Reincarnation & Christianity

The author's profile at Amazon com includes this, which doesn't look too good, from a Catholic viewpoint:

* He was ordained in the Liberal Catholic Church (International) to the priesthood on January 25, 1974, and consecrated a bishop on August 23, 1975.

www.amazon.com/Abbot-George-Burke-Swami-Nirmalananda-Giri/e/B00KZ50SLQ?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_7&qid=1611842468&sr=1-7

I agree that the author doesn't come across as a beacon of reliability. But my interest was in some of the verifiable points that he made in the essay, such as what he wrote about Cardinal Mercier. That this cardinal did indeed allow for reincarnation as compatible with Christian belief, is true. And what's interesting about that, is that he was never reprimanded (by the Pope or the Magisterium) for espousing that view.




Of course you're right in saying that presently Catholic theologians do not allow for reincarnation as part of RC theology. But that doesn't prove they never did. As I said it's puzzling that there are no formal docs prior to the 1992 Catechism, that clearly deny reincarnation.

As for the idea of reincarnation being superstition or made up, I think it's risky to dismiss a belief held by close to half the world (and probably more in earlier times), as a pure fabrication. Why would they fabricate it? It is certainly possible that here and there people misunderstood things, but I find it hard to believe that something so widespread (and so consistently believed across many different cultures) could be 100% nonsense.

But actually the main reason this matter has been on my mind is this: If the world is a battle ground between Good and Evil, then who stands most to gain from getting people to not believe in reincarnation? I'm afraid it's Evil that stands to gain a lot by having us not believe it. Because without reincarnation, it's either Heaven or Hell or Purgatory for us, right? Nowadays most Catholics seem to think that you can make it to Heaven even if you're not a perfect saint, so they're not worried. Me, I think Heaven is reserved for saints. So as I see it, if you're not a perfect saint, but not a monster either, what happens? The Catholic answer is Purgatory. But nowadays many Catholics seem to totally forget about Purgatory, or say that it's pretty close to Heaven anyway (even Fr. Groeschel seemed to take such a view last year).

But what if that's a deception? What if Purgatory is pretty rough? Its definition is a bit vague, but the emphasis is on suffering. Basically it's a place where you will be stuck for an indeterminate amount of time, to suffer the consequences of your sins, until you are cleansed of those. Okay, but to suffer one must be conscious, which means one is somehow alive, right? So in a way that sounds like some form of reincarnation. And the troubling thing is: Evil would stand a lot to gain if we just overlook this and think everything's going to peachy even if we don't perfect ourselves within this lifetime.

I believe it's reason for concern that we dismiss the risk (not the joy) of reincarnation altogether.

But then you're saying, if any part of the faith was changed, it was changed for the better. Can we still hold on to that idea in light of the changes that Pope Francis had made? And in light of VC2? I don't know where you personally stand on such matters, but me, I think it's overly optimistic -- and a risk for one's soul.

Okay. But anyway, I didn't want to make this thread about VC2 or a traditionalist-vs-progressive debate. (I'm neither.)

It's really the specific matter of reincarnation that has my interest, and I think the essay I linked in my OP serves as a fair starting point for a discussion about that, seeing as how it does point out some verifiable truths.

On the opinion expressed by Cardinal Mercier, and why he was not publicly reprimanded or censored: I would guess that Mercier was writing in the precise, formal way of theologians, along this line: "Let us test the hypothesis of reincarnation. Reincarnation must fall into one of these categories. Two of them are immediately excluded as illogical, impossible, or going against certain truth. One of them may be further examined."

The author quotes Cardinal Mercier as follows: "So far as concerns the first assumption, we do not see that reason, if left to itself, would declare this to be impossible or certainly false." That is not an affirmation. Notice the double negative: "We do not see... this to be... false." Also there are at least two important qualifications: "reason, if left to itself," suggesting that there are other aspects to be discussed (perhaps Scripture and Church teaching?), and "certainly," suggesting that there are less rigorous arguments against the hypothesis that are yet worthy of consideration. The article you cited did not follow Mercier to his conclusion on the question of reincarnation.

I have searched online for Mercier's actual writings on this, but so far have not found it. The article cites a textbook titled Psychologie. I found one called Les Origines de la psychologie contemporaine, but in it I could not find any mention of rebirth, repetition of existence, Wiedermenschwerdung or other key words in the quoted passage. This textbook examines and critiques many different theories and philosophies of human existence.

Internet searches for Mercier's writings on reincarnation mostly refer to private letters he wrote to a Polish proponent of reincarnation and other aspects of Indian/Hindu spirituality.

So I can think of two explanations why Mercier was not publicly corrected: First, it may be that he actually said nothing in support of the hypothesis of reincarnation in his textbooks. Second, his personal correspondence may have not required the attention of the Pope or Magisterium because it was not a teaching but only a personal or academic dialogue with a friend who asked about reincarnation.

I haven't read it all yet, but as pianistclare says, it's complete hogwash, we have an immortal soul that animals do not have, we will also be resurrected in body too, so the idea that we come back as an animal or something else entirely is completely incompatible with Christianity, Christ and the early Christians wouldn't have even had to entertain it because it's completely incompatible anyway.

When Elijah and Moses appeared during the transfiguration they did not come back as animals or anything else, just a glorified body free from the effects of original sin, but the same body and soul and when Lazarus was raised from the dead he was still Lazarus (although not glorified body and still prone to death and sin) and when Christ came back, he was not a Ghost, hence St Thomas touching His wounds and believing, we ask the saints to pray for us and our mother Mary, reincarnation is a total nonsense.

God Bless You