Hell: Questions and Answers

Aug 27

Posted by

Posted on August 27, 2010, in Apologetics, CATHOLIC PAMPHLETS, Hell. Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. Brother Burrito | August 27, 2010 at 7:07 am

    Fascinating blogsite. Thanks Shane.

    These book covers are certainly inviting to me.

    Would reprints be possible, (possibly ebooks), do you think?

    Reply
  2. shane | August 27, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    Thanks Brother Burrito. Welcome to the blog

    You can have access to the whole pamphlet just by clicking on the cover. As for reprints, I think you’d probably need to ask the CTS. They sometimes do reprint old stuff but they tend to edit out the more ‘traditional’ bits. Someone on another blog commented on the shocking differences between the original 1957 Penny Catechism and the reprint.

    Reply
  3. mundabor | August 27, 2010 at 6:35 pm

    Hello Shane,
    this is shocking new to me.
    I have a Penny catechism (not CTS) with imprimatur and indication of 1885 or the like as publishing year. I assume that what I have is identical to what one would have had in his hands then, right? If the text has been changed there should be an indication of the year of the modifications or am i wrong?

    M

    Reply
  4. shane | August 27, 2010 at 7:06 pm

    Mundabor, if it’s from 1885 and not CTS, I think it’s safe to assume that it’s the same.

    BTW, did you read the Maynooth Catechism? How does it compare?

    Reply
  5. mundabor | August 30, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    I haven’t checked the Maynooth thingy yet. But I am not worried as I can’t imagine that in 1885 Modernism had come so far as to infect catechisms. I’d rather say a publication of ten or fifteen years later, coming from France or anyway Western Europe, would have me a tad more diffident.

    What I love in these old Catechisms is that they are so beautifully concise. Compare this with the Catechism of JP II, always saying in ten words what can be said in three, full of notes on V II and post V II documents and always trying to “sound good”. I know it is meant for a slightly different use, but the bad taste remains…

    M

    Reply
  6. shane | August 31, 2010 at 6:00 pm

    Agreed, I’m not a big fan of the new Catechism. It’s very verbose. I honestly don’t know why the Vatican just doesn’t just issue new editions of old catechisms (like St Pius X) – they’re vastly more concise. It’s a tragedy what’s been done to catechesis.

    Reply
  7. mundabor | September 1, 2010 at 9:19 am

    “I honestly don’t know why the Vatican just doesn’t just issue new editions of old catechisms.”

    Because the old ones might actually be *read*. The JP II, with its verbousness and not being structured with the usual Q&A structure, is more likely to be ignored or, as some priests say, “directed more towards the priest”.

    The Compendium issued by Benedict XVI is a vast improvement with his conciseness and the Q&A structure. Besides it is better formulated and rather exempt from the PC which afflicts the JP II’s one (as with almost everything JP II has published, one must say).

    If you want to have some fun, google “Abbe de Nantes” and look at the twelve grave objections he had at the JP II’s Catechism and how the abbe himself said that the Compendium had eliminated all of them.

    M

    Reply
  8. shane | September 1, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    I have a copy of the Compendium. I agree that it’s a lot better than the Catechism – but of course it still lacks that preconciliar clarity.

    I have read the Abbe’s book before. He’s an interesting figure. I think he once debated Yves Congar, I’ve been meaning to get a book on that.

    Reply

Leave a reply to shane Cancel reply