Fr Richard Rohr?

[christofirst]

Father Rohr holds a degree in Philosophy and a Masters degree in Theology. He knows the teachings of the Church. He knows the history of the Church. He knows the way in which many of the doctrines and disciplines we hold today developed over time, and how they might also continue to develop, based on our history. It seems to be his position, from what I’ve read, that there is often more than one way to interpret Church teaching. He often points to alternative interpretations, to those gray areas that may still be validly held. To do this, he often emphasizes the teachings or lives of one saint over another, but from what I’ve read he always backs his position up with some evidence, placing it within our Tradition. He is well aware of his critics and that his works are being scrutinized, and so he takes care to ensure his teachings, and even his own opinions and speculation, are in accord with orthodoxy. When all is said and done, his is but one voice, and if anyone finds that voice disagreeable, there are many others from which to choose.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Just browsing through some of his meditations, he speaks much about dualistic theology and non-dualistic theology, the latter being much of what the Church taught for the past 500 years.

Contemplative prayer moves the soul toward non dualism, where we see all humanity connected to God and each other.

No longer us good them bad sinners. We’re all sinners and we all are effected by the decisions we make.

Contemplative spirituality also helps the soul experience the great mercy of God for ourselves, but for all mankind. Our job should be to communicate this mercy through our own words and actions.

Jim

 

[goout]

I really see no issue with Fr Rohr theologically. Those distinctions are above my pay grade anyway.
That being said he is not my cup of tea. In my opinion his spirituality is a little too disconnected from intentionality. It focuses on personal experience a little too much.

In this day and age…I don’t think that approach is especially fruitful given that discipline, the practice of virtue, the explicit call to holiness, are all sorely lacking in our modern (American anyway) culture. I think that when one understands, accepts, and follows one’s own Christian call, then it may be fruitful to experience the commonalities of Hinduism or Buddhism etc…But before that point of faith, this kind of expansiveness is possibly confusing and destructive to the Christian.

For many young people, setting the alarm for work everyday is an insurmountable challenge…and we expect them to have deep experiences of Christ?
The Christian life just does not work that way. Holiness is experienced by daily taking up the cross, acknowledging specific struggles and needs in the world, taking responsibility for one’s call to conversion through human agency cooperating with grace. The deep experience of God should be a fruit of that kind of openness to intentional discipleship.

And it seems to me that all the above mentioned traditions, Franciscan, Ignation, etc… accept that call.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Contemplation is about experience of union with God.

It is through His transforming grace that we become holy.

We can’t do it without His grace.

You can follow religion, but that isn’t faith, that’s just compliance to the rules of the religion.

Faith must come first and religion is the response to the faith we receive, which is a gift from God.

Jim

 

[goout]

Contemplation is about experience of union with God.

It is through His transforming grace that we become holy.

We can’t do it without His grace.

You can follow religion, but that isn’t faith, that’s just compliance to the rules of the religion.

Faith must come first and religion is the response to the faith we receive, which is a gift from God.

Jim

That’s an age old circular false dichotomy.

Faith and works (faith and religion…faith and observance…) go hand in hand. To say that “following religion is not faith” is not really accurate.
Faith is God’s grace working in me, to which I am responding. Religion is an integrated part of that response. Grace is not forced on a person, co-operation is part of a well integrated faith.

Virtue is the practice of the very virtue. Faith is a theological virtue. Faith opens up the practice of faith (religion), which opens up the grace of faith, which further opens up the practice of faith. Having faith experiences is no more the whole thing than religion is the whole thing. Taken in opposition to one another, they are both half a life.

A whole, integrated faith is…whole and integrated.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Religion is a response to faith.

St Augustine himself said that there are those finding themselves Catholic, choose to remain so because of their like of the doctrines and rituals. However, they’ve yet to become Christians.

Then there are those who after encountering Jesus Christ, become Catholic. They are the faith of the Church.

St Augustine should know, for he received faith before converting to the Catholic Church.

Jim

 

[goout]

Religion is a response to faith.

St Augustine himself said that there are those finding themselves Catholic, choose to remain so because of their like of the doctrines and rituals. However, they’ve yet to become Christians.

Then there are those who after encountering Jesus Christ, become Catholic. They are the faith of the Church.

St Augustine should know, for he received faith before converting to the Catholic Church.

Jim

Sure religion can be empty. So can personal faith experiences and knowledge of esoteric spiritual practices. But our faith is not made up of excesses and exceptions to the rule.

Religion is an integral part of faith. It is the most basic expression of the virtue of justice.
Augustine did not receive faith in a vacuum. If you read through the Confessions, his life began to reform as his faith awakened. He began to practice virtue, and again, that faith and the practice of virtue worked hand in hand in his life.

If nothing else, Catholicism should lead a person to integration, or to unity. Catholicism expresses this unity in everything.
Body and soul
Divine and human
Faith and works
Mercy and justice.

