YOGA...ooer!

[friardchips]

Contarini, it is you who has taken it out of context. Read the up-to-date article concerning New Age. It is not that one article over-rides another but simply that the Church grows in its understanding and extends further in its reach. I dare say the document you have cited is reflecting on the need for all Christians to recognise the reach for love in other non-Christian practices as opposed to stating that it is a good idea for Christians to practice their methods of worship. Maybe I could go ahead and quote a document from the 1600s and say that it is more relevant than a document written in our day and age. The Bible is the only source of revelation. What comes after is the witness from one era to the next.

Thanks for your posts.

 

[friardchips]

Sorry. Here it is.

I haven’t read every post on the thread, but I’ve read a good deal of it. You do persistently speak as if “Hindu origins” equated to “demonic.” Are you denying this?

In all fairness, who does read all posts in every thread, so fair enough.

Yes, I have given the impression of stating this. This is probably not advisable to do on a forum so maybe I could have done with NOT giving that impression. Because I’m not exactly saying that. Many apologists are claiming that there is nothing behind non-Christian religious ‘deities’ etc…and this might be the broad view though there seems to be a hole in an area which could do with some more coverage. I would say I do have foundation behind my claims as I have read quite a lot from a Catholic perspective. For a religion to have been going for thousands of years means, I think, there has to be some force behind it. As Gary said earlier, in another context, evil is just a perversion of good. This is profound. And I think although people who practice alternative spirituality (worded this way in this Vatican document I’ve just linked) are maybe doing these things with GOOD intent, the devil often persuades us to take moderation out-of-hand; in addition, for the Christian, I do believe that, just as it is advisable to respect the elements - the wind, the rain, deserts, the sea, mountainous terrain, wild animals etc… - and so it is we are to respect other belief systems with a view to not allowing them to dilute our own objective as Christians, which is surely to live the Gospel of Christ, by serving them. Now I get that one can’t do that by judging the non-Christians, but we are allowed to assess their practices. I do have strong opinions and this comes out maybe too much on occasion but standby what I believe because I read nothing that seems to contradict the connection of dots, on various levels, so far. I don’t think that every single aspect of alternative spirituality is devil-based and certainly not practiced with devil-based intent but do however think there is a malevolent spirit there somewhere in some aspect of it and don’t believe that is particularly hard for one branch of Yoga to cross over into another. I think they are parts of a whole, which can be contrary to the well-being of Christians.

Your irrelevant ad hominem is noted.

As you wish.

I’m not criticizing your intentions. I’m describing the message I have seen in post after post of yours on this thread, and I’m pointing out that you seem completely unaware of the single most authoritative and relevant document produced by the Catholic Church on this subject.

I have answered this with a response.

I’m sure your intentions are good.

Thank you. Though admittedly not always expressed as well as they could be.

So a casual remark by Pope Francis trumps a conciliar document? Interesting.

I don’t think he is trumping it. He is explaining it more fully. I think this is very true of many documents from before or around the 1960s. It is not that they are untrue but either that they served the Church as s response to the needs of the present day back then or/and that the Church ahs revealed since more truths from these initial expressions of faith, reason and understanding.

And why would I discuss this based on “personal stories”? If I say that I have good personal experiences with yoga (which I do), you can quite legitimately say that I am deceived or something of that sort.

I so far believe that everyone who has said they have had positive experiences from doing Yoga are telling the truth, I have no reason not to, and you are welcome to add your post if you so wish detailing yours. In fact, I would be grateful for it as probably other people on this thread would be too. But as with any discussion to do with wide subjects, conclusions can’t be drawn from a small number of personal accounts as there are accounts all over the internet of stories for and against. So one has to try and look at it from a wider perspective. I believe there are good people who do Yoga, great people, fantastic people, but still I have my reservations about Yoga itself due to innate feelings/hunches and from reading and making connections.

What I’m challenging is your assumption that Hinduism is demonic.

I welcome you to do so, this would be appreciated, not Hinduism as a whole but elements of it or of non-Christian Eastern religious practice (as Gary earlier pointed out).

That is not how the Council spoke. (Of course there are demonic elements in Hinduism–I’m not disputing that. There are demonic elements in every religion–including Christianity if by “Christianity” we mean the historical phenomenon and not just the divinely revealed truth.)

mmm…needs more debate but we might be on the same page, or at least the same chapter!

Edwin

Thank you for clarifying your viewpoint, Edwin.

F.C.

 

[friardchips]

The other document was not produced by an Ecumenical Council.

And are you suggesting that this other document simply contradicts Vatican II? That you don’t have to discuss Vatican II?

