Friday, April 01, 2016

Benedict's Compendium, the CCC, and YouCat compared

An erudite reader sent me this yesterday:
In my usual scavenging I came up with a copy of YouCat. It is truly awful. When I compared it with Benedict's 2006 Compendium of the Catechism, I immediately recognized how good Benedict's work is. It is theological throughout and hangs together as an integrated text. Its language is clearer than YouCat. When you compare "transubstantiation" or "passions" Benedict wins.

Recently Robert Hickson released a damning indictment of the CCC which Fr. John Hardon did not want published while he was still alive. Hardon claimed that the final text was not Catholic. The French firebrand Abbe Georges de Nantes published a book damning the 1992 catechism listing 12 heresies he found therein. When Benedict's Compendium appeared in 2006, his newsletter the Catholic Counter Reform declared that Benedict's work corrected all of the errors in the 1992 catechism.

There is an excellent doctrinal critique of YouCat at Faithful Answers website. It is regrettabble that the Compendium was published by the USCCB as an official document and has never received the circulation it deserves. Ignatius Press should publish it in a more popular format and remove YouCat from circulation. YouCat panders to youth trying to be hip and dumbs down its theology. It is a true horror.
[Hat tip to Sir A.S.]


14 comments:








Enver Hoxha

said...

It is too bad I never experienced a Paulian conversion and ascended to become the 261st pope. The windows would have been flung open only to allow for machine gun placements, I assure you.





Catholic Mission

said...

'it is theological throughout and hangs together like an integrated text'
Lionel:
Which theology are you referring to ? There can be two interpretations of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and it is the same with Vatican Council II.

Feeneyism according to Wikipedia : with comments
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/feeneyism-according-to-wikipedia-with.html

Traditionalists are still interpreting Lumen Gentium 16 with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/traditionalists-are-still-interpreting.html

Traditionalists like Reuters correspondents use Cushingism to interpret Vatican Council II : Feeneyism cannot be part of the dialogue.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/traditionalists-like-reuters.html

No denial from traditionalists and Catholic journalists : contemporary TLM and Novus Ordo Mass is modernist, accompanied with a heretical theology (for them)
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/no-denial-from-traditionalists-and.html

The baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance can be interpreted according to Feeneyism or Cushingism, one approach is irrational
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/the-baptism-of-desire-and-blood-and.html

Michael Voris could show how Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism,with visible exceptions or without them, irrationally or rationally
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/michael-voris-could-show-how-vatican.html

SSPX priests are using Cushingism instead of Feeneyism as a theology this is a break with the Syllabus of Errors,traditional ecumenism and the old ecclesiology based on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/sspx-priests-are-using-cushingism.html

Louie Verrecchio still doesn't get it :there is a theology of Cushingism and Feeneyism
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/louie-verrecchio-still-doesnt-get-it.html

I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) like the Church Councils and popes.I also affirm implicit for us baptism of desire.I am affirming Vatican Council II in harmony with the dogma EENS as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/i-affirm-dogma-extra-ecclesiam-nulla.html

____________________________________________

Secondly there is an objective mistake in Vatican Council II and this was not known or recognised by Cardinal Ratzinger or Cardinal Schonborn.
It was also not known to Fr.John Hardon. Fr.Hardon was using Cushingism as a theology.

Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/cardinal-raymond-burke-approved-fr-john.html

What was Fr. Hardons error that Cardinal Burke approved?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/what-was-fr-hardons-error-that-cardinal.html

Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/cardinal-raymond-burke-interprets.html

Rome made a mistake in 1949 and Fr.John Hardon did not notice it
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/rome-made-mistake-in-1949-and-frjohn_3.html

The Catechumen you refer to is a hypothetical case for you and me. So it is not an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Fr.John Hardon too did not notice this. http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/the-catechuman-you-refer-to-is.html
________________________

Finally there was an objective mistake in the Letter(1949) and the wrong conclusion of that irrational thinking, was placed in Vatican Council II ( LG 14).

