www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Catechism of the Catholic Church

Dear Friends,

Christ is risen!
Truly He is risen!

Do you use the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

I use the CCC as a reference book especially in matters of morals, i.e., abortion, war, euthanasia.

Paul

Dear Paul,

I certainly read my copy of the CCC but it is incomplete with respect to the theological perspective of the Eastern Churches - e.g. there is nothing on Theosis in it.

The CCC has excellent sections on the Jesus Prayer and on the Eastern Churches, however.

It is good, but not good enough from our perspective.

Alex

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

Dear Alex,

The word Theosis is not in the CCC, but there is mention of being "sharers in the divine nature." See above.

There are a few other similar citations in the CCC. No where close to the Eastern Fathers teaching on Theosis, of course.

I'll leave it to you to decide if there is some evidence of Theosis teaching based on the citation from the CCC. I'm interested in your opinion.

Paul

Brother Paul,

I purchased one a couple of months ago and slowly reading it. I think Alex should check the sections
regarding the Holy Spirit & Trinity.

Of course I'm different and started in the prayer section.

james

Christ is Risen !!!


The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church recently introduced the first translation of the Catechism in Ukrainian, and seemed quite happy to have it.


John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

How many are in favor of closing all eparchial religious education departments and their Eastern Christians Formation publications and simply passing out the CCC in their place?

Personally, I think their should be an edition for all of us non-Latin Catholics that presents the Faith according to our Traditions. Don

Don,

But many are quite happy with the CCC as being the authoritative text for Byzantine Theology; even Eastern Catholic bishops quote it extensively. What reason is there for a non-Latin edition if this text serves as a panacea for all theological discussion? Is it really necessary for non-Latins to come up with their own edition?

Joe

i agree with Don. One of the most irritating things about talking to Roman Caths (and wholly unintentional on their part) is when they parrot the line "the Catechism says this" "the Catechism says that" I am polite but i want to say to them "Have you read the Fathers from their source??" "Have you read the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils??" It is like the Catechism has become this add-on to Revelation as a extra book of Scripture It is JUST a catechism for Roman Catholics!!!!

Ok, Rant over

Are Roman Catholics the only ones who do this?

Brian,

Can you prove it?

Good discussion.

A catechism is a reference book. You will note the extensive footnotes that come with the CCC.
It even has sources listed in the indices by the Eastern Fathers and other Eastern writers.

I'm not trying to sell it as an Eastern Church catechism. I am pointing out some features that are available for those who want to learn where the CCC teachings came from.

I have a hard time understanding the Latin & Greek Fathers. I can handle a few good quotations from them and that's about it.

Paul

Dear Brian:


Just being true to form, I disagree with your assessment that:



The Cathechism of the Catholic Church was the product of Eastern and Western Catholic minds aimed at covering the "Universal" Church.

It is not perfect and shortcomings may be extant in some of its parts but this is an honest exposition of what Catholics believe in, presented in a compendium of what the Catholic Church (East and West) believed/s through the ages.

It is not immutable and amendments thereto (or editions, if I may add) inheres in the process as we believe in "doctrinal development."

AmdG

Dear Friends,

Well, no one is saying that the CCC has no value as a catechetical tool.

But it is largely an excellent Latin catechism that views the Christian East from the "outside in."

And that is, in and of itself, heartening.

The CCC's section on the Jesus Prayer, Theosis, the Trinity et alia do just service to the Eastern traditions.

But even if it can be shown, and with some justification, that everything that "we have" is covered by the CCC, the perspective there is a Latin one that is trying to reach out to understand the East.

This is a great thing, the first time since the split that it has ever happened as a matter of fact.

But clearly the Vatican II understanding of the Particular Eastern Catholic Churches implies that we are entitled to the full range of our own theological frameworks.

"Catechisms" in and of themselves were a product of the Western scholastic movement (St John Damascene's "De Fide Orthodoxa" was not a catechism, even though it did use a question and answer format).

