Why don't we use the Baltimore Catechism anymore?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seeker1961
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I apologize, I see it was Darran who made the original assertion and not you, it is up to him to back it up with facts.

I do agree that hell is a very real possibility. It’s why I suggested that some people may be better placed to speak about it in terms that people will understand.

That said, not everyone is the same. Some folks will respond better to a more positive message, and the message about hell does have to be balanced with an equally strong message about Divine Mercy and hope.
I would respectfully disagree with you. Christ never measured his audience and said some people need to hear about hell and others will be too offended. I can only repeat, hell is a reality, it is not an abstract theory. Unless we are in a state of grace at the time of our death, we will go to hell, no exceptions. Talking about hell is not nessarily negative. I would agree that when talking about hell, we should always mention the great love and mercy of God who wishes to rescue us all and, in fact, sent His Son to die for us so that we can escape hell.

When you are teaching your children, for example, about the dangers of crossing the street, you have to let them know that it is dangerous and that they must always look both ways and cross with great caution because they could be seriously injured or even killed. It’s not pleasant, but is there any better way of getting the message across? The same is true of hell. People need to know the consequences of sin, and it is only logical they will try much harder to avoid sin.
 
I’m afraid hell is about a lot more than where people are in the journey. Hell is a very real place and without the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and his Saving Blood, we are all headed there.

I wonder if you and others have a problem with the Act of Contrition: “Oh my God, I am heartily sorry for offending thee and I destest all my sins because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell.” This is most definitely not talking about “where people are in the journey.” Do you think we should throw this out?
You misunderstand me. I’m stating in the quote that you used fro me that you should definitely preach hell to the self righteous man sitting in the pew thinking he’s ok simply because he goes to Mass on Sundays. The way I said it was strange perhaps. I just meant, not that hell is the journey–hell is a very real thing–but that we need to evangelize to people based on where they are on the path.
 
You misunderstand me. I’m stating in the quote that you used fro me that you should definitely preach hell to the self righteous man sitting in the pew thinking he’s ok simply because he goes to Mass on Sundays. The way I said it was strange perhaps. I just meant, not that hell is the journey–hell is a very real thing–but that we need to evangelize to people based on where they are on the path.
So only self righteous people need to hear about hell? Are they the only ones in danger of hell fire? :confused:

My experience has been that most people who go to Mass on a regular basis - as we are commanded to do - usually are much more aware of the dangers of hell, and I have to say, my experience is that they are not self righteous but usually quite humble and aware of their sinfulness. It’s those who are not in church who are usually the self righteous ones, seeing no need for God in their lives.
 
When was the last time you heard a sermon about the reality of hell in a Catholic church? I would dare say, never. You don’t think the fact that people never hear about hell just could be a reason why it is not a reality to them? Why do you think corporate sponsors spend millions and even billions of dollars on advertising, getting their message in front of people that we should buy their products. Because unless people hear about their products, they aren’t going to be aware of them and buy them.

You are making very big assumptions about people - that they just aren’t interested - with absolutely nothing to back up your claims. The reason people have become so materialistic in our society and so unaware of the spiritual is precisely because they never hear or are exposed to anything spiritual! With all due respect, your comments just make no sense. People are not aware of spiritual matters so don’t expose them to it??? No corporation would ever agree with your reasoning.

As you say, you did not grow up in the Catholic Church, so you are not personally aware of how different things were 40 and 50 years ago, I was around then, and I remember very well. I remember as a little girl going to confession almost every week because I did not want to take any chances on going to hell. How did I learn that? I was taught! How are people ever going to know these things unless they are taught? :confused:

For those of us who remember a different era and different values, reasoning such as presented in your post are more than a little frustrating.

Hell is real, more real than our own earth because hell is eternal and earth is temporary. People desperately need to be taught about the reality of hell and that unless we are in a state of grace hell will be our eternity. I just don’t believe in watching a drowning man die. I think we need to do all we can to pull people out of hell, not just say oh well, it won’t do any good to try.
In my parish, we are blessed fortunate to have excellent priests who are faithful to regularly warn us about judgement and hell. They don’t back away from controversial topics during Mass or in RCIA. May God bless them!

I never said that men do not need to hear about spiritual matters. Yes, I think that secular man needs to hear about spiritual matters from Christians, specifically from Catholics. But I don’t think that “hell” is the best starting place. I think that many corporations would agree with me–you don’t attract new customers with a negative approach, but by extolling the many fine attributes of your product.

