What is the value (if any) of the catechism of Trent?

[Desert Walker]

What is the value (if any) of the Catechism of Trent in our "modern" times?

This might seem a broad question, but I think it has a straight answer.

I still struggle at times to understand the value of the current Roman Liturgy in light of my (rather limited I suppose) knowledge of past liturgical forms. I see the Liturgy and catechesis as so closely related as to be dependent on each-other in a vital way. With this viewpoint, I am bothered by the Liturgy as it is today because it strikes me quite often as a banal attempt at accomplishing "something to do with church." And then I'll pick up the modern Catechism and read a few lines and feel like I'm reading a technical paper (this doesn't happen every time). The funny thing is that this feeling is tied up in the liturgical experience which I have almost every Sunday.

Is it wrong to feel more comfortable with pre-Vatican II Catholic stuff than with post-Vatican II Catholic stuff?

I spent two years in a religious formation program which is regarded by many as a program fully alive with the "spirit of Vatican II, and, after I exited that particular religious order's system, I nearly left the Church as well. I started thinking "a religion this full of disunity isn't worth being a part of."

But it was stuff like the Catechism of Trent, and certain so-called "Traditionalists" like Fr. Malachi Martin, that ultimately rejuvenated my faith in God; because the pre-Vatican II mentality is often so much more CERTAIN about the Deposit of Faith. That certainty rubbed off on me (though the ride has been really bumpy).

[Nathan]

[quote name='Desert Walker' post='987102' date='May 22 2006, 09:38 AM']But it was stuff like the Catechism of Trent, and certain so-called "Traditionalists" like Fr. Malachi Martin, that ultimately rejuvenated my faith in God; because the pre-Vatican II mentality is often so much more CERTAIN about the Deposit of Faith. That certainty rubbed off on me (though the ride has been really bumpy).[/quote]

I can't really comment on the Catechism of the Council of Trent, but I too have been feeling disillusioned with the whole "spirit of Vatican II" recently -- that is, the misinterpretations that are so widespread and have crept into Catholic life in so many ways. Things have gotten out of hand. Sometimes I think the Church would be better off if Vatican II never happened. I don't know. At the end of the day, though, I must resign myself to God's decision. He knows what is best for the Church.

[Fidei Defensor]

There is nothing wrong with prefering the "old ways" aka Pre-VII spiritual style, as long as you don't reject the things which came from VII. The Church understands that everyone has a preference as to their style of spirituality. This is why the Holy Father allowed indults to be granted for the older rite of the Mass.

However, this preference does not give one the right to demand a certain type of Mass as opposed to another (such as going to a schismatic mass simply because there is no indult in the area).

So, to simplify it, yes, it is alright to prefer Pre-VII things to the Post-VII things, as long as you recognize that the Church had and still has the authority to change it's disciplines and the order of the Mass, and that any Catholic who practices according to the current rite of the Church is just as Catholic as someone who practices according to the older rites.

[musturde]

I'd say 2,000 at least (depending on who bids).

[dspen2005]

the catechism of Trent has enormous value for the Church today, in light of the fact that VII built on Trent - it didn't merely do away with it. I agree that the CCC can seem like reading a "technical paper" as you called it; but now that Mother CHurch has given us the Compendium -- you have that "certainty" about the Deposit of the Faith (This isn't to say that it wasn't there before; but for those who prefer the format of previous catechisms....there u go....)

[Desert Walker]

Ok. All that makes sense. My problem is that I'm always feeling like the Church, right now, is in a constant state of flux. If it is, it shouldn't be. Because the "flux" I'm talking about seems to be occurring in the very "sensus fidelium" of the people, and more dangerously, in the ecclesiology of the priests and bishops. In a way, it almost feels like everyone has their own version of ecclesiology. But if that's okay, how can AUTHENTIC unity ever come about? St. Paul speak sof "one mind, one heart" and I think these are intimately interdependent. If people have a multiplicity of mentalities regarding the Christian life, it seems that the heart of the body of Christ on earth will not be single, but sliced up into so many different sized pieces.

How can we then do effective missionary evangelization if no two people can agree on, for example, Christology?

