Posted on 05/31/2013 2:44:05 PM PDT by NYer
Do our Catholic children and most adults know what these images teach?
All of us know one of the elephants in the room of the Catholic Church. Our religious education programs are not handing on the essence of our Catholic Faith, our parents are befuddled about their role in handing on the faith and the materials we use are vapid or if good do not make an impression on young minds. We are afraid of asking for memorization and thus most don't remember anything they've learned about God and Church other than some niceties and feel good emotions.
I teach each class of our grades 1-6 (we don't have 7th or 8th) each Thursday, rotating classes from week to week. For the last two years I have used Baltimore Catechism #1 as my text book. It is wonderful to use with children and it is so simple yet has so much content. If Catholics, all Catholics, simply studied Baltimore Catechism #1, we would have very knowledgeable Catholics.
These past two years I've used Baltimore Catechism #2 with our adult religious program which we call Coffee and Conversation following our 9:30 AM Sunday Mass, which coincides with our CCD program which we call PREP (Parish Religious Education Program).
This #2 book has more content and is for middle school, but upper elementary school children must have been more capable of more serious content back when this book was formulated and used through the mid 1960's because it is a great book to use with adults and not childish at all. We all use this same book as a supplemental book for the RCIA because it is so clear, nobly simple and chocked full of content!
Yes, there are some adjustments that need to be made to some chapters, but not that many, in light of Vatican II and the new emphasis we have on certain aspects of Church that are not present in the Baltimore Catechism. But these are really minor.
What is more important though is that when the Baltimore Catechism was used through the mid 1960's it was basically the only book that was used for children in elementary and junior high school. It was used across the board in the USA thus uniting all Catholics in learning the same content. There was not, in other words, a cottage industry of competing publishing houses selling new books and different content each year.
The same thing has occurred with liturgical music, a cottage industry of big bucks has developed around the sale of new hymnals, missalettes and new music put on the open market for parishes to purchase. It is a money making scheme.
Why do our bishop allow this to happen in both liturgical music and parish catechesis? The business of selling stuff to parishes and making mega bucks off of it is a scandal that has not be addressed.
In the meantime, our liturgies suffer and become fragmented because every parish uses a different resource for liturgical music and the same is true of religious formation, everyone uses something different of differing quality or no quality at all.
Isn't it time to wake up and move forward with tried and true practices that were tossed out in favor of a consumerist's approach to our faith that has weakened our liturgies, our parishes and our individual Catholics?
“”The church is to be a loving church in a dying culture. How, then, is the dying culture going to consider us? Jesus says, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” In the midst of the world, in the midst of our present culture, Jesus is giving a right to the world. Upon His authority He gives the world the right to judge whether you and I are born-again Christians on the basis of our observable love toward all Christians.”
— Francis A. Schaeffer, The Mark of The Christian, quoting John 13:34-35
That’s quite interesting. What happens in time of war to this “love toward all Christians”?
I'm more interested to hear your thoughts re my first and second suggestions, i.e. identifying "trump cards" and "outermost circles". What are yours?
“”Have fun with that.””
Have fun with these ones that proves Augustine believed everything the Church said regarding The Blessed Sacrament
“That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” (Sermons 227)
“The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST’S BODY.” (Sermons 234:2)
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)
“By those sacrifices of the Old Law, this one Sacrifice is signified, in which there is a true remission of sins; but not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof.” (Questions on the Heptateuch 3:57)
“...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING.” (Psalms 98:9)
KJ bibles are not arguably without some flaws still, as they can scarcely be fully 100% perfect wording arising in English language. For correction, what could KJV be compared to, other than what best evidences can be arrived at after careful sifting by comparison of the most ancient texts available --- by comparison with those extant texts which can be considered faithful reflection of their own sources (other than where they can be reasonably proven to be not in agreement with others, the generally slight "difference" and dubious disagreements each needing be traced as to the how & why of such occurrences) begs the question; what translation is a more accurate translation? Tell us.
