Rohr video: What did Jesus Really Teach?

[OneSheep]

May I respectfully request that you know the difference between “Fr. Rohr has chosen against Catholicism” and this observation “Turning away from old-time traditional Catholicism, these men, and many others, including women, sought new interesting solutions.”

Perhaps you are too young to understand "Old-time traditional Catholicism.

Those were the days before the first three essential chapters of Genesis were denied existence by the allegory approach. With the real first three historical chapters of Sacred Scripture in the trash, obviously new interesting solutions are being proposed.

Pardon me. Do you have any thoughts about rebuilding Christianity from the bottom up? Obviously, while the Catholic Church is part of Christianity, it does not need rebuilding from any direction.

There is an enormous difference. “Choosing against Catholicism” is a general statement accusing someone of turning against the Church. “Turning away from old-time traditional Catholicism, these men, and many others, including women, sought new interesting solutions” (which is in itself an unsupported opinion, because Fr. Rohr draws from many Saints and scholars from our tradition) does not imply a turning away from the Church, but instead seeks to find solutions. “Finding solutions” is not a turning away from the Church, Granny, it is doing something to help the Church.

So, the questions remain:

Granny Dear, are you bearing witness? If so, what proof do you have that Fr. Rohr has chosen against Catholicism?

What is your source?

Dearest Granny,

You have not provided a source. I know that if you had one, you would have already come forth with it.

Let the record show that you have no source, then, and your statement is unsupported and untrue.

The question is, then, are you going to retract your statement violating Fr. Rohr’s right to reputation, or are you going to have your statement remain? Will you revise your statement to one that openly admits that you do not seek to defame?

Can Catholics of honesty stand by their own statements that defame? How can we regard the words of people who refuse to admit when they are wrong? Don’t we all reach “forks in the road” that lead to either evil or good?

I know you Granny, I know you as a good person, a righteous person. What is your response?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

IDK, *you *stated that the Church uses Chardin’s work. As for the saints, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Augustine, Aquinas, Athanasius, et al, are directly “used” by the Church in the catechism in support of her doctrines. They contributed something that the Church has deemed worthy to help edify, encourage, explain, etc.

I said the Church accepts Chardin’s work, with regards to science and spirituality.

Chardin did not change dogma or come up with new one’s.

Jim

 

[fhansen]

I said the Church accepts Chardin’s work, with regards to science and spirituality.

Chardin did not change dogma or come up with new one’s.

Jim

Yes, I see. No saints or visionaries or theologians change dogma of course. Anyway, it’s apparent that at least some in the Church accept Chardin’s work, or aspects of it. Maybe that element will grow and the Church will eventually embrace his thoughts on a broader scale. Time will tell.

These matters serve to highlight that the word “Church” may be defined more narrowly or broadly as well. The Church speaking from her magisterial or teaching role vs the Church speaking through opinions of respected members, theologians, etc, for example.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yes, I see. No saints or visionaries or theologians change dogma of course. Anyway, it’s apparent that at least some in the Church accept Chardin’s work, or aspects of it. Maybe that element will grow and the Church will eventually embrace his thoughts on a broader scale. Time will tell.

These matters serve to highlight that the word “Church” may be defined more narrowly or broadly as well. The Church speaking from her magisterial or teaching role vs the Church speaking through opinions of respected members, theologians, etc, for example.

When I say Church, especially in this forum, I mean the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. They’re the only authority of the Church here on earth and whatever anyone else says is meaningless as far as what we accept as doctrine.

So yes, the Church is the Body of Christ here on earth, but have no doubt about it, for us Catholics, what comes from Rome is what we’re bound to follow.

Jim

 

[fhansen]

When I say Church, especially in this forum, I mean the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. They’re the only authority of the Church here on earth and whatever anyone else says is meaningless as far as what we accept as doctrine.

So yes, the Church is the Body of Christ here on earth, but have no doubt about it, for us Catholics, what comes from Rome is what we’re bound to follow.