In John 12:32, Jesus said that if He is lifted up, He will draw all men to Himself. It seems to me that the way to draw men to Jesus is to obey Him and do just what He told us to do–make sure that He is elevated, as He is in every Holy Mass.

It’s tough, but I think that it’s important for us to try to get to a place where we can finally accept that the era we live in is not the same era as many of us grew up in.

What scared the bejeebers out of people in the 1950s and 1960s wouldn’t even faze a young child nowadays.

If we try to reach people assuming that they will react the same way as they did 50 years ago, we are probably in for a rude awakening.

Sure, go ahead and try to go back in time, at least in your own family and circle of acquaintances. It’s certainly worth a try. And I wish you well.

But I don’t think that the Church is advocating this approach. The Church has not made any proclamations that the Baltimore Catechism is to be restored as the primary teaching tool in Catholic parishes. I think our best strategy would be to do whatever Holy Mother Church tells us to do.
 
In my parish, we are blessed fortunate to have excellent priests who are faithful to regularly warn us about judgement and hell. They don’t back away from controversial topics during Mass or in RCIA. May God bless them!

I never said that men do not need to hear about spiritual matters. Yes, I think that secular man needs to hear about spiritual matters from Christians, specifically from Catholics. But I don’t think that “hell” is the best starting place. I think that many corporations would agree with me–you don’t attract new customers with a negative approach, but by extolling the many fine attributes of your product.

In John 12:32, Jesus said that if He is lifted up, He will draw all men to Himself. It seems to me that the way to draw men to Jesus is to obey Him and do just what He told us to do–make sure that He is elevated, as He is in every Holy Mass.

It’s tough, but I think that it’s important for us to try to get to a place where we can finally accept that the era we live in is not the same era as many of us grew up in.

What scared the bejeebers out of people in the 1950s and 1960s wouldn’t even faze a young child nowadays.

If we try to reach people assuming that they will react the same way as they did 50 years ago, we are probably in for a rude awakening.

Sure, go ahead and try to go back in time, at least in your own family and circle of acquaintances. It’s certainly worth a try. And I wish you well.

But I don’t think that the Church is advocating this approach. The Church has not made any proclamations that the Baltimore Catechism is to be restored as the primary teaching tool in Catholic parishes. I think our best strategy would be to do whatever Holy Mother Church tells us to do.
If what you are saying is correct - and I personally do not think so - then people are lost. If the idea of spending eternity in endless torment does not motivate people to change their lives, then nothing will. We’ve tried your way of thinking - de-emphasizing the “negative” aspects of the Church teaching, such as hell, and emphasizing the “positive” aspects - God’s “love and mercy.” Michael Voris has a great name for it - the Church of Nice. Look at the results.

Since the Baltimore Catechism is no longer used on a major scale, all we have seen in the world is the spread of evil. Promiscuity is no longer seen as seen as sinful, homosexuality is accepted as normal, living together without marriage has no stigma whatsoever. For women under 30, there are more out-of-wedlock births than those born into a marriage. Abortion - the legal killing of unborn babies - has been the law of our land for 39 years. Same sex marriage, which will entail the destruction of the family, is soon to be the law of our land, and churches who “discriminate” against homosexuals will no doubt be prosecuted by our judical system. Our “entertainment” is vulgar, profane and basically pornographic. Our government now feels it has the right to force the Catholic Church to go against her own teachings, i.e. forcing the Catholic Church to support contraception.

Is it just coincidence that as the teaching of the Catholic Church has weakened and she no longer forcefully teaches the dogma of the church as she once did, that society has devolved into a truly evil place? Back when the Baltimore Catechism was still used, the Churches were packed from early in the morning until afternoon with people attending Mass every Sunday, the confession lines were long and continuing, people rarely waited more than a few weeks to baptize their babies. Religious vocations were overflowing so much that the seminaries and convents could barely contain them.

No, I don’t think the Church of Nice works very well at all.
 
OK, here is my point…again. My point is that, if one is only preaching hell, then they are not preaching the Gospel. Some people need the preaching of hell (and I didn’t necessarily mean that the self righteous ones–and others–that need to hear about hell would always be in church, that was just a point of reference so to speak). Some need to hear about the love of God. One priest, Fr. Larry Richards, said that far too often do we give people th rules and restrictions without teaching them how much God loves them. We just need to make sure there is a balance. I hope I’ve actually made my ponit clear this time…guess it wasn’t before.
 
