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?
That’s right, and He wasn’t wrong when he put St. Peter in charge of the Church.
“Nor should we forget that St. Jerome, who translated the entire Bible into Latin left the Catholic Church.”
By “Catholic” Church you mean Roman Catholic, based on submission to the Pope. That’s an anachronism, since even “Pope” Gregory the Great, by 600AD, still did not believe in the supremacy of his office (on the contrary, he rebuked the entire concept). Evidently, the Bishops in Rome did not know they were the sole head of the church for quite some time.
As for Jerome, even the RCC regards him as a Doctor of their religion. You just dispense with him because he breaks the idea of a traditional continuity on what is or isn’t inspired scripture.
“Probably because there’s nothing bad to say about Protestant churches. On the other hand, the Catholicism that teaches salvation through rosary beads is soul destroying.”
I don’t know which is sadder.
1. That you feel the need to lie.
2. That you believe this is actually going to convince people.
I was a protestant myself. This would have made me angry then!
Read the link I posted to the other fellow, the “secrets of the Rosary” is a church endorsed book. I learned of its existence from Pope Benedict. Presumably, you also might believe in the Fatima apparitions, where Rosary keeping is spoken of as necessary for healing and other graces, and supposedly can bring about great world changes, since God wants people to be devoted to Mary’s “Immaculate Heart.”
Bob...your tirade proves that your ignorance is monumental!You’re not going to make any progress until you stop hating “The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”. I know that God will forgive you (as you forgave me)...but you have to ask.
“You are wrong. You won’t bother with anything but your own ludicrous sources, so that will suffice.”
Two Catholic Cardinals and an endorsed translation of the Bible in Latin before the Reformation make good sources.
DOGMATIC TEACHING, Cite a DOGMATIC TEACHING. Catholics are NOT required to say the rosary.
We will have to disagree on the “when he put St. Peter in charge of the Church.” You have based an entire religion on a verse that can have so many meanings OTHER than the one your Church ascribes to it.
Well, you were using it to beat up GP_Humans on using his “private interpretation” of scripture.
That is not what the verse means.
How were the prophets of old able to predict with such astonishing clarity and accuracy the things about Jesus? Peter tells us plainly in verse 21: “no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” The Spirit of God revealed these things to them. They were not making guesses about the Messiah. In fact, they were not even making educated guesses. What they predicted was not a matter of them arriving at some interpretation of events they saw in their own day. This is what Peter means when he says “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.”
2 Peter 1:20, then, is about the prophets and how they made their predictions. It is not about the more general issue of interpreting the Bible. 2 Peter 1:10 is not about whether anyone must or can interpret the Bible.
You don't have to read it or respond to it. Have a good day.
Perhaps in your mind but as you've demonstrated many times before, your knowledge of Scripture is, at best, suspect.
If there were no defect in the ark that held the written word, explain why there would be a defect in the ark that conceived and held the Incarnate Word?
What does it mean to be "full of grace"?
Just some justification for the worship of Mary.
Catholics don't worship the Blessed Virgin Mary despite what you might have been told. We give her the honor due in accordance with the Fourth Commandment and in accordance with her unique role in the salvation of mankind. Do you ever refer to Christ's mother as blessed as Scripture instructs, or is that another passage that you privately interpret despite Scripture instructing you not to privately interpret?
but let's be honest.
You let me know when you intend to start being honest.
in which it says all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God.
Resorting to the linguistic literalist argument and cherry picking Scripture always trips you people up. St. Paul uses all in the collective sense not the distributive just as King David did in Psalm 14. You understand that your literalist definition of "all" includes Christ, Adam and Eve prior to the fall and children who haven't reached that age of reason, don't you? Obviously not.
Oh my. It was heliocentrism instead of the earth being round. So tell me and the whole world JC, was Galileo imprisoned unjustly by your Church or not (regardless of the charge)? Just a simple yes or no.
Terrible Tornados now in Oklahoma...sirens going off in Moore.....these are monsters...just so you’re aware
http://www.wwhdtvs.com/watch-fox-news-live-streaming/
You know that all great heresies were started by clerics so it isn’t hard to understand why people who’ve rejected the Bride of Christ can be rather nasty and not too bright.
Regardless of charge? You’re seriously arguing that the charge doesn’t matter?
The charge *does* matter.
Had Galileo stated that his answers applied to the celestial realm and not to the teachings of the bible - he would have been fine.
Galileo went beyond that - asserting that where scripture and his teaching contradicted his teaching took precedence. This is why Protestants hail him as their private personal hero - because he affirms that the magisterium is not the authority, personal conviction is the authority.
In your unlearned opinion. You need to stop omitting that caveat.
Sit up higher in your chair so reality doesn’t fly so far over your grape.
So sola scriptura doesn’t apply to a singular verse?
The Bride of Christ does not save anyone.
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.