G
Geremia
Guest
Clarity, exactly!
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
I think that some Catholics have a problem with men like Paul VI, John Paul II and now Benedict XVI because of the lofty spirituality of these men. Even John XXIII was a man who stepped outside the box. In the past, we had popes who were very careful to give the laity the diluted version of the spiritual life. It may have been the appropriate thing to do. People did not go to colleges and universities. Books, newspapers, television, radio and other forms of media that could be used to learn and elevate the intellect were not available. Most Catholics were predominantly rural. After the industrial revolution and the great European migration to the Americas in the late 1800s and 1900s Catholics moved from the farm to the factory.
However, after World War II Catholics began to attend institutes of higher education and technology. Catholics became very involved in the political arena. We also became involved in the world of academics. We can say that we took a step back in time. There was a time when Catholic led the world in culture, science and art. We ran the great academies, universities, schools of art and scientific institutions. But the revolutions in the United States, France and Latin America changed all that and Catholic intellectuals retreated into the background of mainstream society. Catholics have grown used to simple explanations of their faith, almost a Q & A format. It was what worked for a population that did not have much education.
Things have changed and are changing. Today’s young Catholics are engaged in the academic world. They are being challenged with science, art, technology, politics new philosophies and so forth. They are very uncomfortable with their faith. It’s almost too simple and yet complex, because the Q & A method gives them answers, but does not spell out the method that explains how those answers came to be. The result has been disastrous. Younger Catholics find the faith to be lacking in logic, lacking in substance, and lacking in explanations.
Men like Pope Benedict are speaking to this younger more educated generation of Catholics who want to hear the loftier thoughts of faith and who want to explore the more challenging aspects of the spiritual life. The Black and White Version of Catholicism does not appeal or nourish the well educated Catholic of today. We can see this in religious life and in seminaries. The ones that are thriving are the ones that have returned to the old models that we had during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance where the individual had to do the work, where the Church did not provide black and white answers, where the monks and theologians threw thoughts and spiritual experiences on the table and let the student peel the onion.
In my own religious family, Franciscans, we are going through a reformation, again. The fraternities that are thriving are those where men like Benedict XVI are leading. These men and women lead through their spiritual experiences of the Gospel life, rather than handing the novice a set of bulleted rules for them to follow. The reformed fraternities hand the young friars the rule of St. Francis, his writings, the writings of the Franciscan mystics and demand that they pray over them. Then the formators use the old methods used by the early friars to help the younger brothers and sisters understand. They engage the young brothers and sisters in a process of discernment. This process involves reading, studying, thinking, asking questions, and understanding the conclusions. They don’t arrive at new conclusions, new doctrines, new beliefs. What they acquire is the background by going through the process that the original thinkers and mystics experienced.
I believe that this is what the Holy Father wants for the laity as well. This reform should not be limited to religious life and seminaries. Religious and clerics should not be the only ones who can think higher thoughts. Every Catholic should be achieve some level of deeper understanding of truth. That’s why I suggest to people that they read the classics, even Fr. De Chardin. Even if they contain errors, one must understand what one opposes and why. And the fact is that in the pages of these works that contain errors, there are also statements of great truth. Most importantly, the reader is led through the individual’s journey. Great Christian thinkins often learn by studying the journey of others, adopting the good and avoiding the pitfalls.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
However, after World War II Catholics began to attend institutes of higher education and technology. Catholics became very involved in the political arena. We also became involved in the world of academics. We can say that we took a step back in time. There was a time when Catholic led the world in culture, science and art. We ran the great academies, universities, schools of art and scientific institutions. But the revolutions in the United States, France and Latin America changed all that and Catholic intellectuals retreated into the background of mainstream society. Catholics have grown used to simple explanations of their faith, almost a Q & A format. It was what worked for a population that did not have much education.
