Catholicism, Ecumenism and Salvation

[Thomas]

As I have been engaged on discussions that often involve ecumenism rather more than the actual topic at hand, I thought I might start another thread.

The aim of ecumenism:
"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."
John 17:21

PLEASE NOTE: This is the Catholic position - so rather than my own words, I hope the moderators will accept a series of quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I post these to indicate her ecumenism and pluralism, without departing from that which she holds to be true.

All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God ... And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation.
CCC836

Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ ... by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ ... Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart'.
CCC837

The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ", "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."
CCCC839

The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.
CCC841

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .
CCC842

The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.
CCC843

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
CCC846

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
CCC847

Thomas

 

[Quahom1]

As I have been engaged on discussions that often involve ecumenism rather more than the actual topic at hand, I thought I might start another thread.

The aim of ecumenism:

PLEASE NOTE: This is the Catholic position - so rather than my own words, I hope the moderators will accept a series of quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I post these to indicate her ecumenism and pluralism, without departing from that which she holds to be true.

Thomas

Thomas,

I'm afraid my response (no matter how delicately I put it) is going to be more like a bull in a china shop, so bear with me.

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."
John 17:21

No argument there.

All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God ... And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation.
CCC836

If the church is referring to the universal body of Christ, I suspect the Catholic church would have the whole of Christianity strongly agreeing, however, I am of the opinion that is not what the Catholic fathers had in mind, when this was written. Immediately the Catholic authors identify themselves (the Catholic faithful) first and foremost, then include "other Christ believers", followed by mankind (the rest). A pecking order, or a caste system could be implied, with someone always second best, and someone else always on the losing end. In short, it seems to have a 'holier than thou' timber to it.

Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ ... by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ ... Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart'.
CCC837

Persevere in charity...as in loving one's fellow man, or giving of time, self and posessions on a regular basis? If it is referring to love, no argument there. If it is an expectation of physically providing something as a way of gauranteeing redemption...well, there is a story that Peter tells, wherein even after giving (charity), salvation for two appears to have been lost anyway (at least their lives were). One then can only presume that the "charity" the Church is speaking of is that of love, behind what ever one does. Unfortunately it is obscure, and to an outsider looking in, does appear to be selfcenteredness by the church fathers.

The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ", "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."
CCCC839

The problem with this (and correct me if I am mistaken), is that the promises were made by God to the whole of Israel, not just a single tribe. And when Jesus walked the earth, there were the remnants of three tribes still living in Israel (nevermind the scattered 9 or 10 out and about).

The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.
CCC841

There are many "Christians" who disagree with the Catholic Church on Allah, and God (The Father I presume), being one and the same. Some would argue that the very name Allah, is the name of the head god, or the pre-muslim polytheistic practices of the Middle East. This "clause" also conflicts with the mainline Christian view that Jesus is God (or the Trinity concept). In short, it puts The Father at odds with the Son over who are the chosen people...though some Muslims I've spoken with at home, point out that Jesus is the Messiah...just not God, nor an equal part of God.

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .
CCC842

Amen.

The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.
CCC843

Well that's a switch...It isn't what I was taught in Catholic school (of course that was in the 60s, by nuns with rough dispositions at times).

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
CCC846

I flat out disagree. Salvation is a personal issue between man and Christ. No mediator is required between man and The "Mediator". The result of a saved man, is the development of a strong church, not the other way around. It also goes directly against what Jesus taught, about salvation. An institute of holy nature may assist a fledging believer, and nuture, and offer guidance, but that is where the church's authority ends. Jesus never asserted Baptism. He just did it (which is not a Christian invention). Baptism, is a personal expression of a commitment to a particular way of life (and faith), and an outward expression or witness to others of one's intent to "begin" in that faith and way of life. In the case of parents baptising a child, it is their outward expression or witness to others that they intend to raise that child in a particular faith and way of life.

In short, I don't need the church, or baptism to be saved, but I do need to accept Christ's offer of salvation. Everything else is just gravy, including the fellowship of the church parish.

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.
CCC847

No argument there.

Heh, and to think I nearly went into the priesthood... That would have gone over real well...

I think the man who ferverently seeks God (for the right reasons as you stated), will be found by Him. And it wouldn't matter if he was on a desert island, on the battle field, or in the middle of a bustling city.

The church in my opinion is not the the batteries that charge men. Men are the batteries that charge the church, and men are the church.

my thoughts.

v/r

Q

 

[lunamoth]

Thank you for that, Thomas. Very interesting and informative. I am struck at how it emphasizes that which we have in common, rather than our differences. With respect to the part which might be considered the most objectionable:

Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

It seems that this refers only to those who know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary, thus, any who do not have that understanding are exempt from this clause. Perhaps I am grasping at straws or splitting hairs too fine, but I would say the someone who has lost their faith that the Catholic Church (meaning the organization) is God's instrument would not necessarily lose their salvation (if they are still seeking it elsewhere). However, someone who recognizes the Church as Christ on earth and still rejects It would have a problem...much like blasphemy of the Spirit.

We all struggle with our understanding, and there are people who have been terribly hurt (and worse) by the church (but not the Church, I would say)...

Not trying to debate or antagonize here, I hope you understand.

peace,
lunamoth

 

[taijasi]

There's very little I feel I could add (he says, before another mammoth post), because - after reading your post, Thomas ... I found that Quahom expressed quite clearly, and from a more Catholic/catholic point of view than mine, I should think ... everything that I might have said.

