Pope John Paul II meditating on the Tarot?
#31
(01-28-2010, 05:47 PM)SaintRafael Wrote:
(01-28-2010, 05:24 PM)i.p.i. Wrote: maybe he read the book about the tarot and decided not to make him a cardinal.  maybe von balthasar died of shock after he heard he wouldn't get the red hat. 
you don't know and i doubt anyone else does, either, except john paul and von b., possibly Pope Benedict. 
Wow, you are delusional. Pope John Paul II and the Vatican was looking forward to giving him the red hat. The ceremony was prepared and everything was going to schedule. Von Balthasar thought he was going to live and be made a cardinal. Pope John Paul II and the hierarchy expressed regret that he hadn't been made cardinal.  In delivering his eulogy, Cardinal Ratzinger, quoting de Lubac, called Balthasar, "the most cultured man of the twentieth century".

now you're calumniating me as well as the late Pope.  is that good Catholic behavior?

did you work in the Pope's office and have access to his inner thoughts?  i'm guessing not, so you cannot know if JP II was looking forward to giving von balthasar the red hat.  he may have been at one time but changed his mind about the man after reading the book, if the book is as scandalous as you suggest it is.

of course v b thought he was going to live, we all do until it's obvious we're dying.  he died suddenly.

again, it's at least possible that JP II said, sorry, no red hat, we'll say the ceremony is postponed because you're sick and then we'll decide what to do next.  or he sent in the albino monk. . . (that's a joke.)

a eulogist "quoting de Lubac, called Balthasar, 'the most cultured man of the twentieth century'." in a eulogy does not mean that the eulogist (or anyone else) believed that. 


people who have to give eulogies have to speak well of the dead, it's in the job description.

did cardinal ratzinger say that von balthasar was holy or pious?  THAT would be more significant than quoting de Lubac about him being "cultured."

(01-28-2010, 05:24 PM)i.p.i. Wrote: i do not believe God killed von Balthasar to prevent his becoming a cardinal.  if God killed people for  their sins, wouldn't he have killed everyone who ever performed an abortion?  i don't recall God killing anyone for their sins after Old Testament times. 
Have you ever read the Old Testament?
God killed countless of people for their sins. He killed Onan for spilling his seed. He killed Lot's wife for looking back at the destruction of the city.
God is not going to kill every single person immediately for committing a serious sin, because everyone dies eventually. He only kills those whom he sees fit to kill at the moment either for example or to avoid having that person accomplish something contrary to his divine will in time and history.

yes, i have read the Old Testament, which is why i said i didn't recall God killing anyone for their sins after Old Testament times. 

as i already said, i'm part of the Pius XII generation, so i started reading the Bible long before you were born. 
Reply
#32
(01-28-2010, 06:01 PM)leviathanstomper Wrote:
ipi Wrote:i don't recall God killing anyone for their sins after Old Testament times.

Ananias and Sapphira, Acts 5.

thanks.  i tend to read the Gospels most. 
Reply
#33
(01-28-2010, 06:37 PM)i.p.i. Wrote: yes, i have read the Old Testament, which is why i said i didn't recall God killing anyone for their sins after Old Testament times. 
as i already said, i'm part of the Pius XII generation, so i started reading the Bible long before you were born. 

Sorry abou that. I didn't read the word "after" before the Old Testament. I thought it just said Old Testament. I had already deleted that mentioned paragraph in reply # 17 and corrected my mistake in reply #21 in which I answer the question.
Reply
#34
SaintRafael,
    You can't just dismiss a defense of someone because it comes from a defender of someone.  That's what defenders do.  You need to find a problem with the actual defense.  And Fr. Balthasar himself points out the errors in the book!
Reply
#35
(01-28-2010, 05:32 PM)SaintRafael Wrote:
(01-28-2010, 05:12 PM)i.p.i. Wrote: lots of things that are not in themselves demonic can be used for demonic purposes, though i think that 'reading the Tarot' is more of a game than a demonic exercise to most people, just as reading a horoscope in the newspaper is viewed as entertainment, not a serious predictor of the future.  some people are much deeper into astrology, of course, and take it seriously but even they don't seem to be obsessed by demons, just silly, unscientific ideas.

You obviously haven't heard many exorcists talk or anything the Church has said on the occult. Tarot cards and astrology are not just "games". Their immediate use puts one at risk for demonic possession of at the very least demonic infestation and bothering. The occult opens the door to the preternatural and demonic world.

Tarot cards themselves are a problem only  in the imagery used in modern decks.  Cartomancy is the problem.  Astrology in limited forms was allowed by the Church, and even St. Thomas allows for it in limited forms; though none of those forms are in much practice today, so yes, newspaper-type horoscopes are forbidden.

Astrology is not divination proper and would not cause demonic problems in the same manner divination does; the main problem with astrology is it teaches fatalism which is completely opposed to Church teaching on free will and our own hand in being receptive to the Salvific nature of the Sacrifice.

Reply
#36
(01-28-2010, 06:10 PM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote:
(01-28-2010, 05:01 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Does anyone have a summary of what these books are about?

I have read Meditations on the Tarot, by Anonymous.  It is a profound work.

The book is not about divination.  The author uses tarot cards as launching points for meditations on esoteric and exoteric aspects of the Catholic faith.  He urges those who have been involved in the occult or in Eastern religions to embrace Catholicism.  A convert from Anthroposophy and a former occultist himself, he is throwing a lifeline to those we would now call "New Age" people.

Although there are one or two things in the book that are flatly contrary to the teaching of the Church, it can help certain people to find their way back to the Church.  I would never recommend it except in these unusual cases, however.  For instance, I don't think that one can accept reincarnation (even the "fact" of reincarnation, held in the internal forum, as the author argues) without losing Catholic faith.  If someone has a subjective experience that seems like the memory of a past life, it could be caused by any number of things (including, I surmise, some kind of connection to the deceased -- even one willed by God).

Believe it or not, the book in many ways is extremely traditional.

A summary is offered here, at Ignatius Insight:  http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2..._apr07.asp

:owl:

Sounds interesting.  I will see if the library has a copy.  If not, I'll consider trying to find it used (have a copy you want to sell?).  The reincarnation stuff sounds pretty much like outright heresy, though.

The first problem I can think of for using the tarot for meditation is that many of the images are inappropriate.  The second problem is that it sounds kind of like a particular magickal practice from the Medieval period  where people would meditate on special images to receive profound knowledge.  This was condemned as demonic by, I think among others, St. Thomas Aquinas.

The only time I really meditate on anything in this kind of  way is when I say the Rosary I find it helpful to look at a picture of the Mystery so I can keep my mind on it.  Otherwise the use of mandelas or such things in general seems suspect to me.  It also seems to have the same type of problems as centering prayer.

Reply
#37
(01-28-2010, 07:10 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Sounds interesting.  I will see if the library has a copy.  If not, I'll consider trying to find it used (have a copy you want to sell?).  The reincarnation stuff sounds pretty much like outright heresy, though.

I gave away my second or third copy about 3 years ago.  Sorry!  It's only $15 at Amazon.com.

The author does not really meditate on the cards in the way you suspect, Quis.  It's more of a literary device.  Yes, sometimes the correspondence of the images to his ideas is uncanny.  But he's not truly deriving the ideas from the cards.  (He uses the old Marseilles deck, by the way.)

As for reincarnation, he brings it up several times.  As Catholics we know that reincarnation is false for two important reasons:  (1) every man is a unique body and soul composite, not just a soul; and (2) at the Last Judgment, the identical bodies we have now will be resurrected (even if they do not have the same matter and are supernatural bodies).  Apparently, the author is speaking to those who have an unshakable subjective experience of having had a past life.  He says that it is impossible that many mystics have not had this experience, but that they have kept it to themselves out of prudence.  I do not know whether his assertion is true or not.  I know that reincarnation is false because our indefectible Church teaches that it's false.  The author says that it teaches this for practical reasons, to ensure that people do not lose their ultimate salvation by relying on reincarnation.  As a Catholic, I simply refuse to accept that.

However, I cannot condemn the book . . . for the same reasons that Fr. von Balthasar gives.  The reincarnation discussion is not insidious, or integral to the whole book, and can simply be set aside.  The rest of the book is awesome.

:owl:
Reply
#38
Tarot cards have been used for playing cards much longer than they've been used for divination.
Reply
#39
(01-28-2010, 06:01 PM)SaintRafael Wrote:
(01-28-2010, 05:24 PM)i.p.i. Wrote: i don't recall God killing anyone for their sins after Old Testament times.

Just noticed the after part. Of coarse God has killed people for their sins after O.T. Times. God does not change. The God of the Old Testament, is the God of the New Testament, and is the God of today.

There are many stories by saints and other people over the centuries who have been killed by God for their sins. We Catholics believe in tradition. The bible stops after the first century, but salvation history continues in oral tradition.

You need to read St. Basil the Great, St. Isaac of Syria, St. Anthony of the Desert and countless others (first millennium) who argue God is most certainly NOT an angry God who kills people.  To be angry implies he has passions, he is subject to emotions, moods, etc., none of which are characteristics of an all-powerful God.  Instead these are characteristics of man.  This distortion of God has driven many people away from Christianity and I can see why. 
Reply
#40
(01-28-2010, 07:00 PM)Bonifacius Wrote: SaintRafael,
     You can't just dismiss a defense of someone because it comes from a defender of someone.  That's what defenders do.  You need to find a problem with the actual defense.  And Fr. Balthasar himself points out the errors in the book!

Which is why I provided a link to an article that talks about the errors of the book and Von Balthasar. You criticism would be justified had I provided nothing but a statement, with no article or link.

This article opposes the viewpoint of the Ignatius Insight article and talks about errors of Von Balthasar that he holds which he believed in and did not refute.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)