Talk:Catechism of the Catholic Church/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I have removed the sentence reading: "The Roman Catholic Church looks at the CCC as being equal in authority and value to other scripture, like the Bible" because I believe this overstates the case.

The Catholic Church teaches that Holy Scripture is divinely inspired and inerrant; that beside the written Scripture there has always been an unwritten Holy Tradition that is equally a part of the 'deposit of faith;' and that the Church will faithfully interpret and teach the truths of the Faith under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through the dogmatic definitions of the Councils and the Popes.

The Church teaches no such thing about the Catechism. Rather, the Catechism represents an authoritative exposition of the Church's teaching, as derived from Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. The Catechism presents and explains divinely inspired and infallible truths, but it is not itself either divinely inspired nor infallible, any more than I am if I quote from Scripture or from one of the Ecumenical councils.

Athanasius 01:05, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

POV

The article seems to me to take a very negative POV toward the Catechism. We define what it is in a few lines, then move to a "Critics" section that focuses almost entirely on the Society of Pius X and their objections to specific doctrines. Shouldn't we have more positive information here. As it stands, it seems like "Traditionalist Views on the Catechism". I was tempted to try a small edit to fix it, but I think it needs quite a bit of reworking to really be neutral. If I get time, I'll try to look into it, but if someone else can do it, so much the better. Mpolo 18:36, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

It is also true that some liberals aren't great fans of it either. As one person I know put it, the Catechism presents the Catholic faith as monolithic and inflexible, and draws no distinctions between those things that must be believed and those things that the magisterium would like to be believed.

Apparently no one between the death of Thomas Aquinas in 1274 and the Second Vatican Council said anything worth quoting (except for occasional papal statements). I don't remember where, but there was one place where I thought of a quote from Martin Luther that would be apropos, and another place a quote from Robert Bellarmine. Jhobson1 17:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

War

Wasn't there opposition to the Catechism for its doctrine on just war and death penalty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.3.170 (talk) 23 November 2004

More on the POV & Criticisms

The section on the CCC's "sexism," while rather interesting, strike me as entirely groundless. Obviously "the poor and humble of the Lord" are not going to be only women! The fact that CCC took pains to call out the roles of the many poor and humble women who did God's will is anything but sexism. Just because "some people" (yay for weasel words!) have a certain criticism does not mean it merits inclusion here.

For now I'm going to leave it is at is, but I'm adding the "weasel words" and "non-neutral" tags as well. Obviously there's plenty of value in some of the sections, but, as Mpolo said, the article is mostly filled with critiques and that's not a neutral POV. Vespers 05:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

By all means take it out. The history of the page shows that it arose from an accusation of sexism made precisely within the article, which called for a refutation. Lima 05:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Catechism is sexist. Here is Paragraph 489:

Throughout the Old Covenant the mission of many holy women prepared for that of Mary. At the very beginning there was Eve; despite her disobedience, she receives the promise of a posterity that will be victorious over the evil one, as well as the promise that she will be the mother of all the living. By virtue of this promise, Sarah conceives a son in spite of her old age. Against all human expectation God chooses those who were considered powerless and weak to show forth his faithfulness to his promises: Hannah, the mother of Samuel; Deborah; Ruth; Judith and Esther; and many other women. Mary "stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from him. After a long period of waiting the times are fulfilled in her, the exalted Daughter of Sion, and the new plan of salvation is established."

Deborah, the judge and prophet of Israel, a woman holding genuine political power in a staunchly patriarchal society, "powerless and weak"? Judith, who singlehandedly slew Holofernes with his own sword, "powerless and weak"? Esther, who saved the Jews from Haman, "powerless and weak"? Would you call Ruth "powerless and weak"? No, that paragraph can only be called sexist. Jhobson1 17:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this -- I think you may overlook the word "considered." As I read it, the CCC is not stating that they were actually powerless and weak, but rather that even though they would have been considered powerless and weak by their staunchly patriarchal society, God nevertheless enabled them to be otherwise. As I read it, the CCC is actually celebrating them as powerful and strong, in the face of what society may have expected. Mlouns 17:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; more specifically celebrating them as faithful, whereas their "reward" of worldly strength is claimed to be evidence thereof. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I strike my comment. But Mlouns is correct nonetheless. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Indifferentism

