Talk:Catechism

message: Is there any reason to keep this fanciful Sanskrit etymology, especially unsourced?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.250.93.152 (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanskrit etymology? 

message: The "improved definition" says the same thing as the old definition, in denser language. It is not an improvement.  I've merged the two versions, to stop the competing reverts.  I should point out to the anonymous editor, however, that Catechetics is not actually the act of instruction itself, but the science of instruction.  Mkmcconn — 16:27, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: The Catechism of the Catholic Church (see below) is the catechism that is most widespread use among Catholics today. It is the official Catechism of the Church. (No sources, but it's true!)
For Catholics obedient to the Pope of Rome (are you a catholic otherwise?), all the canonical books of the Bible (including the six books which do not appear in the Hebrew canon), plus the current Catechism of the Catholic Church or an approved compendium, constitute the complete and best resource for fully attaining to God's revelation to mankind. (This is clearly NOT roman catholic teaching; when the CC only accepts three on each other depending sources for understanding of the revelation: The Holy Scripture, The Sacred Tradition and the Magisterum (which is defined in the catechism as: "Bishops, with priests as co-workers... are authentic teachers, of the apostolic faith, endowed with the authority of Christ." pagph. 888) (So this is not the same thing as a catechism!)
Catholics believe that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are expressed by the Catechism (Not the catechism! "The Magisterium": the communion of the bishops togheter with the people) of the Catholic Church are both necessary for attaining to the fullest understanding of all of God's revelation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.67.174.43 (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverified claims about Catholic teaching 

message: The section on the Catechism of the Catholic Church is overlong, filled with non-neutral POV and purple prose, and overall is unencyclopedic.  Just a few excerpts that I find somewhere on the scale of "questionable" to "ridiculous":
*"a work of remarkable organization and breadth, containing articles of elegant reasoning and historical insight"
*"may construct any lesson needed for the time-tested Socratic Method of posing and answering questions, or for other methods, with complete confidence in the fidelity of the answers"
*"It also functions admirably for individual study as well"
*"avoiding any mistaken comparisons to simplified Q&A teaching aids"
*"the serious catechist quickly realizes that this teaching tool accomplishes its ideal suitability to task through its definitive subject index, intelligent frontmatter tables, strict absence of redundancy, exhaustive footnoting"
*"writing style that fulfills a seemingly impossible balance between concise definition and transparently readable clarity"
*"Catechists find that it functions admirably both for individual or group reference and as an on-the-spot teaching aid"
*"Such an excellently made map to its subject is it, that facility with its contents easily constitutes facility with definitive Catholic teaching"
*"Its excellence of execution can stand as a best practices model for the 21st century scholar's art"
*"its' excellent subject index elegantly provides the functionality of a Question and Answer format but with a far greater degree of flexibility"
*"Because of the excellent index, teachers can easily reference The Catechism of the Catholic Church for answering questions 'on the fly' with the highest confidence in its fidelity to the subject matter"
Let's set aside the sheer frequency of the word "excellent" in a passage that praises "strict absence of redundancy" for now...  I've got no problem if the author is a fan of the Catechism, but this does not fit "a best practices model for the 21st century scholar's art." --Kuronekoyama 04:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded, and added  before ever seeing the debate here. --Neurophyre(talk) 08:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I took a stab at cleaning up the section, but left the POV tag as a pointer to this discussion. --Neurophyre(talk) 08:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV, unencyclopedic, where do I begin? 

message: Fidei depositum does not say that the Catechism is not for the laity. The Apostolic constitution is addressed to all the People of God. It says that the Catechism is presented to the whole Church. This Apostolic constitution appears at the front of the Catechism (Runwiththewind 22:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catechism of the Catholic Church is addressed to the laity 

message: Can anyone expand/add information about this this entry? I believe this took place in 1898 and was the 'bringing' together of the non-conformist faiths with representations from the Congregationalists, Baptists, Wesleyan Methodists, Primitive Methodists, the Methodist New Connexion, United Methodist Free Church, Presbyterians, and Bible Christians. MBorrill (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Evangelical Free Church Catechism

message: I noticed an older 19th century catechism called the Doctrinal Catechism, which was commonly quoted in Catholic-Protestant polemics in times past, and which is still quoted by a few contemporary authors. It is perhaps notable and would maybe deserve to be included in this page or in a related stub article.  ADM (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctrinal Catechism

message: I don't have a problem with the use of the "revision of the Westminster Shorter Catechism" as an illustration of the catechetical format of question & answer, but I believe a citation is needed -- especially since the answer to Question #2 is in direct contradiction to the original answer, which is:
"The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him."
Evan Donovan (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed for revision of the Westminster Shorter Catechism 

message: Should issued through the century read the centuries?Autarch (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Penny Catechism" typo? 

message: It doesn't come across in the article that the 1566 Roman Catholic catechism for everyone was one of the suggestions for church reform made by Luther in his early years, and was a part of the counter-reformation. Probably the one that affected the man in the street most, as he intended.86.42.215.188 (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular catechisms were Luther's idea

message: much I agree with the statement, even an atheist heathen like myself might consider the leap from "sound down" to "indoctrinate" a little POV.
Also, looking back to see when it was added (i.e. whether is was a recent perhaps vandalistic addition) I saw it's been there since... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catechism&diff=prev&oldid=281047915
April 1.  2009.  I think we've been had guys...   88.109.52.217 (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  i.e. to indoctrinate 

message: I propose that Ignorantia sacerdotum be merged into Catechism, under  Catholic catechisms. I think that the content in the Ignorantia sacerdotum article can easily be explained in the context of catechisms, and the catechisms article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Ignorantia sacerdotum will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. JanetteDoe (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree... that sounds like a reasonable idea. The alternative might be to merge the Ignorantia sacerdotum article into the John Peckham article, intead. I'll leave it for others, more expert than I, to decide :-)  TheAMmollusc (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: This entire section is bullcrap.
No citations, and the Zodiacal catechism quoted  is from page 176 of Alice A. Bailey's book "A treatise on the seven rays: Esoteric astrology." 
Bailey's work was dictated to her by her spirit guide D.K., a.k.a the Tibetan; she never claimed any physical-world material sources. Hence, utter bullcrap by encyclopedic standards. 
I'm not deleting it yet because some of what is stated might be worthwhile info if sourced. Bustter (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Get where you're coming from. Do you have a suggested replacement drafted or are you suggesting that whole bit goes? Stalwart111 03:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Christian catechisms 

message: Several of the links leading from the Catholic catechisms to their online texts lead to a verifiably anti-Catholic (and personal) website. It would perhaps be ideal if alternative, neutral links to the texts of these catechisms be used instead, or at the very least if a page from a Catholic site were to be used. IMHO it's better than the current links we have now. 24.185.252.161 (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Inappropriate links have been removed. Stalwart111 23:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Catechism links 

message: Consideration for an Eastern Orthodoxy section with at least citations referring to The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church (e.g. http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/Orthodox_Catechism_of_Philaret.htm), would be helpful to improve the article.
 Dr.khatmando (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Orthodox Catechism  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Catechism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ourroots.ca/e/viewpage.asp?ID=282489&size=2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070219074656/http://www.usccbpublishing.org/productdetails.cfm?sku=5-450 to http://www.usccbpublishing.org/productdetails.cfm?sku=5-450
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified