Jesus gave the keys of his church to Peter not to Mohammed, or Martin Luther or Buddah or anyone else. I was taught the seven sacrements, I was taught that belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of the eternal God was an absolute must for salvation. I was taught there was no path to salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church.
From the Baltimore Catechism, NATIONS WILL RISE AND FALL. FALSE RELIGIONS WILL COME AND GO. BUT THE CHURCH WILL LAST FOREVER. .
lesson 12 166 All are obliged to belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved
lesson 12 167 When we say,“outside the church there is no salvation” we mean Christ made the Catholic Church,a necessary means to salvation and commanded all to enter it, so that a person must be connected with the Church in some way to be saved.
lesson 12 168 persons who are not members of the Catholic Church can be saved if through no fault of their own do not know that the Catholic Church is the true church, but they love God and try to do His will for in this way they are connected to the Church by desire.
I was taught to pray for the conversion of the Jews, the Muslims and all other non-believers to the Catholic faith.
Now as I said it may be distastefull to some, but consider this.
If the Catholic Church IS the one true Church, then how can other churches also be valid? And if the other churches are equal to and as sufficient as the Catholic Church in faith and salvation, why do we need the Church or the Pope or the Magesterium? If all churches are the same in the eyes of God what difference does it make what we believe? Was the Baltimore Catechism in error?
It may be distasteful to some, but at least think about it.
U
UKcatholicGuy
Guest
Palmas85,
I agree completely with you . . and so does the most recent Catechism. The Baltimore teaching sounds identical to the current teaching. The Church still evangelizes and desires the conversion of sinners and adherents of false religions, including Jews and Moslems-- but also fallen away Catholics.
I’ll leave the Church this instant if you can produce an official Church document which claims all religions are equal. It doesn’t exist. Put your mind to rest; the Church hasn’t changed her teaching.
Peace of Christ be with you!
I agree completely with you . . and so does the most recent Catechism. The Baltimore teaching sounds identical to the current teaching. The Church still evangelizes and desires the conversion of sinners and adherents of false religions, including Jews and Moslems-- but also fallen away Catholics.
I’ll leave the Church this instant if you can produce an official Church document which claims all religions are equal. It doesn’t exist. Put your mind to rest; the Church hasn’t changed her teaching.
Peace of Christ be with you!
1
1ke
Guest
The Baltimore Catechism and the new Catechism teach the same thing. However, what these guys propose runs counter to both.
A
aridite
Guest
No sane person I know of thinks that the Church believes or teaches that all religions are equal. The Church does not teach that. Some people exaggerate the importance or distort the meaning of statements that we should respect the human dignity and freedom of adherents of other religions; that no one should be coerced into accepting the True Faith. This just seems to me to be an implication of “love your neighbor” and “love your enemy; do good to those who persecute you.”
L
last_niceguy
Guest
Forgive me for being blunt.
- The Vatican is not infallable but they do have the authority to interpret the Scriptures (the Magisterium).
- I went through a period in my Catholicism where I was confused with the Church’s teaching on religions outside of Christ. However, I have come to accept the Theological Christocentric interpretation of Jesus which is what the Church currently teaches.
- If you disagree with what the Church teaches you have every right to, no where in the Creed does it say how our relationship with faiths outside of Christ must be like, so you can disagree,
- I am sure you are just a layman, and believe it or not there is over 2000 years of Church history behind our current Catechism…it is a great document…greater then your wild claims.
- Status