About Brennan Manning and the Ragamuffin Gospel

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Hello again everyone. I have a question... Does anyone know about Brennan Manning. Multnomah Publishing and the Ragamuffin Gospel? A potential RCIA student asked me about this. Thank You, Pamela

-- Pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), January 09, 2002

Answers

Jmj

Hello, Pamela.

Ordinarily, I would not pay much attention to statements made by an Evangelical group that exists solely to try to lure Catholics away from the Church ... and I might consider their negative reaction to a Catholic writer as a sign that he is decent and reliable. However, in this case, I could not help thinking that just such an Evangelical group may have done you a favor by stating the following about Brennan Manning:

"Consider Brennan Manning, an inactive Roman Catholic priest ... In the last ten years, he has become a popular speaker in many 'evangelical' churches. Manning was ordained to the Franciscan priesthood after graduating from St. Francis Seminary in 1963. Later he was theology instructor at the University of Steubenville (a Catholic seminary ...). After being treated for alcoholism and leaving the Franciscan Order in 1982, he married Roslyn Ann Walker. The marriage has since ended in divorce, but his popularity as a writer and speaker continues to grow despite his proclamation of 'another' gospel. The teachings of Manning are charming, seductive, cunning, and dangerous as he takes advantage of his undiscerning audiences. He teaches that you can overcome fear, guilt, and psychological hang-ups, even alcoholism, through meditation. His meditation techniques are drawn from a mixture of Eastern mysticism, psychology, the New Age Movement, and Catholicism. Manning gives the impression that he has a very intimate relationship with God and reports having many visions, encounters and conversations with Him. He assures his audiences that if they apply his teachings, they too can become more intimate with God."

If the above summary is accurate (and I will attempt to verify it), I would recommend that Catholics steer clear of this gentleman and his book.
God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 10, 2002.


Hello again, Pamela.

I'm afraid that I must add more bad news on this topic.

I ran an Internet search on "manning" coupled with "ragamuffin gospel." There were over 500 "hits." In the first 200, I could not identify a single orthodox Catholic bookdealer handling the book, and I could not even identify a single orthodox Catholic Internet site commenting on it (pro or con). It is as though Manning tried to promote his work only in evangelical circles.

The excerpt quoted in my first message was from an outfit called "Reaching Catholics for Christ." And now, something that I just found to accompany it:

n 1992, a Jackie Alnor reviewed "The Ragamuffin Gospel" for "The Christian Sentinel." Here are some of the things she noted:

The book "promotes the heresy of license. ... Manning's view of the gospel is devoid of the teaching of sanctification, whereby a believer is conformed into the image of Christ, turning from sin to serve the Savior. Manning excuses sin as human weakness that his gospel of love will cover regardless of whether the sinner is repentant or not. He attempts to demonstrate from the Bible that Jesus was not concerned about sin. Referring to the woman caught in adultery on page 173, he writes, 'He [Jesus] didn't seem too concerned that she might dash back into the arms of her lover.' Yet we know from scripture that Jesus told her to go and sin no more. ...

"Manning's hall of fame on page 29 includes, 'the prostitute from the Kit-Kat Ranch in Carson City, Nevada, who tearfully told me she could find no other employment to support her two-year-old son;' 'the woman who had an abortion but did the best she could faced with grueling alternatives;' and 'the sexually abused teen molested by his father and now selling his body on the street, who, as he falls asleep each night after his last "trick," whispers the name of the unknown God.' In each case Manning justifies the sin and does not require the turning away from it. ...

"Manning needs to balance his teaching on the love of God with God's justice and holiness. He lambastes the church for speaking out against sin in our world ... He takes special issue with the church's stand on homosexuality and alcohol consumption. ...

"Manning's inspiration ... is clearly seen by the experts he cites. These include humanist philosophers [and] heretics ... He also appeals to Zen philosophy ... These he attempts to harmonize with the Bible, but they just don't mesh. His teaching on meditation cannot be distinguished from the Eastern/New Age style of mind emptying. He instructs the readers to repeat an eight-word mantra for 10 minutes ...

"On page 46 he gives a detailed account of how he learned to masturbate. Elsewhere he uses a lot of vulgarity to get his point across."


God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 10, 2002.


dear friends,
I had never heard of this person. But I've met similar priests. Just coincidentally, they were young priests, in the 1960s.

''Manning was ordained to the Franciscan priesthood after graduating from St. Francis Seminary in 1963. Later he was theology instructor at the University of Steubenville (a Catholic seminary ...'')

It seems apparent that many false vocations have come out of the 60's; and not all with a pederast slant to them.

Manning is a man who can call himself ''normal'', in a sexual way. But he can't call himself a normal Catholic. Not as things stand. What made him think he had a vocation to holy orders in 1963, if he's failed to take his vows seriously? And a theology teacher, at that! There are many other things to blame for today's ''shortage'' of vocations. That's likely because God must do the actual ''calling'', and He only calls the priest from among his HOLY people. Not rank-and-file Catholics, who choose the priesthood for a career; much less militant feminists. A pederast is feeding his vice surrepticiously. An opportunist his ambitions, and most women their demands for ''equality'' at all costs. But they aren't being summoned to the priesthood by God. Common sense doesn't allow for that possibility.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 10, 2002.


I am a former catholic. I have read the Ragamuffin Gospel and have to believe that only those who have something to hide or an agenda to protect would speak out against a work that does nothing more than present the pure and unadultrated Gospel of Christ. To love unconditionally, to love the unlovely; these are the worthiest pursuits taught to us by Christ. Read it. The bible teaches that the Holy Spirit bears witness of the truth. In Christ, PY

-- Ponce Yanez (pryanez@hotmail.com), March 12, 2002.

Hello, Ponce.
You stated that the the book (Ragamuffin Gospel) "does nothing more than present the pure and unadulterated Gospel of Christ."

However, my friend, for you to have become a "former Catholic," you must have been (and continue to be) unaware of what is "the pure and unadulterated Gospel of Christ."
Therefore I regret that I cannot accept your comments.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 12, 2002.



John, you said in your response:

He teaches that you can overcome fear, guilt, and psychological hang-ups, even alcoholism, through meditation.

May I ask what, per se, is wrong with that, in and of itself? I ask because I have often heard (as many of us probably have) "God gave you a brain, USE it!" Meditation, self-hypnosis, Lamaze breathing during childbirth are all ways to use the brain, to change behavior, lessen pain perceptions and so forth.

To me it is similar to religious arguments made to teens to abstain from sex until marriage--some of them "just won't get" that part, but they just might abstain when you throw out the cold hard facts of pregnancy and how it can cramp your lifestyle, 18 years of mandatory child support, AIDS and all the other STDs out there, and they think it through (and then thank God (years later) that they did have a brain to think it through with).

From what I've read here he doesn't seem very credible over all, but that doesn't mean that all he has to say is wrong.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 13, 2002.


John,

I am not asking anyone to accept "my" statements. I believe I said that the Ragamuffin Gospel simply presents Jesus teaching, "To love unconditionally, to love the unlovely; these are the worthiest pursuits taught to us by Christ." (my quotes regarding the previous posting). My point is that no man-made organization is above reproach. Even given that the church was initially commissioned by Our Lord, the influence of man and his rules and catechisms have created pervers organizations that have long since lost sight of Jesus' exhortation that we emulate God's character and strive to "be ye therefore perfect..." What Manning teaches, and I agree with, is that ALL churches have lost their way. It is the Gospel, the good news of salvation by grace, that is the hope of man. I don't care what you call yourself. Catholic, Luthern, Charismatic... doesn't matter. It is Christ alone who has the power to forgive sin and impart eternal life to the lamentable creatures God continues to love. There is no salvation is councils and rituals. This is the essnce of the Ragamuffin Gospel. It is just a re-stating of what Jesus has given us. The lady asked a question and I thought it fair that she get more than one view. Respectfully, Ponce

-- Ponce Yanez (pryanez@hotmail.com), March 14, 2002.


Jmj

Hi, GT.
Let me start with your final comment and then back up.

You stated: "From what I've read here he doesn't seem very credible over all, but that doesn't mean that all he has to say is wrong."
I agree with you. I don't think that I (or anyone else) said that all that this author "has to say is wrong." However, he is wrong about several things -- including some very serious matters -- rendering him unworthy of being read by a serious Christian. The old computer-world expression (fitting by analogy here) is, "Garbage in, garbage out." We must not read things that can lead us into sin or heresy.

Now, GT, you objected to something that you mistakenly thought I had written. And you also took the quotation out of context, causing a misunderstanding on your part. Let me explain. You wrote:
"John, you said in your response: 'He teaches that you can overcome fear, guilt, and psychological hang-ups, even alcoholism, through meditation.' May I ask what, per se, is wrong with that, in and of itself?"

GT, I'd ask you to go back up and take another look at that post of mine. You'll see that the words you quoted were not words that I myself wrote. Rather they were words that I copied from a non-Catholic Christian commentary on the author and his book. Now take a look (just above) at what I quoted from your new message.

My answer to your closing question is that I did not say that there is anything wrong, per se, with trying to improve yourself or your health through meditation. Instead, the key is in the next sentence written by the Christian commentator: "His meditation techniques are drawn from a mixture of Eastern mysticism, psychology, the New Age Movement, and Catholicism."

GT, I join this commentator in rejecting (as our Church teaches us to reject) "meditation techniques ... drawn from ... Eastern mysticism ... [and] the New Age Movement". The safe forms of meditation for Christians are the Christian kinds -- such as meditative reflection on the mysteries of the rosary, on the attributes of Jesus, on the virtues of Mary, on the words of the Lord's Prayer, on the words of the "Jesus prayer," and things of this nature. [GT, you separated the commentator's first sentence about meditation from the vital second sentence. That's why I mentioned earlier that you took something out of context.]

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 14, 2002.


Jmj

Hello again, Ponce.

You wrote: "My point is that no man-made organization is above reproach. Even given that the church was initially commissioned by Our Lord, the influence of man and his rules and catechisms have created perverse organizations that have long since lost sight of Jesus' exhortation that we emulate God's character and strive to 'be ye therefore perfect...' What Manning teaches, and I agree with, is that ALL churches have lost their way."

