Why does the Catechism get revised then?
Two main reasons. One is that our understanding of God’s revelation of Himself develops over time.
Second, the needs of the culture change over time. For example, the issues we see now with legalized abortion and in vitro fertilization did not exist before.
As often as the Church deems necessary.
And whom am I trusting to proof read these revisions?
If you can’t trust Jesus to guide His One Church as He promised, then you certainly will not be able to trust those He has left to serve it until He comes again.
And what assurance do I have the proof reader is given the gift of prophecy?
Proofreaders do not develop the text. It is developed by those to whom He made the promise that He would guide them into “all Truth”.
Code:
Where is the scriptural process laid down by either Our Lord or Peter (or someone else with gift of prophecy like Paul, whom Peter approved) for choosing the successor of Peter?
This is a very good question. There is quite a bit of scripture in relation to Apostolic Succession. Just a clue, though, since Pentecost we don’t use the drawing of lots anymore.
So your saying James is wrong in 1:5? "5But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.’’
Scripture is written by, for, and about Catholics. It is difficult to understand it apart from the faith that produced it. The Holy Spirit does not guide one person in one direction (with regard to the meaning of scripture) and another in the opposite. Such verses must be understood within their context, which is the Catholic Church.
But how can life be in them if they did not partake of the Eucharist? Because the Catholic position says (as I understand it) the only way to receive Christ’s Flesh and Blood is in the Eucharist?
God is not bound by the methods He gives to humans. He can give life to whoever He likes however He wants. He gives us a sure and confident way to know we have life in us, through the Eucharist.
I agree. Councils can help define a doctrine by making the teaching more clear on a debated matter. But IF a great division still exists within the Church after a Council it means the Church did not fully explain the doctrine.
Perhaps, or perhaps those in schism just did not accept the explanation?
Do you really believe all those Arians just suddenly changed their minds after the Council of Nicea?
It needs work so it can be accepted by both sides. Look at the joint agreement on justification. A restatement of position (IE a better teaching) brought two factions closer together on agreement on the issue.
There is certainly a great deal of ecumenical work yet to be completed.
So to take the stance (as both sides to) of having a fullness of teaching authority on that matter seems absurd to me.
It seems absurd to you that people with two different ideas both think they are right?
Let’s take a look at where teaching on the Trinity doctrine could be improved.
My you are an audacious one, are you not?
So God is not all knowing, or all wise enough to structure a universe where all things freely chose Him? Is this beyond His capacity?
Certainly not. I am sure He could have done it that way if He so desired.
So as long as someone truly believes what they hold to be true then that is what keeps them in unity with Christ?
Not if it is in contradiction to what God has revealed about Himself. At least unless the person is not invincibly ignorant. I can assure you that you do not qualify as such.
But a full council requires all the Bishops. And whom is a Bishop? What makes a Bishop? Whom is included?
This is also an excellent question and one which has been addressed in many ways over the last 2000 years.
The saints are Alive in Christ at the end and it is to Christ whom they plead with (metaphorically because the events would already be accomplished). It is God showing that He is the one whom will exact Justice for those of His saints whom suffered because of the choices of others. They plead though it is already accomplished. As for appearances in the old Testament the same could be applied. The Ghosts that appeared at the death of Christ for example could have been them appearing to convince the Jews of what they had done to the One whom they were in.
The saints plead with Christ metaphorically? How does that work, exactly?
The people who appeared in Jerusalem after the resurrection were not “ghosts”. Scripture is clear that the tombs were opened. They were in their resurrected bodies.
