Fr Richard Rohr on Oprah's Super Soul Sunday

[schaeffer]

I thought Jesus was pretty mouthy against the authorities. He didn’t seem to have too much concern for some of the rules they were accurately accusing His friends of doing; instead He put down those who were calling them sinners. He sure didn’t seem to supportive of authority figures about whom He said, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of filth."

And turning over the tables? He obviously wasn’t a “company man” it didn’t seem like to me. Seemed like He did everything backwards, starting from being an ostensible “king” born in a manger.

Jesus wasn’t mouthy against authority.

Jesus IS the authority.

Then he gave that authority to the Catholic Church. The Catechism contains that handed down authority.

A number of people have noticed that something vastly different from the Catechism is being taught in public by a priest of the Catholic faith.

I wonder if any of us will be around long enough to see Rohr declared a Doctor of the Church.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

I find it disappointing that you prefer to discuss semantics whilst ignoring my points. I wonder if you’ve even read what I wrote:

"When I say he is not Catholic, I mean he is not orthodox, and he is defending heresy. "

Yes I did see that. And then a bunch of blah blah blah and you ended up contradicting yourself by once again making your false conclusion, the false statement you pretended you were avoiding. Let me help you find the conclusion you made at the end of the statement. Because the conclusion proved to me that you intended to persist in your heresy even while pretending your weren’t by “summing it all up” with:

I’m sorry, but that priest is not Catholic. If he believes in the Church, then he must recant those beliefs.

Do you not remember that statement as the CONCLUSION of your post? When that is your conclusion, the fact that you made a less false statement earlier on doesn’t fix it. So I guess what I was supposed to do was say that since somewhere sometime in your life you didn’t actually mean: “I’m sorry, but that priest is not Catholic. If he believes in the Church, then he must recant those beliefs” because that statement is false. So you used partial truth to reach a false conclusion. Sorry I’m not buying your cloaked heresy.

And about “semantics.” No it isn’t about semantics; it’s about you misrepresenting the religious status of an ordained priest. The problem is that he IS Catholic and you want to say that he isn’t. So you are saying the closest things you can get away with, so maybe I won’t notice when you slip back into the lie back to how you wanted to say it in the first place. As if I’m going to believe your lie because you “led up to it” gradually. I don’t suppose you’re in marketing, are you?

Of course, you are correct that baptism marks us forever as sons of the Church, even if we go astray, but that is not what I’m talking about when I say “Catholic”, as I made clear in my posts. If we were to go along with you, then an atheist that has been baptized Catholic would also be “Catholic” in your view. Someone who was baptized Catholic who now denies the divinity of Christ can also be called “Catholic”, in your view. That can be true, but only in a trivial sense. Are they good Catholics? No, they’re not. “Catholic” can be used as synonymous with “orthodox” and “lover of truth”.

So now you are the arbiter of which Catholics are “good” Catholics? And it’s true that “Catholic” can be used as synonymous with “orthodox” and “lover of truth” but according to the teachings of the Church, it has a very specific meaning and you are doing everything you can to misrepresent the spirit of the teachings, that he is Catholic, with your personal opinion, that he is not. So yes; the words can and altogether too frequently are, used improperly – your post being a salient example. From what I gather, you are self-identifying as an “orthodox Catholic” so I trust that as an “orthodox Catholic” you will exercise greater caution in the future.

I can rephrase my statements if you’d like: if fr. Rohr really defended such things, then that makes him a heretical catholic that must recant his beliefs in order to be a good catholic.

Yes I appreciate that, since you already rephrased them once to make them wrong I’m glad that now since I won’t let you get away with it, you have fixed the most objectively false part. But this is now a statement of your personal opinion which may or may not be true.

Because you want distance yourself from this guy and you wish you didn’t have to accept that he is, actually and not just “semantically”, fully Catholic just like I suspect you say that you are. Just “as Catholic” as the Pope, and for the same reasons and according to the same teachings.

You can choose to make up your own use of the terms if you want, or you can go with the way the Church defines them. I get kind of a kick out of the fact that you were using your own made-up definitions to accuse a Catholic of not being Catholic because of his own alleged false statements – even though I didn’t even see the alleged “false statements” being presented by him as Church teachings the way you are trying to present your divisive judgments. :bluelite:

You must me that part of the body that says to another, “I don’t need you.” We actually do need people like that in the Church to make Jesus’s words come alive, but I’m glad you’re here to play that role.

