Wrestling with conversion

[Ahimsa]

In no way does a Catholic believe the Pope is infallible in the same way as a Tantric guru. This would be a gross misrepresentation.

I didn’t say that a Tantric Guru is “infallible”. I said that the Tantric Vow involves total faith in the Guru, which, though not exactly the same thing as believing the Guru is “infallible” in the Catholic sense, does perform, I would suggest, a similar psycho-spiritual function: re-affirming the living and “embodied” presence of the Divine, on earth, right now, in one form or another. Of course, in Catholicism, the Bread of Angels is the direct presence of the body and blood of Christ, the most potent Catholic form of Divine embodiment in the present. I would suggest that in Vajrayana Buddhism, the Guru serves a similar function of Divine embodiment, especially when the Guru him- or herself is an actual Buddha.

For the uninformed Protestant, the Bread of Angels doesn’t exist – Christ is in heaven, not on earth. A Vajrayanist, though, would immediately have a deep appreciation of the Medicine of Immortality.

A Catholic submits oneself to God, not to a man, even one who we love and have great confidence in, such as the Pope.

I agree that a Catholic submits oneself to God, not a man. And, likewise, Tantric Buddhists surrender themselves to Buddha, not to a “mere” human. However, from an outsider’s perspective (say, the perspective of an uninformed Baptist) both the Catholic and the Tantric are, to one degree or another, apparently being idolatrous.

For instance, in Vajrayana, a Guru is absolutely necessary. You can’t “do it yourself”, via sola scriptura (or sola sutra, as the case may be). In Catholicism, likewise, one can’t be a Catholic simply by reading the Bible on one’s own, or worshipping alone each Sunday on the couch – the authority of the Church is a necessity. In fact, according to St. Augustine, it was the Church (the bishops, priests, especially, I would presume) that convinced him to become Christian, not the reading of the Bible on his own.

All of this is foreign to the radical Protestant perspective (which should be distinguished from the perspective of many of the Reformers, who themselves did not disdain tradition in and of itself), where each person is an individual ready and willing to save themselves – or to be saved themselves – outside of authority, or community, or a teaching lineage.

My basic point is that, for someone coming from some sort of Vajrayanic perspective, there are many commonalities between the Vajrayana and the Catholic traditions, commonalities absent in much of the Protestant traditions.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I didn’t say that a Tantric Guru is “infallible”. I said that the Tantric Vow involves total faith in the Guru, which, though not exactly the same thing as believing the Guru is “infallible” in the Catholic sense, does perform, I would suggest, a similar psycho-spiritual function: re-affirming the living and “embodied” presence of the Divine, on earth, right now, in one form or another.

I agree that a Catholic submits oneself to God, not a man. And, likewise, Tantric Buddhists surrender themselves to Buddha, not to a “mere” human. However, from an outsider’s perspective (say, the perspective of an uninformed Baptist) both the Catholic and the Tantric are, to one degree or another, apparently being idolatrous.

For instance, in Vajrayana, a Guru is absolutely necessary. You can’t “do it yourself”, via sola scriptura (or sola sutra, as the case may be). In Catholicism, likewise, one can’t be a Catholic simply by reading the Bible on one’s own, or worshipping alone each Sunday on the couch – the authority of the Church is a necessity. In fact, according to St. Augustine, it was the Church (the bishops, priests, especially, I would presume) that convinced him to become Christian, not the reading of the Bible on his own.

All of this is foreign to the radical Protestant perspective (which should be distinguished from the perspective of many of the Reformers, who themselves did not disdain tradition in and of itself), where each person is an individual ready and willing to save themselves – or to be saved themselves – outside of authority, or community, or a teaching lineage.

My basic point is that, for someone coming from some sort of Vajrayanic perspective, there are many commonalities between the Vajrayana and the Catholic traditions, commonalities absent in much of the Protestant traditions.

I agree, that some Protestant and other non-Catholic religions view the Pope in this way, and believe this is what we do. It is not accurate.

My experience with Tantric is Western, entirely. Everyone I know who is “into it” are instructed by their “gurus” to do the most base level of debauchery that ever existed. Sexual acts that most people would never even imagine. Things that put the persons health in danger (ie, unprotected sex with complete strangers).

As a Catholic, I don’t shut my brain off and do everything the Pope says, without question, as a test or method of removing ego.

If this is not what a true practice of Tantric is, then perhaps I could agree. But only once I understood what the true practice actually is. But even what I read, a disciple of a guru reaches a point where they will deny their guru nothing. We would do that for Jesus, but never for any human.

What it boils down to is, we believe the Pope speaks as the head of Christ’s Church, NOT as Christ Himself. We make a clear distinction between the two and use our reason to understand any directions the Pope gives us. There is no way in this world I would ever do everything the Pope says to do, just because he is Pope. We are taught to understand the Gospel, and if the Pope were to teach something contrary to what the Gospel is, we should question it, not just go along because we have given our wills and minds to a human.

 

[ebonykawai]

My experience with Tantric is Western, entirely. Everyone I know who is “into it” are instructed by their “gurus” to do the most base level of debauchery that ever existed. Sexual acts that most people would never even imagine. Things that put the persons health in danger (ie, unprotected sex with complete strangers).

