Hello From New York

[NYGAL1973]

Hello All

My name is Lisa.

I live in New York City. I am Catholic, but enjoy learning about other faiths.

I believe that good interfaith relations is very important.

In my humble opinion being a good Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc. means loving and caring about all people not just the ones whose beliefs mirror your own.

Growing up I worshipped in a traditional conservative parish and as an adult became dissatisfied and switched to a more progressive one.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Lisa —

Welcome aboard.

I'm Catholic too, and agree with everything you've said.

Growing up I worshipped in a traditional conservative parish and as an adult became dissatisfied and switched to a more progressive one.

Curiously, I went the other way, although I suspect we might define 'traditional conservative' differently – I live in London, UK – I am traditionalist, but not conservative.

 

[wil]

To me it seems there exists an interesting dichotomy in many religions.

Folks grow up hearing the pablum....that which is fed to the masses, it doesn't resonate, and they look elsewhere and move on....onto something more progressive, another religion, sect or denomination, or noreligion altogether...

But in reality if they delved deeper into the teachings, went onto 'postgraduate' work as it were instead of the barely skim the surface stuff that is doled out...they'd find the deeper tradition contains and explains the mystical depth they've been craving.

This is a mistake not of the individual...but of the preachers, teachers and religious hierarchy...the thinking that people are not seeking....that people only want/need the minimum.

 

[Thomas]

Folks grow up hearing the pablum...

An interesting point, and one with which I can sympathise. I actually sought out the places I was pretty sure would offer me a thought-provoking homily.

But we should not be too judgemental. Not everyone is a gifted exegete or homilist ...

We need also acknowledge our own responsibility. One man's 'pablum' is another man's 'pearl of great price' (Matthew 13:46), it rather depends upon one's insight.

Dare I say The Lord's Prayer is seen by some as quite trite in its message, but then how deeply have they looked into its meaning? Or put those petitions into effect?

It would seem to be a problem as old as the Church herself:
"I gave you milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet. But neither indeed are you now able; for you are yet carnal" (1 Corinthians 3:2).

"For whereas for the time you ought to be masters, you have need to be taught again what are the first elements of the words of God: and you are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat..." (Hebrews 5:12, addressing, scholars believe, those rabbis who had converted to the 'New Song').

"... For every one that is a partaker of milk, is unskillful in the word of justice: for he is a little child" (v13).

But in reality if they delved deeper into the teachings, went onto 'postgraduate' work as it were instead of the barely skim the surface stuff that is doled out ... they'd find the deeper tradition contains and explains the mystical depth they've been craving.

And they realise, or at least I do, that it was there all along. After all, 'you can take a horse to water', or 'you can please some of the people ... '

In the Tradition of the Church this process on 'continuing spiritual formation' (becoming a Christian is the start of a journey, not its end – at least not, for the moment, in this life) is called mystagogy ('to lead through the mysteries') – a subject close to my heart, and one that recent popes have pointed out as sorely needed.

This is a mistake not of the individual...but of the preachers, teachers and religious hierarchy...the thinking that people are not seeking....that people only want/need the minimum.

Here I would tend to hesitate. I rather think it is the fault of the individual — it's up to the individual to do the work, the Church is not a magic wand, nor is it there to spoon-feed us. We are called to 'take up' the cross 'and follow' (Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23). It's not enough, as Pope Francis is making a leitmotif of his pastoral style, to seek the contentment of the pew. That comes after ...

And the first step on that path is self-denial. That includes the expectation of the presbyter to tick all our boxes.

I was once so inspired by the insight of a homily that I went up to the priest after mass and told him so.
"Thanks for that," he said. "You put your trust in the Holy Spirit to guide your words and put them out there, but then all you can do is hope that someone is listening."

I always fall back on the words of the Dalai Lama: "If you can't find it in your tradition, you won't find it anywhere else. It's you that is missing, not the message."

Today there is so much specious opinion posing as critical insight that we've all become too clever for our own boots. I am reminded of Sri Ramana Maharishi who, when dealing with the merely inquisitive or those full of supposed knowledge, could be quite outspoken:

'Swami, we poor ignoramuses are vainly seeking everywhere the path of truth. I have read all the scriptures; I have studied all the philosophers, from Descartes to Russell. Whom should I follow ... (no reply) ... for pity's sake, tell me which way I should take?"
"The way by which you came," replied the Maharashi. (Swami Abhishiktananda (Dom Henri Le Saux), Saccidananda. A Christian Approach to Advaitic Experience", p29. ISPCK, Delhi, 1990)

Nor should we forget that "Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 18:3).

Indeed, the author of 1 Peter seems to have the measure of it:
"As newborn babes, desire the rational milk without guile, that thereby you may grow unto salvation" (1 Peter 2:2). Or, to put it in a way I can imagine Peter saying it, 'You don't have to be clever to be Christian'.

On a personal note, I'm pleased to see mystagogy coming back into the life of the Church. It's what it's all about, after all ...

 

[wil]

I still put this at the feetof the church...the preachers...thinking to little of those that come to raise the bar.

Although it is probably correct...they've tested it before...folks don't want personal responsibility...they want to be fed...not to cook.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Hello All

My name is Lisa.

I live in New York City. I am Catholic, but enjoy learning about other faiths.

I believe that good interfaith relations is very important.

In my humble opinion being a good Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc. means loving and caring about all people not just the ones whose beliefs mirror your own.

Growing up I worshipped in a traditional conservative parish and as an adult became dissatisfied and switched to a more progressive one.

Welcome! I hope you stay and post a lot. We only have Thomas here as our resident Catholic, and even though few here can question his insights on Catholicism, it would be nice to see another Catholics opinion on matters...Specifically an American one!

 

[Tadashi]

Hi Lisa, welcome!

I'm new here myself (joined a couple of months ago) and have already learned so much (years worth of pondering material!) from various members on the board.

A great thing about this forum is that, here, no one seems to have the exact same approach to the Truth/Reality, and it's quite interesting when different worldviews or theologies clash (in a good way), so don't be surprised when fireworks happen (or find yourself in it), but enjoy the sparkling colors

Tad

 

[Tadashi]

Curiously, I went the other way, although I suspect we might define 'traditional conservative' differently – I live in London, UK – I am traditionalist, but not conservative.

Hi Thomas,

If you were to name a few distinct differences (in your view) between 'traditional' and 'conservative', what would they be?

Tad

 

[Thomas]

I still put this at the feet of the church...the preachers...thinking to little of those that come to raise the bar.

I think there's a history to that. Theology in the first half of the last century was, by all accounts, a very dry and scholastic affair. The Curia felt itself under attack from the new 'rationalism' and did went defensive, digging in to weather the storm.

Vatican II 'threw open the windows' to quote Pope John XXIII's famous words, but was immediately caught between the conservative 'traditionalist' reactionaries on the one extreme, who wanted them shut and bolted, and the liberal 'modernists' of the other who seemed to assume we should open the windows and throw everything out.

The Christian seeker got pulled every which way. Neither side did any significant good, and both did a lot of unnecessary damage, but what emerged as the authentic champions of vatican II was a renewed interest in 'ressourcement' ('a return to the source') carried forward under the banner of the Neuvelle Théologie.

This circle started in the 30s and 40s in among primarily French and German theologians. The shared objective was to escape the dry arguments of neo-Scholasticism (characterised by teaching by scholastically-influenced manuals, criticism of modernism and a defensive stance towards non-Catholic faiths).

Theologians who are regarded as forerunners of the nouvelle théologie sought a return of Catholic theology to origins, namely Scripture and the writings of the Church Fathers. It is marked by an openness to dialogue with other traditions and the secular world on issues of theology. They were instrumental in a renewed interest in biblical exegesis, typology, art, literature and what is commonly called 'the mystical'.

Among them are the heavyweight theologians who marked the last century: Henri de Lubac, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, Hans Küng, Edward Schillebeeckx, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Louis Bouyer, Étienne Gilson, Jean Daniélou, Jean Mouroux and Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) ... All of whom are on my shelves.

But here's my point. Getting hold of their books is a quest in itself. Most of them, from the superlative mystical reasoning of an Emile Mersche to the profound philosophical apologia of a Matthias Scheben are out of print. Even the complete works of Meister Eckhart, claimed as 'one of their own' by the mystics of every stripe, is only now available in a £60 edition.

So if there is this 'post graduate' hunger, where is it? When I did my degree, most of my classmates had never heard of any of them, let alone read them ... I know I am 'deeply into' the Fathers, and that, in a sense, is a niche interest, but I can't help thinking if there was that much hunger, someone would be trying to supply the demand?

Where I do think the chasm exists is in simple catechesis.

When you say 'pablum' and I say 'pearl', I think we're both talking about the same thing. We've both hit the same wall. The ability to bridge the gap, which is in reality the ability to reveal the sublime within the mundane, to build a narrative that spans the apparent divide ... that seems sorely lacking in the general education of Catholics today.

But then, everyone wants everything explained. We sometimes forget that the heart of our faith is inexpressible. Its inexplicable. In our rationalist, enlightened, materialist world, we have lost the sense of transcending wonder. It's in the 'not knowing' that we are most alive.

That, to me, is where we fail ourselves as Christian, of whatever denomination.

What it means to be open to the Infinite.

Although it is probably correct...they've tested it before...folks don't want personal responsibility...they want to be fed...not to cook.

People, eh?

I'd say in the old days, leading the Christian flock was like herding sheep, whom on one occasion I'd heard described as 'sickly, smelly and stupid' (sheep, that is, not the congregation). Today, after the wrangles you and I have had along the way, I'd say it's more like herding cats (Whom I would describe as 'sleek, subtle and smart' – and I mean that as a long-overdue compliment, really!)

 

[wil]

Ah, the wrangles are good...they've helped define us both, to each other, and ourcellves.

There are soooo many here now...and those that have been here...that I am honored to have wrangled with and learned from... you are among them... as are many you've wrangled with!

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Hello All

My name is Lisa.

I live in New York City. I am Catholic, but enjoy learning about other faiths.

I believe that good interfaith relations is very important.

In my humble opinion being a good Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc. means loving and caring about all people not just the ones whose beliefs mirror your own.

Growing up I worshipped in a traditional conservative parish and as an adult became dissatisfied and switched to a more progressive one.

Hi Lisa,

I'm new here too. I'm a Christian presiding over a Hindu Temple in Maryland. A brief explanation on how that happened can be found here; http://www.interfaith.org/forum/what-are-your-reasons-for-16759-2.html#post283476

This is a great forum. A lot of insiteful and knowledgeable folks here. This is the first forum I've found that does not have a "My God can beat up your God" attitude. I'm enjoying it a lot.

 

[Thomas]

Hear, hear!

Bravo, mon frère.

 

[Friend]

Welcome

 

[Thomas]

If you were to name a few distinct differences (in your view) between 'traditional' and 'conservative', what would they be?

I think most people see 'tradition' as a kind of glacier emerging from the past and grinding its way through the present, flattening every objection in its path ...

I see tradition as a clear spring, a wellspring of the Eternal.

From the outside, tradition looks like a window into the past. Then, when you're in it, you're in the now. It transcends time.

I think I've covered conservatism, and its counterpart, liberalism, in discussion with Wil, above? Conservatives want nothing to change, liberals want everything to change ...

 

[Thomas]

Lisa? Are you still around?

I do hope I haven't put you off!

 

[Tadashi]

I think most people see 'tradition' as a kind of glacier emerging from the past and grinding its way through the present, flattening every objection in its path ...

I see tradition as a clear spring, a wellspring of the Eternal.

From the outside, tradition looks like a window into the past. Then, when you're in it, you're in the now. It transcends time.

I think I've covered conservatism, and its counterpart, liberalism, in discussion with Wil, above? Conservatives want nothing to change, liberals want everything to change ...

Mmm... "tradition as a clear spring, a wellspring of the Eternal"... You are such a poet, Thomas. I never thought of tradition that way... You are the best defender of tradition I have ever come across. I may need to revise my old image of tradition being something rigid and inflexible...

But I also must say, "liberals want everything to change" is a rather blanket statement. I think it's more about not being afraid of questioning (or being called heretic!) and promoting free thought and positive changes.

Tad