What you fail to acknowledge is that there are those who understand that the conditions of the Church prior to Vatican 2 were not perfect either, and were in need of change. This idea that everything went to hell in a hand basket after Vatican 2, and all was the best that it could be prior to Vatican 2 is simply out of touch with what the Church was doing during Vatican 2 and why.Well, many do not. Many refuse to even look into pre-Vatican II. I’ve been told in my face. Many don’t even quite read into the post-VII documents. We know we have an issue of catechesis in the Church, and an issue of nominal vs. practicing Catholics. So forgive me, but as untrue as it may be to you, I have solid reason to believe that off the small percentage of actually practicing Catholics, only a much smaller percentage has taken time and effort to learn about the teachings and practices of the Church before, say, 1950. And if they did do so in a considerate effort, then I sympathize with them, for they, too, must have become very uncomfortable at the sight of a lot of things, reaching an unprecedented awareness of the good that was cast aside, and of the not-so-good that was brought in by violence in the name of a much fallible and quite feeble “spirit of the Council”.
Actually, no. It was not done in the name of ecumenism; it was done because it was felt that those who were brought up under the Baltimore Catechism had no clue as to how the faith was to be lived out, and were only capable of regurgitating memorized responses. Those who presumed to know what catechesis should be about were intent on moving away from memorizing doctrinal responses and moving toward an experiential approach to faith. In short, in an attempt to solve one problem they created another.All in the name of ecumenism.
But the Catechism of the Catholic Church was not written as a replacement for the old Penny Catechisms… because it was written for the clergy…Actually, no. It was not done in the name of ecumenism; it was done because it was felt that those who were brought up under the Baltimore Catechism had no clue as to how the faith was to be lived out, and were only capable of regurgitating memorized responses. Those who presumed to know what catechesis should be about were intent on moving away from memorizing doctrinal responses and moving toward an experiential approach to faith. In short, in an attempt to solve one problem they created another.
“not all who say ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but those who do the will of my Father.”
John Paul 2 was aware, particularly, of the mechanistic and legalistic turn in moral theology that could be traced back to about the 14th century. And that was only one aspect of a number of issues at play. But throwing out the content was not done in the name of ecumenism, but rather in a wrong-headed approach to the content of the faith, in an attempt to increase the exercise of the faith.
Granted. Although the commendation of the catechism to the faithful does not occur in address of the Apostolic Constitution. Your point was right you just didn’t offer adequate evidence. I had to read Fidei Depositum to find it.In fact the CCC was issued by the Apostolic Constitution *Fidei Depositum *“To my Venerable Brothers the Cardinals, Patrierchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and to all the People of God" (p 1).
It is a “sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine….” (p 5).
Nobody is failing to acknowledge this. But good intentions do not justify mistakes. Now let’s clarify something: the world was changing, and not in a good way. Not in a good way at all. Hell was breaking lose on earth, to speak metaphorically, and the response to this could not possibly be: the conditions of the Church needs to change. Guess what, it is not the Church that adapts to the world. Doesn’t work that way. “Heaven and earth shall pass” but “Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever”. And if the Church is the mystical body of Christ…What you fail to acknowledge is that there are those who understand that the conditions of the Church prior to Vatican 2 were not perfect either, and were in need of change. This idea that everything went to hell in a hand basket after Vatican 2, and all was the best that it could be prior to Vatican 2 is simply out of touch with what the Church was doing during Vatican 2 and why.
I have seen the “spontaneous ways to live the faith”, and I have only seen exteriority being enhanced at the expense of the interior life. I have seen the world embrace in a snake-like way the heel of our Mother the Church, because many have forgotten that the way of salvation is one of sacrifice, and that out of love of the world we ought to despise its ways, being as it were, in the world as in in a valley of tears, in exile, citizens of a heavenly kingdom walking in a foreign land to be lights and salt. Perhaps they had no clue as to how to live the faith, but neither do have any clue those who have imbued themselves of the spirit of the world, a spirit that is loud, noisy, disordered, and willing to experiment and innovate. More than ever resounds the truthfulness of this living Scripture: “the kingdom of the heavens suffers violence, and the violent seize on it.”it was done because it was felt that those who were brought up under the Baltimore Catechism had no clue as to how the faith was to be lived out, and were only capable of regurgitating memorized responses.
