H
- Status
M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
Except for references to it, I don’t know what the “enneagram” is or what it has to do with anything, and I’ve never really cared enough about it to find out, and since I’ve been reading/listening/watching Rohr for the last few years I never heard him mention it. And yet it’s often the Lead Story for the anti-Rohr factions. It often makes it before they get to the part about him loving homosexuals and stuff, or even upstages it entirely. Must be a Pretty Bad thing. It did get five people rating less than three stars and 55 rating over, so those five are more informed.
So after a strangely difficult search, taking a couple extra steps than usual on amazon, I found a book by him about it as a public service for those who wish to know what he has written. Note the book was published in 2001, and I don’t know or have interesting in researching whether he has written about it since then.
The Enneagram: A Christian Perspective Paperback – September 1, 2001
by Richard Rohr (Author), Andreas Ebert (Author)
Edit: I went ahead and read the one star reviews. One reader’s feelings were hurt because the reader is a “Two” whatever that is, and didn’t like Rohr’s remarks about Two’s, whatever they are. Another one made a reference to occult origins but gave no back up data. Did name some good Catholic authors to choose from though, including mystics, so I give that one partial credit. The third ones just dismisses “personality theory” in general and says it’s anti-Christian to consider the environment has an effect on people. Something like that. :whackadoo:
Peace.
T
TerrySong
Guest
Mystical Seeker;:
Fr. Mitch Pacwa used the Enneagram and then found it backfired on him.
(QUOTE) Father Pacwa, whose book Catholics and the New Age: How Good People are being drawn into Jungian Psychology, the Enneagram and the New Age of Aquarius was recommended by the Vatican document, has four warnings for those interested in New Age. He warned that the variety of alternative medicines New Age proponents focus on have as little chance of success as typical treatments, and some, he said, are downright dangerous.
New Age activities can lead people to “dabble in the occult and become obsessed with occult power,” he said. Worst of all, he warned that practitioners of New Age activity can lose their sense of good and evil by becoming “caught up in pantheism — the idea that everything is god, so everything is good. Not being judgmental becomes all-important,” the priest said.
Father Pacwa cited the example of two abortion doctors who justified their activity with the New Age mentality that “abortions help the babies go to a better place because [the babies] had bad karma.” All sorts of sins then become justifiable, he said, noting that some have used New Age ideas to justify the actions of Hitler and Stalin. Benkovic warned that dabbling in New Age activities “can begin to dilute our Catholic faith.” In the worst cases those involved can run the risk of experiences with the demonic, she said.
Retired Bishop Donald Montrose, who wrote a pastoral letter on the New Age and the occult when he was bishop of Stockton, Calif., from 1986-1999, also advised Catholics to stay away from such practices and ideas “because it makes allowance for another power.” It’s “deeper” than superstition, he added. What the new Vatican document suggests is that "you have to [look at your] understanding and worldview to see if it is in concert with the Catholic faith. "Benkovic said. And Father Pacwa noted wryly that the reason the New Age is constantly changing from one "fad to another is simple: It doesn’t work. G.K. Chesterton was right, he said, noting: "When somebody doesn’t believe in God, they don’t believe in nothing – they believe in anything.(QUOTE)
Copyright © 2003 Circle Media, Inc., National Catholic Register
If it’s something that is not sanctioned by the Catholic Church, wouldn’t you want to know?
Fr. Mitch Pacwa used the Enneagram and then found it backfired on him.
(QUOTE) Father Pacwa, whose book Catholics and the New Age: How Good People are being drawn into Jungian Psychology, the Enneagram and the New Age of Aquarius was recommended by the Vatican document, has four warnings for those interested in New Age. He warned that the variety of alternative medicines New Age proponents focus on have as little chance of success as typical treatments, and some, he said, are downright dangerous.
New Age activities can lead people to “dabble in the occult and become obsessed with occult power,” he said. Worst of all, he warned that practitioners of New Age activity can lose their sense of good and evil by becoming “caught up in pantheism — the idea that everything is god, so everything is good. Not being judgmental becomes all-important,” the priest said.
