The term "Catholic Buddhist" or "Jesus Buddhist."

[SteveGC]

Alright, lets say that Buddhism teaches “a”. A Catholic reads about “a”, and discovers that his understanding of “a” is illumined in light of the Church’s doctrine of “A”. Since “a” is now seen as an element of Truth, a Catholic may still be inspired by “a” while also acknowledging “A”, correct?

I see no problem with this, so long as “a” is verified by the Church as fully conforming to “A”, and maintains a Christocentric nature and primacy.

If my contribution here has given you a sense of justification of a hybrid Catholic Buddhism, or Buddhist Catholicism, I’d be obliged to say that I’d never encourage any such concept to actually be given a title. Ultimately, if Catholic is to be considered a “part” of any faith system, it must have complete primacy. If it does not, I would argue that it is not Catholic at all. IOW, Catholic Buddhist or Buddhist Catholic promote a concept that a two-pronged approach under both religions is as full a religious path as Catholicism by itself. And this is simply not true. But I would concede that a Catholic could explore and receive and enhanced understanding of Catholic teachings using correlative concepts and teachings of other religious systems. I’d recommend it only for the most mature of Catholics, mind you, but I don’t see a problem if the primacy and litmus test remains within the Church exclusively, and is always utilized. Within such a correlative exercise, one would have to always be mindful and accepting of the fact that the Catholic deposit of faith is unchanging and uncompromising.

And lastly, but probably most importantly, any teaching in Buddhism which is contrary to that of Catholic teaching, would have to be fully and perpetually rejected by such a Catholic explorer.

Peace.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The Buddha is a teacher, not a God.

For the authentically Catholic, Christ is his or her teacher, and only Christ, as well as Christ speaking through His One True Church on earth.

Further, the other elements of Buddhist practice (paths) take one afield from the focus of Christian prayer and from Jesus as our Path.

I can create out of thin air my own hybrid “religion” – Jewish Catholic, Catholic Evangelical, Catholic Mormon, but my unique names do not confer authentic identity to any of them, no matter how much I protest that my subjective interpretation should be accepted by the general public at face value. And the point is that those who do in fact claim a Catholic identity, while creating artificial hybrid versions of that, are leading new converts and seekers astray to misrepresent the separateness of Catholicism.

People come from a variety of traditions into the Church, if they are not baptized at birth. Also, some people, even if baptized early, are products of hybrid marriages, wherein one parent retains his or her faith tradition, or converts to Catholicism but brings a certain world-view as a result of mixed family traditions. There’s nothing wrong with that. Sr. Rosalind Moss, a frequent guest on EWTN radio, is a person who comes from a Jewish background into Catholicism, and applies her Jewish understanding of God within a Catholic context, as well as some cultural carryover from that as well. But she does not call herself a Jewish Catholic. She calls herself (informally) a Hebrew Catholic so as to situate her roots, as opposed to setting up “co-equal” faiths. She is no longer Jewish; she is decidedly Catholic, and she doesn’t claim a dual current affiliation nor suggest that that is possible. And the combination of Judaism and Catholicism is far more complementary and compatible than the combination of Catholicism and Buddhism.

So the point is, an intuitive appreciation and experience with another faith is not necessarily to be avoided, denied, or repudiated. It is just not up to an individual Catholic to create a “religion” by modifying the term Catholic with philosophies or traditions which compete with Catholicism or pretend to co-exist in current time, in that person’s practices (as opposed to previous experience or outlook). If one is in fact currently Catholic (having received the sacraments of initiation, and practicing that faith), one is no longer a member of a competing philosophy or religion.

 

[Contarini]

For the authentically Catholic, Christ is his or her teacher, and only Christ, as well as Christ speaking through His One True Church on earth.

But Christians have said for a very long time that whatever is well said by anyone belongs to us, and Lumen Gentium clearly affirms that not only all the baptized but all people of good will have a certain relationship with the Church. So I don’t think the issue is as clear-cut as you claim.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Responding to your addition:

the person has not been “officially” excommunicated, but he/she has excommunicated him or herself.

A weird concept that seems to me to serve no honest purpose and a number of highly dubious ones.

