On Sunday morning, Dominican Friar and former Master of the Order of Preachers, Father Timothy Peter Joseph Radcliffe, reflected on the meaning of "Hoping against hope" with those who will participate in the General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops set to begin on Wednesday, 4 October.
Post Reply
1 of 1
Synod Retreat Meditation: 'Hoping Against Hope'
2,248 Views |
21 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by ChiefHaus
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/255542/synod-on-synodality-retreat-looks-to-transcend-all-our-disagreements
*eye roll*
Quote:
Radcliffe began the first meditation of the retreat on Oct. 1 by saying: "I'm deeply aware of my personal limitations. I'm old, white, western, and a man. And I don't know which is worse. … All these aspects of my identity limit my understanding, so I ask your forgiveness for the inadequacy of my words."
*eye roll*
He does a few more self deprecating takes in a dry British humorous sense. He's one of the best in the world at what he does. We would be foolish not to listen even for a few minutes.
PabloSerna said:
He does a few more self deprecating takes in a dry British humorous sense. He's one of the best in the world at what he does. We would be foolish not to listen even for a few minutes.
The only thing foolish is that bishop shaming himself publicly for how God made him to pander to….who? This worship of progressivism is disgusting.
Bird Poo said:PabloSerna said:
He does a few more self deprecating takes in a dry British humorous sense. He's one of the best in the world at what he does. We would be foolish not to listen even for a few minutes.
The only thing foolish is that bishop shaming himself publicly for how God made him to pander to….who? This worship of progressivism is disgusting.
Yep. Everyone of those traits are actually how God made him. Don't apologize for it. Obviously we need to be inclusive but don't apologize for your skin color, your sex or where/when you were born.
"Radcliffe began the first meditation of the retreat on Oct. 1 by saying: "I'm deeply aware of my personal limitations. I'm old, white, western, and a man. And I don't know which is worse. … All these aspects of my identity limit my understanding, so I ask your forgiveness for the inadequacy of my words."
Looks like we're done here. The biblical stance on man is that all are made in the image of God, and man's own sin is what makes us equally fallen and equally in need of a personal savior. Intersectionality is an affront to the Christian view of man because it creates tiers of mankind based solely on features that only God has control over. Instead of us being made equal before God, loving one another and seeing the icon of Christ in them, we are now constantly made to check a hierarchy of status. and this hierarchical status is what is to create peace.
This worldview will create no healing, but only more division. And its most obvious when you look at what the best case scenario within the confines of intersectionality is: The removal of the white demographic, western thought, men as leaders, and the wisdom of the old. And Ironically, if you play this out over 200 years, you're going to see the exact same political action among those groups you're now marginalizing. You're just stuck in a 200 year loop of slowly seeking retribution over one another and calling it justice (which its not).
And compare that to Christianity where the best case scenario is everyone treating each other equally out of love because we're all made in Gods image.
Christians pushing this are not sheep but goats. Intersectionality is the removal of truth and justice for political means. It is the good intentions country song's sing about that are on the road to hell.
Looks like we're done here. The biblical stance on man is that all are made in the image of God, and man's own sin is what makes us equally fallen and equally in need of a personal savior. Intersectionality is an affront to the Christian view of man because it creates tiers of mankind based solely on features that only God has control over. Instead of us being made equal before God, loving one another and seeing the icon of Christ in them, we are now constantly made to check a hierarchy of status. and this hierarchical status is what is to create peace.
This worldview will create no healing, but only more division. And its most obvious when you look at what the best case scenario within the confines of intersectionality is: The removal of the white demographic, western thought, men as leaders, and the wisdom of the old. And Ironically, if you play this out over 200 years, you're going to see the exact same political action among those groups you're now marginalizing. You're just stuck in a 200 year loop of slowly seeking retribution over one another and calling it justice (which its not).
And compare that to Christianity where the best case scenario is everyone treating each other equally out of love because we're all made in Gods image.
Christians pushing this are not sheep but goats. Intersectionality is the removal of truth and justice for political means. It is the good intentions country song's sing about that are on the road to hell.
Is self-loathing sinful?Bird Poo said:PabloSerna said:
He does a few more self deprecating takes in a dry British humorous sense. He's one of the best in the world at what he does. We would be foolish not to listen even for a few minutes.
The only thing foolish is that bishop shaming himself publicly for how God made him to pander to….who? This worship of progressivism is disgusting.
On Radcliffe … He's like Columbo. Don't judge a book by its cover. His self deprecating takes are just a cover for some real pearls of wisdom. I think you may have taken some of his message out of context?
It may have been yesterday's meditation, but he quoted scripture as a point of where we are now as a people. In JN 16:12, Jesus says, "I still have much to tell you, but you cannot bear it now." He pointed out how even Peter tried to stop Jesus from dying on the cross, because he could not bear a world without the physical Jesus- he had not understood the gift of the Holy Spirit.
What more can we not bear? What other truths that Jesus wants to share with us that we cannot bear now? Radcliffe made the comment that it was always at these crucial points that Jesus says, "be not afraid."
It may have been yesterday's meditation, but he quoted scripture as a point of where we are now as a people. In JN 16:12, Jesus says, "I still have much to tell you, but you cannot bear it now." He pointed out how even Peter tried to stop Jesus from dying on the cross, because he could not bear a world without the physical Jesus- he had not understood the gift of the Holy Spirit.
What more can we not bear? What other truths that Jesus wants to share with us that we cannot bear now? Radcliffe made the comment that it was always at these crucial points that Jesus says, "be not afraid."
My Orthodox parish has been bumping with TradCats lately. Francis is one of our best apologists.
No one makes that opening statement without believing it. He's not making fun of it, he's not establishing himself against it, he is just using self deprecating humor to establish that he does in fact believe in those things without coming outright and giving an oath because those are off-putting. I do the same with techs in my facility when discussing safety because you're a square if you come at it straight on. I want them to laugh, and then also act safely. He wants you to laugh, and then also fall in line with those beliefs.PabloSerna said:
On Radcliffe … He's like Columbo. Don't judge a book by its cover. His self deprecating takes are just a cover for some real pearls of wisdom. I think you may have taken some of his message out of context?
It may have been yesterday's meditation, but he quoted scripture as a point of where we are now as a people. In JN 16:12, Jesus says, "I still have much to tell you, but you cannot bear it now." He pointed out how even Peter tried to stop Jesus from dying on the cross, because he could not bear a world without the physical Jesus- he had not understood the gift of the Holy Spirit.
What more can we not bear? What other truths that Jesus wants to share with us that we cannot bear now? Radcliffe made the comment that it was always at these crucial points that Jesus says, "be not afraid."
Your quotes are out of context. Jesus is not hiding "intersectionality" as some secret yet to be revealed. You're reading into that quote with baited breath thinking, 'I know Jesus is going to say, yes two people of the same sex in love can of course have sex!" and "white people deserve to be at the bottom of this intersectional totem pole!"
You call yourself catholic, but you really have more in common with the current state of mainline protestant denominations. In the past you've lauded how Catholicism can hold every view point of Jesus and man in one big tent and then just come together on Sundays.
Its not going to last. These 'outer edges' that have torn Protestantism to shreds are going to schism Latin rite catholics. All you need is just a few more disobedient German bishops and you'll have the schism you always wanted. This Synod is the start.
PabloSerna said:
On Radcliffe … He's like Columbo. Don't judge a book by its cover. His self deprecating takes are just a cover for some real pearls of wisdom. I think you may have taken some of his message out of context?
It may have been yesterday's meditation, but he quoted scripture as a point of where we are now as a people. In JN 16:12, Jesus says, "I still have much to tell you, but you cannot bear it now." He pointed out how even Peter tried to stop Jesus from dying on the cross, because he could not bear a world without the physical Jesus- he had not understood the gift of the Holy Spirit.
