Rohr video: What did Jesus Really Teach?

[grannymh]

This was the request of the OP :

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.

The Catholic Church did not become the opposite of Jesus’ teachings in some places at various times. This sounds like flip a coin to find out what the Catholic Church teaches.

There are no new duly defined doctrines which directly oppose the presence of Jesus’ teachings in His Church. The Catholic Church is the mystical body of Christ. Please explain that as proof that the Catholic Church is the opposite of Jesus’ teachings at some places at various times.

The Catholic Church does not change with the wind even when a popular public speaker/writer claims a better interpretation. Just because a popular public speaker/writer has a hard time with a tough church does not mean that he has the power to change the current “dumb” Catholic Church into his preferences.

The Catholic Church will never be the proposed Catholic Church of some progressive Catholics who are working to change the “disturbing” Catholicism from within it walls. A wolf in sheep’s clothing comes to mind. Maybe the wolf will eat the fly in the ointment.

My older than dirt mind is really slow…

I just realized that this statement – “We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, not any original curse or sin.” is an attack against the Catholic Church. This is seen on the top of a Father Rohr meditation. That is a dangerous bit of advertising.

 

[simpleas]

The Catholic Church did not become the opposite of Jesus’ teachings in some places at various times. This sounds like flip a coin to find out what the Catholic Church teaches.

There are no new duly defined doctrines which directly oppose the presence of Jesus’ teachings in His Church. The Catholic Church is the mystical body of Christ. Please explain that as proof that the Catholic Church is the opposite of Jesus’ teachings at some places at various times.

The Catholic Church does not change with the wind even when a popular public speaker/writer claims a better interpretation. Just because a popular public speaker/writer has a hard time with a tough church does not mean that he has the power to change the current “dumb” Catholic Church into his preferences.

The Catholic Church will never be the proposed Catholic Church of some progressive Catholics who are working to change the “disturbing” Catholicism from within it walls. A wolf in sheep’s clothing comes to mind. Maybe the wolf will eat the fly in the ointment.

My older than dirt mind is really slow…

I just realized that this statement – “We must now rebuild on a foundation of original goodness, not any original curse or sin.” is an attack against the Catholic Church. This is seen on the top of a Father Rohr meditation. That is a dangerous bit of advertising.

I wasn’t thinking of doctrine I was thinking about the times past that the church condemned people to death, actually supported torture and killings of various people, that to me is opposite of Jesus’ teaching.

 

[grannymh]

I wasn’t thinking of doctrine I was thinking about the times past that the church condemned people to death, actually supported torture and killings of various people, that to me is opposite of Jesus’ teaching.

My sincere apology, but doctrine cannot be ignored when there is this serious “in fact” statement – “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…” from post 61.

It is important to understand that some people in the Catholic Church can and did choose wrong actions. Please note that people’s wrong actions do not have the power to claim that “our church did in fact become the opposite of Jesus’s teaching in some places at various times,”

I am now curious if Reverend Richard Rohr, along with others who posted similar accusations on CAF, did a public meditation on this. If he did a meditation on the evils which have occurred in the old days of the Catholic Church, it would be probable that he was leading to a new reformed Catholicism of the Big Tent variety where annoying teachings can be set aside at will. A reformed Catholic Church could be possible. It is the sneaky proposition that annoying Catholic teachings can be dismissed according to any individual’s preferences, including “innocents”, who follow Father Rohr. This is is extremely dangerous.

 

[simpleas]

My sincere apology, but doctrine cannot be ignored when there is this serious “in fact” statement – “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…” from post 61.

It is important to understand that some people in the Catholic Church can and did choose wrong actions. Please note that people’s wrong actions do not have the power to claim that “our church did in fact become the opposite of Jesus’s teaching in some places at various times,”

I am now curious if Reverend Richard Rohr, along with others who posted similar accusations on CAF, did a public meditation on this. If he did a meditation on the evils which have occurred in the old days of the Catholic Church, it would be probable that he was leading to a new reformed Catholicism of the Big Tent variety where annoying teachings can be set aside at will. A reformed new Catholic Church could be possible. It is the sneaky proposition that annoying Catholic teachings can be dismissed according to any individual’s preferences, including teachers who follow Father Rohr, which is extremely dangerous.

It is how I see it from history, I am not accusing the whole of the church as being opposite to Jesus’ teachings, I expressed that when I said in some place at various times.
You seemed to have read more into my words than was there, I am a no body, floating around on a forum.

 

[grannymh]

It is how I see it from history, I am not accusing the whole of the church as being opposite to Jesus’ teachings, I expressed that when I said in some place at various times.
You seemed to have read more into my words than was there, I am a no body, floating around on a forum.

I understand that people have their own view from history. That is an essential part of CAF. That does not mean that ignoring a common misconception is the proper way to handle it. CAF is based on people providing the truth.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Timothy,

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.”

