How do you even begin debunking reincarnation?

[Ahimsa]

Ahimsa,
I find it equally strange that you, as a non-Catholic, are deciding what is and is not a dogmatic, infallible statement. The fact is, to knowledgeable Catholics it is clear that re-incarnation is counter to the faith. It is in scripture. it is in papal documents (Lumen Gentium for one), its in the writings of the Church Fathers and its explicitly stated in the Catechism in paragraph 1013. There is no need for a specific ex-cathedra statement explicitly denouncing reincarnation because there is no question among the faithful that would require clarification. Those kind of statements are made only to address specific needs.

Alright, you have Lumen Gentium, which is from Vatican II. Now where does LG reject reincarnation?

Again, I don’t deny that the historical teaching of the Church has been to reject reincarnation. But that leads to the question of: what sort of reincarnation is being rejected? The Church never explicitly says, and not all reincarnation theories say the same thing. It is conceivable that there might be certain ideas of reincarnation that are indeed compatible with Catholic teaching. Since the Church has not looked very deeply into this issue (as you admit), it seems there remains the possibility of certain ideas of reincarnation being Catholic-compatible.

 

[paul_c]

Apostolic Letters are not ex cathedra infallible dogmatic definitions.

please stop wasting our time with this. It is very clear that reincarnation is not accepted by the Catholic Church. There is no ambiguity in its position on this and no wiggle room that would make it somehow acceptable in the future.

 

[paul_c]

Alright, you have Lumen Gentium, which is from Vatican II. Now where does LG reject reincarnation?

This is from Lumen Gentium 48 and you can see how it is incompatible with reincarnation:
Joined with Christ in the Church and signed with the Holy Spirit “who is the pledge of our inheritance”,(245) truly we are called and we are sons of God(246) but we have not yet appeared with Christ in glory,(247) in which we shall be like to God, since we shall see Him as He is.(248) And therefore “while we are in the body, we are exiled from the Lord (249) and having the first-fruits of the Spirit we groan within ourselves(250) and we desire to be with Christ”’.(251) By that same charity however, we are urged to live more for Him, who died for us and rose again.(252) We strive therefore to please God in all things(253) and we put on the armor of God, that we may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil and resist in the evil day.(254) Since however we know not the day nor the hour, on Our Lord’s advice we must be constantly vigilant so that, having finished the course of our earthly life,(255) we may merit to enter into the marriage feast with Him and to be numbered among the blessed(256) and that we may not be ordered to go into eternal fire(257) like the wicked and slothful servant,(258) into the exterior darkness where “there will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth”.(259) For before we reign with Christ in glory, all of us will be made manifest “before the tribunal of Christ, so that each one may receive what he has won through the body, according to his works, whether good or evil”(260) and at the end of the world “they who have done good shall come forth unto resurrection of life; but those who have done evil unto resurrection of judgment”.(261) Reckoning therefore that “the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come that will be revealed in us”,(262) strong in faith we look for the “blessed hope and the glorious coming of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ”(263) "who will refashion the body of our lowliness, conforming it to the body of His glory(264), and who will come “to be glorified in His saints and to be marveled at in all those who have believed”(265).

Again, I don’t deny that the historical teaching of the Church has been to reject reincarnation. But that leads to the question of: what sort of reincarnation is being rejected? The Church never explicitly says, and not all reincarnation theories say the same thing. It is conceivable that there might be certain ideas of reincarnation that are indeed compatible with Catholic teaching. Since the Church has not looked very deeply into this issue (as you admit), it seems there remains the possibility of certain ideas of reincarnation being Catholic-compatible.

All forms of Reincarnation are rejected because they all deny the basic Christian view of the uniqueness of the person and the particular judgement based on how they live their life. . And I never said that the Church hasn’t looked deeply into the issue - but its so obviously in conflict that it doesn’t need to go that far to know its a problem.

