Catholics Consider Including Sanskrit in Prayers

[karthik_v 0]

 

I know and admire a more liberal Christianity.

 

 

 

If Christianity has to be reformed and made into a rational religion, one has to transform it so much until what emerges ceases to resemble Christianity any further. - Dr. Koenraad Elst

 

 

Christianity and liberalism are like oil and water. Christianity begins with dogma and after one traverses the entire path, it ends in dogma.

[Jagat 1]

"If Christianity has to be reformed and made into a rational religion, one has to transform it so much until what emerges ceases to resemble Christianity any further. - Dr. Koenraad Elst"

 

Pompous claptrap. The same thing can be said for Hinduism and any other religion. This is the kind of unhelpful comment that results in uselessly exacerbating conflict.

<hr>

I did a little looking around, actually trying to find the French theologian Jacques Dubois, who taught in Delhi and is one of the liberal Catholics that incited Ratzinger to write his declaration "Dominum Iesum," which was a giant step backward for ecumenism and rather set the stage for the ugly visit of the Pope to India that Karthik mentions. The links that I had previously found to Fr. Dubois' articles seem to be down. Here is what I did find, though, which may remind us all that there is a strong liberal element in the Catholic Church that has not yet given up its voice:

 

Here is an article by <a href=http://www.culture-et-foi.com/dossiers/dominus_jesus/gregory_baum.htm>Gregory Baum</a>, a liberal Christian theologian who was one of my professors at McGill. This is a comment on Dominus Iesus, the declaration made by Ratzinger in 2000, the most influential cardinal after the Pope. Excerpt: <blockquote>"The Declaration has other defects. One of them is the idea that dialogue with the world religions is compatible with the intention of making converts. Dialogue is a conversation based on trust and mutual acceptance, in which the partners feel free to reveal their own problems and unresolved questions. Dialogue is an unguarded conversation. Dialogue is an exchange that transforms both partners, leading them to a better self-understanding, revealing to them the prejudice mediated by their own tradition, and making them aspire to a more authentic and enlarged possession of their own religion. It would be utterly deceitful to lure a partner into dialogue, attempt to create a community of trust in which the partner is willing to expose the weakness of his own tradition, and then abuse this confidence in an effort to persuade the partner to change his or her religion. It may happen, of course, that in such a trusting dialogue a partner decides to move to another religious tradition. But interreligious dialogue would be a form of manipulation if its aim were to make Christians of the participants. The proposal that dialogue and convert-making can go together is unethical. This seems to me such a basic moral conviction that if a person does not sense it – like Cardinal Ratzinger – one cannot explain it to him.

 

"The Declaration does not deal at all with the pastoral problems of the present. I wish to mention two of them. First, there is the awareness among today’s Christians that the missionary movement – the European invasion of the other continents from the end of the fifteenth century on and the subsequent creation of the Catholic and Protestant colonial empires – was for the most part associated with a political and cultural project. We should not be surprised, therefore, if in many parts of the world people continue to look upon Christianity as a foreign religion introduced under the protection of the conqueror. The unwillingness to honour the religions of the colonized people has been denounced as a sin in Pope John Paul II’s liturgy of repentance on March 12, 2000. The Canadian church leaders, including the Catholic bishops, have repeatedly made apologies to the Native peoples regretting that the Church’s missionary activity did not respect their religious traditions and, even though sustained by faith and love, the mission understood itself as part of a European civilizing endeavour. Many Catholic bishops in Asia have raised the question whether respect for the Asian religions and their contemporary vitality does not demand a rethinking of the Church's mission and an end to the efforts to make converts. Yet when John Paul II went to India, he announced an alternative policy, namely an intensification of the Church’s effort to convert Hindus to Christianity. Hindu nationalists who feel that their religio-cultural identity is threatened by powerful westernizing forces, including the Christian church, have used the Pope’s message to justify their hostility to Christians in India. Will Cardinal Ratzinger’s Declaration intensify opposition to Christians in some parts of Asia?"</blockquote>This article <a href=http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Igpress/2000-11/analysis.html>Echoes in Asia</A> lays open both Karthik and my positions:<blockquote>When Dominus Iesus first appeared, most Vatican-watchers agreed that the statement was intended primarily for an Asian audience. On that continent, where Christians are a small minority, some theologians have advanced the notion that in order to avoid conflicts with the dominant popular culture, missionaries should introduce the Gospel as only one among many possible paths toward salvation.

 

This theological approach holds particular strength in India, where Hindu nationalists have accused Christian missionaries of subverting the nation’s culture. It was no coincidence that on September 20—two weeks after the publication of Dominus Iesus—Cardinal Jozef Tomko was in Bangalore to speak at the opening meeting of the Indian bishops’ conference, and to underline the message of the new document. The best contribution that Catholics can make to India’s culture, he said, is to profess their faith in Jesus as savior of the world and to bear witness to the message of the Gospel.

 

Three weeks later, at a conference in Rome on the duties of diocesan bishops, an Indian prelate acknowledged that Dominus Iesus highlights “a challenge to which the Indian bishops must respond.” Archbishop Ivan Dias of Bombay pointed out that, for him and for his brother bishops on the subcontinent, the issues addressed in the Vatican document are anything but academic. “I speak as an Indian,” he said, “living in a country were we confront these problems every day.”

