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 lie.
Oh, I’m sure they think you’re a joy to be around, too.
I do not lie. I posted Scripture to back it up.
If you take issue with the very words Jesus Himself spoke, you need to take it up with HIM. I didn’t say them. I just pointed them out.
Jesus called what was in the cup “the fruit of the vine”.
It’s also recorded in Mark and Luke.
If you think I’m lying, instead of simply leveling the charge, prove where I’m wrong.
John 15:18 “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.
Whew! I just read through all the posts, quite a task. After a while, it begins to look like beating the dead horse. The Romanists debate their side and are defeated over and over, hands down.
To me, its simple, all one has to do is pick up a NT and just read ir, one would have to have half a brain to imagine the RCC is the church you see there. Excuse my Enlish: it ain’t there! Where’s the Marioloaty? Priests, CELIBATE priests, Rosary beads, infant baptism, praying the dead out of purgatory, etc. and etc., the list is almost endless.
Once the Bible became available to the common man, the Romanist game was over. They’ve been de-fanged. Going up against people armed with their Bibles, the Romanists haven’t a leg to stand on.
How are we supposed to eat his flesh and drink his blood without the Real Presence?
Go ahead and read all of John chapter 6.
Matthew 26:26-28 "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."
Mark 14:22-24 "Wile they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many."
Luke 22:19-20 "Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you."
So, you think the Bible is supposed to be an exhaustive source of all religious truth?
1. What you call "Mariolatry"
Luke 1:28-30 "And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God."
Luke 1:41-43 "And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"
Luke 1:48 "Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."
2. Priests
John 20:21-23 "He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."
3. CELIBATE Priests
Matthew 19:12 "For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.
1 Corinthians 7:8 "But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I."
1 Corinthians 7:32-33 "But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided."
It's true that St. Peter and most of the Apostles were married. The celibacy rule could be changed. But we prefer for our priests to follow the example set by Jesus and St. Paul.
4. Rosary beads were, I believe, used by the Dominicans or the Franciscans beginning in the Middle Ages, but that has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not praying the Rosary is a worthy practice. It's like asking, "When did the Founding Fathers ever recite the Pledge of Allegiance?". Obviously, the Founding Fathers never recited the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance didn't exist until 1892. Does that mean the Pledge of Allegiance is un-American?
5. Infant baptism is suggested when St. Paul says he baptized the household of Stephanas in 1 Corinthians, but I know you won't accept that. We do have more solid documentation of infant baptism from St. Hippolytus of Rome and from Origen, both writing in the 3rd century, well before 311, which is the year you think "Constantine established the Catholic Church". (Not that you'd accept those writings, either.)
6. Praying the Dead Out of Purgatory
2 Timothy 1:16-18 "The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorous: because he hath often refreshed me, and hath not been ashamed of my chain: But when he was come to Rome, he carefully sought me, and found me. The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou very well knowest."
This was a prayer offered by St. Paul for his dead friend Onesiphorous.
Correction: Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313, not 311.
Scott Hahn says hi.
Meaning the entire Bible, but which does not establish an assuredly infallible church as supreme over any Scripture, which preceded it, any more than it did for Israel, which came before any Scripture was written (first by Moses).
And which writings, like true men of God, were progressively established as being of God due to their Divine qualities and attestation in conformity to what was prior established as from God.
And which the positional powers that be were to recognize and confirm, but as Scripture testifies, often they did not, but which did not change who or what they were, while judging the error of those who sat in power. Thus the church began in dissent and often by such faith is preserved.
The issue is that both the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ are inferior to it, neither being wholly inspired of God in all such say, and as written, Scripture was the transcendent standard for obedience and testing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced . And thus it was upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power that the church was established as being of God, and further complementary and confirmatory writings were established as being of God.
There is some more , but that is why objectively searching the Scriptures for truth and to to validate what Rome teachers (rather than searching for "proof texts" to wrest support for her) is discouraged.
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”
“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church..” ”—“Henry G. Graham, “What Faith Really Means”, (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]
Its akin to the Masons. If you leave then you can have no credibility. If they do say so.
There are some, but i am certainly not here to defend all that goes on under that broad umbrella (some of which deny basic Biblical truths) and thus you have the fundamentalist/evangelical movement of 100 years ago (now too broadly defined), and separations prior to that. 1Cor. 11:19
Catholicism also has divisions, and Rome has her sects, but as she treats liberal RCs (the majority) as members in life and in death, in reality the TRCs (traditional) are stuck with them unless they go into schisms.
Just the incessant inordinate posts on the latest talk by the pope or RC news invites or gives occasion for that, and if that does not happen, they are usually hard pressed to get more than a few responses!
Or when its time to be buried. Even if your name is Kennedy or Chavez!
Are these the ONLY places I get to look?
The bible indicates we are to have no other idols; but it doesn't list them: well; other than mammon.
Mormonism has no 'liturgical' book that tells it's practioners to WORSHIP Joseph Smith, either; but plenty of EVIDENCE for it can be found.
Have you tried the OTHER kind?
I hear it has more fiber!!
It’s turtles: all the way down.
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.