N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
This just in: Australian priest claims Jesus an alien from the planet Martak. Mother ship arriving to beam him up at 06:94 Martak time.
:whacky:
:whacky:
- Status
M
Mater_Cantor
Guest
How sad for him - he’ll be prayed for as I pray for all the clergy…
J
jfhh
Guest
There are other priests who deny Jesus is God too. One is apparently being investigated by the Vatican or at least his writings are.
When I read the Gospels with an unbiased eye, I don’t see it saying that Joseph was not Jesus’ father in the genetic biological sense.
I see it saying that Jesus’ birth was shrouded in mystery, that the Holy Spirit played a role in preparing Joseph and Mary to have premarital sex. Mary doesn’t understand why she can have a child when premarital sex is not allowed and the angel explains that the Holy Spirit will take care of that for her and bring to her a more deep and enlightened understanding of the spiritual nature of the sex act. When Mary tells Joseph she is pregnant she means that she is already spiritually pregnant, that the Holy Spirit has planted in her the seed of the love that is to take place. Joseph doesn’t understand but the angel appears to him in a dream telling him to not be afraid to “take her as his wife” which in those times and language meant to have intercourse with.
It does say Joseph did not “know” Mary until Jesus was born and “know” may be interpreted to mean had sex with, but in the mystical language there with the mystical context of the Holy Spirit overshadowing etc, it seems to me to mean that Joseph did not like Mary engage in sex on this higher spiritual level until Jesus was born. When Jesus was born he too was evidently enlightened and overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, immersed in the Spirit, and able to have sex on a primarily spiritual level and thus able to truly “know” Mary in that spiritual sexual way.
So far from a consecration of virginity as a holier state, it is a beautiful portrait of the spiritual elevation of sex.
Virginity in Catholic spirituality is primarily concerned with dedication to God, consecration of both one’s body and soul to God throughout one’s life. But more and more, it is being recognized that this is possible while still making love. Loving someone in body and soul through sex is a means and part of loving worship of God, not some separate thing.
Jesus seems to deny that he is God in the Gospels. Someone calls him “good”. He says that he is not “good” and that “only God is good”. The logical conclusion is that he is saying that he is not God unless you want to believe Jesus is a liar or the Gospels not reliable.
When I read the Gospels with an unbiased eye, I don’t see it saying that Joseph was not Jesus’ father in the genetic biological sense.
I see it saying that Jesus’ birth was shrouded in mystery, that the Holy Spirit played a role in preparing Joseph and Mary to have premarital sex. Mary doesn’t understand why she can have a child when premarital sex is not allowed and the angel explains that the Holy Spirit will take care of that for her and bring to her a more deep and enlightened understanding of the spiritual nature of the sex act. When Mary tells Joseph she is pregnant she means that she is already spiritually pregnant, that the Holy Spirit has planted in her the seed of the love that is to take place. Joseph doesn’t understand but the angel appears to him in a dream telling him to not be afraid to “take her as his wife” which in those times and language meant to have intercourse with.
It does say Joseph did not “know” Mary until Jesus was born and “know” may be interpreted to mean had sex with, but in the mystical language there with the mystical context of the Holy Spirit overshadowing etc, it seems to me to mean that Joseph did not like Mary engage in sex on this higher spiritual level until Jesus was born. When Jesus was born he too was evidently enlightened and overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, immersed in the Spirit, and able to have sex on a primarily spiritual level and thus able to truly “know” Mary in that spiritual sexual way.
So far from a consecration of virginity as a holier state, it is a beautiful portrait of the spiritual elevation of sex.
Virginity in Catholic spirituality is primarily concerned with dedication to God, consecration of both one’s body and soul to God throughout one’s life. But more and more, it is being recognized that this is possible while still making love. Loving someone in body and soul through sex is a means and part of loving worship of God, not some separate thing.
Jesus seems to deny that he is God in the Gospels. Someone calls him “good”. He says that he is not “good” and that “only God is good”. The logical conclusion is that he is saying that he is not God unless you want to believe Jesus is a liar or the Gospels not reliable.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Oh good grief. May I suggest that you take the time you spend coming up with these theories and devote them to gaining a deeper understanding of the faith handed down to us first, and in prayer. Once you’re an expert on the traditional faith, you’ll have a stronger background to allow you to explore theories like that.
J
japhy
Guest
Unbiased eye? Should you be a judge or lawyer then?
As I will show, Joseph was not prepared. He heard about this after the fact. And Mary was prepared not for premarital sex but for something completely different.