MS

 

[BeOurDefense]

I thought Jesus was pretty mouthy against the authorities. He didn’t seem to have too much concern for some of the rules they were accurately accusing His friends of doing; instead He put down those who were calling them sinners. He sure didn’t seem to supportive of authority figures about whom He said, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of filth."

And turning over the tables? He obviously wasn’t a “company man” it didn’t seem like to me. Seemed like He did everything backwards, starting from being an ostensible “king” born in a manger.

Sure, but who were the authorities? They were basically self-appointed overlords who imposed literally thousands of manmade, minute, nearly impossible-to-follow laws on the masses, while taking it pretty easy themselves. Come to think of it, kind of sounds like many modern secular governments! The epitome of “hypocrites”, as our Lord often called them.

The Church has never been free of individual hypocrites, not by a long shot. But the teaching and salvation of Christ through His Church, guarded by the Successor of Peter, is distinct from any type of worldly authority that was, is, or will be. So, to equate the false ways of the Pharisees to the sacred Magisterium, as Fr. Rohr seems to do, is an apples to oranges comparison.

It’s as though the thought process goes something like this: “Jesus resisted and spoke out against the authorities. The Church represents authority. Therefore, I will resist and speak out against the Church.”

Here’s the problem, though - to oppose the Magisterium is not to emulate Jesus, but to oppose Jesus, because it’s opposing His living Divine Will. That’s what makes this way of thinking so very deceptive and spiritually dangerous.

 

[OneSheep]

Hello, Triflelfirt, and welcome!

Unfortunately, the Church obliges us to believe that all non-catholics will burn in hell forever.

The Church does not oblige us to believe this, so please, relax a little.

I should know, since I truly love the idea of apokatastasis and feel it is more compatible with God’s love and mercy, but the Church forbids me to hold that belief, and so intellectually I must reject it.

Anything that contradicts God’s love and mercy is an untruth.

from Gaudium Et Spes:

All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (22)

catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means

As a priest taught us at a Bible study: “The non-Christian who enters heaven, according to our teachings, still enters through Christ.”

Peace be with you.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Sure, but who were the authorities? They were basically self-appointed overlords who imposed literally thousands of manmade, minute, nearly impossible-to-follow laws on the masses, while taking it pretty easy themselves. Come to think of it, kind of sounds like many modern secular governments! The epitome of “hypocrites”, as our Lord often called them.

I can see that comparison for sure.

The Church has never been free of individual hypocrites, not by a long shot. But the teaching and salvation of Christ through His Church, guarded by the Successor of Peter, is distinct from any type of worldly authority that was, is, or will be. So, to equate the false ways of the Pharisees to the sacred Magisterium, as Fr. Rohr seems to do, is an apples to oranges comparison.

It’s as though the thought process goes something like this: “Jesus resisted and spoke out against the authorities. The Church represents authority. Therefore, I will resist and speak out against the Church.”

Here’s the problem, though - to oppose the Magisterium is not to emulate Jesus, but to oppose Jesus, because it’s opposing His living Divine Will. That’s what makes this way of thinking so very deceptive and spiritually dangerous.

These are some good points, but this “Magisterium,” where are its limits? And we seem to speak of it all the time but it seems to be an abstract concept more than a specific ruling body or set of references. Do they extend to every strategic decision and managerial practice? I don’t think you can make the case that she does everything the “best possible way” and always has for all times – some may think this is what it means that the “gates of hell will never prevail” against her, but I think that’s about winning the war not necessarily doing everything “kosher” along the way.

But it’s hard to question the way things are being done – and by Church authorities. Would you have stood up and spoken against simony when that was running rampant? And about the priest sex cover-ups? (I’m not talking about that it happened but that it was covered up and made worse by official actions of bishops.) The Church didn’t seem to be taking any decisive action “within herself” until it became a overwhelming financial issue with all the dioceses being sued. And it isn’t easy for an individual to make statements against the status quo for different reasons.

