Manifestations of God

[metis]

I think that God has revealed Himself, in some way or measure, to every people and society on earth , usually through the medium of inspired men and women who have sought after him and founded religious rites which they have then passed on to others.

This has been the position, historically, of prominent Catholic theologians such as the cardinals Nicholas of Cusa (in the 15th century) and John Henry Newman (in the 19th century), ie





This became the official position of the Catholic Church in the 20th century after being taken up by the Second Vatican Council and emphasised very much by Pope Saint John Paul II:

Thanks for the above, and there is a statement in Kabbalah that goes in that direction, namely that even if one did not have any teaching about God presented to them, they could derive a basic understanding through observing nature itself.

 

[Vouthon]

Oh I know there are a few people in India who believe that. It is little wonder considering it was a policy of the Catholic Church and others to convince Hindus that all religions are the same, as a stepping stone to eventual total conversion. Weaken them first.

I should think that the Catholic Church in India must be teaching heresy then, because such an opinion was explicitly condemned by Pope Pius IX in 1845. It is called "religious indifferentism" by us and is not at all 'orthodox'.

Inculturation is orthodox, however not the idea that "all religions are the same".

As you will know, the Catholic Church is made up of many different 'rites' and traditions. We do not believe that Indian or African Christians should have to practise their faith like Europeans, nor try and destroy their native cultures. In this respect, it has always been church policy that whatever is in harmony with Catholic morality or not in conflict with our doctrines in other cultures, should be embraced, as it contributes towards salvation. We also believe that it is through following such "elements" in their religions that non-Christians attain to salvation without belief in Christ ie

"...the members of the various Christian sects, of the Jewish and Mohammedan communions, and of the non-Christian philosophies, who achieved and achieve their salvation, did and do so in general simply by God's grace aiding their good faith instinctively to concentrate itself upon, and to practise, those elements in the cultus and teaching of their respective sect, communion or philosophy, which are true and good and originally revealed by God..."

-Cardinal Juan De Lugo (a. d. 1583-1660), De Fide, Disputations

"...Do not in any way attempt, and do not on any pretext persuade these people to change their rites, habits and customs, unless they are openly opposed to religion and good morals. For what could be more absurd than to bring France, Spain, Italy or any other European country over to China? It is not your country but the faith you must bring, that faith which does not reject or belittle the rites or customs of any nation as long as these rites are not evil, but rather desires that they be preserved in their integrity and fostered. It is, as it were, written in the nature of all men that the customs of their country and especially their country itself should be esteemed, loved and respected above anything else in the world..."

- Pope Alexander VII, Encyclical of 1659

However to try and say that "all religions are the same" and use this idea to proselytize is surely an abuse of "inculturation".

I can assure you that they are quite different things.

The point of inculturation in the Indian context should be that Indian Christians act like Indians rather than Europeans and not that they should act, dress or pretend to be Hindus in any way, which would be disingenuous at best and at worst not only offensive to Hinduism but completely heretical to orthodox Catholic doctrine.

 

[Vinayaka]

Vouthon, I'm curious as to what you think of this.

Catholic Ashrams

 

[melk]

originally post by Metis:

But the new church didn't. In Acts we see them walking away from the kosher Laws, for example (Peter's vision), and most of the rest of the Laws soon got ignored.

I´m not an expertise in religions, nor even the crhistian one. But, as we are teached, and you must know, christians retained from the Torah just the laws that seemed to have a moral character, leaving out those relative a rituals and food obligations. Isn´t that right?

 

[sun rise]

Thanks for the above, and there is a statement in Kabbalah that goes in that direction, namely that even if one did not have any teaching about God presented to them, they could derive a basic understanding through observing nature itself.

God's immanence is about His presence in creation. I know some would not agree, but to me an atheist loving creation (science, art, beauty ...) is worshiping God even when they object to the word "God".

I like the way Psalm 19 starts: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."

 

[Vouthon]

Vouthon, I'm curious as to what you think of this.

Catholic Ashrams

Thank you Vinyaka, I can understand the fears of Hindus in relation to this and what should be known is that any Catholic founding an "Ashram" is not acting according to orthodoxy. The very concept of an 'ashram' has no basis in Catholicism or our teachings.

I think it is "inculturation" gone wild and it is as dangerous (doctrinally) from a Catholic perspective as it is from a devout Hindu one.

There has been an equal apprehension in the Western world, where Catholic prayer groups and churches have been inundated with 'eastern' techniques of meditation, often a kind of hodgepodge from Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism that makes money in the New Age market.

