" ... Your Pope visits mosques and kisses the Koran. ..."
Posted on 05/10/2005 4:25:24 AM PDT by Robert Drobot
***I don't have time to do for you what you won't do for yourself, but to begin in a small way to answer your question, you yourself happen to be considered baptized into the faith if you've been baptized at all.***
But wait a second, the article specifically states...
"Two Catholic young men of my acquaintance, debating with a Protestant Minister, were likewise laughed to scorn when they in-formed the Protestant he must become Catholic to be saved."
Specifically, "...he must become Catholic to be saved".
So are you disagreeing with the article also? If so why are you disagreeing with me?
Experience. Our RCIA program uses the CCC extensively, and many of the catechumens and candidates go out and buy their own.
The shorter, condensed version of the CCC, to be compiled under the auspices of the USCCB, should certainly aid in making the CCC more widely used in catechetical programs of all kinds.
Yes sir we most certainly will, respectfully.
The need to format our Catechism in a way that is workable to various constituencies and situations has always been the case. Why do you think they have been manifest in so many different vehicles? There are many ways to learn the faith from the Baltimore "First Communion Catechism" to more extensive works such as "My Catholic Faith".
My problem isn't so much that JPII assembled a catechism, as that it has become a standard mainstay with the others being very purposely and intentionally cast aside. Now instead of a deep established well, we draw from a singular shallow one. Whether you're seeking to further science, history, faith or anything else ... it's a foolish way to proceed.
Good point -it's probably true that JPII was often not saying something that was meant as the authoritative teaching of the Church, but simply was the product of his own thought on the matter and was mistakenly assumed to be an authoritative statement (leaving Ratzinger and others to run around and clarify it later). I think he had enormous difficulty exercising the "authority" part of the Papacy, and one of the real problems with his legacy is not that it was an innovation, heretical, or anything else of that nature - but simply that he was very often ambiguous and making such a highly personal statement that it was difficult to interpret it.
*** You simply don't care to understand... Why not learn instead of just blurting out whatever comes to mind?***
Greetings to you! I hope your having a good day.
You're both right, it seems to me. I too was distressed by the fact that JPII often seemed to want replace everything (ranging from the Catechism to the Rosary) with his own version of it. But it's also true that tradition and the traditional sources had fallen into such disuse and were even regarded as quasi-forbidden that perhaps introducing a modicum of truth through his Catechism, which would be accepted simply because it was new and post- VatII, was better than nothing at all. And even so many radicals did not accept it.
That said, I wish he had reached back past VatII and simply insisted that people teach with the clarity and precision of the earlier Catechisms, and that these catechisms should have be used as the foundation for any new religious education materials and strategies.
All the World is not like New York.
Deo Gratias
The CCC is widely used in the Archdiocese of Washington, and in the Diocese of Arlington.
Your negative opinion of the CCC is noted. I disagree. I also have, and refer to, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and the Baltimore Catechism (which one of your traditionalist confreres recently condemned on this forum as being infected with "Americanism".) Rejecting everything from after 1962 is as silly as rejecting everything from before 1962.
Did you have to post that pic? Everyone here is very familiar with it has seen it more than they care to.
I hardly think that this is a ringing endorsement of the CCC, if this is the same diocese in which you openly claim that most mass going Catholics use birth control with absolutely no qualms; believing it fine to follow their own conscience in the matter even if it disagrees with constant magisterial teaching. Apparently the catechism they embrace has not helped them to embrace the faith.
That's fine to disagree, but do tell me what you think is good about it.
This particular practice is not unique to one diocese.
It still does not speak well of the efficacy of the CCC.
It has to be used.
By people.
If the people charged with teaching the Faith fail to do so, the fault is theirs; it does not lie with the toolmakers or the tools.
Many (not all) bishops, priests, deacons, religious, and parents have failed in their duty to live and to teach the Faith.
So you keep saying. I stated my criticisms of the CCC and they had nothing to to do with the year it was published. 1) It's too long. 2) It takes way too many words to state things that can be stated in much more concise ways. 3)It contains the doctrine of the faith, but before and after statements of doctrine there is endless, "on the other hand, however, although, etc." type of verbiage that obscures the doctrine. It is not as clear as other catechisms I use, which just happen to have been written prior to 1962, so draw your own conclusions. As for its fruits, just see my exchange above with sinkspur.
Some tools are more effective and easier to use than others, so they get used more frequently. Some tools are complicated, have too many parts, are too heavy or cumbersome to use so they end up donated to charity, collecting dust in the garage or in the garbage.
Many (not all) bishops, priests, deacons, religious, and parents have failed in their duty to live and to teach the Faith.
We are in complete agreement there.
So you keep saying. Too long? Have you read the CCT? It is to laugh! Too many words? That's a matter of taste. I disagree. Obscures the doctrine? Hardly. Your anti-particles on the modernist side bleat and holler that it's too doctrinaire, insufficiently nuanced, and out of touch with the modern world. When I quote the CCT to them, their heads explode. The CCC is a tool I can use when disagreeing with them.
Hurrah!!! ;'}
Correct, not in that quote. But that's only because what it means to be "united to the soul of the Church" has already been discussed in an earlier question of the Pius X Catechism. In short, "united to the soul of the Church" and "having the Spirit of God living within one" are functionally equivalent.
22 Q: In what does the Soul of the Church consist?A: The Soul of the Church consists in her internal and spiritual endowments, that is, faith, hope, charity, the gifts of grace and of the Holy Ghost, together with all the heavenly treasures which are hers through the merits of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, and of the Saints.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.