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?
Whoever’s right after 860 posts, I know one thing fer shore - Jesus is turning over in his grave at the Prottie heresies expressed herein!
Jesus arose on the third day and then after 40 days ascended into heaven Acts 1:3
Inculturation takes place in every religion and religious community. At the most basic level this includes words, names, and attire. When Latin speakers needed to name the office of the pope they used and existing Latin word for their highest priest. The basilicas were existing repurposed governmental and administrative structures. They were changed because the focal point of the buildings in Roman use was the center of the building. When converted to Catholic use the focal point, the altar was placed at one end of the building.
The diocese was not an Imperial Roman administrative unit, its origin, along with the word diocese was Greek (διοίκησις), meaning "administration" and was developed by Alexander to manage his empire.
Peace be with you.
Seriously? Who knew? You oughta start a thread informing all!
You’re kidding right? First of all the vestments of the RCC incorporate pagan symbols not what God described in Exodus. Second is that Christ eliminated the office of the priests of the Old Testament or have you not heard.>The Seraphim and other decorations on the Ark of the Covenant were pagan?<<
Once again stuck on Old Testament. You may want to study what God had done to the brass serpent.
2 Kings 18:4 He[Hezekiah] removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.
The RCC uses pagan symbols
>>The Temple design that Solomon Built was Pagan?<<
Show any similarities to pagan architecture or symbols please.
>>The days of Prayer and Fasting that God ordered were Pagan?<<
You’re really stretching on that one. Which of those does the RCC hold to still?
Trying to put words in my mouth or insinuate that I was referring to Old Testament commands by God is rather disingenuous. Anyone who does a little research can find that the RCC incorporated many of those pagan practices etc. to attract the pagans into the church. They just claimed they “Christianized” them or “baptized them” to make them Christian. God on the other hand said not to do that.
Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods;
*SNERK* what ever you reckon mate. Typical prot intellectual dishonesty at it’s finest.
Why don't you explain what the difference between Catholic and Old Testament vestments, if any, are and what symbols are required on Catholic vestments.
It’s what happened. Church came first, the bible came later.
"personal attack" ? (from the same poster, Verga).
The posting history on these threads reflects extreme intellectual dishonesty by those Roman Catholics who cannot allow the introduction of a proper exegesis of Scripture to dilute the "traditions" to which they wish to cling.
When the report of the Savior’s miracles spread abroad, Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem made their way north to Gennesaret to confront Jesus. They charged that the Lord’s disciples neglected to keep the “traditions” of the elders, because they did not ceremonially wash their hands (to purify themselves from Gentile contamination) before they ate. But Christ focused on them, asking why they “transgressed the commandment of God” by their “tradition” (Matt. 15:3). ...
... Tradition, on the other hand, evolves. It is established by habit or custom. It will vary in its character from place to place, and from time to time. Tradition is not intrinsically evil, since it operates in the realm of expediency and human judgment. It is condemned, however, when it is thrust into the role of “law,” and bound as such.
There are two digressive directions in the “law-tradition” controversy. First, there is the tendency to reduce law to the status of tradition. Then there is the disposition that codifies tradition into law. Both approaches are wrong. ... -Tradition and Scripture, Wayne Jackson
As to your "continuing animus and resentment toward the Church is not deserved" statement, I will answer "back atcha!". If Catholics here are genuinely happy when people receive the gospel, then why so much animosity towards those who found it APART from the Roman Catholic Church? This is a forum for discussing religious topics. It should be a place to learn from each other. We should not go away ticked off and holding grudges, seething for the next chance to hurl invective filled accusations against those with whom we disagree. I'm going to try extra hard to NOT be that kind of poster. Hopefully, we will have all of eternity together in heaven to compare notes and see who was right or wrong, though I really doubt it will matter by then.
For instance, "Baptists are heretics" would be tolerated but "you are a heretic" would not be tolerated.
For truly he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. (Hebrews 2:16-17)
What does "in every way" mean if not that he was born exactly like we all are? Hebrews 4:15 goes on to say:
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet he did not sin.
The doctrine of Mary, the mother of Jesus, also having to be "sinless" in order to give birth to him is not supported by Scripture nor by simple reason. In no way does this deny Mary the respect and honor she deserves due to her faithfulness and bravery. There just is no reason why such a thing "had" to happen in order for Jesus to be our High Priest and Savior/Redeemer. In fact, he had to experience the SAME things we all do including growing up, getting along with parents and family members, puberty, ALL of it. And he DID, he went through it all and never, not even once, sinned. That's why he could be the one sacrifice for the sins of all mankind.
Jesus called the cup wine. He said so Himself. I believe Him.
The apostles didn't think that the cup was blood. Peter had never eaten anything unclean by his own words in Acts 10:14. Eating of blood is strictly prohibited by God in Scripture because the blood is for atonement. It is a command reiterated in the decision of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.
No, the apostles didn't teach the eating of blood and neither did Jesus.
I’m starting to have that same kind of suspicion for the supposedly former “Protestants” who claim to now be Catholics.
I don't.
I'm considered a baptized Catholic, because Catholicism teaches *once a Catholic, always a Catholic*, so anyone who was ever baptized Catholic is counted in their numbers, even if they've left the church and haven't stepped foot in it in decades.
And I know of several Evangelical and Protestant churches which are chock full of former Catholics, all probably still being counted on Catholic roles as part of that 1 billion strong.
Catholics themselves admit that the majority of those baptized are not practicing Catholics. They consider those who support abortion to have ex-communicated themselves.
Except for when they want to brag on numbers. Then they're part of the flock.
One billion strong my.... er ... foot.
Double speak.
Words games.
It really does change except that it doesn’t.
Hey, I consider it concession of defeat.
If that’s what gets dragged into an argument, I consider that I made my point and it stands unchallenged.
And you’re right.
And they wonder why former Catholics don’t come running back into the loving arms of the Catholic church.
It’s really pretty typical of the behavior I’ve come to expect out of Catholics based on my experience with them, working with them and going to school with them.
LOL!!! again.
Her *snarky* response was copied and pasted directly from post 468.
You might want to go back and see whose post that was......
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.