Rohr video: What did Jesus Really Teach?

[MtnDwellar]

We can start anywhere.
How about this quote that I transcribed from the video?

And even the Eucharist itself, is used, at least in my Catholic Church, is used to find the worthy, the pure, the true members, when every time that Jesus eats, He seems to be eating with the wrong people.

Where does he get this? I have never ever heard it taught that the Eucharist is a type of screening process to find the worthy, the pure, and the true members. Is there any reference?

He should not compare eating burgers to receiving the Eucharist. One is a holy sacrament and the other is just putting food in your mouth.

 

[Peter_Plato]

We can start anywhere.
How about this quote that I transcribed from the video?

Where does he get this? I have never ever heard it taught that the Eucharist is a type of screening process to find the worthy, the pure, and the true members. Is there any reference?

He should not compare eating burgers to receiving the Eucharist. One is a holy sacrament and the other is just putting food in your mouth.

With regards to “judgements,” I think St. Paul, rather than Richard Rohr ought to be the point of reference.

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— 10 not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? 13 God will judge those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.”
(1 Cor. 5:9-13)

And on The Lord’s Supper:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
(1 Cor 11:28-32)

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Where does he get this? I have never ever heard it taught that the Eucharist is a type of screening process to find the worthy, the pure, and the true members. Is there any reference?

He should not compare eating burgers to receiving the Eucharist. One is a holy sacrament and the other is just putting food in your mouth.

I haven’t heard it taught that way either. But I do often question how we can say “Lord I am not worthy but only say the word and I shall be healed” and that only applies to a subset of our sins. But that’s me I don’t know if that’s exactly what he’s addressing but because of this idea of mine, his words resonated with me and I haven’t examined them this thoroughly until now.

Also from one thing I read once, he seems to dislike the practice of a minister having to announce, before Communion, that anyone who “doesn’t understand” may not receive. That would be, I suppose, anyone who isn’t Catholic. I hear that at Catholic weddings; sorry folks but only Catholics can receive – although in recent years it’s become fashionable to offer them to come up for a “blessing”. Like, “you’re not like us so but we acknowledge you are there.” I’m not making fun of getting a blessing, but it’s another subtle way of saying “we acknowledge that you are here, but let’s keep in mind you are not like us.” Overly dramatized, maybe, but hopefully this conveys my thought adequately.

And I know for a fact that some Catholics take notice of whether certain people they are interested go to Communion and who doesn’t, and at time whether they receive a blessing. We can say, well they are there for Mass not to scope out the others, but in Real Life people will do this, and this practice offers them temptation to speculate.

So presumably we Catholics all get together and form three groups at Communion time… those who are “in the know” and “state of grace” – and those who don’t go for whatever reason, and those who “only receive a blessing” for whatever reason. And since the Mass is centered around the Eucharist, then really it seems a bit cruel to say it’s a mortal sin to miss Mass, but then if you come next week and haven’t gone to confession, you may come but only watch others eat for I am less worthy than them.

Here I am talking straight from my own heart and thoughts, but they are subject to modification because I’m shooting from the hip here, having not considered this before. So consider this my starting position on the topic – maybe I’ll stick with it.

So I am not calling for Catholic teachings to change, nor do I intend to be disobedient, but in my heart I see his point. We invite – nay, require – Catholics to come to the feast, but if they are not worthy (and THEY know who they are) or if they don’t understand the full meaning of the Eucharist (because they don’t belong to our group) they must step back from the table while the others eat.

As far as eating “regular food” v “real food” of the Eucharist, I’m inclined to play that down. Because the Eucharistic celebration is a memory of the last supper, right? Jesus gave His own Body and Blood to Judas, knowing he was about to betray Him.

So those are the reasons I liked this. I don’t read a whole lot of Rohr but I have a little, and I just looked I have 639 unread daily reflections in my Rohr email folder, so really I’m more about the concepts than in following the man. Others know more about his writing probably and can help me out with his explanations – these here are mostly my own, but I never really had the guts to talk to anyone about it until I heard him saying this.

