Author Topic: Catechism of the Catholic Church (Read 1501 times)

LaramieHirsch · « **on:** August 18, 2013, 01:12:47 PM »

Do Traditional Catholics use the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Why, or why not?

This came up on another thread.

inspiritu20 · « **Reply #1 on:** August 18, 2013, 01:19:00 PM »

Sort of.

I use the Baltimore Catechism as a reference and compare it with the CCC.

Where the CCC says the same thing as the BC, I use it. Where it doesn't, I default to the BC.

Hope that makes sense.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #2 on:** August 18, 2013, 01:28:51 PM »

Quote from: inspiritu20

Sort of.

I use the Baltimore Catechism as a reference and compare it with the CCC.

Where the CCC says the same thing as the BC, I use it. Where it doesn't, I default to the BC.

Hope that makes sense.

Why would a Traditional Catholic not like the CCC?

--Or, should I perhaps ask:

Who would not use it?

-Sedes?
-SSPX folk
-FSSP
-FSSP/NO attendees

Why or why would they not use it?

Tiffany · « **Reply #3 on:** August 18, 2013, 01:34:12 PM »

It's the product of a modernist.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #4 on:** August 18, 2013, 01:36:46 PM »

Quote from: Tiffany

It's the product of a modernist.

Explain more, please.

Also:

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

Who would not use it?

-Sedes?
-SSPX folk
-FSSP
-FSSP/NO attendees

Why or why would they not use it?

Tiffany · « **Reply #5 on:** August 18, 2013, 01:51:06 PM »

JPII was a modernist. I'm not comfortable to keep posting on this. I'll say this advice though like I would if you were my son, you have a CCC burn it, and stop referencing it. Stubborn has a link of trad talks, and in there it says something like anything right that comes from VII they got it from trad teaching. You are just burning corruption if you burn it, the good things in there can be found in trad teaching.

TCat · « **Reply #6 on:** August 18, 2013, 01:55:14 PM »

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

Quote from: Tiffany
It's the product of a modernist.

Explain more, please.

Also:

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

Who would not use it?

-Sedes?
-SSPX folk
-FSSP
-FSSP/NO attendees

Why or why would they not use it?

The CCC existed before the "modernism" of Vatican 2, but after Vatican 2 the new ideas that were dominant in Vatican 2 became part of the CCC.
There are pre-Vatican 2 versions of the CCC. The Vatican authorities changed certain sections of the CCC to suit the new ideology of Vatican 2.
Of course, the new ideas are heresies, and have been condemned by pre-Vatican 2 popes as heresy. The church was assailed by heresies before Vatican 2, but when the modernist revolution took place at V2, all previous heresies were made acceptable, because "modernism is the synthesis of all heresies".

I cant bring myself to accept that the post Vatican 2 popes were legitimate popes, and I don't think "pope francis" is even Catholic, so as a "Sede" I would rather use the pre-Vatican 2 CCC.

Also, I have the "YOUCAT" which is the youth version of the CCC brought out by benedict 16. It contains heresy, and on a side note, has quotes from famous atheists and even martin luther on the sides of the pages, along side false saints like the apostate "mother Theresa".

inspiritu20 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 18, 2013, 02:09:26 PM »

Quote

Who would not use it?

-Sedes?
-SSPX folk
-FSSP
-FSSP/NO attendees

Why or why would they not use it?

NO will use the current version of the CCC

SSPX and FSSP use earlier, pre-Vatican II versions of the CCC.

Sedes also use earlier, pre-Vatican II versions of the CCC.

I find it useful to track the changes in modern Church teaching so I compare the JPII CCC with pre-Vatican II versions (Baltimore).

I was catechised by the SSPX using a pre-Vatican II CCC.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #8 on:** August 18, 2013, 02:47:10 PM »

Interesting.

Is the Catechism supposed to be something infallible?

Matto · « **Reply #9 on:** August 18, 2013, 02:50:42 PM »

I thought traditionalists uses the Trent Catechism which is also called the Roman Catechism.

The CCC is John Paul II's Catechism and is not traditional.

Jehanne · « **Reply #10 on:** August 18, 2013, 03:15:48 PM »

Quote from: Matto

I thought traditionalists uses the Trent Catechism which is also called the Roman Catechism.

