Pope Benedict XVI Speaks Out Against Changes In Dogma

[R_H_Benson]

Faith without knowledge is a short road to heresy.

How so? If one lived his entire life reading nothing but the Baltimore Catechism and frequented the Sacraments, it would seem to me that he would have a small chance of falling into heresy. To such a man, the Faith has been presented in a clear and concise manner. Such a person would know and believe the truths of the Faith laid out in the catechism. What else need he know? Not every Catholic need be a theologian. I am of the opinion that there are far too many “theologians” nowadays. Why can we no longer be content and accept the truths of the Faith “like a child”?

 

[johnnyc176]

The sad thing about the BC (or in our case the French equivalent) was that we weren’t encouraged to think.

Lol…so now we the residue of the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II where many ‘think’ they know better than Jesus.

 

[OraLabora]

How so? If one lived his entire life reading nothing but the Baltimore Catechism and frequented the Sacraments, it would seem to me that he would have a small chance of falling into heresy. To such a man, the Faith has been presented in a clear and concise manner. Such a person would know and believe the truths of the Faith laid out in the catechism. What else need he know? Not every Catholic need be a theologian. I am of the opinion that there are far too many “theologians” nowadays. Why can we no longer be content and accept the truths of the Faith “like a child”?

I’ve known some people weaned on our equivalent to the BC (in French) and attended the Sacraments who have, to put it charitably, fallen into superstitious beliefs which is indeed heresy (for example thinking that holy water or a Rosary has “magic” powers).

We don’t need to be a theologian, but it helps to understand what some concepts actually mean.

Just because I can do the times table (as someone else put it) doesn’t mean I can solve a math problem.

 

[R_H_Benson]

I’ve known some people weaned on our equivalent to the BC (in French) and attended the Sacraments who have, to put it charitably, fallen into superstitious beliefs which is indeed heresy (for example thinking that holy water or a Rosary has “magic” powers).

We don’t need to be a theologian, but it helps to understand what some concepts actually mean.

Just because I can do the times table (as someone else put it) doesn’t mean I can solve a math problem.

Such can and does happen. But it is far better to fall into easily corrected superstitions - for one weaned on the BC will surely be conditioned to listen with sincerity to the lessons of the priest - than to embrace the widespread ambiguities and heterodoxy circulating in “modern Catholic theology”.

 

[ProVobis]

Just because I can do the times table (as someone else put it) doesn’t mean I can solve a math problem.

You’re right. You might have to memorize some addition or subtraction principles or memorize the steps in learning how to use a calculator, a slide rule, or a spreadsheet. It’s a learning process either way.

I don’t know how violations against the First Commandment (heresy, superstition, etc.) got into the discussion.

 

[Abu]

Jon Mallory #41
Many Catholics openly reject essential dogmas such as papal infallibility. Some even support gay marriage and abortion. The divide between the clergy and the laity is stark. There is a de facto schism in the pews. People who reject these dogmas have excommunicated themselves and don’t even know it.

Just as you have done. But where this is a reality for some, the Orthodox have made error part of their endeavour.

There is, and can be, no substitute for Christ’s Catholic Church.
They do not have the fullness of Truth with which Christ has endowed His Church. So the errors which have been allowed by the Orthodox are unorthodox (irregular) – the grave errors of permitting divorce and remarriage, denying the reality of the infallibility of the Pope and His supremacy, rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and allowing contraception – need to be renounced to be faithful to Christ.

Papal Supremacy was recognised and then abandoned.