MS

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

With regards to “judgements,” I think St. Paul, rather than Richard Rohr ought to be the point of reference.

Yeah that’s pretty interesting. Is he calling us to behave in a way like Jesus acted, or in a different way? The question is sincere, based on I’ve heard some Catholics say that we aren’t supposed to do what Jesus did because He was God and we aren’t. That reasoning strikes me as suspicious because it seems we alternate between “fully human” and “not really human” as any given topic and situation may prefer. So yes I need to read this more in context and see where that goes.

And on The Lord’s Supper:

So you’re suggesting that the Church is exclusive to protect us from unworthily receiving?

Again I’m not familiar with this context, so I’ll call my ideas here as Take One.

The verses following the ones you quoted are kind of interesting too.

1 Cor 11:33-34
Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that your meetings may not result in judgment. The other matters I shall set in order when I come.

What does it mean to eat at home? And our meetings may not result in judgment? If we are talking about the Eucharist, then isn’t that the issue at hand? Are these meetings like after the Eucharist? The weirdness of this is giving me pause to read too much into the part you quoted.

MS

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yeah that’s pretty interesting. Is he calling us to behave in a way like Jesus acted, or in a different way? The question is sincere, based on I’ve heard some Catholics say that we aren’t supposed to do what Jesus did because He was God and we aren’t. That reasoning strikes me as suspicious because it seems we alternate between “fully human” and “not really human” as any given topic and situation may prefer. So yes I need to read this more in context and see where that goes.

So you’re suggesting that the Church is exclusive to protect us from unworthily receiving?

Again I’m not familiar with this context, so I’ll call my ideas here as Take One.

The verses following the ones you quoted are kind of interesting too.

1 Cor 11:33-34
Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that your meetings may not result in judgment. The other matters I shall set in order when I come.

What does it mean to eat at home? And our meetings may not result in judgment? If we are talking about the Eucharist, then isn’t that the issue at hand? Are these meetings like after the Eucharist? The weirdness of this is giving me pause to read too much into the part you quoted.

MS

The answers to your questions directly contradict what Rohr is saying. Consider that Paul wrote:

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

Also that if “hunger” is the physical need being satisfied then “34 if any one is hungry, let him eat at home—lest you come together to be condemned.”

Paul directly contradicts Rohr’s insistence that the “Lord’s supper” is to be treated like any other meal or one which is to include sinners because if it were a “meal” in that sense or in the sense of a social event, that should be held in their own homes.

When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?

The Lord’s Supper is a participation in Christ’s body and blood, a becoming one with his body, which is why the Church is the Body of Christ. It isn’t a question of sharing a meal with sinners, but of becoming “one flesh” with Christ in the Church. What Rohr suggests is Christ’s body being “wed” to a sinful body, not one cleansed by the sacrifice of Christ. A member of the body who is knowingly in a state of sin and who participates in the Lord’s Supper is, as Paul insists, eating and drinking “judgment upon himself,” which is why there is a sacrament of reconciliation. Which is also why John the Baptist proclaimed repentance because the Kingdom of Heaven was dawning - a new covenant where all things would be made clean. Those actively sinning are not made clean because they aren’t acting in the Spirit.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

With regards to “judgements,” I think St. Paul, rather than Richard Rohr ought to be the point of reference.

And on The Lord’s Supper:

Of course St Paul was addressing the abuses by the Corinthians where some were treating the Lord’s Supper as an opportunity to eat and get drunk.

They did not believe in Jesus nor the presence of Jesus in the bread and wine of the Eucharistic celebration.

This is receiving unworthy.

People who focus on the unworthy usually are seeing others as unworthy.

God loves us, regardless of or worthiness.

Jim

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course St Paul was addressing the abuses by the Corinthians where some were treating the Lord’s Supper as an opportunity to eat and get drunk.

They did not believe in Jesus nor the presence of Jesus in the bread and wine of the Eucharistic celebration.

This is receiving unworthy.