Ponce, you couldn't be more mistaken. I am sad that you have fallen away from the Catholic Church (which was either your own church or that of your recent ancestors), the only Church that Jesus established, and joined what is an error-filled, man-made organization instead (even if you may be the only member).

1. The Catholic Church is not a "man-made organization," but rather a "God-Man-made family," formed by Jesus (God-Man) himself.
2. The Catholic Church was not "initially commissioned by Our Lord," but rather perpetually commissioned by him. He made it infallible (incapable of teaching error) and indefectible (incapable of dying out), because her "soul" is the Holy Spirit of God himself.
3. No "man" nor "rule" nor "catechism" could ever make a "perverse organization" out of the Catholic Church, which is metaphorically called both the Body of Christ and also his spotless bride.
4. I have no idea who your "Manning" is, but (as a fallible unknown) I grant no value to his false statement that "all churches have lost their way." The Catholic Church is incapable of losing her way, because the Holy Spirit is always standing beside Peter, helping him steer the bark.

You stated: "There is no salvation is councils and rituals."
No point in your mentioning this, Ponce, since no Catholic has ever said that there is salvation in councils and rituals.

You concluded by saying: "The lady asked a question and I thought it fair that she get more than one view."
You were mistaken in thinking that your view was sought. This is a Catholic forum, and the woman who asked about this book is Catholic. She wanted to know the Catholic perspective on the book and author. She did not need praise of a bad book from someone like you, who bashes Catholicism.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 14, 2002.


Easy there, John. I apologize for interjecting my non-catholic opinion in your forum, but only because it has caused the aggitation it has obviously cause in you. Take comfort in knowing that this is my last post here. However, my email address is listed here and I would welcome further dialog with you. I wish I knew more people who has as much fervor for the gospel as you have for the Catholic Church. In my mind and in my heart, the only thing that matters is that Jesus is Lord. I don't care what anyone wants to call themselves. We are all beggars, scalawags, and ragamuffins who have inherited salvation by the unmeritted grace of God, through the miracle of the attonement and Jesus' resurrection, and free gift of eternal life. My only real point is that I have read the Ragamuffin Gospel and can attest that there is nothing "new age" or blasphemous about it. That's all. So peace, John. Debate is just an academic exercise anyway. On that great and terrible Day of the Lord, all of us will see God's truth revealed and our righteous faith or our error will be all too clear. In His Grip, Ponce

-- Ponce Yanez (pryanez@hotmail.com), March 15, 2002.


John, I humbly apologize for attributing the quote to you, I should have paid more attention when I was reading!

I did not include the second line following it, because I really do not agree with it. One can "practice" meditation, etc., without "believing" in the underlying rationale for it. Yoga is beneficial without practicing the religious portion, as are any of the martial arts, for example. (Incidentally, there was a court case a few months back where a judge (US) rejected a suit by the parents of boys in a Judo (I think) tourney where it is a requirement that they bow to a picture of the founder (of the martial art) prior to engaging in the sport. Their claim was religious freedom-based, and the judge ruled that it was merely a gesture of respect, nothing more).

Or, as is often heard, you can change a person's behavior, but not the way they think. Just because someone takes a meditation or Yoga class doesn't mean they're ready to change their fundamental religious beliefs.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 15, 2002.


Jmj

Hi, GT.
Please re-read your last sentence, as I wish to respond to it.

Last time I wrote to you these words:
"GT, I join this commentator in rejecting (as our Church teaches us to reject) "meditation techniques ... drawn from ... Eastern mysticism ... [and] the New Age Movement".

Key words there are "as our Church teaches us to reject."
Several years ago, the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a papally approved document which directed us Catholics to avoid involvement in Eastern meditation practices and things of this nature. (If you wish, I can find the text on the Internet for you to read.)
According to the most important document of Vatican II, we have a serious obligation to assent to what the Church teaches (even if it is not proposed as "infallible"), and we have a duty to be docile and obedient to the Church's disciplinary directives. If you were to make a decision to be disbelieving or disobedient, you would be doing something very dangerous (because sinful).

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 17, 2002.


I just am surprised because I've never heard of such a thing, in any context. I don't see the conflict, if any, because I don't believe in eastern or new age philosophies. To me, yoga is exercise, nothing more. That's all it will ever be. Studying with some guru, that would be different, but just trying to be more healthy through exercise?

Some of the things I learn from you John are just amazing!

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 17, 2002.


First of all, I'm not catholic. So if that means I'm not welcome then this will be my only post. I'd like to say a couple things. I am almost finished reading the Ragamuffin Gospel, and I'd like to say it has made quite an impact on my life. I am an insecure, doubting 19 year old, that desperately wants to find God's will and seek truth, but I fail everyday. This book has given me hope, and helped me to see that God does love me no matter what, it has helped me to stop trying to attach my efforts to God's grace, and accept that anything even remotely good in my life is because of His unconditional love and grace. My mother almost committed suicide a few years back after sinking into very deep depression, and this book besides the word itself gave her hope to carry on. I'd like to comment on some quotes that John used from Jackie Alnor's review of this book. "He attempts to demonstrate from the Bible that Jesus was not concerned about sin. Referring to the woman caught in adultery on page 173, he writes, 'He [Jesus] didn't seem too concerned that she might dash back into the arms of her lover.' Yet we know from scripture that Jesus told her to go and sin no more. ..." My thoughts: The word concerned has obviously been misunderstood here. Dictionary.com says that concern not only means "care" but this: "To engage the attention of; involve." I think Manning's point was that Christ was not focused on the fact that she was going to fall back into sin, but on showing her the unconditional love that she needs. This book in no way says that our sin does not break God's heart. In fact it talks about on page 167 that God's heart was broken when Christ died because He loved us so much. The point of this book is to focus on God's love, not on how we need to turn from our sins because we have to, but that God's grace is the only thing that can wipe away our sins and change our hearts, and that is why we should seek him and seek to live sinless lives. Not out of legalism, but out of love and an obedience that comes from that love that he freely gives. On page 46 he is in no way describing how he learned to masturbate...that's quite untrue. He is telling of how he was a TEENAGE HUMAN BEING, that was CURIOUS. He sinned, and went to the church, and was condemned for it, and the result was self- condemnation. I'm actually offended by this accusation because I have lived in self-condemnation because of my lust addictions, and this actually helped me to stop condemning myself, and live by the grace that God freely gives, it helped me to see that God loves me even though I am a selfish, perverted, person, and has helped me to accept his love and not want to sin, or masturbate to be blunt. The point of this book is not that we can do whatever we want and get to heaven. I think it is about the freedom that God gives us, not to sin, but to be free from sin, and to accept his unconditional love. I think this book simply magnifies Galatians 2:16. This book has made me question whether I've truly accepted God's grace, and if that is what truly rules in my heart. I so often forget that Jesus is the one routing for me and believing in me, when I fall flat on my face, and that He is not going to stop loving me no matter what, and molding me and changing me. This book has drawn me closer to Christ, it's helped me to love people with the Grace that Christ loved with. The book isn't perfect, but neither is anything that anyone in this message board has said. We're all imperfect. "We have undoubtedly heard that freedom is not license for lust. Maybe that's all we've heard - what it isn't. "Such an approach, whatever its limited truth, is defensive and afraid. Those using it wish above all to warn us of the dangers of thinking about freedom, of yearning of freedom. Such an approach generally ends up showing us, or at least attempting to show us, that freedom actually consists in following the law or in submitting to authority or in walking a well-trod path. Again, there may be some truth in these conclusions, but there is lacking a sense of the dark side of law, and authority, and of the well-trod path. Each may be and has been turned ito an instrument of tyranny and human suffering." I in no way am saying that "anything goes" and we should all sin because God will still love us. I am saying that God's grace is the only reason we have breath, and that's a scary thought, yet the most comforting once we accept this truth.

-- David (specialk11282@comcast.net), March 18, 2002.

Hi, GT.
I thought it might be good for me to give you a link to that (not-too-long) Vatican document. This way, you can read it and determine more specifically what the Church considers safe and what she considers potentially dangerous (instead of working from my generalizations). Footnote #1 specifically mentions "yoga" as being one of the things about which the document is speaking.
Personally, I think that it may be OK to attend a simple exercise class [no philosphy, no religion whatsoever] that the leader falsely labels as "yoga" in order to draw a crowd, knowing that "yoga" is an "in" thing!
God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 19, 2002.


Thanks, John for the link. I have a yoga video or two at home, and believe me, not one word about religion in either of them--I think that most companies would see their sales of these tapes fall dramatically if they injecteded religion into them.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 19, 2002.

John: Your response that the Catholic Church is the only church that Jesus established...........my, my. I have read the book and disagree with some of it. But the message Christ preached was love and forgiveness and not the Catholic church. The 'church' is the ecclesia....those called out by Christ. Not limited to Catholics, but certainly includes a lot of Catholics I know.Even some of us Pentecostals just might 'make it'.

-- Blake Otwell (chemprof@mindspring.com), March 19, 2002.

You may think you're real cute, Blake. But Christ founded the ONLY Church which existed from the Apostles' time to the so-called Reformation. In her past history many groups broke away from the main Church (under the Popes) with heretical or schismatic followings. Lastly, protestants started new congregations which have not shown any adherence to the complete Apostolic faith. You are one of their myriad of lost sheep. They lost for you your heritage as a member of the true ecclesia, the Holy Catholic Church. They exchanged gold for silver. Now they're broke!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 20, 2002.

April 21, 2002

I only heard about the Ragamuffin Gospel yesterday, when I talked with its author. Fifty years ago we graduated from St. Michael's High School in Brooklyn. We were celebrating that jubilee.

I turned to the internet today to find out where I could obtain a copy. That is how I came to you.

We learned a lot of things as young, immature catholics, and we carried that immaturity into our adult lives, some more than others.

Is the Holy Spirit leading me to the Ragamuffin Gospel or away from it because of you? What do you think? Can you discern the movements of the Holy Spirit?

Language is not perfect. It is always changing. The same can be said for philosophical concepts which the Church has used to explain its teachings. If you agree, there are obviously some problems with infallibility.