There is an objective mistake in Vatican Council II. Based on this error Pope Benedict said the dogma EENS has 'developed': avoid the error and we are back to the old ecclesiology with Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/there-is-objective-mistake-in-vatican.html





JM

said...

Harmon's list is spot on.

And the compendium is off on inspiration of Scripture.





Catholic Mission

said...

Cardinal Ratzinger, Fr.John Hardon and Robert Hickson were interpreting the Catechism and Vatican Council II with irrational Cushingism as a theology

In my usual scavenging I came up with a copy of YouCat. It is truly awful. When I compared it with Benedict's 2006 Compendium of the Catechism, I immediately recognized how good Benedict's work is. It is theological throughout and hangs together as an integrated text.-Benedict's Compendium, the CCC, and YouCat compared, from the blog Musings of a Pertinacious Papist.

Lionel :
When you say it is theological are you reading it with Feeneyism or Cushingism ?

Feeneyism according to Wikipedia : with comments
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/feeneyism-according-to-wikipedia-with.html

At the 'New Traditional College' will the faculty interpret magisterial documents with Feeneyism or Cushingism ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/at-new-traditional-college-will-faculty.html

The theology mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, is meaningless and does not apply.In a way they kind of duped all of us, including me
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/the-theology-mentioned-in-letter-of.html

Traditionalists are still interpreting Lumen Gentium 16 with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/traditionalists-are-still-interpreting.html

Traditionalists like Reuters correspondents use Cushingism to interpret Vatican Council II : Feeneyism cannot be part of the dialogue.http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/traditionalists-like-reuters.html

No denial from traditionalists and Catholic journalists : contemporary TLM and Novus Ordo Mass is modernist, accompanied with a heretical theology (for them) http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/no-denial-from-traditionalists-and.html

The baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance can be interpreted according to Feeneyism or Cushingism, one approach is irrational http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/the-baptism-of-desire-and-blood-and.html

Michael Voris could show how Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism,with visible exceptions or without them, irrationally or rationally http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/michael-voris-could-show-how-vatican.html
CONTINUED





Catholic Mission

said...

CONTINUED

CDF Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis S.j repeats the error of the 1949 Holy Office Letter : the mistake was placed in Vatican Council in so many passages
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/cdf-notification-on-dupuis-repeats.html

SSPX priests are using Cushingism instead of Feeneyism as a theology this is a break with the Syllabus of Errors,traditional ecumenism and the old ecclesiology based on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/12/sspx-priests-are-using-cushingism.html
________________________________________


Recently Robert Hickson released a damning indictment of the CCC which Fr. John Hardon did not want published while he was still alive. Hardon claimed that the final text was not Catholic - Benedict's Compendium, the CCC, and YouCat compared, from the blog Musings of a Pertinacious Papist.
Lionel:
Fr.Hardon was interpreting Vatican Council II with irrational Cushingism as a theology.

Cardinal Raymond Burke approved the article. Fr.Hardon like Cardinal Marchetti makes this wrong inference in the article http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/cardinal-raymond-burke-approved-article.html

Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/cardinal-raymond-burke-approved-fr-john.html

What was Fr. Hardons error that Cardinal Burke approved?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/what-was-fr-hardons-error-that-cardinal.html

Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Masshttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/cardinal-raymond-burke-interprets.html

Rome made a mistake in 1949 and Fr.John Hardon did not notice it http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/ro me-made-mistake-in-1949-and-frjohn_3.html

The Catechumen you refer to is a hypothetical case for you and me. So it is not an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Fr.John Hardon too did not notice this
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/the-catechuman-you-refer-to-is.html

For Cardinal Raymond Burke these hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/for-cardinal-raymond-burke-these.html
_____________________________________

There was an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and its conclusion was placed in Vatican Council II(LG 14) and Cardinal Ratzinger, Fr.John Hardon and Robert Hickson were unaware of it. They did not mention it.

There is an objective mistake in Vatican Council II. Based on this error Pope Benedict said the dogma EENS has 'developed': avoid the error and we are back to the old ecclesiology with Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/there-is-objective-mistake-in-vatican.html-Lionel Andrades





Catholic Mission

said...