Father Pacwa cited the example of two abortion doctors who justified their activity with the New Age mentality that “abortions help the babies go to a better place because [the babies] had bad karma.” All sorts of sins then become justifiable, he said, noting that some have used New Age ideas to justify the actions of Hitler and Stalin. Benkovic warned that dabbling in New Age activities “can begin to dilute our Catholic faith.” In the worst cases those involved can run the risk of experiences with the demonic, she said.
Retired Bishop Donald Montrose, who wrote a pastoral letter on the New Age and the occult when he was bishop of Stockton, Calif., from 1986-1999, also advised Catholics to stay away from such practices and ideas “because it makes allowance for another power.” It’s “deeper” than superstition, he added. What the new Vatican document suggests is that "you have to [look at your] understanding and worldview to see if it is in concert with the Catholic faith. "Benkovic said. And Father Pacwa noted wryly that the reason the New Age is constantly changing from one "fad to another is simple: It doesn’t work. G.K. Chesterton was right, he said, noting: "When somebody doesn’t believe in God, they don’t believe in nothing – they believe in anything.(QUOTE)
Copyright © 2003 Circle Media, Inc., National Catholic Register
S
simpleas
Guest
Richard Rohr’s Daily Meditation
The Enneagram (Part 1)
Overview of Enneagram
Triads and Types Tuesday, May 27, 2014
The Enneagram defines its nine human types on the basis of nine “traps,” “passions,” or “sins.” These sins can be understood as emergency solutions that were used in early childhood development as a way of coming to terms with one’s environment. They were necessary for survival. But the older we get, the more clearly they reveal themselves as much of our problem. We are addicted to one early set of glasses and also blinders!
The nine sins of the Enneagram eventually were reduced by Pope Gregory the Great to the “seven deadly sins”: pride, envy, anger, sloth, avarice, lust, and lack of moderation (or gluttony)—plus the two “sins” of deceit and fear. It is worth noting that we in the Western tradition have never unmasked and named these last two as sins as such, even though the Bible says, “Do not be afraid” 365 times, I am told. Yet they are the most pervasive sins of our society, which are all the more dangerous because we don’t see them.
The nine Enneagram types are arranged clockwise on the circumference of a circle for teaching purposes. They are then clustered together in three groups of three, or triads.
The Eight, Nine, and One are called the gut people. Their center of gravity lies in the belly, where the “raw material” of their existence is located. They often experience life as too much, somewhat like a full body blow to which they develop a characteristic defense: Eights hit back, Nines back off, and Ones try to fix it.
Two, Three, and Four are the heart people, or the social types. Although this is considered the feeling triad, they actually have no direct access to their own feelings. They experience themselves in reaction to the feelings of others! They unceasingly develop activities to secure the devotion or attention of others. Twos pose as lovable and helpful, Threes play whatever role “goes over” best publicly, and Fours put in an appearance as someone special and authentic (to themselves).
Five, Six, and Seven are the head people, or the self-preserving types. They are all plagued by fear and anxiety, which they cope with differently. Fives try to master it by gaining more and correct knowledge. Phobic Sixes link up with an authority or group for security. Counter-phobic Sixes may take foolish risks or make pre-emptive strikes to overcome their fears. Sevens deny and avoid pain and create fun and fantasy. All three are clever ways of largely living in your head.
While we do have a little of each type inside us, we all have one preferred stance, one Enneagram type, which we cannot change entirely, but which we can move toward redemption, transformation, the True Self. The Wing Theory illustrates that each type is balanced by developing the numbers on either side of it. For instance, the Four is balanced by developing both their Three and Five “wings.”