The CCC is John Paul II's Catechism and is not traditional.

This is what the CCC has to say about the Roman Catechism:

Quote

9 "The ministry of catechesis draws ever fresh energy from the councils. The Council of Trent is a noteworthy example of this. It gave catechesis priority in its constitutions and decrees. It lies at the origin of the Roman Catechism, which is also known by the name of that council and which is a work of the first rank as a summary of Christian teaching. . . ." The Council of Trent initiated a remarkable organization of the Church's catechesis. Thanks to the work of holy bishops and theologians such as St. Peter Canisius, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Turibius of Mongrovejo or St. Robert Bellarmine, it occasioned the publication of numerous catechisms.

The CCC references the Roman Catechism at least a dozen times, such as this:

Quote

987 "In the forgiveness of sins, both priests and sacraments are instruments which our Lord Jesus Christ, the only author and liberal giver of salvation, wills to use in order to efface our sins and give us the grace of justification" (Roman Catechism, I, 11, 6).

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a10.htm

TCat · « **Reply #11 on:** August 18, 2013, 03:17:06 PM »

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

Interesting.

Is the Catechism supposed to be something infallible?

The pre-Vatican 2 catechism is not infallible by itself, since it can be subject to change, but it defines at whatever time the things that a Catholic is required to believe in order to be a member of the church. Therefore when changes are made to the catechism, the definition of Catholic is changed, and throughout history when heresies and error became official, to formally counter those heresies, the Catechism would include the "Catholic" opinion on the matters they pertain to.

So is the catechism infallible? it IS as far as it contains opinions in union with various popes who spoke Ex-Cathedra on a subject. It is not infallible when the pope is a heretic himself, and promulgates an opinion which is not "Catholic" as Catholicity has been understood in its near 2000 year history.

So the definition of "Catholic" can change with time, for the removal of heresy, in order that "discovered religion" will be known in greater purity, and the overall CCC will contain less errors and more truth.

What the Catholic church up to Vatican 2 considered "discovered / revealed religion" was along the lines of the qualities of those who were made Catholic saints, who by miracles attributed to them, proved that they enjoy the favour of God, and logically that their beliefs on various matters contain the truth, which true religion must always incorporate into its doctrine.

inspiritu20 · « **Reply #12 on:** August 18, 2013, 03:23:02 PM »

CCC = Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Trent to JPII and everything in between, they all reflect what Catholics have been required to believe.

The JPII CCC contains modernist material and carries a health warning.

StCeciliasGirl · « **Reply #13 on:** August 18, 2013, 03:56:04 PM »

Compare Trent Section on Adultery (note, it's to the point) to Baltimore, Commandments 3, 4, 5, and 6 (even MORE to the point), and then look at JP2's CCC section 2 chapter 2 article 6 The 6th Commandment. The latter is VERY LONG, and really, would you read that to young children? To teens? Do a search on each page for "masturbation", for example —Trent and Baltimore assume you have some sense and God's grace, and don't have to spell things out, so you won't find that word in those catechisms. But you will find that term (and more) in the CCC.

That's just the 6th C (which Trent covers in detail without being vile, and Baltimore covers with a few sentences — like God did). You ought to be able to read a catechism to catechists in their teens without giving them ideas. The CCC is unnecessarily "detailed". And WHY is it detailed? I think the excuse was that stubborn unbelievers said that this word or that word weren't specifically IN the Catechism, so it must be okay, so the conciliarists felt the need to spell it all out. —For people who aren't even believers.

Jehanne · « **Reply #14 on:** August 18, 2013, 05:33:18 PM »

"Is masturbation a sin?" Yes, it is:

Quote

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sɛҳuąƖ pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action." "The deliberate use of the sɛҳuąƖ faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sɛҳuąƖ pleasure is sought outside of "the sɛҳuąƖ relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

Having read the Roman Catechism and much of the Baltimore as well, their silence on this subject is somewhat strange. Saint Thomas, in his Summa, discusses this issue; why not catechisms?

P.S. Most Protestants of today and virtually all secularists see masturbation as being completely natural.