That is not a healthy perspective for any Christian. Religious subjectivity does not exist; God lives and wants everyone to be Catholic, whether one is Italian or Japanese. There is no Nirvana(which supposedly cannot be obtained by a layman, by the way); salvation is only through Christ.
All right, Mr. Wilcox. As for religious subjectivity, it infers that all religions are valid, equal, true, etc. It is a major problem of postmodern thinking.
One way of looking at it. Not mine. Christ I see as Universal. Again I ask, what is it to be a member of the Body of Christ? If it is limited to being a member of the Roman Catholic Church by outward appearance our Faith becomes that of the Pharisee, works only.
I am being not narrow-minded. For instance, I basically feel that any monotheist(including Akhenaton) who lived before Christ had a chance of entering Abraham’s Bosom(and later Heaven). There is neither justification by faith or works alone; both are needed for salvation. Some Eastern philosophies are not inherently incompatible with Christianity; Confucianism, for instance, could “fit” in with the True Faith. However, there should be no truly religious syncretism(sadly, most Haitian “Catholics” also practice voudou- a clear abomination to God and extremely dangerous to one’s soul). One can only serve one master.
With what you post I have difficulty reconciling your argument with your footnotes. Your quoting of Descartes and Freud to justify your position intrigues me. Descartes and Freud,
Indeed, it is not easy to become a Catholic, but it is certainly not impossible. I like those particular statements from Freud(who was, of course, an atheist whom had been raised in Judaism yet was fascinated certain aspects of the paranormal) and Descartes; that does not mean that I agree that all of their beliefs. For instance, I am probably more of a pessimistic Jungian than an “orthodox” Freudian. Also, I wish to note that the majority of people in Japan practice Buddhism alongside of Shinto (the traditional imperial faith); since Buddhism basically ignores deities, the two faiths are antagonistic of one another. That is an rather interesting phenomenon.
Be careful, you’re moving closer to syncretism. Do you think it possible to live as a Buddhist and practise as a Christian?
Oh, I know. But one can be a Jungian psychiatrist(I was intending to become a physician before realizing that I should become a priest) and a faithful Catholic; for one thing, Jung was not a dogmatist like Freud seems to have been. Anyway, no, a Catholic cannot never practice Buddhism. An essential part of Buddhism is reincarnation(with an emphasis social equality rather than that of Hinduism); reaching Nirvana is the ultimate goal of the Eightfold Path. Those core beliefs are utterly incompatible with Christianity. In addition, I was not saying that the common Japanese combination of Buddhism and Shinto is theologically healthy, and that practice was apparently forbidden under the Meiji Emperor.
It’s good to meet a faithful Catholic priest
Well, I am certainly not ordained yet, but thank you! I have not spoken to any experts upon Zen Buddhism later, but I believe that I know a little about the subject. Yes, Buddhism is more ethical rather truly religious(and, as I have implied, I generally admire their morality), but whether or not reincarnation, per se, is equatible to a dogma as such as that which we have in Catholicism does not undermine its prevalence in the Buddhistic religion and in Eastern faiths as a whole(think of traditional Chinese ancestor-worship, for instance). The idea that enlightenment can be achieved by very few in this particular world(that is, basically by extremely well-mediated monks- like Kwai Chung Caine!) strongly suggests a central belief in transmitigation of some sort. If there is no true soul, then that which is being reincarnated is more akin that of an animal’s spirit(perhaps it can best be thought of as more or less pure energy attached by a mind, or brain if you will; thus, never going out of existence, just being transferred in one way or another). Transmigitation is clearly not the same as dying and going to Heaven or Hell, since the Western(not Platonian) concept of an afterlife always involves an actual soul that is separated from its body. The soul does not going into another body, since a soul has a clear identity which cannot be confused with another and is only associated with higher beings(namely man; interestingly, Buddhists are said to be among those who are the most willing to accept evolution in its entirety). To be reincarnated as a chicken(as in Hinduism) is, I believe, in stark contrast to the concept of a soul. In addition, the possibility of multiple reincarnations, if accepted by a self-identifying Christian, definitely undermines the importance of acceptance of Christ as Savior and good works in this life. Obviously, if one expects to be given “second” chances in later lives, why should one behave in this lifetime? With his mindset, accountability can, to an extent, be prolonged almost indefinitely. The idea of a judging God basically becomes worthless and distorted. Likewise, punishment for deeds in previous lives becomes problematic when dealing with Christian forgiveness and the like(remember the story of the blind beggar in the Gospels who was not being punished for his parents’ sins or his own but essentially to give God glory through later healing?). There is one life and one chance(though God can intervene in our lives, obviously- as He did in St. Paul’s). I could keep going “on and on” but I am really tired and, frankly, have some other things that I have do. Besides, I am probably beginning to not make any sense. As for Freud, he was indeed dogmatic(according to his own dogmas)- screaming or even hating with those whom he disagreed! Jung, on the other hand, was willing, for instance, acknowledge that his theories were not applicable for many cases and that Freudian or Adlerian concepts tended to be useful in such cases.It’s good to meet a faithful Catholic priest
Freud, dogmatist? He talked his wife out of her orthodox jewish beliefs. Jung parted company with him because of Freud’s insistence on interpreting data in the way he saw fit rather than listen to the client. Maybe Freud was a dogmatist, but it was to his own dogma.
Buddhism and Catholicism incompatible? Have you discussed this with the Jesuit Zen Buddhist roshis (‘teachers’)?
The morality of the eightfold path is consistent with Catholic practise (if you haven’t yet done so, have a read.)
Buddhism is one of ethical practise.
It is questionable that reincarnation as Buddhism views it today was one of the primary teachings. Some think it slipped in to protect inheritence of material wealth. (A bit like marriage and the Catholic priesthood?)
Reincarnation in Buddhist dhamma - what is re-incarnated? Buddhist ‘doctrine’ is ‘no-self’, there is no self that is inherently existent. Nothing like a hermit crab climbing from one shell to another. This is a Hindu belief that Buddha parted company with. It all has to do with subtle vibration of energy.
When we die we pass on to an afterlife - Is this an interpretation of re-incarnation?
All right, but Purgatory is certainly not the same thing as being reincarnated. It is not really a second chance, just “finishing what was left off.” Also, Adler deliberately made his theory simple; that is one of the reasons for its appeal…**Young Thinker **perhaps when you are a little less tired you might like to read arguments against Origens’ spirituality of reincarnation. Even a Church Father can get it wrong
I think Purgatory gives us a second chance.
Adler’s research is interesting, he only had one subject test case on which to base his theory
I do not know about that; the only instance that I can think of is the “succession-law” to Grand Lamacy through reincarnation. However, such ways of thinking seem to be common in the East, like the now-illegal Hindu practice of sutee, as related to rights of property. I do not believe that such a reason is behind clerical celibacy in the Church. However, that was a major reason why eunuchs were often so powerful in China, particularily during the Han Dynasty.
Buddhists also recognize that.
The ultimate refuge for a Buddhist is in their own innate Buddha nature, their “tathagatagarbha.”
In Buddhism, nothing is “your own”, not even Buddha-Nature.
This is an extreme view. Absolutism. That all is one.