And now we have a pope who is saying some things and doing some things that a few years ago (and even now by some who don’t like what he says and does) would have been completely denounced as heretical. The idea that we should argue about abortion laws less instead of becoming ever-more-militant about it? Rohr has taken heat over making similar suggestions. But when Pope Francis says these same things, it’s harder to get away with calling him “not Catholic” than when Rohr says them.

MS

 

[Triflelfirt]

Yes I did see that. And then a bunch of blah blah blah and you ended up contradicting yourself by once again making your false conclusion, the false statement you pretended you were avoiding. Let me help you find the conclusion you made at the end of the statement. Because the conclusion proved to me that you intended to persist in your heresy even while pretending your weren’t by “summing it all up” with:
(…)
So now you are the arbiter of which Catholics are “good” Catholics? And it’s true that “Catholic” can be used as synonymous with “orthodox” and “lover of truth” but according to the teachings of the Church, it has a very specific meaning and you are doing everything you can to misrepresent the spirit of the teachings, that he is Catholic, with your personal opinion, that he is not. So yes; the words can and altogether too frequently are, used improperly – your post being a salient example. From what I gather, you are self-identifying as an “orthodox Catholic” so I trust that as an “orthodox Catholic” you will exercise greater caution in the future.
(…)
(I had to shorten it to fit my response in one single post)
MS

Okay, it seems like you don’t want to understand what I meant by “Catholic” or you simply do not care. But that’s okay, since the issue is irrelevant, and I’ve already rephrased myself. Since you yourself said that you prefer my new rephrasing, I believe we can move on to what is really important here:

I am not the one who says what a “good catholic” is and what a good catholic ought to believe in. It’s the Church. May we go back to the very reason why I’ve stated fr. Rohr was not Catholic (in the sense of not being orthodox, now I’ll just call him a heretical catholic)?

Tell me, Mystical Seeker. Do you believe that a Catholic ought to hold and believe in what the Catholic Church teaches through its Tradition and Magistery? Do you believe that the Magistery can infallibly anathematize certain doctrines, thus binding all Catholics to reject them – lest they wish to separate themselves from the Church in the sense of falling into mortal sin or excommunication? I believe you do, because Catholics must believe that.

So, let’s take the doctrine of Apokatastasis, for instance. The one wrongly defended by Origen and a few other Church Fathers. On this, father Rohr writes:

“When I read the history of the church and its dogma, I see apokatastasis was never condemned as heretical. We may believe it if we want to. We were never told we had to believe it, but neither was it condemned” (pg. 132, emphasis original).”

However, this is not the case. For in the First Council of Constantinople, in 543, the Church formally condemned apokatastasis: “Ei tis ten teratode apokatastasis presbeuei anathema esto” (confirmed by pope Vigilius). It was also condemned in the Second Council of Constantinople.

Moreover, fr. Rohr apparently goes on to say that a misunderstanding of apokatastasis (which has been formally condemned, binding Catholics to reject it) has been the basis for purgatory, which he calls a “mythology”.

Purgatory has also been infallibly declared true by the Catholic Church. For instance, in the Council of Trent, it was said:

“Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful” (Denzinger, “Enchiridon”, 983).

Purgatory is no “mythology”, not in the sense of being false in any way whatsoever. And apokatastasis has been formally condemned by the Church.

In short, these are a few examples of how fr. Rohr is a heretic. As a Catholic, it is his duty to recant and abandon these heresies, and to completely reject belief in apokatastasis, which, contrary to what he has said, has been condemned. It is anathema, and we may not believe in it.

 

[Triflelfirt]

To balance things a bit (modernism can be harmful to the spirit), I recommend all to read (or re-read) the Syllabus of errors condemned by blessed Pope Pius IX.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

 

[BeOurDefense]

I can see that comparison for sure.

These are some good points, but this “Magisterium,” where are its limits? And we seem to speak of it all the time but it seems to be an abstract concept more than a specific ruling body or set of references. Do they extend to every strategic decision and managerial practice? I don’t think you can make the case that she does everything the “best possible way” and always has for all times – some may think this is what it means that the “gates of hell will never prevail” against her, but I think that’s about winning the war not necessarily doing everything “kosher” along the way.

