There is a new Cardinal for Belgium and as usual he is attacked by the media as being overly conservative. I have heard the man and he seems to me on the contrary very humorous, open and intelligent. Again and again I am struck by these contradictory opinions. There are reasons to believe that Ratzinger and von Balthasar a.o. at Vatican II were much more progressive than we suspect now. The theologian Oscar Cullman a.o. affirmed this.

As you know, I have read quite a lot in my life (too much for my own health) on psychology, philosophy, theology, spirituality, arts, archetypical symbolism, orthodox versus esoteric Christianity... and especially certain issues, due to my long term suffering, have been keeping me busy: free will versus predestination and grace versus nature and the relation between creation, fall, incarnation, cross, resurrection, glorification.

I realize that these are very complex matters that have been discussed throughout Church history. I am of course not a theologian but I feel it is very difficult to keep the whole of salvation economy in balance. All is connected in people's lives and therefore it is important to see things clearly. Maybe I have to go once more to Phil's site for further clarification?

I have been reading before on the controversy between Pelagius versus Augustine and on Rahner versus von Balthasar.
Is it possible that Rahner is more Pelagian and von Balthasar Augustinian in their respective theology?

I have found out that Celtic spirituality and f.e. Cassian (and Benedictus and the whole monastic tradition?) are greatly influenced by Pelagian thinking (see Philp Newell http://www.jphilipnewell.com/, whose book http://www.amazon.com/dp/08091...1D9E6BHHDMMKAQR3FFEB interestingly applies lectio divina to the different stages of life).

Ather interesting papers are http://www.sounddoctrine.net/C...ustine_pelagius.html and
http://www.traditioninaction.o..._Balth_NoChange.html
I don't know whether I am right but on the one hand human nature/soul is full of yet unknown possibilities as some self-realizers, esoteric mystics and others know, on the other hand as Jesus said we can't do anything apart from him!

There is a lot to do now (but these are only models of course) about inner (natural and wounded) child, persona, shadow, adult and witness consciousness, family constellations... and according to many therapists and spiritual teachers, the human being is at birth rather a tabula rasa or intrinsically good (as Pelagius believed), while the Psalmist says 'I am born in sin'.

I keep on saying that the Church of today speaks far too little about human anthropology. Alternative medicine (mind/body connection...), interreliguous, oecumenical and other dialogues (f.e. with Jungian and transpersonal psychology) and other spiritual traditions (Zen, Advaita, Sufism, Kabbalah, Yoga...) all point at the depth of human nature without speaking of grace. Creation, nature is already grace... but how does this relate to the person and work of Christ

The famous Benedictine monk A. Grün as I said before speaks of a spirituality from below versus a spirituality from above and the theologian Tjeu van den Berk from the Netherlands (also influenced by Jung) speaks of Christianity as a mystagogy.
But when does all this become some kind of gnosticism and when does it point at a true Christian gnosis (Clemens of Alexandria, Origines...)?

So it is not clear to my mind how to hold together these two different approaches, that have always been there throughout Church history. There seems to be a very optimistic Catholic humanism, but also a more pessimistic Calvinist like fundamentalism.

Greetings in Christ,
Fred

Fred, there is, even in orthodox Christianity, room for a lot of approaches to understanding how human nature participates in divinity. There are, of course, a few non-negotiables, such as the reality of sin, our need of God's grace, and Christ as the mediator of that grace. Additionally, Catholics would say that human nature is intrinsically good, though wounded, and so we are incapable of self-perfection through our own self-efforts.

One needs to find what feeds one's soul, and what makes sense. E.g., I don't begrudge Calvinists their theology, but I don't find it helpful, either. Still, they are my Christian brothers and sisters. Same with a lot of other Christian groups.

What feeds your soul? Find your path and stay on it.

Peace, Phil

Thank you Phil. That is what I thought also.

It is hard to continually need proof of everything. In some way certainly a person like I am has to accept the unknowing. That is exactly what I am trying and I have to say at last I have found a really good therapist.
After only 2 sessions, I already feel less tension in my body. He says I am an overly sensitive person and need softness and warmth above all (to be soft and kind to myself). As a 'method' of breathing he advices me to breathe in very softly and audible and breathe out unaudible. And it is indeed a wonderful relaxing practice for me!

Christian theology is indeed very complex. Jesus is Saviour but he is much more as pelikan wrote...He is Healer, as well as Teacher.
What is important is his message to us to Love God and one another, what ever our belief, colour or creed. To look for the divine spark in all beings.

People's words can be misinterpreted. I think Jesus was holding himself up to us as an example, and saying it would be good if we all aspired to be like him.

If he were alive today I am certain he would be practising some form of complementary therapy such as Spiritual Healing, and would not be telling us it was evil or devil worship like some churches do today. Some churches see Yoga as devil worship because they believe it is Hindu, but it predates Hinduism and is universal and why would it be devil worship?
Jesus was about loving our neighbours...and our enemies.

I think today we are about integration and tolerance. One day the church will see the truth of modern day spirituality, which isn't actually modern at all! They will have to or die?

I believe also in nature. Some religions believe animals can be evil, some believe some humans are evil because of their sexual orientation. How can they be.......God created them all.

It all hinges on the word Love.

You won't hear from me I think for some time.
I have this play and painting exhibitions...
All the best anyway and thanks for everything!

Fred

Yes. The Catechism talks about Adam's "original holiness" and says that original sin is something "contracted" rather than "committed" (CCC 404).

Psalm 51 is the one that contains the verse "True, I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me."

Elsewhere that same Psalm talks about the need to be "washed," "cleansed," "renewed," "restored."

All these metaphors imply an original and intrinsic goodness.

PLEASE LOOK HERE:

http://anamchara.com/2010/03/0...-the-celts/#comments

Great Blog!

It really amazes me that there were only 3 reactions to this important message of mine here!!!

Fred

http://anamchara.com/

=)

Visionaries and mystics like Picaretta, Valtorta, Robin, Menendez, Padre Pio, Faustina, von Speyr believed on the basis of their visions and apparitions unconditionally in inherited sin...as Augustine did.
So Newell with his Christ of the Celts and other rehabilitations of Pelagius are tmo contrary to Christian faith.
Some reply?

Fred

I haven't read enough on the topic, but it seems some recent work indicates that Pelagius may have been of a more Eastern Orthodox persuasion regarding his understanding of sin and human nature. This led to the class with Augustine which led to a very harsh and thorough condemnation. It doesn't help that we have very little in original texts to critique Pelagius today and therefore we have to go on the word of his enemies. I think this is in part the point that Newell and others are trying to make.