 

Archbishop Dias disclosed that Catholic theologians who reject the basic message of Dominus Iesus and promote a relativistic approach to religious beliefs have gained extraordinary influence in India. They have gained teaching posts in some seminaries, he said, and they are particularly active in inter-faith dialogue, where they give their Hindu counterparts an inaccurate notion of Catholic Church teaching. Dominus Iesus was welcomed by Indian hierarchy, Archbishop Dias reported, because this theological dissidence is a source of constant consternation, “for the bishops of India, not just the ones in Rome.” </blockquote>The following is an article by the Jesuit student of Vaishnavism, often published in JVS, <a href=http://www.americapress.org/articles/clooney-di.htm>Francis X. Clooney</a>, commenting on the same Ratzinger declaration. He concludes:<blockquote>I close with a personal admission that may explain my ambivalence in the preceding paragraphs. I grew up a fairly traditional Catholic, and so I am today. Much in the declaration makes immediate sense to me; its intense focus on Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God and Savior seems very important, very beautiful, very true. But I have also been visiting India and studying the Hindu religious traditions for over 25 years; it is my form of obedience to Christ, one might say. I know for myself that Pope John Paul II was correct in saying, in India in 1986, “When we learn from other traditions we let God be present in our midst; when we open ourselves to one another, we open ourselves to God.”

 

I know it is an error to dismiss other people’s beliefs without studying them deeply first. We must see other people’s beliefs and practices only in the light of Christ, but we must also see Christ newly radiant in the light of those other traditions. Learning from other religions does not change the timeless truths of our faith, but it certainly does enrich and deepen our way of following Jesus, driving out not only relativism and indifferentism, but also arrogance and ignorance. Dominus Iesus is in important respects an admirable achievement, but the congregation appears oddly inarticulate when we wonder how specifically to confess the Lord Jesus—boldly, but with open eyes and ears too—in this new millennium. </blockquote>

 

From elsewhere: "Dissident Swiss theologian Hans Kung, who has been disciplined by the Vatican in the past, said the document was reactionary. "It's a mixture of medieval backwardness and Vatican megalomania," he was quoted as saying by an Italian news agency. Kung, who had his license to teach in a Catholic University withdrawn by the Vatican cardinal who wrote Tuesday's document, said it was hypocritical to "continually talk about dialogue while not talking about this colossal pretence of absolutism." Walking a theological tightrope, the document said the "Church of Christ" was present in other Christian Churches."

 

http://www.confronti.net/english/archives/nov00_03.htm

 

The fact that on October 3rd the Pope himself intervened to defend DI ("approved by me in special form") has not prevented the protests. Seventy-three Spanish theologians (both men and women), but also German (Hans Kung), American (Rosemary Redford Ruether), Brazilian (Leonardo Boff and T. Motta da Silva), Salvadorans (Jon Sobrino), and then Mexicans, Colombians, Argentines, Panamanians, Cubans and Peruvians, have undersigned a text recalling that Vatican II in the Lumen Gentium does not state "the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church," but instead "the Church of Christ subsists in - subsistit in - the (Roman) Catholic Church." It is pointed out "With the new formulation the Council wanted to avoid the exclusive and excludable identification of 'the Church of Christ' with the 'Catholic Church'. The fact that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church does not exclude that it subsists also in other Christian communities. For this reason it seems to us that this reductionism on the part of the DI is worrying."

 

For fifty-three Belgian theologians (both men and women), DI is pervaded by an intolerable "attitude of superiority" and has an "authoritative tone." Furthermore the text "seems to us far removed from the actual daily life of many Catholics and theologians engaged in a work of inquiry with non-Catholics, whether they are believers or not." The question of truth which is discussed in the document is "fundamental" but, the Belgians note, this can only be resolved "with a participation on a basis of equality in which each one proposes its own path but without absolutism with respect to others. We believe that Christ is 'the way, the truth and the life,' but we believe also that the fullness of the truth is before us and no one can pretend to possess it."

[Jagat 1]

Karthik, reading your comments above shows that you believe what you want to believe. I don't deny that some Harijans/Dalits may find their calling in Hinduism. Why not? It is possible. But the general rule is that revolutions are rarely made by the most downtrodden. You have found exceptions. Ever heard the expression "The exception makes the rule."

 

Revolutions come when people have a little education, a little wealth, a little insight into how they have been deprived of their fundamental rights, and when they see the possibilities that equal treatment would afford them. When they see some hope, in other words. Perhaps the situation was better in Tamil Nadu than elsewhere in India, but I would hesitate to extrapolate from TN to the rest of the country.

 

 

[karthik_v 0]

 

Pompous claptrap. The same thing can be said for Hinduism and any other religion. This is the kind of unhelpful comment that results in uselessly exacerbating conflict.

 

 

Dr. Elst is not known for such. If there is a conflict, the blame must rest entirely on the Christians, who have for centuries abused Hinduism and continue to do so. It is to the credit of the Hindus that they don't critically analyse Christian theology and expose it for what it is worth, which is nothing, though I see no reason why not. In fact, I am drafting a thorough text on the myth of Jesus and how what is known as Christianity is indeed a masala mix from myriad sources, often tribalistic in nature. Hindus should cease to be on the defensive and instead give a taste of their own medicine to the Christians.

 

 

The unwillingness to honour the religions of the colonized people has been denounced as a sin in Pope John Paul II&#8217;s liturgy of repentance on March 12, 2000.

 

...

 

Yet when John Paul II went to India, he announced an alternative policy, namely an intensification of the Church&#8217;s effort to convert Hindus to Christianity.

