It’s only half the story. It *doesn’t *deal with those elements of condemned heresy - false teachings - and how those elements lead souls to Hell rather than Heaven.
No. Not at all. What’s wrong with the statement is exactly what I wrote in my last post. Can you show me where the catechism explains the difference between primary and secondary means of salvation?
Beautifully stated!
The Catechism of the Council of TRENT is beautiful and of course much easier to follow than CCC.
On the contrary, the CCC is far better written and more easily understood (but then, I recognize that both our assertions on this count are entirely subjectiveThe Best way to determine which Catechism is correct is read them both, since I know from reading CCC that it is not of the same cloth or quality of The Catechism of the Council of TRENT.
).Not necessarily, DustinsDad, if we are careful to remember that the latter explains or illuminates or explicates or clarifies the former.
Not all explanations are equally good at explaining. And not all clarifications actually clarify.
I find it perfectly adequate, but I admit, perhaps that’s just me. And it is the Teaching Church that decides what is sufficient, not the taught Church. Any rate, I think it’s rather a shaky activity on any Catholic’s part (again, excluding your good self) to claim that a universal Catechism promulgated by the Vicar of Christ for the entire Church is inadequate or in sufficient, esp. when that Vicar of Christ has declared it a sure norm. Why would we question the sure norm, especially when there is no conflict between that norm and what’s gone before? The promise of the Christ applies to this, that we cannot be mistaught by our teacher, in this instance, the Holy Father, surely? But this wasn’t the work, really, of one man either, ie, the Servant of God Pope John Paul II. It’s really the work of Cardinal Ratzinger and those who labored with him. I’m personally not willing to set my theological understanding against his.
Should have stopped with “entirely subjective”.On the contrary, the CCC is far better written and more easily understood (but then, I recognize that both our assertions on this count are entirely subjective
And as to which is correct,…
I can live with that, but I still think the best source for teaching the Catholic Faith is the CCC, because it does explain, clarify, explicate and further distill all that went before it.
You’re too kind!I agree that the CCC is wonderful/beautiful and one of the main things that brought me into the Church!
P.S. Really glad to see you back, JKirk!
If you truly understood there to be no conflict with “what’s gone before” and “the sure norm” - why the hestitancy on your part to suggest a catholic actually read what’s gone before? Whatever are you afraid of J? To suggest this is suddenly a question of “loyalty” and fidelity to Holy Mother Church?
I’ve never said I was a good Catholic (I’m too aware of my own sins) nor have I attempted to silence anyone. And my opinion on Pope John Paul II really has no bearing on the discussion, does it (beyond the fact that he promulgated the CCC)? And I have responded to the point in question rather POINTEDLY. I don’t believe that Church teaching can contradict Church teaching. I don’t believe that it is capable of doing so, just as I do not believe that I can flap my arms and fly or that the moon is made of cheese. I believe that it is inhibited, prevented from, not able to do so. That’s my starting point. So when apparent contradictions come up, I assume that I will come to understand it if I pray about it and study it. I assume the apparent contradiction is just that, and “apparent” one. I don’t assume that the Church is wrong or has become wrong, because I believe it can’t be or become wrong. I believe that because I believe Christ’s promise that whatsoever was bound by Peter and his successors on earth would be bound in Heaven. Christ cannot bind contradiction or error or lies and His Church cannot lead the faithful to contradiction or errors or lies. That’s why I AM a Catholic. If this isn’t true, then it would seem that the Orthodox were right about the Petrine office (primacy of honor, not authority).
You have never suggested anything positive whatsoever about reading anything pre-Vatican II as far as I’ve seen. You have suggested that pointing out problems with the CCC is to somewhow question the infallibility of the Church. You have gone so far as responding to the poster that said he personally found the CCC confusing and Trent’s more straightforward with a lenghty diatribe about how the Church cannot teach error - as if suggesting the new catechism is less straightorward than previous ones somehow effect the infallibility of the Church!. My friend, honestly look at yourself and your posts and see if you are in a kneejerk damage control defense mode of all things post-VII, and subsequently, suspect of anything pre-VII.
Sometimes. But overwhelmingly, the CCC quotes VII - to the* near* exclusion of all other Church councils. Now, I’m not saying error is taught in VII, but given the ambiguous nature of VII documents, using them to reference the ambiguous parts of the CCC is rather difficult in and of itself. This is akin to referencing the ambiguous with the ambiguous - especially where it relates to ecumenism and EENS. For instance, here are the references for the CCC paragraphs 813-822: The Church Is One: 259 UR 2 § 5.
G 8,300.G 13,732.I thought your motive was to claim any reasons for confusion or uncertainty do not exist? “If one understands that current Church teaching isn’t at odds with prior Church teaching, because it cannot be, then there really isn’t a problem.”
My apologies. I go too far sometimes.
