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?
There is a profound jealousy of Mary within many Protestants. They are personally resentful that another human could have been preserved free of sin, could have been full of grace, could have been the Theotokos, could have shared a relationship with Jesus that no one else ever will, and could have been assumed bodily into heaven and became the Queen of Heaven.
Peace be with you
Actually the Bible does have some things to say about adultery and divorce. You do have an concordance don’t you? As far as contraception, the command was to go out and populate the earth. I think Onan was struck down for disobedience. But now at this time we are at 7 Billion people. I believe we have fulfilled that command (and the earth) and it’s time to put the brakes on.
You very clearly state that Kephas/ Cephas is massive rock. Yet you ignore that Jesus being a local Jewish boy probaly spoke Aramaic, and the proof would be that Paul Referred to Peter the same way on a number of occasions.
Gal 2:9 and when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision;
Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.
1Co 1:12 Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos: and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Co 3:22 whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
1Co 9:5 Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
1Co 15:5 and that he appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve;
And where is that spelled out in scripture? Where does God set a limit on the number of souls permitted to inhabit the earth that He created? Or, is this Your Own Personal Interpretation Of Scripture? Is this "teaching" standardized among ALL non-catholic churches?
“it was like telling me I was wrong to mourn for my sister.”
She said nothing of the sort. She simply said, that your sister was in a better place.
You find it offensive because you didn’t understand what she was saying, and didn’t understand that it is what the Catholic church teaches. So either you didn’t get taught it (despite, if we accept your claim that you were Catholic), or that you didn’t understand this when it was taught.
Sin?
So why doesn't God preserve all of us from original sin then? Think of how much grief and pain and suffering could be avoided in the world by such a course of action.
“Gal 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned.”
It’s worth noting that if Peter really was the Chief Cornerstone instead of Christ, that he certainly was never treated that way. Paul’s public rebuke of Peter is a good example of this. James’ presiding over the first church council and declaration of the judgment is another. Nowhere in scripture do any of the Apostles give any indication that they are anything but equal with one another. Paul himself didn’t even meet with Peter or any of the Apostles at all at first, but went straight to work in his ministry:
Gal 1:15-17 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, (16) To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: (17) Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
The only teaching along the theme of “rocks” that we do see is Peter’s discourse, wherein he calls all Christians “lively stones” building up a holy house with Christ as the Chief cornerstone. It’s no coincidence that Peter uses an analogy that has stones being built upon the stone of Christ, since that is the lesson Christ gave to Peter in the beginning.
I disagree, but accepting for the sake of argument that you are correct, does that warrant the complete acceptance of abortifacients and hormonal birth control methods that prevent the embedding of a fertilized embryo accepted by all Protestant denominations today?
Peace be with you
If Mary could be born sinless to a sinful mother then Mary didn't need to be born sinless for Jesus to be born sinless of a sinful mother.
Whatever God did for Mary and her mother for Mary to be born sinless, God could have done to Mary for Jesus to be born sinless.
If Mary's mother didn't need to be born sinless for Mary to be born sinless, then Mary didn't need to be born sinless for Jesus to be born sinless.
Honestly, if Catholics simply thought through what they believed......
If Mary was born sinless, she didn't need a savior. If she was sinless and called God her savior, then she lied.
ooops......
The prevention of conception is one thing but to murder living organisms that would develop into humans is quite another. At the point of conception, the decision making has been decided. After that, it is murder.
I don’t know. I don’t think anybody will know in this life.
The only thing worth noting is that evidence that St. Peter was not impeccable, a fact known to Jesus when he was appointed first Pope in Caesarea Philippi, is being unsuccessfully used in an attempt to impeach his Papacy. Were you to attempt to try this in any court of relevance you would be disqualified for lack of standing.
Peace be with you
Unless she was born sinless because of her son Jesus Christ. Since God exists in eternity beyond time there is nothing preventing him applying the merits of our Lord's sacrifice on the Cross to Mary at her conception.
Looks like you hit a nerve, BB.
"Baptards"???
When they resort to 6 year old name calling tactics, you know you got them in a corner.
Hello.....The sin nature comes through the father.
God didn’t have to protect Jesus from Mary’s sin nature, because He was in no danger of inheriting it from HER.
Mary was sinless because God preserved her from sin. It wasn’t by her own power that she was conceived without original sin. Therefore she has a savior.
“Were you to attempt to try this in any court of relevance you would be disqualified for lack of standing.”
Only of the court were run by Papists. Besides, that was only one part of the argument, you ignored the combined whole.
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.