Jim

Agreed

 

[grannymh]

Today, the Reverend Richard Rohr referred to Catholic or Orthodox in a rude manner in his regular e-mail daily meditation.

I do not have time to read the daily meditation. However, today’s title "Unity in Diversity’ brought me back to the question – What did Jesus Really Teach? Due to my crazy computer, I had some trouble with quoting the meditation. So I put it at the end.

No matter what subject Jesus was teaching, He expected unity in His followers. In my old neighborhood, viewing Catholic Sacraments as magical would be considered an attack on the Catholic Church. That is not warranted.

Father Rohr’s reference to a gap between Divine Personhood and human personhood made me wonder if he has ever read the beginning three chapters of Genesis. The facts that the Divine Personhood are different from human personhood are front and center in the beginning of human history described in the first three amazing chapters of Sacred Scripture. The inherent capacity for a human union (friendship relationship) with a Divine Person is stated loudly in Genesis 1:27.
From March 3, 2017 Meditation.
“Most Christians have focused on overcoming the gap between Divine Personhood and human personhood. It largely became a matter of viewing sacraments as magical if you were Catholic or Orthodox
or a transactional notion of strong belief or moral behavior if you were Protestant. In either case, there was no inherent capacity for divine union that could be evoked and built upon in our very soul. Thus, it was a very unstable core.”

---

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[anon65111186]

Granny, good point. I e-mailed the Archbishop of Sante Fe about Fr. Rohr talking about “God as Mother” and the Enneagram other things and I haven’t heard back yet from his secretary. I wanted to see what the Archbishop would recommend in regards to Father Rohr, and whether that is acceptable etc. He’s the authority there so I hope to hear from him on that.

Sacraments aren’t magical. Fr. Rohr says if you were Catholic or Orthodox,
then you viewed the sacraments as magical. I am a cradle Catholic and never viewed them that way.

Maybe he knew a few specific people who viewed the sacraments that way, but he seems to want people to believe that all Catholics and all Orthodox view the sacraments that way. This is a false generalization. Unless he has statistical information on how many people view it that way, he shouldn’t speak as if this is a majority view.

He is arguing against this view as if everyone held it. If they believe what the Church believes, they don’t view it that way. If they do view it that way, it is a problem of instruction and one’s knowledge of the faith, not because the Church taught this.

Protestants do have a transactional or juridical notion of justification and salvation, but that is in their dogma. Catholics dogma in no way teaches magical anything, so it’s a poor comparison. It’s like saying Catholics believe in magic, and Protestants believe in forensic justification, the latter is true, the former is false.

I don’t know how he defines magical but Scripture and Tradition never speak of magical as anything good, and those who practice it will be thrown into the “lake of fire and sulfer”.

Most Christians have focused on overcoming the gap between Divine Personhood and human personhood. It largely became a matter of viewing sacraments as magical if you were Catholic or Orthodox
or a transactional notion of strong belief or moral behavior if you were Protestant. In either case, there was no inherent capacity for divine union that could be evoked and built upon in our very soul. Thus, it was a very unstable core.

He wants us to believe that there is an ability to be one with God that can be evoked (called to mind? summoned into reality?) and increased in our soul, and this is lacking in mistaken views. Bottom line, don’t think the Sacraments are magical and don’t think of strong belief? and moral behavior as creating not union with God, but the capacity for union. Obtuse and complex wording make it hard to know exactly or clearly what sense he is using words and therefore, what he actually means.

His ambiguous use of langauge gives him and anyone attempting to interpret him a lot of wiggle room when pressed for the true meaning of his words.

I believe that by using unclear language, he is confusing, and potentially misrepresenting the faith.

Thank you Granny and let’s continue to pray for Fr. Rohr and all he comes in contact with through his talks, books, meditations, videos, audio, etc.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, good point. I e-mailed the Archbishop of Sante Fe about Fr. Rohr talking about “God as Mother” and the Enneagram other things and I haven’t heard back yet from his secretary. I wanted to see what the Archbishop would recommend in regards to Father Rohr, and whether that is acceptable etc. He’s the authority there so I hope to hear from him on that.

Sacraments aren’t magical. Fr. Rohr says if you were Catholic or Orthodox,
then you viewed the sacraments as magical. I am a cradle Catholic and never viewed them that way.

Maybe he knew a few specific people who viewed the sacraments that way, but he seems to want people to believe that all Catholics and all Orthodox view the sacraments that way. This is a false generalization. Unless he has statistical information on how many people view it that way, he shouldn’t speak as if this is a majority view.

He is arguing against this view as if everyone held it. If they believe what the Church believes, they don’t view it that way. If they do view it that way, it is a problem of instruction and one’s knowledge of the faith, not because the Church taught this.

Protestants do have a transactional or juridical notion of justification and salvation, but that is in their dogma. Catholics dogma in no way teaches magical anything, so it’s a poor comparison. It’s like saying Catholics believe in magic, and Protestants believe in forensic justification, the latter is true, the former is false.

I don’t know how he defines magical but Scripture and Tradition never speak of magical as anything good, and those who practice it will be thrown into the “lake of fire and sulfer”.

He wants us to believe that there is an ability to be one with God that can be evoked (called to mind? summoned into reality?) and increased in our soul, and this is lacking in mistaken views. Bottom line, don’t think the Sacraments are magical and don’t think of strong belief? and moral behavior as creating not union with God, but the capacity for union. Obtuse and complex wording make it hard to know exactly or clearly what sense he is using words and therefore, what he actually means.

His ambiguous use of langauge gives him and anyone attempting to interpret him a lot of wiggle room when pressed for the true meaning of his words.

I believe that by using unclear language, he is confusing, and potentially misrepresenting the faith.

Thank you Granny and let’s continue to pray for Fr. Rohr and all he comes in contact with through his talks, books, meditations, videos, audio, etc.

It is my observation that Father Rohr’s agenda is opposed to true Catholicism. This type of agenda goes back at least to the 1940’s. Pope Pius XII denounced this agenda in his encyclical Humani Generis, 1950, paragraphs 10, 11, & 12.
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

The public source of my observation is the *Wikipedia *article on Progressive Christianity.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Christianity

Here, the Reverend Richard Rohr is listed as a Notable Progressive Christian.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Christianity#Notable_Progressive_Christians

After all the praise and hand clapping in the beginning, one will publically find that the Catholic Church is not listed as a Notable Progressive Christian Denomination.
Scroll down a bit following the list of Progressive Christians.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Christianity#Notable_Progressive_Christians

In addition, I noticed that at the end of the March 3, 2017, Meditation , Rebuilding Christianity “From the Bottom Up” was mentioned.

 

[fhansen]

I’ve never been a Rohr fan but I think he touches on a truth when he speaks of the danger of Catholics *viewing *sacraments as magical, just as Protestants may view faith in a similar manner, both seen as being sort of mechanically sufficient in and of themselves to justify and save us without our needing to do much else: “I’m baptised therefore I’m saved; I’ve confessed therefore I’m forgiven and re-saved” or, “I believe therefore I’m saved”.

None of this is necessarily untrue, but it can be easily abused or taken for granted. While the sacraments are instruments of grace, in Catholic teaching their efficacy is still dependent on our state or disposition, the authenticity of our faith in the case of Baptism, our depth of contrition in the case of Reconciliation. God judges by the heart after all, as scripture tells us, and He knows it way better than we do. Anyway it sounded to me that RR may’ve been referring to this kind of problem in the article cited.

 

[simpleas]

We should be concerned as to why we don’t hear much about God as mother. There is one reference made by Jesus describing God, about a mother hen taking care of her chicks, is there any more reference like this?

The most important written word which seems to be over looked, or forgotten about because we are so used to thinking of God as Father only, seems to be Genesis 1 :27

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Male and Female created in God’s image, doesn’t this suggest a feminine image of God too?

It’s both, not just one.

 

[grannymh]

We should be concerned as to why we don’t hear much about God as mother. There is one reference made by Jesus describing God, about a mother hen taking care of her chicks, is there any more reference like this?

The most important written word which seems to be over looked, or forgotten about because we are so used to thinking of God as Father only, seems to be Genesis 1 :27

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Male and Female created in God’s image, doesn’t this suggest a feminine image of God too?

It’s both, not just one.

My observation may be totally wrong … Please correct me.

This post sounds like the project of Rebuilding Christianity from the Bottom Up.

This post’s “feminine image” suggestion suggests to me that we should have a new and improved growing Catholic Church filled with women priests. This easy welcoming church would skip annoying Catholic practices and doctrines. Annoying samples would be those which are based in the first three disappearing chapters in Genesis. Original Sin as taught by the Catholic Church is too ugly like a fly in the ointment.

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

This also becomes interesting for those few Catholics who are aware of stealth Arianism.

 

[simpleas]

My observation may be totally wrong … Please correct me.

This post sounds like the project of Rebuilding Christianity from the Bottom Up.

This post’s “feminine image” suggestion suggests to me that we should have a new and improved growing Catholic Church filled with women priests. This easy welcoming church would skip annoying Catholic practices and doctrines. Annoying samples would be those which are based in the first three disappearing chapters in Genesis. Original Sin as taught by the Catholic Church is too ugly like a fly in the ointment.

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

This also becomes interesting for those few Catholics who are aware of stealth Arianism.

I shall correct you.

My post has nothing to do with women priests nor re building Christianity from the bottom up.
It’s an observation on what is written in Genesis that I recently read in our newsletter, which made me think on how we never relate to God as feminine.

 

[grannymh]

I shall correct you.

My post has nothing to do with women priests nor re building Christianity from the bottom up.

That is very good to know. Thank you for the correction.

I remember going to a funeral service for a friend’s mother and found myself in a Holy Mass-type service conducted by a dedicated woman acting as “priest.” When the blessed bread was passed through the assembly, I froze. So you can understand why I am sometime suspicious. My apology.

It’s an observation on what is written in Genesis that I recently read in our newsletter, which made me think on how we never relate to God as feminine.

I am sure that every person is entitled to their own interpretation of their observation. It is known as free speech on a public message board.

I am simply curious, because I grew up in the dead generation of Catholics. Is there a teaching in the Catholic Church or an implication in the Reverend Richard Rohr internet messages that makes it important for we women to relate to God as feminine? So that we add something to the super-natural transcendent Pure Spirit without material restrictions?

In other words, what is the basic reason for God being addressed as feminine mother along with being addressed as a male father? I certainly can understand God being like a mother hen. But that does not mean He has to have a feminine image or does it? Is there an issue for having a feminine image? Especially when the Divine Spiritual Being is most important.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by grannymh

That is very good to know. Thank you for the correction.

I remember going to a funeral service for a friend’s mother and found myself in a Holy Mass-type service conducted by a dedicated woman acting as “priest.” When the blessed bread was passed through the assembly, I froze. So you can understand why I am sometime suspicious. My apology.

No problem, well I have never experienced that, nor know anyone (a part from you now) who has.
Have seen the odd protestant female priest on a T.V service, strange at first but it’s becoming more normal to see. But that isn’t the reason for asking about God in the feminine.

I am sure that every person is entitled to their own interpretation of their observation. It is known as free speech on a public message board.

Well I have included the newsletter that I read which refers to this topic, so you and anyone else reading can tell me what you think it is saying.

I am simply curious, because I grew up in the dead generation of Catholics. Is there a teaching in the Catholic Church or an implication in the Reverend Richard Rohr internet messages that makes it important for we women to relate to God as feminine? So that we add something to the super-natural transcendent Pure Spirit without material restrictions?

In other words, what is the basic reason for God being addressed as feminine mother along with being addressed as a male father? I certainly can understand God being like a mother hen. But that does not mean He has to have a feminine image or does it? Is there an issue for having a feminine image? Especially when the Divine Spiritual Being is most important.