Things have changed and are changing. Today’s young Catholics are engaged in the academic world. They are being challenged with science, art, technology, politics new philosophies and so forth. They are very uncomfortable with their faith. It’s almost too simple and yet complex, because the Q & A method gives them answers, but does not spell out the method that explains how those answers came to be. The result has been disastrous. Younger Catholics find the faith to be lacking in logic, lacking in substance, and lacking in explanations.
Men like Pope Benedict are speaking to this younger more educated generation of Catholics who want to hear the loftier thoughts of faith and who want to explore the more challenging aspects of the spiritual life. The Black and White Version of Catholicism does not appeal or nourish the well educated Catholic of today. We can see this in religious life and in seminaries. The ones that are thriving are the ones that have returned to the old models that we had during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance where the individual had to do the work, where the Church did not provide black and white answers, where the monks and theologians threw thoughts and spiritual experiences on the table and let the student peel the onion.
In my own religious family, Franciscans, we are going through a reformation, again. The fraternities that are thriving are those where men like Benedict XVI are leading. These men and women lead through their spiritual experiences of the Gospel life, rather than handing the novice a set of bulleted rules for them to follow. The reformed fraternities hand the young friars the rule of St. Francis, his writings, the writings of the Franciscan mystics and demand that they pray over them. Then the formators use the old methods used by the early friars to help the younger brothers and sisters understand. They engage the young brothers and sisters in a process of discernment. This process involves reading, studying, thinking, asking questions, and understanding the conclusions. They don’t arrive at new conclusions, new doctrines, new beliefs. What they acquire is the background by going through the process that the original thinkers and mystics experienced.
I believe that this is what the Holy Father wants for the laity as well. This reform should not be limited to religious life and seminaries. Religious and clerics should not be the only ones who can think higher thoughts. Every Catholic should be achieve some level of deeper understanding of truth. That’s why I suggest to people that they read the classics, even Fr. De Chardin. Even if they contain errors, one must understand what one opposes and why. And the fact is that in the pages of these works that contain errors, there are also statements of great truth. Most importantly, the reader is led through the individual’s journey. Great Christian thinkins often learn by studying the journey of others, adopting the good and avoiding the pitfalls.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Spoon-feeding of laity was pre-Vatican 2
Vatican 2 emphasises self-responsibilty, and credits us with the ability to be rational human beings.
Up to Vatican 2 the focus was on obedience. Post Vatican 2 - encouragement to explore & question.
Feminist spirituality - 2000 years ago society considered women to be deformed males (St Augustine wondered where they “fitted in”)
200 years ago. Society questioned whether or not women had souls.
100 years ago. Society questioned whether or not women had brains (e.g. the Bronte’s wrote under pseudonym male names; Beatrix Potter was a skilled scientist and had to hide it)
This century women were given the vote.
Where to next?
J
JReducation
Guest
Yet, Judaism and Catholicism always had a special place for women. In Judaism the mother is the keeper of the faith. Judaism is transmitted through the mother, not the father. That’s why Luke goes to great troubles to describe Jesus’ matriarchal lineage. He wants to make certaint hat there is no doubt concerning Jesus’ Jewishness.Spoon-feeding of laity was pre-Vatican 2
Vatican 2 emphasises self-responsibilty, and credits us with the ability to be rational human beings.
Up to Vatican 2 the focus was on obedience. Post Vatican 2 - encouragement to explore & question.
Feminist spirituality - 2000 years ago society considered women to be deformed males (St Augustine wondered where they “fitted in”)
200 years ago. Society questioned whether or not women had souls.
100 years ago. Society questioned whether or not women had brains (e.g. the Bronte’s wrote under pseudonym male names; Beatrix Potter was a skilled scientist and had to hide it)
This century women were given the vote.
Where to next?
In Catholicism, nuns enjoyed singular rights that other women did not have. They ran great estates attached to the abbeys and monasteries. They ran their own religious houses, wrote their own constitutions, studied and managed money. The abbess managed the income of the abbey. Many abbesses were like bishops, they even had priests assigned under their jurisdiction. We have some singular authorities in the Church who went about almost unchallenged: Clare of Assisi, Catherine of Siena and Teresa of Avila, in that order.
There is a popular story about Clare. When Pope Gregory IX came to Assisi to canonize Francis he told Mother Clare that he was goign to mitigate the rules on poverty. Clare stopped walking and turning to the pope she said, “You’re not listening. I want to be relieved of my sins, not of my obligation to live the Gospel.” This actually happened before eye-witnesses.
The interesting thing about these women is that they did not settle for theological spoon feeding. They were very much into the deeper side of the spiritual life. Clare is said to have rejected the catechism proposed by the Lateran Council in favor of Francis’ writings and reading of the Gospel. She wanted to understand the spiritual life for herself. She did not want others to tell her what the Church taught, she wanted to explore it.
Catherine and Teresa were avid readers of the Fathers and the spiritual masters such as Bonaventure, Francis of Osuna, Dominic and others. These women certainly proved to be very intelligent, besides being holy. Their understanding of doctrine and dogma was very deep. That’s how they became Doctors of the Church. They took dogma and doctrine apart and put it back together by praying over it and meditating on the mysteries behind the doctrines.
This is the example that the Church wants us to imitate today. We need to take the doctrines and dogmas of the faith and study them through prayer.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Dear Brother I think this is one of the issues the Church grapples to deal with - difference in function (not status) between laity and ordained ministry.
The road to Emmaus - we meet Christ in dialogue, we meet him in context not in vacuum.
“So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus Himself drew near and went with them” (Lk 24:15)
It is almost as though the latter day Popes are saying, it is our Church, let us talk about things. Let us meet each other in dialogue.
As you say Brother, this endeavour has the sanction of Church history.
The road to Emmaus - we meet Christ in dialogue, we meet him in context not in vacuum.
“So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus Himself drew near and went with them” (Lk 24:15)
It is almost as though the latter day Popes are saying, it is our Church, let us talk about things. Let us meet each other in dialogue.
As you say Brother, this endeavour has the sanction of Church history.
E
Earnest_Bunbury
Guest
Yes. If you don’t even get the basic truth about the nature of man correct, how can the proceeding higher levels of truth rising from it be correct.
No. De Chardin was mentioned because of the nature of his work, reconciling the temporal and the spiritual, because the pope is pointing to the reconciling of creation with Christ which will happen after Christ’s return and judgment.
The OP link doesn’t show the quote that is highlighted, I don’t know where the quote is actually from, but to take the quote as stated:
I don’t see any praise in the words “great work”, and the dictionary puts the definition of great as meaning “wonderful” at number four behind 3 preceding definitions as being “large in size, number, and degree”.
.
The definition being wonderful is misapplied here because the errors documented by the Church against de Chardin preclude his work as being both “wonderful” and correct. The errors of de Chardin preclude a learned theologian such as Pope Benedict from praising his results, but not the desire to elucidate the two truths of science and theology. The reconciling of creation with its Creator after judgment is what I think this quote about de Chardin by the pope is about and not the pope “praising his work” as something we need to study.
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
- Reconciling the temporal & the spiritual.
- The reconciling of creation with its Creator after judgement.
Is this implying all shall be redeemed?
If this is what is implied there seems little point in striving for the Kingdom.
The Church is left working out its own salvation in fear & trembling (but does it really matter?)
