Here is a link (which I found at Spirit Daily) to an amazing, and appalling, article. It summarizes the new age and feminist errors, attitudes and practices which have crept into the Catholic Church over the last 20 years or so.

http://www.catholicconcerns.com/New-Age.html

The last fifth of the article is the author's attempt to explain why Catholicism is open to such things. As a born-again Protestant, she sees two reasons: the Catholic Church supposedly forbidding people to interpret the Bible on their own and the Catholic Church incorporating pagan practices in Catholic worship. The latter is, alas, undeniable. The former, however, is disputable these days. (I�m not so sure in the pre-Vatican II days though.) Personally, though, I think the reasons are (1) materialistic sensuality and (2) apostasy from the basics of the Gospel. Comments?

All in all, the "New Age" element in Catholicism seems to call --strongly-- for Eastern Catholics and Orthodox to manfully step up say: "Put down your sin, take up the Gospel, and practice metanoia and theosis. There you will find true 'spirituality' -- the Holy Spirit."

Oh Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth, Everywhere Present and Filling All Things, Treasury of Blessings and Giver of Life: Come and abide in us, cleanse of every impurity, and save our souls, Oh Gracious Lord.


--John

I had before Vatican II, believe it or not, at least 4 versions of the Bible. The whole idea that Catholics don't know scripture is a crock. Even the Council of Trent encouraged Catholics to read scripture, as did many Popes since. I suppose no Protestants are ever lost to new age theology? :rolleyes: I would attribute the success of new-age to the culture in which we live. It's seductive, alluring, and doesn't require much from the individual. No wonder it pulls people away from the Church. The easy way is always more appealing.

The Church does indeed forbid people to interpret the Bible on their own because the Bible is the Church's book and she is the intepreter of her texts, period. As byzanTN has pointed out, we have been continually exhorted since Trent to read the Bible and know it, but we are not to set up our own interpretations of Scripture, because that's the Church's job. Personal intepretation of Scripture has led to all sorts of wild ideas, some odd and quaint, others far more dangerous.

Dear Friends,

Personally, I think that article is out to lunch.

There are lots of unsubstantiated charges against this or that priest.

Her diatribe against Fr. Mitch Pacwa, who is very devoted to the Rosary and is a star on EWTN, immediately raises suspicions with me.

Fr. Thomas Merton is up for canonization. He was a very devoted Catholic who had a wide understanding of other religions and could carry on a dialogue with them. He was instrumental in bringing many Buddhists and Hindus into the Church and has inspired a generation of North American religious scholars of all traditions.

Aelred Graham's book, "Zen Catholicism" is brilliantly written and I recommend it to the most traditional Christian/Catholic.

The Indian Orthodox Church itself calls her monasteries "ashrams" and adapts itself to Hindu religious values, for example, Indian Orthodox monks won't wear gold or silver crosses - only wooden ones.

That "dolt" writer could have known that Nestorian Christians in India have been there a very long time and are distinguished by the different shoulder on which they hang their sari.

Not only the Catholic, but also Protestant Churches in Asia are trying to "inculturate" Christianity there.

The "enneagram" symbol can be found in a number of medieval Catholic cathedrals, such as Chartres, and was used by thousands of Catholics.

There are also Pentecostal missionaries in foreign lands who style themselves as "Christian gurus and yogis."

I don't pretend to understand Asian and African culture - and neither should the author of that misguided article which is nothing less than an attack on the Catholic Church.

To interpret Scripture on your own would mean that you would have your choice of many, many Protestant denominations to join.

Happily, 85% of American Protestants belong to only 12 such denominations . . .

The article shows what fundie Protestant moronism (not Mormonism) can do to obfuscate a few things . . .

Alex

The practice of adopting certain cultural practices and Christianizing them has been going on since St. Paul walked into a pagan Greek temple and used the statue to the unknown God to help point to Christ. It does sound, from people's comments on here (I won't bother reading it, as it sounds like a waste of time and only a source for frustration) that this person is coming from a fundamentalist perspective -- probably also an ex-Catholic by the sound of it, who now has a grudge to bear. Insofar as that is the case, they are also against most protestants, who likewise use formerly pagan customs like Christmas trees and such. Fundamentalists like to pretend they can live in a vacuum when it comes to such things. Do they wear wedding bands? Guess what, its origins were pagan.