Catholic Apologetics Online
radioreplies.info/radio-r…p?t=139&n=1255
1256. Did the Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church at any stage after the death of Christ recognize the Pope as supreme and infallible head of the Church?
We cannot speak of the “Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church” prior to the Greek Schism commenced by Photius in 867 A.D. Until then there were simply Patriarchs of Constantinople, presiding there and subject to the Pope. Dr. Orchard, when a Congregationalist, wrote, **“An examination of the circumstances of the Great Schism shows that the Eastern Church did then repudiate a supremacy which it had previously been in the habit of conceding to the Roman Patriarchate.” **The First Council of Constantinople in 381, which only Eastern Bishops attended, demanded that the Bishop of Constantinople should rank next after the Bishop of Rome, and before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. The Council of Chalcedon in 451, attended by the Eastern Bishops, ended its discussion with the unanimous cry, “Peter has spoken by Leo,” when the Pope’s decision was given. A century and a half later Pope Gregory I. could still write, “Who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?” No one then doubted it; and no one disputed it until Photius came along in 867 to plunge the East into schism. The Patriarch of Constantinople, and all the Eastern Bishops signed the formula of Hormisdas, who was Pope from 514 to 523. That formula contained these words, “We follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. I hope to be in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See in which is the whole, real, and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.” Dean Milman writes, “Before the end of the third century the lineal descent of Rome’s Bishops from St. Peter was unhesitatingly claimed and obsequiously admitted by the Christian world.” [My emphasis].

 

[Oktava]

Just as you have done. But where this is a reality for some, the Orthodox have made error part of their endeavour.

There is, and can be, no substitute for Christ’s Catholic Church.
They do not have the fullness of Truth with which Christ has endowed His Church. So the errors which have been allowed by the Orthodox are unorthodox (irregular) – the grave errors of permitting divorce and remarriage, denying the reality of the infallibility of the Pope and His supremacy, rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and allowing contraception – need to be renounced to be faithful to Christ.

Papal Supremacy was recognised and then abandoned.

Catholic Apologetics Online
radioreplies.info/radio-r…p?t=139&n=1255
1256. Did the Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church at any stage after the death of Christ recognize the Pope as supreme and infallible head of the Church?
We cannot speak of the “Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church” prior to the Greek Schism commenced by Photius in 867 A.D. Until then there were simply Patriarchs of Constantinople, presiding there and subject to the Pope. Dr. Orchard, when a Congregationalist, wrote, **“An examination of the circumstances of the Great Schism shows that the Eastern Church did then repudiate a supremacy which it had previously been in the habit of conceding to the Roman Patriarchate.” **The First Council of Constantinople in 381, which only Eastern Bishops attended, demanded that the Bishop of Constantinople should rank next after the Bishop of Rome, and before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. The Council of Chalcedon in 451, attended by the Eastern Bishops, ended its discussion with the unanimous cry, “Peter has spoken by Leo,” when the Pope’s decision was given. A century and a half later Pope Gregory I. could still write, “Who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?” No one then doubted it; and no one disputed it until Photius came along in 867 to plunge the East into schism. The Patriarch of Constantinople, and all the Eastern Bishops signed the formula of Hormisdas, who was Pope from 514 to 523. That formula contained these words, “We follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. I hope to be in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See in which is the whole, real, and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.” Dean Milman writes, “Before the end of the third century the lineal descent of Rome’s Bishops from St. Peter was unhesitatingly claimed and obsequiously admitted by the Christian world.” [My emphasis].

What you write here is very naive. Eastern Patriarchs were never subject to the Roman Patriarch, they only recognized him as first in honor, in other words, Pope of Rome was first mentioned when the Liturgy was served by the Patriarch and Pope would always lead the service-worship if he would meet with 1 or more Patriarchs.
It is same today in the Orthodox Church, there is order of honor of Patriarchs - Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow, Belgrade, etc… If they come together, Constantinople Patriarch would lead the service, if he is not there, then Pope of Alexandria would, etc…
These things don’t exist anymore in the Roman-Catholic Church, because Pope evolved in to bishop of bishops.

 

[Abu]

Oktava #48
What you write here is very naive. Eastern Patriarchs were never subject to the Roman Patriarch, they only recognized him as first in honor,

The naiveté rests with you.

It’s interesting also that Arnold Lunn in Now I See, Sheed & Ward, 1955) could quote from the Anglican Vicar of Oddington, Rev S Herbert Scott, that St Peter and his successors were recognised as the supreme judges in matters of faith by a long succession of great Eastern saints, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Denys, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and others.