It’s not what we can add to the super-natural transcendent Pure Spirit, rather what the Pure spirit can add to us.

View attachment 23806

 

[grannymh]

No problem, well I have never experienced that, nor know anyone (a part from you now) who has.
Have seen the odd protestant female priest on a T.V service, strange at first but it’s becoming more normal to see. But that isn’t the reason for asking about God in the feminine.

Well I have included the newsletter that I read which refers to this topic, so you and anyone else reading can tell me what you think it is saying.

It’s not what we can add to the super-natural transcendent Pure Spirit, rather what the Pure spirit can add to us.

View attachment 23806

Thank you for sharing this. It reminds me of finding a needle in a haystack.

Circumstances are that I cannot immediately deal with the whole newsletter. Nonetheless, I wonder if the newsletter states someplace that we receive a feminine image. Receive would be the operative word. This would not be a feminine aspect such as “Today we are offered a vision of God as caring and nurturing.” Beginning of 4th paragraph.

The Pure Spirit shares His life with us in the State of Sanctifying Grace.

 

[grannymh]

No problem, well I have never experienced that, nor know anyone (a part from you now) who has.
Have seen the odd protestant female priest on a T.V service, strange at first but it’s becoming more normal to see. But that isn’t the reason for asking about God in the feminine.

Well I have included the newsletter that I read which refers to this topic, so you and anyone else reading can tell me what you think it is saying.

It’s not what we can add to the super-natural transcendent Pure Spirit, rather what the Pure spirit can add to us.

View attachment 23806

Briefly, so that we are on the same page.
I am replying to this comment in post 130
“Male and Female created in God’s image, doesn’t this suggest a feminine image of God too?”

This refers to Genesis 1.27.

"God created mankind in His image;
in the image of God He created them;
male and female, He created them.
I believe that 1:27 refers to a totally Spiritual God Who is a Pure Super-Natural Spirit without material restrictions. Because of His great love, God is sharing His own spiritual nature with humans.

My point is that suggesting a feminine image is not the intent of Genesis 1: 27.
My impression is that the Reverend Richard Rohr is using the attached newsletter as a base for belief that God’s feminine image side must be considered. As to how far it should be considered --Most likely that would be a different topic.

Again, please correct me.
The Newsletter appears to be Father Rohr’s reasoning as to why we must consider the feminine Mother image coming from God’s feminine image side in Genesis 1:27 --“male and female He created them.” Obviously, there is a male predominance in our world.

My eventual goal is to demonstrate that there is not sufficient evidence in the Newsletter that God must be referred to as the feminine Mother. Yes, evidence is presented because the Bible has presented the Lord through a feminine image “Jesus at one point likens Himself to a mother hen gathering her chicks under her wings.” First paragraph.

As I am rereading the above notes, I have this gut feeling that I am not approaching your point. The issue of Mother God has been around for ages. Thus, there have been many ways to discuss this.

Maybe Father Rohr’s use of the “Feminine Aspect” needs more clarification. Maybe this or that … I still cannot figure out why presentations of God “in feminine ways” are so very important. Third Paragraph.

 

[simpleas]

Briefly, so that we are on the same page.
I am replying to this comment in post 130
“Male and Female created in God’s image, doesn’t this suggest a feminine image of God too?”

This refers to Genesis 1.27.

"God created mankind in His image;
in the image of God He created them;
male and female, He created them.
I believe that 1:27 refers to a totally Spiritual God Who is a Pure Super-Natural Spirit without material restrictions. Because of His great love, God is sharing His own spiritual nature with humans.

My point is that suggesting a feminine image is not the intent of Genesis 1: 27.
My impression is that the Reverend Richard Rohr is using the attached newsletter as a base for belief that God’s feminine image side must be considered. As to how far it should be considered --Most likely that would be a different topic.