The Arrow Theory helps us know what maturity might look like and warns us if we are not doing well. The Direction of Integration is where the ray leaving your number is pointing (see the diagram above). Thus, when the Five is doing well, they resemble a healthy Eight and apply their solid research to bringing peace and justice to the world. The Direction of Disintegration would be found on this diagram by reversing the line which is pointing to your number. When the Five, for example, is not doing well, they take on the characteristics of an immature Seven and develop abstruse theories about everything.
The Soul Child Theory fits hand in glove with the Arrow Theory because the number we resemble when integrated is the same as our original or Soul Child number. In other words, as we mature, we return to our primal knowing of who we really are, i.e. our True Self. Thus, our “original sin” could be viewed as our particular Enneagram compulsion. It is the way we originally separated from our Truth.
The whole Enneagram diagram is called “the face of God.” If you could look out at reality from nine pairs of eyes and honor all of them, you would look at reality through the eyes of God—eyes filled with compassion for yourself and everyone else!
(Throughout the remainder of this week and all of next week we will look at each of the nine numbers more closely. Although the best way to learn this oral tradition is listening to a true teacher or spiritual director or audio teaching—so you can pick up the precise “energy” of your type—I hope this brief introduction will inspire you to go further with the Enneagram. Additional resources, including a list of tests, are available from the International Enneagram Association.)
The Enneagram (Part 1)
Overview of Enneagram
Triads and Types Tuesday, May 27, 2014
The Enneagram defines its nine human types on the basis of nine “traps,” “passions,” or “sins.” These sins can be understood as emergency solutions that were used in early childhood development as a way of coming to terms with one’s environment. They were necessary for survival. But the older we get, the more clearly they reveal themselves as much of our problem. We are addicted to one early set of glasses and also blinders!
The nine sins of the Enneagram eventually were reduced by Pope Gregory the Great to the “seven deadly sins”: pride, envy, anger, sloth, avarice, lust, and lack of moderation (or gluttony)—plus the two “sins” of deceit and fear. It is worth noting that we in the Western tradition have never unmasked and named these last two as sins as such, even though the Bible says, “Do not be afraid” 365 times, I am told. Yet they are the most pervasive sins of our society, which are all the more dangerous because we don’t see them.
The nine Enneagram types are arranged clockwise on the circumference of a circle for teaching purposes. They are then clustered together in three groups of three, or triads.
The Eight, Nine, and One are called the gut people. Their center of gravity lies in the belly, where the “raw material” of their existence is located. They often experience life as too much, somewhat like a full body blow to which they develop a characteristic defense: Eights hit back, Nines back off, and Ones try to fix it.
Two, Three, and Four are the heart people, or the social types. Although this is considered the feeling triad, they actually have no direct access to their own feelings. They experience themselves in reaction to the feelings of others! They unceasingly develop activities to secure the devotion or attention of others. Twos pose as lovable and helpful, Threes play whatever role “goes over” best publicly, and Fours put in an appearance as someone special and authentic (to themselves).
Five, Six, and Seven are the head people, or the self-preserving types. They are all plagued by fear and anxiety, which they cope with differently. Fives try to master it by gaining more and correct knowledge. Phobic Sixes link up with an authority or group for security. Counter-phobic Sixes may take foolish risks or make pre-emptive strikes to overcome their fears. Sevens deny and avoid pain and create fun and fantasy. All three are clever ways of largely living in your head.
While we do have a little of each type inside us, we all have one preferred stance, one Enneagram type, which we cannot change entirely, but which we can move toward redemption, transformation, the True Self. The Wing Theory illustrates that each type is balanced by developing the numbers on either side of it. For instance, the Four is balanced by developing both their Three and Five “wings.”
The Arrow Theory helps us know what maturity might look like and warns us if we are not doing well. The Direction of Integration is where the ray leaving your number is pointing (see the diagram above). Thus, when the Five is doing well, they resemble a healthy Eight and apply their solid research to bringing peace and justice to the world. The Direction of Disintegration would be found on this diagram by reversing the line which is pointing to your number. When the Five, for example, is not doing well, they take on the characteristics of an immature Seven and develop abstruse theories about everything.