Mary is surprised at the angel’s words because she “knows not man”. If Mary intended on having marital relations later, it would not have seemed odd to her, since the angel didn’t say it would happen that instant. Mary was given no message that implied to her that she was to have premarital sex with Joseph. Mary calls herself the Lord’s handmaid, and says “let it be done to me”, not “let me and Joseph do it”.
The act of Mary’s conception is something that is considered “impossible” if not for God. Neither Mary nor Joseph is assumed to be barren or impotent. The “impossible” part is that Mary will conceive without a man, by the sheer power of the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 1:16 says “Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” It does not say “Jacob the father of Joseph, and Joseph the father of Jesus” like it does in the preceding verses. There is a reason for the change.
Matthew 1:18-21 describes Joseph’s perspective on the matter:
[18] Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; [19] and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.
[20] But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; [21] she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
Verse 18 tells us this is before they lived together. They did not have premarital sex because Joseph was “a just man” and did not want to “put her to shame”. If Matthew can call Joseph a “just man”, I think it is fair to assume Joseph did not have premarital sex. Furthermore, if Joseph and Mary did have premarital sex and Joseph wished to remain “just”, he would have married her immediately, not divorced her quietly.
The angel only appears to Joseph AFTER Jesus has been conceived. Thus, Joseph is not “prepared” as you said. Furthermore, he wished to divorce her to avoid bringing shame upon Mary (which very well could have resulted in her being stoned).
Jesus does not deny that he is good, he says that God alone is good. Since Jesus does not deny that he is good, that leads one to wonder if he is, in fact, implying that he is God.
J
jfhh
Guest
I addressed some of your other points already. As for this one, Jesus does deny it. He says, “Why do you call me good? There is only One that is good.” He also tells his disciples to not call him father, rabbi, teacher/master, saying that there is but One who is that (i.e. God) and who should be called that. I don’t mean not calling priests that; Jesus says to not call HIMSELF that (as well as anyone else besides God). Notice the parallel there. You may have a semi-plausible point if this parallel didn’t exist, but it does.
J
japhy
Guest
I refuted the points you addressed. Your time-line is wrong, concerning Joseph’s “preparation” for pre-marital sex. The Scriptures do not give the impression that the origin of Jesus’s conception is natural.
You have again completlely misread the Scriptures. Matthew 23:8-10 reads:
[8] “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. [9] And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. [10] Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ.”
Jesus tells them that they are not to be called “rabbi”. Jesus tells them not to call anyone on earth their “father”; the person of Jesus Christ is the Son, not the Father. Jesus tells them that they are not to be called masters, because their master is (Jesus) Christ. Jesus does not say he is not to be called “rabbi” (and indeed, they call him that many times). He tells them to call the Christ their master (and those who come to acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ do so). He tells them not to call him “Father”, but God the Father in heaven.
J
jfhh
Guest
Check what I wrote:
“When Mary tells Joseph she is pregnant she means that she is already spiritually pregnant, that the Holy Spirit has planted in her the seed of the love that is to take place.”
So I already knew and acknowledged the “timeline”; I am just interpreting it differently. When Mary tells Joseph of her pregnancy, she is speaking of her spiritual pregnancy, as I noted above. Joseph didn’t understand this as I also noted above … etc. I know my theory is rather mystical and takes language to be metaphorical and so is confusing. It may also sound implausible, but we know scripture uses mystical and metaphorical language a lot. Some interpret some OT text to be talking of oral sex and other acts, but I think you and I agree that whatever else it may be referring to, primarily it is referring to a spiritual reality. Our physical actions also have spiritual meaning. A smile has spiritual meaning. Sex has spiritual meaning. Jesus isn’t less holy because he was on the scientific level conceived just like everyone else; he is more holy because on the spiritual level, Mary was overshadowed, making her spirit transcend her body and her body be fully an expression of her spirit. Some Orthodox say Mary was made free of all sin at this moment.
Jesus was on earth at that time so this would include Jesus.
You’re assuming that Jesus was making a teaching about the Trinity there, highly implausible. But I stand corrected on the other titles.
You have to admit if you tell someone: “Good sir” and he says: “Why do you call me good? Only God is good.” Then the impression that is given is that you don’t want to be called good, that it is improper to call you good, and that you are not God. We can debate whether technically it was this or that, but that’s the natural reading or impression of the hearer.
J
japhy
Guest
Joseph didn’t understand what she was talking about, and then had premarital sex with her since she said she was “pregnant” already?
The “spiritual” meaning of the text that you provide, apart from being utterly unorthodox and not advanced by any of the Church Fathers I know, is opposed to the literal meaning of the text.
The Church teaches that Jesus is “more holy” on both the physical and spiritual levels. He is not a merely “adopted” Son or “spiritual” Son of God; he is literally the Son of God, the Word Incarnate.
Right, and Christians don’t refer to Jesus as “father”.
T
tecvba
Guest
Luke 1:34-35
"But Mary said to the angel,‘How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?’ And the angel said to her in reply, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
Jesus was to be called holy and the Son of God, not the son of Joseph. Also, betrothal in those times was not the same as engagements. They were already married, just not consumated, that is why it would have required Joseph getting a divorce if Mary was pregnant by another man or he could have had her stoned to death for adultery. Sexual relations by people in this state would in no way be considered “premarital”.
Matthew 1:18-20
"Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the Holy Spirit, Joseph, her husband since he was a righteous man yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly. Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the Holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her.
Scripture shows Mary was already pregnant BY THE HOLY SPIRIT when she told Joseph and he himself had a dream telling him so.
Virginity, like pregnancy, is either something you are or you aren’t. I don’t see the point of saying people can dedicate their lives body and soul to God while still having sexual relations…seriously there are thousands of married saints who did just that.
As for Mark 10:17 where Jesus says none is good but God, He DOES NOT say that He is not good, He says that only God is good so it could just as easily be understood that if the man who comes to Him calls Him good he needs to also see Him as God.
I am not sure what your faith background is but some of your theories seem familiar to me from some study of Mormonism I have done. I know there are priests that teach all kinds of things but that does not make them part of true Catholic teaching.
J
jfhh
Guest
I don’t have a religious allegiance. Right now I am trying to learn from all religions. Unfortunately I am prejudiced against some religions (namely Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism, no longer practiced pagan religions, and other “primitive” religions) but I hope to overcome my prejudices there. I like to consider myself part of the Catholic family though. Since the church is if not accepting, at least tolerant, of this priest, I feel like there is a middle ground between cafeteria Catholicism and orthodox Catholicism.
A
anon5216
Guest
There is one major problem with all these discussions.
No religion, Catholicism included, has ever proven their scriptures to be the accurate and undistorted “Word of God”.
At best, they present plausible arguments that make those people predisposed, or in some way already wanting to believe, the particular “scripture” in question comfortable and secure in that belief. It ALWAYS comes down to Faith - hiding behind faith - but not really Faith, just unprovable belief masquerading as something more lofty.
These writings are, at best, no more than human reactions to extraordinary experiences. And we should all know that personal reactions and interpretations color how we report supposed facts.
There are no objective facts in world scriptures. I will agree that many of them do point to Truth and God, but none can be considered as foundations objectively accurate to the point where you can build these absurdly delusional theologies around them.
Truth can not be written in words because words are not precisely accurate enough to express it. They don’t even mean the same thing to the same person from one day or mood to the next. Now, you can argue for all of eternity about what you think the “only” correct interpretation is, but there will be 6 billion other correct interpretations. While establishing an authoritarian command structure of one type of another can attempt at enforcing one interpretation over another, it can never succeed - as should be blatantly obvious.
That’s a reason neither Jesus, nor Gautama Buddha, nor Krishna wrote anything down personally. People would still misinterpret and then fight over their interpretations. Not to mention miss the whole point of their teachings entirely.
They gave us doorways to the Transcendent.
Religion merely argues whose door is better or valid, what the supposed markings on the door mean, what various bits of dust specs mean, how close or far the door is, speculation on what’s on the other side of the door, why their interpretation of details vaguely seen from a distance are correct and others wrong, ad finitum.
Religious structures are not the doors!
No religion, Catholicism included, has ever proven their scriptures to be the accurate and undistorted “Word of God”.
At best, they present plausible arguments that make those people predisposed, or in some way already wanting to believe, the particular “scripture” in question comfortable and secure in that belief. It ALWAYS comes down to Faith - hiding behind faith - but not really Faith, just unprovable belief masquerading as something more lofty.
These writings are, at best, no more than human reactions to extraordinary experiences. And we should all know that personal reactions and interpretations color how we report supposed facts.
There are no objective facts in world scriptures. I will agree that many of them do point to Truth and God, but none can be considered as foundations objectively accurate to the point where you can build these absurdly delusional theologies around them.
