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?
Indeed...it’s like God the Father is reduced to the CEO of the universe rubber stamping all the stuff that gets brought to his desk.
Please, can you tell me?
Mary was chosen by God, but sometimes even those chosen by God go astray. We see that in David, Solomon, Abraham, etc. The list goes on.
Did their chosenness negate their free will in choosing to do what God told them they should do? No.
So why is Mary any different? She had the exact same choice that Eve had - she could choose to go through with it, or she could choose otherwise. But - God left it up to her. She could have chosen otherwise, and God would have left her to her graces.
This is why the Catholic church teaches that man was saved through the obedience of Mary whereas man was condemned through the disobedience of Eve. Mary chose to bear Christ.
And Mary is not a vessel - she is a woman a person. Christ is truly her son just as any other child!
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Have you ever been to a Catholic Mass? It has a huge percentage of the Bible in it. Not just in the three readings each week. Protestants have told me protestant services have a much smaller percentage of their services from the Bible. Maybe someone isn’t telling you the truth about Catholics.
Joh 6:26-29 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. (27) Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. (28) Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? (29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Presumably, when Christ says “labour... for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life,” it refers literally to the Eucharist. But then the Jews ask him “What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?” in response to this statement; instead of answering “Get a Priest to feed you bits of my body!”, Christ replies “believe on him whom he hath sent.” Thus, to believe is to eat His body and blood, just as faith joins you to His body. Not literally, but spiritually.
Augustine favors this view, commenting on the same lines of scripture:
“They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.” (Augustine, Tractate 25)
In response to the Jews walking away, since they took him literally (the Roman Catholic view), Christ replies, as if to explain:
Joh 6:61-63 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? (62) What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? (63) It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Christ declares that His body is returning to “where He was before.” This He does to draw them from the carnal sense and to think spiritually. He continues, “the spirit... quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.” Christ points them back to the faith He commanded previously in verse 29, and does not encourage them to take a bite out of Him right then and there. If the “flesh” profiteth nothing for meat and drink, and if the flesh that did profit was crucified on the cross, resurrected, and then taken up to heaven and glorified, how does it follow that eating Christ’s flesh and blood literally actually does profit? Therefore, the “profit” is in the clear command Christ gave to believe. “Why dost thou prepare thine teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already.”
I’ll also add that Christ also offers to the Samaritan woman “living water,” by which a person should drink and have everlasting life. Yet, the RCC does not offer a sacrament of living water for people to drink.
Joh 4:10-14 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. (11) The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? (12) Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? (13) Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: (14) But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
Christ speaks of drinking this living water, yet did not actually give her literal water nor ever prescribed it. What He commanded was faith and spiritual worship, which you see later in His discourse with the woman. Augustine makes the same observation, connecting John 6 with John 4.
“You expected, I believe, again to eat bread, again to sit down, again to be gorged. But He had said, Not the meat which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life, in the same manner as it was said to that Samaritan woman: If you knew who it is that asks of you drink, you would perhaps have asked of Him, and He would give you living water. When she said, Whence have you, since you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep? He answered the Samaritan woman: If you knew who it is that asks of you drink, you would have asked of Him, and He would give you water, whereof whoso drinks shall thirst no more; for whoso drinks of this water shall thirst again. And she was glad and would receive, as if no more to suffer thirst of body, being wearied with the labor of drawing water. And so, during a conversation of this kind, He comes to spiritual drink. Entirely in this manner also here.” (Augustine, Tractate 25)
Therefore, your position exists by taking a few words of scripture out of context, but ignoring the entire chapter and almost the entire book of John, which everywhere points the believer to faith for gaining eternal life, and not physically eating or drinking flesh, blood or water to have eternal life. Christ Himself explains to His apostles the true meaning of His discourse, of which the RCC utterly ignores.
Who shouted you down? I have never heard such a thing.
How do you know who is in hell? I know of nowhere in the Bible it encourages us to speculate on who else is in hell. Really, it encourages you to attend your own soul.
“How do you know who is in hell? I know of nowhere in the Bible it encourages us to speculate on who else is in hell. Really, it encourages you to attend your own soul.”
Which statement of mine is this in response to? I don’t recall saying anything of the sort. Though, I affirm that anyone who does not have faith in Jesus Christ and dies in this condition, is most certainly in hell.
One would think that with all of the claims about what the Gospel authors and Early Church Fathers actually said and really meant you would rely on a more accurate translation of the Bible than the KJV.
Peace be with you
You are unable to answer only with your usual non answer blabber. The Truth is The Truth which is foreign to catholics.
“One would think that with all of the claims about what the Gospel authors and Early Church Fathers actually said and really meant you would rely on a more accurate translation of the Bible than the KJV.
Peace be with you”
Well, you’re certainly free to offer your own version which translates it differently. I suspect you won’t, though.
“Augustine favors this view.”
This has already been shown to be false, that St. Augustine affirmed the Real Presence.
If you can’t get this part right, how can we trust you on anything else.
In any case, the meaning of the passage is clear. Christ is bodily present in the bread and the wine. This is why he insists that those who believe in Him take of Him.
I'm having trouble with a couple of things:
First, I have trouble with the glorification of the concepts of "majority rule" and "stare decisis" via replacing their names with the single term "Magisterium".
Second, I have trouble with claims that someone is "cherry picking" the Church Fathers. Since we do not accord any of them with the power of infallibility or with impeccability, it should be obvious that the Church Fathers may have been wrong about some things, and all of them were certainly wrong about something at some point in their writings. Who gets to decide which quotes "count" and which constitute "cherry picking"? Why is the Catholic practice of selective citation, arranged neatly so as to support the claim that "to read the Church Fathers is to become Catholic" or however the line goes. not a prime example of cherry picking"? What objective, external standard can be appealed to, to verify when a Church Father is "orthodox" and when he is "heretical"?
You don't have to tell me the answer, because I think we can all guess it by now: "The Magisterium", or to use a better word, "by majority vote".
The 'early church fathers' lesson plans came from the holy prophets. Just like Peter writes. And for the English reader the KJV allows the language barrier to be crossed with Strong's. See what the majority of modern Christians are not instructed is the NEW does not contradict the so called OLD. Christ continually quoted the holy prophets, which made them one and the same as His Gospel. Moses was the first holy prophet as well as being the law giver. There is no need for the evolutionary track forming new traditions down through the ages.
How else is it possible for Christ to have said before one jot or tittle of the so called new ever got placed on plant fibers or animal skins ... Mark 13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. Then Christ proceeds to make Isaiah 13:10 part of the Gospel, as noted in Mark 13:24.
And things are right on schedule as The Heavenly Father had His elected holy prophets pen, routinely called the Old Testament.
Wonder why there was a parable of the 10 virgins?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
“This has already been shown to be false,”
The only thing that’s been proven is that Catholics are good at repeating worn out arguments and asserting that things are proven false without actually proving anything.
“And for the English reader the KJV allows the language barrier to be crossed with Strong’s”
And where precisely does this tradition of men originate?
“The only thing that’s been proven is that Catholics are good at repeating worn out arguments and asserting that things are proven false without actually proving anything.”
It was already cited, earlier up, the full text of what St. Augustine actually said and not your perfunctory citation.
You should respond to that post if you expect any of us to take your interpretations of St. Augustine seriously.
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.