I think you are quite right. Fr Bede saw dialogue not only important for Hindus but also for himself as he sought deeper union and understanding of Christ. Both Bede and Merton recognized the importance of the contemplative journey each individual must make with God… A journey beyond words.True, we do not have to integrate Hindu mysticism to lead a good Christian life, and I think Bede Griffiths would have been the first to agree. Fr. Bede, it seems to me, was seeking to interact with the people in a predominately Hindu land, respecting the truth and goodness of their faith and practices without rejecting his own Catholic faith. It was a difficult balancing act, the way he chose to go about it, and you, of course, are free to reject his methods and ideas. From what I can tell, you are not particularly interested in interreligious dialogue (unless your idea of dialogue is telling others what to do) , and so I’m rather certain that Fr. Bede would happily encourage you to live out your life as a Catholic as you see fit.
How do you understand the divine feminine?
There is no divine feminine as God is neither male nor female though God chose to manifest as male. The incarnation was as a male just as male was seen as the first human created and the female contained within him(his rib).This is true in essence because the sex of a child is determined by the male Woman came from the man.True, we do not have to integrate Hindu mysticism to lead a good Christian life, and I think Bede Griffiths would have been the first to agree. Fr. Bede, it seems to me, was seeking to interact with the people in a predominately Hindu land, respecting the truth and goodness of their faith and practices without rejecting his own Catholic faith. It was a difficult balancing act, the way he chose to go about it, and you, of course, are free to reject his methods and ideas. From what I can tell, you are not particularly interested in interreligious dialogue (unless your idea of dialogue is telling others what to do) , and so I’m rather certain that Fr. Bede would happily encourage you to live out your life as a Catholic as you see fit.
How do you understand the divine feminine?
Our Church, however, does not share your dim view of interreligious dialogue as being a futile concept, and especially since the Second Vatican Council, has encouraged such dialogue. Consider the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue at the Vatican, and the fact that several Catholic religious orders, such as the Camaldolese (of which Fr. Bede was eventually a member), have the specific mission of interacting with other faiths, with the Vatican’s blessing and approval.There is no divine feminine as God is neither male nor female though God chose to manifest as male. The incarnation was as a male just as male was seen as the first human created and the female contained within him(his rib).This is true in essence because the sex of a child is determined by the male Woman came from the man.
The divine was contained within a woman (Mary) though that did not make her divine. Her honor, as Jesus said, came not from her bearing Him but from her conforming her will to the will of God.Blessed is he who hears the word of God and does it.
Interreligious dialogue is somewhat of a futile concept though we should respect people of all faiths we need not integrate their beliefs and spirituality to understand them. One can do that on an intellectual basis.
What I observe in all of the brief writings I have studied of Fr Griffith is an attempt to reconcile all faiths through mysticism, I also see this same train of thought by Fr Merton and also Fr Rohr. A secret hidden knowledge that when revealed allows one access to the mind of God.That is an impossibility though.
This falls under the topic of private revelation as all we need to know for salvation was completed at the death of the last apostle.Also Hildegard of Bingen, a Doctor of the Church:
However, the visionary’s theology is more than feminine as she witnesses God as a “living light.” She describes the Trinity as “a very bright light, and inside it there was a human figure . . .], the fire and the light surrounded the human figure”. Moreover, Hildegard uses the feminine form in Latin, sapienta Dei, whenever she discusses Christ, which is similar to Julian’s use of “God our Mother.” Hence it is not so much that God exists as a sexless entity for Hildegard, but rather as a balanced higher power that possesses a blend of masculine and feminine characteristics. These divine qualities are in turn mirrored within both sexes of the human family.
sfsu.edu/~medieval/Volume%201/Hudson.html
If anyone can find her actual writings on line, please link.
Let me elaborate on this:Our Church, however, does not share your dim view of interreligious dialogue as being a futile concept, and especially since the Second Vatican Council, has encouraged such dialogue. Consider the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue at the Vatican, and the fact that several Catholic religious orders, such as the Camaldolese (of which Fr. Bede was eventually a member), have the specific mission of interacting with other faiths, with the Vatican’s blessing and approval.