Scott quotes from the Graeco-Slav Liturgy at the Council of Nicea addressing the Pope, St Sylvester, who was not himself present: “…thou didst appear as a pillar of fire, snatching the faithful from Egyptian error (sc. Arius) and continually leading them with unerring teachings to divine light.” [Op. cit. Lunn, p 218-9]. Sir Arnold remarks that “This unwilling tribute from the Greek Church of today to the “unerring teaching” of the Roman Pope is most impressive.”

The Church was ONE in East and West under the Popes until the brazen disregard for Christ’s established papal authority at Trullo.

The Ancient Tradition of Clerical Celibacy
by Mary R. Schneider
Ignatius Press
“The Holy See, which was not represented at The Council of Trullo (691-92), angrily refused to recognize its authority, especially its brazen claim that it was an ecumenical council whose canons were binding upon the whole Church. Naturally, Rome rejected Trullo’s canons on clerical marriage, which deviated so clearly from a tradition of clerical chastity that had long been observed in both the East and West.”

785. I know very little about Eastern Rite Churches separated from Rome and would like to know at least something of them.
The Catholic Church has to conduct her ecumenical activities on two fronts, one with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the other with the various Protestant Churches of Western Christendom. Normally, English-speaking Catholics are more in contact with the latter and correspondingly unfamiliar with Eastern Orthodoxy. The first thing to be noted is that not all Eastern Rite Churches are separated from Rome. There are about twenty groups of Eastern Orthodox Churches existing as national Churches in a state of separation from Rome and independently of one another as regards authority or jurisdiction. So we have the Greek Orthodox Church, or the Syrian, or Russian, or Rumanian, or Bulgarian, etc. As contrasted with these twenty separated groups, there are nine or ten different Eastern Rite Churches which are in union with Rome, acknowledging Papal Supremacy. These are popularly spoken of as the “Uniate Eastern Churches” and members of them are recognised by the Pope as Catholics every bit as much as Western or Latin Rite members of the Catholic Church.
radioreplies.info/radio-r…php?t=15&n=787

1254. What is the Greek Orthodox Church?
There are some 16 different Orthodox Churches existing independently of one another. After the first really definite break with Rome when Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, left the Catholic Church in the ninth century, the Eastern Church followed in the path of all schismatical Churches, splitting up into further divisions. Eight of these separate sections of Orthodoxy have their own Patriarchs, namely, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Bulgaria, Rumania, Russia, and Servia. The others lack definite rule. The term “Greek Orthodox Church” is popularly applied to any or all of these Churches; but strictly speaking it should be reserved for that section of Orthodoxy which acknowledges the Patriarch of Constantinople. This is really one of the smaller sections, for the Bulgarians, Rumanians, Russians and others of Slav nationality, are Greeks in no sense of the word. But it is clear that there is no one united Orthodox Church at all, any more than there is one united form of Protestantism. However, since the schismatic Orthodox Churches began with the rebellion of the Patriarchate of Constantinople against Rome in the ninth century, we can allude to all the Orthodox Churches as belonging to the Greek Schism.

Thus the facts are that the Orthodox broke because they wanted married priests, denied the primacy and infallibility of the Pope, adopted contraception, denied the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and permitted divorce and remarriage.

 

[Oktava]

You have shown here a lot of ignorance. There are 9 Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates, not 8. Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow, Belgrade, Bucharest, Sofia and Tbilisi. youtube.com/watch?v=0VhpWYQ3aGw

Married priesthood is older than celibacy. Even first bishops were married. Celibacy comes in masses when the way of the monks is established in early 4th century. Celibacy priesthood became forced practice in Latin priesthood much later.

St Photius was recognized by Rome as canonical Patriarch of Constantinople in Council of Constantinople 880, and it remained so until 11th century (Schism 1054), when Rome switched to it’s old Council of Constantinople in 869 which condemned St Photius. Eastern Church continued to celebrate Photius as a saint. Even some Eastern Catholic Churches celebrate him as a saint.

