F
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
May I remind you that St. Paul needs to be read both in context and intention. Therefore you will have to first give chapters and verses of what you are referring to.
Elizabeth502 kindly typed out Sr. Johnson’s explanation of panentheism in post 116.
G
grannymh
Guest
As I calmly reread the Bishops’ statement, I sense a tone of openness to Sr. Johnson’s work in resolving legitimate issues. The use of the word “ambiguities” is the signal of major effort to understand Sr.Johnson’s work in relationship to Catholic theology. In the opening paragraph. the Bishops state: “The Committee has concluded that this book contains misrepresentations, ambiguities, and errors that bear upon the faith of the Catholic Church as found in Sacred Scripture, and as it is authentically taught by the Church’s universal magisterium.” This also means that the book must be evaluated as a whole.
Also post 92 should be reread which refers to the central Catholic premise of “The Other” a reference to the transcendent God. The second to last paragraph is important in regard to language.
“The problem may be entirely in the language. (Which is why perhaps Johnson is saying that the hierarchy is “misinterpreting” her.) Unfortunately, language means a lot, and nowhere is that more true than in systematic theology. You have to be clear and distinct with your terms. If you’re using classic terms in a new setting (or redefining them directly or indirectly), then unless you defend how these same terms can be applied differently, it’s understandable that she might be ‘misinterpreted’.”
Also post 92 should be reread which refers to the central Catholic premise of “The Other” a reference to the transcendent God. The second to last paragraph is important in regard to language.
“The problem may be entirely in the language. (Which is why perhaps Johnson is saying that the hierarchy is “misinterpreting” her.) Unfortunately, language means a lot, and nowhere is that more true than in systematic theology. You have to be clear and distinct with your terms. If you’re using classic terms in a new setting (or redefining them directly or indirectly), then unless you defend how these same terms can be applied differently, it’s understandable that she might be ‘misinterpreted’.”
S
StAnastasia
Guest
The bishops’ statement itself contains misrepresentations of fact, and needs to be read in context.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
May I check my understanding here? The Bishops’ statement is that Sr Johnson’s theology means that the created world (including ourselves) are of the same order of being as God?
She does not say that. The statement either misunderstands or falsifies Dr. Johnson’s text.
This seems to me to be a problematic assertion given the attributes of God unless one posits that we share some being but not all, which seems clumsy to me
G
grannymh
Guest
Please be precise. Thank you.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Read Dr. Johnson’s response to the bishops’ statement; she offers a detailed reply. I am traveling today to give a public lecture on theology and evolution, including St. Paul’s panentheist model, and do not have access to Dr. Johnson’s statement.
G
grannymh
Guest
You can easily access Dr. Johnson’s Quest statement on panentheism (book, page 188)
by going to post 116 in this thread.
G
grannymh
Guest
If you would kindly read the entire verse 28, you will see that the quote within the quote is an outside reference to our being created by the transcendent God without reference to the panentheist model.
Being the offspring of God refers back to man being created in the image of God, Genesis 2: 26-27. Please notice that the language of human creation in both chapters 1 & 2 is active and direct because man is separate from God. For example. “Let us make man” “God created man” “See I give you” “the Lord God formed man”. This is obviously different from an imaginary language where God would say that created humans are within Him or are the result of “mutually abiding” as in panentheism (all-in-God). For her concept of “mutual abiding”, Dr. Johnson provides the metaphor of a pregnant female body.
The active language in Genesis 1 & 2 affirms the fact that man did not previously exist at the same time with God. If man, somehow existed within God, this would contradict the Catholic teaching that God brought creation into existence out of nothing. If somehow God created man to be within Him, this would deny the possibility of personal choice to be without God.
In reply to Fran 65, post 119
One reason that “a transcendent God Who is equally immanent” can be seen as a problematic assertion is that we like to apply the “logic” of All grass in green; therefore, all green things are grass. In other words, the theological error can be expressed in this example. Because God upholds and sustains the created world, including us, we are related to God; therefore, God is automatically related to us. This automatic dual relationship does not follow because God is self-existent and thus totally independent of His creation. Yet, God does not abandon us. He not only gives us being and existence, but He also sustains our existence so that we can reach our final purpose.
In CCC 300, St. Augustine is quoted. “God is higher than my highest and more inward than my innermost self.” (See CCC footnote 159 for citation.)