OK, here is my point…again. My point is that, if one is only preaching hell, then they are not preaching the Gospel. Some people need the preaching of hell (and I didn’t necessarily mean that the self righteous ones–and others–that need to hear about hell would always be in church, that was just a point of reference so to speak). Some need to hear about the love of God. One priest, Fr. Larry Richards, said that far too often do we give people th rules and restrictions without teaching them how much God loves them. We just need to make sure there is a balance. I hope I’ve actually made my ponit clear this time…guess it wasn’t before.
No one said anything about preaching only hell. That would be absurd. My problem is that hell is never or almost never preached. People don’t hear about it ever, There have been a couple of posts here with people saying they do hear hell preached, but that is rare. As I posted, I can only remember one sermon in the last 2 years in which hell was mentioned.

The Baltimore Catechism hardly preaches only hell., Here are the first questions and anwers from the BC:
  1. Q. Who made the world?
    A. God made the world.
  2. Q. Who is God?
    A. God is the Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things.
  3. Q. What is man?
    A. Man is a creature composed of body and soul, and made to the image and likeness of God.
**6. Q. Why did God make you?
A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven. **
  1. Q. What must we do to save our souls?
    A. To save our souls, we must worship God by faith, hope, and charity; that is, we must believe in Him, hope in
    Him, and love Him with all our heart.
Does that really sound so negative? Yes, Christ talked about hell and so we should talk about hell. But the whole reason for mentioning it is to let people know that they don’t have to go there, that through God’s mercy and love they can be saved from eternal damnation.

The BC is getting a really bad rap here. Question #20:

Question: Is God just, holy, and merciful?

Answer: God is all just, all holy, all merciful, as He is infinitely perfect.

**138. Why did Jesus Christ found the Church?

Jesus Christ founded the Church to bring all men to eternal salvation**.

The message in the BC is one of a loving, merciful God who wants to save man. But it is also important to talk about the consequences of rejecting that Loving God, and that is where hell comes in.

This is what the BC says about hell:

413: What is Hell?

Answer: Hell is a state to which the wicked are condemned, and in which they are deprived of the sight of God for all eternity, and are in dreadful torments.

Is there any Catholic who really has a problem with this being preached and taught? To get back to the very original question of this thread, just what is so bad about the Baltimore Catechism? It preaches the Word of God in a sound and easy to understand style. The questions and answers are easily committed to memory. In fact, as children we were required to commit the BC to memory, and that has served many of us in good stead.
 
If what you are saying is correct - and I personally do not think so - then people are lost. If the idea of spending eternity in endless torment does not motivate people to change their lives, then nothing will. We’ve tried your way of thinking - de-emphasizing the “negative” aspects of the Church teaching, such as hell, and emphasizing the “positive” aspects - God’s “love and mercy.” Michael Voris has a great name for it - the Church of Nice. Look at the results.

Since the Baltimore Catechism is no longer used on a major scale, all we have seen in the world is the spread of evil. Promiscuity is no longer seen as seen as sinful, homosexuality is accepted as normal, living together without marriage has no stigma whatsoever. For women under 30, there are more out-of-wedlock births than those born into a marriage. Abortion - the legal killing of unborn babies - has been the law of our land for 39 years. Same sex marriage, which will entail the destruction of the family, is soon to be the law of our land, and churches who “discriminate” against homosexuals will no doubt be prosecuted by our judical system. Our “entertainment” is vulgar, profane and basically pornographic. Our government now feels it has the right to force the Catholic Church to go against her own teachings, i.e. forcing the Catholic Church to support contraception.

Is it just coincidence that as the teaching of the Catholic Church has weakened and she no longer forcefully teaches the dogma of the church as she once did, that society has devolved into a truly evil place? Back when the Baltimore Catechism was still used, the Churches were packed from early in the morning until afternoon with people attending Mass every Sunday, the confession lines were long and continuing, people rarely waited more than a few weeks to baptize their babies. Religious vocations were overflowing so much that the seminaries and convents could barely contain them.

No, I don’t think the Church of Nice works very well at all.
I think you are greatly oversimplying to imply that the world has gone over to sin mainly because the Catholic Church no longer uses the Baltimore Catechism.

There are many forces that caused the downfall of culture, especially in the U.S. (and there are quite a few threads on CAF discussing this).

I agree with you that many many souls will be lost. These are hard times.

I think that if things could be turned around by something as simple as bringing back the Baltimore Catechism, the Church would have instituted this change a long time ago. But as you know, the Church has NOT advocated bringing back the Baltimore Catechism as the primary teaching tool. Do you think that the Church knows what She is doing?

