Baltimore Catechism

[John_Higgins]

Ah, yes, nearly 50 years later I can still recite (imsert sing-song voice here) “A mortal sin is a deadly sin; a venial sin is a lesser sin.”

Rote memorization is fine for what it is, but IMHO there are many catechisms out there which are far superior to the BC.

But, if you like the BC went into reprint and you can order one from Amazon. I did, but after looking it over again, I can’t figure out why I did.

John

 

[thistle]

The BT of course was/is only for Americans. The rest of the Catholic world has never used that.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Both are superior to the BC

I would disagree; as I would disagree that any Catechism could be “dated”, unless you are suggesting the Faith can change with time, which is the exact definition of Modernism.

The Adult’s USCB Catechism is something I would never reccomend. It contains many significant doctrinal errors that do not accurately reflect the historic teachings of the Church.

The single best Catechism is THE Catechism- the Roman Catechism, otherwise known as the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

I would also reccomend This is the Faith", which was written in the 50’s. An up-to-date version is now available from TAN books, which has the new laws on fasts, Holy Days, etc.

The CCC is alright. For the most part it is orthodox but it has an unfortunate tendency to water down the tougher teachings of the Church.

 

[John_Higgins]

Juan Carlos,

Doctrine develops. Our understanding of doctrine changes. This is directed by the Magisterium which (imagine that) writes the Catechism. You mean there is no more enlightenment since the Council of Trent? Bah!

John

 

[JuanCarlos]

Both are superior to the BC

Juan Carlos,

Doctrine develops. Our understanding of doctrine changes. This is directed by the Magisterium which (imagine that) writes the Catechism. You mean there is no more enlightenment since the Council of Trent? Bah!

John

Are you saying modern Catholics have a bigger slice of doctrinal cake than all other generations of Catholics? I think it is a dogma that the Deposit of Faith was completed with the death of John the Apostle

 

[brotherhrolf]

Ah, yes, nearly 50 years later I can still recite (imsert sing-song voice here) “A mortal sin is a deadly sin; a venial sin is a lesser sin.”

Rote memorization is fine for what it is, but IMHO there are many catechisms out there which are far superior to the BC.

But, if you like the BC went into reprint and you can order one from Amazon. I did, but after looking it over again, I can’t figure out why I did.

John

Fifty years later you still remember it, Fancy that. Hard wired into memory. How many kids today would know what the corporal and spiritual works of mercy are? My two sure wouldn’t yet I could start another thread just posting old BC questions and I bet you dollars to donuts we’d have people able to answer without resorting to google.

And I remember “This is Our Faith” as well. We used that from 7th - 11th grade after all that rote memorization that served no purpose.

Couple that rote memorization with a properly formed conscience and, wow, that’s a pretty solid foundation I believe. Served me well all these years.

 

[John_Higgins]

JuanCarlos:

I think it is a dogma that the Deposit of Faith was completed with the death of John the Apostle

Then what do we need the Magisterium for?

Did John talk about the Assumption of the BVM? Is the Immaculate Conception clearly and explicitly defined in the Bible?

That’s what development of doctrine is.

So, in answer to

JuanCarlos:

Are you saying modern Catholics have a bigger slice of doctrinal cake than all other generations of Catholics?

I am saying “Yes.”

John

 

[Joannm]

I would disagree; as I would disagree that any Catechism could be “dated”, unless you are suggesting the Faith can change with time, which is the exact definition of Modernism.

The Adult’s USCB Catechism is something I would never reccomend. It contains many significant doctrinal errors that do not accurately reflect the historic teachings of the Church.

The single best Catechism is THE Catechism- the Roman Catechism, otherwise known as the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

I would also reccomend This is the Faith", which was written in the 50’s. An up-to-date version is now available from TAN books, which has the new laws on fasts, Holy Days, etc.

The CCC is alright. For the most part it is orthodox but it has an unfortunate tendency to water down the tougher teachings of the Church.

What doctrinal errors are in the Adult Catechism? It is totally based on the CCC which is the official catechism of the CHurch today, so that must have errors as well.

