C
CWBetts
Guest
I just did a quick google search, and all I came up with were anti-Catholic sites.
- Status
P
PopeMobile
Guest
I didn’t realize people were looking for this. I have it. It’s called “Catholic Catechism” published in New York by Pietro Cardinal Gasparri. There is a good deal of liberty taken in the so-called quotations, but it is a compilation of statements and phrases scattered from pages 97 onward, including the footnotes.
Several statements come from page 98:
“head of the church”
“Christ on earth”
“power by divine right”
“full power in faith and morals”
“over each and every pastor in his flock” etc…etc…
I’ll type some of this out for all of you:
Page 98
(129) Why is the Roman Pontiff called the visible head of the Church and the Vicar of Christ on earth?
The Roman Pontiff is called the visible head of the Church and the Vicar of Christ on earth because, since a visible society needs a visible head, Jesus Christ made Peter, and each successor of his, to the end of the world, the visible head and the vicegerent of His own power.
(130) What power, then, has the Roman Pontiff over the Church?
By divine right the Roman Pontiff has over the Church a primacy not only of honour but of jurisdiction, and this both in things concerning faith and morals and in discipline and government.
(131) What kind of power has the Roman Pontiff?
The Roman Pontiff has supreme, full, ordinary, and immediate power both over each and every Church, and over each and every Pastor and his flock.
(132) Who are the lawful successors of the Apostles?
The lawful successors of the Apostles are, by divine institution, the Bishops; they are set over particular churches by the Roman Pontiff, and govern them by their own proper power under his authority.
(133) What, then, is the Church founded by Jesus Christ?
The Church founded by Jesus Christ is the visible society of people who are baptized, and who joined together by professing the same faith and by a mutual fellowship strive to attain the same spiritual end under the guiding authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops in communion with him.
The phrase “Teacher of all Christians”, as well as the essence of “infallible ruler”, “author and judge of councils” is on page 103. The “founder of dogma” comes from page 107.
Page 102
(145) Whose peculiar function is it to pronounce a solemn judgment of this kind?
To pronounce a solemn judgment of this kind is the peculiar function of the Roman Pontiff, and of the Bishops together with the Roman Pontiff, especially when assembled in an OEcumenical Council.
Page 103
(146) What is an OEcumenical Council?
An OEcumenical or General Council is an assembly of the Bishops of the entire Catholic Church called together by the Roman Pontiff; over such an assembly he himself presides either personally or by his legates, and it belongs to him authoritatively to confirm the Deacons of such a Council
(147) When does the Roman Pontiff exercise his prerogative of personal infallibility?
The Roman Pontiff exercises his prerogative of personal infallibility when he speaks ex cathedra – that is, when, in the exercise of his office as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
Page 105
(154) What does the power of jurisdiction in the Church mean?
The power of jurisdiction in the church means that the Roman Pontiff in respect of the whole Church, and the Bishops in respect of their dioceses, have the power of governing – that is, they have legislative, judicial, administrative and punitive power, whereby to secure the Church’s attainment of the objects for which she was founded.
etc…etc…
Hope I’ve been of some help.
Kindest Regards,
Eric Patterson
Dayton, Ohio
Several statements come from page 98:
“head of the church”
“Christ on earth”
“power by divine right”
“full power in faith and morals”
“over each and every pastor in his flock” etc…etc…
I’ll type some of this out for all of you:
Page 98
(129) Why is the Roman Pontiff called the visible head of the Church and the Vicar of Christ on earth?
The Roman Pontiff is called the visible head of the Church and the Vicar of Christ on earth because, since a visible society needs a visible head, Jesus Christ made Peter, and each successor of his, to the end of the world, the visible head and the vicegerent of His own power.
(130) What power, then, has the Roman Pontiff over the Church?
By divine right the Roman Pontiff has over the Church a primacy not only of honour but of jurisdiction, and this both in things concerning faith and morals and in discipline and government.
(131) What kind of power has the Roman Pontiff?
The Roman Pontiff has supreme, full, ordinary, and immediate power both over each and every Church, and over each and every Pastor and his flock.
(132) Who are the lawful successors of the Apostles?
The lawful successors of the Apostles are, by divine institution, the Bishops; they are set over particular churches by the Roman Pontiff, and govern them by their own proper power under his authority.
(133) What, then, is the Church founded by Jesus Christ?