What more can we not bear? What other truths that Jesus wants to share with us that we cannot bear now? Radcliffe made the comment that it was always at these crucial points that Jesus says, "be not afraid."
This is sophistry. You really need to stop doing this. God's revelation is Truth. It can't be anything else. We know that any future revelation cannot be antithetical to God and what's been revealed. Trying to conjure up teachings and meaning in revelation that are antithetical to God is bad. It's bad for you and anyone who might be susceptible to being taken in by this stuff.
You presume too much. You really do not know me.
Radcliffe does this type of thing, I don't know if it's because so many people tell him how great he is or if it's as you say some technique. Either way, he is an incredible speaker and writer. I was fortunate to have made my profession to the Dominican Order while he was the Master General. It was a book of his, "New Wine" that broadened my previously narrow idea about not just the RCC, but the mission in general.
You asked for theologians that have influenced me, he would be near the top. Like all good Dominicans he cites Aquinas frequently weaving his thought into current events challenging the church. I bring this up because if you have any children you know they have some of the best questions. Many times the questions is really an old question but seen in a new light.
The "scandalous" questions, women as priest, married priest, etc., are not new. One that is, but is as old as time, is blessings of same sex relationships. I have tried to point out that these types of relationships are not covered in the Bible for obvious reasons. No one dared "came out" back then for fear of their lives, but they existed.
What they ask is important even if you disagree with their position- they want to worship God openly in full communion. As we are learning more, it is increasingly obvious that this is their nature and not a lifestyle choice as I had been led to believe not too long ago. I, like others, want to hear what the Holy Spirit has to say to the Synod about this important question. Maybe it is just my spiritual formation, but I believe they have a right to sit at the table with the rest of us sinners, hoping to be fed with the bread of life.
Radcliffe does this type of thing, I don't know if it's because so many people tell him how great he is or if it's as you say some technique. Either way, he is an incredible speaker and writer. I was fortunate to have made my profession to the Dominican Order while he was the Master General. It was a book of his, "New Wine" that broadened my previously narrow idea about not just the RCC, but the mission in general.
You asked for theologians that have influenced me, he would be near the top. Like all good Dominicans he cites Aquinas frequently weaving his thought into current events challenging the church. I bring this up because if you have any children you know they have some of the best questions. Many times the questions is really an old question but seen in a new light.
The "scandalous" questions, women as priest, married priest, etc., are not new. One that is, but is as old as time, is blessings of same sex relationships. I have tried to point out that these types of relationships are not covered in the Bible for obvious reasons. No one dared "came out" back then for fear of their lives, but they existed.
What they ask is important even if you disagree with their position- they want to worship God openly in full communion. As we are learning more, it is increasingly obvious that this is their nature and not a lifestyle choice as I had been led to believe not too long ago. I, like others, want to hear what the Holy Spirit has to say to the Synod about this important question. Maybe it is just my spiritual formation, but I believe they have a right to sit at the table with the rest of us sinners, hoping to be fed with the bread of life.
PabloSerna said:
You presume too much. You really do not know me.
Radcliffe does this type of thing, I don't know if it's because so many people tell him how great he is or if it's as you say some technique. Either way, he is an incredible speaker and writer. I was fortunate to have made my profession to the Dominican Order while he was the Master General. It was a book of his, "New Wine" that broadened my previously narrow idea about not just the RCC, but the mission in general.
You asked for theologians that have influenced me, he would be near the top. Like all good Dominicans he cites Aquinas frequently weaving his thought into current events challenging the church. I bring this up because if you have any children you know they have some of the best questions. Many times the questions is really an old question but seen in a new light.