The later Orthodox catechisms, that of St Peter Mohyla (there's a great Slavonic Akathist to him on "akafist.narod.ru"!) and the Confession of Dositheus were attempts to use the Jesuit scholastic methods in defending and defining Orthodox faith and praxis.

The spirit of the CCC, excellent in content though it is, is of a decidedly scholastic, rationalist one, employing a carefully reasoned logic that is enlightened by faith and Tradition.

And that is simply not our way.

Again, it is no matter that the CCC comes close, or closest or else is "right on" the Eastern perspectives on Theosis etc.

It is a product of the Particular Latin Church, period.

The fact that the UGCC translated it into Ukrainian, rather than try and produce something from within its own Kyivan tradition (a revamped Catechism of Mohyla would have been fine too - even though outdated in its methodology, as the Polish Jesuits are long gone) shows up our own Ukie CATHOLIC mentality that thinks that anything RC can be "adapted" to our Church by simply translating it into Ukrainian with perhaps an appendix on Ukie Christmas and Easter traditions . . .

What the CCC represents for Eastern Christians really is an up to date statement on truly how far the West has really come with respect to better understanding the East.

That is what fascinates me about this Catechism. It really tells me nothing about the Faith as seen from within the prism of my own Particular Ecclesial theology.

Alex

True, there are Orthodox that can drive one crazy with quoting the Pedalion But at least these are ancient sources. My problem with this incessant reference to the Catechism is that it is not keeping it in it's proper perspective. Like Paromer said, it is a reference book and it's content is clearly Roman Catholic theology with all of it's bows to the Eastern Church.

Dear Friends,

I like the CCC because it came with approval from the Holy Father.

After the confusion after Vatican II we Latins were dizzy with liberal catechisms and conservative catechisms. Finally a Catholic catechism.

It's not perfect, but its ours, one volume and very readable.

Maybe Easterners should petition their heirarchs for their own catechism.

Paul

Dearest Brian,

I think that with all your efforts aimed at studying Orthodoxy, you may not have yet had an opportunity to review the CCC!

In fact, it does more than just "bow" to Orthodox theology.

It makes ITS OWN a number of Orthodox theological perspectives that, had they had been in place way back when, I don't believe we'd have a divided Church today.

Section 404 truly does place "Original Sin" squarely within a framework that reflects historic Orthodox patristic thought.

Its discussion on the Trinity is one of the most sensitive (to the East) that I've seen and certainly can form the basis of further convergence between East and West in that area.

Its section on the Jesus Prayer shows that the West is ready and willing to drink not only from the Eastern theological trough, but also from the well-springs of its mystical Life in Christ.

I believe that the CCC comes closest than any Latin document to Orthodoxy as a whole.

And I think Orthodoxy itself would do well to learn a thing or two from the methodology and presentation of the CCC in certain respects.

The CCC is about clarity of thought on faith, morals and worship - and it pulls that off brilliantly.

After having read the CCC and pondered over it, I can say that there really are no great differences between East and West that justify the separation of the Churches.

Alex

Alex,

your assessment of the CCC seems to be one of contradictions. In your previous post, you remark that it is rationalist and scholastic and that this approach is "not our way" and that is bascially Latin in it's Spirit. Then in your latest post, you say that it is completely praiseworthy, incorporating all the appropriate Eastern Christian perspectives. Both outlooks cannot be true.
My beef with the constant quoting of the Catechism by Latin Caths was that they do not seem to realize that there are older sources they need to go back to, namely the Holy and God-Bearing Fathers and their teaching and not quote the CCC chapter and verse as some Protestant fundamentalists quote Scripture chapter and verse without any sense of context.

Dear Brian,

Your assessment of my assessment isn't correct!

I maintain that the Latin perspective of the CCC remains as such.

The Latin perspective hasn't incorporated "all" of the Eastern Christian paradigms (when did I say that?), but has come a long way.