The Church founded by Jesus Christ is the visible society of people who are baptized, and who joined together by professing the same faith and by a mutual fellowship strive to attain the same spiritual end under the guiding authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops in communion with him.
The phrase “Teacher of all Christians”, as well as the essence of “infallible ruler”, “author and judge of councils” is on page 103. The “founder of dogma” comes from page 107.
Page 102
(145) Whose peculiar function is it to pronounce a solemn judgment of this kind?
To pronounce a solemn judgment of this kind is the peculiar function of the Roman Pontiff, and of the Bishops together with the Roman Pontiff, especially when assembled in an OEcumenical Council.
Page 103
(146) What is an OEcumenical Council?
An OEcumenical or General Council is an assembly of the Bishops of the entire Catholic Church called together by the Roman Pontiff; over such an assembly he himself presides either personally or by his legates, and it belongs to him authoritatively to confirm the Deacons of such a Council
(147) When does the Roman Pontiff exercise his prerogative of personal infallibility?
The Roman Pontiff exercises his prerogative of personal infallibility when he speaks ex cathedra – that is, when, in the exercise of his office as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
Page 105
(154) What does the power of jurisdiction in the Church mean?
The power of jurisdiction in the church means that the Roman Pontiff in respect of the whole Church, and the Bishops in respect of their dioceses, have the power of governing – that is, they have legislative, judicial, administrative and punitive power, whereby to secure the Church’s attainment of the objects for which she was founded.
etc…etc…
Hope I’ve been of some help.
Kindest Regards,
Eric Patterson
Dayton, Ohio
P
PopeMobile
Guest
Response to my previous post has been greater than I could have anticipated. I’ve both seen on blogs and received by email positive and negative comments regarding it. But amazingly, there are some who still doubt the proof presented that Peter Cardinal Gasparri’s The Catholic Catechism is indeed the infamous “New York Catholic Catechism” and are still professing to look for something they think is literally named “New York Catholic Catechism”. Well, there are only so many published catechisms, and they do not all use identical words or phrasing. The phrases within the infamous Boettner quote are to be found only on pages 98 and 301 of Gasparri’s The Catholic Catechism. What’s more, this edition is the result of an authorized translation by Hugh Pope which means that the wording and phrasing are unique to it and would be found in only one source.
One question that has been asked is why did Mr. Boettner call it the “New York Catholic Catechism”? There are two main reasons:
One question that has been asked is why did Mr. Boettner call it the “New York Catholic Catechism”? There are two main reasons:
*]The book was printed by P.J. Kenedy & Sons, 12 Barclay Street, New York.
*]The page which contains the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur shows the names of Msgr. Arthur J. Scanlan and Patrick Cardinal Hayes. When reviewing the book the former was the rector of St. Joseph’s Seminary, the major seminary of the Archdiocese of New York, and the latter as is prominently listed under his name was the Archbishop of New York. Then, underneath both of them it says “New York, July 16, 1932”.
This book is officially titled The Catholic Catechism and that is what appears on the front cover. When you take the above two points showing that the catechism was approved by New York church representatives and with the words “New York” emblazoned all over it then such a book which has as its title The Catholic Catechism can under these conditions be casually referred to as the “New York Catholic Catechism”.
Now, for those who are interested, the infamous quote by Boettner is as follows:
“The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth… By divine right, the Pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true Vicar of Christ, the Head of the entire Church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils, the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God Himself on earth.”
The first two sentences, approximately half of the quote, comes from only two pages, 98 and the notes to that page as found in the Appendix on page 301.
The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…By divine right, the Pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock
This was taken from page 98 where it says, [Question 129] “The Roman Pontiff is … the Vicar of Christ on earth”. [Question 130] “By divine right … both in things concerning faith and morals” [Question 131] “the Roman Pontiff has supreme, full, ordinary and immediate power … over each and every Pastor and his flock”.
He is the true Vicar of Christ, the Head of the entire Church, the father and teacher of all Christians.
This is taken from the notes to page 98 and found in the Appendix on page 301. It is a statement from Florence (A.D. 1438): Decree for the Greeks, “the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the entire Church, the father and teacher of all Christians.”
The remainder of the Boettner quote comes from the Appendix and the references cited in the footnotes.
