Why it doesn't matter what I believe

[James248]

I suggest you read all the points you posted and maybe think what I said. You seem to focus on only the saucy part. I suggest the Catachism of Trent it has a lot more and also “authoritative”.

Interesting you pointed out your last point… does the CCC state Catholics “will” be saved?

And also. I am still hung up about rejecting Christ and also being called a Christian? Please explain this:blush:

You need to read the CCC quote again.

 

[MichaelP3]

You need to read the CCC quote again.

I think you misunderstood me. I studied various previous CCCs as I have stated and I am referring you to them. I can actually agree with you thats what it is trying to say but in the same breath trying to be nice in the current one.

So to move onwards! I posed questions?

1. How can a person reject Christ and still be called a Christian?
2. Does the CCC teach Catholics “will” be saved?

I am asking to clarify what you said. I didn’t bring that up, you did. I am trying to understand.

 

[Vonsalza]

I studied various previous CCCs as I have stated and I am referring you to them.

Whoa whoa whoa. What do you mean by “various previous CCCs”?

The catechism wasn’t put out prior to 1992. What are you talking about?

 

[James248]

Whoa whoa whoa. What do you mean by “various previous CCCs”?

The catechism wasn’t put out prior to 1992. What are you talking about?

+1

 

[Debbie_Kono]

Whoa whoa whoa. What do you mean by “various previous CCCs”?

The catechism wasn’t put out prior to 1992. What are you talking about?

The Catechism of the Council of Trent? It is required reading for taking Fr. John Hardon’s Marian Catechism advanced class.

 

[mlz]

No, don’t take my word for it. Pray and if you, God confirms that your priests are guiding you correctly then you gave your answer. I’m sure you’ve already done this. It’s just I don’t get the same answer. I don’t really get a particular or clear answer.
You can pray and experience the Holy Spirit outside of church, they don’t have a monopoly on God.
I’m not saying anyone should change what they believe if they know it to be true. I don’t know why anyone would listen to me if I did say that.

It’s fine if you don’t get what I’m saying, you can’t force belief on anyone. It’s s process of discernment.

I’m hearing you using the word " belief"in your explanation… hmmm?! This is confusing given all that you’ve already shared. I am grateful you are seeking Truth as should we all. But Truth is a person. God became a man in His Son Jesus. He IS the Way, the Truth and the Life and when we come to know Him we know His Father and after being baptized are given His Spirit which if we cooperate with grow in our knowledge and understanding of the Triune God. Christ is either who He said he is or is a liar or crazy … ultimately this is the bottom line . Who is Jesus ? If he is God then we must be His followers and live in obedience to Hos Divine Will as we grow in our relationship with our Saviour and Lord! You can’t be relative when it comes to Jesus Christ!!! Sounds like you’ve been worn out from seeking and found what you are concluding to be a " safe spot" for now. He wants your full commitment!! He desires that. We all must choose. We’ve been given the free will to choose. He deeply desires that all His children come to Him through His Son!!! I will pray for you on your journey to Truth
In Christ’s love,
mlz

 

[reggieM]

The Catechism of the Council of Trent? It is required reading for taking Fr. John Hardon’s Marian Catechism advanced class.

Side note - I was blessed to meet Fr. Hardon. What a saintly man and brilliant teacher. I took his introductory Catechism course years ago and what I learned there stayed with me my whole life. It came out before the 1992 CCC so it was built on his own Catechism, which is a fantastic book, still valuable and relevant today.
You are very blessed to be doing (or have done) the Marian Catechism advanced class! That is a tremendous preparation (I’d love to do it) far better than what one can find in just about any Catholic institution in America today, in my opinion.

 

[reggieM]

I think you misunderstood me. I studied various previous CCCs as I have stated and I am referring you to them. I can actually agree with you thats what it is trying to say but in the same breath trying to be nice in the current one.

I believe you’re talking about stronger emphasis given in previous Catholic catechisms (there are dozens) on salvation outside of the Church. It’s a matter of interpretation and that can grow and develop over time. Ecumenism was something stressed more after Vatican II, but the roots of that were always present.

So to move onwards! I posed questions?

1. How can a person reject Christ and still be called a Christian?

I guess it depends on who is doing the “calling” of anyone a Christian. People accept and reject a lot of contradictory things and are still called Christian either by themselves or by someone else. We know what it means to be a Catholic, what is required and how, specifically, a person can be a member of the Catholic Church. That is all clear. However, how one becomes a Christian - or who is or isn’t a Christian - that is more complicated. On the above, it depends on what you mean “reject Christ”.

1. Does the CCC teach Catholics “will” be saved?

I haven’t followed this discussion so I don’t know why you would ask that.
But Salvation is why Christ founded the Catholic Church (as we believe He did).

 

[Vonsalza]

The Catechism of the Council of Trent? It is required reading for taking Fr. John Hardon’s Marian Catechism advanced class.

I totally see and already understood your point.

But my pre-loaded counter is CCT=/=CCC. Scope is not the same, obviously.

Prior to 1992, the compilation of all core Catholic belief was a messy thing.

 

[MichaelP3]

I totally see and already understood your point.

But my pre-loaded counter is CCT=/=CCC. Scope is not the same, obviously.

Prior to 1992, the compilation of all core Catholic belief was a messy thing.

There is also the Catechism of St Pius X.

So now I am again confused. Are you suggesting these documents can be discarded or said to be inaccurate?

And the discussion has never been about “all core” beliefs. Or maybe Im wrong. Just other official documents that also address this point.