They do not put up documents that contradict. One will be a reflection of another or dealing with the subject for a different purpose or explaining further in outreach according to the discoveries made in our own time and era or illuminating some truths in defence of proposed opposition to a certain Christian doctrine or understanding. They are all worthy of discussion but simply stating that as time grows we learn more, we reach further, this is not illogical. I will have to read it more fully.

The other document is a pastoral warning against the New Age movement taken as a whole. It does not in fact condemn the practice of yoga, but warns against a generalized “New Age” approach to life.

This is incomplete reasoning. Reason being, that if the document states that certain ‘New Age’ practices contradict themselves in their motivation behind such practices on a par with ‘occult’ practise then participating in these practices is obviously not okay to do as a Christian. It is like saying that we can follow a ritual which is opposed to Catholic doctrines and dogmas. It is contradictory and self-exposing.

I cited Nostra Aetate because of the basic attitude to Hinduism expressed in that document.

I would expect to find in research that this document is a response to events at that time. That is not to say that it is incorrect in any way but that depending on the reasons behind the writing of this document it might be expanded upon in a newer document revealing truths once hidden but now come to fruition. I can’t comment any further at this point about it.

If we take NA and “Jesus Christ Bearer of the Water of Life” together and harmonize them instead of using the lesser document to dismiss the greater as you are doing, then we would come to the conclusion that the Hindu origins of yoga make it more worthy of respect and consideration, while the New Age context in which yoga is often presented should be regarded with more suspicion. That is to say, generally speaking the Church seems to regard “real” Eastern religions with more respect and less suspicion than it does Westernized adaptations rooted in a “touchy-feely” spirituality lacking the discipline and tradition of the Eastern originals.

People’s reach for the divine should always have been respected. I think the document is saying more than what you have suggested so far.

“Touchy-feely” spirituality in the West is part of the problem. Noted.

And, of course, your most obvious riposte is that NA doesn’t speak specifically of yoga as one of the good things in Hinduism. But it does speak respectfully both of Hindu philosophy and of Hindu ascetic practice.

Edwin

We have to respect the reach for people’s needs to express their spiritual craving in non-Christian religious practices. Sure, nothing new. What no document does is to say that Christians are free to participate in these. If the Vatican does, then point it out, and I’ll go and study it. They won’t, because it would be outside of theology to do so.

You mentioned earlier Satan appearing in Christian texts as well as my suggestions of an evil element to some non-Christian Eastern belief systems or practices. Your argument here doesn’t quite add up because Satan is firmly denounced by Jesus, but in other religions it takes discernment and reasoning to expose any evil or rather filter what is true and good from the dodgy best-not-walk-down areas.

 

[Contarini]

Contarini, it is you who has taken it out of context. Read the up-to-date article concerning New Age.

I’ve read it in the past.

It is not that one article over-rides another but simply that the Church grows in its understanding and extends further in its reach. I dare say the document you have cited is reflecting on the need for all Christians to recognise the reach for love in other non-Christian practices as opposed to stating that it is a good idea for Christians to practice their methods of worship.

Maybe, since you were evidently unfamiliar with Nostra Aetate, you are the one who needs to do a bit more reading and study of the subject before pontificating on the proper Catholic approach.

Vatican II is the latest Ecumenical Council. If there is another one that takes a more polemical tack, then you will have a point.

I have suggested a possible way in which the documents may be reconciled. You ignore this. In fact you ignore NA altogether. Isn’t that a pretty frivolous way to treat the documents of a Council?

Maybe I could go ahead and quote a document from the 1600s and say that it is more relevant than a document written in our day and age. The Bible is the only source of revelation. What comes after is the witness from one era to the next.

Thanks for your posts.

I never said “more relevant,” but I did say (subject to correction by those who have more right to an opinion) that as I understand it NA is more authoritative than the “Bearer of the Water of Life” document.

You seem to think that official Catholic teaching has an “expiration date.”

I suppose it’s to be expected that the “hermeneutic of discontinuity” would eventually be used against Vatican II. In one of my early attempts at RCIA, many years ago, I was told by a priest that Trent’s teachings were basically irrelevant because of Vatican II. I suppose your position is just more of the same, except that you aren’t even trumping one Council by another but by a document that surely carries much lesser authority. This in spite of the fact that they don’t actually contradict.