The Vatican produced a document in 1998 warning about the dangers of 'mixing':

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on some aspects of Christian Meditation – Orationis formas

With the present diffusion of eastern methods of meditation in the Christian world and in ecclesial communities, we find ourselves faced with a pointed renewal of an attempt, which is not free from dangers and errors, to fuse Christian meditation with that which is non-Christian. Proposals in this direction are numerous and radical to a greater or lesser extent. Some use eastern methods solely as a psycho-physical preparation for a truly Christian contemplation; others go further and, using different techniques, try to generate spiritual experiences similar to those described in the writings of certain Catholic mystics.13 Still others do not hesitate to place that absolute without image or concepts, which is proper to Buddhist theory,14 on the same level as the majesty of God revealed in Christ, which towers above finite reality. To this end, they make use of a "negative theology," which transcends every affirmation seeking to express what God is and denies that the things of this world can offer traces of the infinity of God. Thus they propose abandoning not only meditation on the salvific works accomplished in history by the God of the Old and New Covenant, but also the very idea of the One and Triune God, who is Love, in favor of an immersion "in the indeterminate abyss of the divinity."15 These and similar proposals to harmonize Christian meditation with eastern techniques need to have their contents and methods ever subjected to a thorough-going examination so as to avoid the danger of falling into syncretism...

The majority of the great religions which have sought union with God in prayer have also pointed out ways to achieve it. Just as "the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions,"18 neither should these ways be rejected out of hand simply because they are not Christian. On the contrary, one can take from them what is useful so long as the Christian conception of prayer, its logic and requirements are never obscured. It is within the context of all of this that these bits and pieces should be taken up and expressed anew.

For me this is the key part:

On the contrary, one can take from them what is useful so long as the Christian conception of prayer, its logic and requirements are never obscured

The differences between Hindu and Catholic metaphysics/theology should never become blurred. We can (and should) learn from and respect each other (and in India both communities should be authentically Indian culturally rather than Christian communities feeling like alien Western implants) but we should never syncretize or brush over our doctrinal differences, because we are different and this should be OK and seen as acceptable.

No amount of elaborate shrines, bearded, saffron-robed, cross-legged so-called "swamis", yogic meditations or Vedic chants can change the basic facts that one faith has a fixed, Trinitarian monotheism and the other doesn't, that one rejects reincarnation out-hand whereas the other embraces it and so forth.

That doesn't mean that there aren't areas of common interest and shared convictions, however we have to separate the "wheat from the chaff" and clearly delineate where we do agree and where we don't, so that we don't fall into the trap of losing what is truly distinctive and beautiful about our own traditions.

I think that a more clear presentation of Catholic dogma and the limits of religious expression within the bounds of orthodoxy, as well as a renewed commitment to tolerance of difference, can help mitigate this situation in India.

 

[Hawkins]

So, here's my question: is it possible, iyo, that God may have had possibly many manifestations to different peoples in different parts of the world?

The question is rather why He has to do so. If He describes Himself inconsistently then He's not serious about what He describes about Himself. He must not have a serious intention to attract people to follow Him. In this case, it doesn't matter which God to believe, or even believe or not.

To put it another way, If God doesn't intend to describe Himself consistently to humans, then we as humans have no way to address a true God. It is thus not our fault to choose differently. It doesn't even matter if we choose to believe a God or not.

On the other hand, what if the opposite is true. That is, He keeps describing Himself as the same God in the past, and at present. He demands you to follow Him only. He claims that all other gods are false. He did what He should do to warn you out of a havoc situation. But still you choose not to believe, then it is your fault.

 

[InChrist]

So, here's my question: is it possible, iyo, that God may have had possibly many manifestations to different peoples in different parts of the world?

No I don't believe so because God is not an author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). Hinduism is simply a religion which incorporates numerous gods, yet the Jesus included is not the authentic Jesus of the biblical scriptures who declared ... 'I am the way, the truth, and the life no one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 16:4)

 

[Jainarayan]

No I don't believe so because God is not an author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). Hinduism is simply a religion which incorporates numerous gods, yet the Jesus included is not the authentic Jesus of the biblical scriptures who declared ... 'I am the way, the truth, and the life no one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 16:4)

Um... excuse me, but Hinduism is not "simply a religion which incorporates numerous gods". There's a lot more to it than that.

Always think of Me and become My devotee. Worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend. Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear. Bhagavad Gita 18.65-66

 

[metis]

originally post by Metis:
I´m not an expertise in religions, nor even the crhistian one. But, as we are teached, and you must know, christians retained from the Torah just the laws that seemed to have a moral character, leaving out those relative a rituals and food obligations. Isn´t that right?

Well, here you can judge for yourself: Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

As you can see, these Laws cover a variety of areas and, yes, there are some that relate to ritual. But who ordained those that are rituals? According to Torah, God did.

Thanks for asking, and take care.

