Which Catholic doctrines are currently being challenged by emerging christianity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter grannymh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

grannymh

Guest
Many moons ago, while reading my first adult book on the life of Jesus, I recognized that the chapter on the loaves and fishes was an attack on the Divinity of Jesus. Coincidentally, yesterday a friend referred to subversive Catholicism and sweet talk. In addition, I came across a concept referred to as “emerging christianity.”

Three questions. Is the emerging idea similar to that of the former Catholic, the prominent author Matthew Fox , who updated a few basic doctrines to comport with our contemporary cultures? Is the emerging idea similar to the original Jesus Seminar that sought “the truth”? Or is emerging christianity simply a composite of contrary thoughts about necessary Catholic doctrines?

The answers are important for Catholic apologetics because the fallout of this emerging christianity term has the real potential of affecting people’s views of the real Catholic Church. One descriptive term which I did not mention above is “big tent” because this may be a local description for a new and improved christianity and not necessarily well known. Changing the Catholic Church into a big tent means that bona fide Catholic members can have conflicting interpretations and opinions about selected Catholic teachings. It appears to the uninformed, that any and all emerging opinions have equal value with the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

In my humble opinion, when trying to deal with some misconceptions about Catholicism, it may be helpful if apologetics recognized the doctrine(s) being challenged. One news article I remember was about the lack of true knowledge regarding our conscience. The substitutions for accurate conscience teachings could be a challenge to the doctrines on human nature per se or a challenge to Genesis 1: 26-27; CCC 356; *CCC *1730; and possibly CCC 1260.

Personally, I do not know a lot about what I am talking about. However, in my humble opinion, the way to deal with weird ideas is not always respectful confrontation. Sometimes, the positive concepts of the attacked Catholic doctrine are so appealing that they become efficacious.

Information source: Matthew 7: 15
 
grannymh said:
Many moons ago, while reading my first adult book on the life of Jesus, I recognized that the chapter on the loaves and fishes was an attack on the Divinity of Jesus.
Click to expand...
What is emerging Christianity?
 
I’m not sure it’s a movement so much as it is a search for how church remains relevant. Some of the ideas proposed could challenge Church doctrine, but some of it could compliment it. I guess my point is this can well be healthy discussion about how church moves into the future. It doesn’t have to mean abandoning things, it can mean keeping what we have relevant and alive too.
 
grannymh said:
I came across a concept referred to as “emerging christianity.”

Three questions.

  1. *]Is the emerging idea similar to that of the former Catholic, the prominent author Matthew Fox , who updated a few basic doctrines to comport with our contemporary cultures?
    *]Is the emerging idea similar to the original Jesus Seminar that sought “the truth”?
    *]Or is emerging christianity simply a composite of contrary thoughts about necessary Catholic doctrines?
Click to expand...

  1. From what I’ve read, it’s a protestant movement.
    g:
    The answers are important for Catholic apologetics because the fallout of this emerging christianity term has the real potential of affecting people’s views of the real Catholic Church. One descriptive term which I did not mention above is “big tent” because this may be a local description for a new and improved christianity and not necessarily well known. Changing the Catholic Church into a big tent means that bona fide Catholic members can have conflicting interpretations and opinions about selected Catholic teachings. It appears to the uninformed, that any and all emerging opinions have equal value with the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

    In my humble opinion, when trying to deal with some misconceptions about Catholicism, it may be helpful if apologetics recognized the doctrine(s) being challenged. One news article I remember was about the lack of true knowledge regarding our conscience. The substitutions for accurate conscience teachings could be a challenge to the doctrines on human nature per se or a challenge to Genesis 1: 26-27; CCC 356; *CCC *1730; and possibly CCC 1260.

    Personally, I do not know a lot about what I am talking about. However, in my humble opinion, the way to deal with weird ideas is not always respectful confrontation. Sometimes, the positive concepts of the attacked Catholic doctrine are so appealing that they become efficacious.

    Information source: Matthew 7: 15
    Click to expand...
    unfortunately there are too many uninformed poorly catechised Catholics. The results are, they are the first to get picked off with heretical movements.

    That’s why our 1st pope gave this important warning. There’s no expiration date to this.

    2 Pet 1:
    3 His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. 5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. 8 For** if** you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But whoever does not have them is nearsighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins. 10 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble, 11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

    It’s no small matter that knowledge is 2nd on the list.
 
PJH_74 said:
I’m not sure it’s a movement so much as it is a search for how church remains relevant. Some of the ideas proposed could challenge Church doctrine, but some of it could compliment it. I guess my point is this can well be healthy discussion about how church moves into the future. It doesn’t have to mean abandoning things, it can mean keeping what we have relevant and alive too.
Click to expand...
“… a search for how church remains relevant.” resonates with me because of some posts I read when I first landed on CAF. Back then, there was an undercurrent of updating certain Catholic doctrines so that Catholicism would be “relevant.” That being said, I now am very curious about which proposed ideas could challenge Church doctrine.

There might be challenges to the Catholic doctrines on the State of Mortal Sin. Obviously, the State of Mortal Sin is internal, that is within the person. At the same time, the State of Mortal Sin involves a relationship between a person and his Creator. Would there be ideas that God is so forgiving that the State of Mortal Sin is set aside? Though I doubt that the State of Mortal Sin would be presented.

I do think that an emphasis on forgiveness compliments Catholic teachings.

If I am reading some opinions (which may or may not be attributed to emerging christianity) accurately, it isn’t necessarily God’s love that is being attacked; rather, the possible attacked doctrine is about human free will which goes back to the original doctrines on human nature per se. Genesis 1:26-17 is full of God’s love.

Would you kindly let me know which ideas could challenge Catholic doctrines?
 
Ignatius said:
What is emerging Christianity?
Click to expand...
I’m really not sure. That is why this thread was started. This thread is the result of reading some opinions which sound Catholic in a way, but not exactly. :confused: :confused:
 
steve_b said:
From what I’ve read, it’s a protestant movement.

unfortunately there are too many uninformed poorly catechised Catholics. The results are, they are the first to get picked off with heretical movements.

That’s why our 1st pope gave this important warning. There’s no expiration date to this.

2 Pet 1:
3 His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4 Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. 5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. 8 For** if** you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But whoever does not have them is nearsighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins. 10 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble, 11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

It’s no small matter that knowledge is 2nd on the list.
Click to expand...
👍

There is so much “modern” truth in this. Thank you.
 
Ignatius said:
What is emerging Christianity?
Click to expand...
That would be my question also ---- to the point that I would question the validity or benefits of any proposals classified as “emerging Christianity”. Christianity “emerged” 2000 years ago.
 
This says alot to me :

“I hope whatever emerging Christianity is,” said Franciscan Fr. Richard Rohr, a featured speaker at the conference, “it’s going to be much more practice-based than doctrine-based. Where has this obsession with believing correct doctrines gotten us? The Roman church is right back into it, although maybe that’s why God is humiliating us, to say: ‘This obsession with being right and having the whole truth, look where it’s gotten you, Roman church,’ ” he said in a not-so-thinly veiled reference to the then-breaking story that the shadow of the clergy sex abuse scandal had darkened the door of the papal palace. “It might well be in the great scheme of God’s grace the only way to bring us to humility, to balancing all of our absolutely certain knowing with a necessary unknowing.”

And this from

catholicnewsagency.com/news/are-you-catholic-then-stay-in-the-church-pope-says-12769/

“Jesus prays, Jesus calls, Jesus chooses, Jesus sends his disciples out, Jesus heals the crowd. Inside this temple, this Jesus who is the corner stone does all this work: it is He who conducts the Church,” the pontiff noted, explaining that the Church is built on the apostles.

To me, I think that while the church is built on the apostles, it now has to continue with the people of today, not to say we shouldn’t practise doctrines etc, but there is a need to show just why some are very important, maybe the ones that people don’t take as seriously as they did 30-40 years ago.
 
grannymh said:
In my humble observation, this link counters some of the ideas in the link in post 2 above.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/are-you-catholic-then-stay-in-the-church-pope-says-12769/

versus

ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/unformed-future

To me, it would be interesting to look for both current doctrines and disappearing doctrines.
Click to expand...
I came across the below on youtube. It’s a very interesting discussion, one I think you maybe interested in with your own research.

What stands out is when the Priest first explains that the franciscans had a different understanding about the atonement 800 years ago.

My mind is pickled.

youtube.com/watch?v=A9Azd93Luko&index=1&list=FLBtZd4AbDkfLlLJL4ueniIQ
 
simpleas said:
I came across the below on youtube. It’s a very interesting discussion, one I think you maybe interested in with your own research.

What stands out is when the Priest first explains that the franciscans had a different understanding about the atonement 800 years ago.

My mind is pickled.

youtube.com/watch?v=A9Azd93Luko&index=1&list=FLBtZd4AbDkfLlLJL4ueniIQ
Click to expand...
Hi Simpleas!

Thank you for so many great resources added to this thread! I watched this youtube video, and had no idea that people thought that the devil had to be paid, and that was what Anselm refuted.

Isn’t it fascinating that Cardinal Ratzinger addressed the same topic in essentially the same way?

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

“In the New Testament the situation is almost completely reversed. It is not man who goes to God with a compensatory gift, but God who comes to man, in order to give to him.

Now, one major difference between the Cardinal’s approach and the approach that Rohr was speaking of is that Rohr said that Jesus was not a “fixit” a “plan B” (I can’t remember who he quoted on that, it may have been Duns Scotus). Instead, Jesus was a “plan A” he was a plan from the very beginning of creation, that God would show His face to us, not so that God would change the way He looks at us, but it would change the way we would look at God. Actually, the Cardinal said that too, but he described Jesus’ act as more of “restoring a disturbed right”. These, however, are not stumbling blocks. It is a bit of a language issue.

Is that confusing, is your mind still pickled? There are a few things that Fr. Rohr says that I don’t agree with, but the youtube video you posted here was right along with my thinking, for sure. I can’t disagree with any of it.

Thanks for calling my attention to this thread, and to that video and the other links. The NCR story is actually the only one I’d ever read about the “emerging church”. That was a few years ago, and I don’t know what the “latest” is on the topic. No doubt, there is a huge calling for active discipleship, including advocacy and care for the poor and downtrodden. And yes, we should definitely give such care a huge priority over doctrinal stuff. YES!🙂

Note: I am not saying that we are to give doctrinal stuff a low priority.

Thanks Simpleas!🙂
 
The following is from post 14
No doubt, there is a huge calling for active discipleship, including advocacy and care for the poor and downtrodden. And yes, we should definitely give such care a huge priority over doctrinal stuff. YES!🙂

Note: I am not saying that we are to give doctrinal stuff a low priority.

Question following the general purpose of this thread.
Which doctrinal stuff?
 
grannymh said:
The following is from post 14
No doubt, there is a huge calling for active discipleship, including advocacy and care for the poor and downtrodden. And yes, we should definitely give such care a huge priority over doctrinal stuff. YES!🙂

Note: I am not saying that we are to give doctrinal stuff a low priority.

Question following the general purpose of this thread.
Which doctrinal stuff?
Click to expand...
Hi Granny,

IMO, active discipleship in the way I described is much more important than varying views of the atonement. It is more important to bring about reconciliation among nations, to stop abortion, to feed the hungry, to visit the sick and imprisoned, and to care for children than to get bogged down in doctrinal/theological disagreements. Do you see what I mean? There is so much work to do!

Thanks:)
 
grannymh said:
Many moons ago, while reading my first adult book on the life of Jesus, I recognized that the chapter on the loaves and fishes was an attack on the Divinity of Jesus. Coincidentally, yesterday a friend referred to subversive Catholicism and sweet talk. In addition, I came across a concept referred to as “emerging christianity.”

Three questions. Is the emerging idea similar to that of the former Catholic, the prominent author Matthew Fox , who updated a few basic doctrines to comport with our contemporary cultures? Is the emerging idea similar to the original Jesus Seminar that sought “the truth”? Or is emerging christianity simply a composite of contrary thoughts about necessary Catholic doctrines?

The answers are important for Catholic apologetics because the fallout of this emerging christianity term has the real potential of affecting people’s views of the real Catholic Church. One descriptive term which I did not mention above is “big tent” because this may be a local description for a new and improved christianity and not necessarily well known. Changing the Catholic Church into a big tent means that bona fide Catholic members can have conflicting interpretations and opinions about selected Catholic teachings. It appears to the uninformed, that any and all emerging opinions have equal value with the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

In my humble opinion, when trying to deal with some misconceptions about Catholicism, it may be helpful if apologetics recognized the doctrine(s) being challenged. One news article I remember was about the lack of true knowledge regarding our conscience. The substitutions for accurate conscience teachings could be a challenge to the doctrines on human nature per se or a challenge to Genesis 1: 26-27; CCC 356; *CCC *1730; and possibly CCC 1260.

Personally, I do not know a lot about what I am talking about. However, in my humble opinion, the way to deal with weird ideas is not always respectful confrontation. Sometimes, the positive concepts of the attacked Catholic doctrine are so appealing that they become efficacious.

Information source: Matthew 7: 15
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church is not a democracy. If it is, this is not obvious or knowable to me? The Deposit of Faith (2 Tim 1:12-14) is really knowledge proper, i.e., knowing Christ which the holy spirit helps guard. The big tent you refer to apparently sounds like “the absurdities of knowledge” that Timothy warns against. Why need something absurd affect bona fide faith or knowledge of Christ? If anything, it would deepen understanding and cause a person like you or me who loves Jesus, Cross and All, to cling closer to God, which in such a tent would be experienced by the cross of having to listen to babble. (Interesting that a tent, even a big one, precludes “upward breadth” of meaning, and would stultify a hymn such as “Lift High the Cross” in figurative terms. Clearly an anti traditionalist metaphor.

In biology, emergent properties refer to something new, usually a property, that wasn’t there before, and is resultant of stages of development as in an infant which emerges from the womb and grows into something with emergent human qualities. Those are mere definitions from a descriptive discipline of science, but I don’t know what emergent idea or emergent Christianity could mean. I was raised on the proverb, There is nothing new under the sun.