 

[Ahimsa]

This is from Lumen Gentium 48 and you can see how it is incompatible with reincarnation:
Joined with Christ in the Church and signed with the Holy Spirit “who is the pledge of our inheritance”,(245) truly we are called and we are sons of God(246) but we have not yet appeared with Christ in glory,(247) in which we shall be like to God, since we shall see Him as He is.(248) And therefore “while we are in the body, we are exiled from the Lord (249) and having the first-fruits of the Spirit we groan within ourselves(250) and we desire to be with Christ”’.(251) By that same charity however, we are urged to live more for Him, who died for us and rose again.(252) We strive therefore to please God in all things(253) and we put on the armor of God, that we may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil and resist in the evil day.(254) Since however we know not the day nor the hour, on Our Lord’s advice we must be constantly vigilant so that, having finished the course of our earthly life,(255) we may merit to enter into the marriage feast with Him and to be numbered among the blessed(256) and that we may not be ordered to go into eternal fire(257) like the wicked and slothful servant,(258) into the exterior darkness where “there will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth”.(259) For before we reign with Christ in glory, all of us will be made manifest “before the tribunal of Christ, so that each one may receive what he has won through the body, according to his works, whether good or evil”(260) and at the end of the world “they who have done good shall come forth unto resurrection of life; but those who have done evil unto resurrection of judgment”.(261) Reckoning therefore that “the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come that will be revealed in us”,(262) strong in faith we look for the “blessed hope and the glorious coming of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ”(263) "who will refashion the body of our lowliness, conforming it to the body of His glory(264), and who will come “to be glorified in His saints and to be marveled at in all those who have believed”(265).

The highlighted phrase (which is not a dogmatic definition) can be interpreted in a number of ways. The “course” of one’s earthly life does not exclude how that course might manifest.

All forms of Reincarnation are rejected because they all deny the basic Christian view of the uniqueness of the person and the particular judgement based on how they live their life.

Even the CCC doesn’t say that it rejects “all forms” of reincarnation, so let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The uniqueness of the person is quite compatible with reincarnation, as is the idea of the particular judgement.

And I never said that the Church hasn’t looked deeply into the issue - but its so obviously in conflict that it doesn’t need to go that far to know its a problem.

OK. So do we agree that the Church has not looked deeply into this issue, at least not deeply enough such that a papal or counciliar statement (dogmatic) has been made?

 

[paul_c]

The highlighted phrase (which is not a dogmatic definition) can be interpreted in a number of ways. The “course” of one’s earthly life does not exclude how that course might manifest.

Seriously, Ahimsa, :Lumen Gentium is a Dogmatic statement. It says so in its definition. Go through the mental exercise of trying to fit reincaration into what it says. You won’t be able to without extreme wording gymnastics. It says one’s earthly life. Not lives, not reincarnations, life.

Even the CCC doesn’t say that it rejects “all forms” of reincarnation, so let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The uniqueness of the person is quite compatible with reincarnation, as is the idea of the particular judgement.

Ahimsa, seriously. This is what 1013 says:
1013 Death is the end of man’s earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny. When “the single course of our earthly life” is completed,586 we shall not return to other earthly lives: "It is appointed for men to die once."587 There is no “reincarnation” after death. .
How can you claim that this does not reject all forms of reincarnation? What possible form of reincarnation does this statement not reject?

OK. So do we agree that the Church has not looked deeply into this issue, at least not deeply enough such that a papal or counciliar statement (dogmatic) has been made?

No we do not agree on this statement. Reincarnation has been addressed throughout history by the church, starting with the Gnostics who also claimed some forms of reincarnation. The concept has clearly been rejected by the Catholic Church, there can be no question of this. You can’t accept the catechism statement, “There is NO reincarnation after death”, at face value because you are biased against the truth. For knowledgable Catholics, it is definitive.

 

[passer_by]

I never said geocentrism was a dogma, but it certainly was part of the teachings of the Church Fathers and scriptural interpretation, in part because geocentrism was consistent with a real dogma: the special, unique place that humans have in Creation. Geocentrism helped support that idea; geocentrism was thus a supporting doctrine, but not a dogma.

Likewise, I’m haven’t yet seen anyone claim (with evidence) that the rejection of reincarnation is a dogma, either; yet, it’s clear that the rejection of reincarnation historically has helped support real dogmatic statements (resurrection of the body, e.g.). So, if geocentrism – because it wasn’t dogma – need not be true, then one might ask whether an absolute rejection of reincarnation – because it may not be dogma – might not be true, either.

I think you are totally confused here.

It is still true that humans have a unique place in creation. Geocentrism is a scientific fact that has nothing to do with Faith and Morals.

So NO, whats incompatible with Christianity is incompatible with Christianity even today.