Again, when we consider the divine feminine, it is important to remember that we are only talking about “the personification of an attribute of God”, Who includes and transcends all such descriptions. What purpose does it serve, I wonder, to insist on only considering God in the masculine? I return to Julian of Norwich, since you find Fr. Bede so off-putting, and offer these reflections from her Revelations:
“Thus I saw that God rejoices that He is our Father, God rejoices that He is our Mother, and God rejoices that He is our true Spouse and our soul is His beloved wife.”
“Thus Our Lady is our Mother in whom we are all enclosed, and out of her we are all born in Christ (for she who is Mother of Our Savior is Mother of all who shall be saved within our Savior). **But our Savior is our true Mother **in whom we are endlessly borne and shall never come to birth out of Him.”
Consider too the high praise our Holy Father Benedict XVI had for the writings of Lady Julian, which certainly must include her references to the feminine aspects of God.
I just think it is patently erroneous to think that this is some new thought or idea that the Catholic Church has yet to stumble upon. Of course God can be seen exhibiting feminine attributes - to be sheltered under God’s wings is a reference to the feminine (hen) aspect of God’s loving protection. That isn’t what bothers me about his writings. It is more the adoption of Hindu-Buddhist-Taoist philosophy being mixed with Christianity that is the issue for me.It is apparent from some of the posts here that Bede Griffiths is a polarizing figure for Catholics - for those of us who are even aware of him, that is. I have read a few of his books, and find some of what he says to be quite agreeable, and other ideas to be rather challenging. But I do not consider “challenging” to always be a bad thing! Concerning his relationship as a Catholic monk among Hindus, I’m not yet sure whether he was ahead of his time or an anomaly - time will tell.
But the idea of the divine feminine, while usually kept to the periphery, is nothing new. Lady Julian of Norwich, a favorite of mine, wrote of God as Mother back in the 14th century. Consider this commentary from Fr. John-Julian, OJN, from The Complete Julian of Norwich (I chose him specifically, since he is one of Lady Julian’s more conservative scholars):
"Julian’s unapologetic treatment of Christ as Mother is, without a doubt, the finest and most sophisticated treatment of that subject in all of Christian literature. It is only our contemporary ignorance of the classic Christian mystics and theologians that leads us to think of this as a “new idea” for Julian. It is a venerable tradition supported by Adam of Persigne, Aelred, Albert the Great, Anselm, Aquinas, Augustine, Bernard of Cluny, Bonaventure, Bridget of Sweden, Catherine of Siena, Clement of Alexandria, Dante, William Flete, Gilbert of Hoyland, Guerric of Igny, Guigo II the Carthusian, Helinand of Froidmont, Isaac of Stella, Margery Kempe, Peter Lombard, Ludolph of Saxony, Margurite of Oingt, Mechtild of Magdeburg, Richard Rolle, William of St. Thierry, the Acrene Wisse, the Stimulus Amoris, and Holy Scripture itself.
It is not surprising that Julian should present this idea as unexceptional. But we do a great injustice to Mother Julian if we assign to her any modern “feminist” motivations in the declaration of Christ’s motherhood. Julian’s tradition comes from her identification of the Second Person of the Trinity with the traditional character of Wisdom - interpreted in all the Judeo-Christian tradition as the Divine Feminine - and her understanding of the identity between “Mother Church” and the Mystical Body of Christ. For Julian, Christ is the Church, and the Church is the Mother. Christ is Wisdom, and Wisdom is the feminine."
The Holy Spirit has also been associated with Wisdom, and so could be considered feminine. So it sounds to me like Fr. Bede was in good company here. I think it can be helpful to use the distinction, “the personification of an attribute of God” when considering the divine feminine.
How about inter religious dialogue with the purposes of understanding where someone else is coming from?Let me elaborate on this:
Inter religious dialogue with the purpose of evangelizing or conversion is futile. Learning about other faiths and how and why people believe they do is Ok yet syncretism is forbidden. If you try to unite all faiths under the broad banner of :mysticism you will fail. Intellectuals are constantly looking for ways to integrate all beliefs yet there is nothing in the Hindu or Buddhist faith that allows for Jesus Christ . You have to dismantle all the Christian beliefs about the Trinity to even come close.
This is not true at all. An essential part of Hindu theology is that God incarnates on Earth periodically as a human being. So Hinduism does allow for an incarnation like that of Jesus Christ - Jesus fits right into this Hindu belief.…there is nothing in the Hindu or Buddhist faith that allows for Jesus Christ . You have to dismantle all the Christian beliefs about the Trinity to even come close.