Excommunication should be a solemn disciplinary act. The whole concept of “latae sententiae excommunication” seems to do nothing but torment the consciences of the scrupulous and puff up the pride of the self-righteous.

People on this forum are very fond of going around telling other people that they are excommunicated. This undercuts the whole point of having church discipline in the first place.

Edwin

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Actually, yes, and he himself is one of the turn-offs. Very negative. He strikes as a very unhappy person, who is highly irritable and has difficulty relating to people in any joy-filled way. That is not an advertisement for any religion.

I have a close friend who thought the high point of her life would be in meeting him, and I have yet to see what she sees or saw in him. I can see what people saw in Gandhi far more easily, or in Martin Luther King, or in Jesus Himself during his earthly ministry, for example. These three were all ‘dead serious’ about their individual missions, but they apparently carried in their persons much more hope and optimism, judging from their followings, long after their deaths.

As someone who has met him, I can tell you he is not a pessimist at all. The Tibetan Buddhists have similar traditions to those of the Catholic Church, in fact (some say that they took these from the Assyrian Christians, I don’t know).

I think of him as an ally to believers, not an enemy.

Alex

 

[SteveGC]

A weird concept that seems to me to serve no honest purpose and a number of highly dubious ones.

Excommunication should be a solemn disciplinary act. The whole concept of “latae sententiae excommunication” seems to do nothing but torment the consciences of the scrupulous and puff up the pride of the self-righteous.

People on this forum are very fond of going around telling other people that they are excommunicated. This undercuts the whole point of having church discipline in the first place.

Edwin

Not that I am a huge fan of the concept either, but in what way would you propose such persons be identified or described if they meet the terms of official excommunication, but have not yet formally been so declared? Would it be fair and thoroughly accurate enough to simply say they are Catholics who disobey Church teaching? Or Catholics not in communion with the Church? Or should they not be described at all?

No opinion here really. Just curious of yours.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

For the authentically Catholic, Christ is his or her teacher, and only Christ, as well as Christ speaking through His One True Church on earth.

Further, the other elements of Buddhist practice (paths) take one afield from the focus of Christian prayer and from Jesus as our Path.

I can create out of thin air my own hybrid “religion” – Jewish Catholic, Catholic Evangelical, Catholic Mormon, but my unique names do not confer authentic identity to any of them, no matter how much I protest that my subjective interpretation should be accepted by the general public at face value. And the point is that those who do in fact claim a Catholic identity, while creating artificial hybrid versions of that, are leading new converts and seekers astray to misrepresent the separateness of Catholicism.

People come from a variety of traditions into the Church, if they are not baptized at birth. Also, some people, even if baptized early, are products of hybrid marriages, wherein one parent retains his or her faith tradition, or converts to Catholicism but brings a certain world-view as a result of mixed family traditions. There’s nothing wrong with that. Sr. Rosalind Moss, a frequent guest on EWTN radio, is a person who comes from a Jewish background into Catholicism, and applies her Jewish understanding of God within a Catholic context, as well as some cultural carryover from that as well. But she does not call herself a Jewish Catholic. She calls herself (informally) a Hebrew Catholic so as to situate her roots, as opposed to setting up “co-equal” faiths. She is no longer Jewish; she is decidedly Catholic, and she doesn’t claim a dual current affiliation nor suggest that that is possible. And the combination of Judaism and Catholicism is far more complementary and compatible than the combination of Catholicism and Buddhism.

So the point is, an intuitive appreciation and experience with another faith is not necessarily to be avoided, denied, or repudiated. It is just not up to an individual Catholic to create a “religion” by modifying the term Catholic with philosophies or traditions which compete with Catholicism or pretend to co-exist in current time, in that person’s practices (as opposed to previous experience or outlook). If one is in fact currently Catholic (having received the sacraments of initiation, and practicing that faith), one is no longer a member of a competing philosophy or religion.

Yes, but there’s more to it than your articulate email has laid out.

Thomas Merton himself adopted Buddhist practice to his experience of the Catholic faith. Buddhism is a form of natural mysticism that leads to the enlightenment that affirms that what is material is not what brings happiness. Buddhism CAN be seen as a kind of “Old Testament” that prepares the soul (in this case, in Asia) to receive Christ. Buddhist practices are simply that and the object of one’s meditation can be (and for Christians truly is) Christ. There are “Christian Zen Temples” in Japan and elsewhere where the practices of Asia are adapted to Christian faith.

European pagan traditions were adapted to Christianity - why shouldn’t Asia’s religious traditions be adapted to Christianity as well?

Fr. Roberto di Nobili SJ did this with Hinduism, Fr. Matteo Ricci did this with Chinese Confucianism and the like.

In Japan, when all Christians were told to leave but many didn’t, the police would ferret Christian missionaries out by placing a cross on the ground and then lining everyone up in villages to go and spit on it. Those who refused were arrested as Christians and were put to death.

Christians soo developed a unique cross with a Buddha on it, representing Christ. Soon all their Crosses had Buddhas on them, so the police could not use them for purposes of spitting on them etc.

Today, many Asian Christian Churches depict Christ in the lotus position as a Buddha - the Enlightened One and Enlightening.

Such adaptation is to be commended and is part of the mission of the Church. It is not the Church’s mission to promote European civilization in Asia and Africa.

Alex

 

[jerry_joseph]

Buddhism teaches how to cure suffering. The four noble truths of Buddhism are in the form of an ancient Indian medical diagnosis:

• The Disease: suffering.
• The Cause: selfish desire.
• The Cure: nirvana.
• The Treatment: the eightfold path.

Buddhism does not run away from suffering, it provides the cure for suffering.

rossum

Christianity teaches how to make your sufferings valuable, by putting our sufferings together with the christ’s sufferings in the cross…

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Responding to your addition:

the person has not been “officially” excommunicated, but he/she has excommunicated him or herself.

That is not for you or I to say - if you have an insight into someone’s soul, please let everyone know so we can write you for illumination!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Michell is incorrect. I know at least one person who is a Catholic and a Buddhist, fully practicing in both cases. And by “Catholic” I mean a Catholic who has not been excommunicated and so forth; and by “Buddhist” I mean someone who has taken Refuge in the Triple Gem – but in a Christianized sort of way.

Perhaps we should also excommunicate Thomas Merton who practiced Buddhist meditation. There are many forms of Buddhism - in fact, Buddhism is a form of natural mysticism and has nothing to do with supernatural revelation which is the sphere of Christianity.

A Christian Buddhism is not only possible - but the only way the Church will gain some credibility in Asia.

Alex

 

[SteveGC]

That is not for you or I to say - if you have an insight into someone’s soul, please let everyone know so we can write you for illumination!

Alex

Is this true even if such a person publicly reveals their obstinate objection to Church teaching?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

That is not for you or I to say - if you have an insight into someone’s soul, please let everyone know so we can write you for illumination!

Alex

I am not judging the person’s soul-God forbid…I am judging their actions. You can not belong to 2 faiths at once. I’ve given you a link with the answers as to why not.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Don’t Catholics venerate saints?

A very good point - the Buddha is, according to historians, already a saint in the Catholic Church!

November 27 lists the feast of St Joasaph or Josaphat, Prince of India (also venerated in the East).

It is affirmed that this was the “Bodhisaf” or the “Buddha to be” in the story of the conversion of the Buddha that was translated into Greek. As he left his wife on his wedding night (the Greek monks assumed only a Christian would do that!), he was enrolled in the Saints as “Joasaph.”

But Chinese Catholics already pay tribute to the tablets of Confucius (the “Chinese Rites”) and I know Catholic converts in Asia who keep images of the Buddha in their homes. I have one from one of these and, for me, Buddhism represents a kind of “old testament” that prepares people for the reception of Christianity.

Catholic missionaries there have a similar view.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I am not judging the person’s soul-God forbid…I am judging their actions. You can not belong to 2 faiths at once. I’ve given you a link with the answers as to why not.

Of course one cannot belong to two faiths at once, and I’m not suggesting anything of the sort. I would never attend a Buddhist monastery (except perhaps to visit it).