Tantra is not western, it is eastern. “Western tantra” is a complete fabrication by so-called gurus who want power. So unfortunately, now in the west, tantra has become synonymous with sex, drug use, and hedonism, and this is NOT what real tantra is. Just trying to set the record straight.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Need some constructive advice.

I am currently attending an Episcopal church - I am a baptized Christian (I was baptized into the Lutheran church).

First, on a practical note what is the process of conversion for Christians already baptized?

Second, on a more personal note I am absolutely agonizing over this. The biggest obstacle I see is infallibility. I just cannot get over it. Images of priests sitting on thrones getting their rings kissed swimming through my head, etc. I am honestly not trying to troll, this is just something I am really going through. When I say I am agonizing over this I am not kidding. I was brought up in a tradition that places huge emphasis on reading the bible for oneself, and I’ve done that - I’ve loved it, it has loved me and we are now more than friends. I feel like by converting I would almost be abandoning the primacy of the bible in my life somehow.

I am aware of all the apologetic arguments back and forth, so positive responses would be welcomed.

I’m a convert from the Protestant church myself, but not Anglican / Episcopal.

I suppose the reason I converted was a sort of “spiritual push”, coupled with some other factors.

However back in my protestant days I had an “old pastor” whom I’ve often referred to on this forum, and he predicted I’d become Catholic (amongst a number of other things, with 100% accuracy so far, some of them rather unlikely).

We’d discussed the issue of Protestantism - Catholicism on a number of occasions in his office when he was still alive, but a few years after he died he appeared to me one night in a rather brief vision, and simply said, “The Catholic Church is closest to the truth.”

I think it was him, and I think he was sent to give me a message.

I have an argument with the infallibility bit myself, even though I think it’s only been invoked twice since it was formally adopted. I don’t admire much the way it was brought in during a period of ultramonist dominance in certain circles in Vatican I, and as far as I’m concerned, it’s just a hindrance to church reunification. I accept the Pope speaks with authority, as given by Christ, but I would have thought the clear picture of Peter’s fallibility as portrayed in the Gospels and Acts was there for a reason. He’d no sooner made the declaration of faith which got him declared the Rock, than he had to be rebuked in the next breath as being used by Satan.

Nor do I agree with the teaching on the contaceptive pill. And neither do a lot of other Catholics obviously, since there are nowhere near the number of large families that were once a common feature of Catholic life, even amongst regular Church going Catholics. That’s not happening due to random chance, or NFP.

But they’re just not prepared to say so. I do remember talking to one very committed married Catholic woman, a long time ago, back in my atheist days, who commented her sex life was none of the priest’s or Pope’s business.

Having said all that, I think the Catholic Church is “closest” to the truth, and if I were to move anywhere else, I’d simply be moving further away from the truth. So I’ll be staying here.

That’s the way I see it.

 

[The_Wizard]

As Major Winters said, “You salute the rank NOT the Man”.

 

[robwar]

Thanks for the compassionate replies everybody. As for my motivations, I am attracted primarily to the sacrament of confession, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the worship/veneration surrounding Mary. Hope I wasn’t too offensive with the ring-kissing comment - shows what I know. Generally the things that I love about Protestantism are the things pushing me away from it - if everyone is a theologian all you get is “too many cooks”. Democratic - but anarchic. You end up either being an inerrantist (which to my thinking is just infallibility placed upon scripture instead of priesthood) or you end up in the mess the Anglican Communion is in currently. To add to the horrible mix (in my head) I also was seriously into Buddhism for a while back and I really can’t believe in a punishment that is eternal (at least without an eventual chance to be reborn and try again …) which is of course a problem I have with Christianity generally. I wonder if anyone here has ever discussed the similarities Catholicism has to Vajrayana Buddhism? Anyway obviously I am confused to say the least and hopefully I’ll resolve things eventually.

Hi Yab Yum,
you have very good questions and honesty about difficulties. There is a good book out there by Patrick Madrid “Pope Fiction” and I think that it will address some of the concerns you have but also address false images and rumors about Popes and the Papacy. I am assuming that when you say that you are having a problem with infallibility, you are having a problem with understanding Popes and their roles. When the Catholic Church say that when a Pope rules ex- cathedra (from the Throne) that he is protected by the Holy Spirit from error. Infallibility does not mean impeccability which is that Popes don’t have human faults, sin and can sin. In the history of the church, we have had some very sinful Popes. Blessed Pope John Paul 2 went to confession every day, I am sure the our current one does as well. While we have had some sinful Popes, they ended up being too busy sinning to teach error or they ended up with a very short time in the Papacy.
God bless you on your journey and welcome home. Stop thinking about the image of kissing rings, its just some false character you have picked up somewhere.

 

[pablope]

Hi Yab Yum,
ng too busy sinning to teach error or they ended up with a very short time in the Papacy.
God bless you on your journey and welcome home. Stop thinking about the image of kissing rings, its just some false character you have picked up somewhere.

Guys…and Gals…this is 4 yr old thread…I do not know why someone revived it.

 

[robwar]

Guys…and Gals…this is 4 yr old thread…I do not know why someone revived it.

I’m sorry, I did not nor realize it!

 

[Stephen_C]

Guys…and Gals…this is 4 yr old thread…I do not know why someone revived it.

Plus if look at his profile he became Catholic Easter 2011