The Church has had long experience with both, and in the long run has been protected (as Christ promised) from doctrinal error; but in the short run, priests, bishops, and even popes have made serious mistakes in terms of how to transmit the fullness of the Faith to the whole world ---to people of every language and culture --- in an effective and faithful way.
Let me digress a little to give this a wider context. Two examples: the Guadalupe experience, and the Chinese Rites controversy.
For many years the Church looked with doubt or even hostility at Mexican devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe. The Bishop of Mexico at that time, Fray Juan Zumarraga, never mentioned the 1531 apparitions in his writings --- not even in his "Regla Christiana" of 1547. Even the scholarly Franciscan Bernardino de Sahagun, responsible for recovering the ancient Aztec codices, was reluctant to encourage devotion to Guadalupe. He feared idolatry: Tepeyac was the site where the earth goddess Tonantzin, mother of the Aztec deities, once had her temple. It was suspected (especially by the Franciscans) that Aztecs dancing, playing their flutes and drums, and bringing flower-offerings were in fact honoring Tonantzin and not Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ.
Opinions were deeply divided, and it wasn't until 135 years after the visions of Cuauhtlatoatzin (Juan Diego) that the Mexican hierarchy formally acknowledged that this was a Christian, not pagan, religious devotion.
How many failed to encounter Christ because of the Mexican hierarchy's long resistance to indigenous cultural forms?? Maybe millions. Maybe tens of millions.
Then there's the "Chinese Rites Controversy," the most disastrous setback in the history of Christian missions. Matteo Ricci, a brilliant and devout Jesuit in China in the late 1500's, built a very successful mission relating Catholicism (the Faith) with Confucism (the philosophy). It did not involve the invoking of false gods; but it did acknowledge that much of Confucian philosophy and practice --- such as the honoring of ancestors ---was based on Natural Law, and thus was compatible with Christianity and conducive to a good society and a virtuous life.
The opposition to Ricci's policies emerged from a faction of Franciscans, Dominicans, and a few Jesuits, who were deeply scandalized by the burning of incense at ancestor-shrines. They interpreted this as the worship of ancestors, but thousands of Chinese now understood it in a thoroughly Catholic way as praying for the souls of the dead. This culminated in Pope Clement XI, in 1704, issuing a Bull against Christian adherence to Confucian principles and practices.
The result? The Emperor was outraged, Christianity was banned, Westerners expelled, and China was cut off from all things Western, Catholicism and science and technology and everything, for generations.
The Roman curia finally recognized their error, and Papal Bull was lifted --- in the 1940s.
I'm not saying "accept eveything in other cultures," but equally, you can't "reject everything in other cultures." It's a careful sorting, adapting, rejecting, accepting process. As St. Paul teaches:
1 Thessalonians 5:19-22
19Quench not the Spirit.
20Despise not prophesyings.
21Examine everything;
hold fast that which is good.
22Abstain from all appearance of evil.
The alternative was, of course, to burn them all at the stake. No doubt the hierarchy lost its nerve eh!
I wish I had time to read the article carefully and comment carefully. In a couple of weeks I'll have time, and hope to post my own article which will cover some of these points.
There is are lot of serious and grave misunderstanding about what the Vedic religion is - by self-described Hindus as well as others.
I just do not have the time at this moment, but I will save this article and use some of the points for my article.