Was it a fallible decision that declared the infallibility of the Pope, when he teaches "ex cathedra" or was it an infallible decision?

I do not know what infallible decisions have been made since the declaration of infallibility. Perhaps, you can list what they are.

I do not believe that any person should be afraid to read anything that appears to be inconsistent with the teachings of the catholic church, as if they were something set in stone.

God made us human. That means "not perfect." We were never meant to be perfect. Think about it and forget for a moment the dictum "be ye perfect even as your heavenly father is perfect", because we really do not know what that means. What does perfect mean? Complete - unchangeable. Did it ever occur to us that the perfection of man may be quite different? Our perfection may be our imperfection - our incompleteness. That is the only way we can grow, and the Christian life is supposed to be a life of growth.

To want to be like God (perfect) is original sin. To be what God made us (human) is quite sufficient. Maybe the work of the Holy Spirit is to help us discover who we are, and to discover God insofar as we can be true to whoever we are.

As long a a priest was obedient to the Bishop he was assurred that his obedience was the will of God, and the Holy Spirit would give him the grace to accomplish what he was told to do. In other words, the Bishop expressed the will of God in respect to that priest. Do the current exposed pedophilia problems of the Church and the behaviour of Bishops in regard to them lead you to question just a little bit as to whether or not Bishops are necessarily the instruments of God's and are prompted by the workings of the Holy Spirit?

The Church should not be afraid to openly discuss any of its moral or dogmatic teachings? We are not saved through ignorance or fear. We are saved through our humanity. We cannot stop thinking because of what the Pope or any Bishop says or does. God gave us intelligence. He expects us to use it honestly and in dialogue with one another.

Faith is a gift of God. He is not going to withdraw his gift because we use other gifts he gave us.

Brennan Manning does not scare me. I am not afraid to read anything he has written, or listen to anything he has said. Only a catholic unsure of his faith in Christ would be afraid of intelligent dialogue. This has certainly not been recognized in the history of the Church. The Holy Spirit did not get us into the Inquisition. We got there through fear and a lack of faith.

Kind regards, Richard Sullivan

-- Richard Sullivan (rjs10528@yahoo.com), April 21, 2002.


Dear Richard:
You have a very positive way of expounding on religious error. Not as if you were steeped in error, but rather apologizing for it. I don't think you've necessarily accepted all there is in the Ragamuffin Gospel. Why should I? You speak from a feeling of security; with no need to hurl anathemas at your old classmate. At least, that's the impression of you I get here. I think you take the Ragamuffin Gospel with a grain of salt.

I'm glad you pose it as a question:

''Was it a fallible decision that declared the infallibility of the Pope, when he teaches "ex cathedra" or was it an infallible decision?'' Since you wouldn't depart from the teachings of the Pope's, would you?

Well, a sinner you may be. Just as we all are. But, let's not say we aren't called to HOLINESS; if not perfection. There have been many holy men and women in the Church, Richard. Not because they were perfect. All of them had to be sinners. Yet, our ideal is Jesus Christ; and His words are, ''Be you perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect.'' --Doing so, He gave away a great secret; we CAN be perfect, at least potentially. The saints proved this; the martyrs down the ages proved it.

Even those derelicts for whom Manning ostensibly wrote his ''new'' gospel, are potentially perfect. Perfect-- when in communion with Jesus Christ who is perfect. That's what our REAL Gospel teaches, isn't it?

''Manning gives the impression that he has a very intimate relationship with God and reports having many visions, encounters and conversations with Him. He assures his audiences that if they apply his teachings, they too can become more intimate with God.'' (Quote from the title's author.)

Since I haven't really read the teachings of Brendan Manning, I won't argue. Let's only remember that-- if you apply the teachings of the Catholic Church which are Christ's own teachings; yes. Not only will you be more intimate with God. You will be LIKE God. As if you were perfect. The proofs are so many thousands of saints and holy martyrs we can emulate in the Catholic Church. Is Manning already in the Calendar of the Saints? You tell us.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 21, 2002.


May 6, 2002

Dear Eugene,

I still have not finished reading the Ragamuffin Gospel but I find it a very spiritual book. This should not surprise me since if found it in the "Christian Inspiration" section of Barnes & Noble.

It is very difficult to have a real dialogue over the internet, as we pick and choose the items in each other's exchanges that we wish to address. To have a real discussion, I think we would require weeks, months or perhaps even years together.

I don't think that I would have a difficult time disagreeing with the Pope, especially in that he has never spoken ex cathedra, to my knowledge. A lot of bishops and theologians have disagreed with the Pope. I would be in good company. I think the Pope is smart, is basically a very good man, has accomplished much in his reign, but for the life of me I do not know why he doesn't retire. However, maybe it is better that he is no longer in his prime. Perhaps, he will no longer stack the College of Cardinals with more men who think exactly like he does.

By the way, it is my understanding that for the Pope to speak ex cathedra he must do so in union with the magisterium of the Church, that is, with the bishops throughout the world. I will look into it some more. It is something that you do not really talk about when you talk about infallibility.

Manning is Brennan Manning, not Brendan Manning, an easy mistake to make. Brendan was a saint. I don't know about Brennan, but I think Brennan Manning is a saintly person. This is hard for me to say, because he used to make fun of me a lot in high school, but then that is Irish humor.

If Brennan wrote for derelicts then he also wrote for me.

I think it is very difficult to say what Jesus said or did not say, despite what the Gospel says. The gospels were written close to a 100 years after the death of Christ by men who believed that Christ was somehow divine. They believed that he was the Lord and Saviour, and it is in the context of that belief that the gospels were written. I believe that a great deal of the new testament was written to convey the essential belief that Christ was divine. As you undoubtedly know, one cannot read the gospels with a twenty first century mentality and expect to understand them the same way as those who lived in the first century.

We are saved through the humanity of Jesus Christ, not through his divinity. In the mystical body of Christ we continue to save the world through our humanity. What is at my human disposal today is very different from what was at my disposal as a child, as a young man, and through later years. Different things are expected of us in accordance with where we are in life. Brennan, in his way, is bringing people to Jesus Christ and God in a way that few of us can do. He is bringing them through his humanity, which is the gift that God gave him.

My wife is calling. Peace and love. Richard

-- Richard Sullivan (rjs10528@yahoo.com), May 06, 2002.


Hello, Richard.
I have to discuss with you some things that you wrote, because they are incorrect.

First, you stated: "I don't think that I would have a difficult time disagreeing with the Pope, especially in that he has never spoken ex cathedra, to my knowledge."

Apparently, Richard, no one has taught you that, as a Catholic, you must give assent [not "disagreement"] with all that the pope teaches, regardless of whether or not he states it "ex cathedra." Here is how Vatican II states it (in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church):
"In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will."

You wrote: "I think the Pope is smart, is basically a very good man, has accomplished much in his reign, but for the life of me I do not know why he doesn't retire."

You must not known that hardly any of the 260+ popes have retired/resigned. Although the pope's physical health is troubled, I believe that his mind is far keener than yours and mine, so there is no reason for him to retire. God has not asked that of him just yet.

You continued: "However, maybe it is better that he is no longer in his prime. Perhaps, he will no longer stack the College of Cardinals with more men who think exactly like he does."

Your judgment, Richard, is terrible. There would be nothing better for the Church and the world than for the College of Cardinals to be populated by men to think as John Paul II does. Of course, there is great variety among human beings, and so there are men of different emphases and concerns even now in the College, despite the fact that this pope has appointed the great majority of the members.

You continued: "By the way, it is my understanding that for the Pope to speak ex cathedra he must do so in union with the magisterium of the Church, that is, with the bishops throughout the world."

Your understanding is mistaken. The pope can speak ex cathedra entirely on his own. The Fathers of Vatican Council I stated it this way in 1870:
"... we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks 'ex cathedra,' that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable."

You stated: "I think it is very difficult to say what Jesus said or did not say, despite what the Gospel says."
You then think wrongly, because the Church assures us that the Gospels faithfully recount what Jesus said.

You continued: "The gospels were written close to a 100 years after the death of Christ by men who believed that Christ was somehow divine."
This is incorrect. The gospels were all written within 70 years of Jesus's death (around 30 A.D.), and the earliest gospel may have been written just 15 or 20 years after his death. At least two of them were written by men who actually knew and lived with Jesus for two or three years. They did not just "believe" that he was "somehow divine." They KNEW it!

You stated: "We are saved through the humanity of Jesus Christ, not through his divinity. In the mystical body of Christ we continue to save the world through our humanity."
I won't say that your statement is flat wrong, but I only suggest that you be careful in your thinking on this subject. Although, as St. Paul told the Colossians, we do mystically partake in the salvation of others, Jesus is the Savior, and he does not actually need our help. His actions (passion/death/resurrection) were fully sufficient to save everyone for all time. Even if none of us believes, he can still save others.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 07, 2002.


Dear Richard: --You're joking?
--''Dear Eugene, I still have not finished reading the Ragamuffin Gospel but I find it a very spiritual book. This should not surprise me since if found it in the "Christian Inspiration" section of Barnes & Noble.''

I can find you twenty titles in the Barnes & Noble store that can be harmful for a Catholic to read. What you find spiritual may not be actually harmful, but putting trust in books from a retail store is naive to say the least.

John is correct in all he's told you, Richard. I hope you don't take it as a personal insult. Your remarks about our Holy Father are more disturbing than the idea you could benefit at all from reading a ''ragamuffin'' gospel. We have the Holy Gospel; and Christians have followed it very well for almost 2,000 years.

In the past, I myself have experienced much more spiritual satisfaction from reading old books out of used book outlets. In some ways it's superior to what is sold new nowadays. Look in the religion section. If you don't see an Imprimatur on the back side of the title page, it isn't fit for your spiritual reading, trust me. Anything from heresy to complete nonsense is marketed in western society, and a lot of it is seen in ''Christian'' bookstores.

Why don't you make it a point to browse this very forum more frequently, for a better understanding of the the Catholic faith? There may be disagreements all too often. But you can truly benefit from reading the views of many good Catholics, and by following some of the links that members here suggest for your web browsing. Keep an open mind, Richard. No one is going to ''brainwash'' you. But I would simply advise you, don't fall for charlatans like Brennan Manning. You're better than that, Sir.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 07, 2002.


So, how CAN we be "perfect"? How is it done? How do you do it?

What is the "gospel", the "good news"? Shouldn't the good news be our focus?

I haven't read Ragamuffin, and haven't heard of it till today, but since there is so much interest in the book, I may have to read it now. I'm not a catholic nor a fundamentalist Christian, but one who loves Christ; a 'seeker'. It has been my experience that all Christian denominations/churches present Christ 'through a glass'dimly. We see Christ through a prism that radiates in our mind bits and pieces of truth. My reccomendation is whatever we hear or read that furthurs Christ's work in us, glean from it that good which promotes the 'gospel'. In the end, God will work his 'perfect' work.

hiker Jon

-- Jon (jjfgg@earthlink.net), May 09, 2002.


Please, Jon --Mr. Seeker,

Your own ''experience'' is lacking if you think the Catholic Church shows Christ to her faithful through any glass. We do not need a Christ coming through a prism that radiates in our mind bits and pieces of truth.

No teaching that came down to us from the Apostles can be said to be dim. No sacrament of the Catholic Church fails to bring a faithful recipient the immediate help of God through Jesus Christ. We live always in faith, but not faith in just any wayward preacher; nor faith in the words of men in the world. It's faith only in Jesus Christ, taken from the Church He founded and the Apostles He sent to convert the world. --Their teachings haven't disappeared. We have them before us every day in the form of Catholic doctrines and the ministry of her holy priesthood. This is the true faith; not invented or corrupted. The Holy Spirit lives and abides in only One Church, Seeker: the Catholic Church. Stay with us here and we'll help you to see this clearly; not dimly.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 09, 2002.


Eugene,

Take a look at 1 Corintians 13:12 Paul says: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

As I read it, the "now" refers to the life you and I now live; the "then" refers to after our body dies. Our life is fragile and our knowledge of God imperfect. Take for instance the apophatic way found within the Catholic church from such works as "The Cloud of Unknowing", Pseudo-Dionysius, Eckhart, St. John of the Cross, and many others. These truly devout examples of 'seekers' after God constantly refer to God in obscure terms. They express God as hidden from our finite consciousness by a "cloud of unknowing." In this life we have only 'glimpses' of the eternal. What I am proposeing is that God calls us to this deeper life, union with God, but for "now" we "see through a glass darkly," and on occasion do we pierce that cloud to see a part of God. I am reminded of how when Moses approached the burning bush, God revealed only his "back-side" to Moses. As frail humans, we cannot fully comprehend God; we cannot handle the awesomeness of God "now". In times when I have attended Catholic church I am attracted to references of the "mystery" of God. This is a dominant theme in catholic liturgy. Truly, there are many things of God that are a mystery, but as a "seeker" after truth, God will show the way to each of us differently. I'm sure if I was there with Moses before the burning bush, I probably couldn't even handle the back-side of God, there is so much to take in! But if I had the spiritual maturity as Moses, friend of God, maybe then I could take in a portion of God. Yes, I am a seeker, as we all should be, and I am confident that I will find, because God is faithful-- "knock and the door shall be opened unto you..." If you are to understand 'me', you must know that I do not put an emphasis on "church doctrine" in my walk with Christ. Rather, my pursuit is of 'experiencing' Christ in an actual way in my life. And what I desire this pursuit to lead to is 'Union with God'. This is what many Christians also longed for and, I believe, is what God ultimately wants for us, and, little by little, we will enter this union in portions/degrees that enable us to see through that "glass" that Paul talks about clearer and clearer, step by step.

hiker Jon

-- hiker Jon (jjfgg@earthlink.net), May 09, 2002.


Jon,

It's significant that you idealise your personal odyssies referring to Catholic mystics and to the holy apostle Saint Paul. Inside the Church they learned that our souls are capable of reaching the highest plane of spirituality. Outside the Church is mostly lassitude or aimless energy; in many parts rejecting outright the revealed truth.

Paul himself saw Christ; and even ascended in ecstasy to the third heaven; yet would not allow himself to boast, and cautioned ''We measure ourselves by ourselves and compare ourselves by ourselves, and so we do not boast beyond our limits but within the limits of the commission which God has given us --limits which include you also.''

The Catholic mystics were not ''seekers of God.'' All of them were IN God and in His Holy Church; to find themselves ravished in His Holy Spirit. You need only seek this far, Jon. You've been found by Jesus Christ, and you might let His Sacred Heart welcome you to the faith. Because Christ didn't die for you on the cross to inspire you to seek as a free agent. He has sent the apostles to find YOU.

Paul means that we will know as we are known; but not by seeking in the world. He means in the glory of our eternal reward we'll no longer look upon God obliquely, as through a glass, darkly. We'll behold Him face to face. The surest way to come to Him is to enter His kingdom now. But all of this life we'll look without ''seeing''. That's why Jesus Christ in every meeting with every soul, immediately called for faith.
''Blessed are they who have not seen and yet believed.''

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 09, 2002.


Since my first contribution I have now read for myself The Ragamuffin Gospel. Its message is simple: "justification by grace through faith"; God accepts us as we are; God forgives us; first, forgiveness, then repentance. Any one who says it is "another gospel" and is "dangerous" should really support it because the book in no way presents 'another gospel.' And as to advocating 'meditation', this must be another of Manning's books because the Ragamuffin Gospel does not talk about this subject, at all. I would higly reccommend Brennan Manning's Ragamuffin Gospel. I believe it is an encouraging book and leads the reader to experience God's love in a fresh, new way. Continue to grow in Crist's love, Jon

-- Jon (jjfgg@earthlink.net), May 16, 2002.

Wow!!

I cannot believe there is a conversation about this guy. I didn't even know he existed until 3 days ago when I obtained a talk of his on a series of 7 tapes. I am currently on the third tape. Weird; to be listening to this guy talk, and then all-of-a-sudden you guys mention him!

Well, I honestly don't know that much of Brennans past. But his message is powerful. Many of his life experiences have touched me. I guess in summation, his message is this: We have lost the meaning of Christ Crucified. This was also Apostle Paul’s message (he will teach nothing but the power of Christ, and Christ Crucified). We need to remember that in order for our Glorious King to be resurrected, He first had to suffer and die. He also talks about how we should be compassionate to the least of our brothers (the drunks and homeless, the "losers"), because "that which you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto Me." And Brennan reminds us of Christ’s love toward Mary Magdalene, and her loving response to Him. So far, from what I have heard, nothing is unscriptural.

Furthermore, I believe that his message is a confirmation of Our Blessed Mothers message at Galabandal: To focus on her Son's Passion (His death on the Cross).

Like I said, I don't know this persons "sinful" life outside the message that he speaks. But if a persons message is to be judged by the sins that they commit, who then can we believe?

It is true that there are many that claim to be catholic, and we must take peoples messages, and hold them to the test of their conformity to Scripture, and Catholic teachings. We will know them by their fruits. But from what I see so far, Brennans message has passed this test. I will respond again after I have finished the series of tapes.

In Christ.

jake

-- Jake Huether (Jake.huether@lamrc.com), May 16, 2002.


Jake,

Good to hear you have some tapes of Brennan Manning. I just finished reading his book, The Ragamuffin Gospel, and felt as though it resulted in a 'paradigm shift' in how I perceive God--Nothing! can separate us from the love of God! Nothing! Its not like he is saying anything new, but he is reminding us of the essence of the gospel--forgiveness/grace/faith through Christ!

I found a web-site that has four messages of Brennan Manning. I listened to one that was 45 minutes. Provided you have the audio software, I would encourage anyone to listen for themselves to what Manning has to say.

http://www.gospelcom.net/mthermon/audio/biographies/manning_brennan.ht ml

continue to grow in Christ,

Jon

-- Jon (jjfgg@earthlink.net), May 16, 2002.


Jake, you have been leaving many good posts on the forum. Please don't stop now. Please read this WHOLE thread, so that you are aware of the reasons to avoid B. Manning, who is not a good Catholic. Please also avoid referring to alleged private revelations as though they had been approved by the Vatican (though not yet approved).

-- (cath@cath.com), May 18, 2002.

I have listened to all 7 tapes. And, as reading this thread had inspired me to seak more info about Brennan, I asked a few friends about him and also read a little. Brennan was ordained into the Franciscan order, and later left the priesthood, married, and now is speaking in non-Catholic circles. The reason he speakes in non- Catholic circles is because since he is now a priest living in sin (once you become a priest it is like a marriage with God that cannot be broken by man - similar to Matrimony), he cannot be permitted to claim to be inspired by God, while at the same time being out of Grace with God. However, Brennan still has a zeal to evangalize. The tapes that I had listend to were all taped in 1988. Because in 1988 he was not living in perpetual sin, and as he was a truly inspired priest, I believe that the tapes I listened to were beneficial, though not necessarily ground breaking for me. I don't quite think that Brennan is intentionally trying to lead us away from the Church, though his actions speak louder than his words (now). And just because he is a "bad" Catholic, dose not nullify his inspired work within the priesthood. Please don't take this as a sign that I am sticking up for him, and trying to discount your claims. But, in all honesty we cannot judge the man. None of us are perfect Catholics. Nonetheless, as Brennan is now living in perpetual sin, and it is true that as your mind is numbed to one sin it becomes suseptable to others - I would not recommend listening to him now (especially because there are so many practicing Catholics with similar, and quite possibly more Catholic, messages.)

I appriciate the fact that you have inspired me to investigat Brennans lifestile, because it may be reflected in what he is teaching. Thank you!

In response to, "Please also avoid referring to alleged private revelations as though they had been approved by the Vatican (though not yet approved)."

I would refer you to the posts on this issue, because I had explicitly said that whatevet conclusion the Vatican comes up with (whenever it does), I will be in complete compliance! As the Vatican has not yet made any official statements, it is up to our own conscience to either accept the messages, or reject the messages. (Note: the future prophesised events are under investigation, but the message is cleare) And the fact that the message in this case is to pray more, and spend more time in front of the Blessed Sacrament (two very very Catholic notions) I would personally conclude that I would like to accept this message. But I do not force this as a Vatican- Stamped message on anyone else. And as I had said before, if this truly was a Satanic message, I hope that in praying more and visiting the Blessed Sacrament more I am able to foil the evil ones plan.

