ITT we discuss the Catechism and particular sections that raise our interestCatechismhttps://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTMVatican Mass 24/7https://youtu.be/A2JBODj1vio>544 The kingdom belongs to the poor and lowly, which means those who have accepted it with humble hearts. Jesus is sent to "preach good news to the poor"; 253 he declares them blessed, for "theirs is the kingdom of heaven." 254 To them - the "little ones" the Father is pleased to reveal what remains hidden from the wise and the learned. 255 Jesus shares the life of the poor, from the cradle to the cross; he experiences hunger, thirst and privation. 256 Jesus identifies himself with the poor of every kind and makes active love toward them the condition for entering his kingdom. 257All I wanted to do was larp but now I have to help poor people
>>25236393What I find strange about Christianity is how much a person's salvation is contingent upon circumstances and characteristics external to themselves. Like Christians will give sensible advice, like, act in this or that way so as not to turn people against the faith - but isn't it a little strange that a person's eternal fate can be affected by some action of mine?
>>25236393I only adhere to the Catechism of the Council of Trent. I don't accept this forgery and won't be participating in the thread. Just thought you should know.
>>25236400God is omnipotent. He takes all that into consideration when judging people.
>>25236400That's not Christianity, that's Arminianism.
>>25236409I meant omniscient.
How do you define poor? There are multiple poverties.
>>25236406Are you protesting the institution of the catholic church?
>>25236470>Are you protesting the institution that produced the Catechism of the Council of Trent?Huh?
>>25236678You are doing this if you protest against the CCC
>>25236685No I'm not.
>>25236406You arent a catholic. You're a larping little zoom zoom who wants a religious justification for hatred.
>>25236393
>>25236703Is this the famous ecumenical tolerance of liberals? Too bad for you that you don't have the authority to excommunicate me. Cope and seethe.
>>25236706You forgot an important step to salvation.
>>25236691Is your position that you approve of the Catholic Church in general but disapprove of the Catechism?
>>25236759My position is that the Catholic Church believes exactly as she has always and everywhere believed from the time of the ancients down to the present day, that the Catechism of the Council of Trent expresses this belief accurately, and anything that contradicts it cannot have come from the same Church.
>>25236769Who made the new one then? An imposter Church or some infiltrators in the real Church?
>>25236788Who knows for sure? Probably the devil himself.
>>25236750Lutherans really have no clue on what Catholics think will make you go to heaven.
>>25236807John 14:15John 14:21Simple as
The catechism contradicts infallible ecumenical councils, and for that reason I'm out.
>>25236957Such as?
>>25236963Ignore him; he can't provide any example because there are no contradictions.
>>25236769Newman's development of doctrine is surely a heresy of the highest order
>>25236393>Jesus identifies himself with the poor of every kind and makes active love toward them the condition for entering his kingdomAnd that's why the First American Pope will be visiting the island all the African and Arab migrants come to Europe through on the 4th of July. To remind them they aren't doing enough for the poor and to let more third worlders enter their countries>https://x.com/CalltoActivism/status/2047801754675298479You're not doing enough to help the poor, Global Northerners!
>>25236409but if he is actually judging people based on an inward spiritual life, how can we know our judgments of others are reliable at all? If dr mengele had been incurably evil, does god let him off because he couldn't've been otherwise, or spawn him just for him to suffer forever? If the former, how can our judgments ever be reliable ("if dr mengele isn't evil, i don't know what evil is"); if the latter, how is god just?
>>25236963>>25238179CCC 1782: Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.""Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true." Condemned in allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.Vatican Council Session 3: If anyone says that human studies are to be treated with such a degree of liberty that their assertions may be maintained as true even when they are opposed to divine revelation, and that they may not be forbidden by the church: let him be anathema.>>25238329Our judgments are not reliable if applied to a person's soul, they are reliable if applied to his actions according to right reason.
>>25238441I wonder if the interpret 1782 as something like people are guided through their conscience to the Catholic Church, if I were to give a supportive reading.
