**Rsiscoe:
The new Catachism is not wrong, however, as usual it is ambiguous.
StFelicity:
What do you mean by this–specifically the “as usual” part?
What I mean is that the new Catechism is ambiguous. I would even go father than that and say that the surface meaning of often erroneous. It is often difficult (although possible) to reconcile the new Catechism with what the Church has always taught. For example, if you go to the “Spirituality” section and read the thread title “unity” (a few pages back) you will see that the sweat girl I was talking to (Teresa9) was totally confused. In fact, when I recommended old Catechisms for their clarity in teaching the faith, she, in her sincerity, went and found her grandfathers Catechism, and read it. She then came back and said how the Catholic Church use to teach this, and used to teach that…. In other words, her belief, as formed by the new Catechism, is contrary to what the Church used to teach (and has always taught). The new Catechism has some good parts, some ambiguous parts, and some downright bad parts. The good parts are perfectly reconcilable with what the Church has always taught; the ambiguous parts can mean one of several things; and the bad parts are, on their surface, very misleading.
Let’s take one example from our conversation: You quoted the following: "“all religions bear witness to men’s essential search for God.” and CCC 841 specifically says, “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims…and together with us they adore the one, merciful God…”
Now, what exactly does that mean? Some people could interpret it to mean the Muslim religion is part of God’s plan for salvation, could they not? That would be a wrong believe. Others could interpret it to mean that the Catholic faith and the Muslim religion each form part of salvation in that both lead to salvation; and that the Muslims together with us worship the same God, who is one and merciful". That too would be false.
Others could understand it to mean Muslims, although entangled in a false religion and on the broad road to perdition, were included in the plan of salvation in that Jesus shed His blood for them and wills that they be saved; and that they too, these deceived people who are presently on the road to hell, can attain salvation if they convert to the true faith, outside of which there is not salvation at all. And that although the Muslims worship a false God, this false God they have invented through their heresy is only one God, rather than many, and this false God they have invented is also considered to be merciful; and that Catholic also worship only one God - the True God, not that of the Muslims - and that this true God Catholics worship is merciful. In other words: Muslims are on the path to hell, but can be saved; and that they worship only one false god, who they considered to be merciful. Catholics, on the other hand, worship the true God (different from that of the Muslims) and this true God is one and merciful. In other words, the fact that the Muslims only worship one false god, who they consider to be merciful is a mere coincidence to the fact that there is only One God, Who is merciful. That interpretation would correspond to what the Church has always taught, whereas the first two “interpretations” would not.
Now, if you asked 100 Catholics how they interpret that part of the Catechism, we would find out if the quote was ambiguous or not. In fact, we would even find out if it was misleading, depending on how they answered. For if most Catholics interpreted the Catechism in a way that was contrary to what the Church has always taught, it would mean that the Catechism was not only ambiguous, but that the surface meaning was erroneous. The evidence to the ambiguity, or lack thereof, would be revealed by the interpretation of the readers.
The intent the of written word, or spoken word, is to communicate. If a spoken word, or a written word, communicate in such a way that the listener or reader is either confused, or worse still, led into error, that spoken or written word was not good, since the reason for speaking or writing is to communicate a truth to the intellect. Therefore, if the new Catechism communicates error to the intellect of the reader error, it is not good, since the reason for the Catechism is to teach the truth. The more clearly the writing communicates the truth, the better it is.
with love
and hope:getholy:
!
thanks