I certainly don't call myself a Catholic (as in Roman Catholic). Under the circumstances (personal, more or less), I think it would be outright blasphemy to say that I am a catholic Christian (which is all that really matters to me anyway), and as becomes obvious when I state my eschatology and soteriology ... I am not even close to being a conventional Christian.

With all that in mind, all I might hope to offer is a different viewpoint, or another interpretation ... though I don't mind saying that there are many who do tend to agree with me on various points. Still, this isn't what really matters ...

And what does matter, imo, is that we are able to successfully dialogue about what spiritual concerns are important to each of us, and perhaps see ways in which our varying perspectives fit together - from time to time, while also appreciating & respecting the obvious & meaningful differences (likely, and thankfully, to persist ... since they help, in & of themselves to define our individual faith).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The rest of this, is but a lengthy footnote ...

It's interesting to me, almost as an aside, that the Catholic Church uses this word to describe itself (and I mean this only as an observation) ... `catholic,' meaning universal, general, or by the whole. Not surprisingly, Catholics often regard their own faith/tradition as best representing what Christ intended in the founding of his Earthly Church. Also not surprisingly, Protestants, though they certainly admit of the later chronology of the Reformation (and in upbringing I was a Lutheran, once upon a time) ... also generally regard their own faith (whichever variety, or denomination it may be) - as the most authentic (or valid, as Thomas put it in another thread).

Then, of course, there are my own favorite of the "Big Three," the (Eastern) Orthodox Christians, who - if I understand the notion correctly - regard their own practice(s) as pre-dating those of the Roman Catholic Church ... or somehow as being, again, more authentic than those of other faiths (this time, definitely relying on the idea of "what Jesus of Nazareth and his followers would have done, themselves, in their worship, liturgy, etc.").

And me, well ... I suppose I'm a bit of a lone wolf, in all that. Admittedly (and almost certainly, in my current lack of practice), I stand fairly well outside of all three of these traditions/faiths. I definitely have no fondness for the Catholic Church, although I do believe that much Good in the world comes from such a body (both the priesthood and the laity). I regard Protestantism in almost exactly the same light, although the diamond soul seems to scintillate a little differently, being composed of literally thousands of varying (and often contrasting) facets ... as compared to the Catholic Faith's more direct Ray of sunlight.

The Christian Orthodoxy seems interesting to me, and perhaps in my own life has been the most meaningful and influential, but again - I can't say I have any deep inclination to rush out and join a congregation. I know of several wonderful Orthodox churches, mostly in other cities, but still - I would not likely attend even if I lived there.

This is somewhat personal, I think, and almost just an expression of my own opinions, so I feel a little bit like, "who asked you?" Hope I'm not too out of line posting thus, and I'll try to also say something a little more engaging. Still, I did say it's a footnote.

I have no hesistation (only a concern that I try to say this diplomatically, and sensibly) ... in clarifying that my own position, my own beliefs, and the body of knowledge that informs my own practice (when I do practice, that is ... thereby transforming this knowledge into Wisdom) ... is largely Eastern, but is syncretistic only from the worldly point of view.

Admittedly, when one regards Esoteric Christianity from the lens of more exoteric practices and traditions, it may seem that both the accumulated teaching (the Doctrine) as well as the customary practices (the Liturgical aspects) ... are but sytheses of practices and traditions already extant, whether Eastern, Western, mystical, or unknown. Yes, I understand and can also see things from that perspective.

Where I don't have any difficulty whatsoever, is with the notion that this is perfectly acceptable, and in no way renders my approach to God as invalid. I do take issue with anyone who says to me, point blank, "What you believe and/or are practicing as the expression of those beliefs, is not a valid path of approach to Deity (Unity, Love, Spiritual Progress, etc.)."

And that's about it. I figure, no, I don't really buy into (and that may be indication enough, as Lunamoth pointed out) the Catholic Doctrine, nor the Catholic Liturgy, and way of life. Perhaps I would have done so in part (and much more so), 900 years ago as a French Knight Templar - were that my present circumstances. But I ain't no knight. And this ain't the Middle Ages.

As an esotericist, I maintain that the Reappearance of the Christ is imminent. I believe that Christ is a Universal Savior, or World Teacher, as most esotericists phrase it. And therefore I do not believe that he comes to one small portion (whatever its actual numbers) of Humanity alone. I simply believe that the Christ is a Universal presence within us all, as well as a distinct individual - but the latter only because it is the office he holds in a Heavenly Hierarchy ... which has always existed on this planet - though it is certainly a flexible, changing, and growing Entity (literally, the expression of the Heart, or 2nd Aspect of Deity). And the source of the Hierarchy? God Himself, which is always the answer we give, when we want to cut inquiry short, and suggest that a more complicated answer might exist ... but is really superfluous, or perhaps not helpful.

I also believe that Christ's return is not simply the outer Reappearance of one individual, but that alongside Him there are literally dozens of what are esoterically called `His Elect,' which in Christian Scriptures have been called Christ and His Church. The symbolism, and exact meaning, are to me unquestionable. But that others may have differing interpretations - seems only natural. I may not agree, but I think the point is (and I can't see how this in any way diminishes the person, the purpose, or the methodology of the Christ .... rather, it can only enhance!) - that Christ comes to us with His own Ashram!