 

[JuanCarlos]

I believe the adult Catechism teaches that the Old Covenant still exists and is salvific, which contradicts infallibly defined Church teaching

 

[Fitswimmer]

As a Catholic raised during the years of “warm, fuzzy Jesus” religious education, I have taken it upon myself to go back to the basics as an adult and actually learn my faith. I was given a Catechism called Faber’s by our Pastor, then I picked up the 4 Baltimore’s and This is Our Faith.

I didn’t realize how poorly I had been catechised until I did that.

 

[Brendan]

Here is the Baltimore Catechisms 1-3 on-line for those who want it.

intratext.com/X/ENG0104.HTM

One caveat. The Baltimore Catechisms is nolonger accurate on some matters of Church discipline. e.g. Catholics being forbidden to Marry non-Catholics is in the Baltimore, but is nolonger true.

Of course it is accurate on all matters of dcotrine, since doctrine can not change.

God Bless

Marriage between Catholics and non Catholics still requires a dispensation for Dispartity of Cult, which was true in the Baltimore Catechism ‘days’ as well.

Here is the relevant Canon

Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Can. 1125 The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled…:

So no, this discipline hasn’t changed in a significant way from what is described in the BC. The primary change being that, under the 1917 Code, a bishop could grant permission for ‘grave’ (or most serious) reasons only. The 1983 Code change that to ‘just and reasonable’ reasons, the most permissive standard in Canon Law.

But the core still remains: they are still prohibited without a bishop’s consent.

 

[John_Higgins]

JuanCarlos:

I believe the adult Catechism teaches that the Old Covenant still exists and is salvific, which contradicts infallibly defined Church teaching

Quote it for me. I can’t seem to find anything that contradicts infallible teaching.

John

 

[Spiller]

Anything for kids that has the advantages of the Baltimore Catechism? While kids may not have understood everything they learned, at least they had stuff in their heads they could pull out and use later in life.

I teach sixth grade CCD and would really appreciate an age-appropriate catechism to use with them. I have seen things like a catechism of the Catholic Church “for teens” – in bookstores, not an official publication.

Yeah, try the Q&A from the Church itself…

 

[Spiller]

I would disagree; as I would disagree that any Catechism could be “dated”, unless you are suggesting the Faith can change with time, which is the exact definition of Modernism.

The Adult’s USCB Catechism is something I would never reccomend. It contains many significant doctrinal errors that do not accurately reflect the historic teachings of the Church.

The single best Catechism is THE Catechism- the Roman Catechism, otherwise known as the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

I would also reccomend This is the Faith", which was written in the 50’s. An up-to-date version is now available from TAN books, which has the new laws on fasts, Holy Days, etc.

The CCC is alright. For the most part it is orthodox but it has an unfortunate tendency to water down the tougher teachings of the Church.

Plainly put, you don’t have any idea what you are talking about. A prime example of where the BC is very DATED was given by another poster:

“One caveat. The Baltimore Catechisms is no longer accurate on some matters of Church discipline. e.g. Catholics being forbidden to Marry non-Catholics is in the Baltimore, but is no longer true.”

Read before you type next time. This came from posting #12.

Oh yeah, and THE catechism is THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. There is only one.

 

[Spiller]

Are you saying modern Catholics have a bigger slice of doctrinal cake than all other generations of Catholics? I think it is a dogma that the Deposit of Faith was completed with the death of John the Apostle

You really aren’t aware, are you? No one is suggesting the dogmatic deposit of faith has been added to. Some are saying (as the Church tells us) that some of the deposit of faith has been more fully revealed.

I’m pretty certain you won’t understand what I just typed but I hope you do some day. Your postings scream of anger and a very topical understanding of the faith. A VERY negative one too…

 

[mercygate]

Yeah, try the Q&A from the Church itself…

Huh?

 

[JohnJFarren]

JMJ MMM 080525 Sunday
Hello Les … and all you wonderful people –
I will shortly be 78 years of age, in very good health, thank God!
Many years ago I eagerly soaked up the teaching of the Baltimore Catechism – I hungered for it back then. And I thank God every day for all about God’s Revelation it taught me.