If anything is a problem, it is precisely the private interpretation of scripture, which has not only led to a kind of relativism in protestant churches, but also to some of them officially teaching that homosexuality is okay.

The other gaping whole, from what it sounds like, in the argument, is that the individual is trying to use the past 20-40 years of "folk belief" to castigate a 2000 year old tradition and also fails to differentiate between that and magisterial teaching.

If the Church is to be judged by those who fail, then none of them will come out on top. If we watched the apostles reactions when Christ was arrested, we might conclude He didn't do a great job picking them, and thus put his teaching to question. Clearly we know how ridiculous and impious that would be!

John ... why drive yourself crazy with this stuff? Doesn't it depress you? If you walk through the mud some mud is bound to stick to your shoes.

I don't even watch TV nenws anymore and I stopped getting the local newspaper - when I realized that week after week I was irritated by all the stupid things in the world. So - I went on a diet - from the news media - and am much happier for it. There is enough junk in my hhead without inviting more junk in.

Maybe others can handle stuff like this better than I can.

There is no such thing as "New Age Catholicsism" anyway. It is just New Age masqurading as Catholicsism. I hope people here are smart enough to know that otherwise it is just one more reason to hate Catholics.

anyway... hot today here in CT... very humid


-ray

From what I understand (although it is not official) the New Divine Liturgy has Inclusive Language in it. How sure are we it was not politically motivated?

Ray wrote: the New Divine Liturgy has Inclusive Language in it


I keep hearing about the "new liturgy" (I suppose only in the Ruthenian Rite in America?), but I am opposed to all political correctness, ESPECIALLY in church. I have also heard that some are over-reacting to this new liturgy, so I will have to wait to voice an opinion. I have been Ruthenian Rite (in America) for many years, though in Poland I am a member of UGCC community.

Now about "folk traditions" - that is one of the riches of the Apostolic Church, the ability to incorporate mankind's creative forces within Christian worship. What would the Slav Byzantine Rite traditions be without all our "pagan" accoutrements - from Easter eggs to our rites with greenery and water - all of which have helped us over the centuries to build up our faith. The Church allows mankind to incorporate the products of its creative instincts in worship, so long as we can reinterpret non-Christian symbols in a new symbolically Christian manner.

After all, one of the great shortcomings of the non-Apostolic churches is their great poverty of symbols.

I'm not apologizing for New Age tendencies among American Catholics - just pointing out that it's wrong to lament the fact that some of our traditions have non-Christian origins. (If that bothers you, join the Seventh Day Adventists, who think they have "found" the lost faith).

Stojgniev

P.S.: Also the name of Father Mitch Pacwa was mentioned. He is, of course, a Jesuit, but his background is Polish, and he has done more than anyone else on EWTN to promote the Eastern Rites (I have heard him say that on Sundays he celebrates the Maronite liturgy). He is a great promoter of the Maronite Rite.

You asked for �Comments?�

John... I have to strongly disagree with you on this� my sincere friend.

If I have read you correctly (to mean that the Catholic church has indeed adopted pagan practices) this is a profound misunderstanding of what God is doing by directing the church to clarify what God has said through nature.

The cross itself � was used a long time before Christ � as a symbol within pagan rituals. Shall we dare say Jesus adopted a pagan symbol? Paul used the statue of the Unknown God � as a symbol of God. Shall we say Paul was a pagan?

God speak to all men (so said Paul) in diverse ways � shall we say the church is wrong to recognize that and clarify what God has said to others in less clarity?

The bible itself is written in Hebrew which is really Chaldean letters from Babylon, and the Greek language developed in pagan Greece� shall we accuse even the Eastern Church of adopting pagan things in a major way??