In Eastern Teachings, an ashram is sometimes regarded as the physical location in which a Master demonstrates his holiness, maintains his following, and conducts his teaching. But esoterically, an Ashram is a magnetic rapport (formed at spiritual levels, and primarily within the Heart, not the mind) between all his disciples. Ultimately, this magnetism of the Heart reaches all people ... but more directly, there are those who esotericsts call the `Great Ones,' and each of these has hundreds, if not thousands of disciples in the outer world (and this accounts for every country, every spiritual tradition, every lifestyle, and even folks who are not the least bit religious - so long as Love is what moves them into action, and so long as their primary mission in life is to Serve & uplift others).

My firsthand experience throughout 33 years bears witness to the things that I have increasingly believed for 15+ years, and though I feel I am utterly ignorant, as a worm, before the Great Ones in their Wisdom, I do know that the Love which knits Cosmos itself together, is the same Love as expressed from God to Humanity (and all Kingdoms of Life), from Christ to Humanity (and to the Angels, and to all creatures), and also from Human to Human - when we do, as we sometimes do, reflect this great Cosmic capacity even in our own, tiny lives.

No doubt we each, whatever our faith, beliefs, and practices, have ample confirmation that we are on the right road ... and I think that is something worthy of discussion (among the many other things we talk about). Those who are searching (which ultimately includes us all), are often those with the greatest need for guidance & direction ... but ultimately that must come from within, and not from someone (or something) external, seeking to point the way. In fact, we can do much harm by imposing our will, or our way, upon others. The karma that goes with such presumptuousness is familiar to me, and distasteful - whether it's your arm that's doing the shoving, or your throat that seems to have something being stuffed into it. Neither is a pretty picture.

So that is why a forum such as this is ideal, in my finding, for sharing ideas, and for coming to find ideas, and best of all ... for knitting, or weaving, ideas together. The experiences shared may be quite personal, or they be in the form of links, opinions, knowledge gained. It's all valuable, but it depends upon our willingness to dialogue ... if we are to either gain anything, or be of service to others.

I think I've said things out of line from time to time, or punched keys and clicked buttons long before the steam had even dissipated. Bad idea. No one likes a hothead. But even a well-thought-out diatribe isn't too appealing, so although I mention something of my own views on Christ in this post, I hope I've also added value ... with editorializing such as this. I think I could say, my hope is that it makes crazy notions of soteriology & eschatology as I've again posted ... a little more palatable. But if not, spit them out!

I would love to know why they're difficult to digest, but for that, I think it's helpful to try and provide constructive criticism ... and to try as best one can, to give internal criticism, or contextual advice. Inconsistences with what I seem to believe, or regard as "truth," might be helpful.

In addition to all that, I still think there is one issue remaining which Thomas asked about, or expressed disagreement with ... and that's the notion of syncretism. Another post ... might address that with brevity, and perhaps even some inspiration ...

Cheerio,

andrew

 

[Saltmeister]

I just thought I might point out some of the statements you quoted from the Catechism/guide-book that Catholics read that could be made a little more accurate . . .

Before I begin, perhaps I should say that Christian spirituality is a notion that I think us, as human beings in the 21st century, are only just starting to understand properly. The statements I'd like to comment on concern what we consider to be "spirituality." As the Christian notions of "spirituality" continue to evolve, I think maybe those statements from the Catechism may be a bit out-dated. They may not even reflect the beliefs of today's Catholic believers. They may not illustrate the concepts that Catholics and non-Catholics have explored until now.

My point -- this Catechism you quote from may be a bit behind today's Catholic beliefs. If you're Catholic, you know best, but as Christians we do have common ground. That's what I'd like to comment on.

Question: When was the Catechism last updated?

Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ ... by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ ... Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart'.
CCC837

Here's where I might disagree with the Catechism.

I think the notion of "a visible structure" of the Church is actually quite misleading. The Catholic Church is an organisation governed by rules, protocols and institutions. It is a formalised entity with a structural framework. It would imply that there is also an "invisible structure" (the spiriual component) to the Church as well.

I thought this passage might put things in context.

In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by His Spirit. Ephesians 2:21-22

You, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 2:5

These passages refer to a spiritual temple. The passages say that as believers we are being formed into a "spiritual temple." The New Testament says a lot about "spiritual things," things we can discern but not see clearly. The apostles did not seem particularly concerned about a "visible structure." They were more concerned about us seeing the spiritual (invisible) things than things that were visible.

"Visible structure" refers to things that anyone, including non-Christians can see. These things would include anything physical, political and any formalised concepts that come from legal documents or things expressed in "biblical terminology." Doctrine may even be considered to be "visible" because this can be read by anyone.

People go to church to experience something beyond this world. They want to know how to discern spiritual things. Once believers know how to discern spiritual things the "visible structure" won't be necessary anymore. The "visible structure" is only for outsiders or recent converts as they transition into the "spiritual dwelling place."

I think the statement is a bit misleading when it says that the Church has a "visible structure." I would agree that the Church can be "made visible" by seeing what it does in the life of a believer, but the actual structure cannot be seen. Christ and His Church are not concrete entities. Because we're all different, we each see something different in the Church. The Church can be explained to individuals, but not defined or formalised.

While not being a Catholic myself, I think there is a lot of truth in the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church isn't a magic bullet of Christian Truth. Catholicism, with all its formalisations and definitions is not a "one size fits all" model for Christianity.

My view: No Church or denomination can ever be the 100% true church because by doing so, you "bring Christ/God down."

