Judging from the posts in this thread, it is quite clear that some Catholics can’t tell the difference between the Deposit of Faith and Gnosticism, so perhaps we should put our own house in order before attempting to tell non-Christians what beliefs are incorrect.I don’t think someone else telling you what they think about your belief is inter religious dialogue. Rather, each telling the other of their own belief. Then perhaps, similarities, can be found, but certainly not always. Non-Christians may have incorrect beliefs about our faith. It is our job to at least let them know how their belief differs from our own.
Putting our house in order is the job of the CDF, not anyone here. And it has been neither reticent nor lax. Now will those who are so quick to condemn Fr Bede, Fr Merton and Fr Rohr as heretics explain why no action has been taken? Especially with Thomas Merton who is one of the most prolific and influential Catholic authors of the century. The knowledge and spirituality of these men is deep and wide. We cannot expect everyone to understand and appreciate their contributions. But we also should not expect nor tolerate the slander thrown at them.Judging from the posts in this thread, it is quite clear that some Catholics can’t tell the difference between the Deposit of Faith and Gnosticism, so perhaps we should put our own house in order before attempting to tell non-Christians what beliefs are incorrect.
Putting our house in order is the job of the CDF, not anyone here. And it has been neither reticent nor lax. Now will those who are so quick to condemn Fr Bede, Fr Merton and Fr Rohr as heretics explain why no action has been taken? Especially with Thomas Merton who is one of the most prolific and influential Catholic authors of the century. The knowledge and spirituality of these men is deep and wide. We cannot expect everyone to understand and appreciate their contributions. But we also should not expect nor tolerate the slander thrown at them.
Notification on the works of the Reverend Father Jon Sobrino, S.J. (with an explanatory note; November 26, 2006)
Notification regarding the book “Jesus Symbol of God” of the Reverend Father Roger Haight, S.J.
I believe the three you so deeply revere flew under the radar so to speak. Fr Rohr openly promotes sodomy and sees these poor individuals as some evolutionary force. I think I read somewhere that Fr Bede also did not conform to church doctrine in that regard.
Thomas Merton expected to get into some mischief(whatever that meant) when he went to India but that was when he accidentally electrocuted himself. I don’t think the Church cares though that he thought Catholics were ridiculous.
Notification regarding certain writings of the Reverend Father Marciano Vidal, C.Ss.R. (with comments; February 22, 2001)
Notification on the book “Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism” by the Reverend Father Jacques Dupuis, S.J. (with commentary; January 24, 2001)
Notification concerning some writings of Professor Dr. Reinhard Messner (November 30, 2000)
Notification regarding Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND, and the Reverend Father Robert Nugent, SDS
Notification concerning the writings of the Reverend Father Anthony De Mello, S.J. (jUNE 24, 1998)
Notification concerning the Text “Mary and Human Liberation” by the Reverend Father Tissa Balasuriya, O.M.I. (January 2, 1997)
Notification on the writings and activities of Mrs. Vassula Ryden (October 6, 1995)
Note on the book “The Sexual Creators, An Ethical proposal for Concerned Christians”, (University Press of America, Lanham-New York-London 1986), by the Reverend Father André Guindon, O.M.I. (January 31, 1992)
Notification on the book “Pleidooi voor mensen in de Kerk” (Nelissen, Baarn 1985) by the Reverend Father Professor Edward Schillebeeckx, O.P. (September 15, 1986)
Letter to György Bulányi on certain writings attributed to him (September 1, 1986)
Letter regarding the suspension of the Reverend Father Professor Charles Curran from the teaching of theology (July 25, 1986)
Notification on the Book “Church: Charism and Power. Essay on militant Ecclesiology” by the Reverend Father Leonardo Boff, O.F.M. (March 11, 1985)
I seem to recall Matthew Fox and Hans Kung as well.