People seek Refuge in the Triple Gem for many reasons. Ultimately, it’s because Nirvana is the “highest Happiness/Joy”, and “Deathless”.

Sure. But Nirvana is not the highest happiness for a Catholic.

You don’t get the same physical body after reincarnation.

Then that too is condemned. Why? Because the body one receives at birth is an essential part of that person just as his/her soul in Catholic teaching.

There are similar ideas in Buddhism. There are certain Buddhist hellish realms, in which one cannot get out by one’s own efforts.

Yes but in Christianity, this is it. Forget about other efforts. No one can merit for them after death.

OK, so you’re saying that condemnation by the Saints, make something a dogmatic teaching?

If it has been taught repeatedly in Tradition, it does become infallible. You might want to read up on the definition of infallibility in the church. Infallibility does not extend only to Dogmas and council pronouncements.

But I meant something simpler with the saints. Since you don’t seem to have much knowledge on Catholicism, you should listen to saints. They are most likely right than you are.

 

[Ahimsa]

Seriously, Ahimsa, :Lumen Gentium is a Dogmatic statement. It says so in its definition. Go through the mental exercise of trying to fit reincaration into what it says. You won’t be able to without extreme wording gymnastics. It says one’s earthly life. Not lives, not reincarnations, life.

Ahimsa, seriously. This is what 1013 says:
1013 Death is the end of man’s earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny. When “the single course of our earthly life” is completed,586 we shall not return to other earthly lives: "It is appointed for men to die once."587 There is no “reincarnation” after death. .
How can you claim that this does not reject all forms of reincarnation? What possible form of reincarnation does this statement not reject?

No we do not agree on this statement. Reincarnation has been addressed throughout history by the church, starting with the Gnostics who also claimed some forms of reincarnation. The concept has clearly been rejected by the Catholic Church, there can be no question of this. You can’t accept the catechism statement, “There is NO reincarnation after death”, at face value because you are biased against the truth. For knowledgable Catholics, it is definitive.

Like I said, all this is the historical teaching of the Church. No problem. But I don’t see where you’ve produced a dogmatic definition from council or papal statement that addresses this issue. Since dogmas are the most definitive teachings of the Church, I find it rather interesting that rejection of reincarnation has not been defined at a dogmatic level. Of course, this doesn’t mean that Catholics should not “assent” to the rejection of reincarnation, but such assent is not the highest level of agreement that Catholics are called to engage in.

 

[illusion_buster]

Once something is taught repeatedly in Tradition, it is infallible

WHAT!!!

 

[passer_by]

Like I said, all this is the historical teaching of the Church. No problem. But I don’t see where you’ve produced a dogmatic definition from council or papal statement that addresses this issue. Since dogmas are the most definitive teachings of the Church, I find it rather interesting that rejection of reincarnation has not been defined at a dogmatic level. Of course, this doesn’t mean that Catholics should not “assent” to the rejection of reincarnation, but such assent is not the highest level of agreement that Catholics are called to engage in.

Wow, how about this, what makes you think that reincarnation is actually true?

Do you have a reason for the type of reincarnation you assume? Is there a REASON for this rebirth?

Because I am telling you as a Catholic, reincarnation is NOT compatible with Catholicism. Especially the Buddhism that is preached in Therevada. Even the Buddhists who have studied Christianity in depth would tell you this.

But here you are trying, very hard mind you, to justify your belief in a re-incarnation. As a Catholic, you shouldn’t need a reincarnation. You also have no luxury of hoping that you can make up for your sins in the next life. That is incompatible with Catholic teaching.

So if you are a Catholic, reincarnation does not offer ANYTHING that changes your view on life or its Theology. Quiet frankly, it would only mean something only if you abandon the Catholic teaching and start from a Buddhist perspective.

As far as a Catholic is concerned, live your life according to the will of God and have faith in Divinely revealed truths through the Church. You are NOT called to believe in some truths revealed by a mere mortal.

Even if a certain form of re-incarnation can be formulated that does not contradict Catholic teachings, it would be pretty useless since Catholic faith is ALL YOU NEED. If you needed to know about reincarnation for salvation, God would have revealed it to you through the Church. Since he has NOT, don’t worry about meaningless things

 

[Ahimsa]

Wow, how about this, what makes you think that reincarnation is actually true?

