To: murphE
I like the way it is organised, and I think (contra your opinion) that it is clearly and beautifully written. I'm aware that it's fashionable in traditionalist circles to heap disrespect on everything that was done after 1962; it's the analogue of the fashion in modernist circles to denigrate everything done before 1962. This habit of antiquarianism is one reason I no longer call myself a traditionalist.
34 posted on
05/10/2005 10:15:41 AM PDT by
ArrogantBustard
(Western Civilisation is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
To: ArrogantBustard
I'm aware that it's fashionable in traditionalist circles to heap disrespect on everything that was done after 1962 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.
36 posted on
05/10/2005 10:28:59 AM PDT by
murphE
(These are days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed but his own. --G.K. Chesterton)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson