I do not know for certain if the Holy Father thinks the modern catechism waters down the faith or not, he probably doesn't. However, the Pope didn't see a problem in kissing the Qu'ran, having the the sacred Tilac put on his forehead by a priestess of Shiva in Bombay, or taking part in Animist rites in the “Sacred Forest” in Togo.
I am not saying that John Paul II is a heretic or that he is a bad Pope, but one can not ignore is bad judgement at times.
Look I don't think the new Catechism isn't Catholic but no one can deny that it wates down Catholic dogma. Compare the new Catechism with the Baltimore Catechism or the Catechism of Trent, and you will see how differently the Filioque, Papal Infallibilty, and the Immaculate Conception are presented. If you believe this is so because each age is taught the truth in a different way, then I guess this age/generation likes the lite version of the truth, which doesn't surprise me. Vatican II in itself was not a very liberal council, its the way the reforms were put into place, and those reforms that were carried out "in the spirit of Vatican II", such as the invention of a new liturgy, that were very liberal and, in many ways, a departure from Catholic teaching.
As to reference to Arians after the Council of Nicea...I have no idea what you are talking about. Vatican II was a pastoral council, it dealt with no heresy.
Then what do you call "I would rather omit the filioque from the Creed than put a stumbling block" ?!
This is Catholic teachings! Read the infallible Papal Bulls Unam Sanctam and Cantante Domino. The Catholic Church has always taught it is the true Church and all else is schism and heresy, period. A Church that claims to be, beyond a doubt, the true Church of Jesus Christ can not compromise, for to do so would be compromising the true faith.
So, for the sake of unity you are willing to deny Catholic dogmas, or would accept the Catholic Church shoving to the side what has been declared a dogma of the Catholic Church? And may I ask how would this happen, without the Catholic Church admitting it is not the true Church?
This is what angers me, Catholics so willing to give up fundamental dogmas and Church teaching for the sake of unity. It is truly sad.
The way of the Gospel is not to turn your back on Christ and deny the truth for the sake of unity. And since you are a Catholic you must believe the Filioque to be the truth, or you are a heretic, according to the definition of a heretic in the new Catechism.
I wish I could figure out how to separate the quotes like you do. It would probably be easier to follow my points. Maybe Anastasios will give me a lesson. Anyway...
Stipulated that the Pope probably shouldn't kiss the Koran or engage in like activity. He shouldn't counsel the burning of heretics either, but an earlier Pope did that. As you know, Popes are human. Of course, I'm human too, and could be wrong. I don't know how old you are. From their pictures the moderators look pretty young, and I think most people who engage in online forums are younger than me (that doesn't make me smarter, just slower to respond). As for me, I'm pushing fifty, and have had multiple experiences of changing my mind after being convinced that I am right. As I add to my treasury of galactically stupid acts, I become more and more diffident about criticizing others. In any event, I'm sure the Pope does better at his job than I would. Indeed, I wouldn't want the job. Just being responsible for how I impart religion to my family is plenty for me. I also teach for the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, and that's scarier than skydiving when I think about it, and I've done both. All I can do is ask God to take over, and keep me from teaching any error.
I do deny that the Catechism waters down the faith. In it there are extensive quotes from and cites to scripture, councils, and Church Fathers. There is a companion volume to the Catechism put out by Ignatius Press that contains the relevant portions of the works cited and quoted. I don't know how useful it would be to a theology student, but for those of us who are laypeople in secular jobs it is a real handy volume.
I'm not a proponent of Christianity Lite, but I do not equate the strictest interpretation of something with the truth of the matter. In the early Church those who taught that converts should be circumcised could certainly claim to be stricter than St. Paul. Indeed, they could point to historical practice to support their view. But that didn't make them right.
My comment about the Arians was to make the point that simply because there are those who disagree with Vatican II doesn't mean that the council was wrong, or a disaster. It just means that it was a disappointment to those who would have voted the other way on the issues that came before the council.
I agree with the filioque. I don't understand how someone can read the Bible and not acknowledge its truth. As I have pointed out, it does not mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in an ultimate sense, but the Orthodox seem to think that it sounds that way. And, actually, to be honest, it does sound that way. And if anybody thinks that because of the Creed, then they are wrong, I think. To say that the Church holds the truth doesn't mean that she always expresses it in the clearest manner possible. So I have no objection to rephrasing it, or even omitting it entirely until the differences can be sorted out. The Creed doesn't have to enunciate all truth. It says nothing about the Assumption of Mary, for example. And yes, if it offends my Orthodox brothers, I'm willing to take it out. That is because the Orthodox Churches are apostolic, true Churches. I wouldn't be willing to do something like that for the Peace and Freedom Party.
Yes, Brother Ben, unity is that important to me. I'm willing to look weak and foolish in order to make it happen. I don't see this as turning my back on the Gospel, because the unity of all Apostolic Churches is part of the Gospel. The western, eastern, and oriental Churches all need each other to fully accomplish their mission. Unity will be best achieved when we stop thinking how the other side can come up to our standards, and start thinking about how we can serve the other side.
It's just like marriage. Anyone who thinks of marriage as a contract where they have the right to expect something from the other is doomed to disappointment. The happy marriages are those where each partner thinks about how he or she can serve the other, and leaves the service of self to the other. Of course, there's risk involved; it takes faith. That's why marriage is a sacrament.
Now we Catholics say that we have maintained unity with the Apostolic See, the Chair of Peter, the rock on which the Church is built. Now if this is true, and I am convinced that it is, then the cause of unity is especially the mission of the Pope. It follows that in this matter he, as in other things, must fulfill the role of Servant of the Servants of God. Therefore, Christians in communion with him must share in that ministry, and also be servants for the cause of unity.