Is obdedience required to the Catechism?

[andyandely1997]

Are Catholics required to be obedient to the Catechism of the Catholic Church? I have seen other people on these forums saying the Catechism is not infallible, and therefore, it is up to our interpretation. Is not the Catechism an official teaching of the Church? Are we not suppose to be faithful & obedient to all teachings of the Church? What is the purpose of the Catechism, if it is only a guideline or a book of suggestions?

[chaunceygardner]

This is what the prologue of the Catechism says:

This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium. It is intended to serve "as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries."

This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful.

I see the Catechism as a teaching tool, where the fundamentals of Catholicism are presented and explanations for the doctrines of the Church given.

For example, a doctrine of the Church is: "Jesus Christ is true God and true Son of God. " The catechism explains and describes what these concepts mean. So it contains more than the doctrine itself, as a tool in teaching about the Church and to increase uniformity of understanding about various doctrines.

One could find fault with an explanation or application of a doctrine as presented in the Catechism. This I believe, is where the disagreements occur: Not in the doctrines contained in the Catechism, but in some of the explanations and references used with those doctrines, and in interpreting their meaning in light of the understanding that had developed during and after Vatican II.

Just like one could teach academic subjects where the basic facts are not in contention (such as historical events), but the meaning causes and effects of those facts or events can be disputed.

[MarkThompson]

Originally Posted by andyandely1997

Are Catholics required to be obedient to the Catechism of the Catholic Church? I have seen other people on these forums saying the Catechism is not infallible, and therefore, it is up to our interpretation. Is not the Catechism an official teaching of the Church? Are we not suppose to be faithful & obedient to all teachings of the Church? What is the purpose of the Catechism, if it is only a guideline or a book of suggestions?

The Catechism compiles and explains the teachings and obligations of the Church, but it does not by itself create those obligations. So, for instance, your state (looks like you're in South Carolina) has a traffic code, which is Title 56, Chapter 5 of the South Carolina Code of Laws. The code creates the obligations for motorists, like Section 56-5-440:

The driver of a vehicle approaching a yield sign shall in obedience to such sign slow down to a speed reasonable for the existing conditions and, if required for safety to stop, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line but, if none, before entering the cross-walk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting road before entering it. After slowing or stopping, the driver shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways. If such driver is involved in a collision with a vehicle in the intersection or junction of roadways, after driving past a yield sign without stopping, the collision shall be deemed prima facie evidence of his failure to yield right-of-way.

Legal codes are often tough to navigate, written in legalese, and have a lot of information that doesn't apply to 99% of average people. So the South Carolina DMV also publishes manuals for ordinary motorists, like this one about traffic signs. That's basically what the Catechism is doing. So if you ask, "Do I have to obey this manual from from the DMV?", the answer is, yes and no -- as a manual it is not binding, but it was written to explain the laws that are binding.

Ever paragraph in the Catechism has footnoted citations to Church documents, the Code of Canon Law, the writings of Church Fathers, and so on. But it would be tough to ask the average Catholic to wade through all of those just to find the answers to simple questions, so the Catechism was written. But if you're curious about a specific issue it discusses, those footnotes are generally a good place to start.

[stbruderklaus]

I think you've put your finger on one of the primary issues still remaining for non-Roman catholics, interested in walking together with Rome.

While the charism of infallibility is only officially assigned to the pope in particular instances, and to ecumenical councils, the expectation of submission to the local bishop (or the pope) is a daily kind of thing. So, while the catechism is not technically infallible, from a lay perspective, it is binding, just like any other utterance of the Church. For example, those Anglicans who have accepted the offer of Rome to come over en masse, have signed their subscription to the CCC in formal sessions.

So, for most of us outside the communion of Rome, we're not willing to bow to whatever Rome may or may not teache next, even if we agree with what she is teaching today. Once the councilliar tradition died in the west, the proclivities of whatever pontiff ascended St. Peter's chair became de facto binding on every Roman Christian. There is no authentic appeal process to what an individual conscience may discern to be error in a teaching of Rome (for example, the CCC) since submission is the rule. What seems to emerge are cloaked factions, all contriving for control, seeking to get their own pope on the throne.

If I recall, this was fundamentally C.S. Lewis' response for why he never joined the RCC. He was in agreement with much, if not all the doctrines promulgated by Rome in his time, but he could not promise that he would be in agreement with whatever they came up with next, be it catechism or otherwise. Such is the case for many of us, who are willing only to submit to the Scriptures, and those men who have themselves submitted to them.

Grace and peace.

Originally Posted by andyandely1997

Are Catholics required to be obedient to the Catechism of the Catholic Church? I have seen other people on these forums saying the Catechism is not infallible, and therefore, it is up to our interpretation. Is not the Catechism an official teaching of the Church? Are we not suppose to be faithful & obedient to all teachings of the Church? What is the purpose of the Catechism, if it is only a guideline or a book of suggestions?