Thanks again for the advice. This forum is incredible.

In Christ

-- jake huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), May 20, 2002.


Thank you, Jake!

You just stated, "The reason he speaks in non- Catholic circles is because since he is now a priest living in sin (once you become a priest it is like a marriage with God that cannot be broken by man - similar to Matrimony), he cannot be permitted to claim to be inspired by God, while at the same time being out of Grace with God."

Did you know that it is possible for a Franciscan priest to leave his order, to become "laicized" (with papal permission), and to get married validly -- going on to live a life of fruitful holiness? It seems that you were not aware that this is possible. Many who leave, though, sadly fail to obtain the papal permission and therefore live in sin. I don't know if Brennan Manning obtained the permission.

I should have better explained my caution to you about Garabandal. I think that it's OK to mention places like that at the forum, but I would just suggest that we use special language about them in certain situations.
Here is what you wrote: "I believe that Manning's message is a confirmation of Our Blessed Mothers message at Galabandal: ..."
The problem, Jake, is that we don't yet know if our Blessed Mother really left any messages at Garabandal. She may have left none at all.
That's why I suggest using more circumspect language -- such as, "I believe that Manning's message coincides with the message attributed to our Blessed Mother in alleged apparitions at Garabandal."

Thanks again.

-- (cath@cath.com), May 20, 2002.


I personally have a huge problem with that man because of his lack of staying within his Church roots and teaching others who are not catholic. What is he proving here, trying to create more discord?

I will not support a wavering person.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), May 20, 2002.


Matthew 7 [3] And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? [4] Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? [5] Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

I'm on my second book of Manning's and I really find no heretical teachings as previous responses suggest. The essence of Manning is love, acceptence and forgiveness. If you want to criticize Manning, investigate his works first-hand; don't rely on what other people say, find out what he says for yourself. From what I have read, he points to Jesus Christ and how His infinite love accepts us as we are.

(food for thought) Here is an excerpt from Manning's book Abba's Child:

"Scripture points to an intimate connection between compassion and forgiveness. According to Jesus, a distinctive sign of Abba's child is the willingness to forgive our enemies: "Love your enemies and do good...and you will be sons of the Most High for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and wicked" (Luke 6:35). In the Lord's prayer we acknowledge the primary characteristic of Abba's children when we pray, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." Jesus presents His Abba as the model for our forgiveness: the king in Matthew 18 who forgives a fantastic sum, an unpayable debt, the God who forgives without limit (the meaning of sevety times seven).

God calls His children to a countercultural lifestyle of forgiveness in a world that demands an eye for an eye--and worse. But if loving God is the first commandment, and loving our neighbor proves our love of God, and if it is easy to love those who love us, then loving our enemies must be the filial badge that identifies Abba's children." (Manning, Abba's Child, p.67)

-- Jon (jjfgg@earthlink.net), May 21, 2002.


Jon

He is a renegade Priest who has been questionable ideals only because the fact that he is not teaching full Catholic theologies and that is according to qualified theologians. Now why am I to refute the Church leaders when they themselves question his works? His works are no totally in according to the teachings of the Magisterium.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), May 21, 2002.


Dear Jon:
I'm glad you haven't found any heretical teaching in the Ragamuffin Gospel audio. If he's telling you these things, he's merely repeating all his learning from the Catholic Church. Don't forget, Manning was a priest. Why shouldn't he partake of much Catholic doctrine, passing it on as his own insight? He's likely meditated since his earliest days as a young man on these teachings.

''God calls His children to a countercultural lifestyle of forgiveness in a world that demands an eye for an eye--and worse. But if loving God is the first commandment, and loving our neighbor proves our love of God, and if it is easy to love those who love us, then loving our enemies must be the filial badge that identifies Abba's children.''

A quote from your reading of Manning. Yet, unless you're very naive, why is he teaching this as if the Church doesn't know? He speaks of ''the world'' demanding an eye for an eye. The Catholic Church doesn't teach ''an eye for an eye.'' So, it can be said that what you see him writing is a leftover of his own Catholic experience. However, that isn't all he now expounds. He's setting up his own sect. Keep aware for any differences you may meet; where he departs from the teaching of the Church. You have to be wary. There has to be more than a ''filial badge'' in your faith. Christ gave His people the sacraments; for which there is no equal spiritually in this life. Yet, Manning may feel these are passe, or not necessary. If so, he's teaching error. --It's the whole Gospel, in the True Church, God calls all men to follow. Not free-lance ''feel-good'' religion. --God bless you!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 21, 2002.


You know, all I can say is that I "think" on a different wavelength than most contributors on this net. As I said in a previous response, I don't put a lot of emphasis on 'doctrine' in my walk with Christ. What I do empasize is a daily 'experiencing' of God in my life, in a way similar to a lot of mystics in years past.

I believe we are called to love all people, even renegade Catholics, and I don't see Manning's teaching as far off from the gospel of Jesus Christ, in fact, the teachings are very liberating from legalism and act as a catalyst to live in a fresh awareness of God's acceptnece and forgiveness in contrast to 'mind forged manacles' that rob a person of walking/living in the law of liberty under grace.

Well, that's all for now. It's time for me to get of work and my mom's cooking lasagna tonight so I want to get home for that. God bless you all. Jon

-- Jon (jjfgg@earthlink.net), May 21, 2002.


Dear Jon:
I understand what you mean. By no means are we called to reject anyone or set ourselves up as superior. Our lord Jesus Christ was approachable by lepers. In that respect you're absolutely right. If you decide to continue in this discussion we'll take it up tomorrow,

Where the Ragamuffin Gospel is concerned, our immediate problem isn't about denouncing the author. You have reason to be defensive about simply casting Manning ''out into the wilderness'' for writing such things. It would hardly be what Christ approves. A faithful Catholic ought to compare what Manning teaches; not his own character, with orthodox doctrines of the Catholic Church.

If you really suppose that you can love God without being particularly scrupulous in support of verifiable doctrines, you must be more careful.

It was Jesus Christ who taught the doctrines originally. His holy apostles and His Church promulgated these. Others later corrupted or dismissed them.

A ''Christian'' willing to live in indifference to Our Lord's genuine doctrines is no better than a Christian who ignores the Holy Bible and the Gospel itself. We aren't free to love it or leave it. Christ is our Master. Everything that He taught his holy apostles is indispensable. NOT a matter for indifference.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), May 21, 2002.


Wow! It's amazing what a little grace can provoke in the heart of those that are bound by dogma Roms 8:1 For there is therefor now no condemnation,for those who are in Christ Jesus(not the cathlic church),because through Christ Jesus (not the cathlic church)the law of the spirit of life (not the cathlic church) set me free from the law of sin and death. Love The Prodical Hippy

-- Bob (revresq@aol.com), September 06, 2002.

If you are truly "in Christ Jesus", then you by default HAVE to be in the Catholic Church!

The "law of Spirit and Life" can be found in John Ch. 6. Interesting - "Unless you eat my Body and drink my Blood you have NO live in you...The words I speak are of Spirit and Life". And, Bob, the fact that you are not in the Catholic Church is evidance that you have not eaten or drank the Body and Blood of Christ. Which would indicate that you really do not live by Christ's "law of Spirit and Life", and therefore you are not free from "the law of sin and death".

If you have ever read the Bible, all one must do is First read the Catechism to know what Catholics REALLY teach (not some anit-Catholic web site, where some twelve year old satan worshiper makes up some pretty twisted nonsence of the Church), Then simply read John's Gospel and the ACTS of the Apostles. If you've done this, and you can't see that the Church Christ founded IS the Catholic Church, then Satan has really fooled you good.

Within these two Books of the Bible you will find:

1) the Body and Blood of Christ (Only the Catholic Church has this)

2) Mary becomes our Mother, and the Prophesy of the Woman clothed with the sun is fulfilled. (Only the Catholic Church revers Mary to any extent).

3) Relics and Blessed objects are found in the Acts of the Apostles, where "believers" would take the face clothe of Paul and "heal" people. (Only the Catholic Church teaches on Relics and Blessed objects).

4) The Pope! Peopel revered Peter so much as to stand in hopes of his shadow falling upon them for healing. (Only the Catholic Church).

5) The teaching authority of the Church. When the Eunec (sp) askes Philip to teach him, because one cannot read the Bible without being taught what it means. (Only the Catholic Church).

These alone shoule sufice.

Bob, please consider this. Thank you.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), September 06, 2002.


Having left the false church of Satan " Roman Catholic Church " years ago by God's grace I find many of the above comments amusing as well as incorrect. The mere illogical thought of saying or believing that "once a Catholic always a Catholic" makes as much sense as saying "once a child always a child". Grow up and in Grace as Brennan Manning and myself have done. Are the Catholics upset because Manning is telling the truth about the Gospel of Grace instead of church/works?

-- don james (bigmc21014@yahoo.com), September 16, 2002.

Dear Don James:
Why exult in ''Having left the ''false church of Satan'' (You think it's) the Roman Catholic Church years ago by God's grace I find many of the above comments amusing as well as incorrect.

You can't help this superciliousness, I know. ''By God's grace'' means He is the House ''divided against itself, which cannot stand.'' His grace DRAWS us to His Son Jesus Christ, Don. Grace is what makes Catholics BELIEVE in Jesus; and according to HIS WILL, enter the Catholic Church!

He has been her Founder, and we are given grace by being baptised as members of His Church.

You can't be in God's grace while discarding the Gospel taught by Christ in His Church and apostles. You can call her the church ''of Satan'' out of your bigotry and ignorance. But you can't be in God's grace as well. You can believe or not believe as you will. You can BAIT Catholics saying, '' Grow up and in grace as Brennan Manning and myself have done.'' But you've stopped growing in grace. It's a real pity; and Brian Manning is a fool if he believes he can grow in grace while leading his sect away from the true Faith. No wonder he was unfrocked. I feel sorry for you, Don. You've exchanged GOLD for dirt.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), September 17, 2002.