Truth can not be written in words because words are not precisely accurate enough to express it. They don’t even mean the same thing to the same person from one day or mood to the next. Now, you can argue for all of eternity about what you think the “only” correct interpretation is, but there will be 6 billion other correct interpretations. While establishing an authoritarian command structure of one type of another can attempt at enforcing one interpretation over another, it can never succeed - as should be blatantly obvious.
That’s a reason neither Jesus, nor Gautama Buddha, nor Krishna wrote anything down personally. People would still misinterpret and then fight over their interpretations. Not to mention miss the whole point of their teachings entirely.
They gave us doorways to the Transcendent.
Religion merely argues whose door is better or valid, what the supposed markings on the door mean, what various bits of dust specs mean, how close or far the door is, speculation on what’s on the other side of the door, why their interpretation of details vaguely seen from a distance are correct and others wrong, ad finitum.
Religious structures are not the doors!
T
tecvba
Guest
And yet all humans believe (have faith) in something whether it be religion or the grandiosity of our own minds. We worship either ourselves or something bigger than ourselves
R
rjs1
Guest
The Archbishop of Brisbane is reaping what he sowed. For years he has had a reputation of being very liberal, allowing all sorts of aberations and NOT supporting the orthodox faithful who have brought these matters to his attention.
Now Rome has got involved he realises he must act.
He should never have allowed this situation to develop in the first place.
I am also shocked by the number of people on this thread who do not seem to know their Biblical and Catholic theology and are debating whether Jesus was divine or not!
This is one of the problems I find with Catholic Answers Forums - too much ill-informed quessing, not enough intervention from the administrators to teach the Catholic faith.
Jesus, Our Lord, **was **and **is **God. He is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
Scripture, numerous Councils and countless saints have affirmed this for 2000 years.
Now Rome has got involved he realises he must act.
He should never have allowed this situation to develop in the first place.
I am also shocked by the number of people on this thread who do not seem to know their Biblical and Catholic theology and are debating whether Jesus was divine or not!
This is one of the problems I find with Catholic Answers Forums - too much ill-informed quessing, not enough intervention from the administrators to teach the Catholic faith.
Jesus, Our Lord, **was **and **is **God. He is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
Scripture, numerous Councils and countless saints have affirmed this for 2000 years.
J
jfhh
Guest
The human nature of Jesus is not God. The human nature of Jesus is a creature. In orthodox Catholic theology, the divine person of the Son stands in relation to the human nature of Jesus as that of person and the person’s nature in and through which the person acts so that the acts are proper to the person itself. In traditional Catholic theology it is held that the human will of the human nature of Jesus was by God’s agency moved a la instrument by the divine person of the Son qua person of that created nature and by all three divine persons qua ad extra action of the Trinitarian God.
Recently the Vatican has tempered traditionalism with openness.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Church_of_the_East
Benedict XVI’s mentor, Fr. Karl Rahner thought is explained well here:
Rahner does see a radical difference between the divine and human. God absolutely transcends us. God is not at our disposal. God is mystery in the most radical sense, and can be known only as the silent and unfathomable whither of transcendence – unless, that is, God has blessed us with a self-communication of some sort. That is just what the Christian believes God has done in Jesus. In him, divine and human become one.
Attributing so radical an identity between this man Jesus and God is possible in Rahners view of things, on the one hand, because humanity and divinity are not opposed. Unity with God does not make one less human or less free, but to the contrary is the condition of possibility for the perfection of humanity which, experience teaches, eludes each of us. On the other hand, Rahner’s conception of the “realsymbol” enabled him to explain how it is possible to affirm a difference between Jesus’ humanity and God, despite the assertion of their identity.
Every being, Rahner contended, is manifested through a multiplicity of characteristics. This multiplicity is constitutive of the being. Without my build, eye and hair color, voice, idiosyncrasies, IQ, personal history and experience, and all the other peculiarities which constitute my being, I simply would not exist. But at the same time, a being is not simply a composite of such characteristics. The multiplicity does not add up to me. Someone or something given my physical attributes and programed with my knowledge and experience (were such a thing possible) would still not be me, however clever the reduplication. Nor is the multiplicity through which I now constitute myself at all the same as the bundle of flesh and desires which my mother nursed and diapered years ago, even though I am the same person, and despite the image that mothers have of their grown babies.