The Soul Child Theory fits hand in glove with the Arrow Theory because the number we resemble when integrated is the same as our original or Soul Child number. In other words, as we mature, we return to our primal knowing of who we really are, i.e. our True Self. Thus, our “original sin” could be viewed as our particular Enneagram compulsion. It is the way we originally separated from our Truth.
The whole Enneagram diagram is called “the face of God.” If you could look out at reality from nine pairs of eyes and honor all of them, you would look at reality through the eyes of God—eyes filled with compassion for yourself and everyone else!
(Throughout the remainder of this week and all of next week we will look at each of the nine numbers more closely. Although the best way to learn this oral tradition is listening to a true teacher or spiritual director or audio teaching—so you can pick up the precise “energy” of your type—I hope this brief introduction will inspire you to go further with the Enneagram. Additional resources, including a list of tests, are available from the International Enneagram Association.)
M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
Thank you for that information.
Not necessarily. I’d never heard or read Rohr on it until just now, and nothing I had read has even required my knowing about it. So it’s no more relevant to me than how many people in Cleveland sneezed in the last 10 minutes.
I did a little searching “in the literature” about it but didn’t find much. Since I just completed a class in “Personality Psychology” I’m aware of some of the current tests and what they supposedly measure – both internal and external validity.
Actually I’m not that good at searching, so when I found one article that seemed relevant (critical of the enneagram) I had a hassle figuring out how to do pdf-to-text and then when I did get it, I only got the first page.
So yeah, now that I know what I know about the enneagram, I see it as kind of boring. Just for grins I’ll include the part of the article that made it through the OCR. It only did the first page out of about 12, but I got bored because even though my ego wants to contribute information, I don’t care enough for any more effort.
So here… the first page of a “scholarly article” critical of enneagram. Over 20 years old; another reason to care less. :yawn:
Social Behavior and Personality, 1991, 19 (1), 11-20. © Society for Personality Research (Inc.)
CLIPPING THE WINGS OFF THE ENNEAGRAM; A STUDY IN PEOPLE’S PERCEPTIONS OF A NINEFOLD PERSONALITY TYPOLOGY
ANTHONY C. EDWARDS University of Lancaster, England
The Enneagram is a personality typology stating that there are nine basic types of personality, each represented by a different number.from one to nine. According to Riso (1987), in addition to being one basic type, people also have a wing of (i.e. possess traits of) one of the two types represented by a number adjacent to that representing the basic type. 11. Riso’s argument is correct, people presented with brief descriptions of nine types should perceive maximal similarity between types which are represented by adjacent numbers. This hypothesis was examined in the present study, but was not supported.
Since time immemorial, attempts have been made to understand human nature by classifying people into personality types. Evidence of ancient attempts to classify personality is evident from astrology, Chinese as well as occidental, and from the famous Hippocratean doctrine of the four humours. In the twentieth century, Jung (1921/1946) has developed a typology which groups people according to their basic attitude type, introvert or extrovert, and their basic function type, sensation, feeling, thinking and intuition. More recent typologies have sometimes employed simpler, dichotomous groupings, such as Rotter’s (1966) distinction between internal and external locus of controls, Snyder’s (1974) distinction between high and low self-moni¬tors and Friedman and Rosenman’s (1974) Type A versus Type B distinction. Contributions to personality typology have also come from child psychology, such as the distinction Thomas, Chess and Birch (1970) make between three types of children, the easy, the difficult and the slow to warm up.
The above list is not intended to be an exhaustive list of personality typologies, but does indicate an interesting fact, personality theories
There. That’s all I have. I keep trying to care more, but I keep caring less – about the enneagram that is.
T
Triflelfirt
Guest
"Institutional religion is a humanly necessary but also immature manifestation of this “hidden mystery” by which God is saving the world . . . . Institutional religion is never an end in itself, but merely a wondrous and “uncertain trumpet” of the message (pg. 180, emphasis original).