The "scandalous" questions, women as priest, married priest, etc., are not new. One that is, but is as old as time, is blessings of same sex relationships. I have tried to point out that these types of relationships are not covered in the Bible for obvious reasons. No one dared "came out" back then for fear of their lives, but they existed.
What they ask is important even if you disagree with their position- they want to worship God openly in full communion. As we are learning more, it is increasingly obvious that this is their nature and not a lifestyle choice as I had been led to believe not too long ago. I, like others, want to hear what the Holy Spirit has to say to the Synod about this important question. Maybe it is just my spiritual formation, but I believe they have a right to sit at the table with the rest of us sinners, hoping to be fed with the bread of life.
Your third paragraph is false. This is modern nonsense. These relationships did exist, the apostles certainly would have known about them and the writings about males being with males as verboten are very clear. What's equally clear is that woman was made for man. You are letting people deceive you if you buy into this.
For reference, please read. A first century Roman emperor was married to a guy. Please don't act like the early church was blind to this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions#:~:text=Numerous%20examples%20of%20same%20sex,aforementioned%20Sacred%20Band%20of%20Thebes.
ETA: I have clearly shown how science does not agree with you that this is part of their nature. You are either firmly deceived or you aren't reading the information I'm trying to give you
Yes. And its vastly different than being humble. When we feel sorry for ourselves or think what we've done is unforgiveable we are not putting our faith in God's love for us and His Son. Self-deprecating can be done in jest but when you truly do it out of hate of self and not merely humbleness, then yes, is sinful.FTACo88-FDT24dad said:Is self-loathing sinful?Bird Poo said:PabloSerna said:
He does a few more self deprecating takes in a dry British humorous sense. He's one of the best in the world at what he does. We would be foolish not to listen even for a few minutes.
The only thing foolish is that bishop shaming himself publicly for how God made him to pander to….who? This worship of progressivism is disgusting.
Are you saying the fullness of truth was not concluded with the death of the last apostle? What you are implying is that now in 2023 man is finally able to bear a truth that nobody prior to us could bear. Not buying it.PabloSerna said:
It may have been yesterday's meditation, but he quoted scripture as a point of where we are now as a people. In JN 16:12, Jesus says, "I still have much to tell you, but you cannot bear it now." He pointed out how even Peter tried to stop Jesus from dying on the cross, because he could not bear a world without the physical Jesus- he had not understood the gift of the Holy Spirit.
What more can we not bear? What other truths that Jesus wants to share with us that we cannot bear now? Radcliffe made the comment that it was always at these crucial points that Jesus says, "be not afraid."
In your scripture quote, Jesus was speaking to Peter before the resurrection. The fullness of truth was given to Peter after the resurrection when he could bear it. Quit manipulating scripture to justify the twisting of truth. It is unoriginal.
From what you've shared on this forum, you're an architect, you have between 7-9 kids, your first kid was an oops baby that y'all (thankfully) overcame the thought of abortion, you've posted about a child (or two?) of yours that is struggling with either gay and/or trans thoughts, and you post a lot about this upcoming Synod where the LGBT+ groups are given a more formal voice. Your threads tend to jump from one interpretation of scripture I've never heard of to the next.PabloSerna said:
You presume too much. You really do not know me.
Do I actually know you? No. Do I know what you're trying to get at every time you post on this topic? Yes.
You are a man who loves his family deeply and is struggling to come to grips with what Christianity plainly states about marriage and sex and how that flies in the face of the LGBT+ communities agenda about what they demand of God.
You're familiar with the statistic that the number one reason people leave church (and God) is disagreements with God about sex. And this shakes you to your core to the point you'll find anything to allows a Godly slant on gay or trans relationships. Because you love your kid. ('what if they just commit to being monogamous?','What if God made them this way?','What even is marriage?') When I read you threads, I get constantly reminded of the Upton Sinclair quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding of it."
I will earnestly pray for you and your family, because that is what Christians do. And honestly, having a child come out as struggling with the lies of the LGBT community would shake me to my core as well. I've seen every single friend that has come out as gay nearly simultaneously come out as atheist.
