quote:

From whence comes the intuition of the philosophical concept of advaita? From the experience, no?

This is true, but I'm not sure it's that important, since the general line of reasoning could apply to any concept: they all derive from some kind of conscious experience.

non-dualism might sound more exotic, but as an ontology scientific materialism is already a non-dualism: i.e it's the belief that the only stuff that exists is matter. Yet we don't consider the belief in materialism to constitute a mystical experience.

If ontological dualism seems less exotic than the alternative I think that's more due to it being a more familiar form of thinking, rather than it somehow being non-empirical in that sense. It would be non-trivial to argue for dualism as an a priori judgement

In any case, I'm definitely referring more to the philosophy than the phenomenology in my use of the term advaita.

quote:

non-dualism might sound more exotic, but as an ontology scientific materialism is already a non-dualism: i.e it's the belief that the only stuff that exists is matter. Yet we don't consider the belief in materialism to constitute a mystical experience.

Well, that's for sure. Not every system of thought is attempting to articulate the implications of some kind of mystical experience. I don't think I implied any such thing. My main point was that advaitan philosophy is an attempt to express the implications of advaitan mystical experience, and so it is inextricably linked to Hinduism. It's certainly possible to examine the Christian message using the approach of advaitan philosophy, and that's happening all over the place these days. What I wonder about, however, is if this isn't another instance of Hinduism situating Christianity into its approach to God and reality, which is what Hinduism always seems to do.

I'm not seeing how advaitan philosophy could be squared with the understanding of creation held by Christians. I do understand how advaitan experience could be a way of perceiving reality prior to any reflection or conceptualization about it. I experience this regularly, and appreciate the sense of one-ness that such perception brings. I think this says more about perception than ontology, however; I don't think it says anything about the Christian mysteries.

quote:

Here’s what the contemplative prayer ministry I mentioned in earlier posts, now states in a recent newsletter of theirs (which is akin to Pannikar‘s recommendation of dilution): “ Your idea of the spiritual journey, of service to humanity, of the Church, of Jesus Christ, even your idea of God as Ultimate Mystery, must be shattered”. In other words: The Gospel is no good anymore.

Yes, pop pop, that's poorly stated. My hunch is that they were wanting to say something about apophatic Christian spirituality, which can be a thoroughly orthodox approach to God, emphasizing God as the mystery beyond all our conceptual ways of thinking about God. Apophatic or negative theology has been around a long time and is a necessary corrective to kataphatic smugness about God.
- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A..._Christian_tradition

That said, there really IS a content to the faith, and it cannot be dispensed of even in apophatic Christian traditions. We had a discussion of that here sometime back to help distinguish it from Eastern nondual spirituality (advaita, enlightenment, etc.)
- see https://shalomplace.org/eve/for.../18910625/m/76110806

Hi, Kenosis

I think I see why your bride cautioned me in one of her posts about the value of spending too much time with books. (Lol)

Meanwhile, back in our jungle…and relative to your last post to me:

I liked your last several paragraphs starting with the one you placed before the last quote from my post and continuing to the end.

Re your very last ending paragraph: Certainly, it is true that ‘psychologically speaking that if I were to begin reading from a position of suspicion I might infer motives where none exist, and infer language in a way that confirms my suspicions.’ I hope I am not doing that. The same, of course, could be said of your inferring motives and inferring language that confirms your pre-established mindset. [Like where you read ‘fully human’ thereby inferring what you believe Pannikar means versus my literal reading of the stated (not implied) words ‘whole of humanity’; and my pointing to another supporting statement that he did indeed mean ‘whole of humanity’ and not ‘fully human’ -- a statement wherein Pannikar states he has for almost half a century maintained that EVERY BEING IS a Christophany. Perhaps you want to believe that. And so, come to the text with your own psychological mindset].”

In my own defense, and though I had discussed a Where’s Waldo sifting analogy in my last post, I did not buy the book nor start its reading in a hunt for Waldo. I bought the book, as initially stated, because I am interested in contemplative prayer and a contemplative prayer ministry had praised the book. In the beginning I moved along happily, albeit at times clumsily because of the numerous Greek, Latin, German, Spanish and other language quotes as well as the varied theological terminology and other religions theological concepts (Hindu etc). I was enjoying it, but now and again qualms began to set in because there needed to be caveats to a lot of what he was saying. Bye and bye as he began to propound his thinking I sensed attack of the church and more and more funky statements. As time went by I began to see Waldo more and more.

You see, I don’t believe that EVERY BEING is a Christophany. As examples: I don’t believe that EVERY BEING in Rwanda several years back was a Christophany. I don’t believe that EVERY BEING that was at the foot of the cross was a Christophany. I don’t believe that EVERY BEING raping Congolese women in the presence of their children and spouses these days is a Christophany, etc, etc. That’s not the kind of manifestation of Christ that I am thinking anyone should imitate, anyone should embrace, anyone should adore.

(p.175)Pannikar: “Some theologians cry, 'Jesus Christ is not God,' in contrast to a Christianity spiritually detached from the world. Jesus Christ is the son of God, but we are also that--and all of creation is a Trinitarian adventure.”
-- Not focusing on Waldo’s innuendo regarding ‘spiritually detached from the world’ (even though Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world) let’s look at Pannikar’s statement that we are also that (meaning a son of God). This is where the lack of caveats results in error. It’s half truth at best -- which is error / lie. Jesus said that only those who do the will of his Father are his brother and sister. That’s extremely different from the whole of humanity being His brother and sister. Obedience the Father’s commandments, His will, the leadings of the Holy Spirit and the teachings of the church is requisite to being a son of God. Not everyone who says Lord, Lord.