Finally, I have a little bit of a problem with such a gloomy view of the Catholic Church. During these times of the “Church of Nice,” as you and Voris label it with such derision, my husband and I, along with our daughter, converted from evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism (and several other members of our family are studying the Catholic Church). For all of us, and many other converts that we know, the “Church of Nice” has been glorious, the place where we found Jesus Christ, Truly Present!

Father Barron’s excellent series on PBS makes it clear that the Catholic Church, the “Church of Nice,” is still very much in the business of seeking out and saving lost souls in every country on the earth, and the Church is doing an excellent job of this work!

Besides Father Barron’s reports, there are many other reports about the good work that the Catholic Church is doing.

In our own city, it was primarily due to the work of the Catholic Church (although Protestants were helping) that the only abortion clinic in the area was SHUT DOWN a year ago, and will not re-open. Praise God.

For those seeking a more traditional Mass, Pope Benedict XVI made this easier by declaring the Motu several years ago. Although the Latin Mass in the U.S. is still not spreading like wildfire, it IS happening, and many Catholics now have a somewhat easier time finding a Latin Mass and a group of Catholics who lean towards traditional practices (including use of the Baltimore Catechism).

(In our city, the Latin Mass has been offered since the mid 1990s, with the full approval of our bishop.)

In the U.S., although secular culture is very very dark at the moment, the Catholic Church is a strong light in the midst of that darkness. I see no reason to denigrate the Church by labelling it with a demeaning name and declaring that She is failing. Quite the opposite.

Even various works of art (e.g., the recent movie, For Greater Glory, which did well at the box office and with the critics) demonstrate that the message of the gospel is still being taught fearlessly and cleverly by the Catholic Church. Many other good things are happening; Christians are holding the line here in the U.S. We could definitely use some help from the Holy Spirit and all the angels and saints!

But Catholics are holding the line; e.g., there is a fairly good chance that the current pro-choice President and the pro-choice Congress may be voted out and a pro-life President and Congress elected (although there is also a pretty good chance that the current President and Congress will be re-elected by a confused and rebellious population).

Again, I say that we need to do what our Church tells us to do and stop complaining that Holy Mother Church isn’t doing enough. If for you, this means reviving the Baltimore Catechism and propagating the good things in this catechism, then do so. 🙂 I don’t believe that the Church has forbidden this catechism, has She? So go for it in your corner of the world! It certainly can’t hurt. When the enemy is on the move, we throw everything we can at the enemy. So throw the BC and inflict some wounds on the enemy.
 
I really don’t understand the polarity on the preaching of the love of Christ and the preaching of hell-it’s not either/or…it’s BOTH. You can’t acknowledge Easter Sunday without Good Friday, you can’t acknowledge the joys that will come in Heaven without acknowledging the suffering that will exist in Hell. The ideal is a proper balance. I’m sure that there were many places that went too far one way or the other.

Now, I was at the tail end of the BC era. I don’t remember constant preaching about fear of Hell, but it was done. I remember a lot of us being confused as young children between Sister’s permanent record and God’s permanent record-but that was just part of being a kid. Our pastor probably was more heavy handed than the younger Priests across town, but I certainly didn’t come out of my school and church feeling a more than necessary level of guilt.

My whole purpose in the question was to ask why when it is fairly obvious to most that catechesis from the last couple of decades has been pretty bad-why not go back to something that we already know worked? People knew the basics of their faith, and today we’ve got Catholics who still go to Mass and don’t even get the concept of the Real Presence!

I’ve been encouraged by the threads from those currently involved in religious education that there are some much better sources out there now that are being used. I just wish there was a way we could get back those we’ve lost to what my theology professor in college called the “warm,fuzzy Jesus” years.
 
If what you are saying is correct - and I personally do not think so - then people are lost. If the idea of spending eternity in endless torment does not motivate people to change their lives, then nothing will. We’ve tried your way of thinking - de-emphasizing the “negative” aspects of the Church teaching, such as hell, and emphasizing the “positive” aspects - God’s “love and mercy.” Michael Voris has a great name for it - the Church of Nice. Look at the results.