I believe the three you so deeply revere flew under the radar so to speak. Fr Rohr openly promotes sodomy though and sees these poor individuals as some evolutionary force. I think I read somewhere that Fr Bede also did not conform to church doctrine in that regard.Putting our house in order is the job of the CDF, not anyone here. And it has been neither reticent nor lax. Now will those who are so quick to condemn Fr Bede, Fr Merton and Fr Rohr as heretics explain why no action has been taken? Especially with Thomas Merton who is one of the most prolific and influential Catholic authors of the century. The knowledge and spirituality of these men is deep and wide. We cannot expect everyone to understand and appreciate their contributions. But we also should not expect nor tolerate the slander thrown at them.
Notification on the works of the Reverend Father Jon Sobrino, S.J. (with an explanatory note; November 26, 2006)
Notification regarding the book “Jesus Symbol of God” of the Reverend Father Roger Haight, S.J.
Notification regarding certain writings of the Reverend Father Marciano Vidal, C.Ss.R. (with comments; February 22, 2001)
Notification on the book “Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism” by the Reverend Father Jacques Dupuis, S.J. (with commentary; January 24, 2001)
Notification concerning some writings of Professor Dr. Reinhard Messner (November 30, 2000)
Notification regarding Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND, and the Reverend Father Robert Nugent, SDS
Notification concerning the writings of the Reverend Father Anthony De Mello, S.J. (jUNE 24, 1998)
Notification concerning the Text “Mary and Human Liberation” by the Reverend Father Tissa Balasuriya, O.M.I. (January 2, 1997)
Notification on the writings and activities of Mrs. Vassula Ryden (October 6, 1995)
Note on the book “The Sexual Creators, An Ethical proposal for Concerned Christians”, (University Press of America, Lanham-New York-London 1986), by the Reverend Father André Guindon, O.M.I. (January 31, 1992)
Notification on the book “Pleidooi voor mensen in de Kerk” (Nelissen, Baarn 1985) by the Reverend Father Professor Edward Schillebeeckx, O.P. (September 15, 1986)
Letter to György Bulányi on certain writings attributed to him (September 1, 1986)
Letter regarding the suspension of the Reverend Father Professor Charles Curran from the teaching of theology (July 25, 1986)
Notification on the Book “Church: Charism and Power. Essay on militant Ecclesiology” by the Reverend Father Leonardo Boff, O.F.M. (March 11, 1985)
I seem to recall Matthew Fox and Hans Kung as well.
Thomas Merton under the radar? You can’t be serious.I believe the three you so deeply revere flew under the radar so to speak.
Fr. Bede is often taken out of context by the left wing hippies. He did state that “homosexual love” was natural - however, how did he define love? As sex? no. What about natural? As allowable? Again no. Natural does not mean ‘must act upon’. He stated he might have been a homosexual in his youth, does that mean he was attracted to other men in some way? Does it necessarily imply sex?I appreciate this conversation though now I realize the VAST differences between Catholicism and Hinduism which no amount of inter religious dialogue could ever reconcile.
Using our own judgement for our own purpose and interest is one thing, public accusation is quite another.So, Michael, let me see if I’ve got this straight. We’re not supposed to use our own judgement at all in discerning whether these men taught orthodox things, but rather, we are supposed to rely on the absence of a condemnation by the CDF as incontrovertible evidence that their teachings are correct and good and worthy of belief.
The two phrases are not necessarily opposed to each other. Adultery is natural, yet intrinsically disordered. Cancer is natural, and intrinisically disordered. Death is natural, and intrinsicially disordered.Homosexuality is not “natural”, it is intrinsically disordered. There’s your problem right there.
It has been very difficult rationalizing how Fr Griffith combined Christianity with the Hindu religion. Hinduism is a polytheistic and pantheistic religion which can only reconcile Jesus and the cross through the repeated reincarnation of a Hindu God.Using our own judgement for our own purpose and interest is one thing, public accusation is quite another.
You seem to not understand Hinduism. Popular Hinduism is indeed as you state. However, philosophical and spiritual Hinduism runs the gamut from atheist to monotheist to polytheist.It has been very difficult rationalizing how Fr Griffith combined Christianity with the Hindu religion. Hinduism is a polytheistic and pantheistic religion which can only reconcile Jesus and the cross through the repeated reincarnation of a Hindu God.