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Desert Walker' post='988086' date='May 23 2006, 06:49 AM']
Ok. All that makes sense. My problem is that I'm always feeling like the Church, right now, is in a constant state of flux. If it is, it shouldn't be. Because the "flux" I'm talking about seems to be occurring in the very "sensus fidelium" of the people, and more dangerously, in the ecclesiology of the priests and bishops. In a way, it almost feels like everyone has their own version of ecclesiology. But if that's okay, how can AUTHENTIC unity ever come about? St. Paul speak sof "one mind, one heart" and I think these are intimately interdependent. If people have a multiplicity of mentalities regarding the Christian life, it seems that the heart of the body of Christ on earth will not be single, but sliced up into so many different sized pieces.

How can we then do effective missionary evangelization if no two people can agree on, for example, Christology?
[/quote]

I understand your feeling. There are so many people, especially in the US and Europe, who are saying that the Church teaches so many different things, it can be not merely confusing, but also disheartening. However, I would like to make just a few comments that, I pray, will protect you from going down either the path of extreme traditionalism or the path of sentimental liberalism:

The first thing that we need to point out is that, as you say, there seem to be many different "ecclesiologies." Now some will lean towards the ecclesiology that seems to be the most stable (extreme traditionalists) and others will go to the ones that seem to be more open (sentimental liberalism) depending on their dispositions. However, [i]either[/i] of these options is a choice in favor of spiritual death. The reason is because neither is the ecclesiology of the Church. They are all just different vines that are growing up around the Tree of Life, trying to choke it.

What we need are not ecclesiological vines growing out in every direction, what we need is a rock upon which we can stand firm. That rock is the authentic, ordinary, and extraordinary magisterium of the Church, and can be found in its most distilled form in one place: Rome, the See of the Holy Father. If we bind ourselves to him, we have sure footing. If we hold onto his teachings, we are sure to hold on to the Faith of the Apostles. Will it be difficult? Yes - the faith is hard. But if we stand upon the rock of Peter, we will always be safe, no matter how many waves crash upon us from every conceivable angle.

I say that the waves will crash down from every angle because they will. The extreme "left" and "right," the heterodox theologians, clergy, and catechists, the misinformed laity - these are all waves that fall upon us from different angles. Moreover, we cannot forget that Satan is truly a force in this world, and his waves of temptation, doubt, fear and disillusionment hit us strong and hard when we least expect it. But if we stand upon Peter's rock, and [i]only[/i] if we stand upon Peter's rock, we will not drown. That means attaching ourselves to what the [i]Church[/i] says. It means the Councils, the Fathers, Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium all in one.

Can you use the catechism of Trent? Absolutely. Can you use the new Catechism or its Compendium? Absolutely. The key is to see that the two are not opposed, for they are both expressions of the same faith in Christ that the Father gives to us through the Holy Mother Church. Once we realize that all the teachings of the Ages are one in Christ, we see that the dichotomies set up by the extreme left and right are false. Different ways of expressing spirituality (whether traditional or charismatic, or somewhere in between) do not contradict one another [i]when they are done in accordance with the teaching of the Magisterium[/i].

If you feel more at home with the traditional expression of the faith, please, I invite you not simply to express yourself in traditional ways, but immerse yourself in it. I think you will find that there is no one "thing" that it is to be a traditional Catholic. There are Augustinians and Thomists, Bonaventurians, and Scotusts. There are traditional mystics and scholastic theologians. If a traditional spirituality is what the Spirit is moving you towards, embrace it. But always remember that the most important thing is to hold fast and strong to Rome, to the Holy Father, and to the Magisterium.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Desert Walker' post='988086' date='May 23 2006, 08:49 AM']
Ok. All that makes sense. My problem is that I'm always feeling like the Church, right now, is in a constant state of flux. If it is, it shouldn't be. Because the "flux" I'm talking about seems to be occurring in the very "sensus fidelium" of the people, and more dangerously, in the ecclesiology of the priests and bishops. In a way, it almost feels like everyone has their own version of ecclesiology. But if that's okay, how can AUTHENTIC unity ever come about? St. Paul speak sof "one mind, one heart" and I think these are intimately interdependent. If people have a multiplicity of mentalities regarding the Christian life, it seems that the heart of the body of Christ on earth will not be single, but sliced up into so many different sized pieces.

