For those who label themselves "Trads"

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Apr 17 2006, 01:08 AM']There are some not infallible truths in the Catechism.  As long as they are of faith and morals we must obey them. 

There are some non-teachings too that don't have much to do with faith or morals (though very, very rare).
[right][snapback]950282[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Please stop. You are muddying the waters. That is an incorrect statement and it leads one to believe that we don't have to hold the whole of the Catechism as authoritative.

Care to show me a fallible truth, Zach?

[Cam42]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Apr 17 2006, 07:10 AM']what's wrong w/ the Catechism?
[right][snapback]950384[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Nothing, it is an organic extension of the Magisterium, envisioned in Vatican Council II. It is just as binding on the faithful as the Code of Canon Law or the other documents of the Council.

This is clearly explained in the promulgating documents at the beginning of the Catechim of the Catholic Church.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i don't know any trad, that is the biggest fan of the New Catechism.

[quote]In particular, the novelties of Vatican II appear in the following paragraphs:

    *

      an infatuation with the dignity of man (§§225; 369; 1700; 1929...),
    *

      such that we may hope for the salvation of all the baptized (§§1682ff),
    *

      even non-Catholics (§818),
    *

      or those who commit suicide (§2283),
    *

      and of all the unbaptised, whether adults (§847),
    *

      or infants (§1261);
    *

      which is the basis of all rights (§§1738; 1930; 1935) including that of religious liberty (§§2106ff),
    *

      and the motive of all morality (§1706; 1881; 2354; 2402; 2407, etc.),
    *

      a commitment to ecumenism (§820f; 1399; 1401) because all religions are instruments of salvation (§§819; 838-843; 2104),
    *

      collegiality (§§879-885),
    *

      over-emphasis on the priesthood of the faithful (§§873; 1547; 1140ff, etc.). [/quote]

basically this is what they do not like. they stick to the traditional catechisms like the Baltimore Catechism, and the Catechism of Pius X.

[son_of_angels]

Authoritative refers specifically to the fact that it is talking correctly about what it talks about, or at least in such a way that it properly represents current instructions on how to represent such things. However, as has been said before, neither the Catechism, nor something based on the Catechism, has the power to raise a doctrine above the status which it already possesses in terms of "dogma" etc.

That is why the Catechism is a great introduction to 2000 years of Catholic teaching, but not an end to it. One should get out their catechism, get out the original documents, some of which ARE infallible in one way or another, and get to studying, rather than simply saying, "O, the catechism says blankety-blank so blankety-blank."

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 17 2006, 10:30 AM']i don't know any trad, that is the biggest fan of the New Catechism.

[right][snapback]950443[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I am Sam. I love the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And I am most definintely "trad."

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 17 2006, 05:40 AM']Please stop.  You are muddying the waters.  That is an incorrect statement and it leads one to believe that we don't have to hold the whole of the Catechism as authoritative.

Care to show me a fallible truth, Zach?
[right][snapback]950394[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Nope because I would accept the (we're using the term infallible teaching now because someone corrected me on that) with a religious submission of mind and will and not question which is which.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 17 2006, 09:57 AM']I am Sam.  I love the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  And I am most definintely "trad."
[right][snapback]950503[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Let me rephrase. I don't know any Ultra-Traditionalist, who is a fan of teh CCC.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 17 2006, 12:13 PM']Let me rephrase. I don't know any Ultra-Traditionalist, who is a fan of teh CCC.
[right][snapback]950515[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I would consider myself Ultra-Traditionalist. Considering I MC Pontifical Solemn High Masses in the Tridentine Rite, I would say that I can classify myself as an Ultra-Traditionalist, who loves the CCC.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 17 2006, 10:38 AM']I would consider myself Ultra-Traditionalist.  Considering I MC Pontifical Solemn High Masses in the Tridentine Rite, I would say that I can classify myself as an Ultra-Traditionalist, who loves the CCC.
[right][snapback]950543[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Cam,

calling People "anti-semetic" when they just repeat what Past Popes, and saints have said is not Traditional.

[Desert Walker]

The most important thing to remember about official Catholic Catechisms is that NONE of them contradict each other, NONE of them negate each other, and each one throws light on the other.

They are ALL indispensible.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 17 2006, 12:54 PM']Cam,

calling People "anti-semetic" when they just repeat what Past Popes, and saints have said is not Traditional.
[right][snapback]950558[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sam,

Anti-Semitism is an outrage against the dignity of the human person. The Church teaches this.

You need to grow up a little more, before you start making outrageously naive statements.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Apr 17 2006, 04:10 AM']what's wrong w/ the Catechism?
[right][snapback]950384[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Catholic v. Catholic debate I don't believe is allowed here. I'm not going to allow my beliefs to interfere with the rules. But I do see pretty obvious problems with it.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Apr 17 2006, 04:11 AM']if you aren't sure that the Pope is Pope, then I suggest that the 'Church Militant' designation be removed
[right][snapback]950386[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That's what people have been saying and I don't disagree. Someone just inform dUST and let's take care of that.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Apr 17 2006, 08:52 AM']That's what people have been saying and I don't disagree.  Someone just inform dUST and let's take care of that.
[right][snapback]950640[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I am somewhat surprised by your "sedevacantist" views, because it is one thing to prefer the use of the pre-conciliar missal in the Latin Church, and quite another thing to doubt the validity of the ministry of the present Pope.

[goldenchild17]

Yes it is definitely two entirely different things, to dislike post-conciliar decisions and to believe them altogether invalid. I never expected to consider the position I have, but... I can't explain things any other way at the moment(still holding out hope that phatcatholic and cam42 can straighten me up : ) and I need to be honest with myself and try to follow the Church no matter how scary the proposition.

Edited April 17, 2006 by goldenchild17