I personally do not believe that Jesus came to found a separate religion as much as he came to present a universal message of vulnerability and foundational unity that is necessary for all religions, the human soul, and history itself to survive. Thus Christians can rightly call him “the Savior of the world” (John 4:42), but no longer in the competitive and imperialistic way that they have usually presented him. By very definition, vulnerability and unity do not compete or dominate. In fact, they make competition and domination impossible. The cosmic Christ is no threat to anything but separateness, illusion, domination, and any imperial ego. In that sense, Jesus, the Christ, is the ultimate threat, but first of all Christians themselves. Only then will they have any universal and salvific message for the rest of the world (pp. 181-82, emphasis added)."
“I think Christianity has created a great problem in the Western world by repeatedly presenting itself, not as a way of seeing all things, but as one competing ideology among others. . . . Simone Weil, the brilliant French resistor [a woman who sadly declined to be baptized and become Catholic], said that “the tragedy of Christianity is that it came to see itself as replacing other religions instead of adding something to all of them.” I could not agree more.”
If this priest has really said such things, then it’s safe to say that he’s not really Catholic. These statements are heretical.
Sorry, but I believe that when a priest adamantly refuses to wear a cassock, you can already be sure there is something wrong with him and his vocation, and his lack of admiration for the tradition of his faith. But if the above statements are truly his, then Rohr’s problems with a cassock are just the symptom of much worse things. We should pray for him.
I personally do not believe that Jesus came to found a separate religion as much as he came to present a universal message of vulnerability and foundational unity that is necessary for all religions, the human soul, and history itself to survive. Thus Christians can rightly call him “the Savior of the world” (John 4:42), but no longer in the competitive and imperialistic way that they have usually presented him. By very definition, vulnerability and unity do not compete or dominate. In fact, they make competition and domination impossible. The cosmic Christ is no threat to anything but separateness, illusion, domination, and any imperial ego. In that sense, Jesus, the Christ, is the ultimate threat, but first of all Christians themselves. Only then will they have any universal and salvific message for the rest of the world (pp. 181-82, emphasis added)."
“I think Christianity has created a great problem in the Western world by repeatedly presenting itself, not as a way of seeing all things, but as one competing ideology among others. . . . Simone Weil, the brilliant French resistor [a woman who sadly declined to be baptized and become Catholic], said that “the tragedy of Christianity is that it came to see itself as replacing other religions instead of adding something to all of them.” I could not agree more.”
If this priest has really said such things, then it’s safe to say that he’s not really Catholic. These statements are heretical.
Sorry, but I believe that when a priest adamantly refuses to wear a cassock, you can already be sure there is something wrong with him and his vocation, and his lack of admiration for the tradition of his faith. But if the above statements are truly his, then Rohr’s problems with a cassock are just the symptom of much worse things. We should pray for him.
M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
How are they heretical? He is presenting his opinion of the structure of the Church as far as I can tell, and not misrepresenting teachings of Catholics. Can you show me his specific misstatements in what you quoted and provide references to church teachings that back you up?
You, on the other hand, by speculating that “it’s safe to say he’s not really Catholic” you are speculating that it’s “safe” to be wrong about Catholic teachings.
FYI if he was ever baptized Catholic or accepted into the faith, which he obviously has been prior to being ordained, he will be “Catholic” forever, according to Church teachings. Even if he were to “officially” renounce his faith, or be excommunicated, he remains “Catholic” until he dies.
So you are representing falsehood as Catholic teaching, by calling him “not really Catholic” so which is worse – a person who has an opinion about the structure of the church, or a person who speaks falsely about her teachings? As you seem to be a member of the latter group, I am curious about your opinion on this.