Again, please correct me.
The Newsletter appears to be Father Rohr’s reasoning as to why we must consider the feminine Mother image coming from God’s feminine image side in Genesis 1:27 --“male and female He created them.” Obviously, there is a male predominance in our world.

My eventual goal is to demonstrate that there is not sufficient evidence in the Newsletter that God must be referred to as the feminine Mother. Yes, evidence is presented because the Bible has presented the Lord through a feminine image “Jesus at one point likens Himself to a mother hen gathering her chicks under her wings.” First paragraph.

As I am rereading the above notes, I have this gut feeling that I am not approaching your point. The issue of Mother God has been around for ages. Thus, there have been many ways to discuss this.

Maybe Father Rohr’s use of the “Feminine Aspect” needs more clarification. Maybe this or that … I still cannot figure out why presentations of God “in feminine ways” are so very important. Third Paragraph.

Back in post 132 I said I had read a piece from our newslettter, my apology, I did not make it clear that it was the parish newsletter, I stated it was nothing to do with women priests, nor re-building Christianity, but I should have included the source.

The source is from The Redemptorist publications, they do have a website, but not links to weekly sunday message, The Word, they have to be bought online.

I believe the reflection is written by a Fr Anthony Cassidy, C.Ss.R.

I’m using the word image, not as in something we see, but something we are.

Made in the image of God as male and female.

 

[grannymh]

God as Mother goes way back…

Here is one brief explanation of the Reverend Richard Rohr’s position.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6819

"Rohr makes it very clear that he does not want to be limited to having to call God “Father.” He writes in Adam’s Return (which was the basis for his presentations) that we must “find public ways to recognize, honor, and name the feminine nature of God…”

“Rohr’s thesis runs into the problem of Divine Revelation: Christ has definitively revealed God as Father. To say that God could just as easily be called “Mother” is in direct contradiction to Divine Revelation. As the Catechism states, “Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: He is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father…” (#240).”

The issue “God is Mother” has been one of Father Rohr’s talking points for some time.

From post 127 above.
“I e-mailed the Archbishop of Sante Fe about Fr. Rohr talking about “God as Mother” and the Enneagram other things and I haven’t heard back yet from his secretary. I wanted to see what the Archbishop would recommend in regards to Father Rohr, and whether that is acceptable etc. He’s the authority there so I hope to hear from him on that.”

Regardless of who wrote the Newsletter, Father Rohr’s issue above "that we must “find public ways to recognize, honor, and name the feminine nature of God…” is dramatically important today as evinced in the parish Newsletter.

God as Mother goes all the way back to the August 16, 1993 issue of *Christianity Today. *The cover story is “Why God is not Mother” written by Elizabeth Achtemeier.

What did Jesus really teach about God?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Franciscan Fr. Richard Rohr challenges some of the ways we think about our religious focus…

According to Rohr in this video, the real “non-negotiables” according to Jesus are, to love God and love neighbor.

Politically speaking is one thing. But when we are trying to be transformed in the image of Christ, maybe we should focus on the specks in our own eyes, before telling other people they have lumberyards in theirs.

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

MS

A thread dedicated to those who dislike Rohr?

What I hear are the non-negotiables are

1. 
   *]Forgiveness,
   *]love of enemy,
   *]care for the poor,
   *]peacemaking
   *]inclusivity.
   
   But when the Catholic Church became the law of the land there was a shift in emphasis to law and order.
   
   I tend to agree. But applying those non-negotiables to our world today requires a great deal of discernment. And thus we have the guidance of the Church.
   
   So what are the more standard 5 non-negotiables? Googled:
   
   1. 
      *]Abortion
      *]Human Cloning
      *]Euthanasia (assisted suicide)
      *]Stem Cell Research
      *]Homosexual "Marriage
      
      More adapted to very specific contemporary political issues. Notice Rohr’s are Must do’s. The standard are must not do’s.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

It sounds as though he is trying to rationalize abortion and government support for abortion. Very gravely sinful. To say that Jesus forgives is correct, but He expects us to stop killing innocent children first.

I don’t hear that at all.