 

[metis]

God's immanence is about His presence in creation. I know some would not agree, but to me an atheist loving creation (science, art, beauty ...) is worshiping God even when they object to the word "God".

I like the way Psalm 19 starts: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."

Yes, and in Judaism you will find many who agree with you, depending on how one defines "atheist". However, I would be far more comfortable with what you're saying if "atheist" was changed to "agnostic".

 

[Vinayaka]

Thank you Vinyaka, I can understand the fears of Hindus in relation to this and what should be known is that any Catholic founding an "Ashram" is not acting according to orthodoxy. The very concept of an 'ashram' has no basis in Catholicism or our teachings.

No ... thank You. I kind of figured this is what you'd think.

I just prefer right out there, up front honesty over deception of any kind, in all directions.

I do wish the Vatican would have excommunicated these guys. That would have sent a clear message.

 

[metis]

The question is rather why He has to do so. If He describes Himself inconsistently then He's not serious about what He describes about Himself. He must not have a serious intention to attract people to follow Him. In this case, it doesn't matter which God to believe, or even believe or not.

To put it another way, If God doesn't intend to describe Himself consistently to humans, then we as humans have no way to address a true God. It is thus not our fault to choose differently. It doesn't even matter if we choose to believe a God or not.

On the other hand, what if the opposite is true. That is, He keeps describing Himself as the same God in the past, and at present. He demands you to follow Him only. He claims that all other gods are false. He did what He should do to warn you out of a havoc situation. But still you choose not to believe, then it is your fault.

Here's a big problem with the latter: if God expects everyone to believe in a specific morality, then why is it that there are many religions with often different teachings? For example, in the Abrahamic traditions, God appeared to us Jews, and we are just one small group of people in one small area of the world and at one relatively recent time in history. What about the other people in other parts of the world and for all times? They don't count?

There's a different approach, which to me makes sense although I certainly cannot go so far as to say that it's true. We seem to have some sort of "God gene" as all cultures as far back as we can take them through written history have religious beliefs in a God or Gods? Coincidental? I doubt it since it's all pervasive culturally.

And I think the Dalai Lama has a particular insight that I believe may relate to this, namely that probably the first lesson we learn as a child is that it feels good to be loved and treated kindly, but it feels terrible if we're unloved and treated horribly. What could be more basic than that? Unfortunately, we all too often forget that basic message by getting enamored with wealth, power, status, hatred, etc., and then we don't extend that love and kind treatment to others.

Put these ideas together, namely that maybe the impulse to believe in God(s) is innate and that we can tap into that if we remember the basic message of compassion and justice (fairness). Most of the religions teach this, but all too often we ignore and just do "our thing".

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No. I don't buy into this one size fits all "there's only one God with many names" stuff. So I don't believe that Brahman is another name for the Holy Trinity! The Hindu family in the OP has demoted Jesus as being "just" another avatar and I find that offensive.

 

[Desert Snake]

No. I don't buy into this one size fits all "there's only one God with many names" stuff. So I don't believe that Brahman is another name for the Holy Trinity! The Hindu family in the OP has demoted Jesus as being "just" another avatar and I find that offensive.

That's true. That's a secular view of Jesus.

 

[metis]

No. I don't buy into this one size fits all "there's only one God with many names" stuff. So I don't believe that Brahman is another name for the Holy Trinity! The Hindu family in the OP has demoted Jesus as being "just" another avatar and I find that offensive.

There are Christians here who believe that Jesus is a "manifestation of God" and have used that terminology, so I don't see the difference, with the exception of the numbers of supposed manifestations. And "Brahman" is viewed as being God, which is a reason why most Hindus I know don't have a problem with the concept of Jesus being a manifestation of God. Gandhi, for example, would hold multi-religious prayer services interchangeably using "God", "Allah", "Brahman", etc.

But what I'm not saying is that Hinduism and Christianity or Judaism and Islam are the same, so one-size-fits-all doesn't really apply here.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There are Christians here who believe that Jesus is a "manifestation of God" and have used that terminology, so I don't see the difference, with the exception of the numbers of supposed manifestations. And "Brahman" is viewed as being God, which is a reason why most Hindus I know don't have a problem with the concept of Jesus being a manifestation of God. Gandhi, for example, would hold multi-religious prayer services interchangeably using "God", "Allah", "Brahman", etc.

But what I'm not saying is that Hinduism and Christianity or Judaism and Islam are the same, so one-size-fits-all doesn't really apply here.

Jesus is the one and only Incarnation of God. Bit of a difference, but a big one. I am not a universalist in that sense and I don't care what Gandhi did.

