Baltimore Catechism FALSE TEACHING

[killyclogher]

It is not disingenuous.
How God did not abandon man is never made clear.
Instead a false definition of salvation is given, a definition that makes salvation as “opening the gates of heaven.” Since that is the only definition, given in a basic Catechism, it naturally leads to the conclusion that it is the basic, primary meaning of salvation. But it is not.
If one studies the Baltimore Catechism series, from the First Communion Catechism, then the No. 1 and No. 2, it is inevitable that one will come away with the belief that salvation means that the main reason Jesus suffered and died was to “open the gates of heaven”. The Baltimore Catechism teaches this, because that is what the Catholic scholars taught and it was put in the Catechism.

 If you don't think this false teaching of Catholic scholars has not permeated Catholic thought, then ask 10 Catholics what the meaning of salvation is.  Ask them why Jesus suffered, died and rose again.

At least 8 out of 10 will say, so that we can go to heaven, or to open the gates of heaven, something referring to entering heaven. Why? Because of the teaching of Catholic scholars. Where did they get it from. From Protestants who in their discussion of salvation by faith alone, almost exclusively use the word salvation to mean final salvation, or entering heaven, instead of the primary meaning, which is liberation from everything that oppresses man, especially liberation from sin.

I would love for someone to prove me wrong.
Just cite one scholar’s article, one piece of writing, anyone who can explain what the Popes mean by proclaiming the Gospel. Please prove me wrong.

“He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures”

601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of “the righteous one, my Servant” as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had “received”, St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus’ redemptive death fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God’s suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401
scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a4p2.htm
83. Q. Why did Christ suffer and die?
A. Christ suffered and died for our sins
catholicprimer.org/vatican_docs/baltimore_catechism.pdf

 

[tdgesq]

Why don’t Catholic scholars say “oops, we made a mistake, we misled millions of Catholics, sorry, lets try to learn what the Popes are teaching and explain that instead.”

But, all we get is silence.

Perhaps because your thesis isn’t true:

From Baltimore Catechism #2 - main edition.

1. Q. Did God abandon man after he fell into sin?
   A. God did not abandon man after he fell into sin, but promised him a Redeemer, who was to satisfy for man’s sin and reopen to him the gates of heaven. catholicinformationcenteroninternet.org/Catechism/Part2/bk2ls7.html#RTFToC2

From Baltimore Catechism #2 - main edition.

1. Q. Which are the chief effects of the Redemption?
   A. The chief effects of the Redemption are two: The satisfaction of God’s ’ justice by Christ’s sufferings and death, and the gaining of grace for men.
2. Q. What do you mean by grace?
   A. By grace I mean a supernatural gift of God bestowed on us, through the merits of Jesus Christ, for our salvation.
   . . .
3. Q. What is actual grace?
   A. Actual grace is that help of God which enlightens our mind and moves our will to shun evil and do good.catholicinformationcenteroninternet.org/Catechism/Part2/bk2ls10.html#RTFToC1

From Baltimore Catechism #3 - expanded edition.

Q. 453. Which are the chief effects of the Redemption?
A. The chief effects of the Redemption are two: The satisfaction of God’s justice by Christ’s sufferings and death, and the gaining of grace for men.

Q. 454. Why do we say “chief effects”?
A. We say “chief effects” to show that these are the most important but not the only effects of the Redemption – for all the benefits of our holy religion and of its influence upon the world are the effects of the redemption.
. . .
Q. 475. What is actual grace?
A. Actual grace is that help of God which enlightens our mind and moves our will to shun evil and do good.catholicinformationcenteroninternet.org/Catechism/Part3/l10.html#RTFToC1

From Baltimore Catechism #4 - teacher’s edition.

1. Q. Which are the chief effects of the redemption?

A. The chief effects of the redemption are two: the satisfaction of God’s justice by Christ’s sufferings and death, and the gaining of grace for men.

An effect is that which is caused by something else. If you place a danger signal on a broken railroad track the effect will be preventing the wreck of the train, and the cause will be your placing the signal. Many effects may flow from one cause. In our example, see all the good effects that may follow your placing the signal – the cars are not broken, the passengers are not killed, the rails are not torn out of their places, etc. Thus the redemption had two effects, namely, to satisfy God for the offense offered Him by the sins of men, and to merit grace to be used for our benefit.
. . .
110. Q. What is actual grace?

A. Actual grace is that help of God which enlightens our mind and moves our will to shun evil and do good.

“Actual.” Sanctifying grace continues with us, but when grace is given just so that we may do a good act or avoid a bad one, it is called actual grace. Suppose, for example, I see a poor man and am able to aid him. When my conscience tells me to give him assistance, I am just then receiving an actual grace, which moves me and helps me to do that good act; and just as soon as I give the help, the actual grace ceases, because no longer needed. It was given for that one good act, and now that the act is done, the actual grace has produced its effect. Again, a boy is going to Mass on Sunday and meets other boys who try to persuade him to remain away from Mass and go to some other place. When he hears his conscience telling him to go to Mass by all means, he is receiving just then an actual grace to avoid the mortal sin of missing Mass, and the grace lasts just as long as the temptation. Sacramental grace is sanctifying grace – given in the Sacraments – which contains for us a right to actual graces when we need them. These actual graces are given to help us to fulfill the end for which each of the Sacraments was instituted. They are different for each Sacrament, and are given just when we need them; that is, just when we are tempted against the object or end for which the Sacrament was instituted. cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bredeem.htm

 

[dcdurel]

And it is not required to have the approval of the Pope.
From :
APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION FIDEI DEPOSITUM ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
“…This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms.”
For instance this is from the Prologue to the CCC which was approved by the Pope:
24 " By design, this Catechism does not set out to provide the
adaptation of doctrinal presentations and catechetical methods
required by the differences of culture, age, spiritual maturity, and social and ecclesial condition among all those to whom it is addressed. Such indispensable adaptations are the responsibility of particular catechisms…"
The BC is a particular catechism, actually several particular catechisms for different age groups, adapted from the Roman Catechism.

 I never said that local Catechisms require the approval of the Pope.  I said that it is not a magisterial document.  Certainly it is authoritative, but, unless it has the approval of the Pope, we don't know if all teachings in it are true.  And they weren't.  It was misleading in regards to salvation, and a few others things also.  They should have got the approval of the Pope, but they didn't.  
 As I mentioned before, I am not condemning the Baltimore Catechism, the rest is excellent and the writers did the best they could for those times.  My problem is with catholic scholars TODAY, who know the Popes give an entirely different meaning to salvation than what the BC was teaching and what catholic scholars  had been teaching.  In other words, in the past when I heard that Jesus died for our salvation, the first and immediate thought was that Jesus died to reconcile man back to God so that when he died he could go to heaven.  That is the same idea that other Catholics tell me they understood salvation to mean.  That is the same idea I got from reading other Catholic writers. Now and then I would read the correct take on salvation, but it was only occasionally and it was not emphasized as the primary meaning.  \
  Of course the idea that Jesus came so we could go to heaven never really quite fit in with everything else.  Why would the Church teach the mass continues the work of salvation if Jesus already opened the gates of heaven?  It doesn't fit.  Why were the more spiritual of the Jews, (those who weren't waiting a temporal earthly conquering ruler) so eager to have the Savior come if His main purpose in coming was only so that man to enter heaven.  It doesn't make sense. Why did the early Christians often give up all they had to follow Jesus, if all Jesus offered was that when they died they could go to heaven?  Or that the Church taught the truth?  People aren't THAT interested in the truth. Why did Jesus say that those who didn't believe the Gospel would be condemned, if all the Gospel promised was eternity with God?   Or if the Gospel said that those who didn't quit their sins and repent would end up in hell.  Almost everyone already tried to quit sinning and failed, thus most just gave up.  How would someone who tried to overcome his faults and failed, be attracted to a religion which now condemned him for these faults if he didn't change, when he already tried and couldn't change?  This didn't make sense either.  
But what the Popes teach DOES make sense.  Go back on each of these points and use  the Church's definition of salvation, that Jesus came to free us from the slavery of sin, free us from our sinful drives,  so that we **can change** to do what is right, so that we CAN have self control to do what is good.  Then all those points I just mentioned do make sense.  
 And Jesus' words in Mark 16:16 finally makes perfect sense.  15"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
 Because if the central point of the Gospel ( as the Popes teach)  is that Jesus offers grace that takes away our inclination to sin, that takes away our desire for sin, that gives us the ability to do good, then it makes perfect sense that those who had tried and failed to overcome their sins, would now be attracted to this Gospel,  and it makes perfect sense that those who reject this Gospel will be condemned.  Because Jesus is the only one in the world who makes this offer of liberation from the slavery of sin.  If a person had no desire to be liberated from the slavery of sin, if he is happy in his sins, if he doesn't want this offer, then he is unrepentant and of course he will end up in hell.

 

[rwoehmke]

The only problem with the Baltimore Catechisms was that being set up in a series of 1, 2, 3, and 4, most of us never got beyond number 2. It wasn’t that the teaching was incorrect it was the fact that in order to get the full more complete teaching one had to progress to the more complete one. The basic teaching was quite correct but really a summary of the complete teaching which was still not completely covered in number 4. People who were taught by use of this series actually ended up with a good basic understanding of our Catholic Faith, an understanding which is sorely lacking in many of todays younger Catholics.

The real problem was that then even as is often the case today, once confirmed and/or out of school, learning more deeply the Catholic Faith was and is rare. Those Catechisms were sketchy but correct, so no apology for false teaching need be given except perhaps for the concept of Limbo, which apparently was only just that. Wise teaching, even if not completely correct, in that it helped cut the risk taken by those who might otherwise never have been baptized before death. One might say it was a prudential teaching that assumed a worst case scenario for what would happen with the unbaptized.

 

[JOE_OBERR]

I would love for someone to prove me wrong.
Just cite one scholar’s article, one piece of writing, anyone who can explain what the Popes mean by proclaiming the Gospel. Please prove me wrong.

“He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures”

601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of “the righteous one, my Servant” as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had “received”, St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus’ redemptive death fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God’s suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a4p2.htm
83. Q. Why did Christ suffer and die?
A. Christ suffered and died for our sins
http://www.catholicprimer.org/vatican_docs/baltimore_catechism.pdf]

Is this all? Is this the whole Gospel? What exactly, precisely does “suffered and died for our sins” mean? What is a sin? Are they all the same? How is sin defined? Does committing a sin separate you from God’s friendship, his grace?

In Jn 15:15 Jesus told his apostles he had told them EVERYTHING he had heard from his Father. In Mt 28:20 Jesus commanded the Apostles to “…teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you.”

Jesus taught them so much he had to send them the Holy Spirit to remind them of "all’’ that he had taught them in the three years of learning, orally, from the Master.

Are you saying this “all” is summarized in the few sentences you noted above? There is much more.

 

[dcdurel]

The only problem with the Baltimore Catechisms was that being set up in a series of 1, 2, 3, and 4, most of us never got beyond number 2. It wasn’t that the teaching was incorrect it was the fact that in order to get the full more complete teaching one had to progress to the more complete one. The basic teaching was quite correct but really a summary of the complete teaching which was still not completely covered in number 4. People who were taught by use of this series actually ended up with a good basic understanding of our Catholic Faith, an understanding which is sorely lacking in many of todays younger Catholics.

The real problem was that then even as is often the case today, once confirmed and/or out of school, learning more deeply the Catholic Faith was and is rare. Those Catechisms were sketchy but correct, so no apology for false teaching need be given except perhaps for the concept of Limbo, which apparently was only just that. Wise teaching, even if not completely correct, in that it helped cut the risk taken by those who might otherwise never have been baptized before death. One might say it was a prudential teaching that assumed a worst case scenario for what would happen with the unbaptized.

No 3 was so bad that no one used it. Didn’t know they had a No. 4
Again, my problem is not that the Catholic scholars got it wrong on salvation, for it was a difficult time. But, that they don’t correct their errors today. They seem to be so set in their ways, in what they learned, or in what their peers believe, that they cannot understand Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II when they give the correct definition of salvation.
And at the same time many will try to pronounce judgment on the Popes, such as the foolishness that they Popes seldom teach infallibly, or the Pope are influenced by this error or that error. Or that the Pope’s explanations in Veritatis Splendor, for example, are faulty.
How in the world can these Catholic theologians claim to understand Veritatis Splendor correctly, when they have no idea what the very basic fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church are in regards to salvation and especially regarding the “proclamation of the Gospel”. If they have no idea what the apostles taught and preached when they proclaimed the Gospel, which resulted in the Catholic Church, then what makes them think they understand anything else correctly.
All these errors come because for hundreds of years
scholars and even bishops have been rejecting the teachings of the Popes when they don’t agree with the Popes. The bishops rejected the Popes teachings on slavery for 200 years and never publicly apologized. Cardinal Gibbons went against the Pope publicly in advocating total separation of Church and State, when the Church has always taught partial separation of Church and State. This attitude of rebellion and of ignoring the leadership of the Pope, by high ranking American Catholics in this country has led to such ignorance on their part that they are entirely lost on the most fundamental teachings of the Church, such as what it means to “proclaim the Gospel” which is the primary duty of all priests and bishops.