That doesn't make it any less "Latin."

The Church was Latin and Eastern before 1054!

Quoting stuff like "proof-texts" was also the way Orthodox bishops tended to respond following the split.

They quoted the canons of the councils.

There will always be those in all Churches who will look to a single "sacred" text or series of texts to parrot back ad nauseam.

That fact should not make anyone overlook the truly great milestones achieved by the CCC, especially with respect to the Eastern Churches.

It doesn't make the CCC any less a Latin document.

But being Latin is a matter of spiritual culture. One can be "Latin" and "Orthodox/Catholic" too. The Western Rites of Orthodoxy are a testimony to this.

And the CCC comes closer to this ideal than ever before.

I don't see that as a contradiction.

Alex

I guess I was also referring to 'Eastern' Catholic bishops who quote it extensively such as the Lenten pastoral letter from the Romanian eparchy.

There is nothing heretical about the CCC. Heaven forbid if there was!

But I wonder what are religious education departments and Eastern Christian publications are all about if not an attempt to convey the idea that "A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui juris." (CCEO Canon 28.1)?

How can a generic catechism "with all its bows to the Eastern Church" be possible? Are we ignoring the possiblity of the catholic-ness of the second article of rite? The early church basically rejected Tatian's Diatessaron and opted, instead, to four (often contradictory) Gospels. The Church also rejected Marcion's approach.

Does the notion of rite, if taken seriously, consider only the options of: (1) Tatian - and the attempt to find a single representation of Gospel via fusing/interweaving everything in a one size fits all text; or (2) Marcion - and the attempt to find a single representation of Gospel via elimination/rejection of other possibilities?

My response is not directed at you personally.

I like the early church's approach. It gave us all four Gospels and its mindset is reflected in the Canon's definition of rite.

I've drawn many drawings in metric and English, and sometimes did dual dimensioning, but I never did an engineering drawing whereby one part was English, another was metric, and still another part was some other scale. In all dual-dimensioned drawings, one measurement convention was always dominant (primary) and the second was always in brackets (secondary).

What guidance have we received in considering the role that the CCC plays in Eatern Catholic Christianity? How exactly do we utilize its font of resources in our religious education and ECF programs? So far, I have never seen a directive to use it.

Joe

Dear Cantor Joseph,

When you have a moment, what did you think of my overall assessment?

Alex

Alex,

How would an Eastern Catholic catechism look like? What would its topical structure be like? Would it be structured and compartmentalized like the Eastern Code (having Archbishop Raya's comments in mind as was stated in "The Face of God") or fence in and restrict theological thought/expression like pews do to our worship?

Joe

Dear Cantor Joseph,

I'll be careful next time I ask you to critically assess what I wrote . . .

Well, I can't imagine what an Eastern "Catechism" would look like and I'm already on record as saying that catechisms aren't Eastern anyway.

But I'm thinking about ways and means to be clear about doctrine and worship in communicating our faith.

In my religion classes, I try to do this via the liturgy and actual experience of it.

This doesn't prevent the students from asking questions about doctrine. I agree that pointing to pat catechetical answers is dry at best.

Teaching religion from our Eastern perspective is an ongoing learning experience for me.

There is a temptation to point to something defined and say, "Now that is the tool I'll use."

And, as you say with your usual great insight and pragmatic approach, that can be limiting.

So while I love spending time with my students in teaching religion, I'm open to ways in which to improve and make more coherent the actual communication of the theory and praxis of our faith.

Alex

I believe that the three book Light for Life series was intended as our Catechism.

While it is a good work, it doesn't fit as well as the CCC does as it is not easliy quoted by paragrah as the CCC is.

Nor is there any index.

It was an attempt to give us Eastern Catholic a Catechism of our own, I believe, but it fell short of that unfortunatly.

David

ps Alex I will get you back someday for your comment "That David is close to the Latins is also something that I agree with!" :p :p

Dear David,

I was wondering when you were going to say something to that . . .

