Roman Catechism or CCC?

[judechild]

I'm a bit frightened right now.

All my teachers in the faith have always told me that the Church has never changed her docrine; and I do still believe that. But I have a problem. I was talking with some Orthodox about Original Sin and they were of the opinion that the Church believes that all unbaptized persons carry the guilt of Original Sin. This is denied by the CCC (I don't have it with me right now, I'll quote it later), but is affirmed by the Roman Catechism. The Roman Catechism also states emphatically that children who die without baptism cannot obtain salvation, while the CCC acknowledges the possibility of their salvation. I'm a faithful Catholic kid, but I don't know what to do. Any advice?

 

[Maggie893]

No need to be frightened. There is no contradiction between the Catechisms, just a development of the doctrine not a change in the doctrine.

The CCC clearly states the same thing that the Roman Catechism does in regard to the efficacy and necessity of Baptism.

Matter of fact it specifically states:

The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit.

The development of doctrine however is that as the Church grows in faith and understanding, certain concepts become better understood and clarification of past statements is needed.

Which is why the current catechism goes on to say:

God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Which is why we understand that we can hope in God's mercy on the unborn and unbaptised.

The doctrine of the Church is in what we know Baptism does. The theological ponderings throughout the ages regarding what not having baptism does is not doctrine.

 

[judechild]

Thanks for the response Maggie; that's pretty much the same answer I've gotten before. I'll post some specific references tomorrow that I have a hard time with and maybe then you can help me more specifically.

 

[judechild]

Ok, here's the Roman Catechism second article, paragraph 2 :

"Adam departed from the obediance due to God and violated theis divine command... And this made him subject to all those other evils which are taught in detail by the holy Council of Trent.

The Pastor, therefore, will not omit to remind the faithful that the guilt and punishment of original sin were not confined to Adam. This guilt and this punishment descended justly from him, as from their source and cause, to all his posterity."

What I read in that, is that guilt and punishment is transfered "as from their source and cause" to everybody else - like a cancer.

CCC 405:

"Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence." Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle."

In this one, I read that original sin is in everyone at birth ("proper to each individual") but we are not guilty of the guilt and punishment because it "does not have the character of a personal fault".

I don't understand how this is a docrinal development; it seems like a complete reversal.

 

[Maggie893]

I see where you're at.

I think what may be confusing is that there are two types of sin. Original sin and actual sin. The difference being that original sin is a state where actual sin is an action. So two very different concepts of sin.

When people talk of original sin, we are really talking about a state of sin where we are unable to be holy. When we talk about actual sin, we are talking about the action of sinning which is against the state of holiness.

Adam commit an actual sin which caused all of humanity to be born in a state of sin.

So the Roman Catechism is clarifying in strong terms what the punishment for the state of original sin is. While in a state of original sin, we are subject to the guilt and punishment for that state of unholiness. We are not subject to the guilt and punishment of Adam's actual sin....that is his. But because we are in a state original sin we are incapable of holiness and therefore are subject to the guilt and punishment that coincide with that.

That is specifically what Jesus came to save us from. It is through His sacrifice that we are able to be made holy even though we are born into original sin. Baptism removes that guilt and punishment for the state of original sin and allows us to be able to be holy.

The CCC is explaining that same thing but differently and I'm guessing there is an underlying purpose in the way they have posed this.

They are clarifying that original sin is not our personal sin, our actual sin. It is a state of unholiness.

I believe one of the reason they are clarifying this bit "but human nature has not been totally corrupted" is because reformed theology considers human beings to be in a state of Total Depravity. The Church does not teach this. It teaches that while we are unable to be completely holy, we are still created in the image of God and have value and goodness in us. The act of removing original sin through baptism makes us capable of complete holiness. Considering that we can only experience God in the beatific vision in heaven if we are in a state of complete holiness...this is critical to our salvation.

The CCC does go on to elaborate that while we are now cleansed of original sins guilt and punishment and therefore capable of holiness, we do still have the residual effects, the consequences of original sin such as mortality, concupiscience, etc.

It's important to also note that our actual sins, our acts of sinning also have guilt and punishment attached to them as well as consequences. So when we go to the sacrament of confession we are forgiven our sins....in other words the guilt and punishment due us for our actual sins are removed. That doesn't mean that all the consequences of our actual sins are removed though. Obviously if you drink and drive and kill a person with your car.....you may be forgiven for the sin, but someone is still dead and you still will have to deal with the consequences of the action here on earth....but your spiritual guilt and punishment due to that sin have been removed.

Does that help clarify or have I fully missed your question?

 

[judechild]

doess that help clarify or have I fully missed your question?

You got it right on!

Thank you very much! The funny thing is, you didn't say anything I really didn't already know, I just needed someone to connect the dots for me I guess. There are still one or two areas that gave me pause, but I think they'll work their way out now. I'll post them if they persist. This helps immensely for me to understand Original Sin!