People who focus on the unworthy usually are seeing others as unworthy.

God loves us, regardless of or worthiness.

Jim

Perhaps, but the end aim of redemption is to be sanctified. To claim that God loves us regardless of our state of sanctity is to claim that It doesn’t matter to God, in the end, whether we are saints or sinners because neither state is preferable to him. That would not be true. God loves us because we have the potential to be saints and he has removed all impediments to make that happen.

The question is whether we will be an impediment to the full realization of God’s love in us by clinging to our sins, as if we would choose to be sinners rather than to be sanctified by his love.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Peter Plato

Perhaps, but the end aim of redemption is to be sanctified.

We are sanctified through sanctifying grace given to us by God, not out of our own self-righteousness.

To claim that God loves us regardless of our state of sanctity is to claim that It doesn’t matter to God, in the end, whether we are saints or sinners because neither state is preferable to him.

God loves us despite our being in sin.

Jesus came into the world and saved, mankind despite their sins.

God does in fact love us, regardless of our worthiness.

That would not be true. God loves us because we have the potential to be saints and he has removed all impediments to make that happen.

The potential to be saints comes from God’s grace. On our own, we will fall.

The question is whether we will be an impediment to the full realization of God’s love in us by clinging to our sins, as if we would choose to be sinners rather than to be sanctified by his love.

We will not be an impediment to God’s saving grace. This would mean we have more power than the mercy of God.

We surrender ourselves to Jesus Christ and through Him, we are saved.

God leads, we follow.

Jim

 

[Peter_Plato]

Peter Plato

We are sanctified through sanctifying grace given to us by God, not out of our own self-righteousness.

God loves us despite our being in sin.

Jesus came into the world and saved, mankind despite their sins.

God does in fact love us, regardless of our worthiness.

The potential to be saints comes from God’s grace. On our own, we will fall.

We will not be an impediment to God’s saving grace. This would mean we have more power than the mercy of God.

We surrender ourselves to Jesus Christ and through Him, we are saved.

God leads, we follow.

Jim

Sure, but if we endorse sin we are not following. If I come to the table of the Lord claiming I am following but at the same time gravely sinning, I am not following, I am two-timing and treating God (and the Church) as a sideline affair. Better to break off and indulge, like the prodigal son, until I come to a realization that the pig slop that tempts me is mere pig’s slop. Claiming, duplicitously that what God has to offer has serious competition in pig’s slop is an affront to God. If we only knew what God is offering…

God can only lead WHEN we follow, but actively sinning mortally is not “following,” it is playing a game with our eternal destiny.

To claim that those who are actively sinning mortally are welcome to partake is the Lord’s Supper is to play the role of maître de, as if we can pronounce - over and above Paul’s words - that even those in grave sin are welcome to eat. Who are we to say that? That is certainly not what the Church, following Paul, teaches.

These are words of caution that apply equally to everyone. We ought not give the impression that sharing in the Eucharist in a state of grave sin is “fine” as far as we are concerned. It is our concern not to be in grave sin - it isn’t our concern to think it is our duty to tell others that they can receive when in a state of grave sin, just as it would be foolish to think the same thing where we, ourselves, are concerned.

Certainly there is discernment going on and a clear awareness of what constitutes grave sin, but as soon as we endorse “Everyone come because no one cares about whether you are currently sinning or not,” is to change John’s message of repentance. No need to repent, just come and partake. That isn’t fostering an awareness of what the significance of Christ’s sacrifice was, what its effect on the human condition were supposed to be nor an awareness of what it is that is being consumed - the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Peter Plato

Sure, but if we endorse sin we are not following.

Who’s endorsing sin ?

If I come to the table of the Lord claiming I am following but at the same time gravely sinning, I am not following, I am two-timing and treating God (and the Church) as a sideline affair. Better to break off and indulge, like the prodigal son, until I come to a realization that the pig slop that tempts me is mere pig’s slop. Claiming, duplicitously that what God has to offer has serious competition in pig’s slop is an affront to God. If we only knew what God is offering

So then don’t do this.