Since the Baltimore Catechism is no longer used on a major scale, all we have seen in the world is the spread of evil. Promiscuity is no longer seen as seen as sinful, homosexuality is accepted as normal, living together without marriage has no stigma whatsoever. For women under 30, there are more out-of-wedlock births than those born into a marriage. Abortion - the legal killing of unborn babies - has been the law of our land for 39 years. Same sex marriage, which will entail the destruction of the family, is soon to be the law of our land, and churches who “discriminate” against homosexuals will no doubt be prosecuted by our judical system. Our “entertainment” is vulgar, profane and basically pornographic. Our government now feels it has the right to force the Catholic Church to go against her own teachings, i.e. forcing the Catholic Church to support contraception.

Is it just coincidence that as the teaching of the Catholic Church has weakened and she no longer forcefully teaches the dogma of the church as she once did, that society has devolved into a truly evil place? Back when the Baltimore Catechism was still used, the Churches were packed from early in the morning until afternoon with people attending Mass every Sunday, the confession lines were long and continuing, people rarely waited more than a few weeks to baptize their babies. Religious vocations were overflowing so much that the seminaries and convents could barely contain them.

No, I don’t think the Church of Nice works very well at all.
The decline into sexual promiscuity, legalized butchering of children, homosexuality, pornography, divorce and fatherless children started in August 1930, when the Anglican Church approved and published Resolution 15 of the Lambeth Conference. Resolution 15 permitted Anglican Christians to use “Other means” besides abstinence to control birth. This was a first in the history of Christianity and it was the genesis of the culture of recreational sex which led to the problems you describe.

The Holy Father all but begged the Anglican Church to clarify or recant, and published Casti Connubii on the last day of that year, Dec 31, 1930, which was a scathing condemnation of artificial use of contraception of any kind.

Contraception became widely available over the counter and widely accepted in the bedrooms of American families during the 1950’s. All of this set the stage for the downfall you describe and it all took place during the heyday of the use of the Baltimore Catechism during the early part of the 20th century.

Everything you describe had its start in 1930.

-Tim-
 
I think you are greatly oversimplying to imply that the world has gone over to sin mainly because the Catholic Church no longer uses the Baltimore Catechism.
There are many forces that caused the downfall of culture, especially in the U.S. (and there are quite a few threads on CAF discussing this).
 
The decline into sexual promiscuity, legalized butchering of children, homosexuality, pornography, divorce and fatherless children started in August 1930, when the Anglican Church approved and published Resolution 15 of the Lambeth Conference. Resolution 15 permitted Anglican Christians to use “Other means” besides abstinence to control birth. This was a first in the history of Christianity and it was the genesis of the culture of recreational sex which led to the problems you describe.

The Holy Father all but begged the Anglican Church to clarify or recant, and published Casti Connubii on the last day of that year, Dec 31, 1930, which was a scathing condemnation of artificial use of contraception of any kind.

Contraception became widely available over the counter and widely accepted in the bedrooms of American families during the 1950’s. All of this set the stage for the downfall you describe and it all took place during the heyday of the use of the Baltimore Catechism during the early part of the 20th century.

Everything you describe had its start in 1930.

-Tim-
You are absolutely right. In fact, the crisis we see in the Church today actually had its start long before the 1930’s. Pope Pius X wrote about and condemned modernism at the turn of the 20th Century, and even in the 19th Century Pope Leo XIII wrote about it.

But let’s face it. Things have escalated unbelievably in the last 50 years. Unfortunately, we have even more problems in the church than even the acceptance of contraception or even abortion. I have outlined this in many of my other posts on this thread.

Bringing about sound basic teaching of the Church can only help, not hurt. Why are people fighting this?
 
I really don’t understand the polarity on the preaching of the love of Christ and the preaching of hell-it’s not either/or…it’s BOTH. You can’t acknowledge Easter Sunday without Good Friday, you can’t acknowledge the joys that will come in Heaven without acknowledging the suffering that will exist in Hell. The ideal is a proper balance. I’m sure that there were many places that went too far one way or the other.

Now, I was at the tail end of the BC era. I don’t remember constant preaching about fear of Hell, but it was done. I remember a lot of us being confused as young children between Sister’s permanent record and God’s permanent record-but that was just part of being a kid. Our pastor probably was more heavy handed than the younger Priests across town, but I certainly didn’t come out of my school and church feeling a more than necessary level of guilt.

My whole purpose in the question was to ask why when it is fairly obvious to most that catechesis from the last couple of decades has been pretty bad-why not go back to something that we already know worked? People knew the basics of their faith, and today we’ve got Catholics who still go to Mass and don’t even get the concept of the Real Presence!

I’ve been encouraged by the threads from those currently involved in religious education that there are some much better sources out there now that are being used. I just wish there was a way we could get back those we’ve lost to what my theology professor in college called the “warm,fuzzy Jesus” years.
Thank you. 👍 It is so good to hear a voice of sanity.
 
Just my two cents as a catechist, but if the curriculum that my church uses is the norm all of are children are doomed to ignorance about their faith, unless their parents take up the torch.

I was still homeschooling my children when they were receiving their sacramental prep and I was using the Seton Home Study program religion book and the St. Joseph’s Catechism, both fantastic!! I thank God that they received instruction at home during those fundamental years because what they receive in their confirmation class later on has been a complete and total waste of time. Although I know longer homeschool, I ordered the Seton religion courses for HS students and their Confirmation Book after my son started confirmation classes at our church last year because I was disgusted with the curriculum they were using.

This year I am teaching first year sacramental prep and confirmation. I have no choice, but to use the program at my parish, however I plan on supplamenting with the Seton religion course. If you have children in catechism, don’t assume they are getting what they need, you must teach them at home if you want them to learn their faith!
 
Since we have been speaking about the content and tone of homilies in this thread as well as the presentation, depth, and true meaning of Divine Mercy, here is the homily from JP2 on the first Divne Mercy Sunday in 2001. Is Blessed John Paul 2’s inspired presentation and tone trustworthy for emulation by other priests and catechiststs?

If nothing else, absorb the title of his homily: Divine Mercy: The Easter Gift.

divinemercysunday.com/popes-homily.htm
Pope John Paul II’s Homily
On the first universal celebration of Divine Mercy Sunday, 2001.
Divine Mercy: The Easter Gift
“Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore” (Rev 1:17-18).
We heard these comforting words in the Second Reading taken from the Book of Revelation. They invite us to turn our gaze to Christ, to experience His reassuring presence. To each person, whatever his condition, even if it were the most complicated and dramatic, the Risen One repeats: “Fear not!; I died on the Cross but now I am alive for evermore”; “I am the first and the last, and the living one.”
“The first,” that is, the source of every being and the first-fruits of the new creation; “the last,” the definitive end of history; “the living one,” the inexhaustible source of life that triumphed over death forever.
In the Messiah, crucified and risen, we recognize the features of the Lamb sacrificed on Golgotha, who implores forgiveness for His torturers and opens the gates of heaven to repentant sinners; we glimpse the face of the immortal King who now has “the keys of Death and Hades” (Rev 1:18).
Give thanks to the Lord, for He is good; for His mercy endures forever! (Ps 117:1). Let us make our own the Psalmist’s exclamation which we sang in the Responsorial Psalm: “The Lord’s mercy endures forever!” In order to understand thoroughly the truth of these words, let us be led by the liturgy to the heart of the event of salvation, which unites Christ’s Death and Resurrection with our lives and with the world’s history. This miracle of mercy has radically changed humanity’s destiny. It is a miracle in which is unfolded the fullness of the love of the Father who, for our redemption, does not even draw back before the sacrifice of His Only-begotten Son.
In the humiliated and suffering Christ, believers and non-believers can admire a surprising solidarity, which binds Him to our human condition beyond all imaginable measure. The Cross, even after the Resurrection of the Son of God, “speaks and never ceases to speak of God the Father, who is absolutely faithful to His eternal love for man. … Believing in this love means believing in mercy” (Rich in Mercy, 7).
Let us thank the Lord for His love, which is stronger than death and sin. It is revealed and put into practice as mercy in our daily lives, and prompts every person in turn to have “mercy” towards the Crucified One. Is not loving God and loving one’s neighbor and even one’s “enemies,” after Jesus’ example, the program of life of every baptized person and of the whole Church?
A great joy
With these sentiments, we are celebrating the Second Sunday of Easter, which since last year, the year of the Great jubilee, is also called “Divine Mercy Sunday.” It is a great joy for me to be able to join all of you, dear pilgrims and faithful who have come from various nations to commemorate, after one year, the canonization of Sr. Faustina Kowalska, witness and messenger of the Lord’s merciful love.
The elevation to the honors of the altar of this humble religious, a daughter of my land, is not only a gift for Poland but for all humanity. Indeed the message she brought is the appropriate and incisive answer that God wanted to offer to the questions and expectations of human beings in our time, marked by terrible tragedies. Jesus said to Sr. Faustina one day: “Mankind will not have peace until it turns with trust to My mercy” (Diary, 300). Divine Mercy! This is the Easter gift that the Church receives from the risen Christ and offers to humanity at the dawn of the third millennium.
The Gospel, which has just been proclaimed, helps us to grasp the full sense and value of this gift. The Evangelist John makes us share in the emotion felt by the Apostles in their meeting with Christ after His Resurrection. Our attention focuses on the gesture of the Master, who transmits to the fearful, astounded disciples the mission of being ministers of Divine Mercy. He shows them His hands and His side, which bear the marks of the Passion, and tells them: “As the Father has sent Me, even so I send you” Jn 20:21).
Immediately afterwards, "He breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’ " (Jn 20:22-23). Jesus entrusted to them the gift of “forgiving sins,” a gift that flows from the wounds in His hands, His feet, and especially from His pierced side. From there a wave of mercy is poured out over all humanity.
Let us relive this moment with great spiritual intensity. Today the Lord also shows us His glorious wounds and His Heart, an inexhaustible source of light and truth, of love and forgiveness.
The Heart of Christ!
His “Sacred Heart” has given men everything: redemption, salvation, sanctification. Saint Faustina Kowalska saw coming from this Heart that was overflowing with generous love, two rays of light which illuminated the world.
The two rays, [according to what Jesus Himself told her], denote blood and water (Diary, 299). The blood recalls the sacrifice of Golgotha and the mystery of the Eucharist; the water, according to the rich symbolism of the Evangelist John, makes us think of Baptism and the Gift of the Holy Spirit (See Jn 3:5; 4:14).
Through the mystery of this wounded Heart, the restorative tide of God’s merciful love continues to spread over the men and women of our time. Here alone can those who long for true and lasting happiness find its secret.
“Jesus, I trust in You!”
This prayer, dear to so many of the devout, clearly expresses the attitude with which we too would like to abandon ourselves trustfully in Your hands, 0 Lord, our only Savior.
You are burning with the desire to be loved and those in tune with the sentiments of Your Heart learn how to build the new civilization of love. A simple act of abandonment is enough to overcome the barriers of darkness and sorrow, of doubt and desperation. The rays of Your Divine Mercy restore hope, in a special way, to those-who feel overwhelmed by the burden of sin.
Mary, Mother of Mercy, help us always to have this trust in your Son, our Redeemer. Help us too, St. Faustina, whom we remember today with special affection. Fixing our weak gaze on the divine Savior’s face, we would like to repeat with you: “Jesus, I trust in You!” Now and for ever. Amen.
 
Since we have been speaking about the content and tone of homilies in this thread as well as the presentation, depth, and true meaning of Divine Mercy, here is the homily from JP2 on the first Divne Mercy Sunday in 2001. Is Blessed John Paul 2’s inspired presentation and tone trustworthy for emulation by other priests and catechiststs?

If nothing else, absorb the title of his homily: Divine Mercy: The Easter Gift.

divinemercysunday.com/popes-homily.htm
I’m not quite sure what this has to do with the subject at hand. :confused:
 
No one said anything about preaching only hell. That would be absurd. My problem is that hell is never or almost never preached. People don’t hear about it ever, There have been a couple of posts here with people saying they do hear hell preached, but that is rare. As I posted, I can only remember one sermon in the last 2 years in which hell was mentioned.

The Baltimore Catechism hardly preaches only hell., Here are the first questions and anwers from the BC:
  1. Q. Who made the world?
    A. God made the world.
  2. Q. Who is God?
    A. God is the Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things.
  3. Q. What is man?
    A. Man is a creature composed of body and soul, and made to the image and likeness of God.
**6. Q. Why did God make you?
A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven. **
  1. Q. What must we do to save our souls?
    A. To save our souls, we must worship God by faith, hope, and charity; that is, we must believe in Him, hope in
    Him, and love Him with all our heart.
Does that really sound so negative? Yes, Christ talked about hell and so we should talk about hell. But the whole reason for mentioning it is to let people know that they don’t have to go there, that through God’s mercy and love they can be saved from eternal damnation.

The BC is getting a really bad rap here. Question #20:

Question: Is God just, holy, and merciful?

Answer: God is all just, all holy, all merciful, as He is infinitely perfect.

**138. Why did Jesus Christ found the Church?

Jesus Christ founded the Church to bring all men to eternal salvation**.

The message in the BC is one of a loving, merciful God who wants to save man. But it is also important to talk about the consequences of rejecting that Loving God, and that is where hell comes in.

This is what the BC says about hell:

413: What is Hell?

Answer: Hell is a state to which the wicked are condemned, and in which they are deprived of the sight of God for all eternity, and are in dreadful torments.

Is there any Catholic who really has a problem with this being preached and taught? To get back to the very original question of this thread, just what is so bad about the Baltimore Catechism? It preaches the Word of God in a sound and easy to understand style. The questions and answers are easily committed to memory. In fact, as children we were required to commit the BC to memory, and that has served many of us in good stead.
This seems to be very reasonable. Very reasonable indeed. And I haven’t once, that I recall, said anything negative about the BC. As a matter of fact, I know next to nothing about it. I’m a convert, and a relatively young one–in my early 30’s. So, obviously, I didn’t even know about the BC until recently. But again, I think there is nothing wrong with ensuring that we are properly catechized (something which I regret to say didn’t happen well in RCIA for me…most of what I’ve learned, I’ve learned here or on my own). I just think that no one should down our Bishops, Pope or current Catechism.
 
I’m not quite sure what this has to do with the subject at hand. :confused:
Maybe you should review the last 5-6 pages of posts? That might help alleviate your confusion.

In your and other’s defense of more Hell in preaching and teaching, Scripture and The Dairy of St Faustina have been mis-represented. I posted the homily from JP2 to provide the healthy and real perspective in which Divine Mercy is preached and taught…by a Pope, not Michael Voris, who you seem to be fond of, but who’s show is banned from using the word “catholic” by his Bishop.

Clearly hell and damnation are not emphasized in scritpture or the Diary, heaven and salvation are. Or do you and others still disagree with that? One of the posters laid down a challenge to prove the assertion that hell and damnation are emphasized in scripture and should be preached more, and got no solid reply. Confusion is not a reply, it is a request for clarification, hence my post.

People who visit this forum need to see how qualified people (a Pope??) preach these issues.

I sincerely hope this helps with your confusion.
 
.

Clearly hell and damnation are not emphasized in scritpture or the Diary, heaven and salvation are. Or do you and others still disagree with that?
I disagree with you. Both are and should be emphasized.

I know someone posted part of this but here is a longer excerpt from another Pope, Pope Benedict. I won’t even post what the earlier popes wrote about hell.
, Feb 11, 2008 / 01:46 pm (CNA).- At Pope Benedict XVI’s question and answer session with priests from his diocese last Thursday, one cleric told the Pope he was concerned that the catechism of the Italian bishops’ conference never mentions hell or purgatory, and speaks of heaven only once. “With these essential parts of the creed missing,” the priest asked, “doesn’t it seem to you that the redemption of Christ falls apart?”
In reply, the Pope called heaven, hell, and purgatory “fundamental themes that unfortunately appear rarely in our preaching,” journalist and church expert Sandro Magister reports.
Pope Benedict suggested that Catholics had been excessively affected by Marxist objections that Christians concentrated on heaven so much that they overlooked the importance of the world. The neglect of speaking heaven, purgatory, and hell, he thought, was possibly due to a desire to show Christians are concerned about earthly things.
The importance of the afterlife, however, should not be neglected.
“Now, although it is right to demonstrate that Christians work on behalf of the world – and we are all clearly called to work so that this world that may truly be a city for God and of God – we must not forget the other dimension.
Frankly, this focus on heaven, while ignoring hell, reminds me of the liberal Protestant theology taught at the liberal church I used to attend.
 
I disagree with you. Both are and should be emphasized.

I know someone posted part of this but here is a longer excerpt from another Pope, Pope Benedict. I won’t even post what the earlier popes wrote about hell.

Frankly, this focus on heaven, while ignoring hell, reminds me of the liberal Protestant theology taught at the liberal church I used to attend.
Who says to ignore hell? No one said hell is not real. A healthy presentation of salvation is what is needed. When we have Catholics pining for more hell and damnation in sermons and catechetics, that is worrisome. And mis-representing the gospel message and the writings of saints, that is worrisome. A negative and burdensome message didn’t work 3000 years ago, didn’t work 300 hundred years ago, didn’t work 50 years ago, and won’t work now. It’s the antithesis of the gospel message and needs to be thrown into the ash heap.

I really have to wonder, those of you who believe fear of hell is motivation for salvation…
How do you envision the relationship with your spouse…? It’s one of the best analogies to the relationship we have with God. If your wife asked “what keeps our relationship alive?”, would you reply that you are afraid of divorce?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top