But it’s hard to question the way things are being done – and by Church authorities. Would you have stood up and spoken against simony when that was running rampant? And about the priest sex cover-ups? (I’m not talking about that it happened but that it was covered up and made worse by official actions of bishops.) The Church didn’t seem to be taking any decisive action “within herself” until it became a overwhelming financial issue with all the dioceses being sued. And it isn’t easy for an individual to make statements against the status quo for different reasons.

And now we have a pope who is saying some things and doing some things that a few years ago (and even now by some who don’t like what he says and does) would have been completely denounced as heretical. The idea that we should argue about abortion laws less instead of becoming ever-more-militant about it? Rohr has taken heat over making similar suggestions. But when Pope Francis says these same things, it’s harder to get away with calling him “not Catholic” than when Rohr says them.

MS

“Magisterium”, simply means the teaching authority of the Holy Spirit through the Church, and it’s actually quite limited, for the very reason that the earthly running of the Church is in the hands of fallen human beings. It doesn’t refer to “the authorities”, but to Authority itself. For a more formal definition, check out the Catechism.

Even the Pope is only truly infallible when he formally proclaims and teaches ex-cathedra and/or reiterates and reaffirms what is already the settled dogma of the Church. Thankfully, that doesn’t extend to every off-the-cuff airplane interview or rumor of a random phonecall (Francis), lecture given in an academy (Benedict XVI), or visit made to a mosque in which he kisses a Qur’an (St. John Paul II), etc.

Since the nineteenth century, we’ve been blessed with popes who range from good to excellent, with three of them canonized saints, two beatified, two declared venerable, and even more causes sure to be opened eventually. That can sometimes make us forget that before then, there were some truly horrible ones in the history of the Church, and that it’s not impossible for a pope to be in deep personal error, and to do great harm to the Church in many external ways, great and small.

The problems you mention are all administrative issues that can, and indeed should be, criticized. They have nothing to do with magisterial teaching. If anything, they exist largely because of the ignoring or failure to properly understand and heed the Church’s tested wisdom.

That’s very different than criticizing teaching on the nature of the sacraments (most notably Holy Orders and Holy Matrimony in current times), the evils of abortion and contraception, etc. What I very often find with Catholics of a more “progressive” slant (I’m not talking about you, just in general) is that the criticism usually goes much deeper than simply “the way things are being done”, and is really dissent and disdain for things that are essential to the faith and define the very identity of the Church.

Getting back to popes, some of them have even bordered on heretical. So yes, sometimes it is good and even obligatory to call a pope out if he flagrantly errs on serious matters. But the key is that even the worst ones were never able to change the substance of the faith. That’s what I mean when I talk about the safeguarding of the Magisterium; nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Okay, it seems like you don’t want to understand what I meant by “Catholic” or you simply do not care. But that’s okay, since the issue is irrelevant, and I’ve already rephrased myself. Since you yourself said that you prefer my new rephrasing, I believe we can move on to what is really important here:

Before getting to “what’s important” let’s keep in mind that you are using Church terminology in your own personal way, because you don’t like a particular Catholic priest. You want the word “Catholic” to have a meaning that applies to you and not to him, even though clearly by any measure he is, in fact, an active Catholic in as far as you know, good standing with the Church. So you are redefining terms.

That’s pretty Jungian I’d say.

OK go on.

I am not the one who says what a “good catholic” is and what a good catholic ought to believe in. It’s the Church. May we go back to the very reason why I’ve stated fr. Rohr was not Catholic (in the sense of not being orthodox, now I’ll just call him a heretical catholic)?

Now you’re saying it’s the Church, and not just you, who has condemned him. What pope? Which of his abbotts – who report to the pope? Can you show me a document where any official of the Roman Catholic Church for whom you are speaking, has censured or corrected him in any way? Can you even point to reasonable circumstantial evidence that it has happened – except in your apparent opinion that they should have?

Now you’ve promoted the veracity of your :twocents: about whether a particular priest is Catholic, as being worth more than the pope’s. Okay…

But OK go on…

Tell me, Mystical Seeker. Do you believe that a Catholic ought to hold and believe in what the Catholic Church teaches through its Tradition and Magistery? Do you believe that the Magistery can infallibly anathematize certain doctrines, thus binding all Catholics to reject them – lest they wish to separate themselves from the Church in the sense of falling into mortal sin or excommunication? I believe you do, because Catholics must believe that.