You know I love you and pray for you!

God bless, Servant of Christ!

Alex

Dear DavidB:


Since I "provoked" Alex into coming out with THAT comment about you, I ask your allowance and beg your mercy for a lighter penalty.

I can assure you that Alex is clearly, albeit ever slowly, inching to our side of the divide. Someday, he will be as Latin as we want him to be!

So, instead of clobbering him on the head 3 times, the Orthodox way, a quick jab once on the chin would be sufficient in this regard.

AmdG

Dear Brothers,

A catechism doen't have to be in question and answer form. The CCC isn't in question and answer form.

What about the Didache? Is it part of the Eastern Tradition?

More thoughts...

Paul

Dear Paul,

Anything that will make my teaching of religion to smart-aleck youngsters easier and more streamlined is welcome . . .

Actually, I like reading the CCC, and now that I know Brian doesn't really like it, I'll enjoy it even more!

Alex
The original "smart-aleck"

I like Jesus' way. Tell 'em a story and then give 'em the Scripture that validates it.

Everybody likes (good) stories. Even antsy-pants catechism class kiddies.

"Once upon a time, there was this weird Canadian guy..... ---- ....and they lived happily ever after, in a mud hut in central Manitoba."

Blessings!!

My dear Alex,

Be my guest! I would rather read our Holy and God-bearing Fathers in their Original Form anyway without Vatican glosses :p NAH NAH NAH !!!

Good points have been made about the inadequecies of the CCC in addressing Eastern Catholic approaches to faith, theology and spirituality. The Catechetical Directory of the Ukrainian Catholic Church does a much better job of this, for example this excerpt from Paragraph 51:

"Deification is a process of transforming and returning to the original gift of being like God and growing in God. Deification is the goal of human life. This was God's plan from the moment of the creation of the world."

This type of language necessary for the catechetical growth of Greek Catholics can't be found in the CCC.

Dr John,

Excellent! You are the Doctor!

Father Anthony de Mello, S.J. said the shortest distance to the truth is a story.

Getting back to the CCC. When there is no storyteller a catalog of facts (catechism) is helpful to get an authoritative answer.

Tell us a story Dr.

Paul

Am I missing something here? I was under the impression that the very purpose of the Catechism of the Catholic Church was to provide a tool for bishops and others in preparing authentic teaching materials after many years of confusion over what should be included in such materials and even what the Church actually believed after the Vatican Council.

I had a rather spirited discussion with a person in charge of religious education who tried to tell me that after the Council all that mattered was that one went to Mass and stayed under the Pope. This person believed that everything else was a matter of taste and needed only to be “touchy-feely”—to make people feel good about themselves. Sin was as out as black vestments and fasting. (Bad last reference after all you, my brethren, have braved the rigors of the Great Fast.)

I had a rather spirited discussion with my son about the Church's teaching about the sanctity of the marriage bed, the sin of scandal associated with living with a woman prior to marriage, etc. He had never had any of the topics touched in 12 years of Catholic school and Confirmation preparation. Sad.

I've supplemented my children's education with materials at the expense of being “reactionary” and an “anachronism” but I care nothing for labels when the teaching of the Church is involved. I have used the Eastern Fathers as supplements, too, since every source that can shed light on the Light and deepen the faith of those in one's charge needs to be used.

But though it may have shortcomings, it is still a useful yardstick. There are still those who are teaching things contrary to what is contained therein and teaching that we ought to avoid the whole book as a reactionary tool that has no business being in the American Church. I believe that one of the basic needs met by this book was a definition for the Universal Church of what constitutes basic doctrine today.

Perhaps the reason that this book has such a Latin perspective is that the Latin Church's experience in the past 500 years has been in an environment that has consistently denied so much of what is basic to the teaching of Christ that has come to us over the past 2000 years. And this denial seems to come from so many directions: religious, philosophical, theological, cultural. We seem to have a need for such a method as catechisms to keep things straight.