J
JReducation
Guest
I think that if one reads Pope Benedict’s work on Jesus of Nazareth, we get a better idea of what this means. It’s the language of Christological mysticism. The Spirit of Jesus reconciles all things through himself to the Father. Pope Benedict has a very long explanation how this begins when Jesus goes to the desert, (pp. 33-41). The issue is the primacy of God and that without him, nothing can be good. It’s not about oneness as it is about goodness. In this sense, Fr. de Chardin’s method of cosmic reality works here. Christ brings the entire cosmos into union with the goodness of God, establishing God’s primacy over all things.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
“The Spirit of Jesus reconciles all things through himself to the Father…it’s about goodness.” And Satan will sit at the right hand of God and Hell shall be no more?I think that if one reads Pope Benedict’s work on Jesus of Nazareth, we get a better idea of what this means. It’s the language of Christological mysticism. The Spirit of Jesus reconciles all things through himself to the Father. Pope Benedict has a very long explanation how this begins when Jesus goes to the desert, (pp. 33-41). The issue is the primacy of God and that without him, nothing can be good. It’s not about oneness as it is about goodness. In this sense, Fr. de Chardin’s method of cosmic reality works here. Christ brings the entire cosmos into union with the goodness of God, establishing God’s primacy over all things.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I think it’s very Franciscan to be so charitable as to pray for Satan to be forgiven.
J
JReducation
Guest
First of all, I’ll begin with the last sentence that I highlighted. It’s offensive.
Second, let’s go to the first sentence. How did you get the idea that Satan will sit at the right hand of God? That’s not what Pope Benedict is saying.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Brother why are you so quick to take offense when none was intended?First of all, I’ll begin with the last sentence that I highlighted. It’s offensive.
Second, let’s go to the first sentence. How did you get the idea that Satan will sit at the right hand of God? That’s not what Pope Benedict is saying.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
To my knowledge there has been some discussion about Satan’s conversion, and I believe it was Franciscan.
If “all things are reconciled to God” then we have one of the objections given to Fr de Chardin’s theology: ‘The synthesis of the Christian God on high and the Marxist God of the future is the only God we can henceforth adore in spirit and in truth’ (Fr de Chardin)
E
Earnest_Bunbury
Guest
I have a new category for “reading into” statements that have in no way even come close to what was said or even alluded to: “leapism”. Making gigantic “leaps” of conjecture past all bounds. It seems to show that a conclusion has, in the mind of one “leaping to conjecture”, already made up ones mind and the facts discussed are only seen in light of one’s preconceived understanding.
To correlate Creation with Satan is wrong. Your grand inference is grand illusion.
If “all things are reconciled to God” then we have one of the objections given to Fr de Chardin’s theology: ‘The synthesis of the Christian God on high and the Marxist God of the future is the only God we can henceforth adore in spirit and in truth’ (Fr de Chardin)
This is why de Chardin is wrong. There is only one God, the Christian God. The Marxist God is one of the Marxists own making and is a false god. Is God not also the God of the future?
J
JReducation
Guest
It is I who should apologize. I did not know that someone is praying for Satan’s conversion. It’s not us. I know that our holy Father Francis and Teresa of Avila both prayed for the salvation of Judas. This is the first the I hear about Satan’s conversion, which is impossible. Satan’s choice is made for all eternity. I wonder who actually prays for this.
The Pope does not put it quite that way. Though in that particular chapter to which I refer people, he does speak about Maxism, but not kindly. Just the opposite. He points out the need for Jesus, by pointing to the evils and injustices in the world.
Once again everyone, I sincerely apologize to Kevin. I misunderstood.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
This makes me wonder, how one defines the “Marxist God.” I’ve read Fr. de Chardin’s work, many times and have seen sentences like this. But they do not define or unwrap the idea. It would be interesting to find what he understood the Marxist god to be. It never occurred to me to ask the question. I just read past those statements and blew them off as mistakes in his thinking and then proceeded to look for what was good in his anthropology. Fr. de Chardin was really more of an anthropologist than a theologian, even though he had extensive theological education. But he focused more on the other.
I’d love to find his definition for this term.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
E
Earnest_Bunbury
Guest
I do pray that your health concerns are better and that you are doing well.This makes me wonder, how one defines the “Marxist God.” I’ve read Fr. de Chardin’s work, many times and have seen sentences like this. But they do not define or unwrap the idea. It would be interesting to find what he understood the Marxist god to be. It never occurred to me to ask the question. I just read past those statements and blew them off as mistakes in his thinking and then proceeded to look for what was good in his anthropology. Fr. de Chardin was really more of an anthropologist than a theologian, even though he had extensive theological education. But he focused more on the other.
