Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: trickster on August 11, 2014, 08:07:44 PM
-
http://youtu.be/5d9b6G7d0f4
In this video I give a background on some issues regarding the need for an Aboriginal Theology in the work of mission or evangelization.
Bruce Ferguson
-
Bruce, I watched both of your videos.
I see you did a theology course in which you encountered, and apparently admired ,Matthew Fox.
I know of him from way back (1990's), but can't remember the specific details, but I know at that time I was repulsed by his theology.
Here is a blog which you might read. http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/05/matthew-fox-is-still-alive-and-is-still-an-idiot/
How is your prayer life? In what does it consist?
-
Bruce, I watched both of your videos.
I see you did a theology course in which you encountered, and apparently admired ,Matthew Fox.
I know of him from way back (1990's), but can't remember the specific details, but I know at that time I was repulsed by his theology.
Here is a blog which you might read. http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/05/matthew-fox-is-still-alive-and-is-still-an-idiot/
How is your prayer life? In what does it consist?
Hello Nadir. Yes, I read the article, but the article is not exactly accurate on all of its details (which does not take away from the central messaging of the article that Fox is not exactly orthodox). Fox did not get defrocked to start with, he simply quite before facing disciplinary measures and then he joined the Episcopalean church.
He contributed towards postmodern theology basically in two areas, Creation theology and the Cosmic mass. I think the man to be brilliant in many ways but I find him making proposals that would or probably could not be accepted within either the traditional or novus ordo Catholic orthodoxy.
What I meant by sensing he is at the cusp is that he has done a lot of work in describing how indigenous cultures have more of a holistic process in our worship; how one can use dancing as worship (movement which is in itself healing), how the Augustinian tradition of Original sin needs to be in conversation for the much older (by 800 years) Hebrew Tradition of Original blessing. Many of these ideas are integral to indigenous spirituality and hence a starting point for discussion in the area of my interest.
I did about five courses at the Vancouver School of Theology then i ran out of money (go figure), but the experience was rewarding and challenged my thinking to expand. In about three weeks I go back to do some studies in philosophy so I will be able to continue reading and writing about this stuff.
My prayer life is much like everyone else, morning prayer, pray before my meals, evening prayer and examination of conscience. I love the rosary and Eucharistic Adoration, and of course mass. That's about it.
Thanks for your thoughts and questions Nadir, hope to hear a lot from you when I start producing my papers.
Bruce
-
TROLL THREAD
Tricker is taking every opportunity to put forth his new-age religion--even worse than mainstream NO--probably even worse than most protestant heresies.
He has nothing to add to conversation among true Catholics, and is not the least bit interested in returning to the true Faith. I do pity him--he's about the age of my older sisters. To have been in Catholic school during V-II was quite possibly worse than to have been in the 80s as I was. I have heard my dad speak of the turmoil in the Church and Catholic school as V-II was in session and the years immediately following.
I wish Trickster was here to learn with an openness to returning to the true Faith that he was cheated out of by a bunch of modernist heretics. But it's quite clear to me that his agenda here is sprinkling and soaking us with new-age "theology."
-
TROLL THREAD
Tricker is taking every opportunity to put forth his new-age religion--even worse than mainstream NO--probably even worse than most protestant heresies.
He has nothing to add to conversation among true Catholics, and is not the least bit interested in returning to the true Faith. I do pity him--he's about the age of my older sisters. To have been in Catholic school during V-II was quite possibly worse than to have been in the 80s as I was. I have heard my dad speak of the turmoil in the Church and Catholic school as V-II was in session and the years immediately following.
I wish Trickster was here to learn with an openness to returning to the true Faith that he was cheated out of by a bunch of modernist heretics. But it's quite clear to me that his agenda here is sprinkling and soaking us with new-age "theology."
OCHA, how you came up with that conclusion based on the videos is beyond me. The only thing I can see is that you want to construct a troll arguement, that you really need to believe that I am a New Ager and you have created such an intrinsic logic about what can only be described as your desire to exclude.
What exactly is new age in the video's? I talked about my history, about what sparked my interests and that is an active involvement in native politics since 1979 and seeing that what is missing in the struggle is the radical inclusion of a spiritual dimension that can be offered by our faith. I talked about my learning experience, I do not close my minds to Traditional Catholics, nor progressive, postmodern Catholicism either, I listen to all as I learn from all.