BOB

Brother Theophan, I think that you are being overly harsh on the Roman community. We must remember that the RC Church incorporates a whole boat-load of nations and cultures. And each has its own way of both learning and educating. To suggest that a "document", emanating from a dicastrie in Rome will be the overarching factor in evangelization is just smoke and mirrors - and the smoke comes from some funny sources.

The true fact remains: we need baptized Christians who are totally devoted to the service of God and God's poorest people. When these people are allowed to flourish without lightning bolts and mandates to 'conform to the rules', we get converts. Although I have no data to back it up, I'm sure that our holy mother, Teresa of Calcutta, has inspired more people to investigate the Gospel than all the catechisms ever published. Her craggy face and her hands changing the Depends of the dying, and feeding them spoonfuls of soup is more ennervating than all the legalist bullcrap generated in bureaucratic offices.

Sure, a Catechism is great because it provides formulas that are internally consistent; ideas are easily linked together and it is a great legal exercise. And it lets folks know what we believe in very clear terms. And this is actually wonderful.

But I also suggest that the touch of an aged hand on a face filled with pain is a true (perhaps the truest) sign of God's mercy towards mankind. The simple grace-filled Christian who buys an extra bottle of cold water and gives it - without explanation - to a homeless person on the street is, in my opinion, mirroring the actions of the Lord Jesus. When the recipient sees the simple cross around the neck of the donor, he/she comes to realize that Christians actually CARE about other folks and that we are not going to preach or drive them nuts by talking. We're just responding to their needs.

May the Lord help us to use the catechism and other printed works to let folks know that Jesus is both the Savior as well as the ideal model for every human being that lives. But may the Lord also give us the grace to be what I call "don't give a damn about anybody but Christ" folks who can just meet people and both love them and ascertain their needs and MEET those needs without making a big TV special about it.

Read the catechism. But LIVE the Gospel, my brothers and sisters, and we'll meet in heaven. And we'll be one fantastic group! (And the great saints will be hanging around with us because they'll feel comfortable with others who just 'serve!'.)

Blessings, y'all!!!

Christ is Risen!!!!

Dear Dr. John,

"Read the catechism. But LIVE the Gospel, my brothers and sisters..."

Well said.

The saying, "The only Gospel some people will read is YOU."

could also say, "The only catechism some people will read is YOU."

Mother Theresa said, "The world needs your good example and your prayers." She was an awesome lady.

Peace & joy,

Paul

Brother Paul,

I quite agree,though never heard it said like Dr John, the CCC is a outline,the truth is the Gospels.

james

Until the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declares that Fr. de Mello's positions "... are incompatible with the Catholic faith and can cause grave harm."

So much for story and truth.

Joe

Well, I did some research on the internet and I did find that there is a "universal" Byzantine Catholic Catechism.

It is as I thought, the Light for Life series.

It is a three book series;
PART ONE: THE MYSTERY BELIEVED
PART TWO: THE MYSTERY CELEBRATED
PART THREE: THE MYSTERY LIVED

I have all three books and as I said, it doesn't lend itself to easy quoteing, like the CCC does, as it is writen in a book style, not in a numbered paragraph format as the CCC is. It also lacks any index to help find answers to questions.

Anyone else have this series and what do you think of it?


David

Please see the following link:

http://www.cin.org/archives/cineast/199708/0448.html

Joe,

Thanks for the link.

I do understand that one of the authors says "However, I did not write it as a "catechism," but as "an adult statement of faith.""

But that doesn't change the fact that it is advertised as a Byzantine Catechism.

Please see this link, http://www.iconbook.org/Catechetical.html and scroll down to the LIGHT FOR LIFE SERIES.

And if one goes to the Theological Book Service website (http://www.theobooks.org/) and clicks on the link to God With Us then clicks on search and enters the word "catechism"....