 

 

 

Between those two statements lies the answer. He apologized to the indegenous native Americans because they are virtually extinct and pose no threat to the Vatican. We must remember that even in 2000, this Pope didn't tender a specific apology to the Jews for the holocaust crimes of the Vatican. He just spoke in very general terms about the past excesses of the church. He simply refused to apologize for the inquisition of Goa. In fact, Vatican belligerently declared that there is no need for regretting the so called past crimes, during his visit to India. When Arch Bishop Arulappa, during his debate with David Frawley, admitted that he is not convinced that Christianity is the only way to salvation and agreed that Bhagavad Gita too can hold the light, he was chastised by the Vatican. This was in 2000 again.

 

There is no change in the mindset of the church establishment. Their half hearted charades are only a reaction to two outcomes. One, there is a growing resentment against Christianity and the church as the facts about their crimes are becoming public. Two, more and more westerners are deserting Christianity and Vatican is desperate to project itself as liberal.

 

 

Hindu nationalists who feel that their religio-cultural identity is threatened by powerful westernizing forces, including the Christian church, have used the Pope&#8217;s message to justify their hostility to Christians in India.

 

 

I am saddened to see an academic make such remarks. Can he quote even 1 incidence of any violence by Hindu nationalists against Christian civilians? Why is that Christian academics are extremely diplomatic when it comes to the glaring crimes of the church, but spare no oppurtunity to exaggerate the so called crimes of the Hindus? Till date, the Christian missions are hostile towards the Hindus and are abusive of Hinduism. they are always scheming one way or the other to invent myths to evangelise India. Let me quote two examples:

 

One, the much hyped up, but thoroughly proven as fake, miracle of Mother the money launderer Teresa. Two, the recent pathetic attempt by the Vatican to nominate a Polish missionary for the Nobel peace prize. Thank God, he didn't win it. Had he, then that propaganda would have aided the church for another 5 decades in converting poor Hindus.

 

 

I don't deny that some Harijans/Dalits may find their calling in Hinduism.

 

 

Have you visited and lived amidst the Harijans and tribals? I have. I was, in fact, raised in their midst. I can tell you that they consider themselves Hindus. Every violence against the missionaries, though only handful in number, has been carried out by the tribals themselves who got agitated that the missionaries are luring their brethren away from their Hindu roots. Before the tribals were classified as animists, many British authorities themselves admitted that there is nothing in their practises that distinguishes them from the Hindus. If you can access the Linguistic Survey of India from the end of 1880s you can see all that.

 

 

Perhaps the situation was better in Tamil Nadu than elsewhere in India, but I would hesitate to extrapolate from TN to the rest of the country.

 

 

Please read the book I suggested. It provides similar statistics for Bengal, Punjab, Kerala, Andhra and Karnataka. The scenario is ditto the same. In fact, Tamilnadu has been the most conservative. And the myth of evil Brahmins scheming against the lower castes was invented by the Baptists, of course with British funding, in the same period, as they openly acknowledged that until such a division is introduced, any conversion of the Hindus to Christianity is impossible.

 

I have often challenged many academics who propagate such myths to produce atleast one historically documented case of violence/oppression committed by the Brahmins against the so called lower castes in Tamilnadu. They just flinch away [of course, after calling me a Hindutva propagandist, whom they wouldn't want to deal with /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ].

 

Since you are familiar with the Bhakti movement, please allow me quote a relevant fact. Historically speaking the Bhakti movement started in Tamilnadu around the 5th century CE and then spread northwards. For the Vaishnavas, the holiest works are the Naalaayira Divya Prabhantham composed by the 12 Azhwars, of whom only 2 were Brahmins and the rest from the so called lower castes, including the Harijan community. In fact, one of the 3 of the earliest trinity among them, Thirumazhisai Azhwar, was a Harijan and says so in his own hymns. Likewise for the Shaiva Bhakti, the basis is the contemporary [to the Azhwars] works of the 63 Nayanmars of whom only 16 were Brahmins.

 

Now, if the Harijans could compose hymns and if they were recited by the Brahmins, then there can be little justification in the claim that they were historically denied their rights. Such a denial, as I pointed out, arose from the oppressive regimes of the Muslims and the European Christians. It had its basis in economics and foreign colonialism and not in Hinduism. True, some of those abnoxious practices found their way into the smritis, but as I have argued before, it is easy to see that they are later day interpolation. Further, such books were never the law under any Hindu king.

[karthik_v 0]

 

Karthik, reading your comments above shows that you believe what you want to believe

 

 

Jagatji, of my many shortcomings, dogma isn't one.

[Jagat 1]

Dr. Elst is not known for such.

 

On the contrary, though he is much loved by Indian historical revisionists, Dr. Elst has a rather dubious reputation as a scholar among Western academics, who feel that his assessment of data is clearly biased.

 

If there is a conflict, the blame must rest entirely on the Christians, who have for centuries abused Hinduism and continue to do so.

 

Whenever I see "entirely" I get suspicious. Christianity has certainly put Hinduism on the defensive, and Western culture, now in its American form, continues to put increasing pressure on the Indian way. Nietzche said, what does not kill us makes us stronger. The pressures of Islam resulted in certain notable changes in Hinduism, primarily the bhakti movement. The influence of modernization and Christianity as well as the continued pressure of militant Islam in neighboring countries are in the process of producing transformations in Hinduism, some more positive than others.

 

These other religions have kept up a sustained criticism of Hinduism to which Hinduism is obliged to respond. The monotheisms have not allowed Hinduism its usual relativistic copout (any more than Vaishnavas have condoned pantheistic relativism -- joto mot toto poth).

 

In certain respects, Hindus are absolutely right in their relativism (!), in others, it is a real copout. In some respects, Hinduism take a stand on where it stands has been the primary effect of this external aggression. But as Hindu takes form as a definable entity, it must insist on its fundamental tolerance and pluralism.

 

Hinduism has proved resilient in the past. I have confidence that it will continue to be so in the future, but I suspect that it may still have to go through some changes. I am not particularly enamored of Bal Thackeray's approach.

 

It is to the credit of the Hindus that they don't critically analyse Christian theology and expose it for what it is worth, which is nothing, though I see no reason why not. In fact, I am drafting a thorough text on the myth of Jesus and how what is known as Christianity is indeed a masala mix from myriad sources, often tribalistic in nature. Hindus should cease to be on the defensive and instead give a taste of their own medicine to the Christians.

 

You are perfectly welcome to do this kind of work, though I hope you will not simply be repeating the research of hundreds of Westerners, Christian and agnostic alike. You may like to start with "The Golden Bough" by James Frazier, which though somewhat outdated is a prodigious work of scholarship and one of the most influential monographs in the early study of comparitive religion. But this would only be a beginning. Christ lived 30 years. Christians have been around for 2000. You might want to look at Jaroslav Pelikan's "Jesus Through the Centuries." Things don't always stay the same. Is the Krishna of Chaitanya the Krishna of Bankim and Aurobindo?

 

But to say "it is to the credit" that Hindus don't analyze Christian theology, which is "worth nothing," does betray a dogmatic attitude that you pretend not to possess. We feel that Christians have failed to understand "us", but how well do we understand them. We base our criticisms of them on the most ignorant faction, just as they tend to criticize the worst features of Hinduism. Then, in the purest straw man argument, we contrast our high ideals with their failings.

 

In the above citations of criticisms of Ratzinger, I found many good things, but I liked the Belgian theologians comment that the Christian ideal lies in front of them, not in the Church as it exists. This is something that Hindus should also remember. Criticism comes easily, living up to our ideals is harder. We should concentrate on the latter and worry a little less about the former. We can all learn from the idealism of other religions and at the same time we should not avoid self-scrutiny.

 

Read Gregory Baum's comments above and see what a high level of understanding his criticisms of Ratzinger are based on.

 

Jai Radhe!

[karthik_v 0]

 

Dr. Elst has a rather dubious reputation as a scholar among Western academics, who feel that his assessment of data is clearly biased.

 

 

Has any of those western scholars even demonstrated on one instance where the assessment of Elst is biased and contrary to the data on which he is basing them? If mere assertion would do, then you can taint anybody. But scholarship requires an objective presentation. In fact, Dr. Elst has shown, with incontrovertible evidences, that western academics like Harvard's Michael Witzel bluff outright [please refer to his intentional misleading translation of Baudhayana Srauta Sutra to fit his theories and the subsequent death knell sounded by Prof Geoge Cardona and Dr. Kalyanaraman] and none of the mainstream western academics, barring Cardona [even he was hesitant to come out openly], had the integrity or courage to admit that Witzel was wrong and biased, even after it was proven so. So, what makes their mere assertions and judgements superior?

 

 

The pressures of Islam resulted in certain notable changes in Hinduism, primarily the bhakti movement.

 

 

Islam has nothing to do with the Bhakti movement per se. Bhakti movement originated in the Tamil country and its seeds were sown during the Sangam days of Paripadal collections. Bhakti had spread to the north even before the first Muslim invasion of the Sindh took place. And any internal organic growth in the Bhakti tradition happened in the South before it came under the Muslim rule. Islam can take little credit for any positive aspect in the Bhakti tradition.

 

 

The monotheisms have not allowed Hinduism its usual relativistic copout.

 

 

Could you eloborate on this statement? I really don't understand as to how a religion like Christianity or Islam with little philosophical basis can make the philosophy rich, logic oriented, anologically inclined vedantic tradition to "copout". You make it sound as if these Semitic religions ever engaged Hinduism in a philosophical debate. Au contraire, the only way they spread was through sword and dogma, for they never had reached the intellectual heights of Hinduism or Buddhism.

 

 

I am not particularly enamored of Bal Thackeray's approach.

 

 

Nor am I, but I am pragmatic. Hinduism is not an organized religion. It is the way of life that respects pluralism. When faced with hostile, dogmatic and highly organised semitic religions, and coupled with the fact that Indian economy is no match to the western coffers, the Hindus need some kind of organization that would resist the aforementioned entities. So, for me, Thackeray stays on for now. In my ideal world, there shall be no Thackeray or VHP or RSS, but there shall be no Vatican, Teresa, Southern Baptists, Wahhabi etc., as they are a million times more pernicious - and deceptive.

 

If Thackeray is the dog with which I chase out the missionary thiefs, so be it. Just that I would put him back in his kennel when it dawns.

 

 

You may like to start with "The Golden Bough" by James Frazier

 

 

Thanks for the reference.

 

 

Christ lived 30 years.

 

 

If he lived in the first place.

 

 

We base our criticisms of them on the most ignorant faction.

 

 

Because that faction has been and is pre-dominant. Further my criticism of Christianity is based only on the "Bible" as available to us [that is mutilated and parts burnt out after 325 CE].

 

 

Criticism comes easily, living up to our ideals is harder. We should concentrate on the latter and worry a little less about the former.