-Eric
R
RedSoxFan
Guest
Pietro Cardinal Gasparri was a career bureaucrat who spent his life in Europe with the exception of a few years in Peru. He would have nothing to do with any catechism to be published in the US as he was a Vatican insider and not the correct choice to write any documents for the American Church. Furthermore, he couldn’t have written one in his role as the Secretary of State for the Vatican, given that there were no official universal catechisms governing the Church at this time except for the one we’ve had since the Council of Trent (which is exactly what a catechism written by this man would have been!).
Basically put, if this “Catholic Catechism” or “New York Catechism” were to be a genuine book, an American would have been the one to have written it as was the case for the Baltimore Catechism. What we are looking at here is a very clever contraption, but not actual historical proof. Try again!
Basically put, if this “Catholic Catechism” or “New York Catechism” were to be a genuine book, an American would have been the one to have written it as was the case for the Baltimore Catechism. What we are looking at here is a very clever contraption, but not actual historical proof. Try again!
W
WFS5801
Guest
The book exists, it was written by Cardinal Pietro Gasparri (as stated) and it was translated into English, published in 1932 and distributed in the United States (among other countries, including England).Pietro Cardinal Gasparri was a career bureaucrat who spent his life in Europe with the exception of a few years in Peru. He would have nothing to do with any catechism to be published in the US as he was a Vatican insider and not the correct choice to write any documents for the American Church. Furthermore, he couldn’t have written one in his role as the Secretary of State for the Vatican, given that there were no official universal catechisms governing the Church at this time except for the one we’ve had since the Council of Trent (which is exactly what a catechism written by this man would have been!).
Basically put, if this “Catholic Catechism” or “New York Catechism” were to be a genuine book, an American would have been the one to have written it as was the case for the Baltimore Catechism. What we are looking at here is a very clever contraption, but not actual historical proof. Try again!
books.google.com/books?id=iyUvAAAAYAAJ&q=Pietro+Gasparri+the+catholic+catechism&dq=Pietro+Gasparri+the+catholic+catechism&hl=en&ei=H0HSTdGVA4j00gGJ_pzpCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CGYQ6AEwAA
I can’t vouch for what it says, but according to Eric, it appears that the quote was a hodge-podge of selected phrases sewn together (which, in itself, is dishonest). I would actually like to see it all in context, but I can’t find it online. Since so many use it to attack the Church, it might be worth getting a copy and sorting it all out.
I should add, if anyone looks for this publication, be aware that it was printed in two ways. The full text in three parts (a total of 482 pages) and in three volumes, each volume corresponding to the three parts of the full text. The division of the Catechism was Part 1. For Children. Part 2. For those who have received their First Communion and, Part 3. For Adults.
R
RedSoxFan
Guest
Thanks for pointing this out!
Ok. I just ordered the book off Amazon for a few bucks. It still seems to back up my belief that the book was not originally meant for the American audience. My guess is that it’s nothing like as it has been presented. IE possibly accurate quotes taken out of context. Still, I’m not positive that this is the “New York Catechism,” as it seems more likely to me that Boettner would of had a bigger field day as presenting this as “The Catholic Catechism” given the greater impact implied.
~RSF
W
WFS5801
Guest
Whether it was originally meant for the American audience is beside the point. If the translation has an American nihil obstat then it was approved for American Catholics. Eric’s details about how the “quote” (so to speak) was sewn together using several phrases from different pages of the book probably goes a long way to explaining why Boettner called it the “New York Catechism” instead of using its true title. Since, obviously, “The Catholic Catechism” doesn’t have the fabricated quote, it would be harmful to Boettner’s argument to directly name an easily accessible source. So, since the words may all actually be in the book – although the quote isn’t – I suppose Boettner could, in his/her mind, justify calling it a quote from the “New York Catechism” (i.e. a catechism published in New York). This is a very “creative” use of equivocation – which is a form of lying (“technically telling the truth with the intent to deceive”).
W
WFS5801
Guest
I’m taking a closer look at your excerpts from the book and I’m not seeing the actual words in the Boettner quote. For example, can you show me where “The Catholic Catechism” has the words: “The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…?” I see (from your quotes) “The Roman Pontiff is called the visible head of the Church and the Vicar of Christ on earth because, since a visible society needs a visible head, Jesus Christ made Peter, and each successor of his, to the end of the world, the visible head and the vicegerent of His own power” – but that’s much more precise than the supposed Boettner quote. And, quite honestly, the words in “The Catholic Catechism” could come from just about any book on Catholic doctrine.
