In search to heal America’s divisions, Fr. Richard Rohr suggests turning to God, ditching identity politics

RileyG said:

Very interesting. I find some of his theology quite unorthodox, not to go off topic.

Click to expand...

While his style is shaped alot by the 160's and 1970's immediate post-Vatican II era, with a very free-flowing spirit and incorporation of insights from depth psychology (similar to Merton), it's not really unorthodox. He teaches contemplation and spirituality, subjects important in mystical theology, so it might sound strange to somebody expecting clarity when talking about God, since so much of the modern Catholic and Protestant traditions have focused on clarity, and not prioritized mystical theology. However, mystical theology has been the norm for much of the rest of the Christian world all along.

FireDragon76 said:

While his style is shaped alot by the 160's and 1970's immediate post-Vatican II era, with a very free-flowing spirit and incorporation of insights from depth psychology (similar to Merton), it's not really unorthodox. He teaches contemplation and spirituality, subjects important in mystical theology, so it might sound strange to somebody expecting clarity when talking about God, since so much of the modern Catholic and Protestant traditions have focused on clarity, and not prioritized mystical theology. However, mystical theology has been the norm for much of the rest of the Christian world all along.

Click to expand...

He also likes to differentiate an "alternate orthodoxy" of Franciscan Duns Scotus in contract to Aquinas:

Scotus's view:
Scotus believed that God's plan from the beginning was to unite humanity with Himself through the Incarnation. He saw the Incarnation as the ultimate expression of God's love and a way to share divine life with creation.

• Contrast with other views:
  Other theologians, like St. Thomas Aquinas, emphasized the Incarnation as a remedy for sin. Scotus, however, argued that God's love was the primary reason for the Incarnation, and that even without sin, God would have chosen to become human to share in creation.
  
  
• Christocentric perspective:
  Scotus's view is considered Christocentric because it places Christ at the center of God's plan, not as a reactive measure to sin, but as the ultimate goal of creation.

"My earlier books are on the true self and the false self. Helping people distinguish between who they think they are ... and who they really are in God. Who you are in God is untouchable. It's unchangeable. It's eternal," Rohr said, noting that the untouchable part of the self is the soul.

"There's no good souls and bad souls. There's all this bit of participation in God. And what "There's no good souls and bad souls. There's all this bit of participation in God. And what healthy religion is about is the discovery of your soul and then living from that source, and it'll feel like you're drawing from inside. Your inner voices and God's voice will be harder and harder to distinguish. But you've got to go deep," Rohr advised.

" healthy religion is about is the discovery of your soul and then living from that source, "

Discovering our souls? That is an interesting prospect. Isn't it? How do we know when we have found it? What are the indications?

Scripture tells us maybe about Fruits of the Spirit:
love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control

And gifts of the Spirit:
wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord.

Akita Suggagaki said:

He also likes to differentiate an "alternate orthodoxy" of Franciscan Duns Scotus in contract to Aquinas:

Scotus's view:
Scotus believed that God's plan from the beginning was to unite humanity with Himself through the Incarnation. He saw the Incarnation as the ultimate expression of God's love and a way to share divine life with creation.

• Contrast with other views:
  Other theologians, like St. Thomas Aquinas, emphasized the Incarnation as a remedy for sin. Scotus, however, argued that God's love was the primary reason for the Incarnation, and that even without sin, God would have chosen to become human to share in creation.
  
  
• Christocentric perspective:
  Scotus's view is considered Christocentric because it places Christ at the center of God's plan, not as a reactive measure to sin, but as the ultimate goal of creation.

Click to expand...

Duns Scotus didn't invent that view. It goes back to the Patristic era, some of the Cappodocians had that theology.

I think there's a tendency in western contemplative circles to overread the salience of certain historical or theological ideas. A response to spiritual wounds brought about by a deeper issue- not the nuances of theology per se, but a whole religious culture that prioritizes conformity to external institutions and rules. It goes back to fundamentally different visions of what religion is for- useful or doxological? The two are not the same.

Michie said:

A lot of what passes as religion in America today only helps perpetuate false narratives people create for themselves about who they think they are, says noted theologian Fr. Richard Rohr.

If they really want to find their true selves, Rohr, who founded the Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque, New Mexico, suggests that they can only see their most stable self in God.

"By the middle of life, we all become aware that there is this unwholeness within every one of us. And I say that after 55 years as a priest," Rohr, 82, told journalist Ray Suarez earlier this month in the first episode of a new PBS series "Wisdom Keepers: Healing a Divided People."

Continued below.

In search to heal America’s divisions, Fr. Richard Rohr suggests turning to God, ditching identity politics

A lot of what passes as religion in America today only helps perpetuate false narratives people create for themselves about who they think they are, says noted theologian Fr Richard Rohr

www.christianpost.com

Click to expand...

Bless his heart, and I say that sincerely and not as a Southern put-down. All it takes is to sit though a church business meeting and listen to an argument about the color of the carpet or placement of the water cooler, or hanging of a picture to realize there are going to be divisions. If Paul and Barnabas could disagree over Mark, why do we think any of us could do better? It would be good if we could, but I won't hold my breath.

Akita Suggagaki said:

Scotus's view:

Click to expand...

Off topic comment ahead: Maybe I need to take a break. I saw Scotus and thought "What does the US Supreme Court have to do with theology?"

Sigh.

Tuur said:

Off topic comment ahead: Maybe I need to take a break. I saw Scotus and thought "What does the US Supreme Court have to do with theology?"

Sigh.

Click to expand...

They will soon weigh in also.