Priest explains why yoga and new age are dangerous

[Mystical_Seeker]

Try and keep the questions objective.

Huh? Keep them objective? The questions are pretty clear. If the questions are about things that are preposterous, then answer straight and say “no” rather than insult the question. If the questions presuppose something that is of not agreement, then say, “your questions presupposes X which makes it invalid.”

One way to deal with questions you don’t want to answer, is to insult the questions as being faulty. These presume nothing other than what they ask. To refuse to answer the questions is more about your desire not to, rather than through any fault of the questions. So your statement is reduced to a code word for you are not comfortable giving a straight and honest answer.

Since you aren’t using the term correctly, let’s go through each of the questions so that you may understand better what they ask of you. What they ask of you is to provide an honest answer of “yes” or “no.”

So I’m supposed to believe, at face value, that a bunch of unseen ‘demons’ are running away from my brother’s body every time someone crosses himself/herself?

Yes or no? Are you suggesting that LW should believe this or not? If you think it’s silly then just say so but you don’t because it flows from your other statements. If you don’t like the logical consequences of your statements, then attack any direct questions against it. Are you suggesting, or are you not, that if anybody crosses, demons come out? What’s so subjective about that, other than a straight questions would reveal something that appears to this poster, to be a logical antecedent to your claims?

And what happened to my second question? Are you suggesting that me, my brother, and God knows how many people are possessed or demonically oppressed instead of simply no longer agreeing with what a certain religion teaches?

OK so the first half of this is also pretty direct; “what happened to my second question.” So here you may think this is an essay question and too complicated to deal with so the poster breaks it down into simplicity itself by asking a second question to clarify and summarize it, so that you may in turn clarify if the poster has received you messages correctly or not. If his is what you meant, say yes. If this is not, then say no. Pretty direct and clear question, and a fair one – the purpose of which is to request you quit dodging and state just exactly what it is you are claiming.

Yes or no, it’s pretty simple. If you want to refuse to answer, say you refuse to answer instead of saying the question isn’t valid.

Matt 5:37
“Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.”

An “objective” observer just might find that your refusal to answer the question, and how you have further impugned the questions – which is a painfully common tactic of changing the subject when you get backed into a corner by your own words – that you are avoiding something you don’t want to admit.

Is everything we do subject to the will of these invisible entities and even the very act of shaping your hands is enough to open ourselves to their influence?

I can see how this would be intimidating, and you defer replying. Let me help you formulate an answer to this question, which could be a bit more complicated than the other ones, because it depends on the answer to the other ones.

So the part about “… these invisible entities …” is referring to the previous question about whether certain demons exist and behave in certain ways. This question asks a further clarification on the powers and tactics of these entities.

So here I can both suggest how you could have answered it with “yes” or “no,” or if the problem here is that it’s based on another question and you need it sterilized, let me help you with that.

The question does imply a positive answer to a previous question. So if you have answered “no” on the previous questions, I give you my blessings to answer it with “not applicable” because there is nothing “subjective” about it.

Or if you really do want to have a discussion rather than shut down honest questions, then you might pretend the following had asked instead:

So if there are entities like the ones you are talking about, is everything we do subject to their will, and further that even the very act of shaping your hands is enough to open ourselves to their influence?

Now you can safely answer it “yes” or “no.”

Are you suggesting that I’m incapable of thinking for myself and that my stretching, hand movements, and certain ‘new age’ practices have really just infested me with Satan’s minions?

Here I can see how tricky this is. This is two questions cleverly concealed as one. Maybe that’s the problem. The poster has compounded the question using the code word “and” which throws you off. Let me break this into two questions for you:

1. 
   *]Are you suggesting that I’m incapable of thinking for myself?
   *]Are you suggesting that my stretching, hand movements, and certain ‘new age’ practices have really just infested me with Satan’s minions
   
   I can see how you were fooled by two questions in one. Hopefully this will help you understand what was being asked so you can admit to what you are saying, or clarify if it isn’t. That’s what questions are for… to invite responses that clarify, advance, or retract your previous statements.
   
   Now here is an example of a subjective opinion: “I suspect you are avoiding the questions because you don’t like the answer and not because the questions were ill-framed in the first place.”
   
   You’re welcome.
   
   MS

 

[friardchips]

Huh? Keep them objective? The questions are pretty clear. If the questions are about things that are preposterous, then answer straight and say “no” rather than insult the question. If the questions presuppose something that is of not agreement, then say, “your questions presupposes X which makes it invalid.”

