Posted on 12/11/2002 4:58:07 AM PST by ninenot
A highly recommended Catechism (by those more qualified than me) is the Baltimore Catechism. It was written at the Baltimore Council in 1895 (give or take a few years). It contains a list of questions and answers that are quite straightforward and provides Scriptural citations to support the doctrine. (The numbers - No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 - refer to level of detail and depth in the answers.) They can just read the question and short answer or read the more detailed explanation.
The Baltimore Catechism No. 3, Father Connell's Confraternity Edition
Contact Loome Theological Booksellers!
Pat, in case you already forgot -- "the scandal of predator-priests" started a year ago, and the Council ended in December 1965. The Catholic statistics you cite took their deepest plunge in the period from 1966 to about 1978. If the bad statistics are in your opinion the "far greater calamity" then how is the recent "scandal of predator-priests" in the Catholic Church covering it up, huh?
And, how does that compare to the Watergate scandal cover up when things took place simultaneously, huh?
I understand your good intentions, but I wish you wouldn't use Bill O'Reilly technique of manipulation.
The statistics are very telling indeed, although what they show is that the Council was promptly hijacked in the US Church by the enemy to bring in confusion. The self-proclaimed interpretors of the "Council's spirit" multiplied like rabbits. Suddenly dropped Sunday Mass attendance alone should be telling enough to set off all red flashing lights and sirens to the shepeherds of the Church to indicate that something is really really wrong.
Again, in case you forgot, there are quite a few more Catholics in the world outside of the US. For millions of them Vatican II was another Ecumenical Council and not the end of the world.
I've lived in two AFrican countries, and in the Philippines.
If you prefer, I could write that Jesus doesn't care if the person is a white rich TV commentator or a poor Osage or Chippewa woman. Or if the commentator was college educated snob or an Okie from Muscogee...
Jesus founded a church, not a cult based on medieval customs. I loved the Latin mass, but the way we approach God is based on our own culture. I have no problem with Latin masses in St. Paul Minnesota, nor masses with Apache chants in New Mexico, nor Guitar masses in Ipiales Colombia, nor with African dances with drums and dancing.
I do have a problem with people who think good Catholics who think Gregorian chant and Latin are boring means they can't be Catholic.
There has been problems after every council, partly diabolic, and partly due to the customs of men.
A lot of what Buchanan et al loved is not Catholicism but the Jansenistic rules of pre vatican II Catholicism in the USA.
Perhaps I'll see you there.
Will do.
Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
Compare that the thoughts of the Baltimore Catechism on the subject. The new formulation doesn't exactly fill one with a sense a great urgency to go out there and risk life and limb to convert the nonbelievers, does it?
It appears in hindsight that the American Church's response to the cultural revolution of the 1960's should have been to become more intolerant of the secular world and 'Jansenistic' in its morality, not less.
I would suggest that the way we approach worship (and thus, God) is based on the Judaeo-Christian tradition.
Your calling PJB a Jansenist is ludicrous, and not a contribution to the discussion. Among other things, you have no way of substanting that canard from the editorial printed above...
Your service in other countries is to be admired. What does that have to do with the editorial? PJB's POINT WAS: that American numbers are down. Perhaps they are up, down, sideways, or non-existent in other places. Necessarily, PJB addressed the USA because the numbers IN THE SURVEY were from the USA.
Sheesh!!
Think of it like this - Christianity spread pretty rapidly through the Roman Empire, but because of the persecution, there was not a general inclination to have large monastic communities. The red martyrs through this phase tended to be ordinary people - artisans, soldiers, servants, some civil servants - they were all part and parcel of their communities, and spread the word of Christ through inspirational acts and demeanor in daily life. They were inspiring, and they were normal. Once the persecution ended, monastics became the ideal - living outside the community, yet soaking up time and treasure, yet no one ever understood the aim.
If monasticism is the goal of a society, then then society destructs upon the reaching of that perfection, because that world is communist and without physical or emotional passion. Sterile.
So ultimately, Christianity may have been put in the hands of people who didn't understand their own direction, and who weren't responsible for the great mass of conversions which occurred over time.
You see a lot of it with Augustine, who struggled mightily with apparent bisexual tendencies (Confessions makes it pretty clear to me).
Once monasticism became something to admire in clerical culture and withdrawal from society became idealized, a clergy not firmly rooted in the world would lose its ties to the very society it served.
I noted that there was a minimum age for ordination in the 4th century - which was 30, in commemoration of Christ's age when he began a ministry. Considering that it would also ensure emotional and intellectual maturity, it was a good thing.