The specific point regarding which I cited NA was the question of whether “Hindu” equals “demonic.” For instance, you have several times argued from the assumption that we know that since yoga is a traditional Hindu practice, therefore demons would regard it as a sort of “landing signal.” NA’s description of Hindu practices does not seem to leave room for such an assumption. That is to say, simply because yoga is part of traditional Hindu ascetic practice does not necessarily make it some kind of “signal” to the demons. (Again, this is not to deny that there are beliefs and practices in Hinduism that do open the door to the demonic, simply that you have to do more to show this to be true than simply point out the Hindu roots of the practice.)

Edwin

 

[friardchips]

I’ve read it in the past.

Maybe, since you were evidently unfamiliar with Nostra Aetate, you are the one who needs to do a bit more reading and study of the subject before pontificating on the proper Catholic approach.

Vatican II is the latest Ecumenical Council. If there is another one that takes a more polemical tack, then you will have a point.

I have suggested a possible way in which the documents may be reconciled. You ignore this. In fact you ignore NA altogether. Isn’t that a pretty frivolous way to treat the documents of a Council?

I never said “more relevant,” but I did say (subject to correction by those who have more right to an opinion) that as I understand it NA is more authoritative than the “Bearer of the Water of Life” document.

You seem to think that official Catholic teaching has an “expiration date.”

I suppose it’s to be expected that the “hermeneutic of discontinuity” would eventually be used against Vatican II. In one of my early attempts at RCIA, many years ago, I was told by a priest that Trent’s teachings were basically irrelevant because of Vatican II. I suppose your position is just more of the same, except that you aren’t even trumping one Council by another but by a document that surely carries much lesser authority. This in spite of the fact that they don’t actually contradict.

The specific point regarding which I cited NA was the question of whether “Hindu” equals “demonic.” For instance, you have several times argued from the assumption that we know that since yoga is a traditional Hindu practice, therefore demons would regard it as a sort of “landing signal.” NA’s description of Hindu practices does not seem to leave room for such an assumption. That is to say, simply because yoga is part of traditional Hindu ascetic practice does not necessarily make it some kind of “signal” to the demons. (Again, this is not to deny that there are beliefs and practices in Hinduism that do open the door to the demonic, simply that you have to do more to show this to be true than simply point out the Hindu roots of the practice.)

Edwin

I am much in favour of Vatican II and in fact have a bit of a problem with people who aren’t and wish to oppose. I do have a problem also when people take Church documents out of context.

I have outlined my views concerning the documents and have stated more than once that I don’t consider one as doing away with another. I have also stated that I need to read the one you have put forward in more depth.

Catholic teaching does not have an expiry date. However, interpretations can and do deepen and widen. For example, in the amazing later periods of the Church we had the historical/critical method of enquiry into Scripture, before it was mainly allegorical - so Scripture does not change, but our interpretations can, and the same goes for the world around. It would be considerably naïve to think otherwise.

Your reasoning makes for relativism. The danger of which has been written about by the last two Popes, in length. You proved this earlier when you said that some Hindu elements are demonic but then went on to try and justify the use of Yoga as if one branch of Yoga couldn’t possibly carry over into another and are not linked in any way. There is either a demon there behind it somewhere or there isn’t. And for the Christian, we have been taught how to pray, in black and white, by Jesus, the Apostles, the Saints and martyrs of the Church, Popes and Vatican documents.

Do you deny the doctrines and dogmas of the Church as the whole Truth? Do you not think that the realisation of Jesus Christ as the Lord and saviour of mankind is the Truth, Way and Life who saves and therefore we are to go and announce this truth to the world by our words and deeds; or maybe, you think this is a Truth not to be shared, and rather we are to participate in the practices of other religious beliefs and worship false idols instead, to confuse? I expect you to answer from a Catholic viewpoint as these are the questions I make sure I know in my heart before challenging Yoga practice. We all have idols sometimes, even if it is simply our prideful self, so why put an extra burden on our shoulders by not reserving the Christ-centre when approaching these topics - we can’t do this when immersed in the practice itself which seeks to hone self-enhancement and self-healing that opposes diametrically the Christian’s knowledge that it is God who grants us the grace to bear our crosses and it is God who is the doctor of life who heals the soul. Sure, God can point us to the ways and means but not at the sacrifice of retaining first place for Him.

 

[friardchips]

Ultimately, Contarini, I stand firm with the belief that from the Second Vatican Council came a discovered treasury of understanding and the Church today has fruit growing from this Council to such a degree that it makes many seem uncomfortable. This could be a signal to those switched on that it is the Holy Spirit who inspired the Second Vatican Council and is guiding the Church now via the Popes and their pronouncements, because Jesus, who often, because of the contrast of the Truth of Him to the wishy, washy expressions of the scribes and pharisees, could be seen as having turned things on their heads (‘challenged’ in other words not rebelled) or rather, as having split the temple down the middle.