 

[Maggie893]

You got it right on!

Thank you very much! The funny thing is, you didn't say anything I really didn't already know, I just needed someone to connect the dots for me I guess. There are still one or two areas that gave me pause, but I think they'll work their way out now. I'll post them if they persist. This helps immensely for me to understand Original Sin!

Great! I love it when my ramblings can help.

I understand what you mean with the connect the dots things. Honestly when I came back to the Church I was amazed at how frequent that would happen for me. I'd read the bible cover to cover many times as a protestant and read tons of protestant theology but when I start reading the Church teachings and theology of the saints....everything started to click!

Glad to have you around and I'll help out however I can .

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Read the Roman Catechism and the Holy Council of Trent they both help. Plus, the Roman Catechism is clearer and more straightforward than the CCC. I recommend the Roman Catechism as it definitely explains the Faith better than CCC which is overly wordy, vague, and confusing.

Heck, even my Baltimore Catechisms with their awesome cartoons and pictures work better and catechize more effectively [and they're based on the Roman Catechism.]

And I've looked at/have both the CCC and the Roman Catechism. The Roman Catechism is indeed infinitely better and less watered-down towards heretics, schismatics, and unbelievers, the sacraments, "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus," as the Holy Catholic Faith has traditionally and always been----that is until the late 40s, 50s, and 60's. Kyrie Eleision.

 

[judechild]

Read the Roman Catechism and the Holy Council of Trent they both help. Plus, the Roman Catechism is clearer and more straightforward than the CCC. I recommend the Roman Catechism as it definitely explains the Faith better than CCC which is overly wordy, vague, and confusing.

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you. I might be able to read the Roman Catechism only, if I knew about the faith as much as you or some of the other posters on these forums do, but without that knowledge I'd be lost in the transition of 500 year-old "faith language".

I do know, though, that the CCC is not "watered down" in regard to Protestants and the like, they simpy take a different approach than Trent did. By looking at the question posed by our common Baptism, we can see that really we have more in common than we have contrary. Of course, that's not to downplay the differences, and in fact I'm reading the Vatican II document on Ecumenism right now and it doesn't look like they're watering it down. True, they are saying "all you are heretics! heretics! heretics! But what purpose would that really serve?

 

[Memento Mori]

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you. I might be able to read the Roman Catechism only, if I knew about the faith as much as you or some of the other posters on these forums do, but without that knowledge I'd be lost in the transition of 500 year-old "faith language".

I do know, though, that the CCC is not "watered down" in regard to Protestants and the like, they simpy take a different approach than Trent did. By looking at the question posed by our common Baptism, we can see that really we have more in common than we have contrary. Of course, that's not to downplay the differences, and in fact I'm reading the Vatican II document on Ecumenism right now and it doesn't look like they're watering it down. True, they are saying "all you are heretics! heretics! heretics! But what purpose would that really serve?

I can't remember who posted it or which thread it was, but someone said that, like the current Catechism, they wanted to have perfect balance in justice and mercy. That is an excellent way to see it in my opinion.

I want to say it was Gwendolyn, but I can't remember. Should've repped 'em.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Another note: what's this talk of 500yr. old "faith language" it's the Catholic Faith? Try picking up a Baltimore Catechism, it teaches the same stuff, only tailored towards children, with Pictures----but it's good for adults too, I use it. Sorry, I didn't want to sound condescending. It's quite helpful. Plus, it explains why we do things, and the Catholic belief on things, and why we do the Sacraments, what they significate, etc. It's not terribly difficult.

I hope I don't sound too crass.

Forgive me.


-Christ's peace be upon thee,
Matthaeus

 

[Virgil the Roman]

It clarifies the faith; would we not want the faithful to abjure and reject heresy? For heresy is damnable and effectuates the death of the sin in mortal sin. That's why the Holy Catholic Church has so strongly spoken against it. Additionally, until 1992, it was the Universal Catechism of the Holy Catholic Church, and still today it remains a universal catechism of the Holy Catholic Church; its concepts, principles and wording remain valid for today; contrary to those naysayers who would repeat the unwise axiom of the Modernists, who insist that the Roman Catechism is somehow antiquated and that we need to "grow up" in the faith, thinking that is is somehow childish or only valid or efficacious for the "rudimentary" and simple-minded folk of yesteryear......such sentiment is simply twaddle, ignorant, and untrue.


With the advent of the heresies of Modernism, Post-Modernism, and the Indifferentism that seem to plague the Holy Mother Church, it would seem those emboldened by the desire for Christian unity [those hyper-ecumenists] would put forward a false "unity" or "irenicism" as if to say that the Protestants sects were no longer heretical or that their doctrine was no longer potentially damning to one's soul: contrary to what the Church has believed to the sad state that Luther, Calvin, Zwingle, and Cranmer were in: leading so many souls astray from the fold of the ark of Salvation that is the Holy Catholic Church.