God comes down � to us � he speaks to us in our language � he communicates through things and way we know already.

The form of the last supper had shifted from its early ways � to follow the Roman form of ritual meals. Was Jesus mistaken to use that meal which had elements in it that cam from pagan Rome?

The ritual clothing of the many eastern churches was adopted from their own cultures � in use long before Christianity � and some adopted from cultural styles after Christianity - shall we say that any Eastern Hierarch all decked out � is displaying Christian dress adopted from pagan sources?

Let us not be like the Jehovah�s Witnesses.

Is there another God who created anything we find in nature? Or only one God who created everything we find in nature?

Do only some things speak of God? Paul would disagree with you.

Eastern theology itself is spoken with the technical words of Greek philosophy � origin � pagan Greece.

I have to be honest here� sometimes the phrase �Latinazation� that I often see at this board drives me nuts. (and maybe I am unfairly taking it out on you who does not deserve it).

It is as if some tend to think they do not live in the 21st century and the world should turn back the clock to the 6th century. It is one thing to revere the past but another thing condemns the present. Does anyone really think that the Eastern Liturgy is exactly the same in every respect to its original form?? What are we � Muslims who strive to live in the 14th century?

Shall we baptize in the way of the early Church (men entirely naked and held under water)� is it pagan for us to keep our cloths on? shall we separate women to be partitioned in back of the church? Do you think Basil and Crysotrom would recognize their own Liturgy as preformed today??

If certain things in the ceremonies of the church are similar to things that we also find in the pagan world of yesterday or the modern world of today � what surprise it that?? We Christians do not live on another planet. God takes the things of this world and makes them holy. Always has and always will.

I see no reason to separate Catholic or Orthodox or anybody � from the hierarchy of the Catholic church (or Orthodox church) by implying that it is not God himself through his appointed officials � who has approved such things for religious use. I see no good reason to imply that any hierarchy of any apostolic church - of substituting the things of Christ with pagan ways. I see no reason to imply the hierarchy of any church has failed in its most important tasks of Liturgy and Mass. Other things � maybe and surly � but not the most important things entrusted to them.

I can trace anything within the Eastern church right back to pagan sources or similarities. The church did not just drop out of the sky one day.

OK.. I can see that I will not be endearing anyone to myself today So I should stop posting.

John.. this is in the form of spirited discussion and in no way do I imply anything further than we are exploring the subject in a spirited way. God may perhaps disagree with us both :rolleyes:


as always - excuse my typos
-ray

Oops...

Of course I forget about West coast catholics who seem to have lot thier minds

-ray

Let us use every legitimate symbol of our human and natural existance - from the egg of a chicken to the branches of pine trees (for my own ancestors in the mountains had no "German" Christmas trees until recent time - tradionally they decorated the walls of the main room with branches of fir, spruce, beech) - to glorify Christ.

To deny the worth of such symbols of human existance is a terrible sin against the Apostolic Church!

Let those who reject the value of our own ethnic Christian symbols fall in with Seventh day Adventists, Baptists, and all others who reject the faith of the Apostles!

Stojgniev

John,

"Mary Ann Collins" (a pseudonym) who describes herself as a "former Catholic nun" is widely "known" (infamous might be the best descriptor) and quoted on the internet. "She" (if she exists as a real person) is a regular source for any number of virulently anti-Catholic websites across the net, warning of "Mary-worship" and a multitude of other Catholic horror stories. (About the only allegation ever been leveled at Catholicism that she doesn't raise are the 19th century stories of "former nuns" who claimed to have been sex slaves of the presbyterate).

Her claim to being a "former Catholic nun" is based on supposedly having spent "a little over two years" as a novice in an unnamed order.

Her website [catholicconcerns.com]

Her "biography" [catholicconcerns.com]

Mary Worship [jesus-is-savior.com]

I wouldn't put a lot of time or effort into any writings by this individual (whom I suspect to not be a person, but the concoction of an imaginative ant-Catholic).

Many years,

Neil

My apologies John for my knee jerk responce. I did not read the link you provided.