That’s another thread, another topic. This thread is about debunking reincarnation, not making arguments for reincarnation.

Because I am telling you as a Catholic, reincarnation is NOT compatible with Catholicism.

That’s fine and dandy. Now, can you point me to a council or a papal infallible statement that says that?

 

[passer_by]

That’s another thread, another topic. This thread is about debunking reincarnation, not making arguments for reincarnation.

That’s fine and dandy. Now, can you point me to a council or a papal infallible statement that says that?

When in doubt, if there is no pronouncement, FOLLOW THE SAINTS. Not your personal conclusions, alright ?

That is how Catholics live.

 

[Ahimsa]

When in doubt, if there is no pronouncement, FOLLOW THE SAINTS. Not your personal conclusions, alright ?

That is how Catholics live.

So we agree that there is no conciliar or papal infallible pronouncement rejecting reincarnation?

 

[passer_by]

So we agree that there is no conciliar or papal infallible pronouncement rejecting reincarnation?

As I said many times before, there are dogmatic and doctrinal declarations that contradict re-incarnation.

But you seem to be in doubt whether this means you can believe in reincarnation. I suggest you, as any Good Catholic would, to follow the teachings of the saints then.

Make sense?

 

[Ahimsa]

As I said many times before, there are dogmatic and doctrinal declarations that contradict re-incarnation.

But you seem to be in doubt whether this means you can believe in reincarnation.

I’m not stating that Catholics should assent to reincarnation ideas, nor am I denying that many saints have spoken about various reincarnation ideas. I’m asking about conciliar and papal statements that specifically deal with reincarnation.

 

[passer_by]

I’m not stating that Catholics should assent to reincarnation ideas, nor am I denying that many saints have spoken about various reincarnation ideas. I’m asking about conciliar and papal statements that specifically deal with reincarnation.

Sure sure, but as I said, for a Catholic, we are not called to follow ONLY conciliar and papal statements. So even if there was a lack of such statements, we are called to follow the SAINTS.

 

[illusion_buster]

"When in doubt, if there is no pronouncement, FOLLOW THE SAINTS. Not your personal conclusions, alright ? "

Just remember…Anyone of us could be TOMORROW’S saints… So I say…When in doubt…Take it to the feet of the cross…Take it to our Lord… HE will not misdirect you!

 

[GEddie]

YES! but that doesn’t suggest the “body” we know here is anything similar to the ‘glorified body’. Lets look at what we DO know… (1) Jesus glorified body was not recognizable but at a given word was (2) Jesus glorified body could appear here & there at the same time.

Not recognizable as himself, possibly because everybody has a mental block against recognizing folks they just saw dead. Also, His skin, build, etc, probably received an upgrade.

But definitely recognized as a HUMAN BEING. Head, hands, feet; neck, nose, kneecaps. HE was not a spook or a ball of light.

You remain a human being.

(3) Jesus glorified body could walk through walls and yet at a given consent be solid & able to be touched. (4) Jesus glorified body could defy gravity and assend off the earth.(a feat not exclusive…st Joseph of Cupertino /St Francis of Assisi/ st Martin De Porres/ St Teresa of Avila to mention a few, all defied gravity by levitating). Of course it can be argued that Jesus is also God and so could do what ever He pleased. But Jesus was FULLY HUMAN & FULLY GOD… (an oximoron if ever there was one).

Not an oxymoron; there is no contradiction; rather a paradox, like light being both particles and waves

ICXC NIKA

 

[Borealis]

I usually being debunking reincarnation by laughing hysterically and clutching my sides as I collapse to the floor.

 

[Ahimsa]

But definitely recognized as a HUMAN BEING. Head, hands, feet; neck, nose, kneecaps. HE was not a spook or a ball of light.

That’s interesting. St. Paul said he saw Jesus, and yet the only record of Paul seeing Jesus, is when saw a light from heaven on the road to Damascus, in Acts 9.

 

[GEddie]

That’s interesting. St. Paul said he saw Jesus, and yet the only record of Paul seeing Jesus, is when saw a light from heaven on the road to Damascus, in Acts 9.

That experience also blinded him, though, so he would not have had time to notice a body form.

But bodyform there was. In Rev 1, our LORD is described as luminous, yet HE is definitely a human body (eyes, hair, etc). The difference is psychikon soma versus pneumatikon soma; not spook versus soma.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.