I believe that much of the misunderstanding has to do with the ‘deification’ concept you are interested in. Deification, or the attainment of transforming union with Christ, wherein one can truly state as did St. Paul “I live no longer I but Christ lives in Me” does not occur with great frequency. Achieving 7th mansion growth in holiness is the domain of few. Requisite for the enabling of such deification is entrance into the Vine (Baptism) and the ongoing remaining in the Vine, and the grace of God supplied along the journey -- to the ascent of Mt. Carmel.

NOT ALL BEINGS are in the Vine, (some beings love darkness rather than light --therein lies the judgment); NOT ALL BEINGS remain in the Vine (parable of the sower, Annias and Sapphira, Judas, many are called few are chosen, road to hell is wide and smooth and many choose to walk it, etc); most beings WHO ARE IN and REMAIN IN the vine really do not surrender themselves fully to the ongoing growth that they could realize in this life -- not because of lack of available grace and desire on God’s part. So say our mystical doctors. So there is a lot of understanding that must accompany St. Maximus’s statements regarding deification.

So, continuing our discourse --

****************************************************************************************
Originally quoted by Kenosis: “I don’t believe that any of the brief sentences that you have taken out of the context of the book actually contravene or contradict the doctrines of the church! …. I also believe that all of my interpretations are reasonable and supported by the entirety of the work.”
*****************************************************************************************
Addressing whether the book actually contravenes or contradicts the doctrines of the church:
(p.175) “ We cannot absolutize our interpretations and enthrone a particular Christology with universalist pretensions”.

While there is no explicit stating of ‘Catholic Church’ by Pannikar here, that is who he is speaking of. He here contradicts doctrine. It is doctrine that the church has the right, the responsibility and the commission to speak and teach with authority! It is doctrine that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals it speaks with infallibility --NOT WITH UNIVERSALIST PRETENSIONS.

Addressing the entirety of the work:
1. There is no need in the propounding of one’s theology to snipe at the church. Theology should enhance our knowledge and joy in the Lord not disdain His Bride nor contradict the existing body of accepted doctrinal tradition already resident via 2000 years of the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit. God is constant. He is not one doctrine today and a contradicting one tomorrow. There was no need for Pannikar to snipe with terms like: monarchical, imperialistic, universalist pretensions, etc (I don’t want to go through the book for every slur).
2. I have tried to show that in several regards throughout the book Pannikar speaks in error. There are some others perhaps I could raise but if you’re not drinking the water I’ve tried to bring you to, it doesn’t matter.

(p.175)Pannikar: “The Christian church may decide to remain the “little flock” different from the rest or the “salt of the earth” that flavors everything. The adventure of creation is also in our hands. Human beings are not marionettes in the hands of God, Destiny, and Providence. [There Pannikar slips in some actual truth as Ariel knows I would agree with.] Divine freedom is constrained by neither physics or metaphysics, and we are co-creators of our own destiny. It is in this that our dignity consists.”

Do you not see the bill of goods that Pannikar here tries to inspiringly sell us? This is common in New Age thought. This is as if God were saying: Go ahead run without your Father. Co-create without Me. This is your dignity -- to reign without Me. Y’all are god. Y’all are sons of god. EVERY BEING IS A CHRISTOPHANY you just hadn’t realized it till now.

Jesus did nothing without the Father. The Son can only do what he sees the Father doing. Jesus was obedient even until death. Not obedient to himself, mind you. He was never off co-creating on His own! His Father’s will not His own. To do The Father's will was His bread.

We tend to focus on the miraculous power of Christ. We all would like power. We would all like to get that quiver full of miracles every day to fire at will.

What does deification entail? St. Paul lived no longer He but Christ. Yes, he worked some miracles by the power of God (not his). But those moments accounted for not much time overall -- much more time was spent treading water in the seas after shipwreck, in being jailed and beaten, persecuted and carrying the burden of preaching the cross of Christ.

What does it mean to be like God? It means being able to put up with a lot of crap. 7th mansion holiness and deification, is back to square one really: but with MORE ABILITY to love, to be patient and to be kind and to not put on airs or be self seeking, to be able to forbear all things without limit and to long suffer -- AND WITH TRUE JOY IN DOING SO!

Of course, not having arrived at 7th, I am only positing with my cranked up imaginator. But that’s my posit.

Pop-pop

Like I said, the book did not leave me cold, it made me hot. It grieves me to think that good men like you, K, and sincere priests who like the book -- who recommend the book -- are being ensnared.

quote:

your inferring motives and inferring language that confirms your pre-established mindset.