That’s true for any contradictory system and it’s adherents. Some would call it paradoxical.When I started researching Fr Griffiths views on Jesus and the New Testament I was astounded and finally realized how the focus on Jesus humanity and more “cosmic christ” errant theology is what allowed him these views.It is called cognizant dissonance.If one cannot reconcile two conflicting beliefs one must somehow integrate them or ignore a deeply held truth.
That’s the ongoing discussion.He had very flawed theology concerning who Jesus actually is.
Did Fr. Bede disagree?Did Jesus ever claim to be God or the Son of God? Absolutely! Fr Griffiths just seems to gloss over this key point in Catholic theology. In Jesus Christ all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily.He was not Vishnu reincarnated. He worked miracles.He RAISED THE DEAD.he had power to forgive sins.
He’s dead so I don’t think he’s doing anything about the divine mother at the moment.Another way that Fr Griffith and many are trying to unite or reconcile all faiths is not only under the banner of mysticism but under the banner of a divine mother,the goddess,the creative force. NOT Catholic guys. I suggest you reexamine Fr Griffiths works.
Perhaps because he could be read in another way. Besides, he wasn’t under the diret authority of Latin Church, he transferred to the Syro-Malankara Church. I did not like many of the practices of ‘inculturaton’, but do think he can be read in a traditional way. I don’t know how he felt personally and what perception he wanted to give, but I’m not one to espouse newage or liberal nonsense, but Fr. Bede can be read in an orthodox manner within the traditional framework within the confines of Eastern Catholic mysticism - if one doesn’t throw out the boundaries.How he was not silenced by the Church is beyond me.
I am not certain what Fr Griffith believed about the Trinity.Not really true. Some communities may have such a tradition (I think there is one very well known one in Nepal - but only one such girl is chosen to play the part of the goddess).
But Goddesses do play a very important part in Hindu religious lives. The Goddess is the one who gives birth to everything and provides for us (and on occasion even defends us).
I believe the Christian Holy Spirit is the one who becomes the Mother or the Goddess (and apparently Fr. Griffith believed so too).
Here’s a bit of discourse from Fr. Bede to Christopher Dawson:I am not certain what Fr Griffith believed about the Trinity.
The Holy Spirit is almost always regarded as He in the bible because He is part of the Godhead which is manifested as male,the generative principle.God is never the female or passive principle but does manifest what could be considered feminine traits.That does not make the Holy Spirit “the mother”
In our creed it is stated the Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy spirit.IT is often said the Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Making the Holy Spirit female would lead to some odd contradictions in that regard. Mary’s spouse being female? uh, nope.
Even Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as He as in He will guide you to all truths. He is part of the Godhead and is worshiped and glorified.
I think this attempt to feminize the Holy Spirit is to equate Him with Shakti or the supposed divine evolutionary energy that Gopi Krishna spoke about.The goddess the kundalini the mother force. Fr Griffith makes an allusion to this force because after he had his first stroke he heard a voice telling him to “surrender to the mother”,Not sure what that meant but it appeared he may have a had a kundalini experience.The release of the serpent?
There is not need for rationalization as he is not trying to combine anything. As I recall, he compares concepts. Our concepts are like theirs in this way. Their concept of such and such is like ours in that way. I do not recall him claiming that Jesus is Vishnu. In YOUR OPINION he had a “very flawed theology”. You are entitled to your opinion. No one is forcing you to read him. I am glad you have the humility to admit that somethings may be “beyond” you since the CDF does not share your opinion nor you narrow parameters of orthodoxy.It has been very difficult rationalizing how Fr Griffith combined Christianity with the Hindu religion. Hinduism is a polytheistic and pantheistic religion which can only reconcile Jesus and the cross through the repeated reincarnation of a Hindu God.