Buddhism does not speak to me, but as a philosophy (much like Platonism et alia), there is not reason why “Buddhist culture” cannot be Christianized and become a medium for the communication of the Gospel in Asia especially.

Such has always been done by Christian missions throughout history. It is just that we have simply stopped doing this, assuming that our Europeanized Christianity is now the message.

Buddhist meditation centred on Christ, Buddhist traditions and values with their end the Person and teaching of Christ and the Catholic Church . . . our missionaries in the field are way ahead of us sir!

As St Paul said, we are to be all things to all people to bring them to Christ!

Alex

 

[Elizabeth502]

It is not the Church’s mission to promote European civilization in Asia and Africa.

What an inappropriately and offensively Straw Man statement.

It is not your place to tell me that the Roman Church’s preservation of her identity is equivalent to “promoting European civilization in Asia and Africa.” That is a completely off-topic remark that has nothing to do with a single thing I said.

Thomas Merton, in whom I am well-read, from adolescence, dialogued with and benefitted from Buddhism in a way that promoted his Catholicism, exactly in the way I described Sr. Rosalind Moss’s relationship to Judaism in my previous recent post. He retained his affinity for his experience in the East and with Eastern practices but did use that experience to set up an artificial challenge or co-equality with Catholicism.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Is this true even if such a person publicly reveals their obstinate objection to Church teaching?

If a Catholic became a member of a Buddhist monastery - that is different. But I hope we are here talking about how Buddhist culture can be appropriated by the Catholic Church in Asia to create a “rite” for purposes of evangelization.

An acquaintance of mine, a Lutheran, is recently becoming part of the Ordinariates that seek union with the Catholic Church.

I asked him, “How can you be a Lutheran and a Catholic (with Rome) at once?”

He said that “cultural Lutheranism” is not against Catholicism and he otherwise accepts the Magisterium et al.

The Orthodox Catholic Christian faith and Church should be able to “incarnate” itself in all the cultures of the world.

Anyone who has accepted Christ and the Church and later rejects them . . . well, that’s not a good thing.

Frankly, I’ve seen all kinds of weird practices in the chapels of our Catholic schools up here. I’d excommunicate them for exposing our young people to such (I saw a drawing of some sort of labyrinth on the floor of one school chapel - why have a Catholic education system if we’re going to do that IN THE CHAPEL!!).

Alex

 

[Contarini]

Not that I am a huge fan of the concept either, but in what way would you propose such persons be identified or described if they meet the terms of official excommunication, but have not yet formally been so declared? Would it be fair and thoroughly accurate enough to simply say they are Catholics who disobey Church teaching? Or Catholics not in communion with the Church? Or should they not be described at all?

I’m probably overreacting to the way the concept gets used by conservative Catholics. Also, I’ve seen the concept do some damage to some friends of mine in terms of their relationship with the Church–I’d rather not say more about it, but that is one of the factors that influences me. Excommunication always ought to involve someone in authority speaking personally to the person being excommunicated (even Pope Leo spoke rather apologetically about the fact that there was no safe way to deliver Luther’s excommunication to him personally, which was probably true!)–that’s probably the best way to put my position.

I get that l. s. excommunication is a way of saying “this is gravely wrong, across the board, and even if the Church doesn’t know about it or manage to do something you should still know how serious your break with Christian faith and practice is.” But when I start thinking about just what this is supposed to do, practically, it’s really hard for me to see a use. A person who is tender of conscience isn’t going to need that kind of harsh sanction; a person whose conscience is seared (or who disagrees in good faith) is going to ignore it.

Excommunication should be tough for the excommunicator. It shouldn’t be automated.

Why the desperate need to know just who is “in” and who is “out”? I get why Protestants are obsessed with this, because we don’t have an authoritative Church. But if Catholics really know that the Church isn’t going to apostasize, and that eventually a sufficiently grave error will be disciplined, can’t they afford to relax and work a bit more on the virtue of charity–which is supposed to be rather important, I believe

By the way, in responding to Luigi I had occasion to refer to Paul Knitter, whom I definitely consider unorthodox. So I’m not immune to making such judgments myself, but I try to make them cautiously and with room for charity and a recognition of my own propensity for error and misunderstanding.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I am not judging the person’s soul-God forbid…I am judging their actions. You can not belong to 2 faiths at once. I’ve given you a link with the answers as to why not.

