Catechisms

[Adonia]

In the "Baptist Only" section, someone started a thread asking if their churches used catechisms. I have to say that I was somewhat surprised that some people answered in the affirmative. I thought the Holy Bible was the "go to" text for non-orthodox believers, that there was no other book that believers could consult as they went through their Christian journey. It's nice to see that some do indeed believe in the value of another text that seeks to explain the belief's of one's denomination (as I assume your catechism does).

 

[Particular]

In the "Baptist Only" section, someone started a thread asking if their churches used catechisms. I have to say that I was somewhat surprised that some people answered in the affirmative. I thought the Holy Bible was the "go to" text for non-orthodox believers, that there was no other book that believers could consult as they went through their Christian journey. It's nice to see that some do indeed believe in the value of another text that seeks to explain the belief's of one's denomination (as I assume your catechism does).

Adonia, for me, the difference is that the catechism only seeks to explain. It is not authoritative.
Very often, I find RCC and EOC proponents teaching the catechism as being authoritative over all members and therefore...never to be questioned as having error.
Clearly the RCC catechism has been woefully inadequate and imperfect as it has been modified on multiple occasions. It should therefore never be held as authoritative, but members should read it and question its integrity. When it speaks falsely, the members should call out the leaders and question them.

 

[Walpole]

In the "Baptist Only" section, someone started a thread asking if their churches used catechisms. I have to say that I was somewhat surprised that some people answered in the affirmative. I thought the Holy Bible was the "go to" text for non-orthodox believers, that there was no other book that believers could consult as they went through their Christian journey. It's nice to see that some do indeed believe in the value of another text that seeks to explain the belief's of one's denomination (as I assume your catechism does).

Most do not realize their progenitors wrote catechisms for their followers and put great authoritative importance on them. For example, here are the words of Luther himself...


“The catechism is the most complete and best doctrine, and therefore should continually be preached; all public sermons should be grounded and built thereupon. I could wish we preached it daily, and distinctly read it out of the book. But our preachers and hearers have it at their fingers ends; they have already swallowed it all up; they are ashamed of this slight and simple doctrine, as they hold it, and will be thought of higher learning. The parishioners say: Our preachers fiddle always one tune; they preach nothing but the catechism, the ten commandments, the creed, the Lord's prayer, baptism, and the Lord's supper; all which we know well enough already; but the catechism, I insist, is the right Bible of the laity, wherein is contained the whole sum of Christian doctrine necessary to be known by every Christian for salvation.” - The Table Talk of Martin Luther, CCLXVII

 

[Adonia]

Adonia, for me, the difference is that the catechism only seeks to explain. It is not authoritative.
Very often, I find RCC and EOC proponents teaching the catechism as being authoritative over all members and therefore...never to be questioned as having error.
Clearly the RCC catechism has been woefully inadequate and imperfect as it has been modified on multiple occasions. It should therefore never be held as authoritative, but members should read it and question its integrity. When it speaks falsely, the members should call out the leaders and question them.

I disagree with your assessment. The Catholic version is in a nutshell an explanation of what Catholics believe and what the Church teaches. It expounds on what is found in the Holy Scriptures and also talks about different things like society and life in general and the Christians place in it.

To me it is an a authoritative amalgamation of ideas and truths (it comes from the Church after all) placed into words and printed on paper in book form. I would imagine that the "Protestant" version could be looked at somewhat the same as it too would exist to expound upon the Holy Writ, (differing only in doctrinal interpretation).

 

[Particular]

I disagree with your assessment. The Catholic version is in a nutshell an explanation of what Catholics believe and what the Church teaches. It expounds on what is found in the Holy Scriptures and also talks about different things like society and life in general and the Christians place in it.

To me it is an a authoritative amalgamation of ideas and truths (it comes from the Church after all) placed into words and printed on paper in book form. I would imagine that the "Protestant" version could be looked at somewhat the same as it too would exist to expound upon the Holy Writ, (differing only in doctrinal interpretation).

The Roman Catholic catechism is a bulky tome of double-speak that functions to confuse and distort scripture. People in the Roman Catholic Church are better off reading the Bible on their own and finding a different catechism, like the New City catechism that is clear and precise.

 

[Adonia]

The Roman Catholic catechism is a bulky tome of double-speak that functions to confuse and distort scripture. People in the Roman Catholic Church are better off reading the Bible on their own and finding a different catechism, like the New City catechism that is clear and precise.

Oh yeah, clearly and precisely developed from the "Reformation" catechisms. I think the distortion of Scripture comes from your side, so I'll pass on the "New City" catechism thank you very much.

 

[Particular]

Oh yeah, clearly and precisely developed from the "Reformation" catechisms. I think the distortion of Scripture comes from your side, so I'll pass on the "New City" catechism thank you very much.

The RCC catechism is over 2000 points that contradict themselves. Why would any sane human being waste their time trying to untangle that pretzel? Read the Bible instead. The Bible is much more clear, concise and specific than the RCC catechism. The RCC catechism muddies it all up.

 

[Yeshua1]

In the "Baptist Only" section, someone started a thread asking if their churches used catechisms. I have to say that I was somewhat surprised that some people answered in the affirmative. I thought the Holy Bible was the "go to" text for non-orthodox believers, that there was no other book that believers could consult as they went through their Christian journey. It's nice to see that some do indeed believe in the value of another text that seeks to explain the belief's of one's denomination (as I assume your catechism does).

Scripture alone just refers to them being the ONLY inspired source to use for our theology and practices, but we do also have Confessions, and reference books!

 

[Adonia]

The RCC catechism is over 2000 points that contradict themselves. Why would any sane human being waste their time trying to untangle that pretzel? Read the Bible instead. The Bible is much more clear, concise and specific than the RCC catechism. The RCC catechism muddies it all up.

Examples please.

 

[Particular]

Examples please.

The Catholic Church is the one true church (CCC 2105), Infallibility of the Catholic Church, (CCC 2035), Only the Roman Catholic Church has authority to interpret Scripture (CCC 100), The Pope is the head of the church and has the authority of Christ (CCC 2034), The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation (CCC 846), Sacred Tradition equal to scripture (CCC 82), Forgiveness of sins, salvation, is by faith and works (CCC 2036 CCC 2080 2068), Full benefit of Salvation is only through the Roman Catholic Church (Vatican 2, Decree on Ecumenism, 3), Grace can be merited (CCC 2010 CCC 2027), The merit of Mary and the Saints can be applied to Catholics and others (1477), Penance is necessary for salvation (CCC 980), Purgatory (CCC 1031 CCC 1475), Indulgences (CCC 1471 CCC 1478 CCC 1498 CCC 1472), Mary is Mediatrix (CCC 969), Mary brings us the gifts of eternal salvation (CCC 969), Mary delivers souls from death (CCC 966), Prayer to the saints (CCC 2677), The Communion elements become the actual body and blood of Christ (CCC 1374 CCC 1376).
A list of false teachings in the Roman Catholic Church | CARM.org

 

[Marooncat79]

The Catholic Church is Biblical. The RCC is apostate and not Biblical

 

[Yeshua1]

The Catholic Church is Biblical. The RCC is apostate and not Biblical

You mean catholic in the sense of there being a Universal church, correct?

 

[Adonia]

The Catholic Church is the one true church (CCC 2105), Infallibility of the Catholic Church, (CCC 2035), Only the Roman Catholic Church has authority to interpret Scripture (CCC 100), The Pope is the head of the church and has the authority of Christ (CCC 2034), The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation (CCC 846), Sacred Tradition equal to scripture (CCC 82), Forgiveness of sins, salvation, is by faith and works (CCC 2036 CCC 2080 2068), Full benefit of Salvation is only through the Roman Catholic Church (Vatican 2, Decree on Ecumenism, 3), Grace can be merited (CCC 2010 CCC 2027), The merit of Mary and the Saints can be applied to Catholics and others (1477), Penance is necessary for salvation (CCC 980), Purgatory (CCC 1031 CCC 1475), Indulgences (CCC 1471 CCC 1478 CCC 1498 CCC 1472), Mary is Mediatrix (CCC 969), Mary brings us the gifts of eternal salvation (CCC 969), Mary delivers souls from death (CCC 966), Prayer to the saints (CCC 2677), The Communion elements become the actual body and blood of Christ (CCC 1374 CCC 1376).
A list of false teachings in the Roman Catholic Church | CARM.org

Oh boy, examples direct from CARM- anyone can copy and paste. You folks tell us context is everything, yet you only show the headlines of the various things the catechism says with these particular examples, but not the reasons behind them. Going through them for you point by point would be a fruitless endeavor, so I will not attempt it here and now as many of them have already been discussed in these pages before.

 

[Adonia]

You mean catholic in the sense of there being a Universal church, correct?

Yes, One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church - there was no other. It was the place that put together the Holy Scriptures into the form we now know it; it was led by the Bishops whom we know as the Early Church Fathers; it held councils and synods to decide Christian doctrine - yes, there was only one, that is of course until people started breaking away from it and formed their own Christian sects.

 

[Particular]

Oh boy, examples direct from CARM- anyone can copy and paste. You folks tell us context is everything, yet you only show the headlines of the various things the catechism says with these particular examples, but not the reasons behind them. Going through them for you point by point would be a fruitless endeavor, so I will not attempt it here and now as many of them have already been discussed in these pages before.

2865 different statements made in the Roman Catholic Church catechism. CARM shows the errors you asked for and shows where they are found within that tome. That thing is so long and convoluted you'll likely find every priest has a different idea as to what the vatican actually means.

I note, you don't refute the points, you simply belittle the messenger.

It is better for an RCC church goer to read the Bible and stick with what it says than to waste time with the convoluted mess that is the RCC catechism.
Just as the Jewish scribes paid more attention to their commentaries than they did to the Bible, so the vatican worships its catechism over scripture.

2865 points to the latest version...which keeps getting revised, redacted and rewritten over the years. No one knows exactly what it means because the vatican has no clue. Just convolute it and quote a snippet so no one catches on that there is no real answer.

 

[Adonia]

CARM shows the errors you asked for and shows where they are found within that tome

Only errors to the non-orthodox believer.

That thing is so long and convoluted you'll likely find every priest has a different idea as to what the vatican actually means.

Pure supposition on your part. How many priests have you personally talked to about it?

I note, you don't refute the points, you simply belittle the messenger.

Because CARM is not an honest broker - they are virulently anti-Catholic with their many pronouncements on the Catholic faith tradition.

It is better for an RCC church goer to read the Bible and stick with what it says than to waste time with the convoluted mess that is the RCC catechism.

The catechism has lots to offer. For instance, it's take on "repentance". (1431) "Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance towards the evil actions we have committed".

Tell me where you disagree on those words I have just quoted? The catechism is full of such writings and on other important subjects such as God, Creation, Grace, The Trinity, and on and on. You have never read the Catechism of the Catholic Church have you?

Just as the Jewish scribes paid more attention to their commentaries than they did to the Bible, so the vatican worships its catechism over scripture.

Not so, we worship Jesus Christ through the liturgy of the Holy Mass as given to us through the Holy Scriptures.

2865 points to the latest version...which keeps getting revised, redacted and rewritten over the years. No one knows exactly what it means because the vatican has no clue. Just convolute it and quote a snippet so no one catches on that there is no real answer.

Yep, that would be 2865 points designed to enlighten and fully inform the faithful Christian about God and his plan for us, trying to leave nothing out.

Let's go to it's take on "marriage". (1601) "The matrimonial covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life , is by it's nature ordered toward the good of the spouses, and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament".

(1603) "The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with it's own proper laws. …..God himself is the author of marriage".

Surely you cannot find fault with those words?

 

[Particular]

Only errors to the non-orthodox believer.



Pure supposition on your part. How many priests have you personally talked to about it?



Because CARM is not an honest broker - they are virulently anti-Catholic with their many pronouncements on the Catholic faith tradition.



The catechism has lots to offer. For instance, it's take on "repentance". (1431) "Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance towards the evil actions we have committed".

Tell me where you disagree on those words I have just quoted? The catechism is full of such writings and on other important subjects such as God, Creation, Grace, The Trinity, and on and on. You have never read the Catechism of the Catholic Church have you?



Not so, we worship Jesus Christ through the liturgy of the Holy Mass as given to us through the Holy Scriptures.



Yep, that would be 2865 points designed to enlighten and fully inform the faithful Christian about God and his plan for us, trying to leave nothing out.

Let's go to it's take on "marriage". (1601) "The matrimonial covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life , is by it's nature ordered toward the good of the spouses, and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament".

(1603) "The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with it's own proper laws. …..God himself is the author of marriage".

Surely you cannot find fault with those words?

Be honest, you have no clue what the entire catechism says or what verses it actually is referring to. You just use it as a means to not read the Bible while believing any and everything the vatican says...despite the fact they have changed and revised their catechism multiple times over the centuries. I bet the Pope himself doesn't know what to believe after reading it. Perhaps it's why he gets into trouble everytime he talks. He's making it up on the fly.
Notice that there is not one biblical reference to marriage in their statement. Notice that it is so generic that a middle school child could have improved upon it with better reference.
Try the New City catechism. At least they back their comments with scripture.

 

[Adonia]

Be honest, you have no clue what the entire catechism says or what verses it actually is referring to.

I sure do. It has extensive footnotes for each paragraph.

You just use it as a means to not read the Bible while believing any and everything the vatican says

Wrong again. I do read the Holy Scriptures and find great joy as I do so. Of course I believe what the Church has taught for the last 2000 years. Such a thing is a lot better than making things up for myself as I read the Scriptures.

Notice that there is not one biblical reference to marriage in their statement.

Of course there is, there are footnotes as I told you before. But answer my question, can you find any fault with what the catechism said about marriage?

Try the New City catechism. At least they back their comments with scripture.

As does the Catholic catechism with numerous citations and footnotes. As I said earlier, you have never sat down and read it have you? Let's make a deal. I'll read your catechism if you read mine and then we can give each other an honest review of them, okay?

 

[Particular]

I sure do. It has extensive footnotes for each paragraph.



Wrong again. I do read the Holy Scriptures and find great joy as I do so. Of course I believe what the Church has taught for the last 2000 years. Such a thing is a lot better than making things up for myself as I read the Scriptures.



Of course there is, there are footnotes as I told you before. But answer my question, can you find any fault with what the catechism said about marriage?



As does the Catholic catechism with numerous citations and footnotes. As I said earlier, you have never sat down and read it have you? Let's make a deal. I'll read your catechism if you read mine and then we can give each other an honest review of them, okay?

There is nothing wrong with the notes on marriage. It is a very general point that even pagans can mostly agree upon.
I will make it a point to slog through the tome called the RCC catechism. I am sure there is truth mixed in with false teaching. Satan, after all, quotes scripture...

 

[Particular]

The first catechism is purely synergism.

I. The life of man - to know and love God

1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Saviour. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

2 So that this call should resound throughout the world, Christ sent forth the apostles he had chosen, commissioning them to proclaim the gospel: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."4 Strengthened by this mission, the apostles "went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it."5

3 Those who with God's help have welcomed Christ's call and freely responded to it are urged on by love of Christ to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world. This treasure, received from the apostles, has been faithfully guarded by their successors. All Christ's faithful are called to hand it on from generation to generation, by professing the faith, by living it in fraternal sharing, and by celebrating it in liturgy and prayer.6



4 ⇒ Mt 28:19-20


5 ⇒ Mk 16:20


6 Cf. ⇒ Acts 2:42

Rome, puts the emphasis on human works with God as the sidekick.

Where do we ever see an adoptee being invited to accept the parent(s) who are the adopter? Yet, here Rome makes humans the choosers, which is entirely contradictory to what Ephesians 1 and Romans 8 teach.

Adonia...this is the first catechism...only 2800 plus to go...

Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText