I did not say that. I’m well acquainted with the different notions of Self in Christianity vs. Buddhism (as are the priests and theologians I referenced
) I said that there are some similarities when it came to “self” and prayer. This is true when one studies deeply the words of the Catholic mystics – modern and ancient. This has mostly to do with the “unitive” stage of prayer, but I won’t get into technicalities.Can’t agree more, especially with the section I bolded. Especially what can’t be communicated adequately with words is the simultaneous “loss” of self and regaining of self, discarding of self & validation of self…along with direct experience of Christ as completely Other yet encompassingly intimate in the most absolute sense. Those are not Buddhist concepts.
good luck in getting the right answer here. what you are going to get is a bunch of opinion from Catholics who see nothing wrong with false religions.Thanks everyone.
I am concerned because in recent years I have noticed an increase of Catholics quoting the Dali Lama, Buddha, etc. It seems to be some bizarre trend, and begs the question: Are you saying that Jesus Christ no longer relevant or all sufficient that we need to start quoting outside religions? Do you really need buddha there and not Christ during the Eucharist - whose mass are we celebrating BTW? Yes, it DOES seem like a priest preaching about buddhist detachment to achieve happiness instead of Christ is inappropriate while in preparation of the mass, and it seems like the priest was elevating buddha’s name and teachings above the name of Christ in Jesus’ own church.
I tell you, I strongly feel that if I want to learn about other religions, I can go to a Unitarian church, not a Catholic church. If you really must quote someone other than Jesus Christ in His own church - at the celebration of HIS mass, then at least give Him preference and more than equal time. (and why you would really need to do that is beyond my comprehension)
I have zero interest in unitarianism or making anyone feel good or secure about their religion if they are going to die in their sins. I could care less about eucanism or whatever it is called. I am disgusted by this trend in the church. Is it right that Jesus should share His glory with buddha before His own altar?? Did buddha die for your sins?
Last I checked, Apostle Paul preached Christ crucified and nothing else. It is a good practice to follow. The Catholic church teaches that they are the ‘true church’ and the other protestant religions should “come home”. Well, I cannot imagine a Baptist church preaching such nonsense. Last time I checked there was no other name by which we are saved but the name of Jesus Christ and His name was to be praised and every knee should bow before Him - not buddha, not mohammed, not a thousand hindu gods.
Seriously - what are we to gain by quoting outside religions during a celebration of Jesus’ Eucharist?
I believe that we are in an imminent danger of loosing our faith due to the attempt by many to integrate false religion into the True religion. i truly believe that this is an attempt to evangelize Catholics into believing a false religion is not so bad. totally ignoring the Words of Jesus, "when going into that town, if they reject your teachings, shake even the dust of your sandals(body) and leave. we have abandoned many of the teachings of Jesus because we want to be good even better than God Himself. there is a mindset now and days, that we must be really good. Jesus said, there is only One that is good and there is God alone. trying to be better than God is a big mistake to make. i know that there are many parishes offering centering prayer. what does that come from? this is an attempting to stear us from the True Faith. the Jews tried and it did not work. is it going to work for us today? i doubt it.
Who are “the many” you’re talking about? Since you just referenced my post, are you including me? If so, I think you thoroughly misunderstood me.
) There is actually no such word in English, because “loose” is never a verb, and therefore can never be made into a participle.
In fact, it can be, and so the word does exist. In archaic English, before gunpowder made “firing” possible, shots of archery were “loosed.” It simply means to release.Who are “the many” you’re talking about? Since you just referenced my post, are you including me? If so, I think you thoroughly misunderstood me.
Btw, this is not directed at you, per se, but can we have a universal correction by all on CAF? The present particple of the verb “to lose” (opposite of “to find”) is not “loosing.” It’s losing. (No double “o,” even though it’s counter-intuitive because of the pronunciation, which would seem to dictate the double-o!
God Bless and ICXC NIKA!I wouldn’t have said anything, but it’s about the 10th time I’ve seen this on CAF in the last couple of weeks.
I’m aware of the archaic grammar.
This was not an archaic use. One does not “loose” one’s faith; one “loses” it. That was the context. That’s not a matter ofThanks Wisdomseeker. The comments on this thread have varied widely in opinion on the one issue - but a few people have (thankfully) addressed the other question as well. I am grateful for people taking the time to respond, even if some of them have shocked me more than my original reason for posting
OH DUH. Thanks GEddie!