Whatever you say.

So, let’s take the doctrine of Apokatastasis, for instance. The one wrongly defended by Origen and a few other Church Fathers. On this, father Rohr writes:

“When I read the history of the church and its dogma, I see apokatastasis was never condemned as heretical. We may believe it if we want to. We were never told we had to believe it, but neither was it condemned” (pg. 132, emphasis original).”

I’ve never heard of “apokatastasis” before you brought it up. I could probably care less, but I’d really have to work on it. :yawn:

However, this is not the case. For in the First Council of Constantinople, in 543, the Church formally condemned apokatastasis: “Ei tis ten teratode apokatastasis presbeuei anathema esto” (confirmed by pope Vigilius). It was also condemned in the Second Council of Constantinople.

Moreover, fr. Rohr apparently goes on to say that a misunderstanding of apokatastasis (which has been formally condemned, binding Catholics to reject it) has been the basis for purgatory, which he calls a “mythology”.

Purgatory has also been infallibly declared true by the Catholic Church. For instance, in the Council of Trent, it was said:

“Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful” (Denzinger, “Enchiridon”, 983).

Purgatory is no “mythology”, not in the sense of being false in any way whatsoever. And apokatastasis has been formally condemned by the Church.

In short, these are a few examples of how fr. Rohr is a heretic. As a Catholic, it is his duty to recant and abandon these heresies, and to completely reject belief in apokatastasis, which, contrary to what he has said, has been condemned. It is anathema, and we may not believe in it.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Hey I just got a moment of clarity.

Your objection was to my saying you were misrepresenting Church nomenclature for personal reasons. You really wanted to introduce and perpetuate the “with adjective” Catholic model:

You: a “good” Catholic, which is to say an “orthodox” Catholic, which is what we should All Aspire to Be.

Rohr: a “bad” Catholic, which is to say a “heterodox” Catholic, and probably should have been censured but as far as anyone has come up with, hasn’t been – even after releasing dozens of heretical books and probably without imprimatur.

So if all you want to do is add the adjectives, that allows me to quit accusing you of heresy while accusing him of heresy.

Then I can quit accusing you of heresy, and instead accuse you of “adjective-ifying” Catholics.

 

[schaeffer]

“Magisterium”, simply means the teaching authority of the Holy Spirit through the Church, and it’s actually quite limited, for the very reason that the earthly running of the Church is in the hands of fallen human beings. It doesn’t refer to “the authorities”, but to Authority itself. For a more formal definition, check out the Catechism.

Even the Pope is only truly infallible when he formally proclaims and teaches ex-cathedra and/or reiterates and reaffirms what is already the settled dogma of the Church. Thankfully, that doesn’t extend to every off-the-cuff airplane interview or rumor of a random phonecall (Francis), lecture given in an academy (Benedict XVI), or visit made to a mosque in which he kisses a Qur’an (St. John Paul II), etc.

Since the nineteenth century, we’ve been blessed with popes who range from good to excellent, with three of them canonized saints, two beatified, two declared venerable, and even more causes sure to be opened eventually. That can sometimes make us forget that before then, there were some truly horrible ones in the history of the Church, and that it’s not impossible for a pope to be in deep personal error, and to do great harm to the Church in many external ways, great and small.

The problems you mention are all administrative issues that can, and indeed should be, criticized. They have nothing to do with magisterial teaching. If anything, they exist largely because of the ignoring or failure to properly understand and heed the Church’s tested wisdom.

That’s very different than criticizing teaching on the nature of the sacraments (most notably Holy Orders and Holy Matrimony in current times), the evils of abortion and contraception, etc. What I very often find with Catholics of a more “progressive” slant (I’m not talking about you, just in general) is that the criticism usually goes much deeper than simply “the way things are being done”, and is really dissent and disdain for things that are essential to the faith and define the very identity of the Church.

Getting back to popes, some of them have even bordered on heretical. So yes, sometimes it is good and even obligatory to call a pope out if he flagrantly errs on serious matters. But the key is that even the worst ones were never able to change the substance of the faith. That’s what I mean when I talk about the safeguarding of the Magisterium; nothing more, nothing less.

This is a great summary of the situation.