[MarkThompson]

Originally Posted by stbruderklaus

I think you've put your finger on one of the primary issues still remaining for non-Roman catholics, interested in walking together with Rome.

While the charism of infallibility is only officially assigned to the pope in particular instances, and to ecumenical councils, the expectation of submission to the local bishop (or the pope) is a daily kind of thing. So, while the catechism is not technically infallible, from a lay perspective, it is binding, just like any other utterance of the Church. For example, those Anglicans who have accepted the offer of Rome to come over en masse, have signed their subscription to the CCC in formal sessions.

So, for most of us outside the communion of Rome, we're not willing to bow to whatever Rome may or may not teache next, even if we agree with what she is teaching today. Once the councilliar tradition died in the west, the proclivities of whatever pontiff ascended St. Peter's chair became de facto binding on every Roman Christian. There is no authentic appeal process to what an individual conscience may discern to be error in a teaching of Rome (for example, the CCC) since submission is the rule. What seems to emerge are cloaked factions, all contriving for control, seeking to get their own pope on the throne.

If I recall, this was fundamentally C.S. Lewis' response for why he never joined the RCC. He was in agreement with much, if not all the doctrines promulgated by Rome in his time, but he could not promise that he would be in agreement with whatever they came up with next, be it catechism or otherwise. Such is the case for many of us, who are willing only to submit to the Scriptures, and those men who have themselves submitted to them.

Grace and peace.

That's a respectable viewpoint. However, from the Catholic point of view, the Church is more than just a group of like-minded individuals who get together to worship God and appoint someone from among them to be in charge. It's the divinely-instituted Body of Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit. The same faith that I have in the future -- that Christ will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and all that -- gives me faith in the future of the Church and its teachings. My faith in God gives me faith in God's Church. To say, "I'm not sure I could agree with what the Church will teach tomorrow" would be, for me, tantamount to a complete denial of the divine origins and guidance of the Church.

Obviously matters are different for Protestants, but for Catholics it's worth remembering that although the Church contains a bunch of random and sinful men, it's more than the sum of its parts.

[andyandely1997]

Thanks for the input. What about areas that talk about grave matter or sin when it comes to things such as missing Sunday Mass or masturbation? Some people will argue these are not mortal sins.

Also, I have read the Catechism, but did not pay much attention to the prologue, thanks for pointing it out. I wish the prologue would have included parents. Do not parents have the first responsibility to teach their children the Catholic faith? It is not the sole responsibility of the Church. Besides the last sentence of the prologue, the prologue makes it sound like the Catechism is mainly supposed to be used by the Church for catechesis. I believe more emphasis should be made on all Catholics to read the Catechism. It is not only for teaching within the Church. I am glad I received one during RCIA.

[chaunceygardner]

Originally Posted by andyandely1997

Thanks for the input. What about areas that talk about grave matter or sin when it comes to things such as missing Sunday Mass or masturbation? Some people will argue these are not mortal sins.

Also, I have read the Catechism, but did not pay much attention to the prologue, thanks for pointing it out. I wish the prologue would have included parents. Do not parents have the first responsibility to teach their children the Catholic faith? It is not the sole responsibility of the Church. Besides the last sentence of the prologue, the prologue makes it sound like the Catechism is mainly supposed to be used by the Church for catechesis. I believe more emphasis should be made on all Catholics to read the Catechism. It is not only for teaching within the Church. I am glad I received one during RCIA.

Just to clarify, the two paragraphs I quoted from the Prologue to the Catechism were under the heading: "The Aim and Intended Readership of this Catechism" , which I used as they appeared to address some of your post. The entire Prologue is 25 paragraphs in length. In a quick review of it I did not see any reference to parental responsibility for teaching children using the Catechism. I would agree with your impression about who is to use it and how.

[Lancer]

Is your position based on an infallible source or is it just your opinion...or are you saying that you are infallible on this matter of faith?

I think that you have put your finger the real issue...at least for yourself...and it is clearly not "infallibility"...it is "authority"...you want your "personal authority" to be the final arbiter of what to give your assent of faith (submit) to and what you want to reject. Am I misreading you? If not...

There are dozens if not hundreds of Fathers of the Church who talk about this one issue of "authority"...(look at Saint Ignatius of Antioch--letters @ 95AD-100AD) and there was no confusion in their minds about where the "buck" stops in all matters of faith and morals...the Chair of Saint Peter and the Magisterium of the Church...a guarantee of never being in error on any pronouncement of faith and/or morals...answering precisely for Our Lord Jesus on all matters of faith and morals.

You use words like "proclivity of the pope" as if the Holy Spirit is not involved in guiding the Catholic Church...and that the Pope "can make it up as he goes along"...when in fact he is the "guardian" of the apostolic faith that has been handed down from Our Lord Jesus to the apostles and on down through the centuries.

Take a look at Our Lord Jesus' words about "unity" and being "one" in the gospel of John (Chapters14-17)...maybe you think the Jesus was just saying "...have a nice day..."...and we can wing it on our own!

