Rohr video: What did Jesus Really Teach?

[JimR-OCDS]

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.

You’re misrepresenting what I said.

I said there are many teachers who teach the same thing.

The language that upsets you, is your misunderstanding, not the truth behind what Fr Rohr is teaching.

Is his teaching dangerous ?

Of course not, if he were, his superior would silence him.

The Bishop of the Dioceses his monastery is in, would also ask that he be be silenced.

Hasn’t happened, because he hasn’t taught anything that is against Catholic teaching.

Jim

 

[anon65111186]

Dear Jim,

I wasn’t trying to represent what you said, just ask what you meant.

You mentioned Bishop Fulton Sheen, do you happen to have the reference for when he said the same as Fr. Rohr, likewise for John of the Cross? I would appreciate that more than anything.

He is dangerous because the Archbishop had to censure him personally :

From the mouth of the Archbishop Sheehan,

“Father Rohr sometimes can be controversial and has liberal views on different aspects of the Church; but at the same time he is also quite capable of very traditional and inspiring talks.”

Like me he recognizes there are sprinklings of truth mixed in with his views, but obviously he was dangerous enough he had to be called in by the Bishop!

" I had to meet with him to have a frank talk, as Bishop, on several matters that concerned me. He pledged that he would write articles that are faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church and that his presentations would also carefully reflect sound Catholic teaching."

It was reported that he has not listened to the Bishops advice since then, wrote articles supporting homosexual groups etc, so I would say he could very likely be silenced. Anyone making the Archbishop aware of his recent writings could have Fr. Rohr corrected, or worse since he disobeyed his superior, he gave his word to the Archbishop, yet continues to preach unsound doctinre such as “Mother God” and others, that’s no good.

The way the Franciscans work, he probably could be censured but really it’s more up to the local Archbishop.

We shall see,

Have a good night,
Peace,

 

[grannymh]

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

I am interested in Father Rohr’s meditations because I can read a lot easier than trying to follow a video. I subscribed for a bit and then cancelled because my topic of interest was not there. What I did read seemed normal. However, I have an old link someone gave me where he was dismissing Original Sin. It seemed like he was following the early teachings of Matthew Fox.

I am looking for “meditation” information on emerging Christianity or progressive Christianity aka Big Tent theory. Father may have a different name for this movement such as gathering in peaceful communion.

If you come across anything similar to what I am looking for – please post it here or send it to me in a PM.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

timothyvail;

From the mouth of the Archbishop Sheehan,

“Father Rohr sometimes can be controversial and has liberal views on different aspects of the Church; but at the same time he is also quite capable of very traditional and inspiring talks.”

Like me he recognizes there are sprinklings of truth mixed in with his views, but obviously he was dangerous enough he had to be called in by the Bishop!

" I had to meet with him to have a frank talk, as Bishop, on several matters that concerned me. He pledged that he would write articles that are faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church and that his presentations would also carefully reflect sound Catholic teaching."

It was reported that he has not listened to the Bishops advice since then, wrote articles supporting homosexual groups etc, so I would say he could very likely be silenced. Anyone making the Archbishop aware of his recent writings could have Fr. Rohr corrected, or worse since he disobeyed his superior, he gave his word to the Archbishop, yet continues to preach unsound doctinre such as “Mother God” and others, that’s no good.

The way the Franciscans work, he probably could be censured but really it’s more up to the local Archbishop.

We shall see,

Actually, if Fr Rohr’s conference of Franciscans has Papal approval, the Bishop can’t censure him without going through Rome.

If on the other hand, Fr Rohr’s conference of Franciscans only has the local Bishop’s authority, the Bishop can not only censure Fr Rohr, but have the order shut down.

Either way, Fr Rohr is not censured and I can see why he’s controversial for many in this forum.

After all, he advocates Centering Prayer as taught by Fr Keating, which is a banned topic in this forum.

So, the bottom line here is, you don’t like Fr Rohr, don’t read his stuff, but you tread on sin by condemning him with information that may not be true.