 

 

Which is very true and I cannot disagree with you on this. Yet, it is my observation that most of the people can't think. They are products of propaganda. Such a propaganda needs a counter. When a missionary in his cossack comes dancing around ridiculing Hinduism and talks of the great miracles of Jesus, a speed-breaker would be to say:

 

"Oh yeah, all you say is right. And the entire validity of Christianity depends on the claim that Jesus the persona did exist historically. But, then history bears no evidence to it and the accounts by his 4 primary disciples contradict each other, rendering the whole story false. So buddy, can you prove with some credibility that Jesus existed [with better credibility than the Shroud of Turin], before we dump our religion for yours? You see, Hinduism doesn't depend on the historic existence of Rama, Krishna or Siva for its survival, unlike Christianity.".

 

I have seen this work wonders. The crowd, if Hindu beaming with a smile and if Christian, starting to murmur "Is it true? Is there no evidence that Jesus existed? Is it all fabrication? Is it true that the worship of Mary has no basis in the Bible?" and the missionary turn red in his face and lose composure. On those moments, I have intuitively known that I have saved a few Hindus from conversion, rendered that missionary ineffective atleast for a while and sown the seeds of agnosticism in the minds of the followers of Christianity. I always distinguish between what I produce for the niche market and what I produce for the masses.

[Guest guest]

 

I know catholic theology comes in two basic flavors these days.

 

those who accept traditional catholic dogma i.e. literalism,

obedience to the pope,etc.

and the opposite.

 

The church in india is overwhlemingly of the second variety.

 

Their concern is not about converting people to catholic beliefs,but to gain the position as controllers of the leaders.

 

they themselves for the most part have little faith in God,

or jesus.

They mouth their philosophy only because they have to,they are supposedly preists.

 

In fact they have a socio-poltical agenda, why is teilhard de chardin a cultic figure among them ?

He is an outright atheist.

This shows their true beliefs.

They believe in gaining power,all else is a

ruse for the most part.

 

The vatican ,the same thing,although they don't claim to be atheistic,

still they have a party line

" only we are authorized ,everyone else is going to hell"

 

So much for the "great philosophers of catholicism".

 

As far as dealing in the modern world,what does that mean ?

 

Should hindu preists smoke cigarettes,drink whiskey,

and try to establish marxist states(as in nicaragua) ?

Should hindu preists back evolution ?

Or the big bang theory ?

 

You give the catholics way to much credit.

They are simply materialists in the guise of saintliness

in order to gain power.

 

You need to educate yourself about the true situation ,not the fantasy they try to pass off on the world.

 

they are not concerned about the mass of people,if they were

they have untold billions of dollars at their disposal,

where are they where they are needed,on the streets of mumbai,or kolkota ?

 

They do as little actual welfare work as possible,and spend the mass of their enormous wealth on retreats,monastaries,

churchs,homes,cars, etc.

They live like kings while their bank accounts grow fatter by the second,where is their supposed social concern ?

 

The so called mass of catholic theology is useless,

there are thousands of libraries full of books

about every concievable subject, should we take them

seriously as actual enlightened works of masters

of self realization ?

The amount of something has no bearing to the validity

of it,if it did we should all worship at the feet

some boy band or rap group.

 

Why be an apologist for the catholics ?

Do you really think that their message

" accept jesus and the catholic heirarchy

as God's representatives " is worth anything at all ?

 

Even though mostly they dont' and they don't ?

 

How about a little bit of actual intelligence,a little bit

of judgement, just because it says it is what it pretends to be

 

don't mean it aint sumpin else.

 

[karthik_v 0]

 

I know catholic theology comes in two basic flavors these days. those who accept traditional catholic dogma i.e. literalism, obedience to the pope,etc. and the opposite.

 

 

Not only in India, but everywhere else in the world Catholicism is based on dogma. It has always been so. The only occasion when they rebelled, albeit subtly, was in the late 1920s and early 1930s, when the German Catholic church desperately tried to breakaway from the scheming Cardinal Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII, who then virtually ran the Vatican. Vatican colloborated with Hitler, helped him destroy the German Catholic church first and then the protestants, both of whom resisted the Nazi and ultimately signed the Concordat of 1933.

 

On the earlier occasion, those who rebelled against the Vatican, albeit for reasons not related to reforms, ceased to be Catholics. The world knows their descendents by the name Protestants.

 

 

Their concern is not about converting people to catholic beliefs,but to gain the position as controllers of the leaders.

 

 

That has always been the case with the church. For example, if you are a Filipino Christian, your marriage is valid only when a representative of the Vatican approves it. It is a common sight to see a Filipino in the USA getting married to a girl in his country, but can't bring her right away, as the marriage certificate takes a few months to arrive.

 

Such a tight control on every aspect of your life is what the church has always sought and often got. In that stifling atmosphere of distrust, fear and secrecy, the Vatican colloborates with the mafia, launders their money and starts insurgency all over, as they are doing in the NE of India.

 

Strangely, people believe believe that it is a religion. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

 

Should hindu preists back evolution? Or the big bang theory?

 

 

Neither back, nor oppose. Religion has little to do with science. Metaphysics begins where Physics ends [figuratively speaking]. A Hindu priest dabbling with everything from Algebra to Zoroastrianism is setting a bad precedent, the one we are familiar with as from the case of the Vatican.

 

 

They do as little actual welfare work as possible

 

 

Behind the facade of all PR campaign, that is the truth.

[karthik_v 0]

Anyway, coming back to the original topic of the thread, now it should be very evident that the reason behind the Sanskritisation of the Catholic church is not a desire to internalise Indian culture, but only a new positioning strategy. Ironically, the very same church that started and fuelled the anti-Sanskrit movement of Tamilnadu a century ago, has now opted for Sanskritisation.