>>25238329>but if he is actually judging people based on an inward spiritual life, how can we know our judgments of others are reliable at all?My nigga, the gospel literally says "Judge not, that ye be not judged"
>>25238479CCC 1780: Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed.According to that definition, one can't say that people are guided through their conscience to the Catholic Church, unless one's perception of the moral law as well as one's judgments in applying that law to particular cases are presumed to be infallible. But the CCC insists on human fallibility in many places, so we are left with an inviolable right to practice ritual human sacrifice, for instance, that literally must not be infringed, according to this text.
>>25236963>>25238179You can look it up yourself, they are enough to exceed character limit. I won't bother because arguing with Papists is futile, since the position is unfalsifiable. You cannot point out a contradiction, because unless you accept the Roman doctrine, your interpretation of history, scripture and councils is inadequate. Once you accept Rome, you can't find contradictions because Rome states there are none.It is impossible to even know what Rome's position on any given issue is. You can't discover it through your own reading of Catholic sources including official documents, because you can't interpret them.You can't discover through your reading of history.Nor through your local priest.Nor through the apologetics.Nor through the catechism because it's not infallible.Nor through scholars and theologians, no matter how influential they are, for they do not have authority to define doctrine or infallibility.Nor through councils, because even if a council is infallible, not all canons within it are. Nobody knows which canons are. Even if we did Rome has the monopoly on interpretation of those canons.Nor through the Pope himself, because he's only infallible sometimes and nobody knows exactly when he is, and even if he is infallible only the magisterium can interpret the Pope's ex cathedra statements. But nobody knows who or where exactly is that magisterium, as it not any one of the above.Arguing with Papists is playing a game of musical chairs where whenever you point out a contradiction, they switch over the voice of authority to a new convenient source. Council says so and so? well the catechism explains it. Catechism contradicts? here's a theologian explaining that. This theologian says all pagans are saved? well he's only a theologian.You can't even know a true Pope without the church. If the church establishes three Popes, and they excommunicate each other, you have to wait 300 years to find out who was the true Pope all along, because it was always obvious and the church always knew. That doesn't mean you could know of course. If your Pope taught false doctrine you can't disobey him, because the faithful must fully submit will and intellect, you cannot through your own will and intellect correct the Pope.And there is the issue of dogmas. Not any particular one but the fact that not only you must accept all dogmas to be considered within the Roman faith (and thus not anathema, which is now just a slap on the wrist apparently kek, not the grave horrible fate as it was understood in the first millennium) you also have to accept, now, all the future dogmas the church will establish for all eternity.For that reason I'm out.
Can anyone in their right mind read this shit in fully earnestly and come away actually believing it?
>>25238815uhhh okay bro whatever you say>>25238441seems like a reach. isn't this just saying that people are capable of acting on their own conscience and morals and should not be forced to do otherwise, and that people are free to choose/are capable of choosing what they believe? are you trying to say that acknowledging that people have the ability to choose what to believe is wrong somehow?
>>25238815Watching them step back on the death penalty in real time recently has been funny to watch.>actually it's bad now because we don't have to worry about not being able to house prisoners, even though that argument was never actually used for the thousand+ years the Church itself executed people.
>>25239201>isn't this just sayingrefer to >>25238815
>>25238815There is a book called Denzinger that basically does what you are asking for...The Cathechism is not infallible and no one ever claimed it is. It is just a resource for Bishops.
>>25236393How do Caths cope with having two shitlib marxist popes in a row? Is there any humiliation they won't take so long as it's be done by DUH MAGISTERIUM and DUH PONTIFEX?
>>25236393>All I wanted to do was larp but now I have to help poor peopleI'm ironically believe that means raising taxes, centralizing economy even, and letting politicians do as they want with all wealth they involuntarily take instead of each person practicing charity
>>25239375>>25239389Oh so this is why they don't mind the Marxist Popes. Well, you get what you deserve I guess.
>>25238329>how can we know our judgments of others are reliable at all?They’re not.
Have you ever tried to find the origins of transubstantiation? It's pretty hilarious.