Your opinion that I have nothing to offer to the conversation is quite yours to take, who knows though, I might surprise you. Going to Catholic School in the 60s was wonderful as I have talked about in many of my posts. Too bad many on CathInfo could not have experienced those changing times direcdtly.
In terms of sprinkling and soaking Cathinfo readers with new age theology says two things, you must be claravoyant to be able to make those statemetns about my motivation and secondly you underestimate the intelligence of your fellow CAthinfo readers.
ANyways, OCHA in the video I asked for criticism so I appreciate your words, but I would hope that you could name specifics in the video that back up your statemetns, otherwise we are at the labelling level and no authentic conversation. Is it that you want desperately paint me in negative terms because I don't fit your world view...
Why is it so important to you ...what is in your conscience ... to want me to be the new age troll that you have repeatedly said.
Anyways, look forward to your reflecdtions.#
Bruce
-
When you start separating people by ethnic groups, it lacks the four marks
Of the Church which one, holy , Catholic, Apostolic.
-
TROLL THREAD
Tricker is taking every opportunity to put forth his new-age religion--even worse than mainstream NO--probably even worse than most protestant heresies.
He has nothing to add to conversation among true Catholics, and is not the least bit interested in returning to the true Faith. I do pity him--he's about the age of my older sisters. To have been in Catholic school during V-II was quite possibly worse than to have been in the 80s as I was. I have heard my dad speak of the turmoil in the Church and Catholic school as V-II was in session and the years immediately following.
I wish Trickster was here to learn with an openness to returning to the true Faith that he was cheated out of by a bunch of modernist heretics. But it's quite clear to me that his agenda here is sprinkling and soaking us with new-age "theology."
OCHA, how you came up with that conclusion based on the videos is beyond me. The only thing I can see is that you want to construct a troll arguement, that you really need to believe that I am a New Ager and you have created such an intrinsic logic about what can only be described as your desire to exclude.
What exactly is new age in the video's? I talked about my history, about what sparked my interests and that is an active involvement in native politics since 1979 and seeing that what is missing in the struggle is the radical inclusion of a spiritual dimension that can be offered by our faith. I talked about my learning experience, I do not close my minds to Traditional Catholics, nor progressive, postmodern Catholicism either, I listen to all as I learn from all.
Your opinion that I have nothing to offer to the conversation is quite yours to take, who knows though, I might surprise you. Going to Catholic School in the 60s was wonderful as I have talked about in many of my posts. Too bad many on CathInfo could not have experienced those changing times direcdtly.
In terms of sprinkling and soaking Cathinfo readers with new age theology says two things, you must be claravoyant to be able to make those statemetns about my motivation and secondly you underestimate the intelligence of your fellow CAthinfo readers.
ANyways, OCHA in the video I asked for criticism so I appreciate your words, but I would hope that you could name specifics in the video that back up your statemetns, otherwise we are at the labelling level and no authentic conversation. Is it that you want desperately paint me in negative terms because I don't fit your world view...
Why is it so important to you ...what is in your conscience ... to want me to be the new age troll that you have repeatedly said.
Anyways, look forward to your reflecdtions.#
Bruce
I didn't watch the video. I read your reply to Nadir--your fascination/admiration of Matthew Fox; creation/eco theology; cosmic/dancing/paganistic "masses;" and you seem very much into blending aboriginal spirituality with Catholicism. You know, I believe native Caribbean spirituality has already been blended quite well with Catholicism--it's called VooDoo.
Anyway, you're inundating the forum with your new-agisms.
And you think your "experienc[ing] those changing times directly" is enviable?? I am very pleased to not have lived through the 60s. You want to know what happened in my home parish in the 1960s--the priest ran off and married a woman who was about to become a nun. And I doubt you find anything wrong with that. But true Catholics are scandalized by such craziness.
No--I don't mind that I missed experiencing the changes directly. I'd probably be as f'd up as you and my sisters if I had. Though y'all's non-"beliefs" frustrate the hell out of me--I would prefer the council "fathers," and the bogus popes and bogus "saint" (I'm going to puke) popes find the fire a billion times hotter than they probably have and the children of the 60s be spared--that would seem more just to me. But I claim not to know the mind of the Lord.