Dr. Johnson addresses Divine Presence in Quest, chapter 9, page 181 and following. She writes: “The mystery of the living God, utterly transcendent, is also the creative power Who dwells at the heart of the world sustaining every moment of its evolution.” (book, page 188)
She claims that the mental model of panentheism (all-in-God) is opposite to pantheism (all is God). See copy in red in post 116.
However, both “all-in God” and “all is God” presume a presence that is equal to God. If there is a presence equal to God, how does one address the human person? Human nature, in itself, unites the material and spiritual worlds; therefore, humans exist in a different order of being from God Who is pure spirit. Even the description of “mutually abiding” assumes equal presence. The Catholic teaching is that creatures are not equal in any way to our Infinite Creator.
“In fact, it is only because God is self-existent, and thus radically distinct from creation that he is able to bring into existence, out of nothing, other beings. It is precisely the act of creation that establishes both the transcendent otherness of God as well as His intimate relationship to creation, for creation only exists by being related to God as its Creator.”
(Bishops statement, pages 16-17)
Please refer to post 116 for the rest of the Catholic teaching presented by the Bishops’ statement. For additional information, please refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 300-301
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Fran, that was my take, too (an implication, if not an affirmation, of shared ontology). That would be the kind of “ambiguity” (of concept) to which the bishops were referring. Alternatively, it is ambiguity of expression, which is what I was referring to earlier when I suggested sloppy thinking. What EJ seems to be dismissive of is precision of terms and clear categories; she seems impatient with these, and this is why I said earlier that she takes her theology from a base of spirituality as opposed to systematics. What she is saying is nothing new: that God, and the experience of the living God, is ulitmately “impossible” to categorize or define. Duh. In our everyday lives, we are not so much guided by formal theology as by learned spirituality – all of us, no matter how educated we are in general, no matter how educated we are in theology.May I check my understanding here? The Bishops’ statement is that Sr Johnson’s theology means that the created world (including ourselves) are of the same order of being as God? The analogy of pregnancy supports this interpretation as the infant is of the same order of being as the mother.
This seems to me to be a problematic assertion given the attributes of God unless one posits that we share some being but not all, which seems clumsy to me
There are various avenues to ‘defining’ God: some of these would be experiential as opposed to intellectual. But let’s not confuse one with the other and call it theology, is perhaps the secondary message of the bishops. Because I experience God within me, sometimes in a permeated way much analogous to being pregnant or giving birth, does not mean that God’s essence as a being becomes amalgamated into me; it means He is gracious enough to share His divine life with me and you and anyone He so chooses, whenever He chooses, as He is ultimately free and powerful to do so. The theme of God breaking through is a theme of the great masters of Christian prayer, and is also a way that some theologians speak of creation: poets and theologians from Paul to Gerard Manley Hopkins to Teilhard de Chardin and many others. But it’s because we lack precision to reduce to words our infinite Father, or to expand our words to encompass Him that we are left with trying to understand how a unitive reality and a unitive experience can also leave creatures distinct from their embracing Creator.
G
grannymh
Guest
Here is the link to Dr. Johnson’s statement ncronline.org/print/25020
The following relates to Acts 17: 28, first part.
“These are all heuristic images that help theology explore divine immanence. As Quest explains, they increase understanding of the utterly transcendent God who yet is not far from us, being the One “in whom we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). It is interesting that the Statement also cites this biblical text but neither credits Quest’s exploration of its meaning nor presents its own understanding of this text. But the “in whom” opens the door to the model of panentheism: God in the world and the world encircled by God who infinitely transcends the world. Examining this chapter again, I see that perhaps it would have forestalled its misunderstanding of panentheism if Quest had stated explicitly that creation is God’s free gift, a gratuitous act of love and thus not necessary.” (page 21 in my printed copy) Emphasis mine. “Examining this chapter again, I see…” changes the subject.
Regarding Dr. Johnson’s comment that the statement cites Acts 17:28. The Statement cites* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, paragraph 300 which is the teaching. Note the difference in wording between this paragraph and Dr. Johnson’s explanation in Quest (post 116) Catechism: God is present to His creatures’ inmost being.* Quest*: Panentheism envisions a relationship whereby every being abides* **in ***God,…
**300 **God is infinitely greater than all his works: “You have set your glory above the heavens.” Indeed, God’s “greatness is unsearchable”. But because he is the free and sovereign Creator, the first cause of all that exists, God is present to his creatures’ inmost being: “In him we live and move and have our being.” In the words of St. Augustine, God is “higher than my highest and more inward than my innermost self”.
link: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/300.htm
Regarding Dr. Johnson’s But the “in whom” opens the door to the model of panentheism.
