Catholicism & Buddhism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RosaryGirl_777
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is the Harrowing of Hell. Those who worshiped the true and living God but died before the atonement on the cross were saved from their limbo and brought to God.

On another thought, I like some Buddhist ideas, such as not harming living creatures (to some extent), but reincarnation (Buddhist) is incompatible with Catholicism, just as one example.

The different religions can’t all lead to God. There cannot be one God, Many Gods, no God, a personal God, and an impersonal 'supreme reality, all at the same time.
 
narrowpath said:
The different religions can’t all lead to God. There cannot be one God, Many Gods, no God, a personal God, and an impersonal 'supreme reality, all at the same time.
Click to expand...
The parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant:"Once upon a time there was a certain raja who called to his servant and said, ‘Come, good fellow, go and gather together in one place all the men of Savatthi who were born blind… and show them an elephant.’ ‘Very good, sire,’ replied the servant, and he did as he was told. He said to the blind men assembled there, ‘Here is an elephant,’ and to one man he presented the head of the elephant, to another its ears, to another a tusk, to another the trunk, the foot, back, tail, and tuft of the tail, saying to each one that that was the elephant.

"When the blind men had felt the elephant, the raja went to each of them and said to each, ‘Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?’

"Thereupon the men who were presented with the head answered, ‘Sire, an elephant is like a pot.’ And the men who had observed the ear replied, ‘An elephant is like a winnowing basket.’ Those who had been presented with a tusk said it was a ploughshare. Those who knew only the trunk said it was a plough-pole; others said the body was a granery; the foot, a pillar; the back, a mortar; the tail, a pestle, the tuft of the tail, a brush.

“Then they began to quarrel, shouting, ‘Yes it is!’ ‘No, it is not!’ ‘An elephant is not that!’ ‘Yes, it’s like that!’ and so on, till they came to blows over the matter.”

Udana 6.4
Do we know more about the totality of God than those blind men knew about the elephant?

rossum
 
inJESUS said:
a Catholic relies on God…a Buddhist relies on himself.
Click to expand...
G.K. Chesterton once said that he knew that Buddhism and Christianity were very different because a Buddhist statue shows Buddha with his eyes closed, focusing within, whereas a the statues of saints have eyes opened, focused without.
 
valient_Lucy said:
G.K. Chesterton once said that he knew that Buddhism and Christianity were very different because a Buddhist statue shows Buddha with his eyes closed, focusing within, whereas a the statues of saints have eyes opened, focused without.
Click to expand...
Actually, to have one’s eyes closed could mean one is focusing outward as well. One important Buddhist meditation is the radiation of love to all beings, in all realms. So closed eyes could mean focusing “without”.
 
rossum said:
The parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant:"Once upon a time there was a certain raja who called to his servant and said, ‘Come, good fellow, go and gather together in one place all the men of Savatthi who were born blind… and show them an elephant.’ ‘Very good, sire,’ replied the servant, and he did as he was told. He said to the blind men assembled there, ‘Here is an elephant,’ and to one man he presented the head of the elephant, to another its ears, to another a tusk, to another the trunk, the foot, back, tail, and tuft of the tail, saying to each one that that was the elephant.

"When the blind men had felt the elephant, the raja went to each of them and said to each, ‘Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?’

"Thereupon the men who were presented with the head answered, ‘Sire, an elephant is like a pot.’ And the men who had observed the ear replied, ‘An elephant is like a winnowing basket.’ Those who had been presented with a tusk said it was a ploughshare. Those who knew only the trunk said it was a plough-pole; others said the body was a granery; the foot, a pillar; the back, a mortar; the tail, a pestle, the tuft of the tail, a brush.

“Then they began to quarrel, shouting, ‘Yes it is!’ ‘No, it is not!’ ‘An elephant is not that!’ ‘Yes, it’s like that!’ and so on, till they came to blows over the matter.”

Udana 6.4
Do we know more about the totality of God than those blind men knew about the elephant?

rossum
Click to expand...
Of course - because God has chosen to reveal Himself, in His fullness, to us - in Jesus the God-man, and who knows Him knows God. He did this because He WANTS us to know Him fully. You think that God who wants us to know Him is incapable of communicating Himself to us in His fullness, provided we are prepared and desirous of knowing Him?
 
Actually, as long as one only accepts the things that do not contradict Catholicism, one can be Catholic and Buddhist. After all, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Anglicans all venerate the Buddha as a saint, under the name St. Josephat.

He was someone who did the best morally and philosophically as he could, without any guidance from the true religions of God, Judaism and Christianity. And that was all God could expect him to do.
 
Matariel said:
Actually, as long as one only accepts the things that do not contradict Catholicism, one can be Catholic and Buddhist. After all, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Anglicans all venerate the Buddha as a saint, under the name St. Josephat.

He was someone who did the best morally and philosophically as he could, without any guidance from the true religions of God, Judaism and Christianity. And that was all God could expect him to do.
Click to expand...
**Really, now?

Saint Josephat was raised in the Orthodox Ruthenian Church which, on 23 November 1595 in the Union of Brest, united with the Church of Rome. Trained as a merchant’s apprentice at Vilna, he was offered partnership in the business, and marriage to his partner’s daughter; feeling the call to religious life, he declined both. Monk in the Ukrainian Order of Saint Basil (Basilians) in Vilna at age 20 in 1604, taking the name brother Josaphat. Deacon. Ordained a Byzantine rite priest in 1609.

