New York Catechism (it does exist!)

[OpenDoor]

In GT months ago I posted in a thread where I quoted from a source that quoted from the New York Catechism. I was told that there was no such thing and that it only existed on anti-catholic sites. If I remeber correctly I apologiesed and deleted my post.

Now I discovered that it does exist!


In these Catechisms two from New York and one from Chicago have language close to but not exactly like this.

The Pope is called "the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God Himself on earth."

New York Catechism...?? - Catholic Answers Forums


Someone owes me a coke!

 

[Dark_Lite]

The language is not close at all. It's quoted completely out of context and misrepresents actual Catholic teaching. The creator of the quote strung together a bunch of sentences to spread his hatred. Then other people who will believe anything and everything, no matter how insane, to validate their anti-Catholicism, bought it hook line and sinker. The quote is fabricated. It just happens to be fabricated from snippets of actual quotes.

 

[MoonlessNight]

As far as I can tell from the thread you linked to this:

The Pope is called "the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God Himself on earth."

was precisely the part of the infamous quote that couldn't be found in the "New York Catechism." The consensus of the thread (as much as there was one) seemed to be that there was a book which could be called "The New York Catechism" (though that was not its title) which contained language coinciding with the less controversial parts of an anti-Catholic quote. But this specific portion of the quote was thought to be stitched together from various pages, or entirely made up (the one person who tracked down most of the quote wasn't clear in this regard.)

And no one said anything about "similar language" being used in a Chicago Catechism. That's a complete fabrication from you.

So your post, which implies that this was said in a real Catechism used by the Church is highly dishonest and you should be ashamed.

 

[OpenDoor]

Isn't that person I quoted a Catholic priest?

 

[OpenDoor]

And no one said anything about "similar language" being used in a Chicago Catechism. That's a complete fabrication from you.

post number #7
Br. Rich SFO
Veteran Member

I think Br. Rich SFO is a Catholic priest.

I quoted him exactly! (copy/past)

I am now owed 2 cokes!

 

[OpenDoor]

So your post, which implies that this was said in a real Catechism used by the Church is highly dishonest and you should be ashamed.

I quoted the poster exactly!
I was not being dishonest

 

[Dark_Lite]

I quoted the poster exactly!
I was not being dishonest

Did you read through the thread you linked? The consensus is that the quote is fabricated by stringing together out of context snippets from another work. Sorry, but you're not owed any cokes. The quote is indeed an anti-Catholic fabrication.

 

[OpenDoor]

Also keep in mind. I posted this in OBOB.
I could have easily posted this in GT where I would probably have gotten a medal...

 

[Dark_Lite]

Also keep in mind. I posted this in OBOB.
I could have easily posted this in GT where I would probably have gotten a medal...

No medal. Well, maybe a medal from the laserfocus myopia contingent that try to hone in on single Catholic doctrines and ignore everything that proves them wrong. A common trend among people that are rabidly against Catholicism is that they quote from things that prove them wrong. It's actually rather hilarious. Don't make that mistake.

 

[OpenDoor]

Did you read through the thread you linked? The consensus is that the quote is fabricated by stringing together out of context snippets from another work. Sorry, but you're not owed any cokes. The quote is indeed an anti-Catholic fabrication.

Yes!
and there was also a debate on whether it was intended for an English speaking audience and it was from the 1930.

but I did not make up post number #7 and the New York Catechism does exist and their are snippets that can paraphrase the quote.

 

[OpenDoor]

and post #19 says the same thing I thought (in the original post on GT).
It made no sense that Fr. Mitch Pacwa would have never said the quote was fake when it was brought up.

I respect him too much to think he would have missed that

 

[Dark_Lite]

Yes and there was also a debate on whether it was intended for an English speaking audience and it was from the 1920.

but I did not make up post number #7 and the New York Catechism does exist and their are snippets that can paraphrase the quote.

No, there is a catechism that might be referenced by such a name, and there are snippets that can be strung together dishonestly to create the quote. A demonstration is in order.

"I did ... paraphrase the quote. There was a debate ... but ... the New York Catechism does not exist ...."

All your own words. Hardly a fair representation of them. It's not what you said, but it is built using your writing by dishonestly combining words and phrases you used. The exact same thing was done with the "quote" in question.

 

[OpenDoor]

No, there is a catechism that might be referenced by such a name, and there are snippets that can be strung together dishonestly to create the quote. A demonstration is in order.

"I did ... paraphrase the quote. There was a debate ... but ... the New York Catechism does not exist ...."

All your own words. Hardly a fair representation of them. It's not what you said, but it is built using your writing by dishonestly combining words and phrases you used. The exact same thing was done with the "quote" in question.

DL
I don't know if you have visited that forum before, but isn't Br. Rich SFO an ordained Catholic priest?

 

[OpenDoor]

He's a Franciscan Third Order Secular

tbh I have no idea what that is, but it sounds important...

 

[Dark_Lite]

What does that have to do anything? I don't go to CAF and don't really care who he is. He is irrelevant to my life at the moment. If he becomes relevant, then I will probably care. The thread closed with clear consensus and evidence that the quote is fake. Don't make the mistake of myopia either.

Edit: third order members are laity.

 

[OpenDoor]

third order members are laity.

ok
I thought Br. meant he was a monk or something.

 

[OpenDoor]

I'm gonna have to find away to get my hands on a copy of this book.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I'm gonna have to find away to get my hands on a copy of this book.

And what exactly would that do? You seem to be searching for a way to distill that quote from this book. A very reliable source (CAF) tells you it's not possible. Why continue to try?

 

[OpenDoor]

And what exactly would that do? You seem to be searching for a way to distill that quote from this book. A very reliable source (CAF) tells you it's not possible. Why continue to try?

I don't like being called dishonest, a liar, and that I should be ashamed.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I don't like being called dishonest, a liar, and that I should be ashamed.

And what happens when the quote can't be distilled from the physical book either? That won't look good. I don't think your task of disproving those aaccusations is connected to finding out what's in that book.