What's wrong with suggesting a Catholic read Richard Rohr and Paul Knitter on Buddhism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter annem
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

annem

Guest
Someone on the forum did suggest them, but that alarmed me, Both authors attack the Catholic church and appear to teach heresy. What do you think?

Rohr’s most recent book “The Universal Christ” reveals that he no longer is a Catholic at all, and certainly does not believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible. Instead of that Jesus, Rohr offers a newer, revamped Jesus, who is a pantheistic Christ/creator who that blends Christianity with Buddhism and perhaps even New Age nature worship.

There appears to be nothing about the church Rohr doesn’t detest, including original sin, which he laughs at, since of course the truth is that we were born with ‘original goodness’. Of course that does make all the murder, war, and other human horrors inexplicable.

He loathes Catholic dogma and those ridiculous “magical sacraments”. He disbelieves in a sin, and appears certain that his newer, better pantheistic New Age Christ would never care a toss such things as ‘private sins of the flesh’ or asking people to attend the ‘magical sacrament’ of the Mass. He scolds the church for listening to St Paul and not sharing the Eucharist with everyone. He sees the church as a source of war and violence.

So, Rohr is no long a Catholic. He was always into psycho babble like enneagram, and other aids to exploring the wonderfulness of me, me, me. I found it embarrassing, but of course we all make asses of ourselves. I could give you far, far too many examples of my own behavior. But Rohr has now left the church entirely.

All Catholics should be warned: keep away from this book.

As for Paul Knitter’s “Without Buddha I Could Not Be A Christian”. it is, by Catholic standards, heresy. Perhaps it would slide by as somewhat Christian, although I am not sure it could even pass that standard.

His brilliant arguments include the notion that if there really is only one God, then all the other gods are false, which is just mean to everybody’s else, and clearly not a thoughtful position.

He utterly denies the resurrection, and calls it a ‘myth’. Jesus Christ did not die on the cross and then rise from the dead, it was only a ‘spiritual’ resurrection, a sort of collective hallucination. If you deny the resurrection, good luck trying to convince anyone you are a believing Catholic.

Because Knitter knows so much better than the God of the universe, he condemns the idea of hell. Hell is simply another mistake which the early Christians believed in, but now that Knitter has arrived to set us straight, we can safely ignore. It appears never to have occurred to him that hell barely existed as a concept before Jesus, and that it was Jesus, yes, Jesus Christ, who kept talking about, and threatening, hell.

Knitter complains he can only have a real relationship with Jesus if he can affect Jesus, not just have Jesus tell him things. The God of the universe apparently needs to start obeying Knitter, so they can have a proper relationship, although this is a little fuzzy.

I think all Catholics should be warned to stay away from his books.
 
Last edited:
I personally have a lot of the same opinions you do regarding these authors but —There are people who read Richard Rohr’s, for example, books early in the youth and he ‘spoke to them’. It’s not as if every sentence (particularly in the earlier books) is full of ambiguity or untruth.

As an example, suppose you had never read the Bible in your life, but in say Max Lucado (Protestant writer) you read Bible passages which Max spoke of. His take is probably not particularly Catholic, but if you hadn’t been exposed to the Bible and Catholic writers, probably a lot of what he said would make sense to you, and if you became a Catholic, and people suggested you ‘stay away from him’, you’d probably get indignant, “That man set me on the PATH to Catholicism”, you might say. “I found his writing marvelously helpful and very Catholic!”

So saying, “Stay away from Richard Rohr’ is going to backfire on those who pride themselves on their knowledge and their open-mindedness and their (better than YOURS) understanding of Christ blah bah blah.

I would be more inclined to find something positive to say like, “Richard Rohr certainly speaks to many Catholics who are questioning” (because that’s true), and I have found that (then insert name like Scott Hahn or Brent Petrie) Also addresses a lot of my questions. I just finished (book name of author) and was moved by (name something that you found interesting). I recommend that book highly.

That way you haven’t denigrated Richard Rohr, you’ve actually given people more authors who may in fact wind up influencing people far more. Win-win.
 
stpurl said:
I would be more inclined to find something positive to say like, “Richard Rohr certainly speaks to many Catholics who are questioning” (because that’s true), and I have found that (then insert name like Scott Hahn or Brent Petrie) Also addresses a lot of my questions. I just finished (book name of author) and was moved by (name something that you found interesting). I recommend that book highly.
Click to expand...
Great, great point, and certainly we should all do this. Especially about Rohr’s early books, which qualify, I guess, as squishy Catholicism. The Catholic church is broad and should contain as many as possible. The more the better period,. Also I simply love the idea of inserting a better author. Terrific idea.

But I guess I was mostly talking about his "Universal Christ’ being suggested to those who were already interested in, and maybe even leaning to, Buddhism. I see a serious danger there, especially to the young.

When you going to college, who wouldn’t want to hear there is no such thing as sin? In that case, I couldn’t recommend the book. Just couldn’t. But again, I have been known to be wrong sometimes, and I would love to hear anybody else’s opinion.

Does anyone know if Rohr is still calling himself a priest? I
 
I’ve been watching Fr Rohr on YouTube and subscribed to his meditations and I’ve never seen anything close to what you’re accusing him here.

In fact, he’s more orthodox in his teaching than most people are in here.

Being a Franciscan, he is well educated in Franciscan Theology, which is in line with Pope Francis.
 