Oppositional thinking is inimical to Catholicism.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Sure religion can be empty. So can personal faith experiences and knowledge of esoteric spiritual practices. But our faith is not made up of excesses and exceptions to the rule.

Faith in theological, is the revelation of Jesus Christ to the individual, however that may happen.

When Christ comes into your life, faith can not be empty.

You’re confusing belief with faith, they’re not the same. Belief is a choice, faith is a gift from God.

Jim

 

[goout]

Contemplation is about experience of union with God.

It is through His transforming grace that we become holy.

We can’t do it without His grace.

You can follow religion, but that isn’t faith, that’s just compliance to the rules of the religion.

Faith must come first and religion is the response to the faith we receive, which is a gift from God.

Jim

Ok, well I’m responding to your post here that seems to oppose religion and faith.

Many people have been turned to Catholicism by the beauty of the Mass and the worship of the faithful, the worship of the Church…among many other things. That is all part of having faith.

 

[Gorgias]

Father Rohr holds a degree in Philosophy and a Masters degree in Theology.

That generally holds for every priest in the U.S.; it doesn’t set him apart or make him a particular expert.

He often points to alternative interpretations, to those gray areas that may still be validly held… with some evidence, placing it within our Tradition.

OK… that’s a reasonable enough assertion, if it holds up to scrutiny. My take was that this was not what he was about; to my view, he places more emphasis on the “Perennial Tradition” – of other religions – than on the Apostolic Tradition of the Church.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

to my view, he places more emphasis on the “Perennial Tradition” – of other religions – than on the Apostolic Tradition of the Church.

Can you quote something you have in mind? I’d be interested in reading it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

From the link you provided;

Even as we acknowledge the sacredness of gender and sex, we also need to realize that there’s something deeper than our gender, anatomy, or physical passion: our ontological self, who we are forever in Christ. You are beyond the metaphor of male and female; you are a child of the Resurrection, a creature of Eternal Life. As Paul courageously puts it, “There is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

Doesn’t seem to fit your interpretation of what Fr Rohr wrote.

Jin

 

[dumbox]

Here’s a much better description of what Rohr believes, written by a homosexual.

Richard Rohr: “Binary genders (male and female) are more an imposition of our dualistic minds than the nature of reality.” | Joseph Sciambra

At his website for The Center for Action and Contemplation, Richard Rohr, OFM, posts a series of “Daily Meditations” covering a broad range of Scriptural reflections interspersing contemporary, cultural, and political topics. In the November 9, 2017 entry, Rohr discussed the issue of “Identity...

josephsciambra.com

This is a touchy subject for CAF and I don’t suspect my counter post will survive the swarm flagging.

 

[dumbox]

Rohr has this sort of slippery way of stringing words together, that many people sort of just swallow up, but if someone were to press him he’d be unable to describe what he means and, based on Church teaching, why he says these things.

In one meditation he melodically writes…(and this is the catch…people sort of swarm around such phrasing, putting their intellect into park).

“Religion normally begins by making a distinction between the pure and the impure, the good and the bad. Yet Jesus does the opposite: he finds God among the impure instead of among the pure!”

No…Jesus points to the true, the good, the often hard.

 

[dumbox]

Rohr also plays fast and loose with the actual words of the Bible.

Rohr says in a meditation: “In fact, Jesus says, “John the Baptist came along fasting and living an ascetic life and you were upset with him. Now I come along eating and drinking and you don’t like me either” (see Matthew 11:18-19).”

This a very loose and colloquial translation of Matthew 11:18-19.

From the USCCB website here’s the passage: “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they said, ‘He is possessed by a demon.19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking and they said, ‘Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is vindicated by her works.”

Note how Rohr removes the reference to the demon (in other translations the devil).

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Fr Rohr is talking about how Jesus chose sinners rather than the righteous to shepherd…

He chose St Matthew a tax collector as an apostle. who was hated by the Jews like St Peter.

Jim

 

[dumbox]

The thing with Rohr is that his language and way of writing allows 10 people to come to 11 different interpretations…

You add what you think he’s said. See my other example. He even shamelessly misquotes the bible…because he knows that too many people won’t check him.

He’s Father "Rorh-schach

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I don’t see anything loose with the words Fr Rohr used, he just putting into contemporary understanding for Christians and non-Christians to understand.’

Jim

 

[dumbox]

Be very careful, especially with his meditations. He is most certainly on the edge, and many people a lot smarter than you or me have in good detail shown the problems with his belief system.

 

[dumbox]

Rohr writes in one meditation.

“he finds God among the impure instead of among the pure!”

Rohr is subtly denying the divinity of Jesus Christ. Jesus WAS God. His statement is borderline pantheistic.

But Rohr’s following like his vagueness.