 

[Abu]

Oktava #50
Married priesthood is older than celibacy. Even first bishops were married. Celibacy comes in masses when the way of the monks is established in early 4th century. Celibacy priesthood became forced practice in Latin priesthood much later.

Also all false. Apparently the latest research is unknown.

From the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop – for Early Church Tradition among the most important studies are: Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, Fr Christian Cochini, S.J, 1981, (translated from French, Ignatius Press, 1990); The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995); Celibacy in the Early Church, by Fr. Stefan Heid, (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2000).

The book, written by Fr Christian Cochini, S.J., merited this remarkable encomium from the late Henri Cardinal de Lubac: “This work is of the first importance. It is the result of serious and extensive research. There is nothing even remotely comparable to this work in this whole 20th century.” And Curator of the Vatican Library, Fr. Alfons M. Stickler (later Cardinal) wrote: “This authoritative work is fully in accordance with the tradition of the Society of Jesus in the area of high-level scientific apostolate” (Foreword to Cochini’s book).

The Apostolic Norm of continence was recognized by the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, in Non latet (1858):
**“Whoever ponders diligently the true tradition of celibacy and clerical continence will indeed find that, from the first centuries of the Catholic Church, if not by a general and explicit law, at least by behavior and custom, it was firmly established that not only bishops and priests, but [all] clergy in holy Orders were to preserve inviolate virginity or perpetual continence.”
**
Married priests in the East began with the rebellion against celibacy at the Council of Trullo.

St Photius was recognized by Rome as canonical Patriarch of Constantinople in Council of Constantinople 880, and it remained so until 11th century (Schism 1054), when Rome switched to it’s old Council of Constantinople in 869 which condemned St Photius.

In the first centuries there were heretical founders of rival Churches – men whose names are found only in textbooks of history – Montanus, Manichaeus, Arius, Donatus, etc. In later centuries we find the founders of the Greek Church, Photius and Michael Cerularius
radioreplies.info/site-se…p?q=Magus&db=2

**Council of Chalcedon **
“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).
See: **The Papacy
What did the Early Church Fathers Say?
**americancatholictruthsoci…/ecfpapacy.htm

That Roman primacy of jurisdiction was widely accepted in the East at this time [5th century] is clear from the negotiations before and during the Council of Ephesus. Cyril of Alexandria appeals to Celestine of Rome to deal with Nestorius in Constantinople; and Celestine replies, delegating Cyril to excommunicate Nestorius if he fails to recant within ten days, equating his own judgment with “the divine sentence of our Christ,” and stating that he has written in similar terms to four other major Bishops. 1 In the ensuing Council of Ephesus, we find that Cyril presides in the place of Celestine, 2 and that the whole Council accepts as “suitable” 3 and worthy of confirmation by all, the words of the Roman legate Philip, in presenting for conciliar approval (not debate) Celestine’s prior condemnation of Nestorius.
rtforum.org/lt/lt29.html

PHOTIANISM. A schism provoked by Photius (c. 815-97), Patriarch of Constantinople, that paved the way for the Eastern Schism in the thirteenth century. When Ignatius, the incumbent Patriarch of Constantinople, rebuked the vices of Bardas, co-regent under Emperor Michael III, the prelate was deposed, and Photius, a layman, was ordained priest and bishop to replace him in A.D. 857. Pope Nicholas I excommunicated Photius, who meantime charged Rome with heresy for inserting the phrase Filioque (and from the Son) into the Creed. When Emperor Michael died, his successor deposed Photius and restored Ignatius. **Both actions were endorsed by the eighth ecumenical Fourth Council of Constantinople, 869-70, which is the first general council, no longer accepted by the Eastern Orthodox.[My emphasis].
**Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

 

[Oktava]

These taken out of context quotes don’t even impress most of the Roman-Catholics anymore…

All we need to disprove today’s papacy for example is to read Canon of the 3rd Ecumenical Council which gives autocephalia to the Orthodox Church of Cypress. No universal jurisdiction. It is canon 8 if i remember well, canon which Rome today simply ignores and does not even accept.
Church of Cypress gained independence from the Church of Antioch, not the Church of Rome.

Rome accepted st Photius until 11th century.

 

[Brendan_64]

I don’t think much changed until “that generation”, who never stopped fighting the battles of the 1960s, began to retire. .

Not just in catechetics, but in all aspects of the Church. It does seem that these days “that generation” are having a final push and it seem, at least in the short term, that they are gaining ground in promoting their views. The hope for the future however lies in the good young priests who are coming through the seminaries these days.

The problem today is no longer hostility to doctrine, and the supernatural aspect of Catholicism; but ignorance of doctrine.

I believe you are correct here.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

These taken out of context quotes don’t even impress most of the Roman-Catholics anymore…

All we need to disprove today’s papacy for example is to read Canon of the 3rd Ecumenical Council which gives autocephalia to the Orthodox Church of Cypress. No universal jurisdiction. It is canon 8 if i remember well, canon which Rome today simply ignores and does not even accept.
Church of Cypress gained independence from the Church of Antioch, not the Church of Rome.

Rome accepted st Photius until 11th century.

 

[exnihilo]

I doubt that going back to the old approach would change the trend you are describing.

I disagree. Esprit de corps is very important. As a Protestant I found that if I listened to the sermons and lived them I’d have no real reason to be a Christian. I could be a liberal Democrat pushing social welfare and be in just as good of spiritual shape.

To be honest I can’t say it made a huge impression on me. As I was very good in school, I became very good at reciting the rote responses from memory without actually learning (or caring) what they really meant. It was only when I became a Catholic through my own heart, at 39 years of age (I’m now 57), did I start to really pay attention to what the Church taught and what all those questions and responses meant. I actually bolted pretty firmly from the Church at age 17 and didn’t come back until 22 years later.

My personal experience, others may have felt differently. Suffices to say that rote learning of the Catechism in the “Baltimore Catechism” style that so many are nostalgic for on CAF, did absolutely nothing to provoke my curiosity about the faith and did quite the opposite, it frankly turned me off of Catholicism for many years.

I don’t discount your experience. But your experience is unique to you. I think we also have to consider your experience within the broader Western culture. This culture doesn’t respect tradition. It praises atomic individuality. The pressure of culture works against the benefits of rote memorization approaches to indoctrination. And I don’t consider indoctrination bad. We are always being indoctrinated the difference is only into what beliefs. Consider what a young person is being indoctrinated into today. Consider what he is being taught through repetition. Will these teachings lead him to Catholic Faith? I don’t think so. At the same time indoctrination is never a guaranteed success. People have been coming to the Faith and leaving it since the beginning.

 

[mattp0625]

We do know that most of orthodoxy has been influenced by several schisms.

Ignatius of Antioch had strong words about schism.

Even he recognized the primacy of Rome, where he went to martyrdom along with Peter and Paul.

 

[Oktava]

We do know that most of orthodoxy has been influenced by several schisms.

Ignatius of Antioch had strong words about schism.

Even he recognized the primacy of Rome, where he went to martyrdom along with Peter and Paul.

No schism in Orthodoxy matches Protestant reform. And Orthodox Church does not deny Rome’s primacy, Orthodox Church denies supremacy.

 

[PJM]

Pope Benedict XVI speaks out on Out Side The Church There is No Salvation and indifferentism.