But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' (that is, to bring Christ down) or 'Who will descend into the deep?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead) Romans 10:6-7

There's been so many debates/arguments on who goes to hell and who goes to heaven. Most of the time it's been tearing the Church apart.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
CCC846

In light of Ephesians 2:21-22 and 1 Peter 2:5, I think there might be another way of understanding the notion of "being saved." I think it has something to do with the idea of "Sanctuary." The Sanctuary, whether it's in Jewish or Christian theology, has always meant "a safe place."

Adonijah and Joab ran into the tent of the Lord to escape King Solomon after conspiring to take the throne. Adonijah and Joab were "seeking Sanctuary." In the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages, churches were sometimes regarded as places that were too holy for violence and bloodshed. People could "seek Sanctuary" from oppression. Even soldiers were not supposed to enter. Jewish and Christian holy places have often been regarded as "sanctuaries."

The "spiritual temple" in Ephesians 2:21-22 would be much like a "safe spiritual place." In that sense, this "spiritual dwelling place" could be seen as a "Sanctuary" for the heart. A person who finds this Sanctuary is "saved" because he is protected from the evil that lurks outside -- the way of thinking of a person that is "not safe."

I think that maybe, there is more to "salvation" than just Jesus sacrificing himself. This ritual sacrifice could also be seen as Jesus dedicating himself as the foundation (cornerstone/capstone) of this spiritual Sanctuary. Therefore, we are saved not because we understand the idea of Jesus dying on the cross, but because we seek this Sanctuary and are "saved" because we become part of it and place ourselves on top of this foundation/cornerstone/capstone.

Nowhere in scripture does it talk about a "Catholic" or "universal" Church, and the Catholic Church is a non-spiritually-discerned entity. In other words, non-Christians can "discern" the Catholic Church. Something non-spiritually discerned and "discerned" by non-Christians can easily be "man-made." Yet, as Christians we're not supposed to give glory to something man-made.

Again, I think the above statement is a little misleading in that people have to be part of the Catholic Church, a "visible," "non-spiritually discerned" entity, to be saved. I think it would be more correct to say that you are "saved" because you are part of a spiritually-discerned entity, a "safe spiritual place," a Sanctuary.

Spirituality is a hard-to-discern issue. Perhaps what we will discover in the 21st century as Christians probe deeper into spirituality that it doesn't matter anymore whether you're Catholic or Protestant. What really matters is whether we're part of the Sanctuary that we can't see.

 

[lunamoth]

These passages refer to a spiritual temple. The passages say that as believers we are being formed into a "spiritual temple." The New Testament says a lot about "spiritual things," things we can discern but not see clearly. The apostles did not seem particularly concerned about a "visible structure." They were more concerned about us seeing the spiritual (invisible) things than things that were visible
....

I think the statement is a bit misleading when it says that the Church has a "visible structure." I would agree that the Church can be "made visible" by seeing what it does in the life of a believer, but the actual structure cannot be seen. Christ and His Church are not concrete entities. Because we're all different, we each see something different in the Church. The Church can be explained to individuals, but not defined or formalised.
...
Spirituality is a hard-to-discern issue. Perhaps what we will discover in the 21st century as Christians probe deeper into spirituality that it doesn't matter anymore whether you're Catholic or Protestant. What really matters is whether we're part of the Sanctuary that we can't see.

Hi Saltmeister,

I like your take on salvation as sanctuary very much.

One quibble I have with the above is your distinction between the 'spiritual' and 'physical' (visible/material) Church. It seems to me that Christianity, moreso than other religions I'm familiar with, blurs the distinction between spiritual and material, body and soul. So while it is true that it is the spiritual Church the writers of the NT emphasized, I think it is equally true that the spirtual Church is manifested in the physical world very much in a 'what you see is what you get' way. Not sure if that is clear, perhaps it is my thinking that is not clear.

Also, just because words like 'universal Church' (and Trinity etc.) are not verbatim from the Bible does not mean that is somehow more 'man-made' than the Bible. To me the idea of the universal church encompasses far more than the Catholic Church and orthodox denominations. In fact, I would say its boundaries are very much blurred to human discernment, if there are boundaries at all.

peace,
lunamoth

 

[Quahom1]

Hi Saltmeister,

I like your take on salvation as sanctuary very much.

One quibble I have with the above is your distinction between the 'spiritual' and 'physical' (visible/material) Church. It seems to me that Christianity, moreso than other religions I'm familiar with, blurs the distinction between spiritual and material, body and soul. So while it is true that it is the spiritual Church the writers of the NT emphasized, I think it is equally true that the spirtual Church is manifested in the physical world very much in a 'what you see is what you get' way. Not sure if that is clear, perhaps it is my thinking that is not clear.

Also, just because words like 'universal Church' (and Trinity etc.) are not verbatim from the Bible does not mean that is somehow more 'man-made' than the Bible. To me the idea of the universal church encompasses far more than the Catholic Church and orthodox denominations. In fact, I would say its boundaries are very much blurred to human discernment, if there are boundaries at all.

peace,
lunamoth

It is the opinion of some Salt, and Luna, that the more the seeker seeks, the closer he/she will come to the original roots of the faith in Christ. That which began and that which identified the belief in Christ is the Catholic/Coptic/Ethiopian church. No other variations truly survived in any numbers. This is from the times of old, not the modern day versions. Even the modern Catholic church is a far cry from the origins (too political, and too materialistic). But the original church...was fine.

Every variation of Christianity has sprung from this basic set of roots noted above. Even Gnostics, were simply an offshoot, that never took, and Orthodoxy is a latter variation of the original.

That doesn't mean varients are not true, just that they did not start the "game"...the catholic church did.