MS might find it boring, but not all of us do. I find it pertinent and good reading.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

This is a great summary of the situation.

MS might find it boring, but not all of us do. I find it pertinent and good reading.

Actually I do like it, and find it very interesting. Thank you for calling it to my attention; I just missed it because “something” apparently “blocked” me. Maybe my ego gives me selective sight sometimes …

“Magisterium”, simply means the teaching authority of the Holy Spirit through the Church, and it’s actually quite limited, for the very reason that the earthly running of the Church is in the hands of fallen human beings. It doesn’t refer to “the authorities”, but to Authority itself. For a more formal definition, check out the Catechism.

Getting back to popes, some of them have even bordered on heretical. So yes, sometimes it is good and even obligatory to call a pope out if he flagrantly errs on serious matters. But the key is that even the worst ones were never able to change the substance of the faith. That’s what I mean when I talk about the safeguarding of the Magisterium; nothing more, nothing less.

Thank you for posting this. As many times as I’ve heard the word “tossed around,” this gives deeper insight.

 

[Triflelfirt]

Before getting to “what’s important” let’s keep in mind that you are using Church terminology in your own personal way, because you don’t like a particular Catholic priest. You want the word “Catholic” to have a meaning that applies to you and not to him, even though clearly by any measure he is, in fact, an active Catholic in as far as you know, good standing with the Church. So you are redefining terms.

That’s pretty Jungian I’d say.

OK go on.

Now you’re saying it’s the Church, and not just you, who has condemned him. What pope? Which of his abbotts – who report to the pope? Can you show me a document where any official of the Roman Catholic Church for whom you are speaking, has censured or corrected him in any way? Can you even point to reasonable circumstantial evidence that it has happened – except in your apparent opinion that they should have?

Now you’ve promoted the veracity of your :twocents: about whether a particular priest is Catholic, as being worth more than the pope’s. Okay…

But OK go on…

Whatever you say.

I’ve never heard of “apokatastasis” before you brought it up. I could probably care less, but I’d really have to work on it. :yawn:

What do you mean by “whatever you say”? If you don’t agree, then you can’t be a good Catholic. It would be as incoherent as an atheist calling himself a Catholic just because he identifies with “Catholic culture” but couldn’t care less about God, Jesus, Hell, or anything of the sort. It’s not “whatever I say”; if you want to be a Catholic, then you have to faithfully believe and obey everything Tradition and the Magisterium teach. That is Church teaching. This is extremely important. What’s the point of being a member of the Catholic Church if you’re indifferent to what the Catholic Church teaches?

And I find it sad that you appear to be being ironic with me when I was earnestly pointing out problems with fr. Rohr. Do you really think that, in order for us to say a priest is not Catholic (in the sense I was using, that is, it’s not commonsensical to call a baptized atheist a “Catholic” just because of his baptism, or a heretic; anyway I’ve already explained what I meant by the adjective “Catholic”) we must present a Church document specifically condemning said priest? Do you really think that one cannot say priest X is defending heresy unless we have an official position from the Vatican? MysticalSeeker, if a priest says that Jesus Christ isn’t divine, then do you think we need “a document where any official of the Roman Catholic Church for whom you are speaking, has censured or corrected him” to say such priest is defending a grave error and therefore must recant his heresy if he wishes to be reconciled with the Church? Likewise, if a priest defends a proposition that has been infallibly condemned by the Catholic Church (like apokatastasis), do you think we need a specific decree from the pope to criticize that specific priest and warn others of his heresy?

And then you proceed to imply you couldn’t care less about what apokatastasis is, how Rohr defended it against the Church, and how the Catholic Church has infallibly condemned it. It’s boring you? You’re falling asleep, really? What’s wrong with you? You take issue and accuse me of being a heretic just because I pointed out – correctly, in fact – that fr. Rohr is defending heresies and rejecting Catholic teaching, but you don’t care to know why I’ve actually accused him of heresy? You find it absurd that I state X, and then ignore the reason why I’ve stated X?

