Skip to comments.USCCB New Version of Catholic Catechism
Posted on 11/23/2004 4:56:01 PM PST by thor76
Amchurch Bishops Come up with Another Phony Catechism From: Fr. Moderator
Donald Wuerl, Newchurch Bishop of Pittsburgh Theological Bojanles Writes Amchurch "Catechism" Newvatican Previously Found Him So Ignorant of Canon Law That He Was Sent back to Remediation School
If you thought that the New Order would stop after its Vatican II Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992 (well, that was the year of its first version at least), were you wrong!
Although the Novus Ordinarians quote that travesty as if it were Holy Writ, the Vatican II catechism is so full of mistakes and "nuancing" of true Catholic doctrine that it should be thrown into the fireplace, where it will have some use. And why wouldn't it be defective? The bishops and cardinals on the writing committee admitted that they were incompetent to read the seminal documents of the Faith in their original languages. How can any book pretend to be a catechism when the Newchurch officials can't even read the text of St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory the Great, St. Anselm, St. Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, St. Alphonus, and so many others?
Theologians have pointed to numerous errors in the Vatican II catechism, some committed from ignorance, some obviously deliberate to be "politically correct." The common teaching of the Fathers on limbo is entirely omitted. The section on capital punishment underwent several revisions until it could satisfy the liberalist types and contradict the constant teaching of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. The section on marriage contracts previous teaching. And on and on it goes. (If you, in ignorance at the time, bought a copy, it is not too late to ditch it and get the Roman Catechism written by St. Charles Borromeo after the Council of Trent, a brilliant and eminently readable work that expounds Scripture, Tradition, doctrine, and practice for all of the Church's essential teachings.)
After the first "version" of the catechism was floated, Newvatican gauged its popular reception and then issued a second "version" with several significant changes in the doctrine. Apparently, Newchurch doctrine can be changed by popular demand! This situation is reminiscent of what happened with the "New Mass," which, when first issued in 1969, contained an explicitly heretical definition of the Mass. When this egregious error was pointed out, a red-faced Paul VI recalled the original text and had it patched up a little. Nevertheless, it still remains heretical.
Now it seems that the Newchurch bishops of the United States have fabricated a "national adult catechism in the hope of reaching young adults who have left" Newchurch. Don't hold your breath, you Newchurch bishops. Another phony catechism isn't going to bring them back. Only the authentic Roman Catholic Mass, Sacraments, doctrine, and morality will do that, and you are light-years distant from that!
And guess who was chairman of the Amchurch editorial board. Why, it was the same Donald Wuerl, of Pittsburgh, who was found so ignorant of canon law that Newvatican issued a stern reprimand against him and directed that he return to school!
Nor is this Amcatechism a serious work. Unlike the Roman Catechism, the Baltimore Catechism, or even the Vatican II catechism, it doesn't lay out and explain the teachings of the Church in a serious exposition. No, each of its 36 chapters opens with a story, purportedly of model Novus Ordinarians, including:
Dorothy Day, leader of a communistic worker movement Joseph Bernardin, Modernist archbishop of Chicago, a vocal proponent of a "gay-friendly" Church, whom Donald Wuerl publicly described as his "role model" -- go figure! Cesar Chavez, another socialistic agitator Thomas Merton, the Buddhist-Trappist, who died in 1968 of electrocution in a bathtub while participating at an "oecumenical conference" with Buddhists in the Orient These choices were too much even for ten of the Ambishops, who voted nay! on the catechism and got Merton pulled out of the final text.
The Newchurch bishops recognized that American Novus Ordinarians are now so ignorant of their cult these days that they cannot hand real doctrine. So a dumbed-down, "Americanized" version had to be concocted. And, of course, the Amcatechism had to be politically correct. Against the dictates of even the Newvatican, the Amerbishops insisted upon using "gender-inclusive language." Is the New Order she-god far away?
Best thing is to just stick with the Baltimore Catechism. No heresy or liberal, modernist, sodomite-coddling "nuancing" there.
Do they plan to use this dreck in ALL the RCIA classes?
My traditional priest recommends DeHarb's Catechism.
Have you heard of it? I haven't found it yet so I'm wondering if it is still in print.
On the contrary, it will be very useful.
When was "Fr. Moderator" ordained? Or is he ordained?