The orthodox church has a very simple approach to the LGB side of things, but its not easy, and its celibacy. There will be no orthodox synod about it.
Great points.BluHorseShu said:Yes. And its vastly different than being humble. When we feel sorry for ourselves or think what we've done is unforgiveable we are not putting our faith in God's love for us and His Son. Self-deprecating can be done in jest but when you truly do it out of hate of self and not merely humbleness, then yes, is sinful.FTACo88-FDT24dad said:Is self-loathing sinful?Bird Poo said:PabloSerna said:
He does a few more self deprecating takes in a dry British humorous sense. He's one of the best in the world at what he does. We would be foolish not to listen even for a few minutes.
The only thing foolish is that bishop shaming himself publicly for how God made him to pander to….who? This worship of progressivism is disgusting.
Also, when discussing humility, the most succinct way I've heard it phrased is, "humility isn't thinking less about yourself, but thinking about yourself less." Cuts through a lot of christianese when you define humility this way.
Celibacy is one aspect, but the "gay Christian" argumentation has become more nuanced. For example, Dr. Gregory Coles is a celibate gay Christian, as he labels himself. He confirms homosexuality as sinful and abstains from it, but labels himself gay and is a member of the LGBT community. So he's celibate, but is he repentant? The Church is not prepared to handle and deliver truth in these more nuanced scenarios. It's not just about being celibate, but being repentant, washed, regenerated, sanctified and transformed. But now you have whole gay Christian movements infiltrating that agree to be celibate, but have managed to retain the label and culture of homosexuality.
You know only what I have allowed you to know through my writing. There is so much more! But your take is telling, because you are quick to judge and this is par for the course by many on here. Maybe the words to "judge not" missed y'all? Chill, let's keep talking.
+++
I know many of you are well versed in scripture, however some are quick to seize on a take and run to judgement. Take the verse that Jesus was giving to the Apostles about not being able to bear at that time. Immediately, "well then what of the fullness of truth upon the death of the last apostle?" Do you think the early church could have dogmatically stated the truth about Our Lady the day after Pentecost? Do you think the early church had the cannon settled by the first century? We could go on. What is certain and this is what the point of Jesus' words were - the Holy Spirit will continue the work of Christ.
Public revelation was what was completed with the death of the last apostle. Jesus promised to send the Paraclete to guide the church through the end. The church is alive. It is not a bunch of old texts, parables, and men (a few women) pulling strings. Sad that some of you have not come to this realization. The words of Christ are just as important then as they are today. This is what is happening in Rome right now.
But just like in the time of Jesus, there are some leaders (Pharisees) that want to deny people from the truth that will bring them salvation. It's easy to look at scripture and read about the leppers, the tax collectors, the gentiles, and on an on. Don't you think those men had a scriptural understanding to say the things they did? When they brought the woman caught in adultery, they had an open and shut case - so they thought.
This is where we are all over again. Stand back for a minute and ask yourself what are these people seeking? Let's find a way. That is what I have been saying all along. I have been reading, yes, but praying harder. It's very clear to me that they belong. Hopefully others come to the same understanding.
ETA: Radcliffe is not a Bishop.
ETA2: Science is on going. Google is your friend.
+++
I know many of you are well versed in scripture, however some are quick to seize on a take and run to judgement. Take the verse that Jesus was giving to the Apostles about not being able to bear at that time. Immediately, "well then what of the fullness of truth upon the death of the last apostle?" Do you think the early church could have dogmatically stated the truth about Our Lady the day after Pentecost? Do you think the early church had the cannon settled by the first century? We could go on. What is certain and this is what the point of Jesus' words were - the Holy Spirit will continue the work of Christ.