One question is: What is that spirit which propels these “new ideas” into the hub of the mainstream Church? We need to discern that. If we can’t find the Lord in it, we have to respond as Jesus would. Know our foundation. And we can’t flim flam on our own doctrine. We need adequate time and preparation for the sacraments.

TO ANSWER YOUR APPEAL:

The doctrine being challenged by big tent is the foundation. Jesus Christ is Lord.
We are all responsible for safeguarding this truth.
The bullies will always “ensconce the truth” in “more encompassing paradigms” for their own profit. That’s a truth just as much, be it veiled as a Seminar or not. Fire ends them.
 
Here is one take on what emerging christianity is about. Some of what he says is what I have read/heard many priests, people talk about.
It’s definately right about talking etc, we live in an age were we can do this so easily, we question more I think, and I also think that more people are becoming spiritual, seeking to find meaning in their life rather than just doing what they are told is expected of them. No disrespected to generations gone by, but we can’t deny that we have moved on in many areas of thinking and doing.

Haven’t got time just now, but will join in with the other posts later today.

christianity.about.com/od/Emerging-Church/a/JZ-Emerging-Church.htm

👍
 
OneSheep said:
Hi Simpleas!

Thank you for so many great resources added to this thread! I watched this youtube video, and had no idea that people thought that the devil had to be paid, and that was what Anselm refuted.

Isn’t it fascinating that Cardinal Ratzinger addressed the same topic in essentially the same way?

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

“In the New Testament the situation is almost completely reversed. It is not man who goes to God with a compensatory gift, but God who comes to man, in order to give to him.

Now, one major difference between the Cardinal’s approach and the approach that Rohr was speaking of is that Rohr said that Jesus was not a “fixit” a “plan B” (I can’t remember who he quoted on that, it may have been Duns Scotus). Instead, Jesus was a “plan A” he was a plan from the very beginning of creation, that God would show His face to us, not so that God would change the way He looks at us, but it would change the way we would look at God. Actually, the Cardinal said that too, but he described Jesus’ act as more of “restoring a disturbed right”. These, however, are not stumbling blocks. It is a bit of a language issue.

Is that confusing, is your mind still pickled? There are a few things that Fr. Rohr says that I don’t agree with, but the youtube video you posted here was right along with my thinking, for sure. I can’t disagree with any of it.

Thanks for calling my attention to this thread, and to that video and the other links. The NCR story is actually the only one I’d ever read about the “emerging church”. That was a few years ago, and I don’t know what the “latest” is on the topic. No doubt, there is a huge calling for active discipleship, including advocacy and care for the poor and downtrodden. And yes, we should definitely give such care a huge priority over doctrinal stuff. YES!🙂

Note: I am not saying that we are to give doctrinal stuff a low priority.

Thanks Simpleas!🙂
Click to expand...
Thanks.
My mind was pickled because I was unaware that there was a different way to think of the atonement, granted I have trouble understanding why Jesus had to suffer and die for us to make it right with God again, but to find out it was thought of differently 800 years ago…

Same with the thinking on Jesus would have still come even if Original sin had never happened. I was reading alittle on that here :

patheos.com/blogs/yimcatholic/2012/12/for-mind-blowing-franciscan-thoughts-on-the-incarnation-by-bl-john-duns-scotus.html

That Christ is the beginning and the end, that he was there from the beginning and that he came to show us who the father is in the person of Jesus, but I find that even harder to understand.

I think maybe in the past we were too concerned with doctrinal acts, and we may have pushed many people away from God over who was doing what correctly and inline with what the church said, I could be wrong. I see it as showing our love of each other by what we do for each other within the church, respecting the church etc, but also needing our own way of thinking.

Any thoughts?
 
simpleas said:
Thanks.
My mind was pickled because I was unaware that there was a different way to think of the atonement, granted I have trouble understanding why Jesus had to suffer and die for us to make it right with God again, but to find out it was thought of differently 800 years ago…

Same with the thinking on Jesus would have still come even if Original sin had never happened. I was reading alittle on that here :

patheos.com/blogs/yimcatholic/2012/12/for-mind-blowing-franciscan-thoughts-on-the-incarnation-by-bl-john-duns-scotus.html

That Christ is the beginning and the end, that he was there from the beginning and that he came to show us who the father is in the person of Jesus, but I find that even harder to understand.

I think maybe in the past we were too concerned with doctrinal acts, and we may have pushed many people away from God over who was doing what correctly and inline with what the church said, I could be wrong. I see it as showing our love of each other by what we do for each other within the church, respecting the church etc, but also needing our own way of thinking.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Chaos is a possibility

I keep reading posts that such and such is true about God and Jesus Christ because such and such person said such and such. It is like a wonderful community picnic or pot luck where everyone brings their own opinions about Catholic teachings and who cares if some crumbs fall to the ground. Everyone is in fellowship with each other.

Sharing sandwiches – that is the primary importance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top