If I may be so bold as to point out the obvious? Go to any church that "breaks bread" and "blesses wine", then "feeds" the flock with the same, in the name of the Lord. And I can show you their roots are from the Catholic/Coptic/Ethiopian church.

Confess your sins, to the preacher or the congregation?, same old church. Baptise children and adults?, same old church. Look to Jesus as savior?, same old church.

Credit where credit is due...I should think, regardless if one considers their faith as an improvement on the foundation...the foundation is what put them where they are at.

Praise the Lord Jesus, and thank the catholic fathers for setting the stones of the faith. We are who and what we are, because they did what they did. To say they were mistaken, is to imply that God erred...

my thoughts.

v/r

Q

 

[Thomas]

Hi Quahom - Been tied up with other stuff for a while, but wanted to answer some comments here, so I shall start from the top.

Immediately the Catholic authors identify themselves (the Catholic faithful) first and foremost, then include "other Christ believers", followed by mankind (the rest). A pecking order...
I think we have to allow that the Catholic/Orthodox church was the first in receipt of Revelation, and the first in transmission. Any subsequent denomination is a 'deviation' from the original message, right through to today, when other denominations insist that Catholicism or Orthodoxy is wrong on this or that issue - be it a central or a peripheral doctrine.

Hierarchy is in the natural (and supernatural) order of things - a world without hirarchy is anarchy/chaos. This will probably become a topic in its own right, but 'modernism' makes two fundamental metaphysical errors, one is the notion of 'progress' as being linear, therefore we are better now than we were then, and the other is the application of egalitarianism in every sphere, which renders all hierarchies as 'bad'. The problem lies not with authority, but the abuse of it.

Persevere in charity...as in loving one's fellow man, or giving of time, self and posessions on a regular basis?
The former, absolutely... but then if so, then surely the latter follows naturally?

Faith and Works - Believing in God = Faith; Believing in my neighbour = work.

The problem with this (and correct me if I am mistaken), is that the promises were made by God to the whole of Israel, not just a single tribe.
I think the promise of God is made to anyone who will listen.

There are many "Christians" who disagree with the Catholic Church on Allah,
I think the point is monotheism in the Abrahamic Tradition.

Salvation is a personal issue between man and Christ. No mediator is required between man and The "Mediator".
Salvation is in the gift of God, and God alone, but without the Church there would be no knowledge of Christ. She is not the mediator in the sense you mean – although she has the authority both to forgive and to condemn in His name - rather she is the transmitter of the whole and authentic truth, and of the means of grace, establu=ished by Christ, for all, in the Sacraments.

Jesus never asserted Baptism. He just did it
I am inclined to disagree. He instituted it as a requirement upon those who follow Him.

In short, I don't need the church, or baptism to be saved, but I do need to accept Christ's offer of salvation.
That's what the church embodies.

I think the man who ferverently seeks God (for the right reasons as you stated), will be found by Him. And it wouldn't matter if he was on a desert island, on the battle field, or in the middle of a bustling city.
Indeed, but such a God will always be 'anonymous'.

I read an account of a Japanese Jesuit who went to visit the Buddhist master of the school where he was educated. During their discussions (the Buddhist was largely ignorant of Scripture and doctrine) his ex-student recited the beatitudes. "That is what I have been trying to achieve all my life. Whoever said that was an enlightened man." Both master and student 'knew' Christ, but only the student knew him 'personally' - and for volative man - the large majority of humanity - intellectual and metaphysical abstractions are not enough.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew -

Then, of course, there are my own favorite of the "Big Three," the (Eastern) Orthodox Christians, who - if I understand the notion correctly - regard their own practice(s) as pre-dating those of the Roman Catholic Church
Not quite. The Catholic and Orthodox faiths share a common root - they split at some point, but even the date is negotiable, ranging from the fourth to the eleventh century. Notably now theologians accept there is no doctrinal reason why the churches cannot join in union.

Admittedly, when one regards Esoteric Christianity from the lens of more exoteric practices and traditions,
'Esoteric Christianity' is itself an exterior view, as there is much evidence and argument, from esoterists themselves, that point to the fact that Christianity is 'an esoterism in plain sight'. A viable interpretation of the rending of the Veil of the Temple is a 'stumbling block' in the path of any argument for an 'Esoteric Christianity' as opposed to Christian esoterism, which as I have said before,m and often, is quite different.

it may seem that both the accumulated teaching (the Doctrine) as well as the customary practices (the Liturgical aspects) ... are but sytheses of practices and traditions already extant, whether Eastern, Western, mystical, or unknown.
Two points - one is that doctrine always follows dispute - therefore Doctrine always seeks to clarify, rather than introduce a new rule, as it were. The Carechism, for example, is founded on the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer. That it now runs to some 3000plus paragraphs does not alter the fact that it clarifies the meaning of the seven supplications and the twelve propositions, which it held from the very beginning.

The second point, with regard to synthesis - the definition of the term "the result of building up separate elements into a connected whole" - is valid in the sense that all man's spiritual endeavour finds its rest in Christ, but examination will show that those extant practices are transcended within the Christian context. The common meal, for example, has its place in many traditions, but none confer upon it a sacramental quality. I would also add that your caveat 'or unknown' seems like a get-out, you cannot recourse to what is unknown to argue your case.

I believe that Christ is a Universal Savior, or World Teacher, as most esotericists phrase it.
I would say that's a poor definition. The latter is not the former, although the former is the latter. 'Teachers' are only able to say 'this is the way to save yourself', a universal saviour alone can say 'have faith in me and I will save you'. Scripture (John 1:12, and the robber on the cross, point to this).