MS
T
Triflelfirt
Guest
Many heretics have been baptized Catholics. When I say he is not Catholic, I mean he is not orthodox, and he is defending heresy. Let me ask you a question: do you really believe a Catholic may hold that Christianity has created a “great problem” in the Western world by “presenting itself” as a “competing ideology”? Do you believe Christianity didn’t come to replace all other religions, but merely to add something to all of them? So Christianity can add something to buddhism, hinduism, Islam, shintoism and other religions, but it isn’t supposed to “replace them” (and doing so causes “a great problem”!!). Do you honestly think this is Catholic thought? Do you sincerely believe the Church would’ve accepted such a saying in, say, the Council of Trent?
Christ came to save men and to RULE over the world, instituting the Roman Catholic Church, that is the ONE TRUE CHURCH to which ALL MEN must convert. Christ didn’t come to add anything to false religions. Christ is the truth, and the truth can be only one; when faced with Catholicism and Buddhism, guess what, we must choose between those two religions, and we must choose Catholicism because it is the only truth, buddhism is wrong, however it has any small glimpses of truth here and there, it is rotten in the center and cannot save man. If a man dies without being a Catholic Christian, that man is going to hell. Christ wants all man to convert and be saved to the One True religion. Christ is supposed to be the emperor of the world for Catholics, and truth is supposed to compete with (and eradicate) falsehood and error, and any religion that is not Catholicism is false and riddled with errors, and therefore proceeds from the devil.
Here is a clear example of Richard Rohr defending heresy:
“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).”
This is heresy. The Catholic Church has condemned origenism and the belief in universal salvation multiple times. We may NOT believe it “if we want to”. It is NOT a choice. The Church has condemned apokatastasis beyond any reasonable doubt, for instance in the first and second Councils of Constantinople. Unfortunately, the Church obliges us to believe that all non-catholics will burn in hell forever. 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.
(One can attempt to salvage belief in a practical result of apokatastasis, like fr. Robert Baron does. I, for one, am sympathetic with this kind of view, which is distinct from the heretical apokatastasis that Rohr seems to defend. Yet one could also argue that such belief is incompatible with Catholicism, and though I don’t agree, I can see the strength of that; a good rule of thumb for Catholics is to expect any official teaching to be the “worst” possible one, the one that most clearly seems repugnant to everything we want and hold dear)
I’m sorry, but that priest is not Catholic. If he believes in the Church, then he must recant those beliefs.
S
simpleas
Guest
Unfortunately, the Church obliges us to believe that all non-catholics will burn in hell forever.
The church can not oblige us to believe that non- catholics will burn in hell forever. We all have individual experience of life, even if we are all one, we still experience God, life etc on an personal level, bringing our spiritual maturity to different levels at certain stages of our lives.
I was never told I must believe in anything, we can try to have faith, and grow in that faith, witness God as we can only, not as someone else has to told us we must do.That sort of thought takes away freewill, and a persons personal relationship with God.
Fr R talks alot about the first and second stages of a persons faith. Many remain in the first half most all their life. It is interesting to read about, as it answers alot of questions, well it did for me.
Please don’t claim that a person is not a Catholic, it seems so sad to talk about others in this way. :grouphug:
M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
According to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, Richard Rohr is just as Catholic as the pope is. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic until death.
For you to present otherwise as being true makes you a heretic. And that doesn’t seem to bother you because apparently there are different “flavors” of heresy and yours is OK – umm, why? Because it’s judgmental and divisive?
Show me the official Vatican document that says if you don’t agree with what a Catholic priest says, that makes him “not Catholic,” and I might stand to be corrected. :hey_bud:
B
BeOurDefense
Guest
He’s essentially a New Age “prophet” who seems to openly disdain and undermine magisterial authority.
I received a book of his as a gift one time (I really wish I could remember the name, but it’s about Jesus as seen through the Gospel of Matthew). I began reading it, and had a nagging sense it was a bit “off” from almost the first page forward. He seems to mix truth with false ideas, to the point where I would be saying “yes!” to one paragraph, and then “oh no!” to the very next.
I put it down when got to the part where he says Europe was never truly Christian, and that our parents and grandparents (and by implication, the great saints of the ages) may have been nice people who thought they were following Jesus, but really didn’t know Him. According to him, we need to “reimagine” Jesus.
The two biggest problems with it were that he wants to look at Jesus apart from the context of sacred scripture in its entirety. The picture he paints is that of an an anti-authoritarian, politically motivated radical who could care less about religion, and was more interested in bringing about an earthly utopia than eternal salvation.
I received a book of his as a gift one time (I really wish I could remember the name, but it’s about Jesus as seen through the Gospel of Matthew). I began reading it, and had a nagging sense it was a bit “off” from almost the first page forward. He seems to mix truth with false ideas, to the point where I would be saying “yes!” to one paragraph, and then “oh no!” to the very next.
I put it down when got to the part where he says Europe was never truly Christian, and that our parents and grandparents (and by implication, the great saints of the ages) may have been nice people who thought they were following Jesus, but really didn’t know Him. According to him, we need to “reimagine” Jesus.
The two biggest problems with it were that he wants to look at Jesus apart from the context of sacred scripture in its entirety. The picture he paints is that of an an anti-authoritarian, politically motivated radical who could care less about religion, and was more interested in bringing about an earthly utopia than eternal salvation.
M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
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.
A
anthony022071
Guest
Belief in the Catholic Church is one of the main teachings of the Church. It is in the creeds,the professions of faith in the baptism and confirmation ceremonies,and the Catechism. So when someone expresses doubts about the Church as an institution or its purpose or its divine origin,that shows lack of Catholic faith.
A person who renounces Catholic faith is not a Catholic. He excommunicates himself from the Church. It is not a teaching of the Church that someone who is baptized will be Catholic until he dies. To be a Catholic is to belong to the Catholic Church and to believe and follow what it teaches. It is not to just to have been baptized and to have been influenced by the culture and spirituality of the Church.
A
anthony022071
Guest
Jesus is God. He is not anti-authoritarian or a rebel or a revolutionary. When he scolded the scribes and pharisees,and drove out the merchants in the temple,he did so by his divine authority over men.
M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
Oh. So if he were a human being acting like that, maybe we could perceive that sort of behavior as challenging the establishment. Especially since, oh yes. He became a human being and when He was in that form, He challenged the establishment.
You speak for your personal opinion because your ego likes to keep you above others and you choose to do this by falsely denying that they are even members of your religion. You don’t want to be seen as a member of the same group as him, just as the Pharisee thanked God for not making him like the tax collector.
Or show me I’m wrong. Show me that the Church shares your opinion. Show me the part in the CCC where it says under what conditions a Catholic is no longer to be considered Catholic.
By your own definition, you should not be considered Catholic because you are right here in this paragraph denying what she teaches – and why? So you can maintain a house divided within the Church by calling others you don’t agree with “non-Catholic.”
This is what I call the More Catholic Than You syndrome. If Rohr is non-Catholic because of his heresy, then so are you.
G
grannymh
Guest
Not really sure what you mean and who you mean as a “company man”.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 is a member of the Blessed Trinity --Company.
G
grannymh
Guest
Good morning.
I am personally glad that “small divisions” within the Catholic Church are finally noticed. Jesus predicted that when He explained about the Good Shepherd and sneaky wolves. There would be chaff and wheat.
My personal suggestion is to read Acts, chapter 15 and chapter 14 of the Gospel of John.
Another personal suggestion is to review the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth.
In order to comply with the Divine Mission of Jesus Christ, the early visible Church recognized that it would have to deal with both the chaff and the wheat. The normal protocol is to study Sacred Scripture, and the teachings expressed in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Seven Sacraments, books, letters, homilies, songs, liturgy, poetry in addition to the deep review of all previous decisions made by the Church in unison. When this was accomplished, a major Church Council was assembled. Because of the promise of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit provided wisdom and guidance. The product of extensive meetings is contained in the Catholic Deposit of Faith. (CCC Glossary, Deposit of Faith, page 874)
What I have personally found is that there are a number of “small divisions of chaff and wheat”" within the Catholic Church related to some annoying doctrines. Some, not all, persons are going back to discarded positions. Some, not all, people are tampering with valid positions in order to promote their “personal creed”.