The Catechism and Vatican Council II are not a break with the dogma EENS unless invisible and visible, hypothetical and objective cases are confused : how would Dr.Robert Dickson interpret CCC 1257 ?

How would Dr.Robert Dickson interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) ? He has a choice and he doesn't know it.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. 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."God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.-Catechism of the Catholic Church.

'but he himself is not bound by his sacraments'. Is this relevant or an exception to the interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) according to the 16th century missionaries? Probably it is an exception for Robert and Maike Dickson.
But not for me.
1. Since I do not know any one this year who will be saved without the Sacraments.
2.Neither would Maike and Robert Dickson know of any one in 2016 or in the past who was saved without the Sacraments.
3.I look at CCC 1257 with the theology of Feeneyism i.e there are no known exceptions to EENS. For the Maike and Robert Dickson, Cardiinal Ratzinger and Fr.John Hardon, it was with the theology of Cushingism ( there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS and so every one does not need to enter the Church formally as it was believed in the 16th century.)
4.For me in principle hypothetical cases cannot be objectively seen.
5.The baptism of desire and blood,LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to invisible and not visible cases.

So there is a choice. We can interpret CCC 1257 with Feeneyism or Cushingism, with rationality or with an irrationality, according to Tradition or opposed to Tradition, in agreement with the pre-Council of Trent magisterium or in agreement with the contemporary magisterium.
For Pope Benedict and Cardinal Kasper the interpretation of CCC 1257 is with Cushingism. So we have the hermeneutic of rupture. Since there is a break with the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS, they could suggest that other teachings of the Church can be changed.There is no change in ecclesiology we must note, when the Synod Exhortation is announced.
CONTINUED





Catholic Mission

said...

CONTINUED

So it is important to know that the Catechism(1992) and Vatican Council II is not a break with the dogma EENS unless invisible and visible, hypothetical and objective cases are confused.
It was because of this confusion in 1949 Boston that it was assumed every one does not need to enter the Church and that a person in invincible ignorance can be saved without the baptism of water.So Lumen Gentium 14 says only those persons need to enter the Church to avoid Hell who know about Jesus and the Church.Since those who are saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma.
The LG 14 insertion comes from the Holy Office 1949 and the Archdiocese of Boston wrongly assuming there is salvation outside the Church, since there are known cases, physically known cases of persons saved without the baptis mof water.People in Heaven were considered exceptions on on earth.
It was based on this objective error that LG 8 mentions being saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth', as if these cases are known and so relevant to the dogma EENS.
Similarly it is based on this objective error in 1949 that UR 3 refers to those Christians saved in imperfect communion with the Church, as if these cases are known and phyiscally visible, so they were mentioned in Vatican Council II.
Similarly NA 2 refers to 'that ray of the Truth'.This is another hypothetical case interpreted as being objective, since this was the error pattern at Boston in 1949.It should not have been mentioned in Vatican Council II. It is like dead wood, flotsam and jetsam and unecessary Cushing Addition.
Ad Gentes 7 mentions 'seeds of the Word' and AG 7 and LG 14 refer to the catechuman saved with the desire for the baptism of water, which he did not receive before dieing and there are those cases of persons in invincible ignorance, allegedly personally known and saved. None of these cases should have been mentioned in Vatican Council II.
There cannot be adevelopent of a doctrine or dogma based on invisible cases.However the mistake was made in 1949 and the error transferred to Vatican Council II on a big scale. It is as if they called up the Council only to officially approve the error in the 1949 Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani Letter from Rome.
This is a magisterial error. If any one, pope or cardinal, infers that we humans can physically see people in Heaven saved this year with or without the baptism of water, it is nonsense.-Lionel Andrades





Catholic Mission

said...