-
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
-
I'll get back to you OCHA, I have to run for now...and get some tasks done...talk to you later.
Bruce
-
At least this thread now has an official graphic:
-
Yes, I read the article, but the article is not exactly accurate on all of its details (which does not take away from the central messaging of the article that Fox is not exactly orthodox). Fox did not get defrocked to start with, he simply quite before facing disciplinary measures and then he joined the Episcopalean church.
Fox's defrocking is neither here nor there. It is not the point of the article. The article shows that Matthew Fox is without doubt an evil man (not an idiot as FrZ imputes) and that, unless he repents and makes reparation for his evil ways, he is on the path to Hell and taking others (you?) along with him.
I think the man to be brilliant in many ways but I find him making proposals that would or probably could not be accepted within either the traditional or novus ordo Catholic orthodoxy.
Lucifer too is brilliant. More brilliant than his slave, Matthew Fox, and more brilliant than any of us here. So what? Brilliance will not keep us out of Hell. Adhering to the Catholic Faith and doing God's Will does earn our eternal salvation.
What I meant by sensing he is at the cusp is that he has done a lot of work in describing .... how the Augustinian tradition of Original sin needs to be in conversation for the much older (by 800 years) Hebrew Tradition of Original blessing. Many of these ideas are integral to indigenous spirituality and hence a starting point for discussion in the area of my interest.
How can untruth be the starting point of anything that is valuable? The man is a liar and his master is a liar.
I did about five courses at the Vancouver School of Theology then i ran out of money (go figure), but the experience was rewarding and challenged my thinking to expand. In about three weeks I go back to do some studies in philosophy so I will be able to continue reading and writing about this stuff.
You'd be better off studying the Church Fathers, the New Testament and the lives and writings of the (pre-vat) Saints.
My prayer life is much like everyone else, morning prayer, pray before my meals, evening prayer and examination of conscience. I love the rosary and Eucharistic Adoration, and of course mass. That's about it.
So when you examine your conscience, does it not occur to you that you are putting your eternal salvation at risk by playing with the dark forces that Matthew Fox worships?
Viva Christo Rey has given you some wise words. Get back to wearing the Brown Scapular and become consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
I am praying for you.
-
At least this thread now has an official graphic:
Why! I do believe that this is Galarrwuy Yunupingu. Nice chap, but what is his connection with St Thomas Aquinas?
-
Hi Matthew, I love the jpeg you downloaded, where did you get it?
Bruce
-
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
-
We as Catholics dread the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell.
But most of all because our sins offend God who art good and deserving of all of our love.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
. . .
Bruce
So you don't see anything evil about a baptized Catholic, purportedly ordained Catholic priest, leaving the Church and the Catholic priesthood, and going to the heretical Anglican Church?
And you don't see anything evil about said baptized Catholic professing un-Catholic ideas--worshipping earth; referring to God in the feminine; and his cosmic/eco "masses?" Ideas that are pagan and not even heretical notions of Christianity?
Matthew,
Please tell me that you see through the "I'm here to learn" ruse and recognize that the Tricker is here to proselytize for pagan voodoo new-agism.
-
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
Somehow I thought that reading the link I posted would have clarified what is wrong with that Fox. So here goes:
Fox advocates goddess worship.
Fox advocates the mysticism and spirituality of Earth worship.
Fox denies the doctrine of original sin.
His "Techno Cosmic Mass" is a blasphemy.
He insults Jesus and His Blessed Mother.
There’s more of course but that is enough…
Now it is not as though Fox is ignorant (Fr Z calls him and idiot and a nut case - I don't agree - he knows he is doing evil and is unrepentent) and therefore to be excused on those grounds. He was a Dominican for 34 years, so he has no excuse. He made a vow of obedience but when he was called to account for his heresies he refused to answer for them.
He left the Catholic Church 20 years ago, not that he was a Catholic, of course. He just saw the writing on the wall and went to other pastures (and another market place) where he could keep spreading his falsehoods, knowing of course that some “Catholics” would follow him, and keep buying his books and attending his workshops and swallow his folly.
I hope that helps to answer your question, Bruce.
-
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.
-
My Christianity...
There's your problem right there...
-
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.
-
If we are goin gto talk about aboriginal theology this is where I think we should begin.
When Hernán Cortés (1485-1557) arrived in Mexico, he was both destined and determined to change its history forever. After the Aztec polity crumbled before the forces of its Mexican enemies, united and energized by Cortés' far fewer troops, a Spanish polity arose to fill the vacuum left by the Aztec collapse. Spanish Catholicism had become the official religion, and the "old gods" were quickly reduced to historical curiosities.
A Mexican convert named Cuauhtlatoa ("Eagle Speaks") was baptized in 1525, a scant six years after the first arrival of Cortés on the Veracruz coast. He was given the baptismal name Juan Diego and is today known as St. Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin. Six years later, on December 9, 1531, according to tradition, Juan Diego was passing over the hill of Tepeyac ("Nose of the Hill") when he witnessed an apparition of the Virgin, who asked him to have a shrine built for her on that site.
She appeared to him as a young, Nahuatl-speaking Mexican, although the name Guadalupe is associated with the Spanish town of that name.
The hill of Tepeyac is said to have been a sacred place of long standing, the seat of the cult of an obscure goddess known as "Our Beloved Mother" (Tonantzin), whose name, after the Spanish Conquest, became confusingly suggestive of the veneration of the Virgin Mary of Catholicism. (The Italian historian Lorenzo Boturini visited the site in 1740 and was able to copy a petroglyph of Tonantzin still extent at the foot of the hill.)
The account of Juan Diego and his efforts to carry out the apparition's wishes to build a shrine on the hill is known as the "Nican Mopohua" ("Thus It Is Said"), after its opening words, and it has been understood for centuries to be the definitive account of what happened.
The veneration of the Virgin of Guadalupe spread extremely rapidly, and has been major feature of Mexican civilization for the last four and a half centuries (about twice as long as the Aztec régime ruled the land). Skeptics doubt both the apparition and the docuмentation which purports to authenticate it, but faith in the Guadalupe shrine and its associated symbols is nearly universal in Mexico to this day. For this reason, the Nican Mopohua, as the cornerstone docuмent, may reasonably be called the most important docuмent ever produced in Nahuatl.
The Text of the Nican Mopohua
Nobody knows who composed it, although the most commonly proposed author is Antonio Valeriano (1531?-1605), who is widely thought to have put it together about 1560 or so (about thirty years after the events) from stories circulating at that time. (Some sources place Valeriano's birth, at Azcapotzalco, as early as 1520, hence just before the fall of Tenochtitlan.) Manuel Robledo Gutiérrez (Nican Mopohua, privately published, Mexico City, 1978, p. 5) recounts that at Valeriano's death the original MS was passed to the famous Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl (1568?-1648), historian, governor of Texcoco, and later of Tlalmanalco and descendant of the royal house of Texcoco.
From him, the MS was willed to a learned Jesuit, from whom it made its way over the years to the library of the Real Universidad de México, which suffered a destructive fire in 1792 and a sacking by American forces in 1847, who removed some 28 remaining volumes of Jesuit records. Robledo opines that the original text, not actually seen since the 1700s, if then, may now be in some unknown war archive of the Department of State.
The earliest printed edition now known dates from 1649, about ninety years after the work was composed.
There are countless Nahuatl transcriptions of this text, as well as Spanish and English translations, often anonymous. The texts given here were anonymously offered on various internet sites but correspond also with published pamphlets available in Mexico (including that of Manuel Robledo Gutiérrez, cited above). The spelling is slightly modernized. The present text (line 40) speaks of Bishop Juan de Zumárraga, for example, whose name is spelled Iuan de Sumarraga in the 1649 printing. The 1649 volume uses the letter Ç where modern texts use Z. And so on. And some clear misprints in the 1649 printing are corrected in modern texts.
For the present presentation, I have corrected new errors in the Nahuatl text, apparently introduced by electronic scanning, referring for that purpose to several different printed versions. I missed a few, and added a few new ones, I fear. Special thanks to Stephen Menn for his eagle-eyed attention and his kindness in getting back to me when he discovered problems.
I have also freely modified the anonymous English translation in places where it seemed untrue to the original text. I have usually let stand sequence-of-tense errors that reflect abrupt tense shifts in the Nahuatl original. Unfortunately, my knowledge of Nahuatl is insufficient for me to appreciate whether the flow of verb forms here is clumsy in Nahuatl or not. Obviously, overly precise translation makes clumsy English, but if one's interest is language, it can help to show the structure of the original text.
have added chapter divisions to facilitate keeping your place in the text, and I have put the chapters on separate pages to avoid excessive file length. In a few notes I have included marking for long vowels. In those cases, the macrons normally used to indicate long vowels in Nahuatl (ā, ē ī and ō) are replaced with umlauts (ä, ë, ï, and ö) to agree with the usage in the on-line Nahuatl lessons and reference grammar.
A more graceful translation by Father Real Bourque, with the same section numbering, is available on the Internet. (Click here.)
The Language of the Nican Mopohua
Vocative Forms. Linguistically you will notice the "vocative" form used frequently in this text. It ends in E and is the only form in Nahuatl which shifts the stress to the final syllable: Nopiltzé = "My child!" In modern Nahuatl this shift in stress is always shown with an accent mark on the final E. (A whole series of these occurs in line 024.)
Apposition. You will also notice extremely frequent use of apposition, beginning with the opening words, "here it is told, set down, …." This was common in very formal narrative, and was apparently considered extremely eloquent in Nahuatl, tedious though it rapidly becomes in English. If the writer was someone for whom Nahuatl was a second language (such as a Spanish priest), one can imagine that he tended to overuse this device hoping to convey an appropriately elevated tone.
Reverential Verbs. You will also find here, as in other formal texts, frequent use of "reverential" verbs, which needlessly apply an applicative or causative ending and then cancel it with a reflexive prefix, thereby lengthening the word while leaving the direct meaning unchanged. The effect was more syllables and greater formality. (There are examples in line 022.)
A verb you will find repeatedly here is nequi Vt2 = to desire.
•Nequi is used as a free-standing verb followed by a desired object.
•It can also be followed by a verb in the future tense and is then translated as "want to": ni.c.nequi ni.qu.itta.z = I want to see him.
•Nequi can also be used as a reflexive, meaning "it is necessary": mo.nequi ni.qu.itta.z = it is necessary that I see him. (And naturally it can be used in a reverential form with a causative or applicative ending negated by a reflexive pronoun prefix: ni.qui.no.tt.ili.z.nequi = I want to see him.)
•But nequi can also be suffixed to another word. Suffixed to the future form of a verb it means "to want to" plus the verb: Ni.qu.itta.z.nequi = I want to see him.
•Suffixed to a transitive verb it can also mean "to want somebody else to" plus the verb.
•Suffixed to a noun it means "to want to be a" plus the noun.
In the present text, the Virgin wants a chapel built for her, and both she and Juan Diego make frequent use of nequi in discussing it.
The Diminutive/Reverential Suffix -Tzin. A challenge for the English translator is the suffix -tzin, heavily used in this text. On the one hand, it is a diminutive, used for children and pets. On the other hand it is reverential, used for lords and gods. And sometimes it seems to be thrown in merely to show that the situation, the audience, or the text itself is classy or much loved or both.
It is inaccurate to equate -tzin routinely with the Spanish diminutive, which is more limited in scope, although probably somewhat expanded in Colonial Mexico under the influence of Nahuatl usage. (Mexicans even today are sometimes mocked by other Spanish speakers for their "excessive" use of diminutive forms.) But it is even less reasonable to equate -tzin to any standard English usage.
To my ear, the best default "translation formula" for -tzin is probably "beloved," since that was formerly used in English for everyone from children to monarchs, although it is now quaintly dated in virtually all contexts. Quaint or not, it beats calling the Virgin a "little girl" to her face! Many of the changes I have made in the anonymous English translation have attempted to "fix" translations of -tzin that struck me as mischievous.
http://pages.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/nahuatl/nican/NicanMopohua.html
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Thank you Poche. Wow, linguistics is a very good place to start I can agree with that. Language, as a human construct, is very important. Once I googled the Nahuatl language it came up in the context of the Mexica Movement, which I became familar with when I lived in El Paso, where the majority of people are Latino or Mexican. I also met a number of Pueblo, Apache and other tribal groups that lived in the area.