Juxtaposed to this "Irenicism," would be a true desire for "Christian Unity" unlike the false Ecumenicism peddled sadly by many errant Clerics within the Church. This true Ecumenism then, is conversion to one Holy Catholic faith, not rather some imaginary "lost unity" with Prots, that "unity" of the Protestants who somehow imagine that the Church of God has somehow ever been divided, when in fact it is the forefathers and founders of their sects who departed the One church of God, which is the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church of Christ's, a Church, which never was anything but One, as Christ is one, and as she is the Body of Christ.

Hence, as she has never been "divided" them, there is something acutely and particularly dangerous with ambiguous passages within the "UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO" document contained amongst the various documents in the Second Vatican Council; this document gives one an almost certain [however, misguided or false] impression and notion that the Holy Catholic Church, which never lost her unity nor has ever been divided, is currently "divided" amongst Christiandom, as if the sundry Protestant sectaries where "elements" parts of the Holy Catholic Church [which they are not]."


It would then be in fact that they who are members are of those Protestant conventicles, whose members or forefathers stem from the initial schism of the Protestant rebels in their Rebellion from the Catholic Church some five centuries ago; or have separated themselves from the Catholic Church today [if they were members of her today by abjuring the Holy Catholic Church, seeking instead a particular Protestant sect that would then befit mostly with their own particular version of how "The Church" should be or "is;"] are not a part of the Holy Catholic Church having abjured her by either initial schism or by abandoning her by embracing Erroneous or heretical doctrine(s).


Leaving then the unity of the Catholic Church of God and here true and undefiled and pure doctrine and fullness of faith, for whatever sect they chose in her place, as if she were not the One True Church of God [which the Holy Catholic Church is most certainly the one true Church of Holy Saviour Jesus Christ], and the sect they joined was or apart of that "Invisible" Church of God that Protestants claim that "all true believers" belong to, contrariwise to the Catholic belief on the nature of the Church. They would then claim under the pretext of "Christian Unity" to "restore" that "lost unity"----a true unity which sadly to not realizing it, has never been lost, for such unity always was and is in the Holy Catholic Church of Christ's----their having abandoned such unity for the sake of their Reformed sects and their "reformation of Theology" in their Protestant "Reformation."

Now, with such a false concept or foundation in mind, many, forgetting that true unity has never been lost in the Holy Catholic Church, would be wont to [most regrettably, erroneously, and misguidedly] to adopt the Protestant notions of this "Lost Unity"---this "lost Christian Unity;" such Irenicism finds its way into the Pseudo-Ecumenism of today, causing a fundamental shift away from the fact that "true unity" WHICH remains only within Christ's Holy Catholic Church, as well as her being the "One ark of Salvation" as she is the only Church and vessel of salvation, wherewith one might attain salvation with, rather to a mistaken belief that the Holy Catholic Church is a "sect" or "denomination" like any of the sundry Protestant sects and should then adopt this Pseudo-Ecumenism. With this notion in mind many bishops, priests, and Cardinals adopt this false movement for Irenicism with not only the Protestant Sects, but also with the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, glossing over the fundamentals differences in with such true doctrines as transubstantiation, Papal Authority and Infallibility, the 7 sacraments conveying grace, Sacred Scripture and Divine Tradition held together, as well as many others. Instead rather a false unity, built on the lost common denominator is put forward, to focus as were on so-called "core-beliefs" neglecting that fact that the whole Catholic Faith, pure and undefiled is "core" and necessary, and is as such our "Core-beliefs;" with which we cannot nor must not compromise.

 

[judechild]

Whoa Matthaeus, you totally went over my head more than once there. But I think I understand what you're saying. But why should we reject the Catechism, or the writtings of the second Vatican council, considering they are both coming from a legitimate council within the Catholic Church?

As for ecumenism, I was talking with a Church of Christ pastor on the subject of original sin and that led to my asking the original question on this thread. After reading the Roman Catechism, I got the wrong idea, but found a good answer in the CCC. Maggie then helped me to reconcile the two; thanks again Maggie! The point of this is that I was able to correct a missunderstanding that the pastor had about how the Catholic Church sees Original Sin and we found that we (the pastor and I) were not so separated on this dogma as he had orginally thought. That's true ecumenism, in my opinion. Obviously, the Church will never become something she is not, but we can work with what we have now.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

With that in mind, the Church doesn't compromise with heresy. It would seem however many today for the sake of "ecumenism" would shunt or divest themselves of the duty to evangelize not just Protestants or the Orthodox, but also, unbelievers and heathens in general; neglect the Christ given command that the Holy Gospel be preached unto the ends of the Earth in every nation.