My personal warning is that we ordinary folk need to look beyond appealing words to the true wheat. There is appealing chaff regarding doctrines about eucharistic love (lower case intended), the State of Mortal Sin, priesthood, Sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation, Original Sin, pre-fall human nature, etc.
I am personally glad that “small divisions” within the Catholic Church are finally noticed. Jesus predicted that when He explained about the Good Shepherd and sneaky wolves. There would be chaff and wheat.
My personal suggestion is to read Acts, chapter 15 and chapter 14 of the Gospel of John.
Another personal suggestion is to review the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on earth.
In order to comply with the Divine Mission of Jesus Christ, the early visible Church recognized that it would have to deal with both the chaff and the wheat. The normal protocol is to study Sacred Scripture, and the teachings expressed in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Seven Sacraments, books, letters, homilies, songs, liturgy, poetry in addition to the deep review of all previous decisions made by the Church in unison. When this was accomplished, a major Church Council was assembled. Because of the promise of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit provided wisdom and guidance. The product of extensive meetings is contained in the Catholic Deposit of Faith. (CCC Glossary, Deposit of Faith, page 874)
What I have personally found is that there are a number of “small divisions of chaff and wheat”" within the Catholic Church related to some annoying doctrines. Some, not all, persons are going back to discarded positions. Some, not all, people are tampering with valid positions in order to promote their “personal creed”.
My personal warning is that we ordinary folk need to look beyond appealing words to the true wheat. There is appealing chaff regarding doctrines about eucharistic love (lower case intended), the State of Mortal Sin, priesthood, Sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation, Original Sin, pre-fall human nature, etc.
M
Mystical_Seeker
Guest
Hee hee. Yeah, I meant more of a man-operated organization, but I like yours better.Not really sure what you mean and who you mean as a “company man”.
Jesus is a member of the Blessed Trinity --Company.
One thing that I have had to do in order to get through my own Dark Night thingy, was that even with all my disagreements and all the sins that have admittedly been committed by the Church (didn’t JPII or some pope actually “officially” apologize) everything has to fit. I decided some time back that if I am to trust the Spirit, and Rom 8:28 then no matter what happens, the best outcome for those who believe will eventually prevail. So even though I see much I’d like done differently – if I am to be at peace I have to have constructed at least one “story” for even those things I think are wrong, how the Spirit used them as part of His plan. Jesus was a great example of using “broken” people to fix things.
I will check out those readings you recommended. I’ve never really been much for reading Acts, so if I may have to read a chapter or two around it for context.
T
Triflelfirt
Guest
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. "
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”.
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.
T
Triflelfirt
Guest
You’re wrong. What you just said is heresy, for it contradicts the dogma of “extra Ecclesiam nulla sallus”. If anyone dies as an adamant “non-catholic”, that person is going to burn in hell forever. The Church obliges us to believe that non-catholics will burn in hell forever and ever, in eternal agony and suffering, and that includes your non-catholic friends and family members too.
That seems grim, but it only makes sense since those who do not follow God (and to follow God we must fully obey him, and that includes obeying His Church) simply can’t be united with Him. God cannot force Himself on anyone. Thus, they separate themselves from God, and in doing so they separate themselves from the only real source of all Good in the world, rendering themselves with nothing but suffering.
However, the thing is that we can still hope that some non-catholics will actually become catholics in their last moment of life, when, for a love of truth, they’ll accept God’s grace. God can give perfect contrition for anyone at any point in their lives, even those who are close to death. People can receive baptism of desire if they sincerely feel sorry for all wrongs they did, or if they were in a state of invincible ignorance. Baptism of desire can happen even at the last moment in life. So that can give some hope to those of us who are horrified at the possibility of our loved ones perishing forever. That’s what I mentioned when I talked about fr. Barron and others.
- Status