“JimR-OCDS said:
I*’ve never seen anything close to what you’re accusing him here.*
*
Click to expand...
*

Sorry, but then you will want to avoid picking up a copy of ‘Universal Christ’ at all costs, I read it. I can quote item after item after item in which he declares outright heresy. Why do you think the title is ‘universal Christ’ - because he invents a brand new, pantheistic, New Age Christ. A Jesus who ‘evolves’ to become universal and encompass both pantheistic Buddhism and Catholicism and not a little nature worship.

Obviously, the Jesus Christ of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John remains the same forever. But Rohr no longer cares for that Christ

Perhaps the videos were from ten years ago?
 
Christ is universal

As Jesus himself said;
No one goes to the Father except through me.

This isn’t new theology. Catholic means Universal and the Church is the Body of Christ and therefore Universal.

Jesus hasn’t changed, but our understanding of Him as he continually reveals Himself to us, does evolve in our understanding and faith.

Just because you’ve never heard what Fr Rohr wrote, doesn’t mean he’s not teaching orthodoxy.
 
Last edited:
“JimR-OCDS said:
Christ is universal

As Jesus himself said;
No one goes to the Father except through me.
*
Click to expand...
*

I don’t think you understand. Rohr is not claiming that Jesus Christ is God of the universe and therefore universal. He wants to blend Catholicism with the pantheism of Buddhism. He wants the idea of Christ to evolve to encompass pantheism.

That is, flat out, heresy.

Not to mention it is ridiculous. Explain how you can blend heaven and judgment with reincarnation.

Just because you’ve never heard what Fr Rohr wrote, doesn’t mean he’s not teaching orthodoxy.

I read the book. It’s heresy. Plain and simple. And of course I have heard the stuff Rohr talked about many times before. Anyone who’s read books on Buddhism by New Age teachers has heard it many, many times.
 
IMHO it sounds like Rohr probably seeks an audience that values intellectualism or achieving a special elevated knowledge. Doesn’t sound like my cup of tea.
 
I am a pretty liberal thinker and I found a couple of Rohr’s earlier books to be valuable. This new one, though, reads like new age fluff.
 
Oh, please! You know, when I was at one end of the political extreme, all others appeared extreme in the other direction. Was that true? Of course not. It was a matter of perspective.
 
So has the Church declared Fr Rohr a heretic ?

If not, then you’re violating forum rules criticizing a Catholic Priest

FYI, I just recently listened to Fr Rohr’s talk on the book.

He is far from being in heresy
 
Last edited:
You’re probably referring to Thomas Merton, which of course is a a false accusation.

I’ll rest my case
 
Yeah and Catholic Answers once banned discussions on Centering Prayer.

However, the administrators may have come around and saw they were criticising the wrong thing.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes our understanding of Christ is kept in a neat little box which cannot be disturbed, stretched or questioned in any way. We have to have him so well defined.

But I agree RR is not quite orthodox even thoug he calls his view Alternate Ortodoxy. Still, I appreciate his wider understanding of Christ. Perhaps I am on the edge also then. So be it. I also like Merton, Bede Griffiths and a few other “dangerous” people.
 
Last edited:
That is really a large number of terrible claims, many of which I know to be non factual.
Rohr is a Franciscan. Apparently their " way" is not familiar to you.
He has written extensively about the Trinity. He does not " blend" as you say, but is a Catholic/ perennialist . Many Catholics have written about eastern faith, including one of his inspirations, Thomas Merton and Saint John Paul II . His school focuses on the Contemplative tradition. Something many Catholics find unfamiliar and are often wary about. Surprise! The Church has a rich and diverse history.
He is not a pantheist.
I don’t know the other gentleman so I won’t comment.
He has a unique theology about original sin. It is grounded in the Franciscan tradition and it is clearly different than the standard orthodoxy.
I know this because when I read it, I had to research his claim because it sounded almost impossible.
Ultimately I found a corroborating footnote in a work by Bathazar. Rohr was correct. There is a second
( minority) theory of Atonement. As Bathazar says, to this day, it has never been determined heretical and continues as Orthodox.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is he continues on in good standing as a prominent Catholic Writer.
Since his books are so widely read, I cannot imagine he would not run into problems if he was disseminating heresy.
Maximus the Confessor isOn one of my favorite Saints, which is why I chose his name here. He was caught up in a controversy over the Divine nature of Jesus and the hypostatic union. He opposed the idea that Jesus only had a Divine will. ( Monothelitite)
Pope Martin 1 and Maximus were arrested as new Emporor Constans II who supported Monothelitite jailed them in Rome.
Maximus was tried as a Heretic. He was convicted( twice). He was tortured, his tongue cut out and his right hand cut off. Along with Pope Martin he was vindicated ( illustrating the tragedy of his suffering) posthumously and the church adopted his theoogical position. He is one of the last men recognised as Father of the Church in the East and West.
His theology of Divinization and restoration should be read by every Catholic. I imagine it would also sound alarms as unfamiliar. I think Maximus is a good example of why charges of heresy should not be discussed lightly
 
Last edited:
It appears not enough people have read Rohr’s newest book to have the facts. I did read it, but I returned it to the library. Now, since I feel an obligation, I have put the book on hold and am waiting to get it again.

As soon as I have it and can quote from it I will post a list of his very alarming statements…

Sigh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top