I’d love to find his definition for this term.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
In his book “Trojan Horse in the City of God” Dietrich von Hildebrand makes note of this as de Chardin’s fundamental flaw, his immanent view of God. Marx had no God in his views but de Chardin forces one in there through his pantheistic theology of “becoming”, to a denigration of “being”. The forward view of temporal redemption of Marx fits well with the inherent evolutionary redemption of creation that is pantheisticly conceived by de Chardin.
The God of Christianity is the God above, of pure act and not any potentiality. The “God” of Marx is one of becoming, of the “forward” as von Hildebrand puts it. The less than orthodox (mistakenly termed “leftist” Catholics) often talk of the “emerging” Church and of progressive views of theology, liberation theology and the Marxist regimes of Central America shows the similarity of this, and is part and parcel of a denigration of the transcendence of the true Christian view of divine revelation. Pantheism both elevates man to being part of God (in an impersonal absolute sense) and denigrates him by making man subordinate to that “impersonal absolute”, the God that is creation and not the God of creation (a Personal Absolute).
The abyss between God and man becomes less pronounced and thus the need to work to cross that abyss is lessened. This brings God down to our level rather than trying to elevate ourselves to God by renouncing sin, in prayer and contemplation, and acceptance of grace which, thus, is a transformation in Christ of our being and is only in a temporal sense becoming. I know you already know this but the contrast between de Chardin and divine revelation is in how one comes to be redeemed, either spiritually or temporally. For de Chardin, it is temporally.
This temporal sense is a lesser reality and will pass away where we will be in the eternal moment of God which is eternity. De Chardin’s view is of this moment is achieved through the temporal becoming, of an evolutionary process to God and not a transforming of our “being”, our being in Christ. This colors all his works and writings as dangerous and I believe the Church thinks so too by its condemnation, rightly so, in my opinion.
K
KEVIN_WILCOX
Guest
Dear Brother, obscurity and presumption are alive and established in my posts. Pray for me that this too shall pass. Forgive me.It is I who should apologize. I did not know that someone is praying for Satan’s conversion. It’s not us. I know that our holy Father Francis and Teresa of Avila both prayed for the salvation of Judas. This is the first the I hear about Satan’s conversion, which is impossible. Satan’s choice is made for all eternity. I wonder who actually prays for this.
The Pope does not put it quite that way. Though in that particular chapter to which I refer people, he does speak about Maxism, but not kindly. Just the opposite. He points out the need for Jesus, by pointing to the evils and injustices in the world.
Once again everyone, I sincerely apologize to Kevin. I misunderstood.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Y
yosupman
Guest
Amazing conversation!
D
DrWeed
Guest
Earlier this week, I had to go through some works written by Teilhard’s admirers, then stumbled across this thread. Sad to say, if Pope Benedict is praising this guy, then either a) someone else wrote the speech for him, or b) we’re in for a serious leadership crisis. Since this pope is really the only leader on the planet I have respect for, I prefer to believe A. If it’s B, then it was an astounding example of bad judgment of a kind Benedict has never shown before, in the same league as JP II speaking positively of voodoo priests. There’s simply no excuse for giving a nutbar like Teilhard a platform of any kind, or treating his ideas with any kind of respsect, because he spoke for the Devil.
Teilhard and his cult of followers are seriously deranged people who babble at length about “Cosmic Christs” and Jesus being the “Omega Point” of history and garbage like that. They hold numerous heretical doctrines, such as the belief that sin is a necessary part of our universes, because God’s work is always incomplete and therefore imperfect; the Fall of Man was built into the very structure of an imperfect universe right from the beginning, not as a result of Satan tempting Adam, who is merely a literary device. Just this one belief is sufficent to earn Teilhard and all of his followers immediate excommunications ley sententiae; they shouldn’t even be taking Eucharist, let alone serving in high positions in the Church. And this one belief is just the tip of a big iceberg of heretical doctrines they hold, in addition to a lot of mysticism which sounds very uplifting and all but is actually just babbling nonsense, with a lot of made-up jargon like “noosphere.”
