I had a Catholic therapist tell me once that a general, over-all new agist type religion, made up of things drawn from other religions, whatever it is you like, is much more dangerous than one, established faith, even if it’s Buddhism, Islam, etc. His point was that at least in those, there is some acceptance that there IS a truth outside of ourselves. So even though they’re incorrect, they’re not totally leading to the moral relativism that is so dangerous in seemingly “harmless” spiritualities like Tolle’s.
This is an excellent point about the New Age. By God’s grace I was saved from these teachings and am now in full communion with the Catholic church. It is true that there is a great difference between the practice of one religion (such as Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism) in geograhpical and cultural isolation from other religions, and the plethora of teachings that Westerners dabble in and call the New Age.
When those who do not know Christ and have not had the opportunity to be exposed to His Light practice the religion they were raised with, they also adhere to the grounded moral teachings that are inherent to those religions. This is very important, because through those moral teachings they have a concept of sin. They have an understanding of God, and his Holiness, even if it is not the fully revealed truth of Christ.
What makes “new age” so very different is the lack of any moral absolutes or grounding, and the definition of God as “love” with no acknowledgement of His Holiness, which would allow them to acknowledge their sin. God is not just love. God is holy. This is what Oprah denies, and this is what “new age” teachers deny.
The catechism says that those who have not had a true opportunity to learn of Christ are judged by the light that they did have. Other religions are considered imperfect bearers of God’s truth, but are not denied by the cathechism as having some truth.Those who sincerely practice other religions because they have not had the opportunity to know Christ are still able to be saved. CS Lewis and Mother Teresa believed this. HOWEVER, this is radically different statement than saying, “all paths lead to God”. In one instance, people are drawn by spiritual hunger to the truth, even when they do not know the gospel, and in the other instance, people reject the holiness of God because it is inconvenient, and reject the moral teachings of all of the religions they study.
It isn’t really love they are gravitating toward in the New Age, though they say it is about love and spirituality. They are gravitating toward
power.
843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332
848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”
Some of the ‘new thought’ people can get so vague, you don’t know what they’re thinking. Wish they’d just stick to something. If truth changes as you like, it can’t very well be truth, can it? 