Can all the actual phrases and terms in Boettner’s “quote” be specifically traced to “The Catholic Catechism?” Or do we need to continue to search for the actual source of this quote (if it really exists)? I wished I had taken a closer look at your excerpts now – they don’t seem to match the “quote.”
W
WFS5801
Guest
Never mind. I looked up the book this “quote” came from and it became obvious that the writer (Boettner) probably made it up as he went. I would simply challenge those who use this quote to provide 1) Publication date, publisher, etc., and 2) Page number where the quote supposedly came from. I’ll bet you dollars to donuts no one can provide that information. And, apparently, Boettner did not provide any of this information in his “scholarly” work. What a surprise.
R
RedSoxFan
Guest
Well, we all knew it was bunk. But “what kind of bunk was it?” was the true question here.
R
RedSoxFan
Guest
OK so my copy of the book just arrived today. I’ve just started to read it and I actually quite like it so far (though I’m only on page 18). There is nothing out of the ordinary for a book from the 1930’s. It’s pretty much a translation of Gasparri’s Latin and the actual doctrinal information is inspired from the council of trent thus far. It was meant for priests and catechists alike to instruct those learning the faith. It was also reviewed for doctrinal errors by theology professors at the Gregorian, Angelicum and the Urban pontifical universities.
Personally I find it reads very much like the Baltimore Catechism of a later period. Although I haven’t come across anything that Popemobile or Boettner suggest I do feel that I owe them a debt of gratitude. Without their scrambling to find an (now) obscure work by Cardinal Gasparri, I would have never found this gem. Thanks guys!
Personally I find it reads very much like the Baltimore Catechism of a later period. Although I haven’t come across anything that Popemobile or Boettner suggest I do feel that I owe them a debt of gratitude. Without their scrambling to find an (now) obscure work by Cardinal Gasparri, I would have never found this gem. Thanks guys!
P
PopeMobile
Guest
It’s gratifying to know that I was able to provide helpful information.
My original post has been copied, recopied, paraphrased, and cited (both with and without attribution) all over the web. Although I am a Protestant and do believe the Catholic Church became corrupt and lost its way, my initial purpose was only to provide information, not to defend or criticize Boettner. His clever use of ellipses to connect disconnected statements from a single page (and its accompanying footnotes and Appendix notes), seems to have been honest in his own mind. I however believe he was less than honest in the way he presented it. But of course since he is dead it is impossible to question him or learn his motivation for creating a quotation which doesn’t exist. It’s possible that his intentions were pure, but his judgment faulty.
I would argue that the real issue isn’t whether the “quotation” is or is not accurate, it’s about determining the validity of the statements within it. It is true that bits and pieces from his “quotation” are to be found scattered throughout various official and unofficial Church documents over the past millennia.
I had spent nearly two years researching the many printed claims made by Protestants about the Church, and located hundreds of original sources. If I am understanding the Catholic argument correctly, there is acknowledgement that the Pope was freely called “god on earth,” but rejection of the claim that it was done in any official capacity. In other words, that it was stated by Catholic clerics, but never officially adopted or endorsed by the Church itself in any official document (Bull, Encyclical, Rescript, etc…). If this is the argument, then I can demonstrate that it is a mistaken one. The Church *did * officially state and endorse such views.
If anyone is interested in acquiring a copy of my extensive research, which includes scans from original documents, photos, and artifacts going as far back as the 13th century, please click on my username and send me a private message. The research and quotations are in a free PDF, although the scans are on five DVDs. There is no analysis, commentary or criticisms, only the validating or invalidating of statements and claims, and backing them up with solid research and original sources.
Kind Regards,
Eric Patterson
My original post has been copied, recopied, paraphrased, and cited (both with and without attribution) all over the web. Although I am a Protestant and do believe the Catholic Church became corrupt and lost its way, my initial purpose was only to provide information, not to defend or criticize Boettner. His clever use of ellipses to connect disconnected statements from a single page (and its accompanying footnotes and Appendix notes), seems to have been honest in his own mind. I however believe he was less than honest in the way he presented it. But of course since he is dead it is impossible to question him or learn his motivation for creating a quotation which doesn’t exist. It’s possible that his intentions were pure, but his judgment faulty.
I would argue that the real issue isn’t whether the “quotation” is or is not accurate, it’s about determining the validity of the statements within it. It is true that bits and pieces from his “quotation” are to be found scattered throughout various official and unofficial Church documents over the past millennia.