[karthik_v 0]

Some excerpts from the very own words of Saint my left foot Xavier, as found in a letter he wrote to Vatican in 1543. Those who complain about the Hindu nationalists for condemning the church must read this to get some idea about one of the most revered saints of Christianity:

 

About the villagers of Malabar, Kerala, India. He doesn't know their language. They don't understand him. Yet he claims to have preached /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif :

 

 

Thus spake Saint my left foot Xavier:

 

When I first came I asked them, if they knew anything about our Lord Jesus Christ? but when I came to the points of faith in detail and asked them what they thought of them, and what more they believed now than when they were Infidels, they only replied that they were Christians, but that as they are ignorant of Portuguese, they know nothing of the precepts and mysteries of our holy religion.

 

 

On the acts of the youth he converted and turned into fanatics:

 

 

Thus spake Saint my left foot Xavier:

 

Their hatred for idolatry is marvellous. They get into feuds with the heathen about it, and whenever their own parents practise it, they reproach them and come off to tell me at once. Whenever I hear of any act of idolatrous worship, I go to the place with a large band of these children, who very soon load the devil with a greater amount of insult and abuse than he has lately received of honor and worship from their parents, relations, and acquaintances. The children run at the idols, upset them, dash them down, break them to pieces, spit on them, trample on them, kick them about, and in short heap on them every possible outrage.

 

 

 

Here is the inducement for the poor to convert. Look at the salary paid from the money they looted from the Hindus:

 

 

Thus spake Saint my left foot Xavier:

 

I have appointed in each of the thirty Christian villages men of intelligence and character who are to preside over these meetings, and the Governor, Don Martin Alfonso, who is so full of love for our Society and of zeal for religion, has been good enough at our request to allot a yearly revenue of 4000 gold farlams for the salary of these catechists.

 

 

Some "glorious" words he had for the Brahmins. Now you know how and when and why the hatred for the Brahmins started. What better strategy to divide and convert the Hindus:

 

 

Thus spake Saint my left foot Xavier:

 

We have in these parts a class of men among the pagans who are called Brahmins. They keep up the worship of the gods, the superstitious rites of religion, frequenting the temples and taking care of the idols. They are as perverse and wicked a set as can anywhere be found, and I always apply to them the words of holy David, "from an unholy race and a wicked and crafty man deliver me, O Lord." They are liars and cheats to the very backbone. Their whole study is, how to deceive most cunningly the simplicity and ignorance of the people. They give out publicly that the gods command certain offerings to be made to their temples, which offerings are simply the things that the Brahmins themselves wish for, for their own maintenance and that of their wives, children, and servants. Thus they make the poor folk believe that the images of their gods eat and drink, dine and sup like men, and some devout persons are found who really offer to the idol twice a day, before dinner and supper, a certain sum of money. The Brahmins eat sumptuous meals to the sound of drums, and make the ignorant believe that the gods are banqueting. When they are in need of any supplies, and even before, they give out to the people that the gods are angry because the things they have asked for have not been sent, and that if the people do not take care, the gods will punish them by slaughter, disease, and the assaults of the devils. And the poor ignorant creatures, with the fear of the gods before them, obey them implicitly. These Brahmins have barely a tincture of literature, but they make up for their poverty in learning by cunning and malice. Those who belong to these parts are very indignant with me for exposing their tricks. Whenever they talk to me with no one by to hear them they acknowledge that they have no other patrimony but the idols, by their lies about which they procure their support from the people. They say that I, poor creature as I am, know more than all of them put together.

 

They often send me a civil message and presents, and make a great complaint when I send them all back again. Their object is to bribe me to connive at their evil deeds. So they declare that they are convinced that there is only one God, and that they will pray to Him for me. And I, to return the favor, answer whatever occurs to me, and then lay bare, as far as I can, to the ignorant people whose blind superstitions have made them their slaves, their imposture and tricks, and this has induced many to leave the worship of the false gods, and eagerly become Christians.

 

 

And, here he reveals the reason for his hatred unwittingly:

 

 

Thus spake Saint my left foot Xavier:

 

If it were not for the opposition of the Brahmins, we should have them all embracing the religion of Jesus Christ.

 

 

PS: Looks like our "left foot" failed to create any impression in his debates and convert the folks.

 

A general word of "praise" for the Indians:

 

 

Thus spake Saint my left foot Xavier:

 

"The heathen inhabitants of the country are commonly ignorant of letters, but by no means ignorant of wickedness."

 

 

PS: Looks like our "left foot" is indeed some match to Jesus when it comes to racist hatred.

 

At last, our bigoted Saint my left foot Xavier is rewarded with the conversion of 1 Brahmin:

 

 

Thus spake Saint my left foot Xavier:

 

All the time I have been here in this country I have only converted one Brahmin, a virtuous young man, who has now undertaken to teach the Catechism to children.

 

 

After his sumptuous abuse of the Brahmins, you would have thought that Xavier is a man of some learning; not so it seems:

 

 

Thus spake Saint my left foot Xavier:

 

As I go through the Christian villages, I often pass by the temples of the Brahmins, which they call pagodas.