Perhaps Fr. Moderator would like to produce evidence that Wuerl had to "go back to school." Nobody who knows him is aware of that.
How do you know it's "dreck?" You haven't read it.
And, yes, most parishes will use it for RCIA.
I just ignore the USCCB like faithful Roman Catholics should. It is not part of the magesterium, just a collection of 60s and 70s era wreckage.
I would have never really thought of this aspect of it, due to my own ignorance, but it's huge. My goodness what a gift it is to have a Pastor aware of what he needs to make his sheep aware of.
This is going to only continue to deteriorate though, because I can't imagine the Church is going to produce enough language scholars to be able to read these works in their original language. Or is that something that is being concentrated on in some of the more conservative or better seminaries?
Wonder what they're teaching prospective Priests at Ave Maria. The Dean at that School (Florida location), as Pio said, has got it going on, big time and major league.
My parish, that is not a TLM parish, will still use the CCC for its RCIA(in reality its adult Cathechisis taught by a priest), not any USCCB trash.
Anything that includes Dorothy Day and Caesar Chavez and holds them up as role models is "dreck."
I know you teach RCIA classes, Sinkspur, and I don't know what goes on at your parish, but I had the unfortunate experience of sitting through a class at my own parish.
It was full of feminist psychobabble, hand waving and swayin' to the tinkly new age music (I believe it was Vangelis).
Then we got to hear one of the nuns tell us how awful we Americans all are because we "use up" so much stuff and "don't share it with humanity."
Dreck, I tell you, and this appears to be more of the same.
Caesar Chavez, indeed!
An excerpt from a Wanderer editorial that expresses the sentiment well:
"Now, this is not going to make the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops go away, mores the pity. Each year, November will still come, and nature will start to die; the days will grow cold, and short, and dark, leaves will fall off trees, bushes will shrivel, the ground grow hard, birds will fly to more hospitable climes, the winds blow cold and sharp, and we will know that the bishops are gathering for their annual November meeting. This is the way it is, my friendsthe cross is the gift God gives to His friends, as the Cure of Ars once said. If you prefer W.C. Fields, I believe it was he who said, Thats the way the cookie crumbles." Let them meet, let them deliberate, let them publish position papers on whatever they care to, enlighten the western world on the economy, and peace, and racism, and add another twelve volumes to the Lectionary, and eliminate more holy days, and solemnly authorize us to high-five each other at the sign of peace. Whatever they choose to do is so utterly beside the point that our best refuge from the anger they might provoke within us is hilarity at such idiocy. I did not decree their irrelevance; they did. It was not our decision that they would do absolutely nothing, over two generations, to address the problems afflicting our beloved Church. Let them do whatever they choose to do; it wont matter in the least. But while they are gathered in solemn session, deliberating on whether to permit priests to wear blue vestments for advent, or merely to authorize us to wear the bluer hues of purple for advent while saving the violet-er hues of purple for Lent, lets you and I get on with itthe wonderful privilege of living our Catholic Faith."
http://bettnet.dyndns.org/blog/weblog.php Domenico Bettinelli, Jr. Blog
"Let them do whatever they choose to do; it wont matter in the least."
Misleading thousands of unsuspecting souls - and wasting good people's hard-earned contributions - does matter.
You're really perceptive. Lets go eat some salad and drink some Fruitopia.
Fruitopia Fused Fruit Drinks are a free-spirited, eclectic mix of fruit juices and other intriguing flavors.
look it up. I withdraw my previous statement for the sake of making everything easy on me. I have to sleep.
Thanks. I had no idea.
"Anything that includes Dorothy Day and Caesar Chavez and holds them up as role models is "dreck."
And anybody who doesn't understand that is blinded by liberalism.
The USCCB has NO authority in the matter, the document will require review & approval in Rome to be truly authentic.
* These trad-peeps follow strange "authorities"
* I feel your pain :)
"I feel your pain"
God will have the last word.
But you don't know it's true. As for http://www.tboyle.com - you MUST be joking! Are you sure that's the correct URL?
Think you got him on one - sink? Maybe you should just write him yourself. Did you really need for me, or anyone, to actually have to suggest that to you?
Not only Cesar Chavez and Dorothy Day...but Cardinal Bernadin, sodmoite and satan worshipper, gets big time play.
