Posted by j.b. ortho-doxology on September 25, 19100 at 08:13:34:
In Reply to: Ways of Perfection: Ignatius, Pantheism, etc posted by johnboy on September 24, 19100 at 10:27:54:
:I don't think you give yourself or humans beings, in general, enough credit in this post. We have such a goodness within us, john. It's so hard to focus on it with the news media and people like Augustine. Look at Eckhart!
Let me extend an invitation to a new hermeneutic when reading my treatments of these moral/spiritual considerations. One of the seemingly minor, but truely major, themes running through the discussions is optimism/pessimism. So, how DO we square Julian's hymn that all may be well, the utmost mystical utterance of cosmic optimism, with the orthodox tradition which treats the human condition, well, admittedly, sometimes with seeming pessimism?
The hermeneutic that I invite for best grasping my perspective is that of distinguishing between probability statements and possibility statements. I am profoundly optimistic (as my writings reveal) regarding matters dealing with sin, freedom, love and heaven/hell/purgatory. I state, again and again, that judgement is God's alone and that, venturing forth with my best guess, most inefficacious human behavior results from hampered freedom, freedom impaired in varying degrees through illness, poor formation, etc Still, because I categorically reject pantheistic interpretations, except when they are nuanced panentheistically (making radical ontological distinctions between immanent and transcendent being/Being), I leave open the theoretical possibilities of sin and of hell, again to emphasize the most radical gift of FREEDOM which is INTEGRAL for authentic loving responses. Pantheistic paradigms are, in fact, much more pessimistic in their treatment of human love which by monistic design renders same, in a word, robotic. Neither the Church nor I is engaged in moral judgements of any one, individually, but we emphatically set forth moral guidelines and spiritual guideposts, prescriptively and proscriptively, because however improbable, rejection of God remains possible. It is a VERY serious matter, therefore, inviting sober reflection and circumspect consideration. Once acknowledging that failure to cooperate with grace is possible, that sin is possible, that rejection of love is possible, even for ONE soul in all of eternity, we can not but help form people in a manner that sets forth this truth. I believe the proper amelioration of past moral theological shortcomings moreso requires a change in *emphasis* (as I have set forth elsewhere) and not a complete evisceration of the time-honored tradition and exegesis of Scripture in community as regards sin and morals. So, we pary in earnest: "Lead ALL souls to heaven, ESPECIALLY those in MOST NEED of Thy mercy." And we pray this even if it were one soul, Hitler's. I am as optimistic as one can be about how efficacious God's saving grace is and find it an equally awesome and terrifying thought that God loves us so much that we've been gifted with the freedom to say: "No, thanks." Maybe it is a profoundly pessimistic view of humanity that pantheism has in setting forth the notion that everything is just a mistake, just an error, just ignorance, and thus, accordingly, we so very rarely enjoy authentic freedom as humans? THAT position is what gives humans TOO LITTLE credit!
Okay, so I got ontological. It is at the crux of the consideration though and pantheism can not be reconciled in its unalloyed form with orthodox Christianity, much less Catholicism. For gosh sakes, most people's personal experience is that they are free and they do misuse that freedom at all stages of development. I truly believe that a unitive mystical state gives insight into our participation in the Deity "immanently" but that it is an impoverished spirituality that therefore throws out the intuitions that come from transcendent experiences of others/Other. It better holds together if we nurture both without either negating the other. The unitive is a view and not THE view. So, this again, may be one of those okay impasses and the dialogue can ensue charitably. It is one that is taking place globally and through the centuries. That's why I sense such a reinventing of the wheel and a revisting of heresies as old as Origen. But ALL will be well. Tony deMello was radically apophatic in later years but that doesn't mean I don't feel his laughter at us even now!
shalom and namaste,
jb