He was a Famous preacher and worked to bring unity among the faithful, and bring strayed Christians back to the Church. He became Bishop of Vitebsk. Most religious, fearing interference with the natively developed liturgy and customs, did not want union with Rome. Bishop Josaphat believed unity to be in the best interests of the Church, and by teaching, clerical reform, and personal example Josaphat won the greater part of the Orthodox in Lithuania to the union. Never completely suitable to either side, Roman authorities sometimes raised objection to Josaphat’s Orthodox actions. He became Archbishop of Polotsk, Lithuania in 1617.

He was murdered by a mob by being struck in the head with a halberd, was shot and beaten with pitchforks. His body was thrown into the Dvina River but later recovered. He was buried at Biala, Poland. Five years after his death his body was found incorrupt.

I don’t see where he was a Buddhist at all. ** 🤷
 
peary said:
**Really, now?

Saint Josephat was raised in the Orthodox Ruthenian Church which, on 23 November 1595 in the Union of Brest, united with the Church of Rome…

I don’t see where he was a Buddhist at all. ** 🤷
Click to expand...
That’s the wrong St. Josephat. I’m referring to the legend of St. Josephat and St. Barlaam.
 
peary said:
This just shows that Chesterton wasn’t infallible.
Click to expand...
You do understand what GK was getting at?–that placing Eastern-religious “esoteric” interpretations on Western-religious “exoteric” beliefs is a fundamental error–that one can *only *say Buddhism and Christianity are alike if one redefines Christian belief beyond all recognition–i.e turning it into Buddhism
 
peary said:
Maybe that’s why I was confused. I don’t pay attention to legends.
Click to expand...
Well, it just so happens that St. Josephat is recognized as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church. A lot of saints have apocrypha surrounding them. It doesn’t make them any less saintly.

The legend of St. Christopher is just that; a legend. All we really know about him is that he was a 3rd century martyr.

And St. Josephat happens to be Buddha. There is no scandal in this. He did the best he could for what he knew, having no contact with the true religions of God.

For this reason, it is ok to venerate him under the name of St. Josephat.
 
Well, it just so happens that St. Josephat is recognized as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church. A lot of saints have apocrypha surrounding them. It doesn’t make them any less saintly.

The legend of St. Christopher is just that; a legend. All we really know about him is that he was a 3rd century martyr.

And St. Josephat happens to be Buddha. There is no scandal in this. He did the best he could for what he knew, having no contact with the true religions of God.

For this reason, it is ok to venerate him under the name of St. Josephat.
 
Lion_of_Narnia said:
You do understand what GK was getting at?–that placing Eastern-religious “esoteric” interpretations on Western-religious “exoteric” beliefs is a fundamental error–that one can *only *say Buddhism and Christianity are alike if one redefines Christian belief beyond all recognition–i.e turning it into Buddhism
Click to expand...
Then why didn’t you say that with which to begin? It would have saved us undue stress.😛
 
rossum said:
A different Josaphat. See the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia: Barlaam and Josaphat.

Your Josaphat wasn’t. The original, after whom yours was named was.

rossum
Click to expand...
Josaphat and Barlaam were taken out of the Roman Martyrology when it was revised. The Saint Josaphat that I brought to attention in my post is the only authentic one.
 
peary said:
**Josaphat and Barlaam were taken out of the Roman Martyrology when it was revised. The Saint Josaphat that I brought to attention in my post is the only **currently authentic one.
Click to expand...
And even that might not be correct: though Josaphat was later excluded from Roman Martyrology, it seems that St. Josaphat has not been excluded from Eastern Catholic or Orthodox veneration.
 
SedesDomi said:
And even that might not be correct: though Josaphat was later excluded from Roman Martyrology, it seems that St. Josaphat has not been excluded from Eastern Catholic or Orthodox veneration.
Click to expand...
St. Josaphat was an eastern rite Catholic priest. He would have been considered a saint in either east or west. Or are you talking about the Josaphat associated with Balaam?
 
peary said:
St. Josaphat was an eastern rite Catholic priest. He would have been considered a saint in either east or west. Or are you talking about the Josaphat associated with Balaam?
Click to expand...
I’m referring to the original St. Josaphat, not the one of the 17th century.
 
RosaryGirl_777 said:
Is it true that Catholicism & Buddhism is compatible so that a Catholic could be a Buddhist? The reason I ask is because I have heard people call themselves Catholic Buddhists? :confused:

:cool: Pax:signofcross:
Click to expand...
This is absurd, in no way can a Good Catholic be a Buddhist, or a Buddhist be a Good Catholic.
First of all Buddhists seek to become nothing or blend into “everything” and view God as “everthing”. God is the creator and man is created, an individual, a creature. God cannot be both the creator and the created. Our relationship with God is unique, individual, and personal as well as a communual relationship in which God wants to show us His love. In Buddhism the individual is to be desovled to the the point of becoming nothing, how is God going to show His love for one that is nothing? View of what God is and what man is of the two belief sustems contradict each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top