When I started researching Fr Griffiths views on Jesus and the New Testament I was astounded and finally realized how the focus on Jesus humanity and more “cosmic christ” errant theology is what allowed him these views.It is called cognizant dissonance.If one cannot reconcile two conflicting beliefs one must somehow integrate them or ignore a deeply held truth.
He had very flawed theology concerning who Jesus actually is.
Did Jesus ever claim to be God or the Son of God? Absolutely! Fr Griffiths just seems to gloss over this key point in Catholic theology. In Jesus Christ all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily.He was not Vishnu reincarnated. He worked miracles.He RAISED THE DEAD.he had power to forgive sins.
Another way that Fr Griffith and many are trying to unite or reconcile all faiths is not only under the banner of mysticism but under the banner of a divine mother,the goddess,the creative force. NOT Catholic guys. I suggest you reexamine Fr Griffiths works.
How he was not silenced by the Church is beyond me.
I just ordered a copy of this so I could see the context which this article you posted did not provide.(Thomas Merton: Preview of the Asian Journey.
What do I have against the “cosmic christ”? I do not even know what that is supposed to be. It is a modern term I think used by Teilhard Chardin.There is not need for rationalization as he is not trying to combine anything. As I recall, he compares concepts. Our concepts are like theirs in this way. Their concept of such and such is like ours in that way. I do not recall him claiming that Jesus is Vishnu. In YOUR OPINION he had a “very flawed theology”. You are entitled to your opinion. No one is forcing you to read him. I am glad you have the humility to admit that somethings may be “beyond” you since the CDF does not share your opinion nor you narrow parameters of orthodoxy.
What do you have against “Cosmic Christ”? Is he not the Lord of all creation? Are we not part of His body? Mysticism takes us to the silent core of who we all are. It is beyond words and concepts so there is nothing to argue about or defend. If sincere lovers of God cannot come together there, then there is no better place. All our differences come from intepretations of that experience. And our theologies are only human attempts to define God who is infinite and ultimately undefinable and unimaginable. But, of course we need theology and images or we have nothing else but silence. So the Word (Logos btw, a pagan Greek concept) became flesh and dwelt among us. He gave us something tangable and concrete in His incarnation. Do you think he has ignored other cultures and other religions? Just left them until Catholic missionaries will all the right answers would come to set them straight?
What Fr Bede found was that Christ was already there in India. Not explicitly, not in European terms and images, and not in the more complete understanding of Catholicism, but in the spiritual thirst and desire and love of the people.
It goes way back to Colosians:What do I have against the “cosmic christ”? I do not even know what that is supposed to be. It is a modern term I think used by Teilhard Chardin.
We are already participating in the Mystical body of Christ.One does not need to be a mystic to live out their faith. God gave us the ten commandments and they are not hard to follow. Those in Christ who are not under the old law so to speak still embrace them . It is done naturally out of love for Him whom we know loved us first. Those of other faiths have similar laws governing virtue and vice. The manner in which God provides a way of salvation to them is unknown. I dont think it is necessarily being a mystic.
I agree completely but mysticism is not confined to ecstasy, trancelike states or visions. It is awareness of the presence of God and our union with God.Catholic contemplative prayer is simply a fixed gaze at Jesus.It is being with the oNe we know loves us. Ecstasy,trancelike states or visions are not always a part of this prayer. God can grant raptures and consolations to anyone but to center your spiritual life around mystical experiences could amount to spiritual gluttony.
Yes, and I think that is what Catholics involved in inter-religious dialogue have recognized. Christ is there though not fully recognized, not fully understood and perhaps even distorted and not acknowledged. Buddhists for example. There is a lot of compassion and virtue, patience and seeking and yet still no belief in a personal God.I believe living your faith is the most important regardless what faith you are. Acts of mercy and charity and loving ones fellow man because after all God created him.
This is a very interesting post.Thank you. I still have no idea what a cosmic Christ would be though because Christ means “annointed one” Jesus Christ,the second person of the Trinity exists outside creation.He was begotten not created.He was one with the Father before all creation.It goes way back to Colosians:
“Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the first fruit of all creation. All things were created in him––the visible and invisible, thrones and lordships, rulers and all powers––in the heavens and the earth. Everything was created through him and for him. He existed before everybody and all things are sustained in him.