I simply believe that the Christ is a Universal presence within us all,
Esoterists (in my experience) and metaphysicians (ditto) view it rather that we are in Christ, not the other way round - and the distinction is small, but everything. If Christ is 'in' us, then we possess him, and it is this notion that allows a doctrine of self-justification and self-determination. This error can be traced back to the Garden.

St Catherine of Siena was told "I am he who is, you are she who is not"

We exist for God, God does not exist for us.

The metaphysical argument:
A Universal cannot be determined by a particular, if it is, it ceases to be universal.
Thus species or genus is universal, but an instance of a man, dog, flower, etc. does not determine the species, and in each there is what is in common, and what is in particular.

as well as a distinct individual[/]
The Universal can, if it so chooses, manifest itself as individual ... but only once ... to suggest multiple manifestations of the Universal is to suggest a circle with multiple centres. This is not to say, and nor does Christianity deny, that the Universal cannot manifest 'in part' or 'an aspect' of itself in multiplicity - Christ is the light that is the life of men - but this only shows that the multiple derives from the universal, but there can only ever be one manifestation of the One.

though it is certainly a flexible, changing, and growing Entity (literally, the expression of the Heart, or 2nd Aspect of Deity).
Deity, being universal (at the Christian level) cannot in itself be subject to change, else it is not universal, it is conditional. Cosmological deity, however, can change.

but I think the point is (and I can't see how this in any way diminishes the person, the purpose, or the methodology of the Christ .... rather, it can only enhance!) - that Christ comes to us with His own Ashram![/]
A seductive argument, but one I am obliged to refute ... 'your' Christ is one amongst multiple manifestations of a universal, 'my' Christ is the manifestation of the universal as such, from the Christian viewpoint your argument does diminish the person, the purpose, and the the method.

In Eastern Teachings, an ashram is sometimes regarded as the physical location...
The Church is first and foremost a communion of the faithful, living and dead, in the Mystical Body.

In addition to all that, I still think there is one issue remaining which Thomas asked about, or expressed disagreement with ... and that's the notion of syncretism.
I do not see how anyone can offer any useful synthesis to that which is in itself already 'simple' and 'universal' without confounding the issue.

In my experience I have been made aware of the difference between synthesis and syncretism, between diversity and difference.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Saltmeister -

As the Christian notions of "spirituality" continue to evolve, I think maybe those statements from the Catechism may be a bit out-dated.
Truth is eternal, it can never out-date. Man can grow more ignorant, however ... The Catechism was revised in 1997 in light of Vatican II to make the teachings more accessible.

People go to church to experience something beyond this world. They want to know how to discern spiritual things. Once believers know how to discern spiritual things the "visible structure" won't be necessary anymore. The "visible structure" is only for outsiders or recent converts as they transition into the "spiritual dwelling place."
The Church is "the spiritual dwelling place" else one could not experience it there - and to suggest that it won't be necessary is to suggest that man can outgrow his need for God. If you were in the place 'where God is' - why would you want to go elsewhere?

This idea denies the integrity, validity and reality of the visible world. The visible has its place, and it is sacred. To suggest leaving the church suggests leaving the world - to discard it as no longer necessary. It is a fundamental Christian belief that the world is inherently 'good'.

Catholicism, with all its formalisations and definitions is not a "one size fits all" model for Christianity.
I disagree. The Church holds the idea of the person - a theomorphic being - in trust until the time when s/he grows up and grows into the full stature of what God created s/he to be.
(BTW - look at the saints ... no two are the same ... they never complained about outgrowing the church)

I think there might be another way of understanding the notion of "being saved." I think it has something to do with the idea of "Sanctuary." The Sanctuary, whether it's in Jewish or Christian theology, has always meant "a safe place."
The Church is precisely that, it is the ONLY place that holds to the idea that god created man 'in his own image'. The world would have you believe that man was created either by chance, or for the benefit of his apetites.

I have written an extended essay on the esoterism and metaphysics of 'sanctuary' which you can read here:
http://www.theveil.net/veil/ren/veil_1_1.html

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Lunamoth

Having replied to the others, I am honour bound to reply to you also ... but I found nothing to argue with in your posts ... so before this turns into a mutual appreciation society, I shall say bye bye.

Thomas

 

[Quahom1]

Hi Quahom - Been tied up with other stuff for a while, but wanted to answer some comments here, so I shall start from the top.

Immediately the Catholic authors identify themselves (the Catholic faithful) first and foremost, then include "other Christ believers", followed by mankind (the rest). A pecking order...
I think we have to allow that the Catholic/Orthodox church was the first in receipt of Revelation, and the first in transmission. Any subsequent denomination is a 'deviation' from the original message, right through to today, when other denominations insist that Catholicism or Orthodoxy is wrong on this or that issue - be it a central or a peripheral doctrine.

perhaps, but then that continues the insistance on a pecking order. This is unacceptable to most people.

Hierarchy is in the natural (and supernatural) order of things - a world without hirarchy is anarchy/chaos. This will probably become a topic in its own right, but 'modernism' makes two fundamental metaphysical errors, one is the notion of 'progress' as being linear, therefore we are better now than we were then, and the other is the application of egalitarianism in every sphere, which renders all hierarchies as 'bad'. The problem lies not with authority, but the abuse of it.

