The church taught reincarnation?

[JRKH]

JRKH-I have no need to further the conversation- looked for the Catholic Encyclopedia I found it in years ago online- that seems to not be available any longer…the one accessible from here doesn’t have anything on Reincarnation at all- yea or nay… I did find this passage on Reincarnation and ancient Rome that nutshells some of what I have read before-although what I read before went more into the circumstances of the Pope not being part of the Council and not Constantines personal life or demons… you don’t have to believe it- you don’t even have to read it…makes no difference to me… There also are Biblical passages that imply reincarnation…Jesus referring to John the Baptist as Elijah is one that comes to mind…surely such references would have not been included in the first place if the early Church had an issue with it…but that was then-this is now… just food for thought

OK…you have no sources available that you can share…Fair enough…

Have a good day…

Peace
James

 

[Tantum_ergo]

JRKH-I have no need to further the conversation- looked for the Catholic Encyclopedia I found it in years ago online- that seems to not be available any longer…the one accessible from here doesn’t have anything on Reincarnation at all- yea or nay… I did find this passage on Reincarnation and ancient Rome that nutshells some of what I have read before-although what I read before went more into the circumstances of the Pope not being part of the Council and not Constantines personal life or demons… you don’t have to believe it- you don’t even have to read it…makes no difference to me… There also are Biblical passages that imply reincarnation…Jesus referring to John the Baptist as Elijah is one that comes to mind…surely such references would have not been included in the first place if the early Church had an issue with it…but that was then-this is now… just food for thought

Ancient Rome
Reincarnation was a basic tenant of the Catholic church until the fourth century AD when the Roman Emperor Constantine decided to tailor it to his specifications. Roman, having been the dominant military leader was on the verge of change. The Christians had been a cult that had been persecuted for over 300 years. That is when they were throwing them to the lions.

The ancient religions of the Gods were slowly disappearing, since the extraterrestrial contact that had caused them in the first place was no longer happening. Gaul had broken away from the Empire. Rome saw it’s power slipping and the rise of another star coming.

The Roman Emperor Constantine married his way into power. His wife mysteriously disappeared. His second wife was his ticket to the throne. Then he had her killed. His third wife was a prostitute who had risen to the throne in the same diabolical ways Constantine had and who lived to have a devastating effect on the belief in reincarnation. She feared that her sins would follow from lifetime to lifetime infuriated her. She did not like the idea of Karma. Her life was filled with lies and treachery. She was not interested in advocated any religion that would demote her in another life. Thus she persuaded Emperor Constantine to remove reincarnation from Christianity.

Constantine, for all reports was vain and fearful for his many sins. He considered himself on one hand to be the incarnation of the Gods Apollo, Mytha, Jupiter, and Christ. On the other hand he was afraid that when he died he would anger these Gods in heaven. He was the first Roman Emperor to support complete religious freedom of all faiths so that when he got to heaven no God would want to take vengeance on him personally.

So just WHERE did you find this ‘passage’? Usually when one is doing historical research and finds something in an internet search, one doesn’t just ‘cut and paste’ and put it into a post as you just did.

One puts in a LINK to where the document was found, or states that it was from ___ X book written by ____X person, found on page __X.

And usually passages such as the above would have something after the ‘reincarnation was a basic tenet of the Catholic Church until the fourth century ***(footnote to a book in which an author had done the research to make that claim, the book citing passages from PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENTS which ‘proved’ the assertion’.)

You have given us nothing but a passage from ‘nowhere’, attributable to no one, and your own imperfect ‘memory’ of something you ‘heard’ or perhaps read, somewhere, long ago.

 

[DaveBj]

JRKH- I say that because I wasn’t there to witness what was accepted or “taught” and neither were you-but as I said it wasn’t removed(it would have had to be part to be removed) from the Church until the council of Nicea around 550 ad-and then not by Papal decree but by political decree-it was never restored to Church doctrine for whatever reason-the Church was very political for hundreds of years and that can’t be ignored as a possible reason–you agreeing or disagreeing or not understanding- doesn’t change those facts…however- I totally agree with FrDonato that she should only be teaching what the Church is very clear on as their representative/teacher-her personal views-if different from Church teachings- are between her and God and should stay that way.

There was no church council in Nicea in 550 a.d. There were councils there in 325 and 787. Also, if reincarnation was part of church doctrine, why is it that the 3rd-century Church Fathers that I am currently reading wrote so vehemently against it. Sorry, nothing you say is believable.

 

[Ed_Chamberlain]

Today’s Gospel (9/16/12) sure sounds like reincarnation to me. 'Who do people say that I am?" “Some say John the Baptist, some say, Elijah, some say one of the prophets.” So how do you explain that passage?

 

[Bill_Martin]

Today’s Gospel (9/16/12) sure sounds like reincarnation to me. 'Who do people say that I am?" “Some say John the Baptist, some say, Elijah, some say one of the prophets.” So how do you explain that passage?

‘Then he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answered, “The Christ of God.”’

The people who said that he was Elijah, etc., were wrong.

 

[Holly3278]

Catholicism is based on divine revelation, the religious and moral truths that God has revealed for the sake of our salvation. It is a great gift from God and the only proper human response to God’s revelation is faith and obedience. Catholicism is not a religion where Catholics can believe what they want, accept this and not that. This is all the more true for a Catholic nun who has consecrated her life to God, and is bound to Him by a vow of obedience. If the nun is not teaching the truth of divine revelation, she needs to be corrected because her false teaching can do great harm to others. In this case, she was teaching catechists - other teachers of the faith, who will go into a classroom and spread those errors to unsuspecting children. If Sister no longer believes what the Catholic Church believes, then she should resign or take an extended retreat. No one is shoving divine revelation down her throat.

Welcome to CAF.

Thank you Fr. Donato.

The wise and true counsel of a good priest is welcome and valued.

Welcome to this Forum.

Amen!

 

[JRKH]

Today’s Gospel (9/16/12) sure sounds like reincarnation to me. 'Who do people say that I am?" “Some say John the Baptist, some say, Elijah, some say one of the prophets.” So how do you explain that passage?

‘Then he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answered, “The Christ of God.”’

The people who said that he was Elijah, etc., were wrong.

And to add to what Bill says here…What certain individuals, or even groups of individuals, believe is not the same as “what the Church teaches” and the subject of this thread is about that…What has the Church believed and taught.

Peace
James

 

[Ed_Chamberlain]

So “The people who said that he was Elijah, etc., were wrong.” That doesn’t detract from the fact that there was a contemporary belief in reincarnation, and that this belief is noted in the Gospel.**

 

[JRKH]

So “The people who said that he was Elijah, etc., were wrong.” That doesn’t detract from the fact that there was a contemporary belief in reincarnation, and that this belief is noted in the Gospel.

Correct. But as mentioned above…“belief” is not the same thing as “Church taught” which is the subject of the thread.

Also - I would note that one of the people mentioned “John the Baptist” was a contemporary of Jesus…How could Jesus have been John reincarnated???

And as (I believe) someone else already pointed out, Scripture records in Hebrews 9:27 that, “… it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment”.

Peace
James

 

[Bill_Martin]

So “The people who said that he was Elijah, etc., were wrong.” That doesn’t detract from the fact that there was a contemporary belief in reincarnation, and that this belief is noted in the Gospel.**

Belief in Baal is noted in the Bible too, though it is noted there specifically because it is wrong. The Church has never taught it and it is not taught as being correct in the Bible.

 

[doggieDaddy]

Here’s a Catholic Answers tract on reincarnation:

catholic.com/tracts/reincarnation.

It’s the first thing I found when I googled Catholic Reincarnation.

I especially like Basil the Great’s quote:

“[A]void the nonsense of those arrogant philosophers who do not blush to liken their soul to that of a dog, who say that they have themselves formerly been women, shrubs, or fish. Have they ever been fish? I do not know, but I do not fear to affirm that in their writings they show less sense than fish” (The Six Days’ Work 8:2 [A.D. 393]).

I’m sure he did know that they had never been a fish couldn’t resist stating it as he did.

 

[KSturm]

The author of Hebrews wrote:
“Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgement, so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him.” (9:27-28)

It seems that you can’t have it both ways. Either you believe what the inspired author of Hebrews said, or you believe in a pantheistic system that supports the idea of reincarnation.

 

[Usagi]

So “The people who said that he was Elijah, etc., were wrong.” That doesn’t detract from the fact that there was a contemporary belief in reincarnation, and that this belief is noted in the Gospel.**

Maybe, but not necessarily even then.

Elijah is supposed to have been carried to Heaven in a fiery chariot and was not seen to die in the ordinary way. He was supposed to return to herald the Messiah. IIRC, even to this day Jewish households set an extra place for Elijah at the Passover Seder.

Thus, even the people who said that Jesus was Elijah were not necessarily speaking of reincarnation in the usual sense. They might have believed that Elijah had simply returned from Heaven and was calling himself Jesus.

In Christian thinking, of course, John the Baptist was the predicted “return of Elijah to herald the Messiah,” but even that is not usually understood as a case of literal reincarnation. Rather, John is the antitype of the original Elijah, just as Jesus is the second Adam without actually carrying the soul of the first man and Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant without literally being a box. He is a parallel figure, not the same soul in a new body.

Usagi