Author Topic: Aboriginal Theology (Read 3255 times)

trickster · « **Reply #25 on:** August 13, 2014, 07:05:52 AM »

Quote from: poche

Quote from: trickster
Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey
When you start separating people by ethnic groups, it lacks the four marks
Of the Church which one, holy , Catholic, Apostolic.

I agree with you whole heartedly. Inculturation is not about separating people by ethnic groups in the church, creating Aboriginal, Celtic, women liturgies. Liturgy is the universal prayer of the church, but what Vatican II allowed is for cultural expression of the concepts outlined by the universal prayer (liturgy) of the church. That is all we are talking about

When I talk about aboriginal theology I am only talking about incorporating indigenous symbols, etc into the mass. That is no different than what the traditional church did at the time of the Romans, nor any different than when the church moved north into Europe incorporating European symbols into church design, or expressions of piety. All I am talking about is incorporating what is in my own culture to contribute towards the universal prayer of the church.

Inculturation is not about separation it is about creating a conversation between Holy Mother, the Church and indigenous communiites...thereby allowing our people to contribute to the universal church.

Bruce

Actually ther ewas inculturation long before Vatican II. pope Gregory's advice to St Augustine of Canturbury was about inculturation.

You are correct on that note. I pointed the example of Jacob's Ladder with the Coast Salish people, the Salinas Mission (New Mexico) and the work of the Oblates amongst our own people as pre-vatican II examples of inculturation.

bruce

trickster · « **Reply #26 on:** August 13, 2014, 07:19:06 AM »

Quote from: BTNYC

Quote from: trickster

When I talk about aboriginal theology I am only talking about incorporating indigenous symbols, etc into the mass.

Like what?

Feathers on the vestments?

Responding to "Pax Domini sit semper vobiscuм" by lighting up a peace pipe?

Dream Catcher over the Tabernacle?

Totem pole in the Sanctuary (or "communal table space" or whatever you modernists are wont to call it)?

Peddle the snake oil elsewhere. We're not buying.

Actually, my own statement above is wrong. It is a statement that I wrote in haste cause I am responding to many angles of this issue. Aboriginal theology is about a way of thinking and finding meaning in the mass (and Catholic life) that is based on the familiarity of one's own culture. There is nothing novus ordo about that. It does involve symbols as well, but that is only a minor and outward part of the articulation of an aboriginal theology.

I have been critical of vestments with aboriginal designs (or feathers) like I said in the video. Do you actually understand that totem poles are not spiritual in nature, they are recorded geneologies of a clan or family in a group, there area also morturary poles, welcome poles and other poles made for group sociological purposes, so the idea of "totem poles in the sanctuary would be an inconsistent gesture in native tradition". Dream catchers are a new artsy phenomenom. I don't remember them growing up, they developed in the 80s or 90s and are more art than anything else

In the course of becoming popular outside of the Ojibwa Nation, and then outside of the pan-Indian communities, various types of "dreamcatchers," many of which bear little resemblance to the traditional styles, are now made, exhibited, and sold by New age groups and individuals. According to Philip Jenkins, this is considered by many traditional Native peoples and their supporters to be an undesirable form of cultural appropriation.[8]

The official portrait of Ralph Klein, former Premier of the Canadian province of Alberta and whose wife Colleen Klein is Métis, incorporates a dreamcatcher.[9]

The idea of a dream catcher was used by Margaret Salinger, daughter of J. D. Salinger, in her book of memoirs about her father, Dream Catcher: A Memoir.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamcatcher

So dreamcatchers have a different purpose than what the mass would be about, so they wouldn't be included.

Is that making any sense? Inculturation is about symbols, for sure, as all art and architectural designs, statues, etc. in any western church are about symbols; more importantly aboriginal theology (with inculturation practices) would provide the basis for a culturally relevant framework in which to discuss catholic teaching...things like heaven and hell which must be read as two sides to the same coin, types and severity of sins, etc. I do mention in the video that we do have a sense of the evil one and we call him "niche manitou".

