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?
As a protestant homeschooler I take offense at your ugly inaccurate whitewash. BTW, also a former RC with 12 years parochial school.
I could answer those of the top of my head. Yours I was going to give some thought to . . . but why waste my time. But, as you have suggested, we will part company here.
I’m thinking Easter, Halloween and Christmas but that’s just me.
LOL All holdovers from the RCC. The Protestant churches are after all the daughters of the RCC aren’t they.
True. But we don't have to imitate them.
Snake handling, female priests and bishops, same sex marriages, contraception, cross burnings, and nature veneration to name a few.
It would be wonderful if we could discuss our differences in a manner that was respectful and considerate of each others feelings and which provided a venue to learn from each other rather than fight. I really don't think Jim intended that Free Republic's Religion Forum would always be where Conservatives come to tear each other apart. It sure isn't the way I think God would want it either. But we can only be responsible for ourselves and control what comes out of our own keyboards. Maybe we all need to take a breath and think hard about what we say and how it comes across to others - especially those we sincerely hope will want to seek and know the truth.
Well right off the bat; I have seen quite a few prot churches with nativity scenes, seems like idol worship to me. I mean that is what you all accuse us of with our statues right?
>Actually, yes. It requires an extensive domino effect list of Scripture that must be denied or reinterpreted to piece by piece build a case to deny the Church’s authority. <
Actually it is Rome that extrapolates a Perpetuated Petrine papacy and assured infallibility out of text that do not teach that. Writings were established as Scripture and Truth was preserved without an infallible magisterium before there ever was a church in Rome, let alone what is referred to today as Roman. And among other things, the power to bind and loose was originally not given to the apostles only, while Rome herself allows that the “rock” of Mt. 16:18 upon which Christ built his Church was the rock of the faith confessed by St Peter, as the CFs differ on this.
In reality, while RCAs attempt to appeal Scripture as if it were the basis for doctrine, Scriptural substantiation is not the basis for RCs assurance of Rome being the one true and infallible church, else they would be evangelicals, but it is because they believe Rome is infallible.
But in response to those who invoke Scripture, there are arguments such as by Steve Hays (http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2008/06/04/some-questions-for-pete-enns/#comment-51994) on Matthew 16:18:
A direct appeal to Mt 16:18 greatly obscures the number of steps that have to be interpolated in order to get us from Peter to the papacy. Let’s jot down just a few of these intervening steps:
a) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to “Peter.”
b) The promise of Mt 16:18 has “exclusive” reference to Peter.
c) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to a Petrine “office.”
d) This office is “perpetual”
e) Peter resided in “Rome”
f) Peter was the “bishop” of Rome
g) Peter was the “first” bishop of Rome
h) There was only “one” bishop at a time
i) Peter was not a bishop “anywhere else.”
j) Peter “ordained” a successor
k) This ceremony “transferred” his official prerogatives to a successor.
l) The succession has remained “unbroken” up to the present day.
Lets go back and review each of these twelve separate steps:
(a) V18 may not even refer to Peter. “We can see that ‘Petros’ is not the “petra’ on which Jesus will build his church…In accord with 7:24, which Matthew quotes here, the ‘petra’ consists of Jesus’ teaching, i.e., the law of Christ. ‘This rock’ no longer poses the problem that ‘this’ is ill suits an address to Peter in which he is the rock. For that meaning the text would have read more naturally ‘on you.’ Instead, the demonstrative echoes 7:24; i.e., ‘this rock’ echoes ‘these my words.’
Only Matthew put the demonstrative with Jesus words, which the rock stood for in the following parable (7:24-27). His reusing it in 16:18 points away from Peter to those same words as the foundation of the church…Matthew’s Jesus will build only on the firm bedrock of his law (cf. 5:19-20; 28:19), not on the loose stone Peter.
Also, we no longer need to explain away the association of the church’s foundation with Christ rather than Peter in Mt 21:42,” R. Gundry, Matthew (Eerdmans 1994), 334.
(b) Is falsified by the power-sharing arrangement in Mt 18:17-18 & Jn 20:23.
(c) The conception of a Petrine office is borrowed from Roman bureaucratic categories (officium) and read back into this verse. The original promise is indexed to the person of Peter. There is no textual assertion or implication whatsoever to the effect that the promise is separable from the person of Peter.
(d) In 16:18, perpetuity is attributed to the Church, and not to a church office.
(e) There is some evidence that Peter paid a visit to Rome (cf. 1 Pet 5:13). There is some evidence that Peter also paid a visit to Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 1:12; 9:5).