But also, don’t try and judge the people you believe who are.

God can only lead WHEN we follow, but actively sinning mortally is not “following,” it is playing a game with our eternal destiny.

How God reveals Himself to others and leads them is up to God, not anyone else.

To claim that those who are actively sinning mortally are welcome to partake is the Lord’s Supper is to play the role of maître de, as if we can pronounce - over and above Paul’s words - that even those in grave sin are welcome to eat. Who are we to say that? That is certainly not what the Church, following Paul, teaches.

Not yours to judge. You don’t know the state of a soul who goes up to receive the Holy Eucharist, and you should even notice who goes up, but focus your attention on receiving Jesus yourself.

We need to detach our own ego-indemnity to the religion. If we fail to do so, our ego is threatened when our religion is questioned or not observed according to our standards.

We then fail to love and become rigid and judgmental.

In the end, we drive more souls away from Jesus than we help bring to Him.

Jim

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

The answers to your questions directly contradict what Rohr is saying. Consider that Paul wrote:
Also that if “hunger” is the physical need being satisfied then “34 if any one is hungry, let him eat at home—lest you come together to be condemned.”

Paul directly contradicts Rohr’s insistence that the “Lord’s supper” is to be treated like any other meal or one which is to include sinners because if it were a “meal” in that sense or in the sense of a social event, that should be held in their own homes.

Then why are we still required to come to Mass? I don’t understand what the point of being required to go to Mass but unable to go to Communion. That seems to contradict what Paul is saying here, too. Why do we want them at the feast, if they are not allowed to come to the table?

Realistically, I don’t have any skin in this particular argument personally because I have reconciled these thing to myself for myself. So yes I don’t see how it’s right but it isn’t a super-strong issue for me in that it doesn’t tear me apart, but I’ve never been the one to have to tell people, “we’re about to receive Communion and only some of you will eat while the others watch.” I can see how that can hurt a person. My favorite (very conservative) pastor of the past (I really like the one we have now, too, but he’s very different) who is now deceased, was the priest at our Worldwide Marriage Encounter weekend about 25 years ago and was a huge supporter of WWME. During the weekend we became pretty close and had shared a lot with the group, and it was time for the final Mass.

Since WWME is not restricted to Catholics, about a third of those attending were non-Catholic. And before we left our meeting room for the last time, Father explained that there is one way we cannot be in Communion, in that non-Catholics may not received. He broke down in tears – and he was a very “hard” man on the outside so even though I knew he was a “softie” I’d never seen him do that any other time – as he explained that. At one point he couldn’t speak for several seconds. I had never ever seen him in that state before. It broke his heart to get that close to us couples and then have to divide us.

Once when I visited him in his retirement home, I had just heard of Rohr and asked him about Rohr. Father B. said, “yeah, I’ve heard of him – he sends donation requests a lot” and that seemed to be annoying in and of itself. He said he didn’t know anything about what Rohr teaches.

The Lord’s Supper is a participation in Christ’s body and blood, a becoming one with his body, which is why the Church is the Body of Christ. It isn’t a question of sharing a meal with sinners, but of becoming “one flesh” with Christ in the Church. What Rohr suggests is Christ’s body being “wed” to a sinful body, not one cleansed by the sacrifice of Christ. A member of the body who is knowingly in a state of sin and who participates in the Lord’s Supper is, as Paul insists, eating and drinking “judgment upon himself,” which is why there is a sacrament of reconciliation. Which is also why John the Baptist proclaimed repentance because the Kingdom of Heaven was dawning - a new covenant where all things would be made clean. Those actively sinning are not made clean because they aren’t acting in the Spirit.

So, I’d say that what you are saying is that Rohr is correct. Not actually attending Mass, but receiving Communion is itself reserved for those who are “clean” as opposed to those “actively sinning.” We divide ourselves into those worthy of receiving, and those who aren’t – at the particular point in time the Eucharist is dispensed.

So you have made the case for why Rohr is correct about it being only for the worthy.

And if 1 Cor 11 is going to be the determining factor on Mass, then women should keep their heads covered. Let’s look at what else is in that chapter.

1 Cor 4-6
Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one and the same thing as if she had had her head shaved. For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should wear a veil.

So if we base using his formula for exclusive Communion distribution from the same chapter, then why don’t we require head coverings? Was Paul any less clear of emphatic about that, then about Communion? Why don’t we forbid hats for men? It may be impolite to some, for men to wear hats (not counting the one presiding, I guess) but it isn’t forbidden by the Church as far as I know.

1 Cor 11:17-23
17 In giving this instruction, I do not praise the fact that your meetings are doing more harm than good. 18 First of all, I hear that when you meet as a church there are divisions among you, and to a degree I believe it; 19 there have to be factions among you in order that [also] those who are approved among you may become known.[j] 20 When you meet in one place, then, it is not to eat the Lord’s supper, 21 for in eating, each one goes ahead with his own supper, and one goes hungry while another gets drunk. 22 Do you not have houses in which you can eat and drink? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and make those who have nothing feel ashamed? What can I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this matter I do not praise you.

Isn’t the Mass intended to be a remembrance of the Lord’s supper? Then what sort of meeting is he talking about here? Is he talking about Mass at all, or some other sort of meeting? Sounds from part of the chapter that he’s talking about Mass, but I don’t know whether that squares with this writing of Paul.

MS

 

[Bookcat]

Then why are we still required to come to Mass? I don’t understand what the point of being required to go to Mass but unable to go to Communion.

I did not read much of the recent post or this one. But I noted this line.

Because one is still to worship God! Tis one of the Commandments. And without the Lords Day we cannot live - even those who are in “death” need to seek to be near Jesus -need to seek his help - his grace so they may later live again (hopefully they will be able to go to confession and so live!).

Jesus is there and his Sacrifice is made present in the Mass. Even those who cannot not come to receive -who should not receive - are to come and worship…

And to keep seeking Jesus and all the grace and conversion they need. They need to more and more come close to Jesus - until that moment they can repent confess and receive him.

 

[Bookcat]

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

I did not read much of the recent post or this one. But I noted this line.

Because one is still to worship God! Tis one of the Commandments. And without the Lords Day we cannot live - even those who are in “death” need to seek to be near Jesus -need to seek his help - his grace so they may later live again (hopefully they will be able to go to confession and so live!).

Jesus is there and his Sacrifice is made present in the Mass. Even those who cannot not come to receive -who should not receive - are to come and worship…

And to keep seeking Jesus and all the grace and conversion they need. They need to more and more come close to Jesus - until that moment they can repent confess and receive him.

I like your answer to this. It is part of the context for other questions, but hey I write long posts and one has only so many hours, so I appreciate what you do read and reply to.

 

[OneSheep]

So then don’t do this.

But also, don’t try and judge the people you believe who are.

We need to detach our own ego-indemnity to the religion. If we fail to do so, our ego is threatened when our religion is questioned or not observed according to our standards.

We then fail to love and become rigid and judgmental.

In the end, we drive more souls away from Jesus than we help bring to Him.
Jim

Thanks for reminding me not to judge. In the mean time, here is a snippet from Fr. Rohr’s meditation today:

“You can show your love to others by not wishing that they should be better Christians.” --Francis of Assisi

“We must bear patiently not being good . . . and not being thought good.” --Francis of Assisi

Yes, the quotes above are correct. The first quote was considered untrue and impossible that Francis would write such a thing, that for centuries the word “not” was deleted from his text.

Jesus calls us to forgive, which wipes away our negative judgments of others… and ourselves.

Thanks.

 

[anon65111186]

That video is typical Fr. Rohr.

I have read most of Fr. Rohr’s books and tapes and even re-read them when I was in University. The result was I was spiritually misguided by his teachings. His ideas are influenced by New Age philosophy and thinking. He sounds very original and authoritative, and has a gentle and talented speaking voice, which I think gives credence to his message, if he wasn’t a good speaker or good writer, he probably wouldn’t have half the following.