 

[friardchips]

Contarini, thank you for pointing to that document. It has made me think. I don’t really think it opposes anything I have said still because it is saying that we are to understand that the worship of those people in such religious practices are seeking the Divine. To suggest otherwise, would be to suggest we can read people’s intentions. Also, the document ends beautifully with this:
*
‘The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion. On the contrary, following in the footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, this sacred synod ardently implores the Christian faithful to “maintain good fellowship among the nations” (1 Peter 2:12), and, if possible, to live for their part in peace with all men,(14) so that they may truly be sons of the Father who is in heaven.(15).’*

This is saying about embracing people with love and sharing etc…no where in the document does it say about Christians taking on non-Christian Eastern religious practices. No where. It merely states what we know: that to be a Christian, we must love and accept others.

For example, if I meet a New Age person, I am not going to do down their cult, I am rather going to ask them about what and why they believe it and to emphasise where possible the link, and at the same time hopefully, ensuring it is communication that is peaceful which would be done by mentally praying to the Holy Spirit during. This does not mean I am to start joining in the practice they are involve in. I am also to announce my own faith if under duress. I am also to take any insult on account of the faith. I am also to not renounce any part of the faith. I think it is okay to pray alongside others if they are practising a different faith as long as I pray the way we’ve been taught(?) I am entitled to point out something I think would be adverse to their spiritual health as long as it is not judging their intentions. I would not be expected to step beyond a certain boundary in practice terms as this might confuse. The only boundary that is limitless is being generous to the other in love.

So this document is valid, relevant, but not opposed to my way of thinking whatsoever. But still, a great reminder to make sure we don’t become fundamentalist haters of people.

 

[friardchips]

I don’t think it is right to dismiss this document as has been attempted on this thread so far:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html

This is a wonderful piece of literature and think everyone could do with reading it. It is to be respected and abided by. It is challenging for the Christian today, true. I am challenged by it in various ways. There is also a section that says it is advisable to follow known Christian meditational practices from religious Orders, and seeing as the Pope has already stated not to seek spiritual answers in Yoga, I can see why it does. I challenge others to read and study this document without bias and if remarking on it in posts not to take its sentences out of context to fit your own agendas - for or against.

I love this document.

 

[friardchips]

Do you deny the doctrines and dogmas of the Church as the whole Truth? Do you not think that the realisation of Jesus Christ as the Lord and saviour of mankind is the Truth, Way and Life who saves and therefore we are to go and announce this truth to the world by our words and deeds; or maybe, you think this is a Truth not to be shared, and rather we are to participate in the practices of other religious beliefs and worship false idols instead, to confuse? I expect you to answer from a Catholic viewpoint as these are the questions I make sure I know in my heart before challenging Yoga practice. We all have idols sometimes, even if it is simply our prideful self, so why put an extra burden on our shoulders by not reserving the Christ-centre when approaching these topics - we can’t do this when immersed in the practice itself which seeks to hone self-enhancement and self-healing that opposes diametrically the Christian’s knowledge that it is God who grants us the grace to bear our crosses and it is God who is the doctor of life who heals the soul. Sure, God can point us to the ways and means but not at the sacrifice of retaining first place for Him.

I wish to add here, because this is the reason I said the above paragraph, that the document Nostra Aetate says we are to respect what is holy in other religions which are designed to engage with a divine source. We agree that there is truth to be recognised within other religions but at the same time as Christians we recognise the completion of all else in the revelation of Scripture that is Jesus Christ, who revealed Himself within Catholic teaching. The document does not say we are to renounce this knowledge by taking up Non-Christian Eastern worship and practices (although we are to meet our brothers who seek the Creator across the world in other religions, with love and respect, of their search for the divine).

 

[cheezey]

Let me google that for you.

Well that was just too awesome how you did that.

I second this. Neat!

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

 

[friardchips]

Deleted.

 

[agnes_therese]

I second this. Neat!

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

Unfortunately, the Church will always have members who think they know better than she does. It’s just the human condition.

 

[friardchips]

’Unfortunately, the Church will always have members who think they know better than she does. It’s just the human condition.'

---

Not rejecting, doesn’t mean relativizing one’s own faith at the same time - it seems to be the case that people on this thread experience difficulty with being able to separate respect from participation, when attempting to see the subject from the Church’s point-of-view, but then do exactly that when discussing it from it their own (!!)