How can we then do effective missionary evangelization if no two people can agree on, for example, Christology?
[/quote]

I think the stirring have always been there, I just think they weren't public like they are now. Today's culture also emphasizes individualism, as opposed to the previous generations more "group" cohesiveness and sense of scandal and shame.

[Guest lion160]

This is major topic of debate in a lot of Catholic circles right now, but I have to give credit to a guy that I was talking with this about the other day. He basically said, "Its infallible", if we reject what happened at Vatican II does that not mean that we are rejecting infallibility?

I guess I let my faith make these decisions, but I trust God and I believe that God has insipired the decisions that come out of the Latern councils, etc. In that trust of God I have no reason to doubt Vatican II.

What we do have to be careful of is modernity, that is a scary thing. You see people's "modern" interpretations of the church are dangerous because we are seperated by gaps in generations. Influence is strong within the church, and modernity and a dangerous force.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='988093' date='May 23 2006, 07:52 AM']
Once we realize that all the teachings of the Ages are one in Christ, we see that the dichotomies set up by the extreme left and right are false.
[/quote]

Thanks for all those thoughts. The one I quoted above is something that I have come to see as a drastically important mentality if one is Catholic AND a United States citizen.

There are many Catholics, and Christians in the denominations, who think that the United States is one, synonymous with the Federal Government based in the District of Columbia, and two, in its present socio-political incarnation, synonymous with authentic Christianity. These are both serious intellectual and moral errors which the popes have warned us about. The source of these errors lies in literal propaganda to which we are regularly exposed by listening to Republican talk radio shows, Republican politicians and various extremely influential "mega" ministers like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Rod Parsley, John Hagee, D. James Kennedy and others. Many of these sources do not realize they are often complicit in spreading the propaganda of the American Political Right. But they are.

Equally disturbing things can be said about the various unwitting sources of American Leftist propaganda. People who describe themselves as "liberals" or "democrats" while at the same time describing themselves as "Christian" or "Catholic" need to be aware of the fact that the American Leftist Party is ultimately controlled by the same interest groups that control the American Rightist Party.

NONE of that political carp is going to serve Christ the King! We Christians DESPERATELY need a wake up call to REMOVE ourselves from party politics! Unless we do this NOTHING is going to change for the better, but will continue to change for the worse.

Vatican II issued documents concerning human liberty which diametrically contradict many of the policies of the US government over the last hundred years or more. Heresy defined as "Americanism" by one of the early 20th century popes is beginning to rear its ugly head among Catholics once again. I know how difficult it is to give up one's party sentiments. It feels good to believe that you're on the good side. But what if they lied to you about their goodness? Don't be blind. Read Vatican II. One day the Church will be persecuted for what is contained in those documents. That is why, so many times, the documents speak of the need for Christians to prepare themselves to shed their blood for The Faith.

[dspen2005]

remove yourself from what you see or hear priests and other laity saying... return, rather, to the Catechism and the Church authentically teaches to be True. Regardless of what we see in our priests and laity, it remains up to us to hold to what Holy Mother Church teaches.... remember Christ's words to the people concerning the Pharisees -- do not follow in their actions, but obey their teaching (paraphrased)

[Akalyte]

If the liberals have their way like they keep having their way, catholics will get exxcomunicated for just thinking of something "pre-vatican II".

[Era Might]

[quote name='Desert Walker' post='987102' date='May 22 2006, 11:38 AM']
Is it wrong to feel more comfortable with pre-Vatican II Catholic stuff than with post-Vatican II Catholic stuff?[/quote]

Not necessarily, as long as you don't denigrate what came after Vatican II. I'm more comfortable with pre-Trent than post-Trent, but that's just me.

[Resurrexi]

you don't like Trent? How could you not like the best Oecumenical Council ever!?

[Era Might]

I said I prefer pre-Trent to post-Trent, not that I don't like Trent. If it's ok to prefer pre-Vatican II to post-Vatican II, why isn't it ok to prefer pre-Trent to post-Trent?

As for Trent being the "greatest" Ecumenical Council, I don't know if Ecumenical Councils can really be ranked. At most they can probably be placed in historical context as the most important, and I don't think Trent would be the most important Ecumenical Council in Church history. Nicaea would probably take top billing.