My apologies.

Time for me to take a break from the board.




-ray

Dear Alex:

Your post said:

"Fr. Thomas Merton is up for canonization"

Where did you get this information?

Father Thomas Merton has been unfairly miscategorized as a "New Age" type of Catholic. I would urge anyone who thinks this to read his writings. I have found much inspiration and encouragement from his writings.

He certainly wasn't perfect and had some problems in his personal life. But look at the record - even though he had second thoughts about his vocation as a monk, he stuck with it and remained faithful to his vows till the end. That's admirable no matter what you may think of some of his opinions.

Just wanted to add - I check the headlines at Spirit Daily from time to time. There are some interesting articles, but there are also links to some very disreputable sites. I would take anything written there with a huge grain of salt.

One of the things I notice about this article is how generalized the accusations are- a Jesuit did this, a Franciscan priest did that-without offering any specifics at all, nothing, in fact, to back up any claims the author is making. Another thing I question-are the Catholic authors referred to in the article still Catholic, and trying to point out some inconsistencies being practiced by some within the church, or have they left the church? That would tell more about the point of view of those making these accusations. Also, centering prayer is not inherently evil or New Age, but is probably abused in some cases. Finally, I came across a book by Sue Monk Kidd recently, who has been very well respected in Evangelical circles,in which she talked about finding "the goddess." Since she is a Protestant , does that mean that Protestant Chrisitanity is being taken over by New Age practices?
Just my 2 cents,
Michele

Fr. Mitch is an awesome man of God, and what you see on EWTN is what you get for real. Many times when I am over at EWTN, I observe him sitting in the chapel quietly writing away. So I assume he is preparing many of the teachings he gives. The people at St. Elias love him, and Cor-Bishop Richard certainly keeps him busy when he has time to spare. He loves the Eastern Churches and is truly a blessing to have in Birmingham.

Also, as I have shared before, we had a Southern Baptist preacher who use to write his sermons in the chapel at EWTN. He said he knew we were all pegans, but it was the quietest place in town to pray and write. Boy did he get surrpised He was ordained to the priesthood four years ago. He is a mighty preacher of the Gospel and is one of the largest Catholic Churches here, St. Peters, kind of fitting huh. Jesus always present before him in the Eucharist called him deeper into himself(Jesus), so much deeper than Scripture alone. Glory to God!

Dear Alex,

I respectfully disagree with your post.


First, Fr. Pacwa.

You wrote:



I didn't take the author's discussion of Fr. Mitch Pacwa as a diatribe. I took it as recommending Fr. Pacwa's writings as resources which evidence and support the author's contention that there are New Age influences in the Catholic Church.

Here are the passages from the article referring to Fr. Pacwa:

Those quotes referred to two notes: Notes 2 and Note 6. Here are those notes:

Now, what therein constitutes a diatribe?

I don't see a diatribe. I see references. And, when those references are consulted (including the reference to amazon.com in the quoted text), there are the following results.

According to the references (I have not read the book myself), Fr. Pacwa's book is his discussion and criticism of New Age. Specifically, it is Fr. Pacwa's discussion of his own involvement in New Age, his disillusionment with New Age, the existence of New Age in the Catholic Church, and his opinion that New Age is incompatible with Catholic belief.

Fr. Pacwa's online article is his discussion and criticism of Fr. Fox's New Age views.

So, in conclusion, I do not find a diatribe against Fr. Pacwa by the author of the article. Instead, I find references to his writings as evidence and support of the author's contention that there is a New Age influence in the Catholic Church.


