This is for a project I'm working on. There are some things that I can't find in the CCC. I'm wondering if some of you can.

1. Christ's human body is passible.
2. The Eternal Son never separated Himself from His human nature once He assumed it, and never will.
3. Christ was exempt from original sin and concupiscence.
4. Christ was free from all personal sin.
5. Christ was not able to sin.
6. Only the second Person became incarnate.
7. Veneration of the saints is permitted and worthwhile.
8. Veneration of images of the saints is permitted and worthwhile. 1161
9. There are levels of reward in Heaven depending on the merit of the person receiving them.

There will probably be more, but those are the ones I've been unable to locate so far.

To #6:
461 Taking up St. John's expression, "The Word became flesh",82 The Church calls "Incarnation" the fact that the Son of God assumed a human nature in order to accomplish our salvation in it. In a hymn cited by St. Paul, the Church sings the mystery of the Incarnation:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. and being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.83

479 At the time appointed by God, the only Son of the Father, the eternal Word, that is, the Word and substantial Image of the Father, became incarnate; without losing his divine nature he has assumed human nature.

To #3 and #4:
470 Because "human nature was assumed, not absorbed",97 in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of Christ's human soul, with its operations of intellect and will, and of his human body. In parallel fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ's human nature belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it. Everything that Christ is and does in this nature derives from "one of the Trinity".

The Son of God therefore communicates to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity. In his soul as in his body, Christ thus expresses humanly the divine ways of the Trinity:98

The Son of God. . . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.99

To #8 (though not of saints but of Christ; the underlying principles are affirmed). And perhaps to #1, if "true humanity" includes a passible body.

476 Since the Word became flesh in assuming a true humanity, Christ's body was finite.112 Therefore the human face of Jesus can be portrayed; at the seventh ecumenical council (Nicaea II in 787) the Church recognized its representation in holy images to be legitimate.113

477 At the same time the Church has always acknowledged that in the body of Jesus "we see our God made visible and so are caught up in love of the God we cannot see."114 The individual characteristics of Christ's body express the divine person of God's Son. He has made the features of his human body his own, to the point that they can be venerated when portrayed in a holy image, for the believer "who venerates the icon is venerating in it the person of the one depicted".115

A human body can be made impassible without ceasing to be human.

Your citations for #6 don't work. They specify that the Son became flesh, but they do not explicitly state that the Father and Spirit do not. Perhaps in some alternative dispensation, there would be a CCC that has another section on the Incarnation of the Father.

I will have to think about your response for #3 and #4. I'm tempted to say it's not enough, but I'm not sure of it. I would like a clearer, direct statement instead of something thrown in at the end.

Oh, and that doesn't work for #8. I don't need the principles; I need the clear statement.

I'm confused about what you're looking for in number 8. The Catechism asserts that Christ suffered in numerous places (a search through the USCCB website led me to around 50 different relevant citations in the Catechism that asserted Christ suffered). If He did not have a passible human nature, He could not have suffered. Furthermore, if specifically His body wasn't passible, I don't see how He could have died (and the Catechism asserts the death of Christ in numerous places also).

So what exactly are you looking for?

I'm trying to match up formal doctrines of the Church with entries in the CCC. What paragraph matches up with: "Christ's human body was possible"?

Wouldn't #5 imply both #4 and #3?

Anyway all this proves is that the CCC is not comprehensive, which we already knew - I don't think it's possible for any catechism to be truly comprehensive.

I'm not out to prove the CCC deficient, and for the record, I firmly believe that the compilers of the CCC believe these things to be true. If necessary, I can file these things under a general heading of the section on the Incarnation and the section on the Communion of Saints, but if there's something more specific, I'd like to use it.

I'm not looking for implied conclusions, important though they are. I'm looking for explicit statements. Since #5 is not mentioned (at least, no one has found a candidate yet), it's sort of beside the point here anyhow.

While far from 'comprehensive', the Catechism of the Council of Trent is actually a much more extensive and detailed text than the 1992 Catechism. Although granted, the Catechism of the Council of Trent was not written to be accessible to the laity, like the 1992 catechism was.

#8 is covered by 1161.

A further list:

1. For the valid dispensing of the Sacraments it is necessary that the minister accomplish the Sacramental sign in the proper manner.
2. There was a "Sacrament of Nature" under the pre-Mosaic dispensation by which men could be saved, though the nature of this "sacrament" is uncertain.
3. Circumcision was a sacrament of the Mosaic Law
4. The sacraments of the New Testament consist of two elements, the one indeterminate (res), the other determining (verbum). Sent fidei prox.
5. The "sensible element" in a Sacrament corresponds, in philosophical parlance, to "matter," the word to "form," and the two are related to each other as matter and form in the Scholastic sense of these terms.

So you can see the kind of thing I'm looking for, here's 1161 and its corresponding statement:

Even without the concluding paragraph from Nicaea II, this would work for: "Veneration of images of the saints is permitted and worthwhile."

*

Aren't most of these covered in the Summa? Couldn't you look-up the references from the Summa and then find the CCC # that way?

That's worth a shot, although the CCC doesn't give Summa references for everything.

The "In Brief" section on the Eucharist contains statements not made in the "In not-so-brief" sections before it. I wonder if that's true for the others. I'll have to go look.

I don't know about "extensive" - it is much shorter, but also much more concise.

It is much more extensive, going into a rather extraordinary amount of technical detail for a mere 'catechism.' At first, I thought I would be able to get through it quickly in only a couple days, but I quickly saw how naive that was and decided that if I really wanted to learn anything, I would have to go much more slowly, so I started reading only one section a day, to give myself the time to fully digest what I read, and doing it that way, it took me more than a year and a half to get through it. It's not a catechism so much as it is a textbook for a course in elementary theology.