It had system and order and used the Creed as the basis for its teaching. So much of catechesis to day is random, a spot here about a healing of a lame one … and other there of John the Baptist … all according to the brilliant selections of the so-called expert teacher. Yes, dioceses often select these “do it yourself” kits and books. This has been a great loss and weakening of the faith of most of the people who surround us in church today. And if this is the spotty half-faith of those IN church, what about those Catholics who just don’t find it meaningful enough to bother coming to Mass. (By the way, to them, what IS the Mass? To them, what IS the Eucharist?)

I also am very familiar with solid, modern theologians like Rahner, Ratzinger (our present pope), Balthasar, Jacques Dupuis, and others whose continued prayer and meditating is helping the Church to grow and mature and approach ever more closely a better and better focusing of God’s Revelation.

But I’ll always praise the Baltimore Catechism. It set me on fire for more and more … and as the many years passed I FED that hunger, always creating MORE spiritual hunger.
John (JohnJFarren) Trinity5635@aol.com

 

[James0235]

Quote it for me. I can’t seem to find anything that contradicts infallible teaching.

John

I believe he is probably referring to this:

**When God called Abraham out of Ur, he promised to make of him “a great nation.” This began the history of God’s revealing his diving plan of salvation to a chosen people with whom he made enduring covenants. Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.

*(United States Catholic Catechism for Adults pp. 130-131)

***In the Catechism of the Catholic Church something seemingly similar appears:
**
The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

(CCC 121)**

Given that the Catholic Church has traditionally taught that the Old Covenant is no longer valid with the institution of the New Covenant in Christ and given that CCC 120-124 is referring specifically to the Old Testament Scriptures I know that many people believe that the correct interpretation of CCC 121 is that the Old Testament has never been revoked. In fact, I believe that the words Testament and Covenant in English are actually the same word in Greek. So, this is a possible interpretation.

Elsewhere the CCC seems to suggest that the Old Covenant has been completed and fulfilled in Christ:

**The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel. “The Law is a pedagogy and a prophecy of things to come.” It prophesies and presages the work of liberation from sin which will be fulfilled in Christ: it provides the New Testament with images, “types,” and symbols for expressing the life according to the Spirit. Finally, the Law is completed by the teaching of the sapiential books and the prophets which set its course toward the New Covenant and the Kingdom of heaven.

(CCC 1964)

The Law of the Gospel “fulfills,” refines, surpasses, and leads the Old Law to its perfection. In the Beatitudes, the New Law fulfills the divine promises by elevating and orienting them toward the “kingdom of heaven.”

(CCC 1967)**

**The Law of the Gospel fulfills the commandments of the Law.

(CCC 1968)

**So, I don’t know that it is necessarily heretical but at best I would think the passage from the USCCA is a bit ambiguous. It states the Old Covenant is eternally valid and the Church says that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled in Christ and surpassed by the New Covenant. It can not be a valid, saving covenant. All salvation comes through in the New Covenant - the only valid Covenant.

**Hence, those solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith.

(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus 14)**

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

James

 

[Pug]

I know that many people believe that the correct interpretation of CCC 121 is that the Old Testament has never been revoked. In fact, I believe that the words Testament and Covenant in English are actually the same word in Greek. So, this is a possible interpretation. …

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

James

I did go ahead and look up the CCC 121 in Latin, and the two words used are different words. However, that does not mean perforce that they don’t mean exactly the same thing in Latin. But perhaps it explains why two different words were used in the English version of the CCC. I find 121 somewhat puzzling, myself.

the New Covenant - the only valid Covenant.

I’ve chopped this out of your context, which was about being salvific. I just included this snip to ask about your use of the word “valid”. I would call the covenant with Noah valid. It is still in force at this time. I’m assuming you mean “valid” to only be in the sense of salvific?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The way that this was explained to me is that the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Another way of saying is that it is the fulfillment of the Covenant of Abraham with all that it implies. The covenant with Abraham was broken and because of this Jesus came, and gave us himself as a sacrifice and gave us the Eucharist to fulfill the broken covenant that man was unable to fulfill or satisfy.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B.