Next, you wrote:

I didn�t know he is up for canonization. However, I do know that Fr. Merton is not yet canonized. And, there is good reason why he is not yet canonized. At one point during the latter part of his monastic career, the priest-monk Fr. Merton had a mistress. Probably he is not the first monk to have done this; and probably he was not the last; and he did repent; but this is hardly the "heroic virtue" that is looked for in the canonization process. Etc. As for his writings, they were Catholic at first. Later, however (for example, "New Seeds of Contemplation" especially his chapter on �Pure Love�), he perhaps was tending more toward a Buddhist view of reality than a Catholic view. Now, I am not a student of Merton's life and writings; and I might be wrong; and I have even found some of his writings to be inspirational (for example, �Seven Story Mountain� and �No Man Is an Island�). Yet, I find his earlier work to be commendable and his later work to be questionable and his personal moral development to be --to put it politely-- uneven. Personally, I find the writings of the monks in the Philokalia to be much more substantial, orthodox and holy than Fr. Merton's writings.

But, as for the article's references to Fr. Merton, they were weak. They did not refer to Fr. Merton's writings; instead they referred to another book which the author cited frequently.


I have not read the book nor have I heard of it before reading the article in question. Hence, I cannot comment on it.


And the point is? Acculturation? That is not a problem.

The problem is when religious lines are blurred in an attempt to find common ground. The different religions are different. Also, practices represent and reinforce beliefs. Well, when religious practices from one religion are adopted or adapted from other religions, the underlying beliefs are adopted or adapted too.

That is bad enough if a person believes that all religions are fundamentally the same. Under such an assumption (which I do not hold), the different religions represent complete systems for acquiring spiritual truth. Mixing and matching parts usually does not add to those systems; usually, it detracts from the specific purposes of those systems.

However, if a person believes that one religion is better than the others --such as I do about Christianity-- then adopting practices (and hence beliefs) is really dangerous. First, it undermines the claim that one religion is better than others. Second, it dilutes the practices of that religion and it can even contradict the tenets of that religion.

In short: To what extent can one religion receive influences from another religion before those influences dilute or even contradict the tenets of that religion?

This, really, is the rub of the article. It is not a perfectly written article, but it raises a very good point. Catholicism *is* being influenced and effected by the practice of New Age. That by itself is bad. New Age is a plate of warmed over gnosticism with some witchcraft on the side. But the influence of New Age on the Catholic Church also raises the bigger issue: How much can Catholicism be influenced by other religions before its own beliefs and practices are threatened? This issue goes back to the Rites Controversy and beyond. And, vice versa. The topic is already being discussed (at other threads at the website) in terms of reunion of the Orthodox Churches and the Catholics Churches. This article raises the topic in terms of with non-Christian influences on the Catholic Church. And that is well worth consideration.

--John

Objection, objection. Not over ruled.

From a western coast Catholic. We have not lost our minds here anymore than you have lost your minds there.

Mary Jo...trying to take this in good humor...and praying for the uninformed... :p

Pani Rose wrote: Fr. Mitch is an awesome man of God, and what you see on EWTN is what you get for real. Many times when I am over at EWTN, I observe him sitting in the chapel quietly writing away. So I assume he is preparing many of the teachings he gives. The people at St. Elias love him, and Cor-Bishop Richard certainly keeps him busy when he has time to spare. He loves the Eastern Churches and is truly a blessing to have in Birmingham.


Thank you, Pani Rose (and also Alex), for defending Father Mitch. Don't know him personally, but I have been inspired many times by his witness on EWTN. It's true, EWTN doesn't offer a great deal of programming on the eastern Rites, but what they DO have - I'm sure it's due to Father Mitch. As a Slav who attended a wonderful Maronite parish for several years a decade ago, I truly value Father Mitch's and the Maronite witness!

Let us support and embrace this Man of God!

Stojgniev

Who attacked Fr. Mitch, that he needs defending? The article I posted a link to did not attack the man. It *cited* the man's writings.

--John

Let's be careful to make a proper distinction. Catholicism is not influenced by the new age.

There are individual Catholics, however, who have been influenced by the new age, and insofar as they do this, they do this contrary to the Catholic Faith.

Catholicism itself though, teaches only the doctrine of Jesus Christ as passed down through the Apostles and by the Holy Spirit.

Dear John,

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you attacked Father Mitch. I just thought some vague accusation was left hanging out here - but not from you.

Peace,

Stojgniev

Peace, and thank you. --John