Process for Revising the Catechism

[Gorgias]

The issue concerns confusing the faithful with what is easily mistaken for heresy.

St Pope John Paul II made the same case, however! He may have had it phrased differently when the catechism was promulgated, but he was making the same case!

How would we, then, assert ‘heresy’? Or, is the claim merely that there should be no development of doctrine?

Is Pope Francis’ revision to the Catechism a done deal, or is it subject to debate or other process?

He’s the ‘supreme legislator’ of the Church, by virtue of his office, so yeah… done deal.

 

[mythbuster1]

Is the Catechism subject to dubia like encyclicals are?

 

[mythbuster1]

Phrasing is important when it can cause confusion. St. John Paul’s teaching makes perfect sense as an appeal to mercy, and cannot rationally be distorted into a claim that the death penalty is contrary to natural law. Pope Francis’ phrasing, however, most certainly can be so distorted. What sort of father attempts to teach his children Shakespeare before they have learned to read? What sort of father refuses to explain what he means when his children are confused?

 

[Mboo]

False God does not create life alone. he does it with the collaboration of men. So it would not be illogical that God can take back a life with the collaboration of men too.

 

[Mboo]

The doctrine that the state can execute criminals has not changed. In order to have changed that, Pope Francis would have had to declared the death penalty intrinsically evil or a murderous act or some such. He did not do this. Therefore, the doctrine still stands.

What did he do? He said that in modern society where we have recourse to less than lethal means of protecting the common good, use of the death penalty is now inadmissible

False, false and false. This is what Francis said:
“As serious as the crime committed, the death penalty is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability and dignity of the person”

what is inadmissible is intrinsically evil

 

[mrsdizzyd]

False, false and false. This is what Francis said:
“As serious as the crime committed, the death penalty is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability and dignity of the person ”

No where in that letter from the CDF does it mentioning anything about the DP being intrinsically evil because it isn’t! Stop adding words to the letter!

The are other things that attack human dignity that do not rise to the level of being intrinsically evil. Check out the section of the CCC on social justice. Lots of examples there.

Inadmissible is not the same thing as intrinsically evil.

 

[Mboo]

inadmissible, that is, we can never admit it. But the Church had alway said that it can be admitted in certain circumstances => contradiction
It is you who seek to deny an obvious

 

[mrsdizzyd]

The are other things that attack human dignity that do not rise to the level of being intrinsically evil.

Quite right, Lilly.

 

[dochawk]

That is incorrect–the Eastern churches can and do issue their own catechisms.

“Jurisdiction” in the western sense is the wrong word for the relationship, as is “under”. The churches are in communion with the bishop of Rome, who indeed has significant influence and rights.

Note that the CCC will not be inconsistent in faith with the EC, but expecting a catechism whose purpose into elucidate one understanding too the faith is quite unlikely to line up exactly with another means of expressing that same faith. (Easy example: the number of Sacramnets.)

Bluntly, this post is the kind of misinformation that drives EC and EO away.

hawk

 

[XXI_4]

Thank you. Not only catechisms, but their own Canon law (per sui iuris church, not the Latin promulgated CCEO).

 

[commenter]

Of course the media is twisting this into a scenario where the Pope Changes teaching! They want to make the impression that ALL “teachings” are now changeable. So, if the church might change teaching on birth control it abortion tomorrow, you may well do it today.

No Catholic teaching was changed by the Pope.