He makes himself look like an (objective) outsider to the Church, a prophet, one speaking for God, but we must question if he is truly speaking for God. He paints a picture of him versus the structure of the Church, of which he claims Jesus Himself would oppose. It’s like he’s the hero and the Church is the bad guy.

The main problem with Father Richard Rohr is the way he uses language, he is unclear and open to many interpretations. Many interpretations are dangerous. He leaves room for you, not him to decide which is right, which could be scandalous for weak or undiscerning souls.

I just watched a youtube sermon of Fr. Rohr gave a few weeks ago, and he said a few times, “God is Mother”.

This is not the faith we got from the apostles, and it certainly isn’t in the scriptures. If we followed that why don’t we just call him Mother Rohr? A funny thing is, in the video it looks like he is wearing lipstick! Could be lipbalm but whatever.

He is always coming up with things that are misleading and since no one opposes Him, he simply gets away with making up things about God and the Church which are not in accord with God or the Church.

His teaching on sexuality is also dangerous, he claims that God doesn’t care so much about sexual sin. Fr. Rohr’s downplaying of the gravity of sexual sins is scandalous to weak souls.

He also downplays the distinction between man and woman, which is natural considering he calls God “mother”. He supports people who condemn calling homosexual activity a sin. He claims that the church as a whole has “excluded” and “judged” homosexuals, as if it were Church policy to do so, rather than individuals who did so. Therein lies another fault, he piles together the failures of individuals to the Church as a whole.

He dislikes the clarity of Church documents and say they “too clear” and so don’t have power to convert. He sure is clear himself when it comes to clear things, it would be better if there was nuance and less clarity.

One of the things to understand about Fr. Rohr is his positions don’t make logical sense when you analyze them, but he tries to excuse the fact that they don’t.

He calls his exceptions to the rules of logic and reason the “tension of opposites” or the “dualistic mind”. A thing cannot be true and false at the same time, sorry Father! You can’t be against the church and for the church at the same time, that’s dualism. You have to pick a side, to choose your loyalties, what you believe in. He is against dualism but himself talks of a dualistic and non-dualistic mind, that’s a dualism.

Father Rohr is black and white on some things though - the church institution and heirarchy is bad, rules are bad, black and white thinking is bad, exclusivity is bad, ego is bad, legalism is bad, certainty is bad, knowledge without experience is bad, etc

He prides himself though on being learned and reading many books, but somehow missed the fact that something cannot be true and false at the same time.

For Fr. Rohr, it’s experience over thoughtful analysis/reasoning. Freedom to say yes to sin in the first half of life, and become a Christian in the second. This is because he doesn’t think much of children and youth, they are foolish or not ready to be christians.

He seems to claim that he is speaking from his own experience and “inner authority” but actually his authority comes from eastern religions, and new age spirituality, the occult, and “the enneagram” . He talks like he is Jesus himself, saying he is a radical, a reformer, an outsider persecuted, but how prideful is that? Is that holiness or pride that labels oneself in such a way?

One of the most devasting things spiritually for me personally was his introducing me to the enneagram.

I became addicted to studying it and thought I knew everything about everyone I knew, all about why they do the things they do etc. It was bad for me, and has been bad for many people, but Fr. Rohr promotes it.

But it is a false and occult system. There is no scientific proof for it. The enneagram is indeed like all too many of the ideas Fr. Rohr advocates, either made up or simply wrong.

Don’t get sucked in to his books or teachings, they seem to be solid Catholic teaching, and even insightful. But with more careful analysis it doesn’t harmonize with what the rest of the Church has and is saying.

The way he talks is almost esoteric, like a secret spirituality and way of thinking that the Church somehow left out, ignored, forgotten or didn’t want you to know, but it’s nothing but new age spirituality mixed with other heresies, sprinkled here and there with truths about Christ and the Church.