Given my experience with the Holy Mother Church, compromise with Protestants sects, whose goal would not only include unity with the other Prot. denom.s but with the Holy Catholic Church, if only she'd give up her allegded "unbiblical" doctrines and accept the Prot. Reformation, and many Catholics today would act as if there are virtually no differences with Prots, pushing for "unity" with them. I'm sorry, but sects who only desire unity at, would be the abjuration of the Holy Catholic Faith, is not and shouldn't happen.

I should like to hope that in the times to come, that Holy Ghost shall move in the Church to dispel this irencism and work upon the conversion of Prots, Schismatical Orthodox, Heathenry, and the Unbelievers: fulfilling and carrying out Christ's Command until the End of Days.



Lord have mercy.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

In regards to POST # 13:Oh, sorry;

Forgive me. I was on a rant with a really good post. I just didn't think that I finished it! And I didn't want to delete it. I know it's not entirely particularly pertinent to the thread, but still, I was on a roll, and I tried to finish the rest, but now I didn't remember what I was going to say. I kind of just hob-cobbled together a finishing post [which is post #15].

Eh, oh well. :o

God bless thee.

Forgive Me.

IN Christ,
Matthaeus

 

[judechild]

I'm not saying we should compromise; that's stupid. That would be totally against the Catholic Church herself. What I'm saying, though, is that we can be more relaxed and gentle in the presentation of it. The Roman Catechism is anything but gentle, and maybe that's a good thing in a way, but in today's society we should be working to guide protestants and orthodox and etc into the Church; the whole fire and brimstone - You're a heretic! - approach just doesn't seem to be very conducive to conversion.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I suppose we should be a bit more gentle; however, I think perhaps, that I'm more "fire and brimstone" b/c of the Lack of it in sermons and such: in reading about it in the saints' sermons and from reading Holy Scripture, Our Holy Saviour's words in the Holy Gospels, and from sermons by traditional Catholic priests on Youtube.

It would seem, back in the 50's and 60's in my grandparents' younger years, they did preach more about hell, sin, and the evils of heresy; as opposed to now, when all one sees is this overtly-friendly attitude the wants to tolerate [to the point of heresy or near-heresy] or compromise with Protestant sects or Orthodox, instead of proclaiming with charity and clarity that the Holy Catholic Faith, is the one true and orthodox faith which we've received from Christ and the Holy Apostles.


At least, it would seem that the "bit more fire & brimstone" approach worked for the saints and holy apostles, this ultra-friendly soft "hyper-ecumenism" doesn't seem to be working, in fact it seems to have effectuated a mass exodus (combined with poor catechesis and the preying on of Catholics by Prots, which they convert them to whatever sect of Protestantism they are).

Maybe I'm wrong, but almost everywhere [even more so in Europe than in the United States], since this "friendly" and "tolerant" attitude has been adopted, a steady decline in proper catechesis for the average Catholic that started in the Late 60's/70's: A steady drop in the practicing numbers of Catholics has occurred [and continues to occur] to the point that only about 17% of the Catholic populace in the United States practice their face anymore; of those 17%, many are poorly or severely under-catechized----or even abjure or refuse to assent to many Catholic doctrine.


I'm just going by what I've known and experienced. Such, it is my mere and humble opinion; the firm orthodoxy and straightforwardness of the Roman Catechism is something I've craved, looking for a Catholic Catechism, that wasn't afraid to proclaim the faith and did so with charity, but absolutely and with clarity. And I found this in the Roman Catechism. It has helped a lot to explain the faith better to me.

It is pure, undefiled, and uncompromising Catholicism [with Charity] that I desire [and many others], but Prots. and non-believers respect the Catholic faith more, when we're straightforward, non-apologetic, and not afraid to be honest about what we believe.

I'm just being honest. I might be mis-perceiving things, but It's my vantage point here.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Here listen and watch to this Priest's sermon he can explain what I mean, in terms of sins, Hell, depravity.
YouTube - Monsignor, Our Lady of Fatima and hell

It's priests like Monsignor Moss, who aren't afraid to proclaim and preach the Holy Catholic Faith. I've very very rarely see priests that are more forthright in their sermons about sin, the Devil, and Hell.

I shall pray for more orthodox and traditional Catholic priests like the Good late-Monsignor here, that aren't afraid to proclaim the faith unabashedly or with compromise; but with charity.

 

[judechild]

I agree, he's a good priest. I guess I'm naive, though; I've only ever run into really good and orthodox priests. This Monsignor reminds me of the Monsignor at my church. But I don't think this quite what this thread is meant to discuss. You've given me the reason you think the Roman Catechism is superior, and I've given you my objections; I don't know if much else remains to be discussed.