Brahman, as I understand it, is an impersonal reality that underlies all things. So in that case, everyone would be a manifestation of Brahman. The Holy Trinity is not impersonal and is not identified with creation. It's not the same.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So, here's my question: is it possible, iyo, that God may have had possibly many manifestations to different peoples in different parts of the world?

I think that the various images of gods are all manifestations of the same underlying projections and drives of the human psyche. So, in a sense, they are all manifestations of the same phenomena.

 

[melk]

As you can see, these Laws cover a variety of areas and, yes, there are some that relate to ritual. But who ordained those that are rituals? According to Torah, God did.

Thanks for asking, and take care.

I apriciated your answer and the site you gave for reference. Reading it and learning from it.
Another question out of the thread, if you don't mind. You're a Jew who interacts with people from diferent beliefs and practics, oriental origined inclusive. What do you think of oriental meditation, particularly buddist meditation, as a way to get free from our inoportune thoughts and desires?

 

[Vouthon]

No ... thank You. I kind of figured this is what you'd think.

I just prefer right out there, up front honesty over deception of any kind, in all directions.

I do wish the Vatican would have excommunicated these guys. That would have sent a clear message.

I do know that Bede Griffiths, to take one prominent example, had a very bad relationship with the church hierarchy. He often wrote letters to the Tablet newspaper that had to be edited before publication because he was so negative about the pope and various bishops, mainly because he saw them as frustrating his efforts. While I will not make any attempt to judge his commitment to Catholicism, on the basis of the evidence it does not appear that he really cared much for representing his own religion in an "up front" and "honest" manner, let alone Hinduism.

I do know that another prominent Indian Catholic preacher, Fr. Anthony de Mello, was censured against for teaching syncretistic doctrines very similar to Griffiths, back in 1998:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ts/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980624_demello_en.html

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH


NOTIFICATION

CONCERNING THE WRITINGS OF
FATHER ANTHONY DE MELLO, SJ


The Indian Jesuit priest, Father Anthony de Mello (1931-1987) is well known due to his numerous publications which, translated into various languages, have been widely circulated in many countries of the world, though not all of these texts were authorized by him for publication. His works, which almost always take the form of brief stories, contain some valid elements of oriental wisdom. These can be helpful in achieving self-mastery, in breaking the bonds and feelings that keep us from being free, and in approaching with serenity the various vicissitudes of life. Especially in his early writings, Father de Mello, while revealing the influence of Buddhist and Taoist spiritual currents, remained within the lines of Christian spirituality. In these books, he treats the different kinds of prayer: petition, intercession and praise, as well as contemplation of the mysteries of the life of Christ, etc.

But already in certain passages in these early works and to a greater degree in his later publications, one notices a progressive distancing from the essential contents of the Christian faith. In place of the revelation which has come in the person of Jesus Christ, he substitutes an intuition of God without form or image, to the point of speaking of God as a pure void. To see God it is enough to look directly at the world. Nothing can be said about God; the only knowing is unknowing. To pose the question of his existence is already nonsense. This radical apophaticism leads even to a denial that the Bible contains valid statements about God. The words of Scripture are indications which serve only to lead a person to silence. In other passages, the judgment on sacred religious texts, not excluding the Bible, becomes even more severe: they are said to prevent people from following their own common sense and cause them to become obtuse and cruel. Religions, including Christianity, are one of the major obstacles to the discovery of truth. This truth, however, is never defined by the author in its precise contents. For him, to think that the God of one's own religion is the only one is simply fanaticism. "God" is considered as a cosmic reality, vague and omnipresent; the personal nature of God is ignored and in practice denied.

Father de Mello demonstrates an appreciation for Jesus, of whom he declares himself to be a "disciple." But he considers Jesus as a master alongside others. The only difference from other men is that Jesus is "awake" and fully free, while others are not. Jesus is not recognized as the Son of God, but simply as the one who teaches us that all people are children of God. In addition, the author's statements on the final destiny of man give rise to perplexity. At one point, he speaks of a "dissolving" into the impersonal God, as salt dissolves in water. On various occasions, the question of destiny after death is declared to be irrelevant; only the present life should be of interest. With respect to this life, since evil is simply ignorance, there are no objective rules of morality. Good and evil are simply mental evaluations imposed upon reality.

Consistent with what has been presented, one can understand how, according to the author, any belief or profession of faith whether in God or in Christ cannot but impede one's personal access to truth. The Church, making the word of God in Holy Scripture into an idol, has ended up banishing God from the temple. She has consequently lost the authority to teach in the name of Christ.

With the present Notification, in order to protect the good of the Christian faithful, this Congregation declares that the above-mentioned positions are incompatible with the Catholic faith and can cause grave harm.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 24, 1998, the Solemnity of the Birth of John the Baptist.