No one is insulting anything apart from you. The comments made were leading people, maybe unintentionally, into making personal accusations against his acquaintances.

One way to deal with questions you don’t want to answer, is to insult the questions as being faulty. These presume nothing other than what they ask. To refuse to answer the questions is more about your desire not to, rather than through any fault of the questions. So your statement is reduced to a code word for you are not comfortable giving a straight and honest answer.

If the question is one in which I think could be phrased better I think I am inside forum rules to be able to suggest rephrasing. Don’t presume to think that you for a second know if I was capable of answering or not the questions as they were posed. And if you read the dialogue correctly you will see that I did answer in the way I saw appropriate. Not every question is appropriately answered with a direct “yes” or “no”.

Since you aren’t using the term correctly

By your terms only.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

That seems to be too much common sense for this discussion, Michael.

Yes, I know.

They seem to think that anything Non-Christian is demonic. That is not at all what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

Yoga has nothing to do with demons but is intended to prepared one for Prayer of Union since real yoga not only includes postures but also morality and care for others, truth telling and honesty. Of course the Indian concept of God is different than our because it is pre-Christian. That does not make it demonic. There is only one God and people of different times and places have come to conceptualize God differently.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

No one is insulting anything apart from you. The comments made were leading people, maybe unintentionally, into making personal accusations against his acquaintances.

Actually MS restated quite perfectly what I was asking. And if I may add, perhaps if someone would actually give a more valid, measurable response to them then I wouldn’t sound so agitated.

I’ve been asking these same questions since my earliest years on CAF and I’m tired of trying to word it nicely.

 

[friardchips]

Actually MS restated quite perfectly what I was asking. And if I may add, perhaps if someone would actually give a more valid, measurable response to them then I wouldn’t sound so agitated.

I am not questioning your integrity. But I did not answer with a yes or no because if I had I would have been indirectly commenting about your acquaintances. This is the only reason I asked to remain objective. I have gone on to use a personal experience myself but have not used this person in a way that a poster could be accused of a kind of slander.

I’ve been asking these same questions since my earliest years on CAF and I’m tired of trying to word it nicely.

Actually, wording things in a nice way that is good for everyone is a great test of patience. I have learnt about this from experience and still from time to time lose it a bit. But I think for the sake of progress it is better to keep trying. And this way posters can remain on good terms rather than becoming enemies, which kind of defeats the whole purpose.

I can see why some might take this subject personally if people are actively participating in these exercises. But it seems to be a subject that is open for discussion so surely all responses should be greeted with an air of detachment from personal feelings. It is hard as some things seem to dig deeper but from my angle I have no wish or desire to ‘bury’ anyone but do feel I care about the subject and so want to try and reason things out without having to jump onto internet sources and documents - dialogue is more interesting.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

No one is insulting anything apart from you.

Thank you for that subjective opinion. I shall hereby feel insulted. But it isn’t All Bad; I actually feel better now because I thought you were also insulting the other poster.

regarding…

The fault is in your reading not in the posts.

and

By your terms only.

Oh? Then please elaborate and clear up how I’m misreading them. What did you mean by “subjective” vis-à-vis questions that are clear, logically arise from your previous statements, and require nothing but a “yes” or “no” answer?

You tell me what was “subjective” about them, except for the one I broke into two?

Unless you mean the questions arise from statements you made based on your subjective opinion? Or that you subjectively assigned fault to the questions?

If you don’t want to answer a question, at least take ownership of that. You can just say, “I’d rather not answer that question” or if that is too hard on the pride try “I’m not going to answer that.” You don’t have to come up with inoperative excuses to avoid them.

Oh yeah, come to think of it, “I will not answer because you have twisted my words,” is the same as saying, “no that’s not what I meant to say.”

And if I’m the one that’s making too big a deal out of it, then go back and answer the questions LW asks. If the answers are “yes” then own up to it and go from there. If you are not sure if you are right, I would respect you perfectly if you were to say “maybe I need to clarify something I said earlier.” Or even, “those questions don’t reflect what I meant,” in which case another way to deal with it would be a simple, “no, that is not what I’m saying.”

So without presuming anything or making it subjective, I have a question for you. When you didn’t answer the questions from LW, could it be that part of the reason you didn’t answer was not on the subjectiveness of the questions, but you didn’t like what honest answers would say about your position?

Another way to go would be to say, “I’m not going to answer because you have misinterpreted me.” That is not the same as saying the questions are subjective. Ah yes, but if this is your answer, then you could equally have answered “no” in the first place and avoided all this obnoxious intervention from the likes of me.

