Author Topic: The problem(s) with the Baltimore Catechism?  (Read 1151 times)

Offline Philip G.

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 912
  • Thanked: 396 times
  • Ordinary Cult
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: The problem(s) with the Baltimore Catechism?
« Reply #15 on: December 06, 2020, 02:01:46 PM »
From memory I recall the Baltimore catechism # 3 stating that heliocentrism is truth/fact by way of example to explain another type of teaching.  Of all the obvious things in the world, why they chose heliocentrism as the example is beyond me.   Coming from a geocentrist, it warrants criticism. 
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12
 
The following users thanked this post: Daniel, Blue Violet

Offline GiftOfGod

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 455
  • Thanked: 102 times
  • Religion: Catholic (traditional)
Re: The problem(s) with the Baltimore Catechism?
« Reply #16 on: December 06, 2020, 04:04:15 PM »
Unfortunately you still haven't learned manners or to show maturity in discourse.

Do you think I care what "Reformed" person (Calvinist heretic) with a Kindergarten-tier username thinks?


I have seen vague criticism from Eastern Rite Catholics of the Baltimore Catechism? I am wondering if they have anything concrete or if it just another "Latin" thing they hate.

What problems do you have with it?

You seem to be looking specifically for criticisms from the perspective of Eastern Rite Catholics. I can't answer that, but I found a paper that approaches the question from a historical perspective.  Here is the pdf: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/48606975.pdf

There is an account of publishing the BC starting around page 83 followed by descriptions of its earliest criticisms.   These seem to be mainly about lack of Scripture references and pedagogical concerns.

I have seen general criticisms of the BC that claim it exhibits Americanism, an error which was condemned in the Encyclical, Testem Benevolentiae https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13teste.htm.  I can see why people might suspect that due to the timing, but I cannot recall ever seeing any specific examples of it cited from the BC.  So I am skeptical of this claim.

From memory I recall the Baltimore catechism # 3 stating that heliocentrism is truth/fact by way of example to explain another type of teaching.  Of all the obvious things in the world, why they chose heliocentrism as the example is beyond me.   Coming from a geocentrist, it warrants criticism.

These aren't what I was expecting but thanks!
 

Offline Daniel

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3171
  • Thanked: 840 times
Re: The problem(s) with the Baltimore Catechism?
« Reply #17 on: December 06, 2020, 05:41:25 PM »
.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2020, 05:44:53 PM by Daniel »
 

Offline Flick

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 82
  • Thanked: 106 times
Re: The problem(s) with the Baltimore Catechism?
« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2020, 12:13:30 PM »
It was humorous; or so I thought.

Someone has to have a “funny bone” to get things.  Perhaps some of us only see the serious side of posts to the exclusion of some light banter that I sadly miss.
“. . . we will jealously protect the small but still burning candle of our traditional Catholic Faith, and patiently carry on our spiritual Resistance movement without the hoped-for papal approval.” Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, August 15, 1967, Letter to Paul VI, www.latinmass-ctm.org/pub/archive.htm.
 
The following users thanked this post: Michael Wilson, diaduit, St.Justin, Blue Violet

Offline Stubborn

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1196
  • Thanked: 632 times
Re: The problem(s) with the Baltimore Catechism?
« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2020, 02:07:07 PM »
I have seen vague criticism from Eastern Rite Catholics of the Baltimore Catechism? I am wondering if they have anything concrete or if it just another "Latin" thing they hate.

What problems do you have with it?

Note: do not discuss BOB/BOD.

Here is a video with Michael Dimond in his pre-sede days interviewing and agreeing with Fr. Wathen. They don't start on a BOD till about the 16 minute mark so stop there if you get that far. But for the first 15 minutes they discuss one problem with the BC, then they discuss the crisis starting from about 30:53 till the end. So if you want to watch the whole thing without a BOD, skip from about the 16:00 to the 30:53 minute mark. I think it's well worth the time to watch it.

It would seem that this video is an embarrassment to MhFM as Frederick (a.k.a. Bro Michael) Dimond, at the time when he was a non-sede, fully supports Father Wathen’s various positions.   
Even after a long life of sin, if the Christian receives the Sacrament of the dying with the appropriate dispositions, he will go straight to heaven without having to go to purgatory. - Fr. M. Philipon; This sacrament prepares man for glory immediately, since it is given to those who are departing from this life. - St. Thomas Aquinas; It washes away the sins that remain to be atoned, and the vestiges of sin; it comforts and strengthens the soul of the sick person, arousing in him a great trust and confidence in the divine mercy. Thus strengthened, he bears the hardships and struggles of his illness more easily and resists the temptation of the devil and the heel of the deceiver more readily; and if it be advantageous to the welfare of his soul, he sometimes regains his bodily health. - Council of Trent
 
The following users thanked this post: Daniel, GiftOfGod

Offline GiftOfGod

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 455
  • Thanked: 102 times
  • Religion: Catholic (traditional)
Re: The problem(s) with the Baltimore Catechism?
« Reply #20 on: December 08, 2020, 01:58:33 AM »
Here is a video with Michael Dimond in his pre-sede days interviewing and agreeing with Fr. Wathen. They don't start on a BOD till about the 16 minute mark so stop there if you get that far. But for the first 15 minutes they discuss one problem with the BC, then they discuss the crisis starting from about 30:53 till the end. So if you want to watch the whole thing without a BOD, skip from about the 16:00 to the 30:53 minute mark. I think it's well worth the time to watch it.

It would seem that this video is an embarrassment to MhFM as Frederick (a.k.a. Bro Michael) Dimond, at the time when he was a non-sede, fully supports Father Wathen’s various positions.

Wow, this is excellent! Fr. Wathen made an excellent point (about mortal sin) that I think every trad would agree with, assuming that they are using their brains and not just parroting the Catechism. I wonder how many souls have been lost by this error in the Baltimore Catechism.


That said, I don't see this as an embarrasment to MHFM. Very few people are cradle trads and the Dimonds weren't. They came across the evidence and changed their minds. What trad hasn't? If anything, doesn't this call into question Fr. Wathen's association with a "fake monk" (as critics often say)?
 
The following users thanked this post: Stubborn, Maximilian, queen.saints

Offline Stubborn

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1196
  • Thanked: 632 times
Re: The problem(s) with the Baltimore Catechism?
« Reply #21 on: December 08, 2020, 05:36:44 AM »
Here is a video with Michael Dimond in his pre-sede days interviewing and agreeing with Fr. Wathen. They don't start on a BOD till about the 16 minute mark so stop there if you get that far. But for the first 15 minutes they discuss one problem with the BC, then they discuss the crisis starting from about 30:53 till the end. So if you want to watch the whole thing without a BOD, skip from about the 16:00 to the 30:53 minute mark. I think it's well worth the time to watch it.

It would seem that this video is an embarrassment to MhFM as Frederick (a.k.a. Bro Michael) Dimond, at the time when he was a non-sede, fully supports Father Wathen’s various positions.

Wow, this is excellent! Fr. Wathen made an excellent point (about mortal sin) that I think every trad would agree with, assuming that they are using their brains and not just parroting the Catechism. I wonder how many souls have been lost by this error in the Baltimore Catechism.


That said, I don't see this as an embarrasment to MHFM. Very few people are cradle trads and the Dimonds weren't. They came across the evidence and changed their minds. What trad hasn't? If anything, doesn't this call into question Fr. Wathen's association with a "fake monk" (as critics often say)?

Glad you liked it, I think it is excellent also, and there is a part two where the crisis is discussed more in depth and also sedeism is discussed, and I think there might be another one or more parts out there somewhere, not sure but I think so. I believe the series is mainly discussing Fr.'s book, Who Shall Ascend? (attached), which is a phenomenal Catholic work well worth reading. (I think it's a bit surprising how many subjects talked about on trad forums are covered in that book.)

I mentioned it's an embarrassment to the DBs for a few reasons, one of which is that the DBs actually made youtube remove that video - and also some of their other pre-sede videos.   
Even after a long life of sin, if the Christian receives the Sacrament of the dying with the appropriate dispositions, he will go straight to heaven without having to go to purgatory. - Fr. M. Philipon; This sacrament prepares man for glory immediately, since it is given to those who are departing from this life. - St. Thomas Aquinas; It washes away the sins that remain to be atoned, and the vestiges of sin; it comforts and strengthens the soul of the sick person, arousing in him a great trust and confidence in the divine mercy. Thus strengthened, he bears the hardships and struggles of his illness more easily and resists the temptation of the devil and the heel of the deceiver more readily; and if it be advantageous to the welfare of his soul, he sometimes regains his bodily health. - Council of Trent
 
The following users thanked this post: Daniel

Offline Daniel

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3171
  • Thanked: 840 times
Re: The problem(s) with the Baltimore Catechism?
« Reply #22 on: December 08, 2020, 08:52:49 AM »
came across the evidence and changed their minds

It works to his discredit because what's to say they he do it again? This is why I don't trust MHFM 100%. Brother Dimond now claims to be right. Yet I bet that if you had asked him before he had changed his mind, he'd then also have claimed to be right. But obviously both of him aren't right. Either he was wrong then and is right now, or he was right then and is wrong now, or else he was wrong then and is also wrong now. This is why I don't trust him, nor do I trust any trad who claims to be right. One of them may very well be right, but I do not know who.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2020, 09:08:42 AM by Daniel »
 

Offline GiftOfGod

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 455
  • Thanked: 102 times
  • Religion: Catholic (traditional)
Re: The problem(s) with the Baltimore Catechism?
« Reply #23 on: December 08, 2020, 02:29:30 PM »
came across the evidence and changed their minds

It works to his discredit because what's to say they he do it again? This is why I don't trust MHFM 100%. Brother Dimond now claims to be right. Yet I bet that if you had asked him before he had changed his mind, he'd then also have claimed to be right. But obviously both of him aren't right. Either he was wrong then and is right now, or he was right then and is wrong now, or else he was wrong then and is also wrong now. This is why I don't trust him, nor do I trust any trad who claims to be right. One of them may very well be right, but I do not know who.

Have you ever changed your mind? If so, you are discredited. See how illogical your position is?
Please show me one man who has never changed his mind and is/always has been infallible. That's a rhetorical request because short of a valid Pope speaking on matters of faith and morals, no man is infallible. You need to fix your scrupulosity because it's gotten out of hand.
 
The following users thanked this post: Daniel

Offline Daniel

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3171
  • Thanked: 840 times
Re: The problem(s) with the Baltimore Catechism?
« Reply #24 on: December 08, 2020, 10:16:35 PM »
came across the evidence and changed their minds

It works to his discredit because what's to say they he do it again? This is why I don't trust MHFM 100%. Brother Dimond now claims to be right. Yet I bet that if you had asked him before he had changed his mind, he'd then also have claimed to be right. But obviously both of him aren't right. Either he was wrong then and is right now, or he was right then and is wrong now, or else he was wrong then and is also wrong now. This is why I don't trust him, nor do I trust any trad who claims to be right. One of them may very well be right, but I do not know who.

Have you ever changed your mind? If so, you are discredited. See how illogical your position is?
Please show me one man who has never changed his mind and is/always has been infallible. That's a rhetorical request because short of a valid Pope speaking on matters of faith and morals, no man is infallible. You need to fix your scrupulosity because it's gotten out of hand.

To my own discredit, yes.

And maybe I was wrong to single out Brother Dimond like that. But what I've noticed is that there are way too many YouTube celebrities out there, trying to gain followers by making bold claims, acting like they know what they are talking about when in fact they don't. Some of them are probably deluded and actually believe that they know what they're talking about, while others are probably liars and Christmongers out to make a buck. And maybe one of them actually does know what he's talking about. But most do not.

But this video could perhaps explain a lot. I can definitely see it. It would explain my own spiritual blindness as well as the blindness of all the deluded YouTube celebrities.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2020, 10:19:26 PM by Daniel »
 

Offline Aulef

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Thanked: 31 times
  • Religion: One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church
Re: The problem(s) with the Baltimore Catechism?
« Reply #25 on: December 15, 2020, 10:33:00 AM »
Tota pulchra es, Maria
Et macula originalis non est in Te