“He is the head of the body of the church; he is the first from the dead. He has become the one who excels all, because all the fullness was glad to dwell in him and through him in order to reconcile all things in him. Making peace through the blood of the his cross, he reconciled things on the earth and things in the heavens” 1.9-20.
And St. Bonavanture and the Franciscans developed it.
The Cosmic Christ can be defined as that aspect of God which pervades all of creation, the Christ who “fills the universe in all its parts” (Ephesians 1:23). The Franciscan teaching of this is based firmly in the theology of Bonaventure and Scotus that flows from the spirituality of Francis and Clare and their early followers. It is basically Trinity-centered and Christ-centered.
www.osfphila.org/files/file/The%20Cosmic%20Christ9-19-06.doc
It is found in the Catechism:
ccc668 “Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.” Christ’s Ascension into heaven signifies his participation, in his humanity, in God’s power and authority. Jesus Christ is Lord: he possesses all power in heaven and on earth. He is “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion”, for the Father “has put all things under his feet.” Christ is Lord of the cosmos and of history. In him human history and indeed all creation are “set forth” and transcendently fulfilled.
We are already participating in the Mystical body of Christ.
CCC788 When his visible presence was taken from them, Jesus did not leave his disciples orphans. He promised to remain with them until the end of time; he sent them his Spirit. As a result communion with Jesus has become, in a way, more intense: “By communicating his Spirit, **Christ mystically constitutes **as his body those brothers of his who are called together from every nation.”
791 The body’s unity does not do away with the diversity of its members: "In the building up of Christ’s Body there is engaged a diversity of members and functions. There is only one Spirit who, according to his own richness and the needs of the ministries, gives his different gifts for the welfare of the Church."The unity of the Mystical Body produces and stimulates charity among the faithful: “From this it follows that if one member suffers anything, all the members suffer with him, and if one member is honored, all the members together rejoice.” Finally, the unity of the Mystical Body triumphs over all human divisions: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
I agree completely but mysticism is not confined to ecstasy, trancelike states or visions. It is awareness of the presence of God and our union with God.
CCC2717 Contemplative prayer is silence, the “symbol of the world to come” or “silent love.” Words in this kind of prayer are not speeches; they are like kindling that feeds the fire of love. In this silence, unbearable to the “outer” man, the Father speaks to us his incarnate Word, who suffered, died, and rose; in this silence the Spirit of adoption enables us to share in the prayer of Jesus.
2718 Contemplative prayer is** a union with the prayer of Christ insofar as it makes us participate in his mystery**. The mystery of Christ is celebrated by the Church in the Eucharist, and the Holy Spirit makes it come alive in contemplative prayer so that our charity will manifest it in our acts.
Yes, and I think that is what Catholics involved in inter-religious dialogue have recognized. Christ is there though not fully recognized, not fully understood and perhaps even distorted and not acknowledged. Buddhists for example. There is a lot of compassion and virtue, patience and seeking and yet still no belief in a personal God.
You are welcome. I think even St Bonaventure thought of the “Cosmic Christ” more as a mystery to be pondered. But also more a ruler of the cosmos than the cosmos itself even though “In God we move and live and have our being.” Acts 17:28This is a very interesting post.Thank you. I still have no idea what a cosmic Christ would be though because Christ means “annointed one” Jesus Christ,the second person of the Trinity exists outside creation.He was begotten not created.He was one with the Father before all creation.
And yet God is omnipresent.That aspect of God which pervades all creation" is vague. God has many attributes yet he exists outside of space time. He entered creation and time through Jesus.
Ya, that’s Gnosticism. I think we can only nurture our receptivity and there are a lot of ways to do that. I, for one, am glad the mystical workings are beyond my control. I do think we can practice inner quiet, silencing that inner monologue to just listen and be attentive.The problem I have is those who are obsessed with what they perceive as mystical experiences or that they have direct access to the mind of God.