Personal preferences, or argument of "authority" (by those whom did not in the slightest themselves "author" the works directly) at the end of the day, are only that, being not firm enough in foundation of and by themselves. As to OT, a re-approacchment to the Hebrew texts of the time of Christ is in order (as Jerome saw in his time) yet that be an arduous task, for such works as the intermediate hexapla which Jerome possibly consulted or referenced, survives less then complete. As the chart shows however, Jerome is thought to have closely followed the Symmachus translation of the Hebrew into Greek, then himself translating into Latin.
After you have produced or at least pointed towards translation alleged to be superior, THEN in side-by-side comparison, point out precise differences, and precise theological implication or variance which is significant, and how those may apply to that which the man is saying. OR --admit the issue raised here is a little fishy, as in little red herring.
The Mormons play the same card, but not as reservedly. The Islamics attempt to trump with their own Koran (even as it can be shown to have suffered revision, regardless of Islamic horn-tooting to the contrary but thank God it is doubtful here that anyone will require me to prove this last point, for the moment --- these issues are complex enough as it is.
Otherwise;
In comparative analysis, do know that Douay-Rheims had it's own problems too. But then again, it was much influenced by Tyndale, so let's blame it on him perhaps, provided we could put his ashes together again, being as the RC church (more or less) had the fellow burned at the stake for all his considerable effort, with the real kicker being the distaste authoritarians had for his opinions;
Elsewhere, however, the English wording of the Rheims New Testament follows more or less closely the Protestant version first produced by William Tyndale in 1525; though the base text for the Rheims translators appears to be the revision of Tyndale found in an English and Latin diglot New Testament, published by Miles Coverdale in Paris in 1538
which leaves the modern DR; even after some adjustment by Challoner (whom in some places is said to have rather imposed his own sense upon the text, also) ---and whom himself much relied upon the King James to help iron out places where the DR, in following the Latin too closely, even as to word order/placement, rendered itself opaque or obscure --- still being much more a work of "Protestant" influence than not.
So which bible, again? A return to the Latin, perhaps? If so, which version of that? Certainly not one which contained [ahem] "copy error" pertaining to Gen 3:15.
Without some sufficient proofs, evidences, comparisons, etc., vague allusion to "accurate" bible translation is just so much pompously pious fancy-pants hand waving.
Some good questions!
IT IS!! And get over it because you will be judged by the Written Word - not man-made doctrine! So keep up! Not understanding what is written; yet claiming that's not all there is! LOL! A double-minded man... Go to the back of the class and have our resident scholar, Daniel1212, teach you. GOD'S WORD is The FINAL Authority! Hear and Obey IT, it's the only way to please The Father is to BELIEVE His Son, Jesus The Word
Some clarification is in order, while i do not think of myself as a scholar, which others FR posters here may be, but more of a student and researcher who has some things to share .
It is not the SS position that all knowledge that can be known from God is written in Scripture, for we see therein that there is more, (Jn. 21:25; 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) but that the Scripture formally (limited) and materially provide all that man needs for salvation and growth toward perfection. The material sense includes gifted teachers of the word, but not as assured infallible and superior in authority to it, as Rome presumes. White states ,
First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or, in fact, in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith [supee standard] for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes.
While some present a straw man SS that excludes all but the Scriptures in understanding truth (versus Scripture being the standard as trhe assured word of God), Westminster states.
Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”
III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
In addition, while God's word can include things not written in Scripture, such as His latest command to Gabriel, nothing unknown would contradict Scripture. However, what is distinctive from Rome and sola ecclesia (the church is the supreme judge and can make her nebulous oral tradition equal to Scripture) is that Scripture is the assured word of God, and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, which is abundantly shown to be , as it ALONE is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God. (2Tim. 3:15,16) Thus my position is that all truth claims are subject to proof by it.
The writings of Scripture themselves were progressively established as being from God, like as men of God were, due to their unique Scriptural substantiation in Divine qualities, attestation and conflation with had been written (Moses as the first writer being first affirmed by supernatural means and holiness confirmatory of the faith of Abraham). Like the Divine incense, there is none like unto it.