Well, like I said before…taking the stance that when one questions the clarity and the ambiguity of certain documents and parts of the Catechism is tatamount to questioning the infallibility of the Church has that effect on alot of folks. Silencing them by making them fear that they are being disloyal or unfaithful by asking their very questions.
But does a proper understanding of papal infallibility mean that everything he throws his weight behind, everything he is enthusiastic about, is crystal clear and perfect in every way? Come on J! We constantly tell our protestant friends how infallibility has its proper limits, how about exercising some proper limits here.
The point in question I referred to is post 17 - you have not responded to anything in there at all. All you keep telling me is that you believe the Church is infallible. Great! I agree. Now please share with me how you respond to the points Gerard brings up. I want to know how you understand this section and these difficulties.
That’s the first time I’ve heard you admit there are apparent contradictions. Can you give me an example of one you found, and how you came to understand it. Did you just ignore the apparent contradiction and take the new on its face, or did you reconcile the new with the old without contradicting it. It would be much appreciated if you could elaborate a little.
Me too. But properly understood, it’s official Church teaching not contradicting official Church teaching. Therefore,* how you understand *apparent contradictions and how you reconcile the two are extremely important. Just ignoring them or claiming apparent contradictions don’t exist doesn’t do anyone any good.
I don’t find the CCC ambigous or troubling. I find it rather straightforward. For example, EENS. I have no problem at all affirming and confessing that “Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.” That doesn’t mean I believe that doctrine means what the Dimond brothers believe it means. The Church condemns heresy and heretics, as it always has, but it also does not charge with the sin of seperation those born into those seperated communities. Their culpabillity is not the same as those who originally, formally left the Church. What they posess that is salvific comes FROM the Catholic Church and is itself a call to union with the Catholic Church. In this instance, the CCC hasn’t contradicted what the Church taught before, but further explained it.You have never suggested anything positive whatsoever about reading anything pre-Vatican II as far as I’ve seen. You have suggested that pointing out problems with the CCC is to somewhow question the infallibility of the Church. You have gone so far as responding to the poster that said he personally found the CCC confusing and Trent’s more straightforward with a lenghty diatribe about how the Church cannot teach error - as if suggesting the new catechism is less straightorward than previous ones somehow effect the infallibility of the Church!. My friend, honestly look at yourself and your posts and see if you are in a kneejerk damage control defense mode of all things post-VII, and subsequently, suspect of anything pre-VII.
**No, on the contrary, the poster did NOT say that he "personally found the CCC confusing (if we’re talking about he same poster). And why are MY postings diatribes? Do you take the same poster to task for not having anything positive to say about any post-Vatican II readings? And should you also not look honestly at yourself and your posts and see if your are in a kneejerk damage control defense mode of all things pre-VII, and subsequently, suspect of anything post- VII? It’s as easy to turn the question around. **
Sometimes. But overwhelmingly, the CCC quotes VII - to the* near* exclusion of all other Church councils. Now, I’m not saying error is taught in VII, but given the ambiguous nature of VII documents, using them to reference the ambiguous parts of the CCC is rather difficult in and of itself. This is akin to referencing the ambiguous with the ambiguous - especially where it relates to ecumenism and EENS. For instance, here are the references for the CCC paragraphs 813-822: The *Church Is One:*259 UR 2 § 5.
260 GS 78 § 3.
261 UR 2 § 2.
262 St. Clement Of Alexandria, Pæd. 1,6,42
263 LG 13 § 2.
264 Eph 4:3.
265 Col 3:14.
266 Cf. UR 2; LG 14; CIC, can. 205.
267 LG 8 § 2.
268 UR 3 § 5.
269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
277 UR 4 § 3.
278 Jn 17:21; cf. Heb 7:25.
279 Cf. UR 1.
280 Cf. UR 6.
281 UR 7 § 3.
282 UR 8 § 1.
283 Cf. UR 9.
284 Cf. UR 10.
285 Cf. UR 4; 9; 11.
286 Cf. UR 12.
287 UR 5.
288 UR 24 § 2.
289 LG 39; Cf. Eph 5:25-26.
The red is VII, the blue is pre-Vatican II. Unfailingly, it is in the ambiguous or troubling parts of the CCC where VII is referenced. Just an observation.
(continued)
I’m referring to ThereCanBeOnly1 - post number 24:
I honestly can say that I agree with alot of the criticisms things post Vatican II - there’s alot to be critical of. I try to bring this out using examples of the changes in approach and practice, in the changing of the tone of the writing, and of the ambiguities and where they contrast with previous clarity. I admit it wholeheartedly.
One - the church condemns heresy and heretics (since these are infallible declaratoins, they are still there and valid and unchangeable) - but “as they always have”. You sure about that? This indicates that the method of condemning them hasn’t changed. I suggest it has. I suggest that anyone with eyes and an ounce of commons sense can see that it has. For better or worse.
Of course not - but then what is their culpability? None???