Why can’t you make the argument for yourself?

One of the links in question relies on the CE, which is 100 years old, from a time when Western understanding of Buddhism was more or less a caricature (seeing it as nihilistic, pessimistic, etc.).

I am highly skeptical of the claim that one can be a Buddhist and a Catholic fully and equally. It seems quite likely that one would have to be one of the two primarily and draw on the other only where it was compatible with one’s primary allegiance. Quite possibly the act of “taking refuge” is incompatible with faithful, orthodox Christianity. And I certainly do not look to folks like Paul Knitter as models–I don’t see how his theology can be reconciled with orthodoxy, apart from the specific question of his allegiance to Buddhism.

However, the blanket claims you and others have made simply seem to hang in the air without support. The specific points of incompatibility that are claimed seem to reflect an understanding of Buddhism that many, if not all Buddhists would reject. So I think we need to treat cautiously.

Edwin

 

[Tomcmaj]

However, the blanket claims you and others have made simply seem to hang in the air without support. The specific points of incompatibility that are claimed seem to reflect an understanding of Buddhism that many, if not all Buddhists would reject.

In conversations, it ultimately comes down to this.

Bottom line is that you can either grok and inter-relationship between two religious traditions, or you can’t.

If you can’t, you probably shouldn’t try. But it wouldn’t hurt to be charitable towards those who can.

 

[Ahimsa]

I am highly skeptical of the claim that one can be a Buddhist and a Catholic fully and equally. It seems quite likely that one would have to be one of the two primarily and draw on the other only where it was compatible with one’s primary allegiance. Quite possibly the act of “taking refuge” is incompatible with faithful, orthodox Christianity. And I certainly do not look to folks like Paul Knitter as models–I don’t see how his theology can be reconciled with orthodoxy, apart from the specific question of his allegiance to Buddhism.

I think the key question here is: what determines if someone is a “Buddhist”? In Paul Knitter’s case, his Buddhist teacher knows about Knitter’s primary commitment to Christ. (And, I agree that any “Buddhist Christian” or “Christian Buddhist” usually has a greater commitment, in a formal sense, to either Christ or Buddha.) And yet his Buddhist teacher allowed Knitter to take Refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, which is the primary activity of becoming “officially” Buddhist. In Knitter’s case, it seems that Knitter sees Christ as a “Buddha”, as “buddha” is originally defined: someone who is Awake. (Knitter doesn’t actually say that he sees Christ as a “B/buddha”, but I think that’s a useful way of understanding why Knitter took Refuge in the Buddha.) In any event, Knitter’s primary commitment is to Christ, and, at the very least, Knitter’s taking Refuge in the Buddha does not undermine that prior commitment to Christ, but, in fact, re-inforces it. Thus, Knitter could write a book entitled Without Buddha, I Could Not be A Christian.

Basically, it seems that taking Refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, can be done in a formally Buddhist fashion (as Buddhists do it), or in a Christic fashion, in which the act of taking Refuge in the “Buddha” represents one of two possible meanings: (1) “Buddha”, meaning “one who is Awake”, is applicable to Jesus (comparable to the Greek term “Christos”), and, thus, taking Refuge in the Buddha, means taking refuge in the quality of Awakeness that one recognizes both in Shakyamuni Buddha and Jesus Christ; or (2) [and this is the meaning Knitter explicitly gives in his book] taking Refuge in the Buddha does not mean (as it would for a Buddhist) making the Buddha one’s ultimate, primary Guru/Teacher, but rather it certainly means learning from the Buddha and His Dharma, and His Sangha, at a very deep, very profound level.

Granted, Knitter’s taking Refuge might not be interpreted in this fashion by the Vatican, and the Vatican may come down hard on Knitter soon in the future. That’s the risk Knitter is taking, and it’ll be interesting to see how all this plays out.

By the way, Knitter’s wife is Buddhist (and a former Catholic).