God Bless Pope Benedict XVI.

catholicnewslive.com/story/568849

“He also speaks of a “profound evolution of Dogma” with respect to the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. This purported change of dogma has led, in the pope’s eyes, to a loss of the missionary zeal in the Church – “any motivation for a future missionary commitment was removed.” Pope Benedict asks the piercing question that arose after this palpable change of attitude of the Church: “Why you should try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith** when they can be saved even without it?”** [Indifferentism is pernicious and corrosive! I will add that our identity is undermined through liturgical worship which is not sufficiently focused on the transcendent, not aimed at an encounter with Mystery, not helpful in our dealing with our fear of death.] As to the other consequences of this new attitude in the Church, the Catholics themselves, in Benedict’s eyes, were less attached to their Faith: If there are those who can save their souls with other means, “why should the the Christian be bound to the necessity of the Christian Faith and its morality?” asked the pope. And he concludes: “But if Faith and Salvation are not any more interdependent, even Faith becomes less motivating.””

I READ the interview

The CURRENT Teaching is clear, and in line with 1st Timoty 2: 3-4

[3] For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, [4] Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Our Catechism claims:
**1260 **“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door.** Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.**

**847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own**, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

This clarification and CONDITION seems to align with 1st Tim 2:3-4:shrug:

MY personal view is that His Holiness was perhaps thinking more along the lines of Protestants than the uninitiated. At least that was MY impression:shrug:

I [ME] would substitute “can” for MIGHT BE ABLE as being more in line with what he was saying.

Easter Blessings

Patrick

 

[OraLabora]

I don’t discount your experience. But your experience is unique to you.

I don’t think I was that unique. Many Catholics walked (and ran) from the Church in that time. If the BC and our equivalent was so good…

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t think I was that unique. Many Catholics walked (and ran) from the Church in that time. If the BC and our equivalent was so good…

Okay, so you dislike the BC and rote memorization, we get that. But it was a standardized set of principles which children could learn by themselves instead of being taught by those with varying amounts of knowledge about the faith. It was intended for the English-speaking world but my Polish-speaking parents nonetheless thought the BC was a great tool for us and for them too.

So what would you have offered as an alternative back then?

 

[otjm]

Okay, so you dislike the BC and rote memorization, we get that. But it was a standardized set of principles which children could learn by themselves instead of being taught by those with varying amounts of knowledge about the faith. It was intended for the English-speaking world but my Polish-speaking parents nonetheless thought the BC was a great tool for us and for them too.

So what would you have offered as an alternative back then?

I don’t think that (dislike) is exactly what Ora said. I, too, was raised on BC and I am older than he is, so I have a good bit of that perspective.

It is not that rote memorization is wrong - nor is it that learning the doctrines and morals of the Faith are wrong; it is just that they are in themselves incomplete. Memorizing rote answers is not faith, nor in itself does it build faith. Faith is a gift, and needs to be nurtured. As I have noted elsewhere, it has been said that even the devil can quote scripture; but it is equally obvious (or should be) that memorizing scripture (or the BC) is not faith.

You don’t love your parents by rotely regurgitating their rules. You grow in love as you are loved, and as you grow in loving back. And there are multitudes of children, both from broken homes and from sterile homes, who have not been loved and have not learned to love.

And so with God; while God loves us, as a child who sees not much else than religion being something you memorize, that child may easily see, hear, and feel no connection between the class work, and being loved by God.

What do I suggest? I don’t suggest throwing out the BC, as was done in the late 60’s early 70’s, and replacing it with cutout paper sheep to which children glue balls of cotton, or cutting out butterflies and coloring them so they can be stuck on a banner at Mass.

What I do suggest is adding to the memorization, comments and sharing examples of how God loves us. I am not qualified to create a catechism for children; and my children are in their 30’s. Some of it has to come from parents (who likely were poorly catechized - how is bootstraping working for them???) and some of it has to come in the classroom.

What did Christ teach? He didn’t pound down the 10 Commandments; the Jews already knew them. He constantly used stories to show love; to show lack of love; to show how we are called to live out those 10 Commandments. Obviously, within the society of His time, the basics were known - read His interactions with the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Scribes, and the Samaritans; they all had at least a significant base of rules they shared. He didn’t go about teaching memorization of the rules; He went about showing how the rules needed to be lived, with the 2 most basic rules as their base foundation.

And that is what we need. We need to know the rules; but it doesn’t stop there; it starts there.