Even the topic of this thread, the OP link to YouTube, Fr Rohr is on part 3 of the talk he was giving, so it may be that without hearing the entire talk, it led to misunderstanding him. Proper context is everything,

In Christ
Jim

 

[OneSheep]

Hello Timothy

Dear Jim,

I wasn’t trying to represent what you said, just ask what you meant.

You mentioned Bishop Fulton Sheen, do you happen to have the reference for when he said the same as Fr. Rohr, likewise for John of the Cross? I would appreciate that more than anything.

He is dangerous because the Archbishop had to censure him personally :

From the mouth of the Archbishop Sheehan,

“Father Rohr sometimes can be controversial and has liberal views on different aspects of the Church; but at the same time he is also quite capable of very traditional and inspiring talks.”

Do you have something about that censure? I cannot find anything on the web.

Like me he recognizes there are sprinklings of truth mixed in with his views, but obviously he was dangerous enough he had to be called in by the Bishop!

" I had to meet with him to have a frank talk, as Bishop, on several matters that concerned me. He pledged that he would write articles that are faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church and that his presentations would also carefully reflect sound Catholic teaching."

It was reported that he has not listened to the Bishops advice since then, wrote articles supporting homosexual groups etc, so I would say he could very likely be silenced. Anyone making the Archbishop aware of his recent writings could have Fr. Rohr corrected, or worse since he disobeyed his superior, he gave his word to the Archbishop, yet continues to preach unsound doctinre such as “Mother God” and others, that’s no good.

Some people like the use of “Mother God”. Does the Church claim it “unsound”?

The Archbishop probably received calls from people disturbed by Fr. Rohr’s words, and was probably requested to talk to him.

 

[anon65111186]

Either way, Fr Rohr is not censured and I can see why he’s controversial for many in this forum.

Yes he is controversial but he was privately censured by the Bishop, that censure was made public in letter written by Archbishop Sheehan who has jurisdiction over every priest in Albuquerque.

Here is a copy of the Archbishop’s letter, which shows a public and official rebuke because he had been teaching things not in line with the faith.

lospequenos.org/RohrDossier/Material/16.a%20Letter%20of%20Sheehen%20to%20PA%20Diocese.pdf

As the Bishop mentions, some of his teachings are concerning and unless he changes them they are not fit for Catholic consumption.

you tread on sin by condemning him with information that may not be true.

I’m not sure what you mean, walking on sin? Are you saying I am sinning because I disapprove of him and think he is wrong, dangerous, scandalous and I say it? I want others to know the truth and that one shouldn’t read or listen to his teachings. You want proof that it is absolutely true, fine, I’ll give you more proof.

The main issue is that he is a stumbling block to true communion with God, he leads people to do inappropriate things, like get naked and jump over campfires :

In Rohr’s own words

‘At times, nudity at the retreats is communal. … They’ll strip and have to leap over that fire, burning their balls . . . .I don’t know what it is. They’re the ‘real’ men, who can leap over the fire, naked.’

Who could approve or defend that as Catholic practice? Are priests supposed to approving of that kind of behavior?

This month there was an article about Fr. Rohr receiving and distributing Episcopal communion in a video on youtube! This breaks Church law, is worthy of official censure, and cannot be justified.

onepeterfive.com/catholic-priest-receives-distributes-episcopal-communion/

This are not things that may be untrue, these are facts, plain to see. The things I posted are in his own words, on youtube, freely for all to see.

There is a laundry list of Rohr’s New Age ideas, which are proven to come from New Age gurus.

Here at this link, again, in his own words

catholicmediacoalition.org/rohr_CAC.htm

These things are too obvious to be denied. He cannot be defended in good conscience if one is aware of the danger he is to souls.

I just hope people who read this thread will be aware of the dangers of his new age spirituality.

About centering prayer:

Many people assume centering prayer is compatible with Catholic tradition, but in fact the techniques of centering prayer are neither Christian nor prayer!

Its not spiritual, its the operation of man, not of God, it operates at the level of human faculties.

The deception and dangers of centering prayer can be grave.

Centering prayer is different from Christian prayer.

