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?
Can a baby sin? Can a menatlly retarded person sin?, You just admitted that Jesus didn't sin, so all, doesn't mean ALL!
I've seen it said a few times over the years, and it be acceptable at face value due to that person's overall demeanor, which itself carried testimony towards the affirmative.
At risk of getting personal, you do come across as being genuinely one of those.
>> “...you have to conclude that Jesus too sinned” <<
.
Then the Lamb of Yehova was not without blemish, and we have no hope of salvation.
Not so surprising that a ‘catholic’ would have such an ignorant belief though.
According to whom, you?
I doubt you're even remotely familiar with either the Apostolic or ante-Nicene Church. Polycarp? Ignatius? Clement? Hermas? Barnabus? Papias? Anyone? Anyone?
The point missed by our anti-Catholic Freepers is that by insisting that there was a "universal" Church they are refuting the assertion that the early church was nothing more than a loose collection of informal "house churches".
Peace be with you
No credible historian missed it.
That will come as news to Ignatius of Antioch, the Council of Elvira, ad infinitum ...
I have this faint, but sure, memory of some FRoman Catholics mocking and belittling anyone who isn't a Catholic for using the Baltimore Catechism for citations used in discussions of Catholic beliefs. We were told that such a book was "only for children" and "beginners" and should not be relied upon for actual teachings of the Catholic Church. So. I wonder, is it now acceptable to use this catechism to know what Catholics "officially" believe?
OK, we'll go with your version. St. Paul was lying when he said "all" have sinned.
Peace be with you
You dishonor many early believers by attributing such heresy to them.
Games!
You’re trying to pass off your own personal interpretations as infallible, aren’t you?
then perhaps you can name names, and cite exactly what you claimed were ‘Catholic’ beliefs.
Sir, you haven’t realized. The Church only became Christian when Henry VIII wanted a divorce.
>> The point missed by our anti-Catholic Freepers is that by insisting that there was a “universal” Church they are refuting the assertion that the early church was nothing more than a loose collection of informal “house churches”. <<
.
Nonsense, that is exactly what the NT says. (or do you think that Yeshua’s half brother James was the first pope?)
Then how does this thread apply to you since you are not Catholic?
I’m sure the on scene wet nurse will rectify that.
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.