Also, the Vatican is pumping out their own adult catechism...it'll be interesting to note the contradictions between the two.
Ultimately...it'll be Baltimore for the kids, Council of Trent for me ...and I'll keep the CCC revision 1 around to see what the modernist homosexuals think.
But overall it is an attestation of the teachings on dogma,faith and morals,of the One,Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church that Christ established to bring us home to the Father. It connects the Church to Christ over 2000 years.
I use as a proof of it's truth and value,the fact that the Amchurch catechists and instructors recoil in horror if one attends their classes and brings the Catechism with them. They recognize that what they are intending to teach is not authentic Catholicism and they do not want source documents in the classrroom that will demonstrate their errors.
I am in total agreement with you on Bernardin,the inclusion of that man is a crime and a sin.
You do know that the "progressive,modernist,liberal,marxists" are 100% behind the publication of an american catechism because the CCC does promulgate Truth which is the last thing they want. That is why it is so tragic that the opposite end of the Catholic spectrum,"traditional,orthodox,conservative" Catholics bicker with one another rather than uniting to overcome the evil being perpetrated by those within the Church that lie as they seek to destroy the Church Christ established on earth to bring us home.
A. The attributes of the Church are three: authority, infallibility, and indefectibility.
123. Q. What do you mean by the authority of the Church?
A. By the authority of the Church I mean the right and power which the Pope and the bishops, as the successors of the Apostles, have to teach and govern the faithful. Authority is the power which one person has over another, so as to be able to exact obedience. A teacher has authority over his scholars, because they must obey him; but the teacher need not obey the scholars, because they have no authority over him. God alone has authority of Himself and from Himself All others who have authority receive it from God, either directly or through someone else. The Pope has authority from God Himself, and the priests get theirs through their bishops. Therefore, to resist or disobey lawful authority is to resist and disobey God Himself.
*I don't think the Baltimore Catechism is for you :)
Bishops have the right and duty to teach...the only problem is that many of them reject what they ought to teach.
What authorizes you to reject the Baltimore Catechism? Or treat acceptance of the Baltimore Catechism as a schismatic act?
M.E. Morrison was "ordained" in California in a Protestant church (Ebenezer Lutheran Chirch) by Thaddeus Alioto, a married man claiming to be a bishop (because he had been "consecrated" a bishop by Wallace David de Ortega Maxey).
De Ortega Maxey had been "consecrated" numerous times by various North American Old Catholic bishops (whom even the Old Catholic Churches in Europe deny have valid orders). De Ortega Maxey also *claimed* to have been consecrated by Antoine Aneed.
Aneed's story is that he was consecrated a bishop by a RC Eastern Rite bishop in Syria and sent to America. Both the Vatican and the Syrian Patriarchate involved denounced the story as a fabrication.
If you have any doubts over the veracity of my statements as to where Morrison got "ordained," just ask his fellow "independent" priest, Merril Adamson. He was "ordained" in the same ceremony. I've a written statement from him confirming the fact.
This is important not because of anything Morrison states on the internet, but because he dresses up his statements as coming from a RC priest.
Even the devil can quote Scripture.
Anyone e-mailing to Morrison's list a request for the facts of his claimed ordination will be dropped.
It never ceases to amaze me how sedevacantists can be so cock-sure JP II is a fraud, yet swallow hook, line and sinker any number of bogus clerics; just because the frauds sing the music sedes like to hear.
It takes more than "right" preaching to make a priest.
Regards, Terry Boyle
[Mr. Boyle's website is at http://www.tboyle.net/ ]
But which CCC is the right one? I bought the First Edition published by Doubleday, the one with the white cover.
Then, out came Edition II published by Our Sunday Visitor (the one with the green cover.) This edition proclaimed "more accurate translation of the Latin." So, the first one is junk? That's when I said, "To hell with it." I'm saving up for a Baltimore and a Council of Trent. I'll buy a current Catechism in 10-20 years when the hippy-fags (Mahoney, USCCB committe heads, Kasper) all die off and Vatican II either gets accurately implemented or better yet trashed all together.
I have to admit I'm afraid to compare the two. These modernists can't issue a catechism for more than three years without having to issue a re-write.
Which edition do you own? Better check with BORNACATHOLIC to be sure he won't excommunicate you.
