Many people are MISSING the boat


I’m really shocked at some of the answers I’m seeing in these forums. Where are people getting these answers from? There are some out there truly missing the boat when it comes to Catholicism. People really need to read up on some traditional Catholic references before they engage in discussions on particular Catholic subjects. Two recommendations:

Baltimore catechism online (1891)
Catholic Encyclopedia & Summa Theologica (1913)

For those who think the above references are “outdated”, you are mistaken. Catholic truth does not change.


I love both of those! Especially New Advent!


Interesting that the OP doesn’t reference the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church. Nor for that matter does he reference say the canons of the earliest councils… there has always been development of doctrine. We must listen to the LIVING Magisterium.
There are a LOT of “I am more Catholic than the pope” types around here.


Joeybaggz, I don’t see how you got that from the Original Post. By my reading of it, Eddie18 is saying a lot of forum members don’t know a lot about Catholicism, and I tend to agree.


The Baltimore Catechism is a classic. It’s not some rad-trad catechism used exclusively by the SSPV and the like. And he didn’t deny the development of doctrine either. That New Advent site has articles over a number of councils.


It’s not unusual to be shocked, but you should be shocked at specific things, not vague things.
What exactly is bothering you?
And then you might want to start a specific discussion thread on that issue.


Exactly. My answer to the title of this thread is that many people seem to think or wish the boat had run aground at a certain time in history, when in fact the Barque of Peter is moving along right up to the present day. I would start my investigation of Church teaching with the most recent catechism, and then perhaps follow up with the older ones.


His references are all fondly loved by the traditional Catholic crowd. As someone said, there are no modern references given. To me, it sounds like a Latin loving “tradcat”. Which is fine, to each his own.
There is much to be loved and enjoyed by the NO and its followers.


I like the CCC and use it heavily, but it is rather scholarly, like it was written for pastors and bishops. The Baltimore Catechism is plain English, like it was written for school children and regular folks, and I like it too.


Point is, the CCC WAS written for bishops and pastors. It wasn’t really intended for the laity per se, but as a guide for the clergy.


Maybe I’m jumping the gun, but with the OP’s assertion that there’s a trend of misinformed answers on this forum I assumed rad trad leaning. Most answers on this forum are in accord with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.


I am shocked. Shocked!


He said some answers were misinformed, not a trend as if they’re increasing.

It’s shooting from the hip reactions like the ones in this topic that cause Traditionalist Catholics to run away from this site. To be called a rad-trad for suggesting people read the Baltimore Catechism? Insinuating that we have no interest in modern Church development? Ridiculous!


I’m not so convinced that the CCC was written for bishops and pastors, if by that you mean the laity are somehow excluded. The message of Pope St. John Paul II on the first pages of my copy of the Catechism is addressed: “To my Venerable Brothers the Cardinals, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons and to all the people of God.” A hierarchy, yes, but I don’t see where the laity are excluded. Later he says, “Therefore, I ask all the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life.”

For those who find the CCC too daunting, there is the Compendium of the Catechism or YouCat for the young. There are also excellent synopses of the Catechism, like The Faith by Fr. John Hardon or Catholic Christianity by Peter Kreeft.

I don’t dislike the venerable Baltimore Catechism. I have my own three volume set in addition to the most recent Catechism. I don’t necessarily think the Baltimore Catechism should be the first point of reference for someone new to the Faith, when we have the 1994 Catechism.


It is the very fact that people are only reading modern references, that many people are confused. ALL of the Church’s writings need to be taken into account. The writings of the Church don’t become obsolete.

You seem to have an extreme dislike for tradition. That’s not a Catholic attitude.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. 2 Thes 2:14


Oops. I needlessly amplified what was written in the OP it when I said “a lot of forum members.” Sorry, everyone!


FYI, Pope St. Pius X condemned the development of doctrine:

Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.

…I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion.

…The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way


That’s not what is meant by the development of doctrine. Of course doctrine has and does develops. The metaphor of an acorn (apostolic tradition) developing into an oak tree is often used.


Understand your point. I agree that the CCC was prepared for the church, however I believe that thinking was that it needed to be a inviolate reference for the Clergy to promote the proper position of the church. It needed to be written in language respectful of that level of “scholarship”. If it were “slanted” toward the laity it would be presented in a more “simplistic” style that might be subject to too much personal “interpretation.”


I see your point. I certainly don’t reach for the Catechism when I want to do a little light reading!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit