Baltimore Catechism vs. CCC?

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

Ray,

Thank you. That is a useful consideration.

A few follow up questions:

1. What do you mean that the Baltimore Catechism is “infallible”?
2. How are we to understand the local ordinary’s jurisdiction and duty to regulate catechesis in his diocese? Would you say that a bishop must mandate the use of the Baltimore Catechism? Or would you say that he just must allow it as an available option? Either way, doesn’t that seem to impinge on his own jurisdiction?

VC
p.s. Any more posters willing to weigh in?

The Baltimore Catechism may be without error but it is not infallible.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

1. What do you mean that the Baltimore Catechism is “infallible”?

The plenary council of Baltimore met the conditions of infallibility as a collection of bishops united to present/clarify the teachings of the Church. As a point of reference to its weight, it was a similar collection of 3 different regional councils (covering the entirety of the Christian world at that time) plus the pope ratifying the contents of the Bible that gave us the list of Scriptures accepted as infallibly declared from the late 300s until the Protestant upheaval.

1. How are we to understand the local ordinary’s jurisdiction and duty to regulate catechesis in his diocese? Would you say that a bishop must mandate the use of the Baltimore Catechism? Or would you say that he just must allow it as an available option? Either way, doesn’t that seem to impinge on his own jurisdiction?

As a member of the USCCB, he really can’t forbid the use of the current and officially in force catechism of his region. Since all the bishops participate and pass down the results in union with one another, the plenary councils of a region do bind all of the sees within the region to the decisions reached. Though other catechisms may be allowed, the Baltimore is the “reference point” against which other locally approved catechisms should be measured in both content and presentation.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

As a member of the USCCB, he really can’t forbid the use of the current and officially in force catechism of his region. . . .Though other catechisms may be allowed, the Baltimore is the “reference point” against which other locally approved catechisms should be measured in both content and presentation.

Thanks for the continued replies Ray.

Given what you’ve outlined above, what would be your take on a situation of a Bishop who decided to use and mandate the use of a local catechism that was based on the Baltimore Catechism and used the BC as a reference point. Simultaneously, in order to insure coherent and consistent catechesis in his diocese he mandates that this local adaptation is to be used in each parish. One parish decides that they like the old BC better and uses it instead.

What is your analysis of that situation?

VC

 

[DebChris]

The last time I used the Baltimore Cathecism was during my primary school years. I have most often lived where there were few Catholic families and the simple answers provided by the BC did little when it came to explaining my faith to friends. The BC, as I recently learned provided a sense of community and belonging to newly arriving immigrants. That was its primary purpose, rather than use as an evangelization tool.
One of the points made in John Paul II’s letter that serves as the introduction to the CCC is the development of new cathechisms during times of renewal within the Church. The councils served as pivotal points of these renewal periods and he names various saints and fathers of the Church who developed cathechisms for the instruction of the faithful.
There are things to take into consideration when reading the Baltimore Cathecism, written before Vatican II. The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick was restored to its original role.The Baltimore Cathecism might refer to the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, known as the Sacrament for the Dying. If a priest were called, he was often viewed as a last resort and a sure sign that the person being annointed would die. Many priests dreaded the call that portrayed them more as “angels of death” rather than bringing the healing of Christ.
I do not have a copy of the “new Baltimore Cathecism” so I do not know what changes have been made in light of the CCC.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

To use the technical term, that gets “iffy”.

Considering the age of the Baltimore, I could not disagree with a bishop who decided that the pastoral needs would be better met through a locally adopted update of it, especially one updating terminology and tapping on current issues regarding the situation topics.

OTOH, I would have a beef with someone who claimed the theology that the BC presents was outdated, as that is simply not true (and where its heritage of originating from a plenary council and status as the most recent in-force catechism of one comes into play).

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Ray,

Curiouser and curiouser. Here’s another hypothetical situation, perhaps another one where things get “iffy.”

What would your analysis be of a situation where a bishop who, taking his cue from the Baltimore’s plenary meeting, mandates the diocesean wide use of the BC. One parish, however, decides that they want to use the Catechism of the Council of Trent instead.

VC

 

[jc-servant]

OP, I believe this line is pertinent to the discussion at hand. “Not intended to replace,” most assuredly means there is absolutely nothing wrong with a Priest using the Baltimore Catechism for RCIA.

The problem in this situation is not which book the priest would like to use but rather his disobedience to a directive to his bishop. IMO, it would take a bit of pridefulness to place one’s personal desires above obedience to one’s bishop in matters of faith and morals when the bishop is not ordering heresy. The real issue here is that the priest is refusing to use the CCC **at all **and he is trashing it and his bishop’s instructions before the RCIA class.

The OP’s description of the manner in which this priest is speaking to potential converts about his bishop is troubling. There appears to be a strong assumption on this thread that the priest is only trying to promote orthodox teaching, but one priest does not speak with the authority of the magesterium. He is in fact being openly defiant to his bishop by making the statements to the RCIA class encouraging them to follow his guide rather than that of the bishop. He is leading the RCIA class astray by showing them that it is OK to defy the magesterium through his defiance of his bishop. Even if he is correct in believing that he could better teach using the BC, his blatant defiance negates any good from using that book.