I had spent nearly two years researching the many printed claims made by Protestants about the Church, and located hundreds of original sources. If I am understanding the Catholic argument correctly, there is acknowledgement that the Pope was freely called “god on earth,” but rejection of the claim that it was done in any official capacity. In other words, that it was stated by Catholic clerics, but never officially adopted or endorsed by the Church itself in any official document (Bull, Encyclical, Rescript, etc…). If this is the argument, then I can demonstrate that it is a mistaken one. The Church *did * officially state and endorse such views.
If anyone is interested in acquiring a copy of my extensive research, which includes scans from original documents, photos, and artifacts going as far back as the 13th century, please click on my username and send me a private message. The research and quotations are in a free PDF, although the scans are on five DVDs. There is no analysis, commentary or criticisms, only the validating or invalidating of statements and claims, and backing them up with solid research and original sources.
Kind Regards,
Eric Patterson
F
Filioque
Guest
I think there are two issues here. The first being Bottener and other’s poor fact checking along with the lack of sourcing their material.
One example of L.B’s work was his quotation of Cardinal Newman, stating that the Pope had no claims to his authority based on the Bible. L.B. did not mention that while it was the Newman, that he wrote that while still a Protestant. He also did not give any footnotes or source.
The second issue is the changes in language, and context. Catechim as an english word does not apply only to an Ecclesiastically approved compilation of the dogmatic and moral teachings of the Church. It is also used to describe a book which explains some key concepts or ideas. The greek origins of the word means “to sound down” (into the ears)," So if L.B. uses (out of context as usual) something that has the title Catechim, it is not always what we think of as Catechism.
As to word usage, when I write the word bald, what comes to your mind? A man (or possibly a woman) who has no hair on their head. While it is true an American Bald Eagle has feathers and no hair on thier head, the older use for bald signified someone who had white hair on his head. So we also have to be mindful when someone is using older texts to support their claims what the word was used to describe then.
Another example is the protestations of a Russian Orthodox fellow who I one knew via a blog. He stated that the Catholic Church changed it’s teachings, as proof quotes from Cardinal Manning’s (Cardinal Newman’s contemporary) reply to a question that Catholics definitivly did NOT belive that the Pope was infallible. In the context of the question at the time in England, the allegations about Papal Infallibility that Anglican and Free Churches made were that the Pope claimed that he could never sin or make any errors about any matter ever. Obviously if that is how you define Papal Infallibility, then the Catholic Church does not believe in Papal Infallibility. The reply was given prior to the Vatican Council, before the limits of when and how a Pope is infallible were promulgated, otherwise I’m sure the good Cardinal would have gone even further and more authoritativly to explain the limits of Papal Infallibility with dogmatic assurance.
One example of L.B’s work was his quotation of Cardinal Newman, stating that the Pope had no claims to his authority based on the Bible. L.B. did not mention that while it was the Newman, that he wrote that while still a Protestant. He also did not give any footnotes or source.
The second issue is the changes in language, and context. Catechim as an english word does not apply only to an Ecclesiastically approved compilation of the dogmatic and moral teachings of the Church. It is also used to describe a book which explains some key concepts or ideas. The greek origins of the word means “to sound down” (into the ears)," So if L.B. uses (out of context as usual) something that has the title Catechim, it is not always what we think of as Catechism.
As to word usage, when I write the word bald, what comes to your mind? A man (or possibly a woman) who has no hair on their head. While it is true an American Bald Eagle has feathers and no hair on thier head, the older use for bald signified someone who had white hair on his head. So we also have to be mindful when someone is using older texts to support their claims what the word was used to describe then.
Another example is the protestations of a Russian Orthodox fellow who I one knew via a blog. He stated that the Catholic Church changed it’s teachings, as proof quotes from Cardinal Manning’s (Cardinal Newman’s contemporary) reply to a question that Catholics definitivly did NOT belive that the Pope was infallible. In the context of the question at the time in England, the allegations about Papal Infallibility that Anglican and Free Churches made were that the Pope claimed that he could never sin or make any errors about any matter ever. Obviously if that is how you define Papal Infallibility, then the Catholic Church does not believe in Papal Infallibility. The reply was given prior to the Vatican Council, before the limits of when and how a Pope is infallible were promulgated, otherwise I’m sure the good Cardinal would have gone even further and more authoritativly to explain the limits of Papal Infallibility with dogmatic assurance.
- Status