 

 

PS: A 3rd grader in the USA or India would know that pagodas are not the Hindu temples. But then, why do you assume that a Christian saint should know as much? If you are surprised at this glaring stupidity, it is only because you haven't met enough of them. How about starting with the words of their master [nope not Paul] Jesus to get a measure of their theological depth? Don't dive headlong hoping it would be deep. They have forgotten to put up a sign board saying that the water is shallow and contaminated. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

Here he has some charitable words for the skin colour of the Indians and their idols:

 

 

Thus spake Saint my left foot Xavier:

 

For as there is so great a variety of color among men, and the Indians being black themselves, consider their own color the best, they believe that their gods are black. On this account the great majority of their idols are as black as black can be, and moreover are generally so rubbed over with oil as to smell detestably, and seem to be as dirty as they are ugly and horrible to look at.

 

 

for your reading pleasure: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1543xavier1.html

 

I verified the contents with the original source mentioned therein and it is accurate.

[karthik_v 0]

I have posted the message relating to Xavier in the Spiritual discussion thread, as it is more relevant there.

[Guest guest]

I agree with everything you said except for one thing.

 

Malachi martins book "the jesuits" gives the low down on the internal machinations surrounding vatican 2.

 

there the jesuits and other orders skillfully introduced

language into the new law that could be interpreted in any way they desired.

 

What did they desire ?

To be free of papal interference in their political agenda,

and to be free of the "papal infallibility" dogma set down 100 years previously.

 

in this they succeded,their is basically 2 catholic church's today.

 

one follows the pope,the other doesn't,although they mouth their obedience in public,in internal letters they constantly

disobey.

 

the truth is the leadership and most of the members of the orders are to well educated to by into the vatican hype,

they preach a universiality of religions and accept as

pundit teilhard de chardin( a confirmed atheist and evolutionist) and others like him.

 

While in public they may preach about jesus and so on, in

their internal documents you can see they for the most part

do not buy into the dogma.

 

How can you blame them, the catholic biblical dogma

cannot answer basic questions about God.

 

1.- why are some people born beautiful,healthy ,wealthy,

and into a loving family,while others are born into

abject misery ?

 

2.-Are you a better parent then God ?

would you send your child to hell eternally

if he did not believe as you want him to ?

 

Would you punish your children severly because

your first born made some minor mistake ?

 

these are basic questions concerning God,the biblical dogma has no logical or even decent answer,all of their philosophy is based on this premise of original sin,

without a logical answer as to the validity of the concept,everything written after is less then useless.

If you are going to build a skyscraper make sure

the foundation isn't made of potato chips.

 

[Jagat 1]

Jan -

 

I would like to have the source of this piece. -

 

Catholics Consider Including Sanskrit in Prayers

 

<blockquote>PATNA, INDIA, October 21, 2002: Leaders of the Roman Catholic Church said Monday they were considering

adding a Sanskrit word to liturgical prayers to make

Christianity more acceptable to Hindi speakers.

 

A synod of archbishops and bishops from India and

Philippines, which began Sunday in Patina, was

studying a proposal to include the word "Sachidanand"

in liturgical prayers.

 

B.J. Osta, the archbishop of Patna, stated "The word

'Sachidanand,' meaning the Trinity of Gods [sic???], also

conforms to the Christian precept of God the Father,

the Son and the Holy Spirit." [Etc.] </blockquote>

 

 

This is not at all new, you know. Early in the wake of Vatican II a largely Sanskrit mass was developed and is still in use in some specially permitted places, using whole slokas, not just a single word such as saccitananda, in the liturgy.

 

The initiative to use Sanskrit in the liturgy was soundly rejected by most lay Catholics, especially Dalits, for the simple reason that it called to mind the suffering they have endured under Brahmanical oppression for generations. Why, they asked, should a message of liberation be delivered in the oppressor's tongue, rather than in their own?

 

The quotation from Fr. Osta seems incorrect, but that, of course, is nothing new when non-Christian newspeople in India quote Christian sources.

 

Sat-Cit-Ananda has not one single authoritative definition - Saiva or otherwise - and it has been used extensively in the Indian Christian theological tradition for exactly the purpose contemplated here - as one expression of the mystery of the Trinity.

 

Saccidananda is, from the Advaita perspective, of the highest possible order of objectification of the unobjectifiable Brahman within the temporal framework in which words can be useful - aiming to express the

unreachable - exactly as the doctrine of the Trinity aims to represent in words what cannot be uttered with accuracy and in the fullest truth. "Father" is primordial existence, from which all comes; "Son"/Logos is the principle of intelligibility, informing phenomena; "Holy Spirit" is the principle for the engagement of human beings in the beatific vision and active existence; so saccidananda seems quite apt as a Trinitarian expression.

 

If the meaning of words were not being continually contested...???

 

Please send the citation - and preferably URL - for this article. Thanks.

 

- Richard MacPhail

[karthik_v 0]

 

The quotation from Fr. Osta seems incorrect, but that, of course, is nothing new when non-Christian newspeople in India quote Christian sources.

 

 

Are you aware of any instance when the non-Christian reporters in the Indian media misquoted the Christian sources? I thought such a previlege entirely belonged to the likes of NYT and Washington Post, when the report on Hinduism or anything Asia. Remember their tales on the Thai queen with a bushy tail?

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

There is a picture of Archibishop Osta, second from left.

[karthik_v 0]

How phony does the entire thing look! Cossack that is totally unfit for Indian climate. Skull cap that has no roots in India and worn only to proclaim one's allegiance to Vatican [btw, skull cap itself is of Semitic origins /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ], but just a few Sanskrit words and some flowers on a platter to attract the upper castes. All this to relauch Christianity, which is presently known as the religion of tribals who converted under inducement and coercion. All the upper castes, barring Syrian Catholics, converted during that rascal Xavier's stint under force. Naturally, Christianty is looking for a relaunch. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

If you want to have fun, you should ask them, if they will introduce yoga, as part of their Indianization process.

