Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
I’m keenly and excruciatingly aware
of the disingenuous glib cop-out regarding the Catechism. I was gifted a copy by a very rational RC hereon and have even begun to read some of it. Dreadful stuff, that.
The fact remains . . . A rather high-ranking official of the Vatican Institution approved the book as quite edifying and kosher for the faithful.
There’s no weasel words adequate to shirk that fact.
We realize that y’all seem to make it a RELIGIOUS DUTY to write and talk out of both sides . . . and jump to whichever side is expedient in whatever context and discussion.
That doesn’t wash with us Proddys and it doesn’t wash with God.
The arrogance that seems to think they are fooling God with such hubris is doubly hideous.
Hi newbie. I highly recommend the catechism be burnt, I burnt mine. Deception is repulsive.
Many of us have read portions of your catechism...And when we have pointed out some of the outright perversions of the scriptures in your catechism, you tell us that not only do we need a Catholic clergy to interpret the scriptures, we need a Catholic clergy to interpret your catechism...
The limits you guys go to to cover your tracks is astounding...So why recommend we read your catechism???
First of all, the "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" do NOT imply some kind of infallible stamp of approval on a work of art (writing) by the Catholic Church. Those things merely reflect the opinions of the persons whose names are attached to them concerning some specific work of art, not the infallible approval of Magisterium of the Church.
This is a matter of interpretation, and yours is to much a minimization and restriction of it. Some other RCS will object to anything without the stamps while in reality it pertains to more than art, as,
“The Nihil obstat and Imprimatur are a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia Revised and Updated (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), p. 288)
“The Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat are official declarations that a work is free from doctrinal or moral error. In a sense, this represents a negative approbation. It says the work contains no doctrinal or moral error. No implication is given, however, that the work has been endorsed by those who have granted the ecclesiastical approval or that they agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed in the work.” — http://old.usccb.org/catechism//update/spring98.shtml
This latter part is interpreted by a Roman Catholic site,
While at first glance this statement might seem contradictory, an example might be that of a Roman Catholic work that offered parenting advice — the advice may not be morally wrong or contradict Roman Catholic doctrine, but it might not reflect the views on parenting of the censor or bishop.) Imprimaturs are not automatically transferrable to later versions of a work. Any new edition also requires a new imprimatur to be obtained. The imprimatur can be revoked if, upon further examination, any doctrinal or moral error is found to be contained in the work. http://aquietmoment.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/imprimi-potest-nihil-obstat-imprimatur/
I think the caveat allows Bishops to approve works that are judged to be faithful to church teaching even if the bishop may disagree with it, as they sometimes do. And while this represents a negative approbation, that the work contains no doctrinal or moral error, it also can also be a positive affirmation to some degree when the work makes interpretive doctrinal statements based on what Rome has taught.
It also means that despite the assurance these stamps are supposed to provide, due to the fallible nature of the bishops then “works that are free from doctrinal or moral error and have received ecclesiastical approval from an individual diocesan bishop will not necessarily be found to be in conformity with the Catechism.”- http://old.usccb.org/catechism//update/spring98.shtml
And these stamps have quite a history, “To prevent the incursion of opinions that conflict with the church's teaching, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, created in 1542, has the authority to ban books which it adjudges to be dangerous to the faith and morals of the faithful. The catalog of such books is called the ‘Index of Prohibited Books’ and Roman Catholics are prohibited from reading any book on the Index without permission.
In addition, the members of the church may not read or even sell any book that is dangerous to faith and morals, even if it is not on the Index. Wherever faith and morals are involved, the church claims the right of censorship over books. No Roman Catholic may publish a book dealing with doctrinal or moral matters without having it censored. The Imprimatur which appears at the beginning or the end of a Roman Catholic book is the official notice that the book has been censored and that permission for its publication has been duly granted. It does not mean that the church assumes responsibility for every statement of fact and opinion in the book, but only that the book does not contain anything inimical to the faith and practice of the church. The Index prohibits, the Imprimatur protects. (Jaraslov Pelikan, historical scholar, later Orthodox layman “The Riddle of Roman Catholicism “(1959); http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/08/imprimatur-watch-what-youre-reading-my.html)
The huge change that led to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum was the change in the way books were being produced. As the manufacturing of books increased the production of books, the Church could no longer condemn each individual book. “The deluge of printed works that swept across the Continent from Germany, Switzerland, England and the Netherlands rendered explicit condemnation of each forbidden book quite impractical” (Burke 1952, p. 6). To try and solve the new problem the Church came up with new methods to suppress heretical books. “In 1467 Innocent VIII decreed that all books must be submitted to the local Church authorities for examination and permission before being issued for general reading… The license to publish was to be printed in each book… A similar decree was issued by Leo X at the Fifth Lateran Council on May 4, 1515, and addressed to the entire world. It is the first general decree of supervisory censorship that was universally accepted” (Burke 1952 p. 6-7). Soon after this the Index was created. — http://capping.slis.ualberta.ca/cap07/CeraSchachter/precursors.html
In any case, your own Catechism places significant weight on such approval:
The Church, given teaching authority by Christ and as the conduit for fullness of Truth on this earth, has the obligation to preserve Her sheep from deviations from the Truth and to to guarantee them the “objective possibility of professing the true faith without error” (Catechism, No. 890). Because of this, the Bishops will look at books published by Catholics on Catholic matters in their dioceses, giving them their “okay” if nothing therein is found to be contrary to the Faith (relevant Canon Law: “Title IV: The Means of Social Communication,” 822-832)
Cannot law also states, “Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.” 9 825 §1) — http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2Q.HTM
Also, if you genuinely want to know the real, official teachings of the Catholic Church, and many of the extensive Scripture references that support those teachings,
Are you saying the Catechism is an infallible document, that cannot err? And or that it is infallibly interpreting the (relative cursory) Scripture references it provides, and that these teachings do not require some interpretation?
And as you look to infallible pronouncements, can you tell us how many there are for sure, or is this a matter of interpretation, and which can also apply to some extent to their meaning?
Have you ever debated a sedevacantist?
How many Bible verses have been infallibly interpreted?
Please answer these yourself, while in regards to “the many glaring misconceptions you have about the Church that Jesus Christ founded” that Roman Catholics often charge their opponents with having (not without some warrant), i find RCs themselves can vary somewhat in their interpretation of what Rome officially teaching, and even on what is “official” teaching.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.