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?
You need to reread what you wrote.
Blasphemy!
Scripture that Catholics claim the Catholic church wrote states thus....
Romans 5:1-21 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
There's not one verse in the Bible that states that Mary was the second Eve, nor that salvation comes through her.
Ah. Too many discussions going on there.
Mitch just pointed that out.
So for the record, where again is that verse that says sin entered the world through Eve?
You did make the claim and you did claim to post the verse upthread and I still haven’t found either one.
There is not one verse in the Bible that says we are look only to the Bible for the Revealed Word.
If you do not have an understanding of the Trinity and the Incarnation you cannot understand Mary. It cannot be found in a single verse, but woven within the Greatest Story Ever Told. Mary IS the Mother of God. The child She conceived and bore IS the God the Son. In His divine nature He existed eternally. In His human nature He owed to her as much as any man owes his human nature to his mother. As God He was born of the Father before all ages; as man He was born at a particular moment is time of the Virgin Mary. She was not the mother of His human nature, natures do not have mothers. She IS the Mother of God.
Mary is who She is only because Jesus is who He is. Jesus, ever perfect existed before His mother so He was in a position to choose who His mother would be and could choose the mother that would suit him. The very nature of a son wants to give his mother gifts; and Christ, being God had no limit on His capacity to give. What she wanted most was the most complete union with God will a human could have and Grace in her soul. He gave lavishly and she responded sinlessly.
Why do you think yours is invalid?
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
1 John 3:21-24
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
"But there are also many other things that Mary did; if ANY of them were written down, I suppose that the CHURCH itself could not contain the books that would be written." - Elsie 21:69
I accept that.
What I do NOT 'accept' is the definitions the church has placed on what those terms mean.
Good, because your apples are highly unlike your oranges.
??
Who's rib is she from?
Thank you MARY!!!
You are SO blessed!!!
If you had NOT been obediant; Jesus might have been found under a Rock!
But there sure is PRECENDENCE for it!
There is not one verse in the Bible that says we are look ELSEWHERE for the Revealed Word.
... I suppose ...
Ah...
...Calvin was a Catholic!
“The RCC makes the claim that what they teach is not to be checked by scripture.”
Incorrect. His Church makes the claim that what it teaches is His Word.
“The inspired words of the Holy Spirit is what he was referring to.”
How do you know the Gospels are the word of God? Why do you believe the New Testament is authentic? On what authority do you rely?
Christ himself is the source of the Church's authority. The New Testament shows that Christ deliberately created his Church to be the vehicle of his continuing mission in the world. He promised to remain present in his Church for all time, and he lovingly guides it through the presence of the Holy Spirit.
The source and guarantee of this Church authority is Christ's continuing presence in his Church — "Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Mt 28:20).
The purpose of this authority is to give the Church the ability to teach without error about the essentials of salvation: "On this rock, I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it" (Mt 16:18).
The scope of this authority concerns the official teachings of the Church on matters of faith, morals, and worship (liturgy & sacraments). We believe that, because of Christ's continued presence and guarantee, his Church cannot lead people astray with its official teachings (which are distinct from the individual failings and opinions of its members, priests, bishops, and Popes).
To ensure the success of this mission, Christ gave his Church the ability to teach, govern and sanctify with Christ's own authority. The Apostles appointed successors to ensure that the Gospel would continue to be handed on faithfully as "the lasting source of all life for the Church".
The Acts of the Apostles reveals the Church's self-image as a body at the service of Christ's saving Gospel, acting in the ways and structures taught to them by Christ himself. The Apostles are keenly aware of the authority that has been given to them by Christ, and of their own need to remain ever faithful to Christ as they exercise that authority.
This same Church authority is the only thing that guarantees the accuracy and inerrancy of the Bible itself. It was the Church that selected the books of New Testament and defined the canon of the Bible. Those who believe that the Bible is reliable, are in fact relying on the Church's testimony that the New Testament books accurately reflect the faith & teachings of the Apostles, which is in turn grounded in the faith & teachings of Christ.
The Acts of the Apostles (a New Testament book) provides abundant evidence of how Church authority was practiced during the Apostolic age (during the lives of the Apostles themselves, after the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ). One of the most striking passages in Acts tells how the Apostles describe their decision about whether pagan converts should submit to the Jewish laws of circumcision. They say, "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" that those laws of the Old Covenant should not apply (Acts 15:28).
One of the most striking passages in Acts tells how the Apostles describe their decision about whether pagan converts should submit to the Jewish laws of circumcision. They say, "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" that those laws of the Old Covenant should not apply (Acts 15:28).
And I take it then that the Catholic church is fine with in vitro fertilization since it isn't mentioned in Scripture.
Catholic teaching prohibits in vitro fertilization, maintaining that a child has the right to be conceived in the marital embrace of his parents. Human sexuality has two components, the unitive and procreative; IVF separates these components and makes the procreative its only goal. Pope Paul VI said that there is an “inseparable connection, willed by God, and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.”