[Jagat 1]

The point was "Trinity of Gods" is incorrect Christian theology.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right, Karthikji.

[karthik_v 0]

 

The point was "Trinity of Gods" is incorrect Christian theology.

 

 

Perhaps, not as per the strict interpretation of Christianity, but you will find Indian Christians, priests included, use this term. The Indian reporters just report the ground reality as it is. They are under no obligation to correct the misinterpretations of the Christian Indian church. That is why I asked you if there is a basis for your claims that Indian reporters report Christianity falsely.

 

Do you think that Christian theology allows for invoking the spirit of Jesus, through a mediator at will, to cure the illnesses of someone? Do you think that Christian theology allows for bringing a suffering patient under the spell of Jesus for a short while, while the patient is in trance? Do you think that Christian theology allows for mediating priest to chant secret mantras to invoke Jesus for a specific time to achieve the above purposes?

 

All these are there in Indian Christianity. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Fraud has no limits Jagatji. Indian Christian church is as adept at fraud as the Vatican and other western churches have been.

[Jagat 1]

So there is an indigenous "hybrid" Christianity, like the Brazilian or Haitian versions?

 

I'd like some documentation. It sounds like a fascinating area for anthropological research.

 

Jagat

[Jagat 1]

I would also like some other references to "three Gods." I would imagine that in a subcontinent where the Muslim presence is very strong, awareness of the contentiousness of this "polytheism" would be high.

[karthik_v 0]

Indeed there are several ethnic elements in Indian Christianity, as it is there in Filipino or any other form of Christianity. This is something that the Vatican had always tried to cleanse, as they have been doing since the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. One more thing which would blow the minds of most folks is to know that there is atleast one instance, dating to 11th century CE, when in Kerala, Jesus was referred to as Yogeshwara in hagiography. I don't recall where I read this, but I can research and find out.

 

Europeanisation of Christianity started only after the Portugese invasions. Even that hasn't succeeded very much because the unit of jaati has been stronger than religion and the converted Christian tribals had always co-mingled with their jaati counterparts amongst the Hindus, than with other Christians.

 

Even though the Muslims had utter contempt for polytheism, which can be said of the Christians too, this really didn't affect the Hindus, except a few anglicised ones like Ram Mohan Roy, as the Muslim and Christian attempts had been very crude and violent. I am yet to know of a society that was convinced that their ways were wrong, just because a bully said so. On the other hand, this only strengthened the Hindu belief in polytheism. Since jaati and not religion had been the binding factor among the people, even Christians accepted this notion easily. Just like you have Maariyamman, that is Shakti, whom the Hindus worship for cure from small pox, so do the Christians worship a form of Mary who is able to cure small pox. The Vatican didn't like this, but there was little they could do about it.

 

Most of the recent clashes between the Hindu and the Christian tribals, have been due to the crude attempts by the Vatican to wean the converted tribals away from their traditional ways. And wherever the church has not suceeded in crude and vulgar Europeanisation of Christianity, you will find the Hindus flocking en masse to the church and worshipping. One example is that of Mary worshipped as Velaankanni, which translates as "the pure virgin". For those Hindus, there is no difference in visiting a Shiva temple, a Vishnu temple or the shrine of Velaankanni. And many would stop by at this church to pay their obeisances after having their head tonsured at the not far away Murugan temple of Tiruchendur.

 

Those who are busy pointing their fingers at the Hindu awakening would find it hard to explain this, unless they are honest enought to admit that any strife has its roots in the actions of the church which refuses to accept pluralism. Or even to address another faith with dignity. For that, the first requirement is that you refuse to buy into the stereotypes projected by the western media, Indian anti-Hindu media and academics and seek the reality from the grass roots.

[Guest guest]

the main difference is between the catholic orders which completly dominate catholicism in India and the establishment around the Pope.

 

They have very different views of what should be taught.

The pope's people want the traditional,

The orders want to asssimilate to each culture they are trying to influence, using catholicism as a tool for

establishing their orders as prominant leaders

of the particualar society they are in.

 

Their agenda is not a spiritual one, they mostly believe

in "liberation theology", which is not what it sounds like, it is all about a social agenda, really it's marxism

with the orders as the dictators.

The traditional faith can be completely abandoned if

that suites their purpose .

[Jagat 1]

I recall reading a bio of de Nobili many years ago, in which it was stated that he adopted almost all Hindu customs, (sannyas) dress, etc., in order to preach Christianity, but was then later blasted by the Holy See for "going native."

[Jagat 1]

Shiva, your presentation is flawed. Liberation theology "Marxism with the orders as dictators" is really propaganda.

 

Liberation theology is about the hypocrisy of Christianity that exploits the poorest in society. Marx was often criticized for taking Christian social idealism without Christ. The Liberation Theologians say that true Christians will not tolerate social injustice and that fighting against such injustice is the highest service to Jesus.

 

The idea of social justice has always been stronger in the Abrahamic religions than in Hinduism, but all human beings crave it, except those who profit from their own social advantages. Nevertheless, the bourgeois are often the ones who lead social movements, because they are driven by an intellectual imperative to strive for justice. This is why, though most Marxists in India come from the lower classes, the leaders are mostly from the bourgeoisie, just like the Christians. Not so strange, really.