Yeah, Raymond Arroyyo got me thinking when he pointed out that this is an odd task to be undertaken by the USCCB when the Vatican is already doing all this.
I had heard that the modernist homosexuals dreaded the publication of the CCC, but last night's replay of Mother Angelica Live included her comment that it was delayed in publication so that they can adopt inclusive language.
ICEL cannot be trusted and I cannot read Latin fluently ...so I will stick with the Baltimore and translations of the Council of Trent and anything before 1960 for now. Excommunication per BORNACATHOLIC notwithstanding.
No, that's just the 'reformed' types who do so. They'll buy anything. A travelling priest who would offer Mass at a traditionalist parish would be asked for his background. I've seen that myself.
As for Morrison, if he denies the charge, then what you have is a potential fraud on his part, or on the part of your witness. Ever heard of a forger named, Burkett? People can lie. He's not only on the internet, but as I understand it offers a traditionalist Latin Mass on the SF waterfront every Sunday. All those people must be in the dark about Fr. Morrison being 'ordained' by a Prot/OC in a Protestant Church. But then you might reply - perhaps they all are. Still, that would be the place to ask him.
Dorothy Day was not a communist? And you are using an article from the Catholic Worker - her socialist style paper, which she founded as evidence of this?
And now a reading from Chairman Mao's Little Red Book........
When the revised edition came out I often attended a pretty orthodox church in a poorer area of the city. After it had been out a month or two,the priest announced that they had copied all of the changes and they were available in the back of the church for all to pick up. He said they did this because they knew the Catechism was expensive and since the changes and additiions were few in number,they didn't want parishioners to spend their hard earned money for a new edition. He suggested that we just fold the typewritten pages and keep it inside the Catechism.The changes amounted to approximately 20 typewritten pages.(10 pages,both sides)
Of the twenty pages almost half were used for the inclusion of the glossary which just facilitated usage. They tightened up the definitiions and material on homosexuality,relaxed some in the section on capital punishment. I can't remember the other portions but it was not much considering the original was over 800 pages.
I don't know what Mothr Angelica was commenting on but it was probably the lectionary because that's where all the inclusive language battles took place,as I recall.
My problem with the formatting is that when I look at Baptism,I have to look in all four sections. I would have preferred everything be all together. Once I found all I needed to do was look at the index and write down all of the passages that referenced Baptism throughout,I got pretty good at finding out everything I wanted to know quickly. I highly recommend it.
Is this Morrison guy the traditional catholic priest,who appears on Art Bell every so often? That guy claims he is a good buddy of John Paul II,he also is married and has eight children. What a fraud that man is,yet people call and treat him respectfully based on his claimed catholicism. Ugh!!
Thanks for the link,I think Dorothy Day had a lot to recommend her. She was a very obedient,orthodox Catholic and I believe she went to daily Mass.
No, she wasn't. Her cause for canonization is before the Congregation for Saints.
Who has eight kids? Like I said, the only Morrison I know of apparently holds Masses on the SF waterfront every Sunday. That's the guy to ask. He's now been accused, here, of having been ordained a Prot, in a Prot church, and having eight kids, presumeably while masquerading as a priest. I wonder if he'll be accused of being Burkett's accomplice in Rathergate, next?
If you're going to criticize the man - don't stoop to calumny. You better be able to back yourself up.
I was talking about priests that claim ordination in the Old Catholic Church which isn't catholic at all. But I'm also always complaining about the infiltrators and "imposter" bishops in the Catholic Church in this country and see no reason to not be wary of any men who claim to be ordained catholic priests but seem to have no history or puzzling credentials. I think Reagan was right when he said:"Trust but verify".
Reagan was right. I thought you were talking about this guy in SF, the one with the website. If not, then I take it you can verify that you were not?
I don't know who is in SF with a website. I was talking to someone who said someone who claimed to be a Roman Catholic priest was ordained in the Old Catholic Church. The only "priest" I am somewhat familiar with,who claimed to have been ordained in the Old Catholic Church and also claimed to be a Roman Catholic priest,wasn't. He had eight kids and was on the Art Bell show a couple of times,a big old fraud. If it sounds like the same person,beware. I have no more interest in the subject.
The new version of the Catechism isn't nearly as bad as the Amchurch deconstruction will probably be.
Check this for a "Catechism"...
excellent. Thank you.God Bless.