This multiplicity, the being’s realsymbol, is constituted by the being. So the identity between the being and its realsymbol is genuine and very intimate. But the realsymbol is not simply and absolutely identical with the being which it manifests. Given this understanding, Rahner was able to argue that since God is triune (a multiplicity in unity), it is possible to imagine the humanity of Jesus as God’s realsymbol. It is possible because the divine and human are not opposed (being one with God would not make Jesus any less a man!) and because in the realsymbol something plural can be constituted by a reality which, despite their identity, is still distinct from it. Moreover, the distinction between knowledge, freedom, and love at the categorical level and at the transcendental level suggests that it is possible to imagine that Jesus would have to acquire a language, culture, and personal history like the rest of us, and that he too would have to discover his identity, despite its uniqueness, in terms of such acquisitions.
If, as God’s love incarnate, Jesus is human to the utmost, he is so only in relation to our world and history. Jesus was not an isolated otherworldly figure who miraculously dropped from the heavens. He was born of woman and lived his life in the same world and history which we all share from our different vantage points. That world, therefore, “constitutes in a very radical sense the environment, concomitant setting, indeed the very physicality demanded by the Logos in its act of uttering itself into the non-divine.”(12) The ultimate significance of our world and history is grasped, then, only when we recognize that they are not merely something to which God’s presence in grace and the incarnation has been added, but rather are the prior setting and condition for the possibility of this self-communication. Our world and history are themselves intrinsic elements in God’s self-expression.
In such a scheme, Jesus is absolutely necessary for salvation. If God has become one with us, it is because God freely chose to do so. The initiative for the union between God and humanity must be with God, and there must be some time and place where that initiative is realized. But since God has taken that initiative, human history and the history of God’s self-communication (the history of salvation and revelation) are coextensive. Consequently Rahner argued that it is permissible to approach Christology from the perspective of what he called a “universal pneumatology.” Jesus would then appear as “the unsurpassable peak of a universal history of God’s self-communication to the world as a whole.” In Jesus, the universal work of the Spirit reaches a point that “is no longer merely at the stage of an open offer of grace to man’s freedom, but where this offer from God has been established victoriously and irreversibly, as far as mankind as a whole is concerned.”(13) In this perspective, not only is there no opposition between the divine and human; humanity and human history are precisely the grammar through which God becomes one with creation. Grace is at the heart of human existence because through Jesus human history has become the history of God’s self-communication.
spiritualitytoday.org/spir2day/843645masson.html
Recently the Vatican has tempered traditionalism with openness.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Church_of_the_East
Benedict XVI’s mentor, Fr. Karl Rahner thought is explained well here:
Rahner does see a radical difference between the divine and human. God absolutely transcends us. God is not at our disposal. God is mystery in the most radical sense, and can be known only as the silent and unfathomable whither of transcendence – unless, that is, God has blessed us with a self-communication of some sort. That is just what the Christian believes God has done in Jesus. In him, divine and human become one.
Attributing so radical an identity between this man Jesus and God is possible in Rahners view of things, on the one hand, because humanity and divinity are not opposed. Unity with God does not make one less human or less free, but to the contrary is the condition of possibility for the perfection of humanity which, experience teaches, eludes each of us. On the other hand, Rahner’s conception of the “realsymbol” enabled him to explain how it is possible to affirm a difference between Jesus’ humanity and God, despite the assertion of their identity.
Every being, Rahner contended, is manifested through a multiplicity of characteristics. This multiplicity is constitutive of the being. Without my build, eye and hair color, voice, idiosyncrasies, IQ, personal history and experience, and all the other peculiarities which constitute my being, I simply would not exist. But at the same time, a being is not simply a composite of such characteristics. The multiplicity does not add up to me. Someone or something given my physical attributes and programed with my knowledge and experience (were such a thing possible) would still not be me, however clever the reduplication. Nor is the multiplicity through which I now constitute myself at all the same as the bundle of flesh and desires which my mother nursed and diapered years ago, even though I am the same person, and despite the image that mothers have of their grown babies.
This multiplicity, the being’s realsymbol, is constituted by the being. So the identity between the being and its realsymbol is genuine and very intimate. But the realsymbol is not simply and absolutely identical with the being which it manifests. Given this understanding, Rahner was able to argue that since God is triune (a multiplicity in unity), it is possible to imagine the humanity of Jesus as God’s realsymbol. It is possible because the divine and human are not opposed (being one with God would not make Jesus any less a man!) and because in the realsymbol something plural can be constituted by a reality which, despite their identity, is still distinct from it. Moreover, the distinction between knowledge, freedom, and love at the categorical level and at the transcendental level suggests that it is possible to imagine that Jesus would have to acquire a language, culture, and personal history like the rest of us, and that he too would have to discover his identity, despite its uniqueness, in terms of such acquisitions.
If, as God’s love incarnate, Jesus is human to the utmost, he is so only in relation to our world and history. Jesus was not an isolated otherworldly figure who miraculously dropped from the heavens. He was born of woman and lived his life in the same world and history which we all share from our different vantage points. That world, therefore, “constitutes in a very radical sense the environment, concomitant setting, indeed the very physicality demanded by the Logos in its act of uttering itself into the non-divine.”(12) The ultimate significance of our world and history is grasped, then, only when we recognize that they are not merely something to which God’s presence in grace and the incarnation has been added, but rather are the prior setting and condition for the possibility of this self-communication. Our world and history are themselves intrinsic elements in God’s self-expression.
In such a scheme, Jesus is absolutely necessary for salvation. If God has become one with us, it is because God freely chose to do so. The initiative for the union between God and humanity must be with God, and there must be some time and place where that initiative is realized. But since God has taken that initiative, human history and the history of God’s self-communication (the history of salvation and revelation) are coextensive. Consequently Rahner argued that it is permissible to approach Christology from the perspective of what he called a “universal pneumatology.” Jesus would then appear as “the unsurpassable peak of a universal history of God’s self-communication to the world as a whole.” In Jesus, the universal work of the Spirit reaches a point that “is no longer merely at the stage of an open offer of grace to man’s freedom, but where this offer from God has been established victoriously and irreversibly, as far as mankind as a whole is concerned.”(13) In this perspective, not only is there no opposition between the divine and human; humanity and human history are precisely the grammar through which God becomes one with creation. Grace is at the heart of human existence because through Jesus human history has become the history of God’s self-communication.
spiritualitytoday.org/spir2day/843645masson.html
S
S_J_Thaikattil
Guest
Check out what the difference is between what this particular priest has written to the special group of US scholars called Jesus Seminarians.
S
S_J_Thaikattil
Guest
OK. That explains your posts.
Modern paganism might fit your ideas better. Paganism has no scripture, so believers are free to make up things as they go.
J
jfhh
Guest
What is the purpose of your post?
J
jfhh
Guest
Thank you. I missed what you said for some reason. It definitely is plausible and it’s not our job to judge a holy priest.
“I can understand why the article in “The Australian” (October 29) has appalled so many people. It has caused scandal and anger, concern and anguish and has hurt me personally. It saddens me that such hysteria has erupted and I feel obliged as a Catholic priest to quell the tempest as best I can.
At the outset I want to reaffirm my belief in the Divinity of Jesus, the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection of Jesus. This affirmation is entirely unsolicited and comes from the heart of a person who has cherished his Catholic religion from childhood and has no reason to repudiate or disparage its core tenets.
The comments in the newspaper were taken from a manuscript I compiled prayerfully and reflectively over many years. In that document I attempted to go beyond doctrine and dogma and to discover God’s magnificence and friendship in the world of science and evolution and in the immensity of the universe. It was not an arrogant attempt to spurn or scorn my Catholic theology. It was more an attempt to personalise and retheologise my Catholic faith and so allow my religion to provide greater nourishment for me in my spiritual journey. It was also my intention to emphasise the human nature of Jesus and Mary. It was a very worthwhile and meaningful experience for me and for others with whom I shared it.
The manuscript is not easy to read and so I can readily appreciate that many people have found its content confusing and indeed even “heretical”. Unfortunately people have not appreciated that my explorative theology is not a credal statement. I also employed a jargon in the process which has made the document even more confusing for so many. My sole intention was to make our beautiful Catholic religion and its beliefs more meaningful in our contemporary world. I am distressed that I have caused pain and anguish instead.
With hindsight it would probably have been wise not to have allowed random access to the manuscript. I requested that the web site which hosted this document be closed down and this has happened. At this stage there is very little else I can do except to apologise to anyone who has been scandalised by what was meant to have been a prayerful, refreshing and invigorating document.”
We need to encourage faithful priests like this, not discourage them. He is a model priest ISTM.
A
aussie_melkite
Guest
he’s a model alright…a model HERITIC!!!
who knows he’s in trouble and is trying to save his behind by back-tracking on his hertical views.
you also make the claim that “it’s not our job to judge a holy priest.”…what a crock…if the faithful hadent Judged and refuted Arius and Nestorious for herasy then The “Niciean Catholic Faith” would never have triumpted.
this guy is a Heritic plain and simple and to support him is to be an accessory to Herasy.
- Status