 

[Contarini]

I wish to add here, because this is the reason I said the above paragraph, that the document Nostra Aetate says we are to respect what is holy in other religions which are designed to engage with a divine source. We agree that there is truth to be recognised within other religions but at the same time as Christians we recognise the completion of all else in the revelation of Scripture that is Jesus Christ, who revealed Himself within Catholic teaching. The document does not say we are to renounce this knowledge by taking up Non-Christian Eastern worship and practices (although we are to meet our brothers who seek the Creator across the world in other religions, with love and respect, of their search for the divine).

You keep missing the point for which I quoted Nostra Aetate.

You have several times made the argument that yoga should be avoided because of its roots in Hinduism, because these roots make it a kind of “landing signal” for demons.

That doesn’t seem to leave room for the idea that Hinduism is a “search for the divine” that should be respected.

Whether NA justifies participation in practices such as yoga is a separate issue. Certainly many Catholics understand it that way. I have also pointed out that “Bearer of the Water of Life” is talking, in a rather general way, about the “New Age movement,” and does not actually condemn the practice of yoga in particular.

As far as I can see, the attitude of the Magisterium toward yoga and Eastern meditation is cautious and maybe even suspicious, but not totally forbidding. I am not claiming that the Magisterium has encouraged Catholics to practice yoga. I am arguing that the Magisterium, in a document far more authoritative than the one you prefer to cite, has said that Christians should not reject what is good and holy in other religions, with spiritual practices being referred to in a general way that clearly does not exclude their being among these “good and holy” things.

Arguably there has been somewhat of a pull-back from this generous position, but it isn’t necessary to read it that way.

I note that you bring up the bugbear of “relativism,” which is irrelevant to anything I’ve said, and claim that practicing yoga constitutes renouncing the knowledge of God found fully in Christ. That is the point you need to establish. You can’t assume it.

Edwin

 

[friardchips]

You keep missing the point for which I quoted Nostra Aetate. You have several times made the argument that yoga should be avoided because of its roots in Hinduism, because these roots make it a kind of “landing signal” for demons.

I have put forward this assertion, yet throughout the thread I have also suggested that I believe it is not likely for actual demonic attacks to happen every time.

One post does not contradict another but rather responds accordingly to each angle separately put up for debate.

Yoga, due to an uncertain premise in terms of its authority, is a reach for the unknown, and within any ‘spiritual’ unknown there is the possibility of a “landing signal”. This is not always going to surface when Yoga is practiced.

I tend to think of the Bible rock metaphor in this instance.

That doesn’t seem to leave room for the idea that Hinduism is a “search for the divine” that should be respected.

I am separating the practice of worship from people’s desire to worship. Any religion is made up of those who practice it. If there were no people, there would be no religion. I could sum Hinduism up as a non-Christian Eastern belief system with certain practices used by a peoples to worship their idea of what the divine being/s in their belief system might be. This is where separation comes in:

I respect that there might be divine truths within any belief system whilst acknowledging Christianity’s roots as THE revelation.

I respect the Hindu peoples reach for the divine without endorsing their belief system as the whole truth and whilst reserving my own assessment of the religion as a wide subject up for analysis.

I remain objectively *critical *of certain aspects of the practice, from a Christian perspective, when Christians partake, and advocate, such practices of worship outside their own Christian belief, and I remain interested in any differences and holy links between ours and their religion.

As a poster said earlier, evil is a perversion of God’s power. It is likely that at any point during the continuation of any ancient belief system which started out with the innate sense of a divine presence to be praised, Satan could influence stray-thinking that take people away from growing closer to the truth that if was to be shared in every area of the world, could heal the world, i.e:- Jesus Christ and the Truth of His Resurrection from the dead.

Whether NA justifies participation in practices such as yoga is a separate issue. Certainly many Catholics understand it that way. I have also pointed out that “Bearer of the Water of Life” is talking, in a rather general way, about the “New Age movement,” and does not actually condemn the practice of yoga in particular.

“Bearer of the Water of Life” does mention Yoga and *non-Christian Eastern religions * as both under New Age, and suggests a resulting irony. It does not endorse adopting Hindu ways of worshipping, and does not say the Hindu religion or its practices cannot be up for debate.

As far as I can see, the attitude of the Magisterium toward yoga and Eastern meditation is cautious and maybe even suspicious, but not totally forbidding.

If they are suspicious, do you not think they have reasons for being so. In this sense surely common sense prevails.

I am not claiming that the Magisterium has encouraged Catholics to practice yoga.

Exactly, yet people are still advocating it. This is what I meant earlier in the thread when I said about an “anything goes attitude” - if is not forbidden let’s dive right in - but to utilise our reasoning and discernment abilities is to act wisely.