Dear Don,

Please do not group yourself with Brennan Manning. Although he tried to leave the Priesthood, he certainly hasn't left the Catholic Church. He just cannot teach or do Priestly duties within the Church. However, at the places he goes his "gospel" is that of the Crucified Christ (just like St. Paul's), and not the "gospel" you are trying to teach - the gospel of lies.

You wrote: "Are the Catholics upset because Manning is telling the truth about the Gospel of Grace instead of church/works?"

Manning is telling the Gospel of Grace, just like St. Paul - and Manning admints this too! But it isn't INSTEAD of church/works. It is Grace given by Christ Crucified which is manifest THROUGH the Church and THROUGH your good works.

In Love and Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), September 18, 2002.


Please, please, please read this book before judging it from reviews or excerpts out of context. While one could sum up the message of this book in a couple of sentences or less, it has been allowed me to take the next step in my relationship with Jesus, a step I may not have known was even possible without this book. Brennan Manning does NOT in any way attack or try to lure anyone from the Catholic church, in fact if anyhting he defends it. One could read thi9s book in a night and I beg everyone to do so!

-- rob jacobs (mccdon@fuse.net), October 10, 2002.

Dear Rob, I haven't read the book, I'm currently in the middle of 5 other good books, and have 3 others on my 'next book' list. Haven't been led to this one.

In 1980, my brother Frank, age 23 at the time, was hit by a car and thrown 70 feet after walking in a drunken stupor across a busy street. Thus began his conversion and deliverance from drug-alcohol addiction. A year later,Frank still on crutches, we went together to see a Franciscan priest speak on the Holy Eucharist and love of our Abba Father. This priest's passionate love for Jesus in the Holy Eucharist was instramental in Frank's complete turn-around, his whole life changed. To this day he'll never forget the pain in Brennan Manning's eyes as He spoke of the way Christ is abused and taken for granted. He spoke with fire about Christ's suffering and death for us.

I'll never forget this man's holiness. His message of the simple love of my Abba for me, his daughter, has put me back in perspective many times.

Frank and I, in reminiscing, sometimes talk about Brennan Manning, and wonder what he had to face in priestly circles then, what struggles so many of our priests have had to go through. I just cannot judge their actions. God, in His great mercy, sees the heart, and will judge justly. I trust in Him. I trust in His wisdom and mercy. I pray for Brennan, along with the others. Theresa

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), October 10, 2002.


my dear sister: Thank you for sharing that. I am going to hear Brennan Manning speak next weekend and look forward more than before now. I am a "new" Christian but have had an unprecendenteed hunger and have learned all I can in the past year. While the Bible itself and many other books and tapes and radio programs have touched and taught me, I do not have the ability to imagine anything that could ahve had the effect The Ragamuffin Gospel has had. I have become an unashamed "fool for Christ" And live in a different world than I did before. I thoguht God had (well actually I gave myself partial credit) taken away my pride and arrogance and selfishness when I was baptized. Oh God, my God how wrong I was, and I don't know when if ever I would ahve realized it without Brennan Manning. I had already made the decision to jump into the River of God and let the currents take me where they will, but was pretty disappointed to find where they took me was through thee rapids. I found God all right, but not where I thought I would - I found him in the rocks he keeps banging my hard head against. The Ragamuffin Gospel didn't stop the banging, but it did allow me to not just accept it but give heartfelt thanks for it. If there is any way I can encourage you to put this on the top of your list, tell me what it is!

-- rob jacobs (mccdon@fuse.net), October 10, 2002.

Dear Rob, you can pray for my continued growth and protection in Jesus, that's the best. He'll lead me in what to read, as He has for the past 24 years, since my return to Him and the Catholic Church.

I hear your love for God. And dear Rob, I encourage you, as a spiritual sister, mother, whatever God would have, to stay in the Catholic church. Don't do it because I say it, go search it out for yourself. The reason I say this with heartfelt sincerity is because, this faith of yours will need protection, it's like a fragile seed, so beautiful to behold, so green and pure, and it will need to grow, to stretch, and it will be so vulnerable, you know that, don't you? The Church will be its protection. The church, that which our Jesus founded 2000 years ago, go look for yourself, it's history, it's fact. It's our roots. Don't look at the human factor, those around you who may not understand what they're doing, they will in God's time. Jesus comes to us in the MOST intimate way He can, through the Holy Eucharist at Mass. It's His SURE presence. Everything else is good, but not the BEST. The Church will move you to read your bible, and who will instruct you to understand it like the Church? no one! All other ministers have to be accountable to someone, and who? There is no other true authority but the Church.

Don't let this disturb your faith. Be at peace. Think about it, pray about it. When you hear Brennan Manning, remember, he's just a man. He's been hurt, and he's not perfect. There is no other who saves you but Jesus! Don't forget that. He comes with a simple message of love, but we all speak at times from our woundedness, be aware of this.

This is what we have in the Catholic Church. Stability. Man will disappoint us, for sure. But the Church, which Jesus founded, is built on a firm foundation, that which He spoke of when He said to Peter .."I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the nether world will not prevail against it, I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven"... see Matthew 16:17-20. peace of Christ! Theresa

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), October 10, 2002.


I don't know who Brennan Manning is... I just wanted to say that is so good to have you around Theresa; I don't know, but when I read your posts I just want to run and hug you... God BLESS you.

In the Love of Jesus.

-- Cristian (gabaonscy@hotmail.com), October 10, 2002.

Cristian, I receive your hug, deeply. Theresa

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), October 10, 2002.

sis - I hope I didn't say anything to mislead you - I can't stay in the Catholic Church as I have never been in it.I do beliveve my home church (Eastside Christian) does the best I have ever seen at doing what Jesus directed us to - being a hospital for sinners, not a sanctuary for saints. Don't worry about my idolizing or elevating any person, as I believe there is very little difference between the best and the worst of us compared with the difference between God and the best of us. I don't think the particular rituals or laws are what is important about the church, and while I am by no means a universalist (unless I misunderstand that term), and would rather talk about god's love than debate peripheral beliefs, I do not accept it taking a human intermediary to bless my communion with my Lord that suffered for me personally. I put the nails in Him myself and he embraces me anyway - directly and personally! Jesus really did say there were two commandments above all others, and unless and until we accept the "scandalous" message he brought we will ever be caught up in trying to earn our grace and love. Unfortunately, words fail at this point. As Thomas Aquinas said after he was given the barest glimpse of the real love of Jesus, he would write no more because all he had written was so much straw.

-- rob jacobs (mccdon@fuse.net), October 11, 2002.

By the way, anyone new here who reads the beginning notes, I am baffled by some of the arguments, for example the back and forths about mediation and Eastern philosophy. I have read this book three times in a row and there is NO mention of meditaion, meditation techniques, or anything that could even be interpreted that way! The parable of the stewards taught us God wants us to take action, to gamble with our gifts to increase the Kingdom. Take a risk and actually read what you are debating!

-- rob jacobs (mccdon@fuse.net), October 11, 2002.

Dear Rob, forgive my presumption. This being a catholic forum I thought you were a Catholic. God keep you! Theresa

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), October 11, 2002.

Dear friends, I have just today read all the posts on this site about Brennan Manning. I also heard him speak about 2 weeks ago. I want to share the below link with all of you, because it seems to be the source of many of the statements posted here. This is quite interesting, as John Ankerberg is not Catholic--far, far from it! So it is rather surprising to discover his opinions being posted on this Catholic forum with identifying him as the source. I should also say, I am not Catholic myself- United Methodist and director of Children's Ministries actually- but I have read of Brennan Manning's books, as well as many other Catholic authors. I say this to say I am not justifying or criticizing either Manning, or Ankerberg( well, ok- I guess I would have to criticize Ankerberg since he seems to have the need to criticize just about everyone else) Anyway- read for yourself, Catholic or not- rather interesting to say the least. In Christ, Susan http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/roman-catholicism/RC0301W2.htm

-- Susan Lanphear (slanphear@chsaviour.org), October 31, 2002.

I would like to express my deep sadness around the tenor of some remarks on this page. I think it is a dangerous slope to be on, when someone can make a comment that is third hand, without checking the source, and then watch as others take that information and build a profile on someone that ends up being a smear. Brennan Manning is a devout brother who loves Jesus and the Catholic church. I have never heard a word from him otherwise. In fact, he along with others have actually made me respect the catholic church moreso than any church that I have been associated with. I have actually considered becoming catholic as a result of guys like Manning, Nouwen, Chesterton, Merton and one of my favorites, a guy named John Shea. I would caution the aggressive nature and quickness to condemn a minister of the Gospel by the few here who have not yet read Manning. I consider Manning a friend too. I have stood beside him in a fundamentalist bookstore and listen as he was asked "where did you come to know Christ after you left the Catholic Church?" to which Manning replied, that he had never left the Catholic church and that he found Jesus in his catholic faith. Of course, this left the fundamentalist baffled and, to his dismay, he left seeing Manning as a Catholic not a guy who was embracing fundamentalism. This is not anything but a misunderstanding. I asked Manning (in my naive manner) if his ministry was any different prior to his being asked to leave the priesthood. He said that he speaks the exact same message (the unconditional love of God) now that he did prior to formally leaving the priesthood. I did check the source of the original comments on this page. They are from a fundamentalist quasi christian site. I agree with Susan. This site is anti-everything. It is an appaulingly embarrassing commentary on fundamentalist evangelicalism. I appreciate that this is a Catholic site. I will not pretend to know all there is to know about Catholicism. But if the only criteria is what the framework says, then why bother with any current thinking (which is excellent) that is coming from Catholic scholars? I thoroughly enjoyed listening to Pope John Paul 11 this summer during World Youth Day in Toronto. I believe that the Spirit of Christ is in him. In the spirit of the Christian faith, lets not create a gap between "acknowledging one baptism for the forgiveness of sins..." and an intolerance reminiscent of fundamentalist representations of Christianity. In Christ, Dave

ps if you want to build a case against just about everthing under the sun, check out the source of the original query on the site below. http://www.ankerberg.com/

-- Dave Laurie (daverlaurie@shaw.ca), November 01, 2002.