Technically, Teilhard and his followers haven’t been formally excommunicated, but no one’s supposed to be reading his books either, for very good reasons. In actuality, by virtue of their numerous rejections of Catholic theological and moral dogmas, they already excommunicated themselves long ago. They haven’t been formally expelled from the Church, but they should have been, in the most humiliating way possible. They didn’t threaten the money and power wielded by the corrupt wing of the Hierarchy, so like all of the other heretical movements of our time, they were allowed to do as they pleased.
To make matters worse, in his book “Hostage to the Devil,” Malachi Martin goes into great detail about the case of a priest who was a big follower of Teilhard and turned out to be possessed. In the course of the exorcism process, one of that priest’s colleagues discovered that he was possessed by the same demon. Both of them spouted a lot of the same nonsense that Teilhard’s followers - such as John Haught and many others - also do today. Frankly, I don’t want to touch that stuff with a ten-foot pole; it’s a waste of time anyways, not when we have 2,000 years worth of orthodox philosophers and mystics to talk about. The fact that so many of our bishops and theologians read Teilhard instead of consulting that vast storehouse of knowledge speaks volumes about who they really serve.
– Steve
Teilhard and his cult of followers are seriously deranged people who babble at length about “Cosmic Christs” and Jesus being the “Omega Point” of history and garbage like that. They hold numerous heretical doctrines, such as the belief that sin is a necessary part of our universes, because God’s work is always incomplete and therefore imperfect; the Fall of Man was built into the very structure of an imperfect universe right from the beginning, not as a result of Satan tempting Adam, who is merely a literary device. Just this one belief is sufficent to earn Teilhard and all of his followers immediate excommunications ley sententiae; they shouldn’t even be taking Eucharist, let alone serving in high positions in the Church. And this one belief is just the tip of a big iceberg of heretical doctrines they hold, in addition to a lot of mysticism which sounds very uplifting and all but is actually just babbling nonsense, with a lot of made-up jargon like “noosphere.”
Technically, Teilhard and his followers haven’t been formally excommunicated, but no one’s supposed to be reading his books either, for very good reasons. In actuality, by virtue of their numerous rejections of Catholic theological and moral dogmas, they already excommunicated themselves long ago. They haven’t been formally expelled from the Church, but they should have been, in the most humiliating way possible. They didn’t threaten the money and power wielded by the corrupt wing of the Hierarchy, so like all of the other heretical movements of our time, they were allowed to do as they pleased.
To make matters worse, in his book “Hostage to the Devil,” Malachi Martin goes into great detail about the case of a priest who was a big follower of Teilhard and turned out to be possessed. In the course of the exorcism process, one of that priest’s colleagues discovered that he was possessed by the same demon. Both of them spouted a lot of the same nonsense that Teilhard’s followers - such as John Haught and many others - also do today. Frankly, I don’t want to touch that stuff with a ten-foot pole; it’s a waste of time anyways, not when we have 2,000 years worth of orthodox philosophers and mystics to talk about. The fact that so many of our bishops and theologians read Teilhard instead of consulting that vast storehouse of knowledge speaks volumes about who they really serve.
– Steve
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
I could not find this quote at this link. Could someone give me specific direction?Here it is on the Vatican website:
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/or/or_eng/text.html
On Friday afternoon, 24 July, the Holy Father celebrated Vespers with the faithful of Aosta, Italy, in the city’s Cathedral. During his Homily, the Pope commented on a brief passage from the Letter to the Romans
We ourselves, with our whole being, must be adoration and sacrifice, and by transforming our world, give it back to God. The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. And let us pray the Lord to help us become priests in this sense, to aid in the transformation of the world, in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves.
M
Mike30
Guest
This thread has been dead for three years now. Why resurrect it?
- Status