The purpose of it is to bring the person to the center of his own being. By doing so, one is supposed to experience the presence of the God who indwells him. That my friend is not Christian prayer!

Christian prayer, on the contrary, centers upon God. God is the center, not my inner being. God is not part of the universe, of part of my inner being, he is apart and Creator of my inner being, so you don’t need to go through a creation to find God.

Christian prayer is about the whole person, not just the inner being. Centering prayer is basically self-hypnosis. Centering prayer seeks a state of mind, not God as other. One seeks to feel a certain way to be sure he is encountering God, but you don’t need a state of mind to pray, you can pray in any state of mind.

The bottom line is you don’t need some special technique or trick to pray, just be in relation to God in whatever circumstance you are in.

You can be sure that Jesus didn’t say get into a special state of mind and then you can pray.

Peace brother,
Tim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

timothyvail;

Here is a copy of the Archbishop’s letter, which shows a public and official rebuke because he had been teaching things not in line with the faith.

It wasn’t a rebuke, nor a censor from what I can see in the letter. It was just a warning shot across Fr Rohr’s bow, so to speak.

As the Bishop mentions, some of his teachings are concerning and unless he changes them they are not fit for Catholic consumption.

Sadly, many Bishops have no experience with Contemplation and therefore have difficulty understanding those like Fr Rohr, who do.

St Terese of Avila was brought before the Spanish Inquisition to explain her controversial teachings. God was on her side though, and she was not charged with heresy.

I’m not sure what you mean, walking on sin?

Treading, meaning, you could be.

If you say something about a person that isn’t true, it could be bearing false witness against your neighbor.

Note, I’m not accusing you of this, don’t misunderstand.

Just that speaking out against what YOU believe is wrong, can lead you down that path.

Lastly, I’ve seen the cut and pasted statements of Fr Rohr in this forum before.

Most are taken out of context and misrepresented by the posters.

Again, you don’t like Fr Rohr’s teaching ? Fine, move on in peace and stop making war against him.

Jim

 

[grannymh]

So, the bottom line here is, you don’t like Fr Rohr, don’t read his stuff, but you tread on sin by condemning him with information that may not be true.

In Christ
Jim

Good advice.

Please note that Pope Pius XII did not condemn specific people similar to Father Rohr in the major Encyclical Humani Generis, paragraphs 11 & 12, 1950. He stomped hard on their proposed actions.
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Unfortunately, good people have difficulty stomping on the current progressive movement (Big Tent proposal) within the Catholic Church. We have wolves in sheep’s clothing according to the “warning” which some, not all, Catholics ignore because they are too comfortable to consider deep problems. Common sense thinking is rare.

I wonder if there is anyone on CAF who understands the connection between the following link and the paragraphs 11 & 12 in the above link to Humani Generis.

I wonder if there is someone who understands where Father Rohr is leading his followers.

Link to an older meditation.
myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation–Original-Blessing.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=yAlpFk3eNPc

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Good advice.

Please note that Pope Pius XII did not condemn specific people similar to Father Rohr in the major Encyclical Humani Generis, paragraphs 11 & 12, 1950. He stomped hard on their proposed actions.
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Unfortunately, good people have difficulty stomping on the current progressive movement (Big Tent proposal) within the Catholic Church. We have wolves in sheep’s clothing according to the “warning” which some, not all, Catholics ignore because they are too comfortable to consider deep problems. Common sense thinking is rare.

I wonder if there is anyone on CAF who understands the connection between the following link and the paragraphs 11 & 12 in the above link to Humani Generis.

I wonder if there is someone who understands where Father Rohr is leading his followers.

Link to an older meditation.
myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation–Original-Blessing.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=yAlpFk3eNPc

Fr Rohr’s mediation is merely showing how in Christianity, the first focus of teaching young people was usually original sin, rather than good found in the world.

He’s not wrong on this, for I remember from 1st grade all through pre-Vatican II, Catholic grammar school, the focus was on original sin, hell and damnation.

Rarely did we hear about the good of God’s creation.

Lastly, Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical, was written during Hitler and Stalin’s reign of terror and most likely what he was addressing…

Encyclicals are often written for the events taking place in those times. We must read them in this context, and not always try to apply them to our own times on every issue.

Jim

 

[grannymh]

Fr Rohr’s mediation is merely showing how in Christianity, the first focus of teaching young people was usually original sin, rather than good found in the world.

Obviously, where Father Rohr is leading can be missed in this link.
myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation–Original-Blessing.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=yAlpFk3eNPc

And most of his followers miss his intentions, because of his sweet, comforting, and lovely words. In fact, years back, I had a thread which included Father Rohr’s goal without mentioning him by name. That thread was dead in the water because people had no clue about what is currently happening within the walls of the Catholic Church.

What is being missed in this meditation is the denial of Divine Revelation which flows from Father’s denial of the three beginning chapters of Sacred Scripture. Catholics need to put aside children’s books on the Garden of Eden where large leaves were appropriately placed. Catholics need to recgnize the reality of our material world.

Recently, on CAF, I find it effective to explain the first three historical chapters of Genesis by using the alphabet. My suggestion is to start at the last post and go backwards until you find the letter A.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1005088
Is Genesis 2: 15-17 an explanation of Original Sin?
in the Sacred Scripture Forum

He’s not wrong on this, for I remember from 1st grade all through pre-Vatican II, Catholic grammar school, the focus was on original sin, hell and damnation.

Rarely did we hear about the good of God’s creation.

Do you remember what you learned about Original Sin?

Lastly, Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical, was written during Hitler and Stalin’s reign of terror and most likely what he was addressing…

Encyclicals are often written for the events taking place in those times. We must read them in this context, and not always try to apply them to our own times on every issue.

You are absolutely correct with one small correction. It is not Stalin’s reign of terror. It is Satin’s reign of terror where he tempts good people to take the wrong road.

My brief research showed that Father Rohr has helped people spiritually. Praise God. Pope Pius XII refers to good people who want to promote a “more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion.” (paragraph 11) Obviously, a few good people have used the wrong means. We do not necessarily condemn these people. It is the road that has been chosen which is wrong. We need to pray for Father Rohr.

Thus, in our own times, we have to look at the context of paragraphs 11 & 12 in the current context of spiritual, unchanging truths, taught by the Catholic Church. Satin’s tempting lies continue even when centuries change.

 

[anon65111186]

It wasn’t a rebuke, nor a censor from what I can see in the letter. It was just a warning shot across Fr Rohr’s bow, so to speak.

If Fr. Rohr was just misunderstood and was right after all about contemplation or what have you, why then “pledge” (a solemn promise) to the Archbishop that he would be faithful to Church teaching from then on?

I don’t know how you define rebuke, but a common dictionary says

Rebuke : To criticize, A check administered, A direct reprimand, reproof for fault or wrong.

He was not being faithful to Catholic teaching, so the Bishop had to call him in to directly administer a reprimand.

This was because the Bishop himself was concerned about not one thing like Comtemplation, but many things. This wasn’t the spanish inquisition, and Fr. Rohr is not a Saint and Doctor of the Church.

Sadly, many Bishops have no experience with Contemplation and therefore have difficulty understanding those like Fr Rohr, who do.

Are you then saying that because Archbishop Sheehan had no experience with Contemplation, he misunderstood Fr. Rohr? Again, why would Fr. Rohr agree, admit his fault and pledge to change if he was right?

Just that speaking out against what YOU believe is wrong, can lead you down that path.

Are you not speaking about what I said because you believe I am wrong? And you believe Fr. Rohr to be right? You continue to defend him because you believe he is right, no?

I have continued to reply to your objections because I believe he is wrong on many points, not because I don’t like him, or don’t like you.

As I have said, he has a nice speaking voice, and speaks and writes in an interesting although vague manner. He has a charismatic sense to him, but that does not change the fact that he is not being completely faithful the Church and is leading others astray. I am witnessing that I myself was led astray by his teachings, also by his teachings on the enneagram. This is not false witness, this is my own personal witness from my own experience in life, and that is my motivation for posting on this catholic.com forum.

Your advice is to move on to someone I like, while continuing to post objections that continue to make him saintlike and innocent of all accusations, when his own words couldn’t be made more plain with or without context.

Now, I pray for you and thank you for reading, and for your patience and understanding.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

grannymh;

What is being missed in this meditation is the denial of Divine Revelation which flows from Father’s denial of the three beginning chapters of Sacred Scripture.

I’ve never seen Fr Rohr deny the three chapters of Genesis, but rather, puts them into proper perspective.

Even the Catholic Church now accepts that the creation and fall story of Genesis is allegorical and not literal historical fact.

Do you remember what you learned about Original Sin?

Essentially, Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying God, and committed the 1st sin of human kind. The stain of that sin is passed on to every human being.

That’s literal interpretation.

However, original sin, is the consequence of the fall of mankind, however that happened.

Fr Groschel gave a good talk on EWTN about it, and its essentially the bottom line.

Fr Rohr’s point isn’t to deny original sin, but rather, not teaching about the good in the world to begin with.

There is both good and bad in the world, and Christians have focused more on the bad, The result is missing the goodness of God and fearing his retribution more than seeking his love.

You are absolutely correct with one small correction. It is not Stalin’s reign of terror. It is Satin’s reign of terror where he tempts good people to take the wrong road.

I’m was referring to the historical context of Pope Pius XII’s encyclical, not the theological.

My brief research showed that Father Rohr has helped people spiritually. Praise God. Pope Pius XII refers to good people who want to promote a “more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion.” (paragraph 11)

Obviously, a few good people have used the wrong means. We do not necessarily condemn these people. It is the road that has been chosen which is wrong. We need to pray for Father Rohr.

And why is your research more valid than Father Rohr’s ? He’s a theologian, and a priest.

His teaching on nondualism, was difficult for me to understand.

However, now that I’m understanding it better, I can see how it leads us to love the sinner as well as the saint. It removes our hatred, racists attitudes which develop from a dualistic mindset.

People in this forum and other places across the net, went nuts when Pope Francis said we are all God’s children. Dualistic minds have a problem seeing all as created by God and His desire to save all of mankind.

Thus, in our own times, we have to look at the context of paragraphs 11 & 12 in the current context of spiritual, unchanging truths, taught by the Catholic Church. Satin’s tempting lies continue even when centuries change.

Again, I read paragraph’s 11 and 12, and put them in the context for which Pope Pius XII was writing,

Trying to apply them as a rejection of what Fr Rohr is teaching, is really off base.

FYI, your posts with the color and bold fonts make it difficult to reply to, using quotes.

Jim

 

[grannymh]

This is one comment which deserves my personal comment. No evil intended.

Even the Catholic Church now accepts that the creation and fall story of Genesis is allegorical and not literal historical fact.

While, at times, figurative language is used in the first three absolutely amazing chapters of Genesis, there are Catholic Doctrines (Yes, those annoying ones) which do flow from the historical events recorded there.


From the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
**CCC 390 **The account of the fall in *Genesis *3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

Post 51 with blue links has some interesting thinking. Sorry about the color. I had a lot of trouble with that post. It was determined to do its own thing.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

timothyvail

If Fr. Rohr was just misunderstood and was right after all about contemplation or what have you, why then “pledge” (a solemn promise) to the Archbishop that he would be faithful to Church teaching from then on?

Well, we only have the Archbishop’s side of the story and he never said Fr Rohr was teaching against Catholic Doctrine. They had a talk and Fr Rohr promised to stay with Catholic Doctrine at the youth conference he would be speaking at. Don’t try to read into what was actually said.

I don’t know how you define rebuke, but a common dictionary says

Rebuke : To criticize, A check administered, A direct reprimand, reproof for fault or wrong.

And the Archbishop didn’t do this. He questioned what Fr Rohr was teaching and set up a meeting with him.

He was not being faithful to Catholic teaching, so the Bishop had to call him in to directly administer a reprimand.