Touche. For what it's worth, I'd always been fairly skeptical about these sorts of things, for similar reasons as Phil, prior to reading this book and others, but certainly everyone experiences every new idea within the context of their current understanding, both for better and for worse.

quote:

I believe that much of the misunderstanding has to do with the ‘deification’ concept you are interested in. Deification, or the attainment of transforming union with Christ, wherein one can truly state as did St. Paul “I live no longer I but Christ lives in Me” does not occur with great frequency. Achieving 7th mansion growth in holiness is the domain of few. Requisite for the enabling of such deification is entrance into the Vine (Baptism) and the ongoing remaining in the Vine, and the grace of God supplied along the journey -- to the ascent of Mt. Carmel.

pop pop, deification (aka "theosis" in the Christian East, and "sanctification" in the West) is going on in all of us, even in people who aren't Christians. Maybe you've seen the discussion we have on this topic:
- https://shalomplace.org/eve/for.../18910625/m/98910206

Teresa's 7th mansion would refer to a later stage in the process, but it's already happening in the 1st mansion. The classical teaching on stages progressing from purgative to illuminative to unitive is about the theotic process. As you note, it does imply that one is connected to the Vine, is being pruned, coming to bear fruit, etc. What is impossible for us to know is who, precisely, is connected to the Vine. With assurance, we can say that those who are baptized, who partake of the Sacraments, and who strive to live a life of love are surely connected to the Vine. But there is a sense in which the risen life of Christ touches all humans by virtue of the fact that he partakes of human nature just as we all do, not to mention, too, that He is God, and therefore present to each creature. So when you say that "NOT ALL BEINGS remain in the Vine," that must surely be true, only we do not and cannot say who these people are, as I'm sure you'd agree. We can say this, in principle, but I do not know how to generalize about it beyond the traditional teaching that those who live in Mortal Sin have cut themselves off from divine life. Even then, however, it is difficult to say who is in Mortal Sin, as intent and circumstance have to be considered in addition to the act. I know my comments go beyond some of the concerns you've raised about Pannikar's writings, but just thought I'd put them out there.

- - -

I spoke to my spiritual director about Pannikar's writings yesterday. She's a theologian and very familiar with him, having read several of his books and even attended conferences where he was present and enjoyed visiting with him. I shared with her some of the exchanges going on here and she chuckled, saying it sounded like Pannikar, all right, as he was generally addressing himself to a wider interfaith audience, and tended to reflect on what she called the "edges of doctrinal orthodoxy." She saw him as someone trying to bridge between those who feel put off by traditional, doctrinal Christianity and those Christians tuned into its apaophatic mystical tradition. The difficulty, she acknowledged, is whether he goes too far in doing so, at times, by neglecting the core teachings and their implications for spirituality. It seemed to me that those were the same kinds of concerns being addressed in different ways by you and K.

Carry on. Good discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop:
You see, I don’t believe that EVERY BEING is a Christophany. As examples: I don’t believe that EVERY BEING in Rwanda several years back was a Christophany. I don’t believe that EVERY BEING that was at the foot of the cross was a Christophany. I don’t believe that EVERY BEING raping Congolese women in the presence of their children and spouses these days is a Christophany, etc, etc. That’s not the kind of manifestation of Christ that I am thinking anyone should imitate, anyone should embrace, anyone should adore.

I believe that every human being is made in the image and likeness of God

quote:

Genesis 1:26-27:

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

Inasmuch as Christ is Himself the express image of God's person, human beings are thus made in the image of Christ

quote:

Hebrews 1:1-4:

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Colossians 1:15: The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation

This is further testified to by the scriptures which speak of Christ as Son of Man, or the second Adam: Christ, in his humanity, is the highest fulfillment of human nature, just as he also fulfills the law which was given to the Hebrews.

To see Christ in every human being is to fulfill Jesus' commandment to love:

quote:

Matthew 15:37-40:

Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'

quote:

Matthew 5:43-48:

You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

quote:

Luke: 10:25-37:

And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?"

So he answered and said, "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself."

And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live."

But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

Then Jesus answered and said: "A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, "Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you." So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?"

And he said, "He who showed mercy on him."

Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

Why is that God makes it to rain upon the just as much as the unjust? Why does Jesus say to the pharisees "Go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice'"? Why is loving our neighbor a commandment that is like the commandment to love God? What is the message of the parable of the prodigal son, or the good Samaritan, or the sheep and the goats? If God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:4), it must be because there is something sacred in man that is worth going to such great lengths to save, or else why are we more important than the birds of the air, as the sermon on the mount tells us?

That sacredness is due to our creation in the image and likeness of Christ. It doesn't mean that people are "equal" to God, or that each person "is" God. It doesn't mean that every person reflects Christ perfectly, or even visibly in any way. It doesn't mean that each of us in our egos are "little gods". It doesn't absolve us of our obligation to the commandments of God. It just means that there is something of the divine in every person, and it is that which gives each person value such that there is rejoicing in heaven over each who repent.

Further, we must not say that only Christians are made in the image of Christ. We shouldn't confuse this with the gift of the Holy Spirit that is given to believers. It is essential to be born of the Spirit, to repent and convert, but it is also essential to remember that "God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8), and that, as John the Baptist reminded the pharisees: God can lift up sons of Abraham from stones. We are saved by grace; we can take no pride in it or think that it makes us "better", fundamentally, than others. Paul testified that all human beings are children of God in speaking to the Areopagites:

quote:

Acts 17:23-28]:

Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'

Every being is a Christophany in that every being is created in His image. Every being is contingent on Christ, in whom and for whom all things were created, and every being is called to realize their full potential in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop:

I don’t believe that EVERY BEING raping Congolese women in the presence of their children and spouses these days is a Christophany, etc, etc. That’s not the kind of manifestation of Christ that I am thinking anyone should imitate

To return to this, the point is that what makes us all an image of God is not what we do, but what we are. Jesus did not come to call the righteous, but rather the sinners to repentance. Rapists, murderers, and all the rest of us whose sins are not as apparent or easy to categorize.

I hope this doesn't seem to preachy to you, but I didn't know how to give voice to my feelings on this except through scripture, and I figure if I can't quote a bunch of bible passages at a Christian, than to whom can I quote it? I hope you'll receive it in the spirit in which it's intended, which is not really as an argument, but rather as an expression of my heart. All of this is what Christianity is really about for me.

With that in mind, I should close with Regards, but more: Love,

k

Kenosis,

I have no problem with any of the quotes you state, nor the fact that you state them. I take no offense or sting from them.

All scripture is inspired of God and useful for correction and training in holiness. I have no problem with any of the scriptures. Including those that indicate that man , while made in the image and likeness of God -- a good and wonderful God who is pure love and so shines equally on the just and the unjust, states in scripture that some men and some angels are rebellious and disobedient through the free will and choice that He has given them.

And I have no problem with scriptures that show us that there is an enemy not human , that man can and does lose his salvation, that there are tares as well as wheat, that not all are the sons and daughters of God [because of their actions and choices not because of God’s love and grace being absent to them]. Nor of scriptures that reflect terminology of many called few chosen, road to hell wide and smooth, narrow gate, not all that say Lord, Lord; men loved darkness rather than light, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, necessity of having oil in ones lamp, judgment, weeping and gnashing., etc. No agita for me in any of that, no contradiction in any of what you had posted.

And I have no problem with scriptures that indicate that God desired to and did form a church and gave it His authority, and will insure via His Spirit active within it that it will endure for all time.

And I have no problem with scriptures that state there are and will be false teachers who reflect a spirit that is anti-Christ. I have no problems with millstones around the necks of false teachers. I have no problem with scriptures that indicate that peace among all nations is not what will be the future, nor that as time goes by evil will increase and mankind will become more and more lovers of self and captive to anti-Christs and that there will be a mass apostasy / desertion of the faith, and that we need to be watchful.

So we are in fine agreement after all.

I was just trying to point out that Pannikar, fully made in God’s image and likeness, and loved by God as much as me, is a false teacher (wittingly or non -- that’s for God to judge, not me) and that his book attacks the church and propounds false doctrine.

Are we in agreement about that? ….. There’s the apparent rub. Which of us is at peace with the fullness of scripture and with the fullness of what the church teaches? Hopefully both of us. However, from what you’ve selected I am not sure.

We have the responsibility to reject false teaching. In order to do so we need to judge the teaching.

While Pannikar has propounded his teaching for the last half century, Pope Ratzinger I believe, Based on some brief words in Truth and Tolerance and Many Religions, One Covenant has for many years (I wouldn’t know if exactly 50) disagreed with it.

I’m saddened that you did not find my comments helpful.

Phil,

I have no problem with deification as process. Nor of anything else in your comments. I understand that. I was only trying to point out that the beginning and middle are just that -- not the unitive as yet.

Kenosis and Phil and others: And I had in mind that statement attributed to St. Maximus “ God desires at all times to make Himself man in those who are worthy”. That quote is often used in discussion of deification. But as I read it, it doesn’t say in anybody and everybody, but rather, in those who are worthy. So who are worthy? Those who do the will of the Father, not merely those that say Lord, Lord. To those Christ might merely say, “Out of my sight you evildoers, I never heard of you.” Could a God who is Love really say that? ……… Evidently.

Could a God who is Love not say that every being is a Christophany? …. I think so.

Pop-pop

Re. the point made in several threads about us being made in God's image and likeness, and therefore a child of God. I know people use the term, "child of God," to refer to this natural, ontological situation, and just so long as they qualify their terms as such, I don't have a problem with it.

There is another use of the term, however, and it refers, in the New Testament, to those who have become adopted children of God through faith and Baptism. This refers to a different ontological situation, in which our human nature comes to participate in Christ's very consciousness and so begins to be deified.

quote:

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. 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. (2 Peter 1:3-4)

quote:

1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you[a] free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh,[b] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:1-4)

The New Testament pretty much assumes that we are not saved nor deified because we have been created in God's image and likeness, but because our old, Adamic human nature is reborn in Christ, who is God's source of saving grace for the human race.

quote:

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

This is the teaching of the Church as well. There is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ, nor is there salvation outside of the Church, his mystical body.

quote:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
- Cathechism of the Catholic Church

One would hope that any Christian theologian would keep this perspective front and center, without compromising its meaning. To my understanding, a theologian who does not do so is not worthy of the title, "Christian theologian."

Of course, the discussion does not end here, at least not in Catholicism. This ideal of explicit faith, rebirth in Christ, membership in the Church and theotic transformation is to be held out as God's intent for all people, but we cannot and do not restrict the reach of God's saving power to the Christian religion alone. We do hold that it is Christ who saves, but recognize that his risen, saving life and transformative Spirit extends beyond to Church to embrace the whole cosmos. Therefore, the new Catechism also teaches:

quote:

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

Writers like Pannikar and many others seek to mine the meaning of Christ's cosmic presence and saving work outside the Christian religion, but often leave the impression that the Church and its mission aren't so important -- in fact, it's something of a hindrance. Increasingly, I find Richard Rohr communicating the same, though not directly -- it's more of a subtle smear job.

So proclaim the Gospel and the Church's mission we must do, even as we explore the edges of its meaning and try to direct our teaching to an increasingly post-modern worldview. That's the concern I've heard you expressing, pop pop -- that you don't think Pannikar is faithful in doing so. I think K has tried to reassure you that his heart and mind are really within the paradigm of Christian faith, but it's a question I'm left with as well. My spiritual director encouraged me to read his book and one by Michael L. Cook as well entitled Trinitarian Christology, which she strongly recommended. I intend to do so, eventually -- there are only so many brain cells that can fire in this direction on any given day.

Phil,

Thanks for ferreting out the church’s doctrinal position as stated in the catechetical quotes you provided us all.

I take it from your post that you will now be reading the book for yourself. Sorry about that - - the time and the money. I was hoping to spare everyone that by reporting on the book.

Hopefully though, somebody out there on the seas of the internet will have been guided by the light of these discussions. Certainly there are many, even among the priesthood, who have readily adopted Pannikar’s teaching.

As the subtitle of the book clearly states, the book is about the ‘Fullness of Man’.

It does not teach Christ crucified, but rather, man glorified. (An ear-tickler from time immemorial).

As stated (p139) ‘nobody possesses a monopoly on personal realization.’ Not even Jesus.

[I sure hope that Jesus and His universalist church doesn’t get in the way of it all! Does Catholic mean universal?]

When you get the book you will find (p172) some contrast between the catechetical statements you have posted and these words from the book:
“The incarnation as historical event cannot be considered a universal human fact unless we reduce men and women to simple historical beings [methinks: there goes my Christmas… like Santa it‘s not a fact ... But it’s a fact of my faith … and what kind of being am I?] and history to an EXCLUSIVE human group whose MISSION would be to SWALLOW UP all other groups -- with the PRETENSION OF SAVING them. Such an attitude is in keeping with a certain DOCTRINE which DEFENDS the THESIS that outside this particular group there is no salvation. … The exclusively historical CONCEPTION of the incarnation has certainly been enfleshed in the MONARCHICAL and IMPERIALISTIC idea that has been the dominant IDEOLOGY of Europeans throughout the last six millennia”. (Note: Capitalization is mine). Interestingly, Pannikar is pat-neat in always lower case fonting ‘incarnation’, ‘eucharist’, son of God, but typically upper case fonts Son of Man.)

Does anyone see perhaps an undermining of the Gospel or an attack on the church in any of this? Can it really be that I am the sole soul?

Pannikar in many places states that the third eye is necessary to understand all the book propounds. [Methinks Waldo plays to our egos here]. You have that third eye, so your analysis will be of interest. I am just a simple historical being .. so far, anyway. To tell you the truth, I don’t know what other kind of being to be.

I am quoted from Genesis re man being made in God’s image and likeness. But without mention from Genesis of the subsequent fall from that initial state. Without mention of man’s disobedience and of original sin. Without mention of the reality of evil elements of supernature in the contributing to the fall. Without mention of the need for and the promise of a Redeemer. Without mention of a divine undoer of our undoing.

Redemption does not come (did not come) absent a Redeemer. It doesn’t come via a mere realization that man was initially made in God’s image and likeness. That we just need to realize that and our personal realization and fullness and dignity will be realized and we will be co-creators in our destiny. Of course, Pannikar doesn’t state that so obviously. He will let Jesus be the Christ .. for Christians anyway.

Waldo will let us come to our own conclusions. And I have to believe that many have concluded that Pannikar’s Christophany for the third millennia, for our times, and one only visible via the third eye, is really great!

Many readers will say they know and agree with the redemption and person of Jesus of course, but will nevertheless buy in to the divinization / fullness of man ethic being propounded. How else can one explain priestly support of this book ... this book which contradicts doctrine and attacks the church. This book, which in that respect, can be considered as anti-Christ.

A serpent moves by projecting himself to one side and then to another. Projecting from the side of truth to the side of error; to the side of truth then to the side of half truth… and so it goes in a serpentine movement …. and in so doing does he advance nonetheless!

As an example, Phil, when you get through the first para on p53 you might have discomfort because of sensing a set-up and underlying attack. But you will receive comfort in the truth of the second para and be beguiled into assenting to continue in following along happily. Side to side, back and forth, discomfort followed by comfort but moving forward nonetheless.

A happy read to you! …. I just hope you don’t get bit. Lol.

Regards,
Pop-pop (hopefully not the last of the Mohicans) Certainly not a theologian or priest.

quote:

EXCLUSIVE human group whose MISSION would be to SWALLOW UP all other groups -- with the PRETENSION OF SAVING them. Such an attitude is in keeping with a certain DOCTRINE which DEFENDS the THESIS that outside this particular group there is no salvation. … The exclusively historical CONCEPTION of the incarnation has certainly been enfleshed in the MONARCHICAL and IMPERIALISTIC idea that has been the dominant IDEOLOGY of Europeans throughout the last six millennia”.

Yep, that's a really nasty "dig" at the Western Church. To the extent that he's making a distinction between the MESSAGE of the Gospel and the way it's been enculturated, he does have a point, however. Still, it's quite cynical to characterize the western Church (i.e., Roman Catholicism, in this case) as "monarchical and imperialistic." Also, to characterize the teaching of the Church as "ideology" is negative spin. Does Pannikar see no evidence of the working of the Spirit in any of this?

He seems to want to be making the point that it's possible there could be other ways of inculturating the Gospel, and that's not such a stretch. But such groups would be considered part of the Christian Church if they truly accepted the Gospel message, became baptized, celebrated the Sacraments, etc. To the extent that he objects to the notion that Christ's saving work goes on through the Church and that it's God's intent that all people come to know the new life of Christ in the Church, he is clearly wrong. This is not to say that there can be no salvation outside the Church, as even the Catholic Catechism teaches, but it is to say that if one is honestly interested in what God has made available to us through Jesus Christ, why would they say or write anything to diminish the role of the Church in the world?

Here's a clip from Wikipedia about Pannikar.

quote:

He was ordained a Catholic priest in 1946, and was a professor of philosophy at the University of Madrid.[6] He made his first trip to India in 1954 where he studied Indian philosophy and religion at the University of Mysore and Banaras Hindu University, where he met several Western monks seeking Eastern forms for the expression of their Christian beliefs.[7] "I left Europe [for India] as a Christian, I discovered I was a Hindu and returned as a Buddhist without ever having ceased to be Christian," he later wrote.[8] He became a visiting professor at Harvard Divinity School in 1966 and a professor of religious studies at University of California, Santa Barbara in 1972.

I'm not sure how one can consider oneself simultaneously a Hindu, Buddhist and Christian.

Here's another telling fact about him: although a Catholic priest, he married at age 70 and continued to minister as a priest.
- http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr...y/panikkars-marriage
A friend of his described the marriage situation as follows:

quote:

Raimon Panikkar was a priest who, because he was a priest, decided to marry. This was because of his understanding of the "cosmic" dimensions of the priesthood: all persons in all cultures were called to be priests. His affirmation of the "universal monk" within every human being was part of his broader understanding of the unity or interaction between the Divine and the finite (what he called the "cosmotheandric mystery"). The unity of the divine with humanity was reflected for him in the unity of priesthood and married life. To realize this unity one did not necessarily have to renounce either marriage or the celibate priesthood. One could achieve a depth of spirituality that transcended both.
What this means is what he tried to understand and exemplify in his decision to marry as a priest – he wanted to "experiment with truth" (as Gandhi put it). Combining the spiritualities of both East and West, he hoped that his marriage would be a symbol of new possibilities, for himself and others. In taking this bold decision, he encountered difficulties and strains -- both internal doubts and external misunderstandings. To the end, he was faithful to the never finished task of bringing his life closer to his ideals.

So you can see from this what you're dealing with when it comes to the institutional life of the Church and its doctrines.

Quite frankly, I think this is one time where I'll just tell my spiritual director that "I pass" on her recommendation to read him. There's only so much time in the day and a limited amount of energy for reading serious theological works.

For what it's worth, I think I'm done posting on this topic for now.

A few closing thoughts:

It's certainly the case that pop-pop has raised several points on which Pannikar departs from church teaching. I will grant this. I think I overstated my case at some point. Forgive me for that. However I do not think he departs from orthodoxy in his approach to Christology, it's more to do with the nature of the Church and its authority. This is an area in which both of you put more emphasis than I do, which is probably the cause of my mistake.

For what it's worth, it may make you feel better to know that I'm not Roman Catholic. Technically, I'm Eastern Orthodox, although it may be more correct to say I'm not committed to any particular organizational church. So at the very least, you need not worry about me corrupting the purity of the Church from the inside, as it were

Beyond that, I'm just not interested in playing any more Where's Waldo, because it feels to me like in each case, a point is raised via some quotation, I try to present the quote in some context and with a differing interpretation than the one presented, and rather than a discussion ensuing on the relative merits of that interpretation, instead we just move on to the next out-of-context quote. The tone and sarcasm of your posts, pop-pop, is also something that I find off-putting, to say the least.

In any case, I'm sure no matter how many iterations of this game we play, you will both no doubt find enough things to dislike in Pannikar's writings to reject the book, and that's ok with me. I'm sure I don't agree with everything he says either, and we have not even really discussed the parts of the book that I actually was drawn towards. But given the general tenor and direction of the conversation, I think it may be best for me just to leave it at that.

All of the above notwithstanding, I am genuinely thankful for the opportunity to discuss this with you both, and I appreciate the time you have both spent responding to my posts.

Regards,

k

If you are not trained in a trust of mystery and some degree of tolerance for ambiguity, frankly you will not proceed very far on the spiritual journey. Immature religion creates a high degree of "cognitively rigid" people. If you want to hate somebody... do it for religious reasons... do it thinking you're following some verse from the Bible. It works quite well. Your untouched egocentricity can and will use religion to feel superior and "right".'

True orthodoxy ("right ideas") is important, but in the Bible orthodoxy is never defined as something that happens only in the head... Jesus consistently declares people to be saved or healed who are in right relationship with him, and he never grills them on their belief or belonging systems... I observe that the people who find God are usually people who are very serious about their quest and their questions, more so than being absolutely certain about their answers.'

`My lifetime of studying Jesus would lead me to summarize all of his teaching inside of two prime ideas: forgiveness and inclusion.'


pop-pop.. waldo will never sniff out any real truth as waldo only knows how to hunt with the ego, any real truth stops at the end of waldo nose as Waldos investment is not hunting but rather Asserting his own narrow bias, one sadly that is based in ignorance.

Phil.. it is sad that you also have taken a narrow route.. based in 'hearsay'.. you have not even read the book! i think it is amazing that many many catholic priests have read his work and found value in it..

a sad, sad day for this forum....it is one thing to disagree with another.... to lambaste through innuendo and put downs, anyone who see things differently, is another..

the really sad thing is we are all His children.. one would never know it reading this thread....

sincerely in Christ...

Christine

I believe "intellectual orthodoxy" is very important -- much, much more than feelings of emotional or intuitive "rightness." I say this as one whose spirituality is contemplative and who is open to appreciating God's work in all the world religions. But there is a relationship between orthodoxy and orthopraxis, as the leaders of the Church discovered centuries ago. One slight degree of divergence in doctrine can result in some pretty bizarre teachings and practices down the road, as we have seen in the various heresies that have swept through the Church through the centuries. Values of love and inclusion without proper concern for truth can easily become codependency, and just as over-hyping doctrine can become dogmatism, disdain for it in preference for religious experience deteriorates into gnosticism, which has been with us since the early days of Christianity.

Think of it like this: if a teaching or practice conflicts with orthodox doctrine explicitly or even implicitly, why is that worth defending -- from a Christian point of view, that is? I would not care if Pannikar wrote what he wrote as a Hindu or a New Ager, but he writes as a Catholic priest and so has a duty to uphold traditional doctrines. It may very well be that, on the whole, he does so, although pop-pop has shared quotes that raise serious questions, whatever the context. I also believe K has done a good job trying to clarify Pannikar's meaning, or what K thought he was really trying to say, which made for a fine exchange. A few posts back, there was even an acknowledgement of a lot of common ground. Even though I have not read Pannikar's book personally, I thought it appropriate to respond to points I heard being emphasized, and to share my understanding of these on the board. That's what we do here.

I've been reading around the net about Pannikar and have come upon a number of sites that are deeply appreciative of his work. See, for example:
- http://www.americamagazine.org....cfm?article_id=5218
- http://catholicbooksreview.org/2005/panikkar.htm
- http://ncronline.org/news/spir...-faith-dialogue-dies
- http://www.monasticdialog.com/a.php?id=666

A good summary of Pannikar's theology of Christ can be found at the link below. You can see from this why some of it is controversial.
- http://tinyurl.com/2dqnehs

There's no doubting a new emphasis in his theological treatment of Christ, which places less emphasis on the historical Jesus, doctrinal teaching and traditional Church life, with more on the cosmic Christ and personal mystical experience. It seems to me that these can all be properly affirmed, and I have done as much in my own book, Jesus Alive in Our Lives. There is also no doubting his disenchantment with institutional Christianity, a sentiment that resinates with many, for sure. Fair enough, but some kind of affirmation of the importance of Church is necessary if such critique is not to come off as too one-sided.

Anyone:

I've read a few articles written by Raimon Panikkar and one interview with him. I don't feel I know enough of his thought to make a decent judgment of what he was trying to convey. However, I did think I got a clear enough picture of a number of his ideas that I did not think were compatible with what we have from God in the Old and New Testaments.

Here is an interview with Panikkar: www.share-international.org/ar..._cfnew-innocence.htm

Please read the last paragraph, which I found troubling.

To be more clear---quoting, roughly, from the interview in the link, Panikkar says that the new revelation may not have much to do with, or much resemble, what we have known till now. However, Jesus, in the New Testament, after his resurrection, goes through the Old Testament, pointing out the story that was always embedded there. And in the Old Covenant, God says a New Covenant is coming. There's alot of consistency and continuity, and foretelling, going on in what God is doing. In other words, comparing God in the OT with Jesus, the new revelation has much to do with, and much resemblance, to the earlier self-revelation by God. Panikkar, in contrast, seems to envision something else.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ariel Jaffe,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by faustina:
a sad, sad day for this forum....it is one thing to disagree with another.... to lambaste through innuendo and put downs, anyone who see things differently, is another..

the really sad thing is we are all His children.. one would never know it reading this thread....

Ouch. I might deserve a little kick in the britches for saying that your words seem a tad harsh...
I am not saying anything that y'all don't already know, BUT, so much gets lost when writing on the internet... Not being able to look into the eyes and hear the speakers tone of voice or reading body language... Perhaps I need a new set of ears on my heart, I heard wit, humor, sarcasm and a desire for truth in the exchanges...It is interesting how we process in our unique ways.

quote:

. . .it is clear that you are a man of good intention. even though we may hold differences in opinion.. which is more than OK.

Christine, what is the difference of opinion you refer to? Several of us have taken a lot of time to express our opinions, here, and I don't think anyone has done so inappropriately. I am not clear whether you disagree with pop pop's critiques, K's responses, or some of the clarifications I attempted to present. Your entry into the discussion implied that we (or some of us) are somewhat immature in our spirituality and rigid in our beliefs, then you accuse us lambasting through "innuendo and put-downs." I'm wondering where you saw evidence of that? In my post about Pannikar being married? In my critique of his christology being excessively cosmic in emphasis? To pop pop's "where's Waldo?" approach?

You stated: Phil.. it is sad that you also have taken a narrow route.. based in 'hearsay'.. you have not even read the book! i think it is amazing that many many catholic priests have read his work and found value in it..

What do you mean by "narrow route"? Many of my responses were sympathetic to points being made by K, and although I didn't read the book, I felt it appropriate to express my understanding of some of the issues under discussion. Just what did I write that you found to be "narrow"?

There's a lot at stake in this topic we're discussing, though I've no illusion about the contribution our little board is making in the overall scheme of things. Still, it does boil down to how we present the Gospel to the people of this age, and how much emphasis do we give to the historical Jesus and the doctrines about him that date back to the early Church. There are many today who would gladly minimize the importance of such doctrines, and Pannikar is (rightly or wrongly) often cited as one who presents a more inclusive alternative.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Phil,

Hi Christine---

I don't mean to be difficult, but since you spoke of the book of Job...Yes, I think that one of the messages the book illustrates is as you said. But also, God says towards the end that He's angry with Job's friends because "they have not said about Me what is right." Job's friends, of course, have said Job must be suffering because of some sin--sort of karma-ish suffering---and God wants it known that it doesn't always work that way. So, as I see it, Job is a good example of the importance of getting doctrine as true as we can.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
... Several of us have taken a lot of time to express our opinions, here, and I don't think anyone has done so inappropriately. I am not clear whether you disagree with pop pop's critiques, K's responses, or some of the clarifications I attempted to present. Your entry into the discussion implied that we (or some of us) are somewhat immature in our spirituality and rigid in our beliefs, then you accuse us lambasting through "innuendo and put-downs." I'm wondering where you saw evidence of that? ....

Christine,
I'm in agreement with Phil that the discussions above have been civil, careful, and demonstrating respect for one another. I've not chimed in because I didn't read the book, but I appreciated Pop-pop's review and discussion because I also feel we have the responsibility to reject false teachings/teachers.

For that, we need to *think carefully*, which takes time and energy, integrating our emotions, intuitions and spiritual unctions over time. This is a long process, and few people seem inclined to walk that out. And so I appreciate Pop-pop, Kenosis, and Phil all demonstrating what that looks like, to some extent.

I didn't read the exchanges at all in the way you perceived them and summarized by Phil above. In fact, my reaction to your posts was that you are way off base in your perceptions (and Gail gingerly suggested some rationale for this; thank you Gail . Your vague, knee-jerk, and defensive objections are similar to the way you reacted to my comments concerning the "One Voice" movie. There was the same onslaught of reactive, ill-formed thinking, and accusations about our spiritual immaturity present there as well.

We can't make our discomfort somebody else's problem, as tempting as that may be at times.

Gail gingerly suggested some ******rationale****** for this; thank you Gail Smiler.

Shasha.. that's the 'point'... if one really LOOKED with the heart.. they would see that my vague, knee-jerk, and defensive objections come from a place other than rationale. ... and would have , ideally addressed me from where i am at.. not where they think i should be at.

to be 100% honest .. i am in the thick of a kundalini rising.. the last thing i need to be doing is posting, period. everything but the kitchen sink is coming up for me.. it is not 'vital' you have that pertinent information to recognize from one human being to the next, that i am not entirely stable..not at this time anyway.

i am not making excuses for what i know to be true here, as i see pannikars work and those who also have his vision , as' life giving' and not the spirit of the anti Christ. ..

i will ask forgiveness right here and now for how i have presented my thoughts that have been off putting and confusing. i mean this sincerely...

since mid November i have felt stripped raw and feel more alone within the body of Christ that i ever have.


a lot of stuff coming up for me ....mainly around the church .. this has spilled over into this forum and i deeply regret, inappropriately.


phil.. at a later date when i am more myself i will address your questions regarding my statements..... what i can say in earnest is.. it has never been my intent to be rude and hurtful to anyone here.. my statements have come from a place of despair not anger.


.i do not see pannikars work as false teaching. in the midst of the energy blowing thru my brains, it is not a good time to try and talk about any of this...

i will leave the posting to my husband if he so chooses to continue on this thread or elsewhere.

with warm regard to all...

christine

That's fine, Christine. Do please take care of yourself these days.

I'm aware that some of the discussions we have here are such that not everyone will feel they can participate, but that's why we have different forums and different discussions in each. Personally, I very much enjoy a "spirited" exchange such as we've had here. It helps me to test and clarify my own thinking, so I very much appreciate it when people hang in there with it.

- - -

Ariel, I checked out that link with an interview of Pannikar that you posted above and can see how you'd have misgivings about him from his comments about a "new Master" possibly coming one day and giving us a new revelation of God. I don't think he means another like Jesus, as he has certainly made it clear in his writings that, for him, Jesus is the decisive revelation of God. Still, we do say in Christianity that no new revelation of God will come as Jesus, being the Word incarnate, reveals all we need to know.

The issue with him (as I see it and have stated above) is whether his emphasis on a cosmological Christology sufficiently connects with the historical and doctrinal foundations of Christianity. It certainly seems at times that he considers that a nuisance and a hindrance, something we have to "move beyond." See http://tinyurl.com/2dqnehs which I posted above and try reading the first few pages. The author of that book makes the same point.

Christine---My prayers are with you. To borrow a phrase from Phil, hang in there with the Church. If you're looking for some fairly light reading, you might like Anne Rice's last two novels, Angel Time and Of Love and Evil. I found the latter at a local library a couple weeks ago, and enjoyed it. I know Anne has claimed she's left institutional Christianity, but, having read her lastest novel, I think she'll be back. Anyway, it's just a thought if you want something light but good to read.

Phil--thanks for the clarification.

phil.. yes, my husband loves those spirited exchanges. ..he has a level of detachment that is healthy and he really enjoys the spirited exchanges like you..he says the same thing as you.. the testing and clarifying his own thinking..

these days i feel more vulnerable so i think i will do what Ariel suggested.. a 'good' Ann Rice novel..those two you suggested sound good to me Ariel!

and Ariel i could never leave the church.. where would i go?! the plan is to lighten up and i will be back.. thank you for your prayers! i sorely need them!

warm regard to all....

christine

Hi Christine,

Yes, I'm with Ariel in lifting you up in my prayers. You are loved by us, Christine. Like you, I pray for others quite a bit, and when I can stop and be vulnerable with my friends, I am delighted that they are eager to pray for me, and I can *receive*, which is also wonderful and necessary...

Father,
May Christ's peace and tenderness sweep over dear Christine.
Bring a deep calm and tranquility to her spirit, mind, and body.