I am arguing that the Magisterium, in a document far more authoritative than the one you prefer to cite,…

Considering that the Pope has echoed this document and taken it a step further by suggesting Yoga spiritual practice is really a no-no, suggests a lack of concrete belief in your post of the current infallibility of the Pope in all matters of faith, morals and doctrines.

…has said that Christians should not reject what is good and holy in other religions, with spiritual practices being referred to in a general way that clearly does not exclude their being among these “good and holy” things.

There are good and holy things to be found in most areas of life, this does not say that we are to practice Hindu worship, make use of its practices, and it does not say that Hinduism contains the whole truth! It wouldn’t say this because to do so would be to venture outside of theology. Also, the Magisterium does not contradict itself, for this reason.

Arguably there has been somewhat of a pull-back from this generous position, but it isn’t necessary to read it that way.

I note that you bring up the bugbear of “relativism,” which is irrelevant to anything I’ve said, and claim that practicing yoga constitutes renouncing the knowledge of God found fully in Christ. That is the point you need to establish. You can’t assume it.

Edwin

Relativism is a real and dangerous threat, it always is, otherwise St. Peter would not have warned about dangerous paths of learning, as written in Acts two thousand years ago, when he spoke about progressive teaching/understanding, and St. Paul would not have warned about babbling like the Pagans do - to suggest that we can take on other non-R.C religious forms of worship is relativism and a very thin line from idol-worship if not indeed idol worship; to appreciate other peoples’ victories and struggles in their reach to understand the heavenly mysteries, and to understand where Christ might be present in some areas of non-Christian religions, is Christian.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Considering that the Pope has echoed this document and taken it a step further by suggesting Yoga spiritual practice is really a no-no, suggests a lack of concrete belief in your post of the current infallibility of the Pope in all matters of faith, morals and doctrines.

It was a homily in which he concluded that the only one who can "teach love and free mankind from this hardened heart is the Holy Spirit.”

“You can do thousands of courses of catechesis, thousands of spiritual courses, thousands of yoga courses, zen and all those things. But all of that will never be capable of giving you the freedom of a son,” he said.

“It is only the Holy Spirit that can move your heart to say ‘Father.’"

zenit.org/en/articles/pope-s-morning-homily-only-the-holy-spirit-can-soften-your-heart

That is not a “no–no” unless catechesis is also a “no-no”. And, of course, it is not.

 

[Contarini]

I have put forward this assertion, yet throughout the thread I have also suggested that I believe it is not likely for actual demonic attacks to happen every time.

One post does not contradict another but rather responds accordingly to each angle separately put up for debate.

Yoga, due to an uncertain premise in terms of its authority, is a reach for the unknown, and within any ‘spiritual’ unknown there is the possibility of a “landing signal”. This is not always going to surface when Yoga is practiced.

OK, that’s a coherent position. I disagree with it, because I disagree with the idea that spiritual practices need “authority” to be “safe.”

I am separating the practice of worship from people’s desire to worship.

But the practices are an expression of the desire.

I respect the Hindu peoples reach for the divine without endorsing their belief system as the whole truth and whilst reserving my own assessment of the religion as a wide subject up for analysis.

Sure. No one is suggesting here that their belief system is the whole truth.

Yoga practice integrates very well into orthodox Christianity, it seems to me. Most of the assertions to the contrary seem to rest in misunderstanding. The basic tenet of hatha yoga is that the physical exercises, combined with other things such as moral precepts and ascetic practices, discipline the body so that it won’t get in the way of union with God.

I remain objectively *critical *of certain aspects of the practice, from a Christian perspective, when Christians partake, and advocate, such practices of worship outside their own Christian belief

Nothing is outside Christian belief except what is false and evil. So you have to show that it’s false and evil to show that it’s outside, not the other way round.

“Bearer of the Water of Life” does mention Yoga and *non-Christian Eastern religions * as both under New Age, and suggests a resulting irony. It does not endorse adopting Hindu ways of worshipping, and does not say the Hindu religion or its practices cannot be up for debate.

Well, no one is saying the last.

You’re right that Eastern religions are mentioned. That is a pretty weird way to talk about them, frankly.

If they are suspicious, do you not think they have reasons for being so. In this sense surely common sense prevails.

No. We have far too much common sense. We need some uncommon sense. We need spiritual daring.

Exactly, yet people are still advocating it. This is what I meant earlier in the thread when I said about an “anything goes attitude” - if is not forbidden let’s dive right in - but to utilise our reasoning and discernment abilities is to act wisely.

I think that’s a straw man. Many of us have thought a good deal about this

Considering that the Pope has echoed this document and taken it a step further by suggesting Yoga spiritual practice is really a no-no

Misreading of Pope Francis, as another poster has shown. Speaking of taking things out of context

suggests a lack of concrete belief in your post of the current infallibility of the Pope in all matters of faith, morals and doctrines.

That’s one of those things I’m on the fence about. If I go through with becoming Catholic, I will accept it as a matter of trust. My main problem with it is the specific list of infallible teachings propounded by the CDF in the doctrinal notification to Ad Tuendam Fidem. (My main reason for still having cold feet about Catholicism is the requirement not to receive communion in other churches. So as you can see, the whole question of participation in other traditions is important to me across the board.)

But more to the point here, Pope Francis’ statement doesn’t remotely meet the criteria for infallibility as generally held in Catholicism. As I understand it (from many conversations with many Catholics whose interpretations of the Faith, frankly, I trust more than I do yours), what is required with regard to statements such as that one is “docility,” not necessarily submission.

There are good and holy things to be found in most areas of life, this does not say that we are to practice Hindu worship, make use of its practices

Why turn your back on anything good and holy? This makes no sense.

to suggest that we can take on other non-R.C religious forms of worship is relativism and a very thin line from idol-worship if not indeed idol worship; to appreciate other peoples’ victories and struggles in their reach to understand the heavenly mysteries, and to understand where Christ might be present in some areas of non-Christian religions, is Christian.

No, it’s not relativism. You seem to have a rather strange definition of relativism.

The reason to accept certain beliefs and practices from other traditions is that these beliefs are true and these practices are good. That’s not relativism. It’s the opposite of relativism. Truth and goodness are truth and goodness, period.

If anything, the insistence that truth and goodness should only be pursued in certain contexts and not in others is relativist. . . .

And if Christ is present, then following Christ can’t be idol-worship, can it?

Edwin

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From Friardcips:

Yoga, due to an uncertain premise in terms of its authority, is a reach for the unknown, and within any ‘spiritual’ unknown there is the possibility of a “landing signal”. This is not always going to surface when Yoga is practiced.

Good Evening Friardchips: I have read a good many accounts of Catholic Saints being confronted and even assaulted by demons, but have not read an account of yogis having this problem. Which begs the question as to which practice might more aptly conjure one up - being a really good Catholic, or being a yogi. We are in fact THE religion that has special ranks of the clergy to deal with such things, and remedies are usually applied in the places where the problem is, not somewhere else. For instance, I would imagine that there aren’t a lot of air conditioners in Greenland, and likewise I have never visited a yoga studio with an exorcist. So to turn what you said the other way around, if I were to invite a Hindu to join me at mass, what assurances can I honestly give them about such things?

Relativism is a real and dangerous threat, it always is, otherwise St. Peter would not have warned about dangerous paths of learning, as written in Acts two thousand years ago, when he spoke about progressive teaching/understanding, and St. Paul would not have warned about babbling like the Pagans do - to suggest that we can take on other non-R.C religious forms of worship is relativism and a very thin line from idol-worship if not indeed idol worship; to appreciate other peoples’ victories and struggles in their reach to understand the heavenly mysteries, and to understand where Christ might be present in some areas of non-Christian religions, is Christian.

Relativism is a dangerous threat to institutions and people who have a psychological need for assuredness with regard to what they have been taught. The odd thing is that relativism is often held on this forum to be a threat to truth, when in fact relativism is the truth. If, as the human race moves forward, our faith tradition wants to remain relevant, we had better come to terms with relativism. Because the world we live in is relative by nature. Up is only up relative to down, and there is no front without a back. Likewise, a fish has no concept of water until it has been out of the water. Most everything is known only in contrast to its opposite and the gradations between extremes. If we have something to fear in relativism, it could only mean that we don’t have the real deal. Because the real deal can take whatever you throw at it. If we have the truth, it won’t be threatened by other truths. As a Catholic, I would like to be taken seriously by other modern humans, so I have no fear of relativism.

All the best,
Gary

 

[friardchips]

It was a homily in which he concluded that the only one who can "teach love and free mankind from this hardened heart is the Holy Spirit.”

“You can do thousands of courses of catechesis, thousands of spiritual courses, thousands of yoga courses, zen and all those things. But all of that will never be capable of giving you the freedom of a son,” he said.

“It is only the Holy Spirit that can move your heart to say ‘Father.’"

zenit.org/en/articles/pope-s-morning-homily-only-the-holy-spirit-can-soften-your-heart

That is not a “no–no” unless catechesis is also a “no-no”. And, of course, it is not.

