Kurgans weasel words on Reincarnation

“I Don’t Discount Reincarnation”—But You Should Discount That Theology

Every now and then, someone who calls himself a defender of “True Catholicism™” will let the mask slip just long enough for you to catch a glimpse of what’s really going on beneath the rhetoric. One such moment recently appeared from a man who claims to stand for doctrinal purity, tradition, and unwavering fidelity to the Catholic faith.

He wrote:

“As readers of my OG blog know, I personally do not discount reincarnation, as I had multiple experiences that objectively can’t be explained to the same satisfactory degree as reincarnation would do. Nevertheless, I support and agree with the Catholic Church’s stance on such things that dabbling in or with them is essentially a very bad idea.”

Let’s pause for a moment.

This is like a man claiming to be a strict monotheist—right before casually adding that he occasionally makes sacrifices to Baal, just in case. The entire statement is riddled with theological cowardice, rhetorical evasion, and a profound misunderstanding (or rejection) of Catholic dogma.

Let’s unpack it.

“I Do Not Discount Reincarnation…”

That’s not a minor oversight. That’s not “one opinion among many.” That is a direct contradiction of the Catholic faith.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states with crystal clarity:

“There is no ‘reincarnation’ after death.”1

Reincarnation denies the resurrection of the body. It denies the particular judgment. It reduces the soul to a recyclable husk endlessly bouncing around until it attains some vaguely defined “enlightenment.” It’s not just bad theology—it’s heresy, straight from the trash heap of Gnosticism and Eastern mysticism.2

So for someone who rails against Vatican II and the “Novus Ordo” for being doctrinally suspect, this is beyond ironic. This is like a man who screams about liturgical abuses while setting fire to the Nicene Creed.

“I’ve Had Personal Experiences That Reincarnation Explains Better…”

Ah, the Gospel of Subjective Feeling. Very postmodern. Very Oprah.

When your mystical experiences start rewriting the Creed, it’s time to stop listening to your gut and start listening to the Church. Saints have had visions—some false.3 Prophets have dreamed dreams—some misleading. That’s why God gave us a Church with Magisterial authority: so your private revelations don’t drive you straight into error.4

The saints who actually obeyed the Church didn’t flirt with heresy because of a dream. They submitted, even when their visions were accurate. But here we see someone putting private experience over public Revelation, and calling it faith.

“Nevertheless, I Support the Church’s Stance…”

What a weasel phrase. Not “I believe what the Church teaches.” Not “I submit to the defined doctrine that reincarnation is false.” No, just vague “support for the stance.”

It’s like saying, “I support the surgeon general’s position on smoking while enjoying a cigar and telling others it's probably not that bad.”

This kind of rhetorical sleight-of-hand is how modernism crept into seminaries and theology faculties: affirming orthodoxy with the left hand while denying it with the right.

“It’s a Bad Idea to Dabble in These Things…”

So now reincarnation is no longer false—it’s just dangerous? Bad for the soul, sure, but not because it’s heretical, only because it’s “dabbling”? This is how error enters through the back door—by treating doctrinal heresies like spiritual urban legends.

Let’s be clear: the Church doesn’t reject reincarnation because it’s “dangerous.” The Church rejects it because it is a lie.5 Full stop. There is no spiritual wiggle room here. No “it’s just a bad idea.” It is contrary to the Gospel, to the resurrection, and to the identity of the human person as created once and for eternity.

A Final Word to the Faithful

If someone can “not discount reincarnation” while posturing as a voice of doctrinal purity, what else is he smuggling in behind the scenes? That’s the real concern.

He demands absolute submission to his interpretation of obscure canons. He declares the entire post-1958 Church a counterfeit. He insists you can’t trust a single bishop or priest—unless it’s the ones he deems valid. And yet when it comes to reincarnation, an ancient heresy condemned by the Church Fathers and rejected by every council of the Church, suddenly the line goes fuzzy?

This isn’t orthodoxy. It’s a DIY religion dressed in traditionalist cosplay.

Don’t fall for it.

The Catholic Church is not just a museum of old Latin phrases and stricter liturgies. She is the pillar and foundation of truth.6 Her teachings are clear, and her condemnations are final. Reincarnation is not compatible with the Gospel. You cannot be “Catholic” and “reincarnation-curious.” You can be one or the other—not both.

So if someone tells you otherwise, “don’t discount reincarnation,” do the Church a favor—discount him.

Footnotes:

“Death is the end of man's earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny. When ‘the single course of our earthly life’ is completed, we shall not return to other earthly lives. ‘It is appointed for men to die once.’ (Heb 9:27). There is no ‘reincarnation’ after death.”

“Reincarnation is incompatible with the Christian faith, which affirms the resurrection of the body and the uniqueness of the human person.”

Let me know if you'd like a shorter version of this post for social media, or a follow-up piece comparing this heretical flirtation with ancient Gnostic systems.

Footnotes

  1. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1013. ↩

  2. See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 33: The Church Fathers unanimously rejected the idea of the soul being repeatedly embodied. ↩

  3. Cf. 2 Corinthians 11:14 – “Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” ↩

  4. Dei Verbum, Vatican II: “The task of authentically interpreting the Word of God… has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone.” ↩

  5. Dominus Iesus (2000), Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, §5: ↩

  6. 1 Timothy 3:15 – “…the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” ↩

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pope Francis says that all religions lead to God, and he is absolutely correct.

Image
Before all of you "trad" and "faithful" christians or catholics get your shorts in a bunch and start in with the rash judgement, let's take a deep breath..... Breath in....... Hold,,,,,, Breath out.        Breath in........Hold........Breath out...... OK. Now that we have relaxed our muscles and a we have a brain full of oxygen, let's discuss. The article is here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-pope-francis-every-religion-is-a-way-to-arrive-at-god/ Now, let's break down the article, and analyze what is said and the context in which it was said. " Pope Francis today told young people of different faiths that “every religion is a way to arrive at God.” Addressing an inter-religious meeting of young people in Singapore just before departing for his return flight to Rome, Pope Francis turned to one of the central themes of his pontificate – inter-religious dialogue." So far, so good. The Pope is speaking to a group of young people of di...
Read more

Three Marriages, No Annulments — The Domestic Contradiction of The Kurgan

“Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled.” — Hebrews 13:4 The Kurgan never misses a chance to attack others for their failings, especially in matters of faith. He’s the first to declare someone “not a real Catholic,” denounce “fake clergy,” or assign people to the flames for liturgical imperfection. But when it comes to his own life , a strange silence takes hold. Or worse—an open contradiction. In his latest blog post, “The Cowards,” he casually admits: “I made plenty of errors too. Twice divorced and many women in between. BUT… I am now happily married with a sixth kid on the way.” The problem? He has never mentioned a single annulment . And as far as anyone can tell, he doesn’t recognize any ecclesiastical authority capable of granting one. After all, in his view, the Church has been “fake” since 1958. Which means this supposed champion of tradition and canon law is—by his own admission— on his third marriage, with no canonical process, n...
Read more

The Death of a Pope, and the Death of a Book.

A Certain Book has Just Expired Reclaiming the Catholic Church… from the Past When The self-published book  Reclaiming the Catholic Church  was released in 2020, the kurgan framed it as a theological nuke: an unanswerable, bulletproof exposé proving once and for all that Pope Francis was a fraud, the hierarchy was corrupt, and only sedevacantists could be real Catholics. But as of this week, there’s one tiny problem: Pope Francis is dead. And with him, so is the central premise of Kurgan’s entire book. We’re now left with a text that’s not just polemical — it’s obsolete . The book hinges on a very specific historical snapshot: “Francis is the problem, and we must resist him now.” Well, time marched on. The problem is gone. And resistance to a corpse is hardly heroic. It’s like writing a fire evacuation manual… for a building that already burned down. What Happens When Your Theology Ages Like Milk? Books survive if they’re grounded in truth, or timeless principle. Kurgan’s boo...
Read more