The "powers that be" on earth are to confirm what is manifestly of God, yet men and writings of God are such before their affirmation, and as Scripture makes clear, they often were rejected by those in power, while God preserved faith among the relative remnant by raising up men from without the magisterium to reprove it (without rejecting the office itself).
And thus the church began and thus it has been preserved as the body of God, which transcends external boundaries, and is manifest as being of the living God by supernatural means, gaining its members via manifest regeneration, versus its institutionalized counterpart.
Now back to packing.
Just as I have been quick to criticize when we disagree I must commend you when we agree. What I see, with respect to SS, is so very similar to many of the other doctrinal disagreements. There simply is no clear agreement or even a consensus within Protestantism as to what is meant by Sola Scriptura. To some, it means what it did to Luther; that all knowledge necessary for Salvation is sufficiently contained in Scripture. However, to many modern Protestants Sola Scriptura has come to mean that all knowledge necessary for Salvation is exclusively contained in Scripture. There are numerous variants in between. In these discussions one is never clear which variant is being discussed.
Peace be with you
She did have free will and she wouldn't have said 'no' because she wasn't asked. But either had to say, I don't accept the Word given to me or say, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to Your Word.”
Those who don't serve The Lord - God's Word is NOT their final authority. God's Word was the final authority for Mary as Scripture clearly shows as she saw herself as His servant. There was no 'think about it' from the angel or 'Let me think about it first' from Mary. Her heart had already been committed to The Lord.
If the mother of Jesus gave something to the nature of God, then she must be coeternal with God.
Not good to lean unto your own understanding; it will led to error. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:9
However, following your questioning and comment - since mothers gave birth to the presidents we had - why aren't they called co-presidents? Geez, they don't even make it to VP and never have. And that is in the natural/worldly - where anything goes - and no one considers it to be true. Now we are talking about SUPERNATURAL and you seem OK with it? Rome truly duped catholics, their minds are mush while not having a clue how the SUPERNATURAL works.
Yet Jesus tells us - His mother and brothers are just like anyone who 'hears and obeys' God's will. It's the opposite of how the 'world' views mothers, brothers and sisters. And Catholicism is in the world view.
Worldly man-made teachings vs. God's Holy Spirit inspired WORD - who are you going to BELIEVE? There are two choices, choose one because you can't serve two masters.
And the Catholic/Orthodx church exposed the errors rather quickly
If you read enough of + Irenaues, +Poiters, Hippolytus etc... and through the ages you would see that the Church exposed the error to protect those within the Church against heresies.
The same thing goes on to this day,even though you might not realize this.
Spiritual discernment is and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is in guiding us into the knowledge of the truth.
No argument there,dear sister. We are all on this journey when we focus on the Love of Christ
Cool diagram.
It appears that if you've been a Catholic (CC type) for 3 years you don't have to go back...
I have a CAtholic Bible for teens.
...and books were opened.
(Somewhere in Revelation; IIRC.)
Well; what AIN'T???
In my opinion, any can be used to some extent.
Excluding the homosexual oriented “translation” or the “street” version.
I love the KJV and read it mainly.
If I have and doubts as to its meanings, I first go to similar scriptures (one of my KJV Bibles notes every other scripture related to the one I am reading at the time) and then to the other translations, which I read in what is called a parallel Bible, one with several translations on each page.
(Even the New International Version, also lightly called the Nearly Inspired Version, Newly Incorrect Version and the others used by dedicated Christians.)
If the meaning is still not clear to me, I check with Strongs Concordance, a great tool.
As a final check, I will look up the scripture in a Greek version, with English translations, and study carefully every word.
All of this works quite well for me in my studies.
The only reason this works well for me is that during my studies, I am constantly praying to the Holy Spirit to guide me in my understanding.
That is the key, as the Holy Spirit was given to us for just that reason.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.--John 16:13Also a good scripture to pray:I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye.--Psalm 32:8
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit...--Galatians 5:16
Search me [thoroughly], O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts! And see if there is any wicked or hurtful way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting. Psalm 139: 23-24(Various translations used above)
I can just hear the women now; as they gather at the well...