Father Rohr will initiate you into a way of thinking that is not in accord with the truth. It may make you feel like it’s true, like it’s a new way, because it’s dressed up in new language or pleasant ideas, but it’s not all holy.

Let us pray for Fr. Rohr, and pray for all who have been misguided by him.

If you are still following him, please use your reason and intellect to question his teachings, and analyze them in light of the teachings of the Church and the Tradition of the apostles. If his teachings are right, they will stand up to the test, will they not? If not, you will have rid yourself of believing something that is not true.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I have no problem understanding Fr Rohr, and his teachings are Scripturally Sound as he shows them to be.

Nothing New Age about it, a term thrown around this forum too often.

Not everything you don’t understand is New Age. It may be, you’re just not ready for it.

Instead, let the Holy Spirit guide you to where He wants you, rather than to try to force feed yourself with something that’s just not feeding you.

I remember the first time I tried to read The Way of Perfection by St Terese of Avila.

I just was not grasping what she was writing and figured she was writing for nuns, not lay people. I put the book back on the shelf.

Years later, after experience with Contemplative Prayer, I read the book again and couldn’t put it down, as it was speaking to me.

So it probably is with works from Fr Rohr, Thomas Merton and others.

If it’s not reaching you, rather than condemn the author, move on to something else, for it’s where God wants you at that time in your spiritual journey.

Jim

 

[anon65111186]

Thank you Jim for the reply,

His teaching definitely has New Age teachings because he teaches “finding your lost/true nature”. He says “the God nature is within you”. New Age books like the Secret say the same thing.

His teachings are biblically sound because he shows them to be? How exactly does he show “Mother God” to be biblical?

Why am I force feeding myself with something that isn’t feeding me? I don’t get that.

Don’t condemn things because it doesn’t reach you? It did reach me in a bad way and that’s why I am writing to demonstrate how dangerous he can be, and yes because he isn’t scripturally sound and agrees with New Age language and teachings. He wrote a letter to Eckert Tolle praising him for teaching hidden truths lost to the Church for centuries, Eckert Tolle! He claims he knows hidden truths lost to the Church! That is old as dirt gnosticism, otherwise known as New Age.

Okay, you understand Fr. Rohr and his teachings, maybe you can enlighten me, let’s just analyze something I randomly pulled off his website. You might be in a place in your life to analyze better, having read Merton and Rohr.

“and” teaches us to say yes

what does that mean? If you know his teachings you know he is always saying we have to say yes to things, accept things I assume, again vague and could be misinterpreted to say yes to evil or false things, or even the devil and his temptations if we are not discerning.

“And” allows us to be both-and
Again with the anti-logic. either both-and is true or not true, not both true and not true, sorry don’t get to bend logic here. How do you understand that?

And keeps us from either-or…
What is so bad about either or thinking? Again, against logical clear thinking.

“And” heals our racism, our sexism, heterosexism, and our classism
racism and sexism okay, but heterosexism and classism? heal it? by being heterosexual and homosexual? What is he getting at? Does it need healing because it is a wound or it causes wounds? make it go away or make it get nice and healthy? again the language is vague and obtruse, lacking clarity.

And keeps us from the false choice of liberal or conservative…
So you can be liberal and conversative? Well, that’s a new one, if anything Fr. Rohr is definitely on the liberal and not conversative end of things.

And is far beyond any one nation or political party…
Okay… something more Catholic here.

“And” is far beyond my religion versus your religion
Because my religion and another religion equals what? Unclear.

And allows us to be both distinct and yet united
Alright, what does that mean? Vague and general.

“And” is the very Mystery of Trinity

So the mystery of Trinity is “and”, God and Father and Son? Great insight, so what does that have to do with political parties and everything else? It isn’t exactly coherent, and doesn’t sound like scripture.

I pulled something else off a website,

An endorsement of SOULFORCE,

which was founded by two “christian” gay men and lovers,

He said they should “protest against its Church’s failure to live the Gospel”

also saying

“Our gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered brothers and sisters have been left outside of his realm of grace for far too long”

The Church left them out? How, was this a doctrine of the faith or a discipline? Or was it the failing of individuals, again, it’s not clear what he means by that.