I believe I pointed out that the Catholic church was much cleaner and purer then than it is now, so obviously I do not follow linear thinking, as far as progress. I also opine that hierarchy is not the same as ogliarchy. The church has a rank and file that is definitive of ogliarchy. It calls itself a heirarchy, but actions of those in athority prove quite the contrary...on a daily basis. This also causes issues in that the church considers itself a political athority, of some rank and stature, when it is supposed to be a spiritual guide...

Persevere in charity...as in loving one's fellow man, or giving of time, self and posessions on a regular basis?
The former, absolutely... but then if so, then surely the latter follows naturally?

Not when the church all but demands the latter, and only pays lip service to the former.

Faith and Works - Believing in God = Faith; Believing in my neighbour = work.

Believing in one's neighbor is an act of faith that God will provide, while we love. Work is when our neighbor is in trouble, and we help out of faith and love, and hope for the best. Work is a by-product of these three...

The problem with this (and correct me if I am mistaken), is that the promises were made by God to the whole of Israel, not just a single tribe.
I think the promise of God is made to anyone who will listen.

That isn't what that particular ccc was stating...

There are many "Christians" who disagree with the Catholic Church on Allah,
I think the point is monotheism in the Abrahamic Tradition.

Perhaps, but again it is not explained, only presumed that all should know.

Salvation is a personal issue between man and Christ. No mediator is required between man and The "Mediator".
Salvation is in the gift of God, and God alone, but without the Church there would be no knowledge of Christ. She is not the mediator in the sense you mean – although she has the authority both to forgive and to condemn in His name - rather she is the transmitter of the whole and authentic truth, and of the means of grace, establu=ished by Christ, for all, in the Sacraments.

That is extremely presumptious of the Church, don't you think? On both parts...I will point out that without the people, my friend, there is no church. And Christs needs nothing to notify man that He is around and looking after us. He certainly does not need a Catholic "hierarchy" to keep in touch with the souls of men.

Jesus never asserted Baptism. He just did it
I am inclined to disagree. He instituted it as a requirement upon those who follow Him.

Please present your evidence to such a claim.

In short, I don't need the church, or baptism to be saved, but I do need to accept Christ's offer of salvation.
That's what the church embodies.

Granted, but the conditions placed upon the saved one by the church, causes a bit of confusion.

I think the man who ferverently seeks God (for the right reasons as you stated), will be found by Him. And it wouldn't matter if he was on a desert island, on the battle field, or in the middle of a bustling city.
Indeed, but such a God will always be 'anonymous'.

Again, that is a presumptious statement. God can do whatever God wants, with or without the church's permission.

I read an account of a Japanese Jesuit who went to visit the Buddhist master of the school where he was educated. During their discussions (the Buddhist was largely ignorant of Scripture and doctrine) his ex-student recited the beatitudes. "That is what I have been trying to achieve all my life. Whoever said that was an enlightened man." Both master and student 'knew' Christ, but only the student knew him 'personally' - and for volative man - the large majority of humanity - intellectual and metaphysical abstractions are not enough.

No arguement there.

v/r

Q

 

[taijasi]

'Esoteric Christianity' ... A viable interpretation of the rending of the Veil of the Temple is a 'stumbling block' in the path of any argument for an 'Esoteric Christianity' ...

The rending of the veil (of Isis) ... refers to something that takes place for each individual, in his or her own time. It has many levels of meaning, but importantly it refers to the removing of the barriers between the outward consciousness (mortal, lesser man) and the Indwelling, Greater Self (the Christ, or Christ consciousness). As for Christ assisting in this process (serving in the role as Mediator for our planet, by helping to rend the planetary veil, so to speak) ... this is true, but does not abdicate us from the necessity of doing this individually. Yet, it helps us, and immensely!

The fact that I must do for myself what is required to remove maya, glamour & illusion from my personality life (as opposed to foisting this responsibility upon another - Christ or otherwise) ... is why I think Christian Esotericism, if you prefer that term, is inevitable - for anyone who follows long enough, & persistently enough, in Christ's footsteps. What He did, we shall do (and greater). But it don't come easy.

(syntheses of practices and traditions already extant, whether Eastern, Western, mystical, or unknown)

... with regard to synthesis - ... I would also add that your caveat 'or unknown' seems like a get-out, you cannot recourse to what is unknown to argue your case.

My recourse to the unknown is my necessary admission that I am ignorant regarding certainly 99% of the world's lost religions, long since buried in the dark night of time. I am somewhat aware of practices both eastern & western, and am familiar, through my studies, with esotericism as it informs, vivifies, and subtly determines - all religions. That may seem bold, but all I say is that I am familiar (and not expert). My interest is in Ecumenism, though - not grasping at straws. That needle in your haystack, I have found, is followed by Ariadne's thread ... and with it she is weaving a majestic garment indeed. A veritable Robe of Glory! I do not dispute that it is for the Christ; I simply regard the Christ from another angle - obtuse (?), perhaps!

I believe that Christ is a Universal Savior, or World Teacher, as most esotericists phrase it.

I would say that's a poor definition. The latter is not the former, although the former is the latter. 'Teachers' are only able to say 'this is the way to save yourself', a universal saviour alone can say 'have faith in me and I will save you'. Scripture (John 1:12, and the robber on the cross, point to this).

Please consult an important excerpt from the Mahavagga, which I do not have space to post here.

In relevance, Buddha preceded Christ as Savior/World Teacher, yet even Shayamuni was not the first. In this sense, Hierarchy is an unbroken thread ... albeit charactized in outer activity by punctuated equilibrium. Christ, as an individual, evolving soul, is regarded as no different in essence than you or I. In this sense, certainly, he is fully human. This half of the mystery, at least, we can somewhat understand - if we have taken to heart the advice of the Delphic Oracle: Man, Know Thy Self!