Such is the case for many of us, who are willing only to submit to the Scriptures, and those men who have themselves submitted to them.

Do you have a reference or source (outside of yourself) for this " self -designed rule or axiom"...where in the scripture or the ancient church (Apostle age or the Fathers age) does anyone say this?...or...it is an invention the the 16th Cenruty?...When you use the scriptures you find guidance like this:

1 Timothy 3:15 (New International Version) 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

I never before heard your explanation of why CS Lewis did not became a Catholic...if your answer is correct (no ref given to support your claim)... then Mr. Lewis' problem was not "authority"...his problem was based on the "cornerstone" of all bad spiritual decisions (and many temporal ones also)...Pride.

Lastly, so, what Church would you belong to if you lived in the year 500 AD?...how about even after the Great Schism...say in the year 1100 AD? In either case...you would be facing your dilemma of submitting to "authority"...like I said the "flavor of personal authority" you prefer is an invention of the 16th Century. Honestly, I really prefer the same "deal" as you on the idea of "authority"...but I just don't trust myself that much.

Pax Christi

[Joe Kelley]

...The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches,whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church....

Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger & Christopher Schoenborn. [Ignatius Press, 1994]

[otjm]

Originally Posted by andyandely1997

Thanks for the input. What about areas that talk about grave matter or sin when it comes to things such as missing Sunday Mass or masturbation? Some people will argue these are not mortal sins.

Interestingly, the people who point such things out never point to any offical teaching of the Church. They may refer to a certain theologian who opines such, but that theologian's opinions are just that - opinions; and when they do not conform to the teachibng of the Church, that opinion and a couple of dollars will get you somehwere on the local transit system. that whole ruckus started after Vatican 2; it is a long and interesting (and truly sad) stoory, far too long to go into here. Howefver, much if not most of it sources back to Situational Ethics, started by an Anglican Episcipalian priest. It has lead any number of theologians down a path to moral relativism.

The Church recognizes that there are issues which are of a serious nature, but that because of habit or other specific circumstances may not be a mortal sin for a specific individual. If that is an issue, it is best resolved with a good confessor; not one who simply blows you off, but one who can help to gain both perspective and help to work on the area of trouble.

[Erin Anne]

Originally Posted by andyandely1997

Do not parents have the first responsibility to teach their children the Catholic faith?

Yes. Our families are our 'Domestic Church'. It should start with the Parents.
The unfortunate thing is that there has been a breakdown of this over the last couple of generations and today's Parents (in their 20s and 30s) have been poorly catechized themselves.

[thistle]

Originally Posted by andyandely1997

Are Catholics required to be obedient to the Catechism of the Catholic Church? I have seen other people on these forums saying the Catechism is not infallible, and therefore, it is up to our interpretation. Is not the Catechism an official teaching of the Church? Are we not suppose to be faithful & obedient to all teachings of the Church? What is the purpose of the Catechism, if it is only a guideline or a book of suggestions?

The CCC contains a summary of all Church teachings (doctrine and discipline).
It is therefore not the CCC per se you have to obey but the Church teachings.

By the way, you also have to obey Canon Law.

[andyandely1997]

Originally Posted by Joe Kelley

Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger & Christopher Schoenborn. [Ignatius Press, 1994]

That is a good explanation.

[Teresa Lee]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a beautiful book. It clarifies teaching and guides Catholics on what is and isn't acceptable as members of the faith. Just like the Bible, it is subject to misinterpretation when not studied accurately. Yet, people still read the Bible and receive much grace from doing so.

Catholicism is extremely rich in history and Tradition. The Catechism takes everything into account, providing a resource for Christians that lends itself to great spiritual advancement if we let it. So how do we let the Catholic Catechism change our lives? One way is to study it. Another is to take what we learn and apply it in our daily lives. This won't be easy, but it can be done in the spirit of obedience.

I often think of sports when I start discussing spiritual matters. People love sports, and they participate in them in many ways. They even call in sick from work to catch a good game now and then. Players do whatever it takes to be the best they can on the field or court. Why? Because this is part of who they are, and they participate in every aspect of it. Even if they don't like one of the rules, they still abide by them to be part of the game.

Spirituality and religion should be treated the same way we treat sports and hobbies. They should be energetic aspects of our lives that send positive, happy vibes to the people around us. The only way this happens is if we maintain a spirit of obedience to our beliefs, and share those beliefs with others. I'm trying to do that with my blog that discusses the Catholic Catechism from start to finish. I'm no scholar. These thoughts are merely my interpretation of what my Church teaches and expects me to abide by. I hope that if I'm wrong about what I print, someone will be kind enough to point me in a different direction. Communication is extremely important when it comes to obedience.

"In reality, all of us are inclined to do our own will and agree more readily with those who hold with our views. But if we want to have the presence of God among us, then we must be willing to give up our own way in order to live in love and harmony with others." Imitation of Christ pg. 26.

Teresa