The Ragamuffin Gospel, has more than anything else helped to crystalize in my mind the attack I and my family have suffered at the hand of those, claiming to be christian, as they embraced their laws and rules, their condemning attitudes, and their holier than God image of themselves. In essence, they are not chrisitan, they are fooled, and satan is using them even as they sit in our churches on Sundays and Wednesday evenings and chase people away from Jesus. The gospel of Christ is that of grace, praise God. And Manning recognizes this at a profound level. The hypocrites, those bible- toting yet condemning folks fulfill much of scripture (Matt 6, first 1/2). If you want to go deeper in your faith, get out of the shallow section of the pool, get over your head, begin to grasp the grace of God. You will not be disappointed. The writings of Manning and others can help to guide you ..........

Bill

-- Bill Moore (mooreb@ttnus.com), January 27, 2003.


I believe the Love of God was and is branded on Manning's heart. Theresa

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), January 29, 2003.

I have to say that never in my life have I seen so many people that are so strikingly similar to the Pharisees that Jesus spoke out against. I strongly disagree with so many of you who are too "Catholic" to allow yourselves be open enough to be Christian. I dont ever recall Jesus saying anything about being Catholic. And after reading these posts, I'm glad to say that I dont have to be considered in the same denomination as many of you. I also hope for you to know that Manning has written a forward in a more recent printing of the book and he has talked about being called a heritic and whatnot. I think that if he saw this he would laugh at how incredbly silly you are all being. I know that after my initial discust I enjoyed reading how off track many of your posts are. No need to reply seeing as I dont plan on reading this post again or even giving it very much thought. Focus on Christ, not on the "church."

-- Stephen (thebigredfish@hotmail.com), January 30, 2003.

Well, Stephen, you know, we ARE Catholics, it is a Catholic board, so you shouldn't be so surprised that most of us consider membership in the Catholic Church to be of some importance.

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), January 31, 2003.

Who let the kooks out?

Who-who-who-who?

Pax Christi. :)

-- Anna <>< (FloweroftheHour@hotmail.com), January 31, 2003.


You cannot be fully Christian without being Catholic. Other Christian churches are defined and differentiated in terms of the specific Christian truths they have rejected, and replaced with traditions of men. They are Christian only by virtue of the Catholic truths they have retained. Everything Jesus and the scriptural writers said about "the Church" was a statement about being Catholic, since there was no other Church they could speak of, and would be no other for the next thousand years. You cannot belong to "the same denomination" we belong to, for we do not belong to a denomination. We belong to the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ for all men, in the first century. Denominations are manmade organizations which first appeared more than 1,500 years later. Jesus taught against the idea of denominations ("Father, that they all may be ONE, even as you Father and I are ONE"). Focusing on Christ without focusing on the Church is the fastest road to heresy. That should be obvious from the words of Christ to His Church, "He who hears you hears Me; he who rejects you rejects Me".

initial discust I enjoyed reading how off track many of your posts are. No need to reply seeing as I dont plan on reading this post again or even giving it very much thought. Focus on Christ, not on the "church."

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 31, 2003.


Brennan Mannings book is an inspiration to us. It is, furthermore, an exhortation to spread the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Good News is: God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. [Not through works] lest any man should boast. That is all and I repeat all that the Ragamuffin Gospel is about. Yes, it gives some personal experiences of a man who has sinned but which one of us should cast the first stone? I cannot. I find the book to be a welcome relief and exposition of the truth that was created by God not man. The only arguments presented here seem to be a "posturing" for the sake of preserving the man-made fortresses that we have built. The non-Phariseeical truth is we as human beings can not save ourselves. We are incapable of this. Each of us has been frustrated in our lives in some way trying to measure up. It is an exercise in futility. Rather, Gods truth is: it is a gift I give to you because I created you, I love you and I want you to be with me. All we have to do is accept it. Nothing more.

-- Doug (dougfunb@juno.com), February 03, 2003.

Whatchoo talkin' bout, Willis?

Are you calling anyone in particular a Pharisee, or just Catholics in general? ;-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 04, 2003.


Dear Doug,

Yes, salvation is a free gift of God which cannot be earned or merited - as the Catholic Church and the Bible have always taught. Like any gift, it must be freely accepted, as the Catholic Church and the Bible have always taught. And the required means of accepting it are faith and good works, without which salvation is not possible - which the Catholic Church and the Bible have always taught.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 04, 2003.


Paul, I love it, couldn't have said it better!

-- theresa (rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), February 04, 2003.

To Rosylace: I just finished the 'Ragamuffin Gospel'. The book is a wonderful breath of fresh air, compared to the stagnant teachings of many churches today. I would recommend reading the 'note before' before you read the book. Then decide if you are ready or not to read it. (This is such a late reply, I’m sure you already read the book!) I would be curious to hear what you think if you have, since your query brought forth so many comments!

To the host of the website: I was using the internet to get a feeling of whether or not I should read this book. Thanks for the discourse; it was helpful in making the decision as to whether or not to read Brennan Manning’s writings.

To Paul (post dating Feb 4th, 2003): I am not sure where the Scripture teaches salvation by faith and good works (please show me if you can). I know that the Pauline epistles tell us by grace through faith alone we are saved (Ephesians 2:8). And I also know that through His Agent the Holy Spirit, there will be certain fruits evident in our lives: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness... (Galatians 6:22). But these things are not by our own efforts, the fruits result from the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Through your relationship with Jesus the Christ, your life will be changed. Your life will not be changed because you can all of a sudden please God through your works, it will be changed because of the love and grace He has given you. Webster’s defines grace this way: unmerited divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification; a virtue coming from God. I think the key there is 'unmerited'. When work is introduced you begin to talk about merit. In the end, salvation is only possible through grace, not ever by works. If by works, then Christ was nailed to the cross for no reason (Galatians 2:21). I know that there is a difference between justification and sanctification. Once justified (through the acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice), the believer can then be more or less sanctified. Either way, it is never based on your own efforts. It is based solely on God’s grace, through a moment-by-moment relationship with Jesus Christ. And yes, the Bible certainly does talk about works (James). The points there are brought up to illustrate that if you have true faith in God, there will be evidence in the believers life of the works of the Holy Spirit. Sidebar to a previous response: I don't know where you can use the Bible to claim that when Christ talks of His church that he is speaking of the Catholic church. May God bless you in your spiritual walk.

-RJ

-- RJ Rosenstein (rosensteinra@1mardiv.usmc.mil), February 11, 2003.


RJ, you wrote: I am not sure where the Scripture teaches salvation by faith and good works.

First of all, the Catholic Church does NOT teach salvation by "faith and good works." It teaches that salvation is by the grace of God. BUT as St. James wrote in his epistle, "Faith without works is dead." Like love & marriage, you can't have one without the other!

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 11, 2003.


Beware of Wolves in Sheep's Clothing by Mike Gendron -former Roman Catholic

The Lord Jesus Christ warned His followers, "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves (Matt. 7:15). The warning was important because Jesus later said to them: "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; therefore be shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves" (Matt. 10:16). The apostle Paul, with a deeply troubled spirit and in tears, penned a similar warning: "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock" (Acts 20:29). Throughout church history these warnings concerning professing Christians who deceive even the elect have seldom been taken seriously. How can the church be so easily deceived? According to Webster’s Dictionary "deceive" means "to lead astray or to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid." Could it be the church has not only lost its ability to discern truth from error but also to discern wolves from sheep? Consider Brennan Manning, an inactive Roman Catholic priest, who has some obvious characteristics of a "wolf," yet goes mostly undetected. In the last ten years, he has become a popular speaker in many "evangelical" churches. Manning was ordained to the Franciscan priesthood after graduating from St. Francis Seminary in 1963. Later he was theology instructor at the University of Steubenville (a Catholic seminary and catalyst for Mary to be named co-redeemer). After being treated for alcoholism and leaving the Franciscan Order in 1982, he married Roslyn Ann Walker. The marriage has since ended in divorce but his popularity as a writer and speaker continues to grow despite his proclamation of "another" gospel. The teachings of Manning are charming, seductive, cunning and dangerous as he takes advantage of his undiscerning audiences. He teaches that you can overcome fear, guilt and psychological hang-ups, even alcoholism, through meditation. His meditation techniques are drawn from a mixture of eastern mysticism, psychology, the New Age Movement and Catholicism. Manning gives the impression that he has a very intimate relationship with God and reports having many visions, encounters and conversations with Him. He assures his audiences that if they apply his teachings, they too can become more intimate with God.

I first met Manning at the Christian Booksellers Association in New Orleans last summer. As he was signing autographs for his book, The Ragamuffin Gospel, I asked him if his "ragamuffin gospel" followed the Catholic plan of salvation or the biblical plan of salvation. He responded, "Read it and find out for yourself." Still trying to gain insight into his theology, I gave him a tract I had written called Roman Catholicism: Scripture vs. Tradition and asked for his comments. After looking at it for a couple of minutes he tore it into pieces and threw it in the trash.

The next time I saw Manning was January 21st at Hillcrest Church, a growing congregation of over 5,000 members in north Dallas. Manning’s message was about our need for a second conversion, a conversion that can only take place when one overcomes self-rejection and gains esteem through self-acceptance. How contradictory were his words with the words of Christ! "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me" (Luke 9:23). After the service I asked two elders of Hillcrest Church how they could allow a Roman Catholic priest speak to their congregation. Their response—"we welcome everyone who loves God"—was a fulfillment of Paul’s prophetic words: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths" (2 Tim. 4:3-4).

All Mankind is Redeemed

As with many such teachers who gain popularity by tickling ears, Manning overemphasizes the love and grace of God while ignoring His attributes of justice, righteousness and holiness. He teaches that Jesus has redeemed all of mankind. His "good news" is that everyone is already saved. Among those Manning believes he will see in heaven is "the sexually abused teen molested by his father and now selling his body on the street, who, as he falls asleep each night after his last ‘trick,’ whispers the name of the unknown God."1 Manning’s theology opposes God’s word again and again: "those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:21). "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" (John 3:36). Accordingly, the only faith Manning thinks sinners need is to "trust the love of God."

This is a major theme of The Ragamuffin Gospel, "trusting the love of God," because God loves you no matter what you do. There is no call to sanctification or holiness. Instead Manning excuses sin as human weakness that God will tolerate regardless of whether the sinner is repentant or not. In saying this, Manning has turned "the grace of our God into licentiousness" (Jude 4). He writes: "False gods—the gods of human understanding—despise sinners, but the Father of Jesus loves all, no matter what they do. But of course this is almost too incredible for us to accept."2 Yes, too incredible because it violates God’s word: "Thou dost hate all who do iniquity" (Psalm 5:5).

Stop Thinking About God

In The Signature of Jesus, another one of Manning’s books, he teaches his readers how to pray, using an eight-word mantra.3 He says, "the first step in faith is to stop thinking about God at the time of prayer" (p. 212). The second step is "without moving your lips, repeat the sacred word [or phrase] inwardly, slowly, and often." If distractions come, "simply return to listening to your sacred word" (p. 218). He also encourages his readers to "celebrate the darkness" because "the ego has to break; and this breaking is like entering into a great darkness" (p. 145). Jesus said, "He who follows me shall not walk in the darkness" (John 8:12).

The Spirit of Antichrist

Manning often cites Catholic saints, humanist philosophers, heretics, monks and medieval mystics. Some of the monks he quotes maintain that salvation is really a transformation of consciousness to be awakened to the oneness of all creation. Possibly the most dangerous practice and teaching of Manning is his New Age mind-emptying method of meditation. This is an open invitation to satanic activity. Many of the expressions and techniques Manning employs in The Signature of Jesus are not found in the Scriptures such as: centering prayer, paschal spirituality, the discipline of the secret, contemplative spirituality, mineralization, practicing the presence, inner integration, yielding to the Center, notional knowledge, contemporary spiritual masters and masters of the interior life. Extra-biblical spiritual practices can only produce confusion. They originate from the father of lies in whom there is no truth. What a contrast Manning is to the way Paul described the first century teachers. He said: "We have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God." (2 Cor. 4:2)

Manning rarely uses Scripture and shows his disdain for those who do and for those who believe "The Word was God" (John 1:1). He writes: "I am deeply distressed by what I only can call in our Christian culture the idolatry of the Scriptures. For many Christians, the Bible is not a pointer to God but God himself. In a word—bibliolatry.… I develop a nasty rash around people who speak as if mere scrutiny of its pages will reveal precisely how God thinks and precisely what God wants" (p. 188). He criticize several churches he visited, where "religiosity has pushed Jesus to the margins of real life and plunged people into preoccupation with their own personal salvation" (p. 193).

Although Manning believes and teaches the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, The Signature of Jesus is not a guide to follow Jesus, but to follow "the masters of the interior life." Paul wrote, "For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting" (Rom. 16:18).

Manning reinterprets some of the most essential biblical truths in the light of psychological healing. He looks upon "human nature as fallen but redeemed, flawed but in essence good" (p. 125). His instruction to meditate on nothingness instead of God’s Word is an exercise of modern occultism. This practice invites demonic influence and contact with the spirit world. Manning’s Catholic mysticism has no place in the true Church of Jesus Christ.

Christian leaders should warn others about Manning and all "deceitful workers who masquerade as apostles of Christ" (2 Cor. 11:13). They must be exposed (Eph. 5:11). We all live in days of great deception. May God give His church the gift of discernment as we take Paul’s warning seriously: "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ" (Col. 2:8).

End Notes

1. Brennan Manning, The Ragamuffin Gospel, Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1990, page 33.

2. Ibid, page 22.

3. Brennan Manning, The Signature of Jesus, Sisters, OR: Multnomah Books, 1996, pp. 94, 219.

-- Bill Scudder (azusa@aol.com), February 21, 2003.


Was it not one of you own aquinas that said all truth is God's truth. Manning seems to be a man of God who is calling the church to reform. He is right Christ was not as concered with sin as we are. Did he not say i desire mercy not sacrifice. you need to wake up and realize that you have fallen short of the glory of god too. That in essence you have comitted the same sin as the pharisees. They to thought they were right. I hope that you don't think they are right then what kind of faith would you have? Yet what they believed was wrought from the same kind of tradition that you attack manning with. Open up your eyes he who has he who has eyes let him see he who has ears let him hear. Are we to obey God or man it seems to me that the spirt of God is using manning to help many hurting people a favorite hobby of his that he practiced on earth. Ben

-- ben (benhollamby@hotmail.com), March 27, 2003.

Yes Jesus was indeed concerned with mercy. He is recorded as mentioning it 42 times! Of course, He mentioned sin 258 times, but who's counting? And several of the times He mentioned mercy, He was speaking of God's mercy toward sinners. SIN is the reason Jesus came. If men had not sinned, they would not need a Savior. Jesus came to show us God's mercy by SAVING us from SIN. Nothing else. He suffered and died on the cross because of SIN. So I think He was a LOT MORE concerned about sin than we are.

Aquinas said all TRUTH is God's truth. He didn't say that all beliefs are God's truth. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would reveal all truth to the Church. God's Word calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of Truth". If you don't listen to the Church, you don't listen to Jesus; and if you don't listen to Jesus, you don't know the truth. And if you don't know the truth, you are just a compassionate pagan, and that won't save you. Jesus said the TRUTH would set us free.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 27, 2003.


Dear Mike and other brothers and sisters: Having recently become a believer, i read the ragamuffin gospel. When i finished crying, i immediately started at th ebeginning again. i found NONE of the htings such as meditation, new age or anything else mentioned, nor did Mr. Manning mention or teach any of those during the three days io met with and listened to him, unless you count the "breath prayers" such as "Abba, I belong to you". I certainly do not want to start a denomonational argument, but almost all teach something non-biblical. I just would ahte someone to miss the Love of Jesus because of an inaccurate bum rap they read here! THAT would be the real sin.........

-- rob jacobs (rjacobs@montgomerycarecenter.com), June 24, 2003.

Dear Rob,

One characteristic which New Age practitioners universally share is their avoidance of the term "New Age". The term carries far too much negative baggage, and rightly so, so its gurus create more sanitary and spiritual sounding terms like "inner enlightenment" and "creative vizualization" as banners under which to pedal their neopagan ideas. The "breath prayers" you mention are otherwise known as "mantras", a technique taken from Hinduism, and an integral aspect of pagan New Age meditation. It doesn't matter what the words of the mantra are. They can be "Jesus I love you". Their purpose is always the same - to bring you into a state where you are openly receptive to spiritual influences, many of which can be harmful and extremely dangerous. Father Manning is a known practitioner and teacher of such pantheistic neopagan spirituality, and frankly the fact that you found nothing objectionable in his presentation is indicative of the subversive manner in which such gurus introduce people to the practices of their false religions. The practices come first. They give you the impression that you can use such techniques within the context of your orthodox Catholicism. You cannot. The practices are an introduction to the false religion they symbolize, and the beliefs inevitably follow. If you receive the Eucharist regularly, you will never "miss the love of Jesus". Jesus never made His love contingent upon participation in pagan rituals and mind-altering techniques.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 24, 2003.


why is it that the church seems to be so legalistic? there seems to be an answer for everything, a dispute about the most petty details, a need for exact answers. i myself am not catholic. I go to a christian reformed church. yet i believe that as long as there is one specific common ground on which we all as believers stand on, no matter the denomination, we will arrive at the same destination. That common belief would be Christ's death for our sins and His resurrection so that we may be with Him in heaven. Nowhere in the bible does it say that only the catholics will go to heaven, nowhere does it say that being catholic is the right religion. i believe that brennan manning hit the nail on the head when he said, and i quote from the book, "our huffing and puffing to impress God, our scrambling for brownie points, our thrashing about trying to fix ourselves while hiding our pettiness and wallowing in guilt are nauseating to God and are a flat denial of the gospel of grace". How can he be disputed on this point? let me ask you this, what is grace? How is it that you believe that you are to be saved without it. i know that i could never be saved without God's amazing and wonderful grace.

-- amy (KiwiFizzle@hotmail.com), September 13, 2003.

"Why is it that the church seems to be so legalistic? there seems to be an answer for everything, a dispute about the most petty details, a need for exact answers."

A: Because you cannot have truth without unity, and you cannot have unity without authority. Look at the Protestant system, which has no authority, no unity, and no exact answers, a system of doctrinal chaos and conflicting denominations - exactly the opposite of what Christ described for His own Church, unity in worship and in truth.

"I believe that as long as there is one specific common ground on which we all as believers stand on, no matter the denomination, we will arrive at the same destination"

A: Could you give me a scripture to back up that idea? Where does Jesus say that you can belong to any church you want as long as you have "one specific common ground"? In fact, where does Jesus even suggest that He approves of the existence of any other churches,other than the one Church He personally founded for all men?

"Nowhere in the bible does it say that only the catholics will go to heaven"

A: And the Catholic Church does not teach this either.

"nowhere does it say that being catholic is the right religion."

A: Oh on the contrary! Jesus taught that all men were to belong to the one Church He founded (Matt 28:19). He also predicted, and warned us against, the eventual development of manmade denominational religion (2 Tim 4:3; 2 Pet 2:1). So it is clear that Jesus taught there could be only ONE true Church, which only makes sense since conflicting beliefs cannot be true, and truth is what sets men free (John 8:32). History shows us the identity of that one Church founded by Christ - the Church of the Apostles, the Holy Catholic Church, which was the only Christian Church in existence for 1,000 years after Christ.

"our huffing and puffing to impress God, our scrambling for brownie points, our thrashing about trying to fix ourselves while hiding our pettiness and wallowing in guilt are nauseating to God and are a flat denial of the gospel of grace"

A: That certainly makes sense! But what do you think it has to do with Catholicism??

"Let me ask you this, what is grace? How is it that you believe that you are to be saved without it. i know that i could never be saved without God's amazing and wonderful grace"

A: Amen to that! Salvation is by grace alone - a truth which the Holy Catholic Church has continuously taught since the days of the Apostles! Where did you hear otherwise??

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 13, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