I didn't realize that they had a similar movement to our aboriginal movement in Canada, so that I found to be very encouraging.
http://www.mexica-movement.org/timexihcah/nahuatl.htm
Like I pointed out to another poster, we need to understand the cultural significance of things like the Dream Catcher, the totem pole and so forth to understand how those items relate to a selection of appropriate cutlural expression of the liturgy.
Language, you are correct, is key. Many of the early interpretations of missionaries both in Mexico and North America were based on second language capacity of the interpreter or missionary, and these people did not always get it right. Wrong messaging went back to Rome so many times. The Jesuit Relations to a degree were funding propaganda to keep the mission dollars coming. It is like the modern day commercials emphasising all the bad things as a case for funding.
I agree with you Poche that linguistics is a very strong component of developing aboriginal theology, in fact it maybe a cornerstone need for the development of an authentic understanding.
Bruce
-
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
Somehow I thought that reading the link I posted would have clarified what is wrong with that Fox. So here goes:
Fox advocates goddess worship.
Fox advocates the mysticism and spirituality of Earth worship.
Fox denies the doctrine of original sin.
His "Techno Cosmic Mass" is a blasphemy.
He insults Jesus and His Blessed Mother.
There’s more of course but that is enough…
Now it is not as though Fox is ignorant (Fr Z calls him and idiot and a nut case - I don't agree - he knows he is doing evil and is unrepentent) and therefore to be excused on those grounds. He was a Dominican for 34 years, so he has no excuse. He made a vow of obedience but when he was called to account for his heresies he refused to answer for them.
He left the Catholic Church 20 years ago, not that he was a Catholic, of course. He just saw the writing on the wall and went to other pastures (and another market place) where he could keep spreading his falsehoods, knowing of course that some “Catholics” would follow him, and keep buying his books and attending his workshops and swallow his folly.
I hope that helps to answer your question, Bruce.
I thought I'd repost this as you seemed to miss it.
I have a healthy respect for the notion of hell, but it doesn't rule my life. Jesus Christ rules my life. If you love truly love Him you will be rightly indignant by attacks on Him, particularly by people who spend a lifetime concentrating their efforts on undermining His Teachings. You take all with a grain of salt and a pinch of approval. Fox is brilliant!
It is not me who can damn him. He will damn himself unless he repents.
You say you believe in Hell but you are imply is that nobody goes there, not even this reprobate.
Here is some of that "tired rhetoric about condemnation" that you insinuate I am making. I guess you wil say that this is just symbolic:
Matthew 25:41
Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7cylfQtkDg
Here is a video that gives an overview of aboriginal theology/philosophy which is representative of many North American Indigenous nations. I think it addresses two things at least (1) it distinguishes what indigenous people believe in relation to paganism (animal and nature worship) and (2) the world view of indigenous communities is not that far from the world view of the Catholic Church via its teachings.
I'd be interested in people's reaction to it. There are specific statements made in the video. If you want to comment then quote or highlight the part of the video you are talking about so that I can respond, or think through with you.
Bruce Ferguson
-
Thank you Poche. Wow, linguistics is a very good place to start I can agree with that. Language, as a human construct, is very important. Once I googled the Nahuatl language it came up in the context of the Mexica Movement, which I became familar with when I lived in El Paso, where the majority of people are Latino or Mexican. I also met a number of Pueblo, Apache and other tribal groups that lived in the area.
I didn't realize that they had a similar movement to our aboriginal movement in Canada, so that I found to be very encouraging.
http://www.mexica-movement.org/timexihcah/nahuatl.htm
Like I pointed out to another poster, we need to understand the cultural significance of things like the Dream Catcher, the totem pole and so forth to understand how those items relate to a selection of appropriate cutlural expression of the liturgy.
Language, you are correct, is key. Many of the early interpretations of missionaries both in Mexico and North America were based on second language capacity of the interpreter or missionary, and these people did not always get it right. Wrong messaging went back to Rome so many times. The Jesuit Relations to a degree were funding propaganda to keep the mission dollars coming. It is like the modern day commercials emphasising all the bad things as a case for funding.
I agree with you Poche that linguistics is a very strong component of developing aboriginal theology, in fact it maybe a cornerstone need for the development of an authentic understanding.
Bruce
Actually the fact that the story is in Nahuatl is only part of teh story. The Nican Mopohua describes the intervention of the Blessed Virgin into the lives of the indigenous people thatn inspired them to become Catholic.