(f) This commits a category mistake. An Apostle is not a bishop. Apostleship is a vocation, not an office, analogous to the prophetic calling. Or, if you prefer, it’s an extraordinary rather than ordinary office.
(g) The original Church of Rome was probably organized by Messianic Jews like Priscilla and Aquilla (cf. Acts 18:2; Rom 16:3). It wasn’t founded by Peter. Rather, it consisted of a number of house-churches (e.g. Rom 16; Hebrews) of Jewish or Gentile membership—or mixed company.
(h) NT polity was plural rather than monarchal. The Catholic claim is predicated on a strategic shift from a plurality of bishops (pastors/elders) presiding over a single (local) church—which was the NT model—to a single bishop presiding over a plurality of churches. And even after you go from (i) oligarchic to (ii) monarchal prelacy, you must then continue from monarchal prelacy to (iii) Roman primacy, from Roman primacy to (iv) papal primacy, and from papal primacy to (v) papal infallibility. So step (h) really breaks down into separate steps—none of which enjoys the slightest exegetical support.
(j) Peter also presided over the Diocese of Pontus-Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1). And according to tradition, Antioch was also a Petrine See (Apostolic Constitutions 7:46.).
(j)-(k) This suffers from at least three objections:
i) These assumptions are devoid of exegetical support. There is no internal warrant for the proposition that Peter ordained any successors.
ii) Even if he had, there is no exegetical evidence that the imposition of hands is identical with Holy Orders.
iii) Even if we went along with that identification, Popes are elected to papal office, they are not ordained to papal office. There is no separate or special sacrament of papal orders as over against priestly orders. If Peter ordained a candidate, that would just make him a pastor (or priest, if you prefer), not a Pope.
(l) This cannot be verified. What is more, events like the Great Schism falsify it in practice, if not in principle.
These are not petty objections. In order to get from Peter to the modern papacy you have to establish every exegetical and historical link in the chain. To my knowledge, I haven’t said anything here that a contemporary Catholic scholar or theologian would necessarily deny. They would simply fallback on a Newmanesque principle of dogmatic development to justify their position.
But other issues aside, this admits that there is no straight-line deduction from Mt 16:18 to the papacy. What we have is, at best, a chain of possible inferences. It only takes one broken link anywhere up or down the line to destroy the argument. Moreover, only the very first link has any apparent hook in Mt 16:18. Except for (v), all the rest depend on tradition and dogma. Their traditional support is thin and equivocal while the dogmatic appeal is self-serving.
The prerogatives ascribed to Peter in 16:19 (”binding and loosing” are likewise conferred on the Apostles generally in 18:18. The image of the “keys” (v19a) is used for Peter only, but this is a figure of speech—while the power signified by the keys was already unpacked by the “binding and loosing” language, so that no distinctively Petrine prerogative remains in the original promise. In other words, the “keys” do not refer to a separate prerogative that is distinctive to Peter. That confuses the metaphor with its literal referent.
The entire structure, vestments, images, architecture, rituals, and Holy days (holidays) of the RCC have their origins in paganism. The Protestant organizations are after all daughters of the RCC and have retained many of the pagan practices and have even added some in certain cases. Why do you think people are warned to “come out of her” in Revelation?
ROFL! So you take something that they retained from their days as part of the RCC? That’s funny! They are after all daughters of the RCC.
You don't think that Jesus instituted the Sacraments so that we could just stay Jewish do you?
Besides, everything in the Mass, the structure of the altar, the vestments, every movement, gesture, and word in the Mass, and the Holy Days are directly from Scripture.
Peace be with you
LOL. That is the theological equivalent of saying "it's Bush's fault".
Frankly, I don’t have time or interest to investigate.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Yeah right, like the fish hat (mitre) that came from the prieststo the fish god Dagon? Or the images incorporated in many of the adornments, vestments, architecture and so forth which came from Babylonian worship of Baal? Anyone interested in truth simply needs to do some research on the pagan origins of the RCC practices and dress and will understand why it’s most likely the RCC is the whore of Revelation and the Protestant churches are her daughters.
Some pagan ideas were incorporated into the church when Constantine married the church to the state.
The name Pontiff was originally the name of the High Pagan priest in Rome.
The basilica and church architecture was taken from Imperial Rome.
The Diocese was an Imperial Roman administrative unit.
Constantine was overall very bad for the church.
So the vestments that God ordered made for Aaron and his son's were pagan?, The Seraphim and other decorations on the Ark of the Covenant were pagan? The Temple design that Solomon Built was Pagan? The days of Prayer and Fasting that God ordered were Pagan?
That is your story and you intend to stick to it on judgment day?
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.