Except no one like Jesus comes “periodically”. He came once and will come again at the end of time. He is unlike any other man that has ever walked the earth - He is the second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God. So it is not Jesus that fits into Hindu belief, rather you have fashioned a figure of your own making in order to make him fit.This is not true at all. An essential part of Hindu theology is that God incarnates on Earth periodically as a human being. So Hinduism does allow for an incarnation like that of Jesus Christ - Jesus fits right into this Hindu belief.
I am not saying that Hindu and Christian beliefs are exactly the same, but it is wrong to say that a divine incarnation does not fit into Hindu theology. And Hindus also believe that these divine incarnations are from the second Person of the Hindu Trinity. If there is another divine incarnation tomorrow, Hindus would not have to change any of their theology (or ‘fashion a figure of their own’) to fit the new incarnation in either.Except no one like Jesus comes “periodically”. He came once and will come again at the end of time. He is unlike any other man that has ever walked the earth - He is the second Person of the Trinity, the Son of God. So it is not Jesus that fits into Hindu belief, rather you have fashioned a figure of your own making in order to make him fit.
dialogue is the only remedy for interreligious and interracial conflicts? Most people who are practicing true religion are kind and humble caring for widows and orphans.That encompasses most faiths. What this commission seems to not understand is that it is religious extremists who merely use religion as a platform for their agenda who are the problem and who probably would not be interested in dialogue anyway. Go ask Isis.How about inter religious dialogue with the purposes of understanding where someone else is coming from?
"I want to take up the first requirement of the practice of dialogue which consists in a real respect for the different opinions and convictions of others. My intention is not to convince and make you change your minds in any way. But a report on the situation of interreligious dialogue must, it seems to me, begin by mentioning the limits of the enterprise.
"There are in fact two motivations for interreligious dialogue. Both of them demand the close attention of the members of our commissions. The first concerns the whole world: dialogue is the only remedy for the interreligious and interracial conflicts which have multiplied in the last few years. In fact we can say that the present interreligious situation is above all one of exclusion and violence. Only an attitude of understanding, esteem and welcome, in short an exercise of dialogue, can remedy this deterioration of the situation. We all have to collaborate in the evolution of mental habits, wherever we are. The local commissions try to help monasteries to do this.
“But among monks and nuns, among all those engaged in a more intense spiritual life, interreligious dialogue can reach another dimension and indeed attain its real depth when it is found at the heart of a religious search. It can then become a kind of renewed conversion to the Gospel. To enter into dialogue with other people or other spiritual traditions through texts or through practice is not just an academic exercise. The discovery of spiritual; experience among believers of other religions challenges us in our own life of faith. This meeting is certainly not easy nor without danger. One of the principal occupations of our commissions is precisely to help in this indispensable discernment.”
aimintl.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=354&Itemid=376&lang=en
They are merely reincarnations not incarnations.Jesus came once and He will return at the end. In addition the Hindu concept of reincarnation is very incompatible with the Christian faith .I am not saying that Hindu and Christian beliefs are exactly the same, but it is wrong to say that a divine incarnation does not fit into Hindu theology. And Hindus also believe that these divine incarnations are from the second Person of the Hindu Trinity. If there is another divine incarnation tomorrow, Hindus would not have to change any of their theology (or ‘fashion a figure of their own’) to fit the new incarnation in either.
I am not sure where you got this information, but it is wrong.They are merely reincarnations not incarnations.Jesus came once and He will return at the end. In addition the Hindu concept of reincarnation is very incompatible with the Christian faith .
This is quite true. Unlike in Christianity, the three main Hindu Gods are separate and distinct, not three persons in One.True or false? The “Hindu trinity” is a triad of three distinct gods. I have never heard it said that Hindus believe in one God in three Persons.
I definitely don’t want you to be confused. I used the term Hindu Trinity as meaning the three main Gods. I will try to think of another word for that.Then I would ask you to please not confuse the two concepts. Because when you say “Trinity” to a Christian, we have certain ideas about the term that we immediately apply. The Hindu “trinity” is no trinity at all to a Christian.
How about Trimūrti?I definitely don’t want you to be confused. I used the term Hindu Trinity as meaning the three main Gods. I will try to think of another word for that.
Trimurti is the name of the figure/statue that represents the three Gods. Murti mean ‘idol’ or statue.How about Trimūrti?