Public revelation was what was completed with the death of the last apostle. Jesus promised to send the Paraclete to guide the church through the end. The church is alive. It is not a bunch of old texts, parables, and men (a few women) pulling strings. Sad that some of you have not come to this realization. The words of Christ are just as important then as they are today. This is what is happening in Rome right now.
But just like in the time of Jesus, there are some leaders (Pharisees) that want to deny people from the truth that will bring them salvation. It's easy to look at scripture and read about the leppers, the tax collectors, the gentiles, and on an on. Don't you think those men had a scriptural understanding to say the things they did? When they brought the woman caught in adultery, they had an open and shut case - so they thought.
This is where we are all over again. Stand back for a minute and ask yourself what are these people seeking? Let's find a way. That is what I have been saying all along. I have been reading, yes, but praying harder. It's very clear to me that they belong. Hopefully others come to the same understanding.
ETA: Radcliffe is not a Bishop.
ETA2: Science is on going. Google is your friend.
Dude. The woman caught in adultery? "Go and sin no more" ring a bell? Cmon man. You're intentionally missing this. You're ignoring counterpoints. You, Pablo, are convinced of this truth and it's causing you to ignore the mountain of evidence to the contrary. You are actively hoping the Church finds a way to bless sin. Wake up, brother.
Everyone belongs in the Church, as you said. But everyone is also called to leave their sin behind. I personally have a lot of faith that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church and that you'll be left very disappointed. However, I think many in the synod will try to leave verbiage intentionally vague, allowing people to interpret how they want and potentially leading people to sin. Jesus has a lot to say about Christians leading people to sin, and none of it is good
Everyone belongs in the Church, as you said. But everyone is also called to leave their sin behind. I personally have a lot of faith that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church and that you'll be left very disappointed. However, I think many in the synod will try to leave verbiage intentionally vague, allowing people to interpret how they want and potentially leading people to sin. Jesus has a lot to say about Christians leading people to sin, and none of it is good
To the two bolded points....PabloSerna said:
This is where we are all over again. Stand back for a minute and ask yourself what are these people seeking? Let's find a way. That is what I have been saying all along. I have been reading, yes, but praying harder. It's very clear to me that they belong. Hopefully others come to the same understanding.
ETA: Radcliffe is not a Bishop.
ETA2: Science is on going. Google is your friend.
- Yes, all sinners belong. We're just asked to try to repent from our sins.
- Science will not change a truth taught in our theology. Sacred tradition is your friend also.
I am not judging you, nor any one person. I am judging a sin as a sin which you continue to talk around.PabloSerna said:
You know only what I have allowed you to know through my writing. There is so much more! But your take is telling, because you are quick to judge and this is par for the course by many on here. Maybe the words to "judge not" missed y'all? Chill, let's keep talking.
+++
I know many of you are well versed in scripture, however some are quick to seize on a take and run to judgement. Take the verse that Jesus was giving to the Apostles about not being able to bear at that time. Immediately, "well then what of the fullness of truth upon the death of the last apostle?" Do you think the early church could have dogmatically stated the truth about Our Lady the day after Pentecost? Do you think the early church had the cannon settled by the first century? We could go on. What is certain and this is what the point of Jesus' words were - the Holy Spirit will continue the work of Christ.
Yes, the early church could and did believe the truth about Our Blessed Mother. Our Mother was not disparaged against until over 16-17 centuries later which was when the dogmatic definitions needed to be clarified. They weren't revealing some new understanding, they were clarifying a known truth that over time was distorted.
Your take on the Cannon is interesting and a better example of the Holy Ghost revealing more truth to us. It has had minor changes, but nothing contradictory. That is the difference. God can not contradict himself.
Featured Stories
See All
Learned, Loved, Loathed: Auburn 43, Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Olin Buchanan
27:51
15h ago
6.7k
12 Key Statistics: Auburn 43, Texas A&M 41 (4OT)
by Luke Evangelist
'Thank yOU?' A&M's outlook unaffected by disappointment at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
12:07
14h ago
15k