This hould definitely be changed form "the heresy". Other religions have just as much proof of their god or gods as catholics, and as much right to believe what they want as us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.250.126 (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2007

From the Catholic POV, it's a heresy. Christians call each other heretics all the time. Not a big deal. Jonathan Tweet 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

changes

Can we include a section on how this catechism differs from the one it replaced, or from other, previous catechisms for that matter? I understand that changes in church teaching a sore subject for some Catholics, but its relevant. Jonathan Tweet 14:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The only previous catechism it can be compared to is the Roman Catechism of 1566, authorized by the Council of Trent. The two are not really all that comparable, since the Roman Catechism was intended for use by priests, and the CCC is intended for both priests and laity. They have the same general format, but the CCC is a wholly new book covering the same topics rather than a revision of the Roman Catechism. Jhobson1 (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean?

In 1997, a Latin text was issued which is now the official text of reference[3] the contents of the first French text being amended at a few points.[4] --Filll (talk | wpc) 01:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

another es. wp (interwiki) - - - es:Compendio del Catecismo de la Iglesia Católica

With this : Revision history of Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we can see that Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is not an article, is a redirection to the article Catechism of the Catholic Church.

• So, at en. wp there's only one article: Catechism of the Catholic Church, but two at the es. wp es:Compendio del Catecismo de la Iglesia Católica & es:Catecismo de la Iglesia Católica
• Now, about the interwikis between the two wikipedias: the logical/normal interwiki are : Catechism of the Catholic Church, with es:Catecismo de la Iglesia Católica. And vice versa (with position turned). So here, no problem.

But the English interwiki of the second Spanish article, es:Compendio del Catecismo de la Iglesia Católica is, too, an interwiki to Catechism of the Catholic Church. Remember that there're two Spanish articles versus one English, so is good for the each of the two Spanish article points to the English one.

• Finally, the question is this: I think that is good not to have only one Spanish interwiki at the English article. I'm going to add it. --PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"False" ecumenism?

The Controversy section listed opposition against

"false ecumenism (cooperation with non-Catholic Christians)".

However, the definition of ecumenism given in the linked article describes this as the ordinary narrower concept of ecumenism; the broader would include other Abrahamitic religions. Now, it is quite possible that the opposing Catholics consider this "ordinary" ecumenism as "false" in some important way; perhaps because they are of the opinion that ecumenism in reality means something different from "cooperation with non-Catholic christians". Perhaps, they only count encouragement to subjugation under the Pope in combination with respect for continuing non-Roman rites as "true" ecumenism. However, this is just a guess. I really don't know; there are no texts or references explaining the attribute "false".

Hence, I removed "false", and I would recommend anyone who might want to reverse this also to add some (sourced) explanation or link to an explanation about in what sense the opposing Catholics considers "cooperation with non-Catholic Christians" as false ecumenism. JoergenB (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Broken link

http://overkott.dyndns.org/ccc-search.htm does not work.63.3.2.1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Don't know what was intended except maybe a high level pointer anyway. I deleted it. Student7 (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The first catechism?

Was there really no earlier versions - did the Catholic church not have a catechism prior to the Ratzinger/JPII version? --90.233.233.70 (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Traditional Catechism of the Catholic Church

This sentence must be included as the Traditional Catechism of the Catholic Church IS the SAME as the Cathechism with the only difference that in all segments that are controvertial or hard to understand there is a clear explanation to avoid misinterpretation. That it is. Other than that is 100% the Catechism published by John Paul II in 1992. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aroniel2 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Aroniel2! Thanks for the explanation. I've moved the references of that book in the "Derived works" section of the article, that seems the appropriate place where to cite derived works. Keeping its reference in the section dedicated to the contents of Catechism of the Catholic Church could seem to the reader a tentative to make a direct comparison between the two works. I've also fixed the link to the "Compendium", which pointed to a redirect and not to the actual name of the article and removed a very strong claim ("corresponds the more common idea of a catechism") which was not referenced by any independent and notable source. Happy editing! LowLevel73^(talk) 17:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)