In part out Eastern brothers were protected from the problems of the West because in large part of the problems they were dealing with. As Communism broke down, and freedom emerged, they have been seeing more and more of the problems the West has been dealing with for decades.Nobody is failing to acknowledge this. But good intentions do not justify mistakes. Now let’s clarify something: the world was changing, and not in a good way. Not in a good way at all. Hell was breaking lose on earth, to speak metaphorically, and the response to this could not possibly be: the conditions of the Church needs to change. Guess what, it is not the Church that adapts to the world. Doesn’t work that way. “Heaven and earth shall pass” but “Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever”. And if the Church is the mystical body of Christ…
…now, indeed it would be ridiculous to deny that the Church had to face unprecedented challenges. Unprecedented in a manner of speech, for the Church had consistently been facing “unprecedented challenges” throughout her history. Examples include the major persecutions during the apostolic age, the division and fall of the Roman empire, the great heresies (Arianism, etc.), the Great Schism, the Protestant crisis, and I could go on for much longer. In all of these circumstances the Church, immutable in its organic constitution and not subject to a perpetual evolution, had nevertheless to grow in wisdom and stature to continue its mission of making disciples of all the nations, being the precinct of the saints and the gate of heaven on earth, in which alone is offered the Sacrifice pleasing to the Father. Sometimes this growth required something big: a Holy Ecumenical Council. Was the Second Vatican Council needed? Yes - otherwise the Holy Spirit would not have led the Church (and the Vicar of Christ) to call it.
Now, not all went to hell in a hand basket after the Council, but it didn’t go to heaven either, if you know what I mean. Let’s face it, even Pope Paul VI was profoundly worried of what he saw happening within the Church after the Council. I don’t need to review the disasters that took place in the past 50 years within the Church. And disasters they were (and in some places they still are). No matter how imperfect the conditions of the Church may have been (wondering if one can even speak of the Church as “imperfect” at any point in history…) it is apparent to many that now it’s in a worse shape. To many, not to all. New, good things started happening as well. Things that in a sense remind me strongly of Luke 14:16-24. So we ought to stay strong in the faith and trust in the Holy Spirit’s work despite everything.
I have seen the “spontaneous ways to live the faith”, and I have only seen exteriority being enhanced at the expense of the interior life. I have seen the world embrace in a snake-like way the heel of our Mother the Church, because many have forgotten that the way of salvation is one of sacrifice, and that out of love of the world we ought to despise its ways, being as it were, in the world as in in a valley of tears, in exile, citizens of a heavenly kingdom walking in a foreign land to be lights and salt. Perhaps they had no clue as to how to live the faith, but neither do have any clue those who have imbued themselves of the spirit of the world, a spirit that is loud, noisy, disordered, and willing to experiment and innovate. More than ever resounds the truthfulness of this living Scripture: “the kingdom of the heavens suffers violence, and the violent seize on it.”
Maybe we ought to start taking a closer look to our Eastern brothers, who do not seem to have enacted the kind of radical reforms we have enacted, nor having changed their understanding of what the Church is as much as we seem to have. We may be able to learn something from them. At least, more than we can learn from the world, since the world hates us and always will - words of Christ.
There is no question that it was written to be the foundation of other catechisms. But if you are implying that it was not meant to be read and used by the laity, that has been profoundly answered by the Church in the negative.But the Catechism of the Catholic Church was not written as a replacement for the old Penny Catechisms… because it was written for the clergy…
Yours in Jesus and Mary,
OS.
I acknowledged my mistake regarding whether it was commended to the lay faithful or not. But your point that it was intended to replace the Baltimore Catechism has also been answered by the Church in the negative. The Church has absolutely no issues with how the old penny Catechisms were and how they were employed.There is no question that it was written to be the foundation of other catechisms. But if you are implying that it was not meant to be read and used by the laity, that has been profoundly answered by the Church in the negative.
The Baltimore Catechism was a local catechism, local to the US. The CCC is a universal catechism, designed to be the foundation of new catechisms. The Church does not write a universal catechism to replace a local one, but the effect of it may replace the local one as new local catechisms are written based on it.I acknowledged my mistake regarding whether it was commended to the lay faithful or not. But your point that it was intended to replace the Baltimore Catechism has also been answered by the Church in the negative. The Church has absolutely no issues with how the old penny Catechisms were and how they were employed.
Yours in Jesus and Mary,
OS.