Here’s a demonstration by a temple guard on how not to disagree with someone:

John 18:22-24
When he had said this, one of the temple guards standing there struck Jesus and said, “Is this the way you answer the high priest?” Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?” Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas[a] the high priest.

You’re welcome again. No charge.

MS

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Actually, wording things in a nice way that is good for everyone is a great test of patience. I have learnt about this from experience and still from time to time lose it a bit. But I think for the sake of progress it is better to keep trying. And this way posters can remain on good terms rather than becoming enemies, which kind of defeats the whole purpose.

I can see why some might take this subject personally if people are actively participating in these exercises. But it seems to be a subject that is open for discussion so surely all responses should be greeted with an air of detachment from personal feelings. It is hard as some things seem to dig deeper but from my angle I have no wish or desire to ‘bury’ anyone but do feel I care about the subject and so want to try and reason things out without having to jump onto internet sources and documents - dialogue is more interesting.

I like this part of your post. I acknowledge an intended air of condescending in my previous post. I invite you to join me in dropping the animosity and discuss the topic.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I am not questioning your integrity. But I did not answer with a yes or no because if I had I would have been indirectly commenting about your acquaintances. This is the only reason I asked to remain objective. I have gone on to use a personal experience myself but have not used this person in a way that a poster could be accused of a kind of slander.

While I commend you on being careful about not commenting on someone you haven’t met, maybe I should make this clear: This is why I’m not convinced.

Therefore, if I’m not convinced that you have dealt with your burden of proof, why should I feel obliged to take your word and allow you to discourage those you haven’t met either?

Because if you don’t want to even indirectly comment on someone you haven’t met, then you should extend to not imploring them to accept views without valid proof. You don’t know them and yet you expect them to accept claims that what they do traps them under demonic influence?

You can’t tell me or my brother not to drink milk simply because you got food poisoning the last time you drank it.

There’s not so much emotional attachment here asides incredulity at people who think I’m now a vessel of dark spirits. All because of what? This.

http://f1.pepst.com/c/066B2C/102517...in.jpg.w300h225.jpg_480_480_0_64000_0_1_0.jpg http://www.prettytough.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tadasana.jpg http://www.gotohoroscope.com/img/snake.gif

 

[friardchips]

Yes, I know.

They seem to think that anything Non-Christian is demonic. That is not at all what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

Yoga has nothing to do with demons but is intended to prepared one for Prayer of Union since real yoga not only includes postures but also morality and care for others, truth telling and honesty. Of course the Indian concept of God is different than our because it is pre-Christian. That does not make it demonic. There is only one God and people of different times and places have come to conceptualize God differently.

Hi again. There are many ideas of Indian Gods - not just one belief system in India.

I know where you are coming from, I think? There is only one God. And so to believe in God is to recognise that other people, although they may be calling God by different names, are in fact worshipping the same God if they believe in love, in the best ways…?

But I don’t think Catholicism has declared we are to believe this. We are to see our God in other religions, if they love others in charity, but not called to accept their concepts. It is more about respecting the believers. The other difference here is that we are not called to use their ways of worship that are used in praise of their own ideas about who God is. The third thing is that there are demons linked to false gods, at least in some religions. This is not to say that we are to believe that all Indians believe in demons, but that we are not to renounce our own faith by saying that their idea about who God is, is correct. Otherwise we are worshipping false deities. Our own witness is to the Holy Trinity. Or else we are left with religious relativism.

It would actually be good if someone did post something official here. I might have to have a scout.

So I am right in thinking that you are approaching this subject with the thinking that to love others and seeing good in them overrides all religious barriers? (I agree with this). Now where do their practices come into this? Where does our own witness come in? Where is the line drawn?

 

[friardchips]

While I commend you on being careful about not commenting on someone you haven’t met, maybe I should make this clear: This is why I’m not convinced.

Therefore, if I’m not convinced that you have dealt with your burden of proof, why should I feel obliged to take your word and allow you to discourage those you haven’t met either?

Because if you don’t want to even indirectly comment on someone you haven’t met, then you should extend to not imploring them to accept views without valid proof. You don’t know them and yet you expect them to accept claims that what they do traps them under demonic influence?

You can’t tell me or my brother not to drink milk simply because you got food poisoning the last time you drank it.

There is a difference between aggressively forming questions posed in ways that aim to hold people’s arms behind their backs that you might get a direct answer through your voiced dislike of care taken, and questions that objectively are phrased as arguments in order to discuss and put forward important criteria, albeit with conviction.