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

What do you mean by “whatever you say”? If you don’t agree, then you can’t be a good Catholic. It would be as incoherent as an atheist calling himself a Catholic just because he identifies with “Catholic culture” but couldn’t care less about God, Jesus, Hell, or anything of the sort. It’s not “whatever I say”; if you want to be a Catholic, then you have to faithfully believe and obey everything Tradition and the Magisterium teach. That is Church teaching. This is extremely important. What’s the point of being a member of the Catholic Church if you’re indifferent to what the Catholic Church teaches?

Good question. So many people seem to think it’s all about who is smarter – who wins the Catholic Knowledge contest. I refer you to 1 Cor 13, and to the following:

From 1 Cor 1, from NABRE edition – the one we use at Mass in the US – in reaction to your comments:
II. Disorders in the Corinthian Community

A. Divisions in the Church

14 I give thanks [to God] that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one can say you were baptized in my name. 16 (I baptized the household of Stephanas also; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning.

Paradox of the Cross. 18 The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the learning of the learned I will set aside.”

20 Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

And I find it sad that you appear to be being ironic with me when I was earnestly pointing out problems with fr. Rohr. Do you really think that, in order for us to say a priest is not Catholic (in the sense I was using, that is, it’s not commonsensical to call a baptized atheist a “Catholic” just because of his baptism, or a heretic; anyway I’ve already explained what I meant by the adjective “Catholic”) we must present a Church document specifically condemning said priest? Do you really think that one cannot say priest X is defending heresy unless we have an official position from the Vatican? MysticalSeeker, if a priest says that Jesus Christ isn’t divine, then do you think we need “a document where any official of the Roman Catholic Church for whom you are speaking, has censured or corrected him” to say such priest is defending a grave error and therefore must recant his heresy if he wishes to be reconciled with the Church? Likewise, if a priest defends a proposition that has been infallibly condemned by the Catholic Church (like apokatastasis), do you think we need a specific decree from the pope to criticize that specific priest and warn others of his heresy?

You can say Rohr is not Catholic. You can say the moon is made of green cheese. It doesn’t make it so in my reality tunnel. Nor does it make it so according to the Church.

If you want to judge him as a “not good Catholic” that is your prerogative. You can say he is a heretic; if his abbott and the Pope don’t agree, that’s OK too.

You may think whatever you want; my guess is that you either don’t want my permission to allow yourself to think freely, or you wouldn’t know what to do with it.

Doesn’t it make you second-guess the Church, though, when she lets people like Rohr have open license to say these things? How do you know you aren’t being lied to by your own pastor, or your own bishop? If you think he should have been censured but the Church has failed to do so, then your issue with the Church are structural so I’d say you and Rohr both have questions about the way the Church carries out her day-to-day operations and decision making. So maybe you aren’t so different after all.

And then you proceed to imply you couldn’t care less about what apokatastasis is, how Rohr defended it against the Church, and how the Catholic Church has infallibly condemned it. It’s boring you? You’re falling asleep, really? What’s wrong with you? You take issue and accuse me of being a heretic just because I pointed out – correctly, in fact – that fr. Rohr is defending heresies and rejecting Catholic teaching, but you don’t care to know why I’ve actually accused him of heresy? You find it absurd that I state X, and then ignore the reason why I’ve stated X?

I don’t deny he’s maybe said or done some stupid stuff at various times in his life, or somewhere I wasn’t or said something or wrote something. But whatever he’s doing now, he’s doing it with the full knowledge and blessing of the Roman Catholic Church, and all her officials, and they’re letting him get away with it. And yet you have a problem with it. You don’t have to like him, but he’s just as Catholic as you, from the Church’s point of view, as you are. If you deny that, then you’ll need evidence. You can say it on your own, as long as you quit speaking for the Church.

MS

 

[OneSheep]

That is Church teaching. This is extremely important. What’s the point of being a member of the Catholic Church if you’re indifferent to what the Catholic Church teaches?

I hear you brother.

Valuing of Church teaching is very, very important. I agree with you. A scripture scholar once told us, though, that we can take scripture literally unless it appears to contradict the whole, it contradicts a core value.

The same goes with Church teachings. Sometimes, there appears to be contradictions to some of us. Those of us who see no contradiction are called to patiently address those anomalies. Sometimes, the Spirit works through the ones pointing at the contradictions. It happens.

So, what is the point of being a member if one is indifferent to teachings?

Great question.

