Pope: There may be something Catholic, even outside the Catholic Church

[THEYEHOVAH]

Understand that the catholic church is those elements within and without–“the visible church” organization. While christ jesus planted the organization: He also warned that it would be full of sheep and wolves.

He told the sheep not to be deceived by the wolves.

He also told the disciples as in the quotation that folks were his–they might disagree with! They were…not all of the “organization”!! So neither is “the catholic church” the catholic church. But all serving the lord–they are the catholic church; the organization is not “description” nor is the body of christ limited to the organization as quoted below.

This is integral to understanding: Seek the lord! Do not rest on your laurels thinking yourself saved if you belong to the catholic church soo-called ‘roman’!! That is…not…the definitive body of christ!! Believe the words of jesus–the pope agrees here. This is not about hinduism or buddhism or sikhism or new-ageism!! This is about christianity–in and out of “the church” as the true body!! <3+theyehovah

asianews.it/news-en/pope:-there-may-be-something-catholic,-even-outside-the-catholic-church-25957.html

the holy father is absolutely right. Elements of the catholic church can exist outside of the catholic church. We share much in common with members of other religions, especially the judeo-christian religions. Of course there are some things that we do not share in common with them but there are things that we do share in common with them. We should emphasize the things that we do have in common with them. I think if we did more of this the world would be a more peaceful place. We are not all enemies. We are people of different religions who have some different beliefs and some common beliefs. Therefore we are allies in at least one sense but we could also be enemies in another sense. Nevertheless, we must love our enemies and pray for their well being and that god would bless them with an abundance of grace so that they may be converted. We should pray for our own conversion (conversion of heart) as well.

 

[jwinch2]

archive.org/details/Dhspriory-DomineIesusPresentedByFrAugustineDiNoiaOP798

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Sometimes I think it is even better to leave some parts of doctrine untaught. While A, B and C might be true, if C is above the average parishioner’s paygrade, then it might behoove the Church to just leave it alone. We always have to consider academic limitations and otherwise when teaching catechism, for example.

“above the average parishioner’s pay grade?” Well, bless their little pointed heads! What an appallingly elitist statement! One of the classic definitions of theology is “Faith seeking understanding.” If a formulation is found to be confusing, I would argue the issue isn’t with the doctrine, but how it is being presented. The idea that there are doctrines that we shouldn’t teach because the poor, simple “pew Catholics” might become confused or because understanding it is “above their pay grade” smacks of some kind of neo-Gnosticism. In my experience statements like that are usually code for “things the Church teaches that I’m uncomfortable with,” such as the teaching that there are elements of truth in other faiths besides Catholicism.

 

[littlechicken]

Something to consider;
John 10:16 And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

 

[jwinch2]

“above the average parishioner’s pay grade?” Well, bless their little pointed heads! What an appallingly elitist statement! One of the classic definitions of theology is “Faith seeking understanding.” If a formulation is found to be confusing, I would argue the issue isn’t with the doctrine, but how it is being presented. The idea that there are doctrines that we shouldn’t teach because the poor, simple “pew Catholics” might become confused or because understanding it is “above their pay grade” smacks of some kind of neo-Gnosticism. In my experience statements like that are usually code for “things the Church teaches that I’m uncomfortable with,” such as the teaching that there are elements of truth in other faiths besides Catholicism.

Do you honestly not believe that there are aspects of Catholic doctrine which require significant training in theology, philosophy, etc. to truly understand? There is a reason that priests going to seminary have several years of “pre-theology” before they even start their serious theological training. Do you honestly believe that the Church will be able to teach to the level needed to understand some of those things merely by going through CCD or RCIA, or that the average Catholic is going to invest in the time and energy to learn things to that level outside of those venues?

I am not suggesting for one second that the faithful should be denied the opportunity to learn everything that the Church teaches, should they want to do so, merely that one cannot reasonably expect a level of knowledge which allows in depth understanding without putting in massive amounts of time and effort to attain that level of knowledge. Many of the Church’s teachings are very nuanced. Understanding nuanced positions requires a foundational level of knowledge that most do not possess.

 

[jwinch2]

amazon.com/Catholic-Catechism-Contemporary-Teachings-Church/dp/038508045X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1351570640&sr=1-1&keywords=john+hardon

Considering some of my concerns with the CCC (style of writing, not content) and the USCCB Catechism (some content as noted above) and the fact that I am not turned on by question/answer format catechisms, this Catechism by Fr. Hardon, SJ may become my go to Catechism. I just ordered the hard copy, but they even have a Kindle version, which could come in handy.

Peace,

 

[jwinch2]

I am not a big fan of the USCCB Catechism. There are subtleties in there that, in my opinion, slightly distort the social doctrine of the Church.

Two examples, the idea of subsidiarity is only discussed in one place in the text. On page 326, it states “The principle of subsidiarity teaches that governments should help and support individuals and groups for who they are responsible without controlling their freedom and initiative (cf. CCC, no. 1883).”

CCC 1883 states:1883 *Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. the teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”*7

You will need to look very carefully to see the difference. You will note that CCC 1883 talks about “in case of need” – not mentioned in the USCCB Catechism. Also, note that the CCC talks about “a community of a higher order…” while the USCCB Catechism talks about “governments”. We know that communities of higher order can talk about the immediate family, the extended family, the neighborhood, the town, the parish, the diocese, and so on…“communities of higher order” are not limited to governments. Yet, if you teach catechism based solely upon the USCCB document, you would not recognize that.

Next, on page 421ff, there is a presentation talking about the Reflections of the Catholic Bishops of the United States on the Church’s Social Teaching: Major Themes.

This portion is a condensation of the USCCB “Pastoral Letter” Economic Justice for All. Economic Justice for All was written by Robert Weakland in 1986. To my knowledge, it did not receive unanimous consent by the US bishops nor did it receive a Recognito from the Holy See (ref CIC Can 455 and Motu Proprio Apostolos Suos). In other words, it is not Magisterial.

(Mind you, the USCCB Catechism did not cite this 1986 document…but it was there, anyway).
*
This USCCB Document (*Economic Justice) is problematic, to put it mildly. problematic.

A couple of minor points:

• There is no mention of subsidiarity as a major theme of Catholic Social Teaching (yet, per the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, it is a key principle).
• The principle of Participation is subsumed within the “Call to Family, Community, and Participation” Participation is a key implication of subsidiarity. As listed in the Compendium, it is a key principle and highlights each Christian’s responsibility for each other…
• The “Preferential Option for the Poor” is listed as in the USCCB *Catechism *as the “Option for the Poor and Vulnerable.” They aren’t the same thing.

– In the Compendium, the “Preferential Option for the Poor” is subsumed, as it should be, under the “Universal Destination of Goods.” It is discussed immediately after the section affirming the legitimacy of private property (while acknowledging that all private property has a social function).

– On the other hand, in *Economic Justice *(as reported in the USCCB Catechism), it stands alone without explaining the relationship of this within its relationship to the Universal Destination of Goods or to the legitimacy of private property.

And so on.

Don’t get me wrong. These are not so much glaring errors…but the subtlety of them can steer a person down a slightly different vector than studying the actual documents.

If you want a easy to digest document, I would suggest the Compendium of the Catechism. It is written in simple question and answer format and, I believe, could be utilized in much the same fashion as the old Baltimore Catechism series (which, by the way, in my mind, are still very usable).

By the way, I am blatantly stealing the information you provided above to update my Amazon review as well as to talk to our RCIA people about the use of this Catechism. Thanks again for sharing it.

Peace,