"MY son is going to be a doctor and make LOTS of money!"
"Humph! MY precious son is going to be a LAWYER and help your doctor son KEEP his money!"
"Gosh... MY son is going to be the Son of GOD."
And this would be a GOOD place to end this thread. If each reply only took one minute to think about and type, then we've used up 29+ man (woman?) hours in all this chitchat.
SURELY we could have done Something productive for the LORD!!!
You can doubt it, but take it up with one of your own:
95% of all the writings of the Church Fathers on the internet are derived from the Oxford/Edinburgh "Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers" 38 volume series. This effort was completed in the late 19th century by the Anglican divines. This entire 38 volume set is in the public domain. Nevertheless, this effort only provides a small selection of writings of the Church Fathers.
There is no Catholic magisterial statement listing the names of the Church Fathers...Most of the Church Fathers were bishops, a few were lower clerics and a fewer yet were laymen. However, there were a few female Church Fathers. One such female ecclesiastical writer in the ancient Church was Egeria of Spain. She wrote and lived during 5th century. — http://www.catholicfidelity.com/church-fathers-faq-by-joe-gallegos/
There is even less information on what is said to be original Scripture, so you're faced with a problem when you disregard information from what the Church Fathers wrote interpreting Scripture that we know was closer to the original Scripture.
First, despite your invocation of CFs as if they were determinative of doctrine, as sometimes there is disagreement btwn CFs and btwn some of them and Rome, then your real argument is that Rome is determinative of truth, and what CFs taught (vs the interpretation of them by others), and even what the stipulated “unanimous consent ” means.
Once again, "It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine." — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost; p. 227; http://www.archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt)
This presumes the magisterium is what faithfully interprets Scripture, based upon tradition, yet the church began in dissent from those which, like Rome, presumed a level of assured veracity than Scripture teaches.
Likewise, you presume that uninspired writers (CFs) were accurately interpreting Scripture based on accurate knowledge of what the NT church believed, rather than seeking to use Scripture is support traditions of men, while the reality is they somewhat engaged in both, yet with differences btwn them, and perhaps changes in their own understanding over time.
The use of "proof texting" is notably seen in no less a CF than Jerome in his attempt to support his unbalanced "tradition" on marriage versus celibacy. Engaging in a false dilemma, Jerome argues that since 1Cor. 7:1 says "it is good not to touch a woman, [then] it is bad to touch one: for there is no opposite to goodness but badness. But if it be bad and the evil is pardoned, the reason for the concession is to prevent worse evil..The difference, then, between marriage and virginity is as great as that between not sinning and doing well..."
While Jerome condescends a less harsher comparison may be used, the primary logic of Jerome renders all marriages in this life to be evil, yet the Holy Spirit clearly states that,
"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. " (Hebrews 13:4)
While ideally we should not have to engage in anything that may gratify the flesh or distract from or compete for attention to purely spiritual things, nowhere are marital relations portrayed as evil or unclean (except during menstrual period), which idea is held by a form of gnosticism, but is included in all the things we can do to the glory of God. (1Cor. 10:31)
However, in Jerome's unbalanced theological tradition which he wrests support from Scripture for, he reasons,
The same Apostle in another place commands us to pray always. If we are to pray always, it follows that we [priests] must never be in the bondage of wedlock, for as often as I render my wife her due, I cannot pray...Now a priest must always offer sacrifices for the people: he must therefore always pray. And if he must always pray, he must always be released from the duties of marriage.