This is correct but it is not the point. The Bishops’ are concerned about what kind of thinking will enter the open door.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Granny, the Catechism is a summary reference tool that some find useful. I don’t personally know any theologians who assign it in their classes.
Those of us who use Elizabeth Johnson’s (or other theologians’) works in our classes do so because these books are stimulating and engaging. Johnson’s Quest for the Living God raises no more “red flags” than does the Catechism.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
All models are incomplete, but some are useful. Panentheism is a useful model for the God/world relationship.
G
grannymh
Guest
Re: Granny, the Catechism is a summary reference tool that some find useful. From Post 131
How sad it is when the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition can be casually dismissed depending on its usefulness. My first reaction is to consider this as a generic example of independent separation from Catholic truth.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Granny, you are exaggerating. Not assigning the catechism in a theology class does not constitute separation from Catholic truth. Your reverence for the catechism borders on idolatry; it almost seems to replace God. You treat the catechism as some Protestant fundamentalists treat the bible, and they are guilty of bibliolatry.
Of course, I would never express contempt for the catechism as does one priest in a local seminary, who begins his class by holding it up and telling the students “there is a lot of garbage in here,” walking too the trash can and tossing it in. That’s just silly and tendentious. But the catechism is a reference tool, not the be-all and end-all of Catholicism. Neither the Bible nor the catechism can substitute for a relationship with the living God.
G
grannymh
Guest
If you will kindly reread what I said, you will discover that your assumption about theology classes is unfounded.
“From post 133. How sad it is when the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition can be casually dismissed depending on its usefulness. My first reaction is to consider this as a generic example of independent separation from Catholic truth.”
I consider the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, as the best source for Catholic truth. I will continue to use it regardless of what other people say.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Granny, no one is telling you not to use the Catechism! I’m glad you find it useful.
G
grannymh
Guest
From your post 123. “The bishops’ statement itself contains misrepresentations of fact, and needs to be read in context”
From your post 131. “Granny, the Catechism is a summary reference tool that some find useful. I don’t personally know any theologians who assign it in their classes.”
Those of us who use Elizabeth Johnson’s (or other theologians’) works in our classes do so because these books are stimulating and engaging. Johnson’s Quest for the Living God raises no more “red flags” than does the Catechism."
In fairness to Dr. Johnson, I am looking for the basis of the Bishops’ statement ,
“Because this book by a prominent Catholic theologian is written not for specialists in theology but for “a broad audience” [on page 2 of book], the Committee on Doctrine felt obliged, as part of its pastoral ministry, to note these misrepresentations, ambiguities, and errors.”
Let me attempt me to connect the dots.
All through the Bishops’ statement, there are quotes from the book with a reference to a page number in the book so that the reader can place the quote in the context of the book. Thus, there is no misrepresentation of facts, because the facts are taken from the book itself.
To read the Bishops’ statement in context, there are the facts which Dr. Johnson wrote about in the book. There is also the Bishops’ own context which is the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *Since the Bishops and some theologians are not on the same level of appreciation for the universal Catechism, ambiguities regarding correct Catholic teaching can invade the writing of a person with a casual opinion (summary reference tool) toward the universal Catechism. Or ambiguities can occur when an author wants a new theology to fit the present century.
The Bishops’ Statement is very clear about what these ambiguities can lead to when presented to a broad audience including those students who are not aware of the universal teaching of the Catholic Church because their professors who taught Catholic theology did not assign the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
It is the USCCB statement that misrepresents what Dr. Johnson says in Quest for the Living God. For that reason, the statement is being essentially ignored by theologians, who continue to assign her provocative book.
G
grannymh
Guest
I truly wish you would discuss the specific misrepresentations in the Bishop’s statement with the actual book as your resource. While Dr. Johnson’s response will be helpful to you, it is after the fact of publication. In addition, please keep in mind that Dr. Johnson, herself, says on page 2, that her book is written with a broad audience in view. In my humble opinion, it is this “broad audience” (Bishops’ statement, page 1) that was the driving force for the examination and evaluation of the book. Naturally, the theologians who like the book will continue to use it. This does not affect the purpose of the statement.
The “etc.” in the thread title refers to these areas in the book.
- A false alternative: “modern theism” or radical reconstruction of the idea of God
- A God Who suffers
- New names for the unknown God
- The presence of God in all the religions
- Creator spirit in the evolving world
- Trinity: the living God of love
- Status