Nope, the Archbishop never said this.

This was because the Bishop himself was concerned about not one thing like Comtemplation, but many things. This wasn’t the spanish inquisition, and Fr. Rohr is not a Saint and Doctor of the Church.

Your speaking for the Archbishop now.

Are you then saying that because Archbishop Sheehan had no experience with Contemplation, he misunderstood Fr. Rohr? Again, why would Fr. Rohr agree, admit his fault and pledge to change if he was right?

Fr Rohr didn’t admit fault. You’ve jumped to the conclusion that he did.

Are you not speaking about what I said because you believe I am wrong? And you believe Fr. Rohr to be right? You continue to defend him because you believe he is right, no?

I’m responding what you posted to me, all because I defended Fr Rohr.

As I said earlier, you don’t like Fr Rohr, fine, don’t read his works.

I have continued to reply to your objections because I believe he is wrong on many points, not because I don’t like him, or don’t like you.

Your not the doctrine police for the Catholic Church. It’s not up to you to rebuke Fr Rohr, mor anyone.

As I have said, he has a nice speaking voice, and speaks and writes in an interesting although vague manner. He has a charismatic sense to him, but that does not change the fact that he is not being completely faithful the Church and is leading others astray.

This is your speculation that he’s leading others astray.

Pope Francis is also accused of doing the same, yet Rome has had a an increase of people visiting to see Pope Francis.

I am witnessing that I myself was led astray by his teachings,

Well perhaps the problem is you, not Fr Rohr ?

I’m not being led astray by Fr Rohr, nor are the million others who follow him.

also by his teachings on the enneagram. This is not false witness, this is my own personal witness from my own experience in life, and that is my motivation for posting on this catholic.com forum.

Well my experience is far different.

As a Discalced Carmelite, I can relate to ,most of what Fr Rohr has written in his daily meditations.

Your advice is to move on to someone I like, while continuing to post objections that continue to make him saintlike and innocent of all accusations, when his own words couldn’t be made more plain with or without context.

Now, I pray for you and thank you for reading, and for your patience and understanding.

And I’ll pray for you too.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This is one comment which deserves my personal comment. No evil intended.



While, at times, figurative language is used in the first three absolutely amazing chapters of Genesis, there are some Catholic Doctrines ( Yes, those annoying ones) which do flow from the historical evdnts recorded there.


.

The first three chapters of Genesis which you posted about, are not historical fact as written and treated as allegorical.

If you think that the world was created in 6, 24 hour days, you’ve got a problem.

FYI, the first five chapters of Genesis, weren’t even written until 500 years after the rest of the Pentateuch. In other words, the author had the rest committed to memory before he wrote the fist five chapters.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

OK, I’m moving away from this thread.

There’s really no point and I don’t have the energy to respond anymore.

God Bless

Jim

 

[grannymh]

The first three chapters of Genesis which you posted about, are not historical fact as written and treated as allegorical.

If you think that the world was created in 6, 24 hour days, you’ve got a problem.

FYI, the first five chapters of Genesis, weren’t even written until 500 years after the rest of the Pentateuch. In other words, the author had the rest committed to memory before he wrote the fist five chapters.

Jim

A suggestion for readers. Please go back to post 54 which has been edited.

Also, while this thread contains my thinking, the actual subject matter is the teachings of a popular public writer/speaker. Since no one, so far, has responded to post 44, I have only one link to demonstrate. I did a brief demonstration of the Reverend Richard Rohr’s intention in post 51. If someone wants a word by word explanation, please let me know and I will do that in the early part of 2017.

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[anon65111186]

Dear Jim,

I appreciate your fair mindedness on this, and perhaps I was reading a bit into the letter when I said he admitted fault.

Common sense wise with this letter though,

When someone in authority has to meet someone to give them a frank talk, and the result is the other person pledges to do something, it’s because they weren’t doing that thing they pledged or doing the opposite.

The Archbishop said, and I quote with " ".

In his role “as Bishop”

“I had to meet with him to give him a frank talk”

About what? One issue? No, “several matters” “regarding sound teaching”.

What was the result of his talk about several matters? a “positive response to my concerns”

and

a “pledge” from Fr. Rohr “that he would write articles… and give presentations… that are faithful to and reflect the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

Doesn’t it seem reasonable to believe that the purpose of the meeting was to say (more or less) “hey, you are not writing or giving presentations that are either faithful to or reflect Catholic doctrine, give me your word that you won’t do this again, or else you can’t write or present in this diocese anymore.”

His answer was something like “yes your eminence, I understand your concerns and I pledge to you that in the future I will write and teach in accord with Catholic doctrine”

You’re right though, it’s not up to me to rebuke him, but rather the Bishop as Bishop or the Pope as Pope if he doesn’t keep to Catholic teaching, my point was he continues to do something and it’s possible the new Bishop will be forced to talk with him.

The concerning thing for me though is the ease at which you find things about Fr. Rohr on the internet, from all kinds of people with different backgrounds all saying the same kind of things, I found another link where they had a whole Dossier on inappropriate things he’s said or done, with scans and article clippings etc. You could almost write a book on all the things he’s said, done or written that don’t reflect Church teaching. To say that didn’t or couldn’t lead others astray is irresponsible.

lospequenos.org/RohrDossier/Sections/TableOfContents.htm

Our Holy Father Francis on the other hand is a different character, and Fr. Rohr is no Pope.

Have a blessed night,
Tim

 

[grannymh]

Essentially, Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying God, and committed the 1st sin of human kind. The stain of that sin is passed on to every human being.

That’s literal interpretation.

However, original sin, is the consequence of the fall of mankind, however that happened.

The Original Sin is the first human’s destruction of the original friendship relationship between humanity and Divinity. Original friendship means that Adam was created in the State of Original Holiness aka State of Sanctifying Grace. The State of Sanctifying Grace means that the first human shared in the life of God. Sharing in the life of God is what is meant by being created in the image of God. (Genesis 1: 27) This truth and other truths flow from in the first three truth-filled chapters of Genesis. When Original Sin becomes a “fly in the ointment” (description by Reverend Richard Rohr – google Richard Rohr, fly in the ointment) who are we?

Please notice that it is one individual who committed Original Sin and not mankind plural or humankind plural. In fact, because events in the first three chapters of Genesis are freely interpreted according to a popular public speaker/writer, we miss the need for the Catholic Church as it is today. When those amazing Genesis chapters are presented as some kind of original blessings to offset the terror of the results of the original human’s Original Sin, we lose the fact that Jesus had to be fully Divine. Currently, the popular public speaker/writer’s idea is that Jesus is a good guy who wants everyone to have happy thoughts as they charitably care for others. However, Jesus is not really connected to the figurative Adam who never existed as the real first human being. That, my friend is true terror.

 

[simpleas]

This was the request of the OP :

This thread is dedicated to those who dislike Rohr. Please make an attempt to focus comments on the content of the subject video.

But it isn’t about Rohr. It’s about the content of this particular video. Dragging up the old diatribe about Rohr and new age, etc. is off-topic and you can start your own thread if you want to wallow through all that. If that’s too difficult for you, then you need to examine your motivation for providing it.

So I have just listened to the video. I can’t agree more with what is said, Jesus did teach none violence. It seems Christianity became more powerful due to Rome, constantine etc, but we paid a price for that power, murder of those who did not agree with the head of the church.
Jesus, like it is stated in the video did not rise his hand to anyone classed as a sinner, he befriended them, ate with them, and it seems walked on from them, he did not force his teaching upon them, more like he allowed the conscience to develop, he did ‘speak his mind’ over certain ways of living, but he would never have condoned the death of person.

I have had difficulty understanding how our church did in fact become the opposite of Jesus’ teaching in some places at various times, the old ‘we are only human and sinners’ comes to mind, but really…
Also the vatican having so much wealth seems very un-Jesus like, I’m not bashing it, I know much money is needed in this world in order to help each other, yet the church shouldn’t really be involved with so much wealth…it’sort of uncomfortable.

There is good and bad with everything.