So if you can take a charitable post and respond with: “While I commend you on being careful about not commenting on someone you haven’t met, maybe I should make this clear: This is why I’m not convinced.”, basically stating that charity does not wash with you then you have made your position clear. I need say no more with you.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

So if you can take a charitable post and respond with: “While I commend you on being careful about not commenting on someone you haven’t met, maybe I should make this clear: This is why I’m not convinced.”, basically stating that charity does not wash with you then you have made your position clear. I need say no more with you.

Wow, you take offense at the most straightforward questions yet you demand objectivity. Hypocrite much?

 

[friardchips]

Wow, you take offense at the most straightforward questions yet you demand objectivity. Hypocrite much?

Another poster has just inspired me to take a deep breath and start again and offer a hand of goodwill to get the ball rolling again…? :ballspin:

 

[friardchips]

I like this part of your post. I acknowledge an intended air of condescending in my previous post. I invite you to join me in dropping the animosity and discuss the topic.

Thank you! Your post (above) just helped me. I will try harder to post with goodwill! Invite gratefully accepted!

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Hi again. There are many ideas of Indian Gods - not just one belief system in India.

I know where you are coming from, I think? There is only one God. And so to believe in God is to recognise that other people, although they may be calling God by different names, are in fact worshipping the same God if they believe in love, in the best ways…?

But I don’t think Catholicism has declared we are to believe this. We are to see our God in other religions, if they love others in charity, but not called to accept their concepts. It is more about respecting the believers. The other difference here is that we are not called to use their ways of worship that are used in praise of their own ideas about who God is. The third thing is that there are demons linked to false gods, at least in some religions. This is not to say that we are to believe that all Indians believe in demons, but that we are not to renounce our own faith by saying that their idea about who God is, is correct. Otherwise we are worshipping false deities. Our own witness is to the Holy Trinity. Or else we are left with religious relativism.

It would actually be good if someone did post something official here. I might have to have a scout.

So I am right in thinking that you are approaching this subject with the thinking that to love others and seeing good in them overrides all religious barriers? (I agree with this). Now where do their practices come into this? Where does our own witness come in? Where is the line drawn?

Thank you for a post that is making some sense and can give us a better footing for discusion.
Yes, in India there are many gods and many “options” of belief. But I think all those gods are viewed as manifestations of one god, Brahman which has both a personal and impersonal aspect. And you are right. the Catholic Church does not teach that we are to accept their beliefs and somehow graft them on to our own. But rather simply to respect them while also being clear of our differences.

But about using ways of worship we can still have some common ground. Inscense, for example, is used in almost every religious worship. Bells and hand gestures are also common.

I do not think you will find much in church teaching about demons linked ot other religions or gods. I think there is far more danger in worshipping false dieties such as consumerism, materialism and pride.

Post something official? I have posted from and linked to the three major official documents: Nostra Aetate, LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON SOME ASPECTS OF CHRISTIAN MEDITATION and JESUS CHRIST, THE BEARER OF THE WATER OF LIFE

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfmed.htm

ewtn.com/library/curia/pccpcida.htm

And they have been dismissed.

How about we read them together and share observations?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Look at the other practices mentioned in the article. It mentions yoga, new age, and Transcedental meditation. The last two are occult. Why is the occult being mentioned alongside this? It is a warning

All of those warnings above of the church apply to yoga
It’s completely unchristian and invites false spirits.

How can a christian invite false spirits to ‘yoke’ with him in a religion that predates Hinduism?
The whole false religion is designed to advance further and further in unity with these false spirits. Much of the mantras are heresy to the catholc faith, such as 'everything is god (or a god), ‘I am the Universal Being.’

Whether yoga was man inspired or satan inspired, it invites possession, that’s the whole purpose of the words and actions. It’s a false religious path not an exercise -that’s what it was created for

You simply make yoga a scapegoat for every evil. The warnings are general guidelines that have more to do with one’s motives and attitudes than practices themselves.

I would appreciate it if you would not insert (your words) into my quote.

Yoga does not invite false spirits. Why do you even think that? Because someone told you? It certainly isn’t Church teaching.

You never answerd my question about what false spirit this woman is inviting.
http://myperformancerehab.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/longsitting.jpg

 

[Path_Finder]

This looks like a good Catholic program that incorporates stretches, exercises, and toning:

pietrafitness.com/

They even have a FAQ and disclaimer about it not being a “Catholic yoga”

pietrafitness.com/p-f-not-yoga/

They say it is not Catholic Yoga but one opens up the initial webpage, there is the “Dancer’s Pose”, those other poses look very yoga as well. I read where they say it is not yoga so one can reflect on it themselves. Not all yoga instructors talk about chakras and chant and all of that.