There are other issues involved. IVF makes the child a commodity produced in a laboratory, and makes doctors, technicians, and even business people part of the conception process. The sperm used is usually obtained by masturbation, which the Church teaches is immoral. The sperm or eggs used may not come from the couple desiring the child; because one of the spouses may be infertile, it may be necessary to use the sperm or eggs from an outsider. Most of the embryos conceived—which the Church holds should be respected new human lives—die, are frozen indefinitely for later implantation, are used for research, or are discarded. Children conceived through IVF also have a greater incidence of birth defects. The bottom line is that the Church views the child as a gift from God, not a right (although the child has rights). For more information on Catholic teaching on the issue, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2373-2379.
I was writing in the wee hours last night (but have not yet posted as of this writing) and touched upon that same element, for much the same reasons. I find it interesting how many of us here, all these alleged-to-be churches of one, said to be our very own popes, blah, blah, blah...so often agree as touching upon the very same things, even as we come from from various "ecclesiastical communities". It is quiet testimony that many of us here truly be of the same church. Be encouraged.
Actually, your own church points to scripture as the revealed Word, with themselves not claiming to be adding revelation to it, but themselves merely interpreting it. From Die Verbum;
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms". For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.
For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.
That part could have been written by any number of "protestant" scholars. I'll leave it up to you to argue from the next paragraph in that above [sourced] text, which begins with the word "But".
Who are you trying to convince? Yourself? Is there some vague, poetic understanding running alongside traditional explanations which is attempting to be conveyed? I think I get it, even as I turn from that "extra" gnosticism, difficult to pin down as it is...
More precisely, she was/is mother of Christ our Lord and Savior. Mother of the Incarnate Lord. There is no division of the Hypostasis in that expression, no matter how furiously hard it is attempted to be imposed.
If we could stick to that, some version of "mother of the Incarnate Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior", though taking a few more words and thus less convenient, it would help keep us all from straying into theological error. The idea of "Mother of the Incarnation" must regulate the expression of "Mother of God", for as we all freely admit, Mary herself did not exist prior to Christ, but only of his own Incarnation here on earth. If we then focus upon her now dogmatically proclaimed Assumption, and that she be now in union with the one true God, hid in Christ herself as it could also be said, to pray to her or any other by name is to separate them from the God of Abraham, even if it be done under cover of saying "we ask her to pray for us".
Hear Oh Israel, our God is One. We simple cannot abandon that portion of the Judeo-Christian construct, moving toward doing so when we speak of her as Mother of God, thus inevitably(?), presumptuously promoting her to be Queen of Heaven and the like...
How long until "queen of Heaven" language becomes dogmatic? Hmmm? Perhaps never, for the signs of the times indicate quite strongly there be relatively not much time of this era left, I'm afraid (literally afraid, for I do not wish to myself undergo realization of eschatology not so much spoken of here on this forum, but some version of be soon coming nonetheless).
Promoting Mary to some *special* continuing role, ascribing to her near god-like powers, while simultaneously referring to her as the new Eve, the New Ark (of the Covenant) the church itself, the Mother of the church, etc., produces confusion. So much for extra-biblical "poetry" best leading to truth, eh? Let us not be afraid that truth might endanger truth.
There is no queen of heaven in the OT -- but there is the born of God, as there is also the creation of God (that would be us, or shall we say includes us, with man being formed in image and likeness to God).
Eve was Adam's wife, taken from his own rib. She was not his mother. A new Eve...now the new Adam's mother ?!?
As metmom has repeatedly tried to lead us here to include as proper theological consideration, sin did not enter the world through Eve's own action, but through Adam's, as Paul reminds us. We need not have a new, this time allegedly sinless Eve to somehow complete a requirement for prior damages to be completely undone, or for Eve (and women as part of mankind, with us all as one) to be fully redeemed. It matters little in this that Christian writers from long ago pondered upon possibility for there being need of a new Eve (or they thought they caught glimpse of her) to go along with the new Adam spoken of by inspired writers of scripture (such as Paul) or thought they saw it there in the texts (or could squeeze it in between the lines) --- unless we can truly enough find it there under guidelines as found in the above cited portion [Die Verbum]. For even that which follows the "But" which I mentioned above (lol, AGAIN) is still logically regulated by that which I have here cited from Die Verbum, for if not, then that leaves only extra-biblical sources, and if those be from "tradition" (regardless of adding the word "sacred", or capitalizing the words to give them more verve) and it not be readily enough traceable to have been indeed handed down from the capital "A" Apostles, then what can be concluded but that it come from other sources (not the apostles) particularly when we can well enough uncover traces for that very thing having occurred? Let us have here, some of that "intellectual honesty" so much [elsewhere] mourned over.
I was writing other response to earlier replies of your own...but this continual pouring it on thick and fast, going rapidly from one item of contention to another, then back again, around and around and around, after watching it for years now, makes me wonder what "spirit" drives Romanist apologetic. When it turns now towards Mary, is that one from Ephesus? 'Diana' pushing to re-incarnate her devotions, thus infiltrate and corrupt Christianity? Perhaps it would it be better blamed on canned software previously spoken of (that you cut & paste argument from?) along with flights of fancy and poetic license, with such extra-biblical "poetry" from long ago being the original sources for the now re-encapsulated, in service to Romanism(s) argumentation such as the software you referenced is itself dedicated to doing in defense against Protestant criticisms.
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.