He is condemning the Church, not individuals, but the Holy Church of doing it.

Please, enlighten me.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

timothyvail;

His teaching definitely has New Age teachings because he teaches “finding your lost/true nature”. He says “the God nature is within you”. New Age books like the Secret say the same thing.

St John of the Cross, Archbishop Fulton Sheen and most of the Christian mystics say the same thing. It’s far from being New Age. Finding your true self means detaching from the false image you created and finding the real person God had in mind when He created you. Anyone who grows closer to God, will come to know their true selves, because it’s the only YOU God knows. Self-knowledge and humility go hand-in-hand.

His teachings are biblically sound because he shows them to be? How exactly does he show “Mother God” to be biblical?

God has no gender, so he uses the example of God as mother, in the sense of nurturer, but he also uses Father as Jesus taught.

Why am I force feeding myself with something that isn’t feeding me? I don’t get that.

If it’s not feeding you, and you continue to read it and feel uncomfortable with it, you’re force feeding yourself and would be better off moving on to something else. Perhaps God will bring you back to his writings at some other point, or, to some other teacher that you’ll connect with.

Anyway, I’m not hear to argue about Fr Rohr.

I get his daily meditations and I like what he writes.

I also like many other writers as well, like Fr Keating and Fr Merton, who aren’t well received in this forum.

But, this is where God has led me.

Jim

 

[anon65111186]

Thank you again Jim,

Well, I am here to argue against Fr. Rohr because I believe he teaches things dangerous to true spirituality. As you mentioned there are many other teachers, and many solid Catholic who teach the truth with no admixture of gnostic language.

I don’t how Archbishop Sheen or John of the Cross say it, do they use the same phrases? “lost nature” and “God nature” identically or do they speak about it in other words I wonder? My point was his language is identical, not just similar with New Age authors, and he communicates with them regularly! He should admonish them to follow the true faith, not prod them on in their error.

Eckert Tolle, Ronda Byrne, Oprah Winfrey, they also say the same about “finding your lost nature”, but could they possibility be far from New Age teachings as well?

It’s not just baptizing pagan and gnostic language and making it Christian, it is no different than their philosophy, you just replace the great urge or whatever for Jesus. All is one and I and God are the same etc. It’s exactly what he teaches and that’s New Age. He also mixes in other religions here and there, taking what sounds good, which distracts from the true faith!

Right, God has no gender but biblically we call Him nothing but Father. It’s okay to call God father because he is a nurterer? We should be okay with baptizing in the name of the Mother, the Son and the Holy Spirit then. Again, it’s biblical because Fr. Rohr says God is like a nurterer? I don’t think you can argue any of His “cosmic Christ” or “Mother God” or “non-dualism” is biblical.

I am evaluating the truths of what Fr. Rohr says now to know if I can read him now or later. Objectively, his words won’t be more right later if they are wrong now. Being on the outside of the Church on these issues is not a good thing and dangerous.

How I feel about something doesn’t tell me if something is true or not, my feelings can deceive me. I may feel uncomfortable about truths about myself or others, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. Connecting with the truth is the important thing, and the truth is not subjective but objective, outside of me, my experiences can’t change whether what Fr. Rohr or anyone says is true or not. For Fr. Rohr union and connecting is more important than objective truth. It’s like, as long as we all feel good and connected and united to one another and to God, that experience of what we feel is God, could lead us into error if we don’t use our reason and intellect as well. He emphasizes the feelings and experience at the expense of reason and rationality. God gave us an intellect and a reason for a reason.

I don’t know about Fr. Keating or Merton but I know Fr. Rohr mentions him a lot. Since I don’t trust Fr. Rohr I don’t have a good “feeling” about Merton or Keating already. Because if they are the reason he is so vague and misleading, I don’t want anything to do with them. I may read them one day to check for myself though.

God bless you and thank you for reading!
Tim