>>811302
(continued)
>Probably my biggest mistake so far is being too into TradTube while ignoring the fundamentals
A lot of schismatic Traditionalist (of course, there is a lot of Traditionalists in right standing with the Church - but there is a lot of Schismatics too, and they are very loud) arguments rely on quotes from old papal or council documents cherrypicked from the context explaining their meaning, or quotes using precise, specialist terminology which might be misunderstood by the reader, and so on. To know why their arguments are false, you have to be aware in detail of historical context, theology of the Church and precise terminology relating to this or that papal document, or at least know good sources describing it. For this reason, I would avoid such people for time being, and in the meantime, if you want good traditional Catholic content, read pre-Vatican II encyclopedias, catechisms, saints' writings, etc., because they tend to explain doctrine in its whole (unlike papal or council documents, which often concentrate on the particular aspects of some teaching which required special attention at the time, and not the whole teaching), as well as stuff written by modern Traditionalists, although in that latter case, always take what you read with a very heavy grain of salt, remember Christ's promise to protect the Church and check their sources and their context - it's very easy to fall into schism here, because the schism in question presents itself as being more virtuous, closer to the pre-Vatican II Church, schismatics are almost always hardcore reactionary (which attracts the /pol/ audience), and because many Catholics, including priests and bishops, indeed are lukewarm and have no respect for both doctrine and liturgy (or, in some cases, are falsely presented as such by schismatics), especially if you live in countries like USA, Germany, etc., because when you lack necessary historical/theological knowledge their arguments may indeed look convincing, and also because of common tendency of humans to fall into pride, lazyness, cowardice, lack of faith (Christ promised to protect His Church, and no matter how bad things were at times, like e.g. during the Arian crisis of the 4th century, He was always - in the end - triumphant, but you can see lots of people who, during our present day crisis, can't take themselves to really trust this, and so at some point they break, and leave the Church), desire to be special, and other sins. Be careful and again, don't trust everything a post-Vatican II Traditionalist may say simply because he looks virtuous and gives you a bunch of quotes, be sceptical. I greatly recommend "Catholic Encyclopedia", which is old enough (published 1907-1912) to be in public domain and therefore is freely available on the Internet, and contains really indepth, traditional analysis and description of all things Catholic from various angles (although keep in mind that it's over 100 year old, so it can be outdated as relates to things like biology, political geography, canon law, etc.).
>I'm apologise for the silly question, but how can this be a dogma of the Church?
(Another sidenote: it's not dogma. Dogma isn't just any Church teaching, it has a narrow and specific meaning: "doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation", as defined in Fr. John Hardon's "Catholic Dictionary". I know what you meant, but it's good to know the proper terminology to avoid errors later.)
>Wouldn't this mean that Islam is the "true" religion since it supposed mission is to correct the "errors" of the Old and New Testaments?
Absolutely not. Protestants too worship our God, but this doesn't mean their doctrine is correct. Just because you got one thing right doesn't mean that you got other things right too. We have the entire truth, but other religions may know and recognise some parts of this truth, even when they don't know it in entirety. Muslims do get some things right - e.g. that there is God and He must be worshipped - but they get a lot of things wrong too. And every human is involved in the plan of salvation, even if they don't in the end accept God and end up damned.
>And also, regarding catechisms in general, was the one I read originally somehow invalidated by this one?
No. A catechism is just a book to help you know the basics of faith, there have been a lot of them written throughout the ages by various people for various audiences - although the world changed a lot since the publication of St. Pius X Catechism, there are new issues we have to deal with, there are also similar issues but in different circumstances requiring different approach, so keep that in mind.
>Thank kindly you for your answers and for putting up with my ignorance of the subject, brothers.
God bless you.