It comes up with two links, one to Light for Life: Part One�The Mystery Believed and the other to Catholicism in the Third Millennium.

So while the author might not have intended this, it is what has come about.


David

From theobooks.org, we read: “The Mystery Believed explores the mystery of the living and revealing God. As a person enters the text, one immediately recognizes a difference in emphasis with the Catechism of the Catholic Church...In contrast to the Catechism, which starts with a discussion of what we as humans can know about God, the first chapter of Light for Life discusses the Mystery of God and emphasis, not what we can know about God, but rather how we are grasped by God” (James Campbell, Rel. Ed. Consultant R.C. Archdiocese of Chicago).

What iconbooks.com and theobooks.com considers the Light for Life series is their own interpretation and presentation. I'm sure any presentation of faith would be simply classified as a 'catechism.' Instruction of the faith is catechesis and one who instructs is a catechist. But one of the authors specifically states that it was an 'adult statement of faith' and not a catechism. I'd take his word for it rather than those selling the books.

Joe

Dear Amado,

Just because I'm nice to you (Latins) doesn't mean I want to be one of you (Latins).

To each their own Particular Church!

Alex

Dear Joe,

Yes the Vatican did condemn SOME of Father de Mello's writings, but not all of them. The congregation outlined some very technical aspects of Fr De Mello's writings that were objectionable. I read one of his books, One Minute Wisdom, and I found nothing incompatible with the Catholic faith in that work (it had an imprimatur from a Catholic bishop).

I'm glad you are "testing all things, holding fast to that which is good." --St. Paul

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Friends,

I guess I'm sort of between what Dr. John and Cantor Joseph have indicated here.

I tend to use stories and personal experiences in teaching religion.

But at the same time, I don't always fulfill the requirements of the curriculum in so doing - and I don't care.

I don't care if the kids don't know the conditions that led to the Union of Brest etc.

(Perhaps it's a good thing they didn't know my take on that anyway . . . ).

One time, I decided to attempt something totally off the cuff.

I got one class to prepare their own liturgy.

They elected one of their own (a girl - sorry Snoopy!) to be the main celebrant.

Others became candle-holders, readers etc.

I let them organize it as they wished and, do you know what?

They created a liturgy with very hard-and-fast rules of order, a sequence of events, and a hierarchy of persons near the "altar."

I guess they were patterning this after what they saw in church - after all, the main celebrant did very little, but kept giving orders to the deacons, subdeacons and cantors . . .

When I saw this, it moved me deeply. Liturgy is truly something that has our own hand in it.

And judging from what this cast of characters did, their faith came really alive as they lived their own liturgy.

At graduation, the class had a skit on the stage portraying each of their teachers.

They portrayed me too .

The fellow who portrayed me had a prayer rope around his wrist, and kept smiling . . .

He announced, "And today class we are going to talk about Adam and Eve . . ."

To which, everyone slumped down in their seats and said, "Oh brother!"

And then the fellow came back with a ". . .actually, I was wrong, today we are going to talk about . . .sex!!"

At this everyone jumped up in their seats, ears at full alert . . .

The principal, who was sitting in the audience near me, gave me a stern look.

I turned to her and whispered, "I promise you that I never once mentioned anything about . . . Adam and Eve. . ."

Later, the fellow who portrayed me came up and asked me how I thought the skit played out.

Of course, I gave him high marks!

It then occurred to me that this fellow, five years earlier, had told me that he was an agnostic and was only attending my class under protest because he had to . . .

We became good friends . . .

Alex

Dear Brethern,

Please check the Online Orthodox Catechism (Russian Orthodox)www.orthodoxeurope.org/catechism/000001.php

James

Dear James,

And this is how you want to endear me to my Ukrainian principal?

Alex

Brother Alex,
Would a Latin Pole turn on thee ? I think not, found the Orthodox Catechism on the Byzantine Catholic Daily Lectionary & Prayer Site.

Pokoj,
James