To me, the point is Eucharist. It is through Eucharist that indifference is addressed. Eucharist erases and transcends indifference, defiance, teachings, academics, rules, power politics, jealousy, all that could possibly divide us.

It is Eucharist that says “we are one body”. Of course, it is wonderful to be like-minded. Our political parties live and survive on like-mindedness, like-mindedness is the criteria of belonging to a political party. The Church, however, is much greater than like-mindedness. Eucharist is belonging, Eucharist is the body. Eucharist is the criteria, it is the point.

Do you see what I mean? Can you come to the table with everyone?

God Bless your lent.

 

[JRRTFAN]

My wife and myself just watched Fr Richard Rohr on Oprah’s “Super Soul Sunday,”.

Excellent!

If you get a chance to see him, don’t miss it.

Jim

I’ll pass, thanks. Oprah + Rohr = New Age in spades

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

I’ll pass, thanks. Oprah + Rohr = New Age in spades

Racist comment.

 

[Generic_Name]

Racist comment.

I’ll bite.

It’s well known that Oprah has an affinity for New Age concepts. It’s also known (and has been discussed in this thread) that Fr. Rohr dabbles in things considered to be New Age as well.

To have something “in spades” means to have a large amount. It originates from Bridge and other trump card games where having a large amount of spade cards makes victory more likely.

Please point out the part of post #340 that is “racist.”

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

I’ll bite.

It’s well known that Oprah has an affinity for New Age concepts. It’s also known (and has been discussed in this thread) that Fr. Rohr dabbles in things considered to be New Age as well.

To have something “in spades” means to have a large amount. It originates from Bridge and other trump card games where having a large amount of spade cards makes victory more likely.

Please point out the part of post #340 that is “racist.”

None really, I suppose. No more than when the D.C. aide got fired for his use of the term “niggardly” which of course isn’t allowed because he was white and it sounded like something he “shouldn’t have said.” Luckily for him, he was also gay so he had enough political allies to get his job back.

As far as Oprah and “New Age” concepts – whatever her problems, she represents a huge audience who has now been treated to a nice interview with a Catholic priest, talking about silent/contemplative prayer – that form of prayer the CCC says “should” be done but so many Catholics never even heard of it. Catholics IMO need to hear about this more than anybody else, because for some reason we have become a religion of “head knowledge” that seems to take precedent over matters in the heart. That’s understandable, because it’s easier to compete against others with “head knowledge” and be able to declare a winner and a loser.

Let your light shine before those in darkness. If you refuse to go into a room that isn’t always brightly lit, then you nor anybody else will even notice whether your own light is even shining. Or maybe that’s the strategy – if I place myself around only people who are holy maybe nobody will notice my own darkess. Who knows but that they may be seeking, consciously or otherwise, what you have to say? :newidea:

Frankly the “New Agers” who see some of my face book posts, are quicker to “Like” and comment on quotes from Jesus than some of my Christian friends. And I do present them as Jesus’s words, like I’ll write, “in my Christian tradition, Jesus said,” and then the quote and usually a Biblical reference when it doesn’t seem like it’s too pushy.

You might be surprised at how willing they actually can be, to reframe their own experiences through words I offer them from our Savior. They aren’t used to hearing things they consider “of value” from Christians because instead of backing them up when they are right, more likely they’ve been treated by their Christian family and “friends” with an attitude of “you are wrong and lost, so either let me fix you or you will suffer unless and until you repent.”

Of course I may have to wait for just the right moment sometimes when they have “come up with something” that Jeusus had a quote for – they actually act appreciative when I quote from the Bible. And guess what, several of them gave up on crystals and stuff, and realized they had just made up their own religion. You might do well for Jesus to converse with New Agers if you want to actually tell them about what Jesus said, rather than how wrong they are about the things we say they are wrong about.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

I got to thinking, this “enneagram” thing seems to be the most divisive aspect of this man, other than the fact he actually speaks interactively with people who are not Catholic, about matters of faith.

Maybe we should ask the moderators to ban the topic “enneagram.”

Personally I’ve never used it, and from what is said I gather at best it’s a pop psychology thing and at worst some evil manifestation.

There is actually a “suggestion box” forum here; what do you think? Ask for “enneagram” to be listed as a “banned topic?”