I really think Yoga poses at the least have some real benefits, I suffered from some bad blood circulation, carpal-syndrome types of wrist problems and in this, the poses have been of great help.

Of course, Father Dechanet wrote on Christian Yoga.

EWTN article on Yoga: ewtn.com/expert/answers/yoga.htm

De La Salle Brother Max Sculley discusses Yoga and Father Dechanet: maxsculley.blogspot.com/2013/07/dechanets-christian-yoga.html

 

[Michael_Mayo]

De La Salle Brother Max Sculley discusses Yoga and Father Dechanet: maxsculley.blogspot.com/2013/07/dechanets-christian-yoga.html

Sculley says,“Dechanet was unaware of the effects of altered states of consciousness on the human psyche. The techniques of hatha yoga, even when divorced from Hinduism, are not neutral. The slow movement of the poses performed in silence and the highly retarded breathing have the combined effect of significantly altering one’s state of consciousness. And as I have stressed in my book, such a condition opens one to demonic influence.”

He probabaly got that from an article by Fr. John D. Dreher stating:

“My hypothesis is that it is Satan’s strategy, in all these things, to strip away the physiological and psychological forces that, in our fallen state, are a fail-safe protection for the human spirit. (This is a possible interpretation of Paul’s words in 2 Thessalonians 2:6-10 about the lawless one and the force that restrains him.) Thus, he can hope to capture the spirit of man worldwide and establish a kingdom of darkness.”

That makes no sense. Physiological and psychological forces in our fallen state are not a fail-safe protection for the human spirit, rather it is through physiological and psychological forces that we encounter our pathology. Rather than protect the human spirit they bind it.

St John of the Cross in Ascent

Book 3 Chapter 6, #2
“In the second place, it is freed from many suggestions, temptations and motions of the devil, which he infuses into the soul by means of thoughts and ideas, causing it to fall into many impurities and sins, as David says in these words: ‘They have thought and spoken wickedness.’ And thus, when these thoughts have been completely removed, the devil has naught wherewith to assault the soul by natural means.”

 

[Path_Finder]

Hello Joelle (and everyone, please see the website attached below) it includes:

Here’s a testimony from a woman who thought she could do yoga without being effected and ended up demonically possessed
See this website it has two stories of how two people involved in yoga ended up in demonic possession, because the yoga postures and chants are worship of false spirits, not of God, of the evil spirits.
It is completely spiritual it’s not just exercises, and it’s pagan, the pagan spirits are evil spirits;

ephesians-511.net/docs/TESTIMONY_OF_A_FORMER_YOGI-16.doc

Over here in ireland all our deliverance people are run off their feet delivering people from demonic possession from yoga.
The Vatican has up on their website that it’s occult and it is a spiritual worship of multi gods (through the postures and chants), it’s like using a ouiji board -no matter what reason it’s an act of devil worship, Fr Gabriel Amorthe exorcist of the Vatican said the devil is in yoga,
and people haven’t a clue.
Hindu and Buddhist meditation are mentioned by exorcists as being extremely dangerous forms of meditation opening ones soul to other spirits

If you are involved in yoga confession is the way out of demonic influence.

If the Vatican has up on their website that it’s occult, please post the webpage. This does not seem to be true at all.

EWTN probably gives the best summation of the Church’s position on Yoga: ewtn.com/expert/answers/yoga.htm

Those things you mention like running or spinning may not really help the needs of some persons. Yoga can be very helpful for blood circulation, digestion, etc. The closest one could get to this would be to adapt Pilates or perhaps the Pietrine Fitness: pietrafitness.com/p-f-not-yoga/

There are different schools of Yoga, Kundalini seems to be the one Christians and others should be wary of: yoga.about.com/od/typesofyoga/a/yogatypes.htm

 

[Path_Finder]

Yoga can just as easily be called a Science: npr.org/2012/02/10/146697650/the-science-of-yoga-the-risks-and-the-rewards

 

[Path_Finder]

I don’t think anyone would be a Yoga instructor unless they are deep into it. And being deep into it means believing in the religious aspect. That’s why I would not try Yoga because I know that sooner or later the instructor is going to want to push the person into the practice of a different religion which invites demonic possession.

I know Yoga instructors, they also teach Cardio, kickboxing, all of those things. So in a sense, they just try to be a jack-of-all-trades in teaching physical fitness classes.