Hope that is helpful.

Bruce

trickster · « **Reply #27 on:** August 13, 2014, 07:24:12 AM »

Quote from: poche

Quote from: trickster
Nadir....what is it that Matthew Fox teaches is evil? How would you conclude that Matthew Fox is evil in himself and a servant of Lucifer. Those are pretty broad statements without substantitive examples or backgrounders.

How is drawing from the Hebrew notion of Original Blessing heretical when the centre of Augustine's point was not the notion of Original sin, but an explanation of why it is wise to baptize people as infants?

My Christianity is not based on the fear of hell but the love of Jesus, so I am open to your arguements but you need to make them and not just resort to tired rhetoric about condemnation.

If you are going to make points, then back them up...that is what I am interested in.

Bruce

The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faithful (then run by then Cardinal Ratzinger nos Pope emeritus Benedict) determined that what Matthew Fox teaches is inconsistent with what is taught by the Catholic Faith.

That is true. What Ratzinger found was inconsistent was Fox's heavy use of the "gaia" (female power) philosophies, the fact that his creation spirituality was too close to "indigenous paganism" and one other thing. There were about three areas that Ratzinger found to be inconsistent.

That is my understanding too... but to extend those inconsistencies to making Matthew Fox a direct servant of satan (and a person conscious of being a servant of Lucifer) is a stretch by anyone's imagination and goes back to our tendency when confronted with a different opinoin, to label and utilize the fear of the "other" as a form of criticism. Not particularly helpful in discussions that are aimed at increasing understanding.

bruce

trickster · « **Reply #28 on:** August 13, 2014, 07:31:43 AM »

Quote from: poche

Quote from: OHCA
Quote from: trickster

My Christianity is not based on the fear of hell...

. . .

Bruce

Of course not--hell isn't real. And if it is, only mean-ass traditionalists go there.

Alphonsus Ligouri said that Hell is popullated predominantly by people who did not believe in its existence.

Well of course I believe in hell. Hell is very real so you might have not read all of my postings on this subject I have said it a number of times to Traditional Catholics have this notion that all Novus Ordo people don't believe in hell, let's debunk that myth here and now.

Hell, as taught by the Catholic Church is the complete absence of God, what I have to focus on I think is the Dante visualization of hell as fire and brimstone. There are examples of fire as part of hell in scripture, but again most theologians and the church today believes that these are metaphors. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't.

However, why should I worry about something I don't know about, other than to believe it is possible to live the afterlife in the total absence of God, the source of my creation and existence? Even Jesus when he talked about the fires of hell, in Matthew it was within the context of not feeding hungry people, not caring for our fellow person (in otherwords not living according to the teachings of Jesus) that is the real reason to fear hell... so that is what I meant by my christianity not being based solely on hell (it is areality, it is afactor) but rather on living the values, principles and teachings of Our Lord in a manner that is not dogmatic but relational.

bruce

trickster · « **Reply #29 on:** August 13, 2014, 07:37:28 AM »

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: BTNYC
Quote from: trickster

My Christianity...

There's your problem right there...

That's the problem with many of the V-II children--they live in a subjective world with no absolutes, no truths or lies, no right or wrong. I fear many of them unfortunately won't know truth until they feel the eternal fire that they'll beg in vain to consume them.

That statement is quite rich in its stupidity OCHA. Christianity is also a relationship not a checklist of things you should do and not do during your life. That is a legalistic interpretation of the words and teachings of Jesus. Many of Jesus' parables were about exactly that. Sabbath being made for man and not man being mad for the sabbath; the differences between Martha and Mary; the Prodigal son story, etc. It is the spirit of the law that is as important as the words of the law; both must be honoured, and how it is honored depends upon relationship with Jesus. Who are we to judge?

It is scraping the bottom of the barrell here when the only criticism is one of grammar...I obviously don't believe that Chrisitianity is "mine". I was talking about "my" response to the call of Christianity...it is not driven on the fear of hell.

brue