Hi Michael,

He is saying that Yoga and Zen does not lead to finding God (it leads to nothing or something other than God, IOW). And I could do a course on the catechism and not seek the Holy Spirit and all this will achieve is knowledge for the memory like reading an encyclopedia, because with no holy communion or Christian prayer, just a course on its own would not help me to meet God.

He is really saying that we need to pray Christian prayers to the Holy Spirit for guidance and be open to listening out for Him.

Have a nice day!

 

[friardchips]

OK, that’s a coherent position. I disagree with it, because I disagree with the idea that spiritual practices need “authority” to be “safe.”

I disagree with most of your post unfortunately as respect for authority is one of the important criteria for the Catholic faith. Ultimately, it amounts to humility, and having trust in our holy superiors. Rather than it being a free for all.

But the practices are an expression of the desire.

The desire cannot be judged but the expression can. Would you say the indigenous South American peoples who believed they were making human sacrifices were necessarily wicked, because what they believed was that they had to do this, and it was not until they learnt this expression was actually not such an appreciated practice, that they found a new way to express their desires.

Sure. No one is suggesting here that their belief system is the whole truth.

If you take on a subject and practice it you are endorsing it.

Yoga practice integrates very well into orthodox Christianity, it seems to me. Most of the assertions to the contrary seem to rest in misunderstanding. The basic tenet of hatha yoga is that the physical exercises, combined with other things such as moral precepts and ascetic practices, discipline the body so that it won’t get in the way of union with God.

Disagree here for reasons stated in previous posts and the latest Vatican document we were only just discussing.

Nothing is outside Christian belief except what is false and evil. So you have to show that it’s false and evil to show that it’s outside, not the other way round.

I am presenting ideas which so far everyone seems to ignore including most of my links. No surprises there! It is obvious to see if one reads the documents and listens to the authoritative advice on these that they explain the dangers. It is obvious really.

Well, no one is saying the last.

Not sure about that.

You’re right that Eastern religions are mentioned. That is a pretty weird way to talk about them, frankly.

It is what it is.

No. We have far too much common sense. We need some uncommon sense. We need spiritual daring.

Christian spiritual daring, yes. . Yes, we do need to be daring in amongst popular culture (yoga of which fits into this) that seeks to make gods of individuals. I think we need common sense to be around the common people but with wisdom to know what is a good expression of a desire and what is not and what might be an irregular desire shown in its expression and what is not. I don’t necessarily mean Yoga here.

I think that’s a straw man. Many of us have thought a good deal about this

Maybe or maybe not enough.

Misreading of Pope Francis, as another poster has shown. Speaking of taking things out of context

It can only be read one true way and certainly it is not me who has taken it out of context.

That’s one of those things I’m on the fence about. If I go through with becoming Catholic, I will accept it as a matter of trust. My main problem with it is the specific list of infallible teachings propounded by the CDF in the doctrinal notification to Ad Tuendam Fidem. (My main reason for still having cold feet about Catholicism is the requirement not to receive communion in other churches. So as you can see, the whole question of participation in other traditions is important to me across the board.)

That is between you and God really. But infallibility is a part of the Roman Catholic faith.

But more to the point here, Pope Francis’ statement doesn’t remotely meet the criteria for infallibility as generally held in Catholicism. As I understand it (from many conversations with many Catholics whose interpretations of the Faith, frankly, I trust more than I do yours), what is required with regard to statements such as that one is “docility,” not necessarily submission.

I would say a negative word would be suppressive not submissive. We can submit to the Will of God, and the Holy Spirit is always speaking through people, especially the wise and holy, in order to guide us and bring us closer to Him.

Why turn your back on anything good and holy? This makes no sense.

On the contrary, no one is turning their back on anything. Not participating in something is not the same at all as turning one’s back on something or someone. Unless I reserve space for God then I can’t assess, and if I am indulging in something it is far more difficult to remain objective.

No, it’s not relativism. You seem to have a rather strange definition of relativism.

We can try and bend the belief to our own interpretation or we can choose to be challenged by it. Jesus is the corner stone over whom many stumble.

The reason to accept certain beliefs and practices from other traditions is that these beliefs are true and these practices are good. That’s not relativism. It’s the opposite of relativism. Truth and goodness are truth and goodness, period.

This is the same as saying that one can participate in any religious practice. It is the same as saying you accept that in every cult or religion they contain the whole truth.

If anything, the insistence that truth and goodness should only be pursued in certain contexts and not in others is relativist. . . .

That is not what I am saying and that is not what relativism means.

And if Christ is present, then following Christ can’t be idol-worship, can it?

Edwin

If we don’t keep His commandments then we are not following Him and this includes idol-worship.