Yes, that does seem reasonable, but it behooves us not to present the reasonable as what actually happened. I think you are getting that. You have some personal concerns, however, and I don’t want to downplay those.

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”

If his answer was “something like” that, it is not admitting that he had not written in accord with doctrine in the past. Again, we all approach what we read with assumptions.

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

He has made some flippant remarks in the past, as well as some things I strongly disagree with, and I challenged him in person. I still think he is a great resource, though.

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.

Personally, I find no value in the enneagram, but I think it is harmless. We can be “led astray” by anyone’s teachings because we hear those teachings in the context of our own experiences. People receive words very often in ways that they are not meant to be communicated. If one looks back on what teachings led us astray, and then give the speaker the benefit of the doubt, we can forgive the speaker and/or perhaps understand our own errors in reception. As Christians, we are called to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Blessings to you. I understand your reactions and pray that reconciliation, if applicable, comes easily.

 

[grannymh]

Good Morning Timothy,

Yes, that does seem reasonable, but it behooves us not to present the reasonable as what actually happened. I think you are getting that. You have some personal concerns, however, and I don’t want to downplay those.

If his answer was “something like” that, it is not admitting that he had not written in accord with doctrine in the past. Again, we all approach what we read with assumptions.

He has made some flippant remarks in the past, as well as some things I strongly disagree with, and I challenged him in person. I still think he is a great resource, though.

Personally, I find no value in the enneagram, but I think it is harmless. We can be “led astray” by anyone’s teachings because we hear those teachings in the context of our own experiences. People receive words very often in ways that they are not meant to be communicated. If one looks back on what teachings led us astray, and then give the speaker the benefit of the doubt, we can forgive the speaker and/or perhaps understand our own errors in reception. As Christians, we are called to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Blessings to you. I understand your reactions and pray that reconciliation, if applicable, comes easily.

I am trying to remember… Was the enneagram the reason I invited Reverend Mitch Pacwa, S.J. to our parish to give a lecture about what was happening in our world. Seeing an old article of his brought back part of the memory. Seeing the title reminded me how intelligent he is. Clearly in the title “Tell Me Who I Am, O Enneagram” is the precise evidence that the enneagram thing attacks the Catholic Church or at least puts the Catholic Church’s ability to answer serious questions in second place under the Enneagram game.

Link to Father Pacwa’s article – iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0146a.html

In the Catholic Church, it is Genesis 1: 27 that tells us who we are. Why would anybody put an enneagram answer above knowing the Creator God’s love in creating us in His image? My guess is that the enneagram game hides the fact that Genesis 1: 27 appears in the so-called non-real figurative allegories in the beginning of Sacred Scripture. Father Rohr apparently dismisses these valuable first three chapters by swatting the fly in the ointment.

Reference link is myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation–Original-Blessing.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=yAlpFk3eNPc

 

[OneSheep]

I am trying to remember… Was the enneagram the reason I invited Reverend Mitch Pacwa, S.J. to our parish to give a lecture about what was happening in our world. Seeing an old article of his brought back part of the memory. Seeing the title reminded me how intelligent he is. Clearly in the title “Tell Me Who I Am, O Enneagram” is the precise evidence that the enneagram thing attacks the Catholic Church or at least puts the Catholic Church’s ability to answer serious questions in second place under the Enneagram game.

Link to Father Pacwa’s article – iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0146a.html

In the Catholic Church, it is Genesis 1: 27 that tells us who we are. Why would anybody put an enneagram answer above knowing the Creator God’s love in creating us in His image? My guess is that the enneagram game hides the fact that Genesis 1: 27 appears in the so-called non-real figurative allegories in the beginning of Sacred Scripture. Father Rohr apparently dismisses these valuable first three chapters by swatting the fly in the ointment.

Reference link is myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation–Original-Blessing.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=yAlpFk3eNPc

For a different history:

cac.org/the-enneagram-an-introduction/

I think we can agree, Granny, that the enneagram is not worth our attention. It does not contradict Genesis in any way. It is a tool, but fairly useless IMO. Let’s try to keep the topic on the video.

 

[OneSheep]

Reference link is myemail.constantcontact.com/Richard-Rohr-s-Meditation–Original-Blessing.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=yAlpFk3eNPc

What a wonderful meditation, Granny, I really do appreciate your bringing it forth. I disagree with some of his ideas, but those are really few and far between. This meditation truly reflects the Gospel values we share, and clearly describes a Gospel foundation upon which to build the Kingdom.

Ironically, though Augustine contested Pelagius, some of the things that Augustine wrote supported the same perspective as Pelagius, and with greater fortitude.

 

[grannymh]

What a wonderful meditation, Granny, I really do appreciate your bringing it forth. I disagree with some of his ideas, but those are really few and far between.

Is it possible for you to be specific about his ideas that you disagree with?

If yes. Please share your thoughts so that we can get a better understanding of his mission.

 

[simpleas]

Is it possible for you to be specific about his ideas that you disagree with?

If yes. Please share your thoughts so that we can get a better understanding of his mission.

*Our Mission

“We are a centre for experiential education, rooted in the Gospels, encouraging the transformation of human consciousness through contemplation, and equipping people to be instruments of peaceful change in the world.”
*

This is on the The Centre for Action and Contemplation website.

 

[grannymh]

Our Mission

“We are a centre for experiential education, rooted in the Gospels, encouraging the transformation of human consciousness through contemplation, and equipping people to be instruments of peaceful change in the world.”

It sounds like this secular organization has substituted contemplation of something for another something. My suggestion is to read the fine print. Maybe that would describe the instruments for peaceful change.

Dang!
I wish this rather new organization on the block – Catholic Church is a lot older –
would put its mission in down to earth language for we ordinary folk.

 

[grannymh]

Our Mission

“We are a centre for experiential education, rooted in the Gospels, encouraging the transformation of human consciousness through contemplation, and equipping people to be instruments of peaceful change in the world.”

This is on the The Centre for Action and Contemplation website.

It sounds like this secular organization has substituted contemplation of something for another something. My suggestion is to read the fine print. Maybe that would describe the instruments for peaceful change of something.

Dang!
I wish this rather new organization on the block – Catholic Church is a lot older –
would put its mission in down to earth language for we ordinary folk.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

*Our Mission

“We are a centre for experiential education, rooted in the Gospels, encouraging the transformation of human consciousness through contemplation, and equipping people to be instruments of peaceful change in the world.”
*

This is on the The Centre for Action and Contemplation website.

How is it you disagree with this ?

Jim

 

[simpleas]

How is it you disagree with this ?

Jim

Post 72 was a mistake…should have been in another thread…

 

[grannymh]

Post 72 was a mistake…should have been in another thread…

Me, too. I am having trouble keeping the two threads apart.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I wasn’t thinking of doctrine I was thinking about the times past that the church condemned people to death, actually supported torture and killings of various people, that to me is opposite of Jesus’ teaching.

The Church never condemned people to death. That was the State. And while individuals in the Church at various times went too far in their desire to save souls --not bodies, because souls are a bit more important–by not speaking as strongly against torture as they do now, one has to take into account the times , their understanding of what heresy was and their duties to safeguard SOULS, and the political structure. We’re looking back in hindsight; they didn’t have our understanding.

Sure individuals will always fail to live Jesus’ teachings perfectly. But the Church will not.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Church never condemned people to death. That was the State. And while individuals in the Church at various times went too far in their desire to save souls --not bodies, because souls are a bit more important–by not speaking as strongly against torture as they do now, one has to take into account the times , their understanding of what heresy was and their duties to safeguard SOULS, and the political structure. We’re looking back in hindsight; they didn’t have our understanding.

Sure individuals will always fail to live Jesus’ teachings perfectly. But the Church will not.

The Church never carried out torture or executions, but condemn they did before the Eclesiastical Courts, or by those whom the Church had given permission to serve within the Catholic Monarchies. Those condemned were handed over to the state for punishment.

Thomas Moore was a Church approved authority in Henry VIII’s court.

Thomas Moore is known to have tortured and executed a least four people. He himself of course was arrested and beheaded for not signing an oath declaring the King the head of the Church of England.

Thomas Moore was canonized by the Church.

Jim

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The Church never carried out torture or executions, but condemn they did before the Eclesiastical Courts, or by those whom the Church had given permission to serve within the Catholic Monarchies. Those condemned were handed over to the state for punishment.

Thomas Moore was a Church approved authority in Henry VIII’s court.

Thomas Moore is known to have tortured and executed a least four people. He himself of course was arrested and beheaded for not signing an oath declaring the King the head of the Church of England.

Thomas Moore was canonized by the Church.

Jim

One O, Jim. If you can’t even get the name correct, then I tend to doubt the rest of your post. Did he torture and execute them personally? Was he canonized for his torture? Was this part of his ‘instruction manual’ for 'all Christians to observe? He was an individual. I stand by my post. And I honor him as a Saint of the Catholic church.

I sense a bit of bitterness in your post, for which I am sorry. . .

 

[simpleas]

The Church never condemned people to death. That was the State. And while individuals in the Church at various times went too far in their desire to save souls --not bodies, because souls are a bit more important–by not speaking as strongly against torture as they do now, one has to take into account the times , their understanding of what heresy was and their duties to safeguard SOULS, and the political structure. We’re looking back in hindsight; they didn’t have our understanding.

Sure individuals will always fail to live Jesus’ teachings perfectly. But the Church will not.

From what I have learnt it wasn’t about saving souls as such, but getting rid of those who did not convert to the faith.
I find it fascinating to poke around and learn what the real history is, there are many writings about the history of our church.
The church didn’t become the power and wealth that it did by accepting peoples of all faiths and none.

Is it really extreme to think that as there is a wealth within the church that it does not live up to Jesus’ teachings perfectly?