The perverse conclusion of Jerome is readily apparent in the light of the fact that marital relations are not the only things that may distract from prayer for a time (which does not mean it cannot/should not be practiced prayerfully like other activities), but eating, driving, etc. also may. Thus Jerome's conclusion is that a minister (which are never called priests as a distinct class) cannot eat or drink, or engage in any like physical activity. Yet in further seeking to use Scripture to support his skewed view of marriage, Jerome next invokes Genesis 2 and 7, arguing,
"This too we must observe, at least if we would faithfully follow the Hebrew, that while Scripture on the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days relates that, having finished the works of each, “God saw that it was good,” on the second day it omitted this altogether, leaving us to understand that two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact. Hence it was that all the animals which Noah took into the ark by pairs were unclean. Odd numbers denote cleanness. (Against Jovinianus, Book 1, Cps. 7,13,16,33; http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html)
So much for sending out disciples by pairs, while this renowned Bible scholar ignores that it was after the 4th and 6th days that GoD said His creation was God (Gn. 1:18,19,31) Thus according to Jerome's logic even numbers also denote cleanness.
Similarly, Augustine held a perverse view of marital relations, believing that Heb. 13:4 only means the marriage bed is not defiled if fornication and adultery or relations without the intent to procreate is avoided, and that marital intercourse could not be engaged in without sinful passions, though these were excused for Christians. In On Marriage and Concupiscence (Book I, cp. 27) he states,
Marriage is itself "honourable in all" Hebrews 13:4 the goods which properly appertain to it; but even when it has its "bed undefiled" (not only by fornication and adultery, which are damnable disgraces, but also by any of those excesses of cohabitation such as do not arise from any prevailing desire of children, but from an overbearing lust of pleasure, which are venial sins in man and wife), yet, whenever it comes to the actual process of generation, the very embrace which is lawful and honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of lust, so as to be able to accomplish that which appertains to the use of reason and not of lust....This is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, yet in no case happens to nature except from sin. — http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm
Now, this ardour, whether following or preceding the will, does somehow, by a power of its own, move the members which cannot be moved simply by the will, and in this manner it shows itself not to be the servant of a will which commands it, but rather to be the punishment of a will which disobeys it. It shows, moreover, that it must be excited, not by a free choice, but by a certain seductive stimulus, and that on this very account it produces shame. This is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, yet in no case happens to nature except from sin. It is the daughter of sin, as it were... http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xvi.v.xxvii.html
Similarly, Tertullian argued that second marriage, having been freed from the first by death,
“will have to be termed no other than a species of fornication,” partly based on the reasoning that such involves desiring to marry a women out of sexual ardor. (An Exhortation to Chastity, Chapter IX.—Second Marriage a Species of Adultery, Marriage Itself Impugned, as Akin to Adultery; http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.vi.ix.html)
The reasoning here would easily extend to any gratification of the flesh, from eating chocolate to scratching a itch, yet, again, Scripture does not teach that the marriage bed is unclean, nor (by extension) that anything that gratifies the flesh must be sinful (cf. Col. 2)
The imbalanced tradition on marriage versus celibacy led to the belief that clergy were to be single and practice continence even if married, or single or widowed ones could never marry, yet married pastors with children was evidently the norm in the NT church, (1Tim. 3:1-7) with the only known single pastors being two traveling apostles, and who yet had the power to marry. (1Cor. 9:5)
The views of these in this area are one example among others of CFs lack of discernment and misusing Scripture to support a skewed tradition, rather than "rightly dividing the word of truth" in a balanced manner.
While historical commentary may provide a valuable insight into what a portion of Scripture is referring to, error was competing for apostolic truth even during the time of the apostles, and rather than correcting it, infected commentators can instead perpetuate it and subjecting Scripture to the church, like the error of the Pharisees, versus the church to Scripture. And thus we have the infallible perpetual petrine papacy, praying to the departed , and more as well as different interpretations of the CFs and tradition. Au
Now that's an interesting conclusion on your part...For those who chose the word sufficient, are you suggesting that they or the Catholics perhaps agree that the knowledge of the scriptures is sufficient, but not necessarily the only way to gain all knowledge for salvation, kinda like there's a back door somewhere???
Scripture is all we need to find Jesus. Matter of fact, obviously, the OT is all we need.
The reason is simple and given by Jesus Himself. Scripture points to Jesus and HE is all we need for eternal life. Jesus didn't appeal to anything else to lead men to Himself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.