But actually I am not understand the purpose of your question. I am just referring the poster to documents he may like and seems to have never even heard of. You too actually by the looks of it.

Regards

 

[reggieM]

All of the teachings in the Catechism of Trent should be found, unchanged in the current CCC. It’s not like the Church creates new core teachings. Some non-infallible directives change change over time, so catechisms need updates in that way. Additionally, some interpretations change.
But a Catholic who uses the official Catechism of Trent can never be found to believe anything in error. It’s a magisterial document. The same is similar (though less offical) for the Catechisms of St. Pius X, or St. Robert Bellarmine. The Baltimore Catechism is a document from the American bishops. The Deharbe Catechism is a great one from the past. There are countless others. The Fr. Hardon Catechism is a masterpiece.
St. Thomas’ Summa is a catechism of sorts - obviously more comprehensive than the '92 CCC. But the '92 CCC includes much more than “core teachings”, including non-infallible, reformable teachings and interpretations. We remain bound to follow the teachings of the CCC, knowing they are a “sure guide” to salvation.

 

[reggieM]

There is also the Catechism of St Pius X.

So now I am again confused. Are you suggesting these documents can be discarded or said to be inaccurate?

If he meant that, it would be a big mistake. No, those previous catechisms remain true and non-heretical. They are not discarded.

 

[Vonsalza]

There is also the Catechism of St Pius X.

So now I am again confused. Are you suggesting these documents can be discarded or said to be inaccurate?

Not at all. But you referenced previous “CCCs”, which means “Catechism of the Catholic Church”.

I’m not aware of a comprehensive catechism existing prior to the 90s.

But actually I am not understand the purpose of your question. I am just referring the poster to documents he may like and seems to have never even heard of. You too actually by the looks of it.

As a comprehensive catechism of the Catholic Church, you’re completely right; I’ve never heard of one before the 1992 publication.

 

[reggieM]

Not at all. But you referenced previous “CCCs”, which means “Catechism of the Catholic Church”.

I’m not aware of a comprehensive catechism existing prior to the 90s.

No catechism is “comprehensive” in the sense of teaching all possible Catholic concepts. The current CCC excludes many things, some of which can be found in other catechisms, or in Denzinger or Ott or the Summa or the Catholic Encyclopedia.

On the other hand, there were many comprehensive catechisms prior to 1992 - teaching the core, fundamental teachings necessary for salvation.

 

[fhansen]

Not at all. But you referenced previous “CCCs”, which means “Catechism of the Catholic Church”.

I’m not aware of a comprehensive catechism existing prior to the 90s.

As a comprehensive catechism of the Catholic Church, you’re completely right; I’ve never heard of one before the 1992 publication.

Actually the Catechism of the Council of Trent is quite involved. My copy is almost 600 pages, divided, as has been the tradition for centuries, into four parts, basically the Creed, the Sacraments, the Decalogue, and Prayer.

 

[Vonsalza]

No catechism is “comprehensive” in the sense of teaching all possible Catholic concepts.

I suppose that rings true.

It was easier when I was a Baptist. I just had an incomplete 66-book bible and maybe The Baptist Faith and Message.

There’s less writing to review when your “church” is just a few centuries old.

Objection withdrawn.

 

[reggieM]

I suppose that rings true.

It was easier when I was a Baptist. I just had an incomplete 66-book bible and maybe The Baptist Faith and Message.

There’s less writing to review when your “church” is fewer than a few centuries old.

True.
We have some amazing resources that go back a very long way. And the beautiful thing is that they are all still true and actually relevant!

 

[reggieM]

A side note - I love the CCC. It’s a masterpiece. St. John Paul II did an immense amount of good with that.
However …
One of the unfortunate consequences of having such a good resource is that it’s easy to fall into the idea that previous catechisms are useless now. Like old software after an upgrade comes out - nobody wants or uses the old versions.

But that would really impoverish us to take that idea. Older catechisms are tremendously valuable. Yes, the doctrines are the same but there are different ways to word things, and different explanations and examples, comparisons, stories - etc.

Before 1992 I made an effort to collect catechisms - and actually read them.
There is so much beautiful material in those old books.
I mentioned Fr. Hardon’s - that remains a classic.
Also, Fr. Ripley’s “This is the Faith” - is magnificent. It’s surprising how much we can learn as a different author explains the same doctrine in a different way.

 

[MichaelP3]

Not at all. But you referenced previous “CCCs”, which means “Catechism of the Catholic Church”.

I’m not aware of a comprehensive catechism existing prior to the 90s.

As a comprehensive catechism of the Catholic Church, you’re completely right; I’ve never heard of one before the 1992 publication.

Oh lol. I thought CCC stand for Catechism of the Catholic Church and just typed it in order not to type Catechism the entire time. In all honesty I never even saw CCC any other place then here. My bad.

Taking that into account I guess we were just misunderstanding each other and are actually in agreement.

But thats not actually the point. The point is that previous official documents have stated these softer points today much harsher previously. (Comprehensive or not, that was never even part of the point)

 

[Vonsalza]

But thats not actually the point. The point is that previous official documents have stated these softer points today much harsher previously. (Comprehensive or not, that was never even part of the point)

Oh, that’s just part of the times and Protestantism is no different in that regard.

Like Johnathan Edwards’ “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” progressing to Spurgeon’s “Heaven and Hell” to the current Baptist minister’s series on “How God Loves You More Than Anything”.

The progression between the two is the same. As a rule of marginal analysis, it is then to be removed from consideration.