What changes in the Catholic Church...

[Reuben_J]

I’d never said it was a doctrine. I just answered peoples comments on the changing definition of usury. I’m still not comfortable with it, but I’ll agree that the economic system does play a role in changing the moral outlook on it.

Yes, you did qualify what you said. Thanks. Probably as you said earlier on, the practice is acceptable (silent?) for almost all Christianity, not just the Catholic Church. There probably is some acceptable justification without transgressing God’s commandment for the Church to permit it. Is it the context, or is it the reality of economic or do we really understand this issue correctly? These may be some of questions posed but frankly, like I said, I am unfamiliar with this issue, so I would be watching how this discussion leads to.

 

[concretecamper]

I’m a poor student of the Catholic church, but I would say there are several doctrines that have changed over the years - none of them rising to any issue of salvation for the adherent, but one in particular could lead to a Catholic having a poor notion of justification or sanctification. So… the easy ones: * Pious beliefs about Mary tuned into doctrine or dogma. * The Patriarch of Rome slowly turning into the the powerful Papal office with secular power, papal infallibility and universal jursidiction.
Here’s the one that may get some Catholics into a small amount of trouble: * Turning the correct teaching that ordinary salvation requires the church into the dogma of “no salvation outside the church.”
Where this becomes an issue is when a good Catholic perhaps uses this as part of their own personal justification - it could lead to a stunting of their justification and sanctification (for a time) if they point to it exclusively as evidence and then use that evidence to pronounce themselves in a state of Grace If I may put a caveat to all of this - the amount of Catholics that have been possible ensnared in this trap is probably zero. But I think there’s a danger of resting on the idea of “I’m as inside the church!” and perhaps take a bit too much pride in it that fact.

Isn’t it the other way around. The CCC clearly contemplates the possible salvation for all sorts. The teaching of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus has been “refined” in a positive light. While Roman Catholic are not obliged to believe private revelation, Our Lord told St. Faustina that at the moment of death, He is His greatest disciple. So…we all have one final chance to be Roman Catholic

 

[benjohnson]

Isn’t it the other way around. The CCC clearly contemplates the possible salvation for all sorts.

Sure! It’s the good Catholic that confines their understanding based on Unam Sanctum that I worry about.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

What changed in the Catholic Church constitute doctrinal changes to you (non-Catholics)? Of these changes are there any with salvific value?

I was thinking of another example yesterday. If the first edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church was declared a “sure norm” for teaching the faith by Pope John Paul, why would it need to be revised in a matter of only a few years?

 

[SteveVH]

I was thinking of another example yesterday. If the first edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church was declared a “sure norm” for teaching the faith by Pope John Paul, why would it need to be revised in a matter of only a few years?

There was absolutely zero change in the substance of the 2nd addition of the Catechism. They added some indexes that were not included in the first addition. One can legitimately use either addition as they are identical. The 2nd addition is just more “user friendly”, if you will.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

There was absolutely zero change in the substance of the 2nd addition of the Catechism. They added some indexes that were not included in the first addition. One can legitimately use either addition as they are identical. The 2nd addition is just more “user friendly”, if you will.

You can review the list of the significant number of changes here, although (inconveniently) this site doesn’t provide a side-by-side comparison of the first and second edition. Most discussed (and controversial) have been changes to paragraph 2267, as I’m sure you are aware. Which edition is the “sure norm”? I’m assuming it is the first one and not the second.

scborromeo.org/ccc/updates.htm

Maybe someone can provide a link to a side-by-side comparison–I would be interested in seeing that.

Also in just scanning through the changes, I noted an error or at least a gross confusion in the second edition revisions to para. 1170–the 14th of Nisan and the first full moon after the vernal Equinox are not the same thing. The celebration of Easter in the West is entirely independent of the Jewish calendar and the celebration of Passover, although the two can sometimes closely coincide.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

What changed in the Catholic Church constitute doctrinal changes to you (non-Catholics)? Of these changes are there any with salvific value?

The Pope’s insistence that he must have final say on all things above even an eccumenical council is a pretty big deal. As far as salvation goes, God only knows.

 

[concretecamper]

The Pope’s insistence that he must have final say on all things above even an eccumenical council is a pretty big deal. As far as salvation goes, God only knows.

Can you give me an example of this claim?

 

[Reuben_J]

I was thinking of another example yesterday. If the first edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church was declared a “sure norm” for teaching the faith by Pope John Paul, why would it need to be revised in a matter of only a few years?

Yes, I would wonder too why the need to revise the CCC. I don’t know about this. I kept a copy of the CCC when it was first published (Geoffrey Chapman, 1994) and have used it for reference ever since.

The last couple of months we have been discussing on the CCC based on a talk series by Dr. Sean Innerst on the Creed, the author of From Blessing to Blessing which outlines the catechetical principles on which the Pillars program is based in conjunction with the Year of Faith formation for our Community members. I brought my copy along on those nights and I did not seem to notice any difficulties or differences in its usage. I am sure the other brothers and sisters have the newer editions since some of them were quite new to the discussion and to the CCC.

 

[CrossofChrist]

You can review the list of the significant number of changes here, although (inconveniently) this site doesn’t provide a side-by-side comparison of the first and second edition. Most discussed (and controversial) have been changes to paragraph 2267, as I’m sure you are aware. Which edition is the “sure norm”? I’m assuming it is the first one and not the second.

scborromeo.org/ccc/updates.htm

Maybe someone can provide a link to a side-by-side comparison–I would be interested in seeing that.

Also in just scanning through the changes, I noted an error or at least a gross confusion in the second edition revisions to para. 1170–the 14th of Nisan and the first full moon after the vernal Equinox are not the same thing. The celebration of Easter in the West is entirely independent of the Jewish calendar and the celebration of Passover, although the two can sometimes closely coincide.

He said the substance is the same, i.e the meaning behind what is said in both editions remains identical. I don’t think he meant that it is word-for-word equivalent.

 

[Reuben_J]

He said the substance is the same, i.e the meaning behind what is said in both editions remains identical. I don’t think he meant that it is word-for-word equivalent.

It is the review in translation? I remembered that the English edition took a while to come out because of the enormous work required in translating the CCC to English.