Since the Council of Trent (1545–1563), the Catholic Church has had a reference Catechism that synthesizes its perennial doctrine. This Roman Catechism was drafted as a result of a dogmatic and infallible Council that anathematized the Reformist theses regarding faith and the sacraments. Therefore, Catholic tradition has always regarded it as a reliable guide for teaching the faith. In contrast, the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), a product of the Second Vatican Council, is neither dogmatic nor infallible. As Professor Orlando Fedeli emphasizes, Vatican II had merely a pastoral character, without definitive magisterial proclamations. Consequently, the Catechism derived from it does not carry infallible authority either. Pope John Paul II requested that this catechism be used as a “sure and authentic reference text,” but did not impose it as mandatory; as Prof. Orlando Fedeli notes, “To ask is not to command.” In short, while the Catechism of Trent was born of an infallible Council, the 1992 Catechism holds only pastoral weight, leaving room for ambiguities.
Council of Trent: Dogmatic and Infallible Council
The Council of Trent was convoked by Pope Paul III in response to the Protestant Reformation. Its decrees are dogmatic and infallible: Prof. Orlando Fedeli notes that at Trent “all the Reformist theses… concerning the Catholic Faith and the Sacraments were condemned with anathemas.” Subsequently, in 1566, the Roman Catechism (Catechism of Trent) was composed based on these conciliar decrees. Thus, its entire content rests upon magisterial definitions that allow for no reinterpretation. The doctrine it contains—on grace, the sacraments, hierarchy, and morality—was taught by the Fathers and Popes without any subsequent innovation, ensuring the “secure continuity” of traditional faith. As Prof. Orlando summarizes, we are always grounded in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, “an infallible Council,” and its teaching is our infallible foundation.
Vatican II as a Pastoral Council
By contrast, the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) focused mainly on pastoral approaches and updating the Church’s language, without defining new dogmas. The Professor stresses that, for this reason, “if the New Catechism teaches the same as Trent’s, we can use Trent’s. If it differs, then we must use only Trent’s.” In other words, when faced with any divergence, there is no hesitation: Tridentine doctrine prevails. Furthermore, when Pope John Paul II promulgated the 1992 Catechism, he merely recommended its reading in a spirit of communion; there was no papal order to fully replace the previous one. Prof. Orlando categorically notes: “To ask is not to command… He who asks does not command.” Consequently, following the old Catechism is not rebellion—on the contrary, it reaffirms our fidelity to the Church’s millennial teaching, which is not rendered obsolete by pastoral updates.
Religious Liberty: Ancient Doctrine vs. Modern Innovation
The Catechism of Trent expresses the classical view: the only true religion is the Catholic one, and promoting beliefs contrary to the faith—as the Reformation did—is a grave error. Before Vatican II, the Church viewed governmental laws on “freedom of worship” (e.g., granting heretics the right to preach freely) as a danger to the truth. Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus (1864) even condemned the error “that freedom of religion is a right of man and should be proclaimed by law.” In contrast, the conciliar declaration Dignitatis Humanae (1965) affirms the personal right to religious freedom, without coercion, as a fundamental human value. The 1992 Catechism follows this line: it teaches that individuals should have legal protection to profess their faith according to their conscience. Many traditionalists see this as a “novelty incompatible” with the Church’s constant magisterium. Indeed, neither Trent nor the ancient Popes ever approved the idea that all errors must be tolerated as an act of justice, but only as a concession in exceptional circumstances. Contemporary language introduces ambiguities: for example, asking whether the Church now fully accepts all religions is painful for those who cherish the doctrine of Christ as the only path to salvation. This theme illustrates how the new catechism may appear to diverge from the old Tridentine emphasis, sparking doctrinal debates about the true meaning of “religious liberty” in the Church’s magisterium.
Ecumenism and Christian Unity
Another point of divergence between the catechisms is the approach to ecumenism. Trent reaffirmed the strict unity of the Catholic Church and condemned Protestant sects as branches separated from the Faith. There was no space for “equal dialogue” with other churches; the goal was either their return to communion with Rome or their identification as estranged from the truth. After Vatican II, documents emerged promoting dialogue with non-Catholic Christians and even with Jews and Muslims, emphasizing shared values. The 1992 Catechism reflects this spirit: it acknowledges elements of truth outside the Church and calls for mutual respect (as in Unitatis Redintegratio, Nostra Aetate). Critics see here “novelties” that seem to soften traditional definitions. They point out, for example, that Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos expressly condemned the errors of modern ecumenism as indifferentist. Comparing these approaches shows the contrast between the Tridentine emphasis on the one truth and the post-conciliar attitude of ecumenical outreach. For us, “continuity of faith” requires remembering that ecumenism must always be subordinate to the full truth; any ambiguities suggesting otherwise are seen as inconsistencies with the Church’s historic magisterium.
Episcopal Collegiality: Monarchy vs. College
The Council of Trent reinforced the primacy of the Pope as the successor of St. Peter, highlighting his supreme authority. Bishops were acknowledged as the legitimate local governors of dioceses, but in full communion with the Roman Pontiff. In contrast, Vatican II documents such as Christus Dominus and Lumen Gentium emphasized the “episcopal college” united with the Pope, highlighting the shared responsibility of bishops for the universal Church. Many traditionalists see in this an unusual emphasis, although Vatican I (1870) had already affirmed collegiality in a general sense. The traditional critique makes a distinction: collegiality must never diminish Petrine primacy, but some interpret certain post-conciliar passages as greater openness to the idea of councils or collegial decisions with their own authority. For example, there is concern whether the contemporary understanding of co-governance introduces something beyond the older strictly hierarchical model. While the new Catechism officially reaffirms the Pope’s primacy, its overall tone suggests a greater “synodality” (especially after Vatican II), differing from the categorical language of the past. This change in emphasis—even if subtle—is pointed out as a doctrinal divergence which, according to critics of the conciliar reform, does not fit with the unchanging Catholic tradition, where the Pope governs as the cornerstone and model of unity.
Salvation Outside the Church: Salvific Unity
Finally, the theme of salvation stands out. The Catechism of Trent—following traditions such as Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus—teaches that Christ is the sole Mediator, from whom the Church is born. Thus, in absolute terms, those who consciously reject the Church do not receive the ordinary means of salvation. The new Catechism, however, affirms (per Lumen Gentium 16) that those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Church but sincerely seek God and practice justice may attain salvation. In general, it admits salvation outside the visible bounds of the Church, by the action of Grace. To defenders of traditional doctrine, this represents a significant change: what once sounded like error or ambiguity now sounds pastorally more inclusive. The modern emphasis on invincible ignorance opens the door to contradictory interpretations about the reach of the one Church of Christ. Many see this as a doctrinal “ambiguity” of the new catechism, in contrast with the unambiguous clarity of previous teaching, which explicitly affirmed the necessity of remaining united to Christ through faith and the sacraments of the Church for eternal salvation.
In all these points—the Council’s infallibility, religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, and salvation—it is clear that the Roman Catechism is solid and stable, while the 1992 Catechism introduces new and sometimes ambiguous elements. To defend the former is not an act of rebellion against the Magisterium but an affirmation that the Church’s “eternal” doctrine is secure, unchangeable, and sufficient. As Prof. Orlando rightly says: if the new catechism agrees with the old, there is no problem in using it; but if it diverges, “one must use only Trent’s.” Our resistance is neither personal nor ideological. By following the Catechism of the infallible Council, we act in fidelity to the “fullness of truth” that Christ entrusted to His Church.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário