S
Adam & Logic, Third Edition, Original Relationship between Humanity and Divinity
- Status
H
Hunho
Guest
I have found CatholicCulture.org’s Website Reviews to be an excellent resource for getting background on sites. This is their review of the “Novus Ordo Watch” website where the quote came from:Website Review: Novus Ordo WatchI have always wanted to double dare anyone who thinks that it will be easy to find the exact words in which Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI directly denies a specific Catholic doctrine on Original Sin.
Is anyone up to the challenge of finding those words?
Fair warning.
Popes have a tendency to write in Church-speak.
Upfront, readers have to recognize that not every teaching on Original Sin is in this relatively small quote from an amazing book, ‘In the Beginning . . .’ Just because Cardinal Ratzinger does not mention each Original Sin teaching in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition – that is not evidence for denial. On the other hand, maybe that is the way the website works.
Maybe, finding the exact words in which Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI directly denies a specific Catholic doctrine on Original Sin is a stupid challenge.
Dang! I am still interested in knowing those “exact words of denial” that appear in the website quote.
A review based on: novusordowatch.org
Description
Novus Ordo Watch claims “to document, collect, archive, and preserve articles, news reports, historic and modern photographs, books, diaries, translations, historic audio and video tape footage on the Catholic Church both pre-1958 and post-1958.” Unfortunately, the only documents available here are written by those who deny the validity of Vatican II, the New Mass, and even claim that Cardinal Siri was really elected pope after the death of Pope Pius XII. This site is useful for research purposes only.
Review Ratings what do these ratings mean?
First Evaluated: 11/11/2005; Last Updated: 01/27/2014
Code:
**Fidelity: ** Danger!
**Resources:** Poor
**Useability: **ExcellentNone Reported.
Weaknesses
Fidelity: Articles advocating Sedevacantism Example(s)
Fidelity: An entire section of articles attacking Benedict XVI
Fidelity: A section of “proof” that Cardinal Siri was really elected Pope in 1958
Categories
Issues > Schisms
Catholicism > Liturgy
More Information
nowatch@novusordowatch.org
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you.
As a part-time researcher, this last line caught my eye. “This site is useful for research purposes only.”
Maybe I have the wrong challenge in post 253 above. Maybe I should dare people to find the Catholic teachings in what Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI was writing.
G
grannymh
Guest
Middle of the night question.
Why is it that no one ever posts that the world’s greatest love story is in the first three chapters of Genesis?
Why is it that no one ever posts that the world’s greatest love story is in the first three chapters of Genesis?
R
Richca
Guest
This is a good point as the first few chapters of Genesis are about God creating the universe of creatures which as the CCC says includes both orders of creatures, namely, the angelic and the corporeal and finally human beings who are at once both spiritual and corporeal. I don’t mean to brag but I did reply to some question you proposed to us in the previous edition of Adam & Logic, that what moved God to create is His goodness and love and I quoted the CCC#293 which quotes St Thomas Aquinas: “Creatures came into existence when the key of love opened his [God’s] hand.”
F
fhansen
Guest
Because people don’t see or know God as He is. Genesis shows that God never stopped loving man from the moment He created him. But we see only an angry God rather than the God, who planned from the beginning never to abandon, but rather to perfect, His creation, even using it’s waywardness in the process.
S
simpleas
Guest
C
cfauster
Guest
That is beautiful. Here’s another, urging us to respond with love, from
marquette.edu/faith/prayers-love.php
Fall in Love
Attributed to Fr. Pedro Arrupe, S.J. (1907–1991)
Nothing is more practical than
finding God, than
falling in Love
in a quite absolute, final way.
What you are in love with,
what seizes your imagination,
will affect everything.
It will decide
what will get you out of bed in the morning,
what you do with your evenings,
how you spend your weekends,
what you read,
whom you know,
what breaks your heart,
and what amazes you with joy and gratitude.
Fall in Love,
stay in love,
and it will decide everything.
S
simpleas
Guest
That is lovely
F
fhansen
Guest
Yes, very nice- thank you!
G
grannymh
Guest
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger had a major role in preparing the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Check out paragraphs 355-421.
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you.
Sometimes, we are overwhelmed by the arguments that the first three chapters of Genesis are not a science textbook. I know I need to be reminded of the sheer beauty of God’s creation. Fortunately, I do a lot of driving through farm land. It is then that I am reminded that blue is the perfect color for the sky.
As you posted – St Thomas Aquinas: “Creatures came into existence when the key of love opened His [God’s] hand.” We are the pinnacle of God’s earthly creation. If only we could remember to thank God for His love.
G
grannymh
Guest
Finally, I have recovered from the shock of reading that Original Sin is considered a “fly in the ointment” by a public author, speaker, and commentator on things religious. Apparently, Catholics are missing the original blessing or inherent goodness in Genesis 1: 10-31.
Genesis 1: 10-31
That is some of the territory of this thread on the original relationship between humanity and Divinity.
Thus, I again looked at the end of this internet article thing. Here is the ending.
“We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, and not on a foundation of original curse or sin. We dug a pit so deep that most people and most theologies could not get back out of it. You must begin with yes. You cannot begin with no, or it is not a beginning at all.”
The footnote refers to a previous presentation of the topic.
However,
the “fly in the ointment” for this cranky granny is my gut instinct which says that what is really meant is that Catholics should drop those annoying doctrines about Original Sin. Decades ago, there was a popular author who preferred an “original blessing.” He eventually left the Catholic priesthood.
Catholics cannot rebuild Catholicism to match someone’s personal preferences about a fly in the ointment (Original Sin). Catholics need to seek the complete story found in Adam’s original relationship with his Maker.
Genesis 1: 10-31
That is some of the territory of this thread on the original relationship between humanity and Divinity.
Thus, I again looked at the end of this internet article thing. Here is the ending.“We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, and not on a foundation of original curse or sin. We dug a pit so deep that most people and most theologies could not get back out of it. You must begin with yes. You cannot begin with no, or it is not a beginning at all.”
The footnote refers to a previous presentation of the topic.
However,
the “fly in the ointment” for this cranky granny is my gut instinct which says that what is really meant is that Catholics should drop those annoying doctrines about Original Sin. Decades ago, there was a popular author who preferred an “original blessing.” He eventually left the Catholic priesthood.
Catholics cannot rebuild Catholicism to match someone’s personal preferences about a fly in the ointment (Original Sin). Catholics need to seek the complete story found in Adam’s original relationship with his Maker.
C
cfauster
Guest
Richard Rohr, in his July 8 meditation may have been exaggerating simply to make his point that God’s creation was, and is, good.
“Fly in the ointment” (in reference to original sin) seems very dismissive, indeed.
I share with you, granny, the sense that Rohr’s meditation minimizes the significance of original sin too much. One can magnify the original good of creation without minimizing the original sin.
“Fly in the ointment” (in reference to original sin) seems very dismissive, indeed.
I share with you, granny, the sense that Rohr’s meditation minimizes the significance of original sin too much. One can magnify the original good of creation without minimizing the original sin.
S
simpleas
Guest
For what it’s worth :
I didn’t read the “fly in the ointment” as dismissing original sin. I read it as pointing out that at times some were more focused on sin rather than the good in creation. Some people may start from that point in their mind (original sin) some may start from the creator blessing the humans. It’s both/and.
I didn’t read the “fly in the ointment” as dismissing original sin. I read it as pointing out that at times some were more focused on sin rather than the good in creation. Some people may start from that point in their mind (original sin) some may start from the creator blessing the humans. It’s both/and.
G
grannymh
Guest
May I gently point out that it is very important to evaluate the context.
Here is the context reference to the dismissal of Original Sin.
"We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, and not on a foundation of original curse or sin. "
Here is the context Scripture reference which points to chapter 2. The only possible sin which could be called the original curse is in the first three chapters of Genesis.
“Genesis 1: 10-31”
Here is the context huge red flag that a denial of Original Sin was coming.
"Genesis began with six clear statements of original blessing or inherent goodness (Genesis 1:10-31), and the words "original sin" are not In the New Testament. "
I will stop this context review by quoting the opening sentence.
"Yet another gift of Native and Celtic spirituality is their unashamed welcome of some kind of “original blessing” instead of starting with a problem like “original sin.”
Unfortunately, what some, not all, folk are interpreting from the writing of this public author and speaker about things religious is that ----a problem like Original Sin, a fly in the ointment, can be easily solved by removing the reality of Adam. That is easy. No original real Adam equals no original relationship between humanity and Dvinity.
Guess I better end this thread immediately.
S
simpleas
Guest
When it’s spaced out like that it can look like that is all the writer intended the reader to take in.
It just seems to me that you looked at the context that you see as negative and dismissive and over looked the positive in the context.
That is your prerogative
Anyway your thread isn’t about which writer said what, it’s about the original relation between Man and God before friendship was shattered.
H
Hunho
Guest
To quote Thor.** “I Say Thee, NAY!!**”
(Rohr is quoting heretics and Celts, so I’ll go with the Norse!)
As I have noted before, CatholicCulture.org’s Website Reviews are an excellent resource for getting background on sites. Here is their review for Richard Rohr’s “Center for Action and Contemplation” website: Website Review: Center for Action and Contemplation
A review based on: cacradicalgrace.org/index.html
**Description
**
The Center for Action and Contemplation, located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, was founded in 1987 by Franciscan Father Richard Rohr. Its goal is to “serve as a place of discernment and growth for activists and those interested in social service ministries.”
Unfortunately, Fr. Rohr and the Center’s view of discernment and growth includes embracing radical feminism, the enneagram, and the entire Call to Action agenda. For more information, see The Center For Action and Contemplation by Stephanie Block.
Review Ratings what do these ratings mean?
First Evaluated: 10/20/2005; Last Updated: 01/28/2014
Code:
**Fidelity:** Danger![INDENT] [DANGER (Red Light)Resources: Poor
Useability: Excellent
Strengths None Reported.
Weaknesses
Fidelity: Fr. Richard Rohr rejects the Church’s teaching on various issues, including homosexuality.
Fidelity: The bookstore offers numerous dissident books, including entire sections of books on the enneagram and liberation theology.
Fidelity: Many problematic links Example(s)
Fidelity: Every section of this site serves as a reminder of the fact that Rohr and the Center work against the Church whenever they can.
Fidelity: Magazine, Radical Grace, features dissident writers and articles Example(s)
**Fidelity: **Richard Rohr praises Barack Obama as an answer to prayer Example(s)
Categories
Issues > Social Ills
Institutions > Organizations
More Information
P.O. Box 12464
Albuquerque, NM 87195
USA
(505) 242-9588
info@cac.org
NB: All reviews are current as of the Evaluation or Update Date cited above. If you notice that a review contains information that is no longer accurate, please contact us and we will be happy to amend our review.[/INDENT]
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you.
I put an important statement in bold.
I am still very concerned about that site’s reference to “a fly in the ointment” which, by the way, is very, very, very negative. When a public author refers to Original Sin (see context in post 272) as a fly in the ointment and encourages Catholics to rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, and not on a foundation of original curse or sin — that is a strong reminder that there are many wolves in sheep’s clothing working against the current Catholic Church from inside the Catholic Church.
In fact, “to rebuild on a foundation of original goodness” reminds me of the invitation to break bread together by changing or omitting some basic Catholic doctrines to fit the new Christianity that, apparently, some public writers and teachers are longing for.
Thus, (in reply to post 273) I have every right to defend this thread which is based on Catholic teachings, including the results of Original Sin which shattered humanity’s original relationship with Divinity.
And yes, definitely this thread is about which writer said what. Why? Because public writers can either influence people to be true to the Catholic Church or public writers can influence people to tear down the walls of Divine Revelation.
If people do not have the responsibility to defend Catholic teachings, especially those which pertain to the results of the shattered relationship, then this thread is useless.
Here is a dang good example of how people are being fooled about Catholicism. I do not intend to ignore Genesis 3: 15 (the yes) and John 3: 16-17 (the yes) just because a few people do not accept Adam and Eve as real people.
“We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, and not on a foundation of original curse or sin. We dug a pit so deep that most people and most theologies could not get back out of it. You must begin with yes. You cannot begin with no, or it is not a beginning at all.”
I refuse to put Genesis 3:15 and John 3: 16-17 into some pit.
G
grannymh
Guest
- Status