Loading ...
I really like those little videos made by the Rosary Army and the one this day was no different. It was about the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If I understand correctly catholics have the catechism
for only a few years. They show the parts that make the catechism and as a protestant I recognize it directly. The Westminster Catechism is written several hundred years ago following the same principles. I will see if I can lay my hands on the catholic catechism. I’ve got the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Catechism already, so lets collect catechisms and read them. 
For the newest video check That Catholic Show on SQPN.
Posted under Podcasts
This post was written by Inge on May 21, 2007
In fact that’s not quite right. The first Catholic Catechism dates from 1562… But it’s true that the very first one is probably the one by Luther from 1529.
The edition from 1992 is just the first reedition and revision since the 16th century.
I don’t know about the catechism Luther wrote, I’m not a Lutheran. But OK, then both catechisms are equally old.
I think the Heidelberg Catechism appeared in 1559 and the person who ordered it to be written wasn’t a theologian but Frederik from the Paltz. He had quite a say about what should be in it and what shouldn’t. Therefore the catechism isn’t an theological book but also partly political.
That’s the reason why I try to avoid that one as much as I can and turn to the Westminster Catechism, which contains about the same information, but in a much milder voice.
Actually the Heidelberg Catechism dates from 1563 if I remember right and was written by Zacharias Ursinus and Caspar Olevian, two chief German reformatory theologians following the fashion of the time to write catechisms.
Again, Luther and Calvin had done the first two and the Geneva one was very combatant which ultimately upset some protestant parties. One of which was Frederic III. von der Pfalz. At the same moment the quarrel between the Lutherans and the Reformers became more and more competitive and Frederic sided with the Reformers and asked for a Catechism of the Reform to distinguish their reasoning from all other protestant denominations.
Frederic then of course used this catechism against the Lutherans and the Calvinists trying to get a ‘casus belli’ that would annihilate the rights of the other protestants granted by the peace of religion from 1555.
It is said that the initiatives of Frederic ultimately led to the dissection of the common cause of the reform.
Btw the Heidelberg Catechism was one of Karl Barths pet books, he published several aricles on it.
That’s the third edition, the first edition came out in the same year Trent ended. That would be 1559.
The third edition (now widely used) contains one extra question and answer (nr. 80) and this was a direct reaction on the curses (there were 146 or so of them) Trent issued on those catholics who dared to become protestants. Also they wanted to speak out against those following Luther (about consubstantia).
The earlier versions were much milder, but after the final conclusions of Trent the voice became much harsher and there were more political issues interwoven. Therefore I don’t like the version that’s now being used. I prefer the Westminster Catechism.
But you are right about Frederic. I’m not very fond of the man. He shouldn’t have interfered. He put the proverbial gasoline on the fire, instead of trying to reconciliate. And all this because of political interests. Not only catholicism but also calvinism was being misused for political purposes (power).
Thanks for these precisions!
How right you are about calvinism. Have you ever read the book from Stephan Zweig about Castellio against Calvin? Harsh is all I can say… living in Geneva as a Catholic that is
Off course I’m right about calvinism… I AM a Calvinist.
Having said that I want to add that I’m not very fond of debating and arguing and magnifying differences. There has been enough damage done doing so. I prefer to watch and listen and think about it myself before I get an opinion. As a calvinist I don’t believe Calvin was always right. He also was a sinner, like other theologians (Calvin wasn’t even a real theologian, but hey…) So I have my critical points against some points he makes (I think they are inaccurate). I don’t like picking sides.
About Stefan Zweig, I heard that name before. Is he a novelist? I think I might have read a book written by him.
edit: yep, Schachnovelle
Of course. But discussing or debating (not arguing, because differences cannot be argued) helps to gain a better understanding of one’s own position or a position in general when it is discussed in a more general manner.
Well, as usual it’s not the theory that is faulty, but the absolute practical application.