We don’t know if this priest has been disobedient to the bishop in other matters leading up to this situation with the catechism. I am far more concerned with any priest who believes that he is justified in openly defying his bishop and in promoting disobedience among converts than I am with which catechism transmits the faith more conveniently for a teacher.

This is the slipperly slope that has led many people away from the church whether on the right or the left. Everyone becomes their own bishop and then their own Pope and then they just continue to split off and form new churches each time they disagree with something that someone else is doing.

 

[SemperFidelis]

The problem in this situation is not which book the priest would like to use but rather his disobedience to a directive to his bishop. IMO, it would take a bit of pridefulness to place one’s personal desires above obedience to one’s bishop in matters of faith and morals when the bishop is not ordering heresy. The real issue here is that the priest is refusing to use the CCC **at all **and he is trashing it and his bishop’s instructions before the RCIA class.

The OP’s description of the manner in which this priest is speaking to potential converts about his bishop is troubling. There appears to be a strong assumption on this thread that the priest is only trying to promote orthodox teaching, but one priest does not speak with the authority of the magesterium. He is in fact being openly defiant to his bishop by making the statements to the RCIA class encouraging them to follow his guide rather than that of the bishop. He is leading the RCIA class astray by showing them that it is OK to defy the magesterium through his defiance of his bishop. Even if he is correct in believing that he could better teach using the BC, his blatant defiance negates any good from using that book.

We don’t know if this priest has been disobedient to the bishop in other matters leading up to this situation with the catechism. I am far more concerned with any priest who believes that he is justified in openly defying his bishop and in promoting disobedience among converts than I am with which catechism transmits the faith more conveniently for a teacher.

This is the slipperly slope that has led many people away from the church whether on the right or the left. Everyone becomes their own bishop and then their own Pope and then they just continue to split off and form new churches each time they disagree with something that someone else is doing.

I guess “Not intended to replace” means absolutely nothing. I guess when the Bishop is in disagreement with the Pope, we should ignore the Pope, and stick by the Bishop. After all, that’s collegiality right?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

What would your analysis be of a situation where a bishop who, taking his cue from the Baltimore’s plenary meeting, mandates the diocesean wide use of the BC. One parish, however, decides that they want to use the Catechism of the Council of Trent instead.

That parallels wanting to use the CCC, actually, as the Catechism of Trent was another one of those intended as a reference for teachers and other catechisms. When I was teaching confirmation, I was using both the CCC and the Catechism of Trent as the background material for the lessons

 

[Just_1_hr_a_wk]

The plenary council of Baltimore met the conditions of infallibility as a collection of bishops united to present/clarify the teachings of the Church. As a point of reference to its weight, it was a similar collection of 3 different regional councils (covering the entirety of the Christian world at that time) plus the pope ratifying the contents of the Bible that gave us the list of Scriptures accepted as infallibly declared from the late 300s until the Protestant upheaval.

The more I look into this the more I am finding that the Baltimore Catechism is NOT, in fact, infallible.

 

[jc-servant]

I guess “Not intended to replace” means absolutely nothing. I guess when the Bishop is in disagreement with the Pope, we should ignore the Pope, and stick by the Bishop. After all, that’s collegiality right?

You appear to miss my point entirely. There is no credible evidence that the bishop is in conflict with the Holy Father. There is credible evidence that the priest refused to use the CCC at all after a clear directive from his bishop because he admits it. We do not know that the bishop has instituted some blanket ban on the use of the BC in his diocese. He has given a directive to this particular priest who has chosen to present it as a ban on use of the BC.

The OP has related the story from the perspective of the priest who is in public disobedience to his bishop. I’m inclined to take the priest’s statement that he was told not to use the BC at all with a grain of salt. He may have in fact been told that he cannot use the BC to the total exclusion of the CCC. We don’t know because we have not seen the letter or other communication from his bishop. We have to take the priest’s word for it and he most definitely has an agenda to promote given his statements to the RCIA class. He probably would not have ever come to the bishop’s attention without his outright refusal to use the CCC. He could have happily used the BC as his main teaching tool and supplemented as needed with the CCC.

This priest has proven that his word is not his bond since he took a vow of obedience to his bishop which he is now publically violating. This priest has lowered his credibility by showing that his vow is not worth keeping when it conflicts with his personal desires.

 

[Quackers]

It is sad when the Bishop is more concerned with eliminating the use of the Baltimore Catechism for RCIA purposes, than he is in trying to get rampant heterodox practices in the Diocese fixed. You should feel fortunate that you have a Priest who is not lost, and will unabashedly stick up for what the Church teaches. The Baltimore Catechism is a great tool for catechesis, and I would much rather use it over the CCC. The CCC is a great reference tool, and it has a lot in it, but at times it can be somewhat misleading. Ask your Priest if he would incorporate some of the CCC into RCIA. If he doesn’t, just let it go. You can be assured of the fact that that RCIA class is more than likely the best and most orthodox in the Diocese, and I wouldn’t ruin it or get a bunch of folks upset over something like this. Now if a Priest was using Luther’s catechism to teach the Faith, I would be knocking on the Bishop’s door and wouldn’t mind getting some folks upset, but I wouldn’t worry if he’s using the Baltimore. It’s still orthodox, even after all these years.

Thank you, that’s what I’ve decided to do. I’m going to ask the priest if he will incorporate some of the CCC into the class and if he refuses, I will let it go. Having learned the disturbing facts that I related in my most recent post, my perspective has changed. I’ve also had one more person verify to me what is going on in the diocese. As a result, I think I understand better where my priest is coming from now. Now I’m praying that the bishop has a change of heart and cleans up the diocese.

 

[Quackers]

I think it might be more useful to look at this from another perspective.

The Baltimore happens to be the catechism endorsed by the last plenary council of the USCCB for the instruction of the faithful. Until another plenary council occurs, the Baltimore will remain the local catechism of which we can be sure of both its infallibility and its appropriateness to teach the faithful. The the same cannot be said about the reference recently released by the USCCB, as it does not have the binding weight that a regional plenary council can attach.

Meanwhile, the CCC states directly that it is not intended for direct instruction of the faithful, but for the reference of the instructors (and speaking as a trained educator who also taught confirmation for several years, that is an accurate portrayal of its best use in practice). That qualification is straight from Rome’s mouth, so a bishop mandating use of the CCC in a capacity of direct instruction to the catechumens is dodging both Rome’s recommendation (though not really a binding one) and the last plenary regional council (to which he is bound in obedience), all to achieve an end with no clear benefit and a much greater chance of confusing those in most need of direct answers.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Interesting perspective.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Thank you, that’s what I’ve decided to do. I’m going to ask the priest if he will incorporate some of the CCC into the class and if he refuses, I will let it go. Having learned the disturbing facts that I related in my most recent post, my perspective has changed. I’ve also had one more person verify to me what is going on in the diocese. As a result, I think I understand better where my priest is coming from now. Now I’m praying that the bishop has a change of heart and cleans up the diocese.

Definitely sounds like the best course of action to take! God Bless!

 

[Quackers]

Definitely sounds like the best course of action to take! God Bless!

Thank you, God bless you too. Given what I’ve learned, I now believe it’s safer to stay at my parish and continue my catechism classes with my priest and the BC. I definitely don’t want to end up at a parish that performs same sex unions! Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut here. I’ll still be reading this thread and most likely contributing. It seems like some interesting discussions have started here.

 

[jflare29]

1. Having tried to read a Baltimore Catechism once, I can honestly tell you that I wasn’t impressed. The answers were completely correct, but…very limited in scope. I and others alive in 2008 received a more in-depth education than likely did many workers prior to 1940. The answers provided in the Baltimore tended to leave me with at least 3 other questions or else they only very obliquely addressed the question I really wanted answered.
   That’s why the council fathers of Vatican II authorized the creation of more involved catechesis, like the CCC.
   Detail and depth is good!!

I suppose it really comes down to this: Where are you spiritually right now? How curious are you about the faith?

And most importantly: Does the Baltimore Catechism adequately answer your questions???

Ultimately, perhaps the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not intended to replace others; but how hard can it really be to have a copy available?

John

 

[SemperFidelis]

The answers were completely correct, but…very limited in scope.

Clearly you didn’t read the Fourth Baltimore Catechism. There are four, and the larger the number the more in-depth of an answer it provides to the questions. If you read number one, then yes the above would apply. Number four however, gives way more in-depth answers, so if you haven’t read that one, you haven’t gotten the whole thing.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

That’s why the council fathers of Vatican II authorized the creation of more involved catechesis, like the CCC.

I don’t recall Vatican II authorizing the creation of a new catechism, do you have a citation to a document of that council doing so?

 

[davidcoit]

I don’t recall Vatican II authorizing the creation of a new catechism, do you have a citation to a document of that council doing so?

Apostolic Constitution *Fidei Depositum *of October 11, 1992

Catechism of the Catholic Church pg.XIV,

“Drawn up by the special Commission of Cardinals and Bishops established by an Interdicasterial established in 1986, the Catechism was approved and promulgated by me (Pope JPII) in the aforementioned Apostolic Constitution, which today retains all its validity and timelessness, and finds its definitive achievement in this Latin typical edition.
This editon was prepaired by an Interdicasterial Commission which I (Pope John Paul II) appointed for this purpose in 1993. Presided over by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger this commission worked diligently to fulfill the mandate it received”.

 

[jflare29]

I don’t remember right now precisely where I saw that, but I’ll check.
(I hope I’m not remembering that from in the CCC itself…that’d be painful!)

John