Discussion in 'Traditional Healing Arts' started by Bill Mattocks, Apr 1, 2009.
Never mind. If you can't say something nice............
FWIW, it doesn't actually appear that the guideline is specifically banning the laity from receiving Reiki treatment from those versed in its practices. It seems rather to be suggesting that the administrative facilities of the clerical institution feel it inappropriate to assimilate Reiki into their own practices within their own health care programs &c.
As somebody else mentioned, it only affects the Catholic amongst us, anyway.
I really just don't think that this panal of Bishops have been expalined how Reiki works...Its not super natural, its about energy flow, and thats the basis for Eastern medicine, which has been practiced longer than Christianity.
In fact, Reiki is taught at my Certified Massage Therapy School in Louisville Kentucky. Its actually a requirement to get licenced! I might wanna add that Kentucky has really strict laws with Massage, and the schools only teach what is necessary per the Licencing test.
I really think that this view that the Catholic Church has on this subject is dated. Being Catholic myself, I know that a lot of the "political" policies usually are. There are a lot of studies being done on Reiki and several other Easter Medicine Practices. Heck, Massage Therapy didn't get any legitimacy till the World Wars, because it was easier to keep soliders in the war by having them see a massage therapist instead of sending them stateside and have several tests and specialist seen to fix a minor problem.
Point is let it be Reiki, Accupuncture, or even massage, nothing will be made "mainstream" until there is a dollar amount being put on it and it can be marketed to the people. Its happened in Western Medicene, Massage Therapy, and eventually Eastern Medicenes will become a piece of the pie...but until then...the Catholic Higher ups will approach with Caution, but will eventually warm up to the idea.
May I jump in, not to be rude, just I have a question. I am not Catholic nor anti-Catholic. I is hillbilly neutral here. I go to hockey games with a friend who is a Catholic Chaplin, and another who is a Brother. Neither of them are interested in martial arts. I have some understanding of how the Catholic Church sees things, absent of the hypocrisy perspective, the Catholic Church has a huge mystic element to it outside of what is presented in the bible that has existed for centuries. Which is similar or identical mystically to that of other non-Christian practices and cultures. In terms of the last 20 years, the Church has shifted its view toward more accepting science in some areas that has displacing some traditional mystic beliefs. Would Reiki be accepted if there was an association to God, like a miracle preformed by a priest healing someone, paralleling to the acts of Jesus, or the defeating of the Devil or demons such as an exorcism to be accepted? Or is it simply cultural prejudice or priority issue by the Church that like science in time be accepted? A delicate issue, am solely interested in understand and broadening my horizons. Thanks.
Mmmm. Reiki massage, no scientific basis. Laying on of hands for healing ????? Love to see the scientific data to back that.
I note that they haven't spoken out against homeopathy. That has even less scientific evidence to offer! Then there are still those about who believe in fairies. :asian:
Somehow...I'm not surprised. I think Reiki has its place,and is helpful.
^^^BANG!! Well said.
Yes. The position that Reiki is, so far, pseudoscience, is a correct one. They were right. But hearing it from them, is like hearing it from a Homeopath. It's hypocrisy, because Christianity itself is pseudoscience. It is hypocritical of them. Especially when the article started talking about there own brand of mythological healing, prayer. lolz
Priest Craft which is what Catholoism is all about is a business not a religion and it is about eliminating competition.
Gee they could not do something more productive about controling all the rape, molestations and fathering children?? Up here they have paid out $200 million in settlements due to the founding Jesuit who built our radio station on video tape stated he was called to be the Lover of the World and to father as many children as possible raping Eskimo women he was not alone Boys were raped as well by his other priests. Sad to say when these poor people get thier blood money they kill themselves and others drinking?
Watch HBO it sums up the church pretty good
As a non catholic, forgive me if I fail to lose sleep over this.
Interesting that yesterday, in the paper, there was an article on that featuring the local priest from my area some years back. He was very popular with his parishioners but obviously he was more interested in the children! I thought he was cool. He brought me a bottle of wine every so often. Seemed like a good bloke at the time.
I'd like to see the scientific studies that show celibacy in the priesthood is working well! :shrug:
Being a catholic male, and grew up around priest..I can honestly say that I have never been abused by a priest...
Although i know it happens..its not something that happens with all Priests.
That being said the topic of this thread isn't about the sexual misconduct of a few priests, instead on why the catholic church doesn't Condone Reiki.
I asked my Massage therapy instructor what he could think of, also he being a Catholic Man, why they wouldn't allow it. He told me that since its about energy. Energy that exisits outside of Jesus Christ.
Makes no sense to either one of us.
In all honesty, I have done a lot of research into much of this subject matter. For the most part, it worked perfectly fine up until the Second Vatican Council. The changes brought therein, and from what I have seen the evidence highlight in particular especially the removal of homosexuality from the list of impediments to the priesthood, have resulted in what we see today.
Furthermore, there has been evidence of organised sects of infiltrators within the Catholic priesthood, some of whom were involved in large-scale operations including pedophilia rings. This is referred to in detail in the factual book "Windswept house" by Fr Malachi Martin.
And interestingly enough, there is a statistic no non-Catholic I have ever met has been able to accept. I doubt any ever will but I shall present it here.
Statistically, secular school teachers are responsible for more than 100 times the peterasty that Catholic clergy have committed.
This means it is 100 times more likely for a schoolteacher to abuse a child than a priest.
That being said, I do not allow my children around any Novus Ordo priests as none of them can truly be said to be Catholic.
FWIW there has never been a single case of peterasty by the priests of the Society of St Pius X, who are the only priestly order to truly maintain Catholicity as it should be - completely free of the errors of Vatican II.
Forgot to add:
K-man can you please demonstrate arguments in support of these statements which you have made?
1. Please show where Catholic doctrine advocates, supports or condones peterasty?
Remember Mohammed married a 5 year old and consummated the marriage when she was 9, which is an openly discussed fact within Islam so therefore there would be no reason for Catholics to conceal their doctrine which you claim they use to support such practices.
2. Please show how celibacy is the problem in Catholicism, as opposed to the celibacy found in other, more "acceptable" religions such as Eastern religions?
3. The local priest from your area, whom you accuse of attempting to seduce you by intoxicating you with alcohol, was he Novus Ordo or Tridentine?
Look forward to your responses.
I gave you thinks for your comment about other organizations being more prone to having sexual abuse than Catholic Priest, however I must disagree with you on this statement.
In that the Pope, the Vicor of Christ, approved and "stamped" the findings and rulings of Vatican II, stating that there were errors in the results takes the Society of St. Pius X out of communion with the Catholic Church if they are not following the changes decreed in those proceedings.
While I don't agree with many of the findings of Vatican II, the results of that Council are now infolded into the Church are are part of the Church. Our current Pope and his Cardinals are making changes to those rulings and bringing back some of the pre-Vatican II processes, but unless he changes them all, the Society is out of communion with the Church in some levels if they call the Vatican II findings to be in error.
I find this fascinating because Reiki has absolutely nothing to do with massage whatsoever. While there are hand positions for the hands-on type of reiki, physical contact is not only not required but is not the core of reiki.
Most of the reiki practitioners I know believe that The Healing Energy is The Life Force also known as The Holy Spirit. It is only with the will of God, the blessing of the Christ and the movement of The Holy Spirit that any healing (like that which Jesus conducted and called upon his disciples to engage in) through faith can occur. Everything else is ... well, likely not of The Holy Spirit and therefore invalid or potentially dangerous.
The best, most effectual reiki practitioners I know DO associate the healing practice with spiritual health. Essentially - if you are not calling upon the Holy Spirit and *asking* for a person to be healed as is God's will through Jesus Christ His son, you are not effectuating true healing.
There is a lot of bastardized reiki instruction out there and without Divine Protection you can render a person helpless and vulnerable to negative attack.
Reiki Theory a la carte.
Given that we, as disciples and followers of Christ (not Catholic here) have been instructed by the Master to heal in his name - in fact that any man with the faith of a gnat can do these deeds - it only makes sense that each Christian use their individual talents and gifts to effectuate love and healing in the world with the Holy Spirit.
Much like it was said, "Kung-fu in all things and in all things Kung-fu," many spiritual gurus and masters have reminded us "Love in all things and in all things love."
THIS is the Christian way as it was intended by ... jeez ... almost ANY interpretation of the Bible's New Testament. So you could make toast or you could make toast *with love* ... you could dust or you could dust *with love* ... you could clean a wound and bandage it or you could do so *with love.*
Alas, the tolerance and forward-thinking of the Master is NOT followed actively by Roman Catholicism according to the opinions and observations of many.
Pity. They DO call themselves Christians, after all.
divine protection? :rofl:
The SSPX received canonical status within the Church in 1970, six years after the Council had ended. Their position has never been ambiguous, so how is this to be explained?
Also, in regards to them considering the Council to be in error, Archbishop Lefebvre maintained that the Council itself was not erroneous provided it was interpreted in light of Tradition. This,however, has never been the manner in which it has been interpreted.
Case in point, just read through one of the articles, oh say... Lumen Gentium. Compare what it actually says to what has been in practise since its institution.
Anyways I don't want to hijack here, but if I have raised any questions or issues go ahead and PM me and I am more than happy to discuss the issue!
The Vulgate uses the term "caritas" (or various declensions depending on context) in pretty much all cases referring to this statement - for example even the well known passage of text found in I Corinthians XIII should read "charity" where most read love. It is hard for some protestants, based primarily in contextual reasons, to understand quite what is meant here. Charity is love - it is a form and act of love.
Remember that song by Massive Attack with the line "Love is a verb, love is a doing word," well that kind of sums up what is meant here.
So the operative instruction actually changes as a whole based on this, from love as an inactive or emotive operation to love/charity as an active promotive operation. This also can be demonstrated in the rejection of the Epistle of St James by most protestant sects due to its refutation of justification by faith without works (faith alone).
By "the Master" do you refer to Christ, the same Christ who said of himself "I come not to bring peace, but the sword," ?
Again, I say to you, that the context you are interpreting these Truths is an erroneous context.
Due to the connotations of the suffix -(i)an in reference to an organisational group, it is entirely accurate for the Catholic Church to refer to herself as Christian. This is because within that context the term indicates that which has been started by an individual and carried on (eg Franciscan or Dominican). It is also used to denote a particular lineage or line of succession.
The only group who utilise the term in reference to themselves who can demonstrate in a historically verifiable unbroken and continuous line of succession that they are able to trace their organisation back to it's very foundation at the hands of Christ are the Catholic Church.
Therefore the term Christ(-)ian is most applicable for this group.
Other groups whose founders were influenced in some way by a portion of the principles or ideals given forth by Christ do not contextually fit within the usage of this term.
Besides all of which, the US Bishops did not forbid the faithful from receiving reiki healing anywhere in the article.
Yeah, i am only halfway through my training, and haven't really hit Reiki hard yet, but they do teach it at my no frills massage therapy school.
Separate names with a comma.