The Catechism and Vatican Council II are not a break with the dogma EENS unless invisible and visible, hypothetical and objective cases are confused : how would Dr.Robert Dickson interpret CCC 1257 ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/cardinal-ratzinger-frjohn-hardon-and.html


It would be useful if Dr.Maike Hickson could comment on this before the Synod Exhortation is out http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/it-would-be-useful-if-drmaike-hickson.html

Cardinal Ratzinger, Fr.John Hardon and Robert Hickson were interpreting the Catechism and Vatican Council II with irrational Cushingism as a theology
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/cardinal-ratzinger-frjohn-hardon-and.html





Pertinacious Papist

said...

JM,

Thanks for that addendum on the 'Compendium'. We dare not forget the vitally-important issues you mention either.





Pertinacious Papist

said...

CM,

On a hierarchy of values, where would you place your concern. Is this the HEART of the Gospel, the Catholic Faith or not? How much hangs on it, would you say?





Catholic Mission

said...

P.P
On a hierarchy of values, where would you place your concern. Is this the HEART of the Gospel, the Catholic Faith or not? How much hangs on it, would you say?

Lionel: On the hierarchy of values of Pope John Paul II, we are dealing with first class heresy.
Since in reality the Nicene Creed has been changed.Before the Council of Trent the Nicene Creed did not mean 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins and they exclude the baptism of water. They are the baptism of desire ( without the baptism of water), being saved in invincible ignorance ( without the baptism of water etc'.
We are theologically rejecting John 3:5 and Mark 16:15 by suggesting not everyone in the present times needs to be a formal member of the Church with faith and the baptism of water.
Theologically we are rejecting the Great Commission by suggestig that there is known salvation outside the Church.
This issue is central to the divide in the Catholic Church over Vatican Council II.It is at the centre of the SSPX-Vatican reconcliation.
It will be wrongly used by Cardinal Walter Kasper to suggest that doctrine and dogma has changed in the Catholic Church ( with the use of an irrational inference which he will not mention) and so the Church can change its other teachings e.g giving the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried.
Ths issue is at the centre of mission and evangelisation based on the knowledge of the majority of people going to Hell because of Original Sin and mortal sins committed in that state.
This issue decides if the Traditional Latin Mass( and the Novus Ordo Mass) is offered with the old ecclesiology or the new ecclesiology.The present the new theology of the TLM is based upon an irrationality.
This issue decides if Vatican Council II is not an exception to the dogma EENS and so there is no change presently in post Vatican Council II ecumenism and inter religious dialogue based upon the text of Vatican Council II which can be interpreted with Feeneyism, instead of the present Cushingism.
-Lionel Andrades





JM

said...

De Nantes' analysis is seering and also fairly incontestable if you take Tradition seriously.

http://crc-internet.org/further-information/liber-accusationis/against-ccc/second-heresy/

Finally a profile that perfectly describes the personality order afflicting the postconciliar project. DeLubac and the Nouvelles pioneered a faith departure than remains essentially heretical, no matter if four out of five Popes vocally approve. The CCC has beautiful, lyrical passages. And it also has ones that fluctuate from settled doctrine.

Its champions are the current Cardinal Schonborn, and the man who created the phenomenon we will forever hence know as "Pope Emeritus." That says a good deal. These individuals may be sincere and honorable Christians in their personal lives, but their ecclesiastical legacies are hot messes.





Pertinacious Papist

said...

Mr. Andrades,

Thanks for the explanation. Put simply, then, the concern you raise is at the very heart of the Church's Mission, as well as at the heart of the slough of indifferentism that currently afflicts the Church, the collapse of her mission work, widespread lack of concern over formal Church membership and the sacraments of the Church, much less an ascetical spirituality of penance. Thanks for putting it all into a nutshell like that. So the issue comes down to our having no known cases of known salvation outside formal membership in the RCC, though allowing the hypothetical possibility of God saving some in invincible ignorance or via the 'baptisms' of desire, blood, etc.?





Catholic Mission

said...


Yes!
I am glad you have understood what I have been saying!Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.

Yes! - ' the issue comes down to our having no known cases of known salvation outside formal membership in the RCC, though allowing the hypothetical possibility of God saving some in invincible ignorance or via the 'baptisms' of desire, blood, etc ( which would include the baptism of water)- and it still would be hypothetical and a possibility known only to God.
-Lionel