I'm going to have to review "The Desert Fathers" as well as "The Ascetical Homilies of St. Isaac the Syrian" to come up with some better answers. I know that I started skimming the first 7 Ecumenical Councils last night after a lengthy hiatus. It is illuminating.
1895 and still the best! Obviously beliefs have not changed so the fact that it is not in wide use today must stem more from either sly attempts to revise (e.g. 'English translators slanting the readings') or the money greed of publishers to print (e.g. what some here have noted with regard to music revisions, annually). Thanks again,
I don't know if it is the entire problem and will never know. We can only have our opinion and watch and observe effects and try to divine the causes. Glad if I spurred you on to deeper thought; I can't bring myself to dig too much deeper and plow through those ancient writings, except superficially. I don't know how much sexual perversion existed in the societies that gave rise to Christianity and those who nurtured it. Which came first?
Imho, Protestants, rightly got rid of it. Other things they did weren't so good. I don't mean an all-out attack on monasticism; they performed charitable works and sheltered travellers, some never lost their human goodness. Certainly a soul could do a lot worse.
Think of it like this - Christianity spread pretty rapidly through the Roman Empire, but because of the persecution, there was not a general inclination to have large monastic communities. The red martyrs through this phase tended to be ordinary people - artisans, soldiers, servants, some civil servants - they were all part and parcel of their communities, and spread the word of Christ through inspirational acts and demeanor in daily life. They were inspiring, and they were normal. Once the persecution ended, monastics became the ideal - living outside the community, yet soaking up time and treasure, yet no one ever understood the aim.
Yes, that squares with my thinking. We are told to be in the world but not of the world. It referred to values rather than men doing what their human nature inspires them to do, compartmentalize everything in society. For those who truly desired and profited by that life, I have no quarrel. The quarrel I have is with those who haven't embraced it themselves elevating it to a status it does not deserve. I think even the pope was trying to subtly send this message without stepping on anyone's toes by calling for more married saints, people who lived in the world and rose above it with heroic virtue.
If monasticism is the goal of a society, then then society destructs upon the reaching of that perfection, because that world is communist and without physical or emotional passion. Sterile.
Yup. With some exceptions, joyless and unnecessarily harsh. Like training a dog. You beat all the natural exuberance out of them if they are so disposed. They are the happiest of creatures. People aren't dogs, of course. And I'm not saying we don't need discipline. Moderation and a certain amount of structure. But it turned some into sterile, despondent robots. Then to deal with the despondency, they rationalized, and their rationalizations caught on with the popular mind and some of the hierarchy. And the perversion was that they became cruel just like their masters. They abused children in their care, gave them little or no human love or comfort. It was a tragic mistake, but then it's easier to see things in retrospect.
So ultimately, Christianity may have been put in the hands of people who didn't understand their own direction, and who weren't responsible for the great mass of conversions which occurred over time.
I think it was hijacked by those who had a lust for status, power, and disdain for physical work, and no real innocent sources of pleasure in the world. Life was harsh and that is how people adapted to it, so it is unfair to condemn them all carte blanche for what humans do today. It remains so today imo.
You see a lot of it with Augustine, who struggled mightily with apparent bisexual tendencies (Confessions makes it pretty clear to me).
I have a copy of that somewhere but have not been drawn to read it. He is not very relevant to my life and struggles.
Once monasticism became something to admire in clerical culture and withdrawal from society became idealized, a clergy not firmly rooted in the world would lose its ties to the very society it served.
Quite so. It is a little better now in some quarters with late vocations. Unfortunately, there are so many masses needing ministry who can't wait for mature, late vocations.
I noted that there was a minimum age for ordination in the 4th century - which was 30, in commemoration of Christ's age when he began a ministry. Considering that it would also ensure emotional and intellectual maturity, it was a good thing.
I didn't know that. Yes, it was a better thing imo. It didn't address the privileged, status angle, but clergy in that age bracket would definitely have grappled with the world and know themselves better.
I'm going to have to review "The Desert Fathers" as well as "The Ascetical Homilies of St. Isaac the Syrian" to come up with some better answers. I know that I started skimming the first 7 Ecumenical Councils last night after a lengthy hiatus. It is illuminating
Let me know if you discover anything. I got turned off of them when a woman went out to seek one of them for advice and was refused.
It wasn't all bad. It wasn't all good. In this world, there are always two sides to every coin and both sides are stamped with different imprints. In the world, it must be so. Before it is over, there will probably be a return to primitive Christianity, not by choice, but by force, not that I expect to see that come to pass.
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.