Theosophists, btw, regard the World Teacher and the World Savior as identical. In this, I agree with them. Your point is understood, but Teacher is meant in a broad enough sense to fully incorporate the concept of a Guru (one who is spiritually able to take upon himself the burden of the karma of his students, rather than simply point the way). I believe it would be helpful to consider that in this regard, Jesus (or the Christ) cannot be viewed by most Easterners in the same way He is often seen in the West. An Easterner understands that the Guru (even the "World Guru," so to speak) has made a tremendous sacrifice and burdened himself voluntarily with his disciples' unspent karma. But this does not mean that the Guru has vowed to work this karma off per se. Were he to do that, he would, in essence, be garnering the results, or reaping the karmic harvest - instead of (that of) his disciples. Therefore, the Guru for the individual student is understood (by his true disciples) as more than a pointing finger ... for he is certainly a helping hand. He is a shield, and he is at times, the very wind behind the Saggittarian Archer's arrows! But .... he is not the internal volition, or potential will, of his disciples. Rather, he lends them strength, which he is able to do because he is One with the heart of all creatures. And the difference between the Guru-chela relationship and that between Christ & world, is, in simplest terms, but one of scale. If all of this fits with a Westerner's understanding of Christed Jesus, then fine. Otherwise, I will bow & nod - and that is all. Oh, wait ... I will smile, too!

I simply believe that the Christ is a Universal presence within us all,

Esoterists (in my experience) and metaphysicians (ditto) view it rather that we are in Christ, not the other way round - and the distinction is small, but everything. If Christ is 'in' us, then we possess him, and it is this notion that allows a doctrine of self-justification and self-determination. This error can be traced back to the Garden.

This is almost pure semantics, but since you choose to take issue ... and since I do understand your point ... consider the words of St. Paul in Colossians I:26-29:

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.
[/font]​

Now an esotericist (Christian or otherwise) can understand this perfectly, because Paul is speaking here as a high Initiate (an Arhat, just as was Jesus of Nazareth in years prior), yet also in acknowlegment of the long journey still ahead in order for him to reach Christhood. He refers to Christ in you, and yes, his meaning is the same as in Ephesians 4:13 - "[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (emphasis mine)

Paul is not mincing words, nor is he laying claim to a spiritual state which he has not yet attained. He is stating, plain and simply, that our future is a glorious one, and one not different than that of the Christ - save for Christ's own statement that we shall do "greater works than this" (in time). As for the Garden of Eden, what of that allegorical tale? It depicts our descent through the worlds ... or more spiritual realms ... into this, the most concrete. I am not a Manichaean, and the Gnosis I regard is one which respects this material world. Do not say that I say the world is evil. I merely state that we live within maya, glamor and illusion, which together obscure the Deity Who is "vibrant within every atom, shining within every creature." For those with ears to hear, and eyes to see ... (... for them, Christ IS present, immanent, as well as Transcendent, since Christ is unquestionably Universal).
[/font]

We exist for God, God does not exist for us.

I understand what you're emphasizing, but if God does not exist for us ... then our existence is meaningless. It goes both ways. And yet, an excerpt from an esoteric mantram reads:

The Sons of Men are one, and I am one with them;
I seek to love, not hate,
I seek to serve, and not exact due service,
I seek to heal, not hurt.
​

as well as a distinct individual

The Universal can, if it so chooses, manifest itself as individual ... but only once ... to suggest multiple manifestations of the Universal is to suggest a circle with multiple centres. This is not to say, and nor does Christianity deny, that the Universal cannot manifest 'in part' or 'an aspect' of itself in multiplicity - Christ is the light that is the life of men - but this only shows that the multiple derives from the universal, but there can only ever be one manifestation of the One.

No problems here. I'm down with the Highlander philosophy. You say it your way, I say it mine. For the record though, to quote C.W. Leadbeater (quoting Blavatsky):

"Madame Blavatsky often spoke of [that]consciousness as having its center everywhere and its circumference nowhere, a profoundly suggestive sentence, attributed variously to Pascal, Cardinal de Cusa and the Zohar, but belonging by right to the Books of Hermes."​

Now these men (including HPB) were not fools. And so I say, as I will shortly reiterate, this is not easily understood by the concrete, mortal mind.

though it is certainly a flexible, changing, and growing Entity (literally, the expression of the Heart, or 2nd Aspect of Deity).

Deity, being universal (at the Christian level) cannot in itself be subject to change, else it is not universal, it is conditional. Cosmological deity, however, can change.

Manifest Deity changes. The Absolute does not. I think we're on the same page with that. God most certainly changes in His relationship to and with us, while nevertheless also embodying the very Essence of the Changeless and Unnameable Tao. Relative to us, then, God may be changeless, but again, if there is no change, then our entire relationship to and with "Him" is meaningless. See? Concrete mind not fit for this kind of contemplation. Too much tendency to divide, and see duality rather than inherent Unity (or "synthesis"). It's entirely Zen.

but I think the point is (and I can't see how this in any way diminishes Christ) - that Christ comes to us with His own Ashram!

A seductive argument, but one I am obliged to refute ... 'your' Christ is one amongst multiple manifestations of a universal, 'my' Christ is the manifestation of the universal as such, from the Christian viewpoint your argument does diminish the person, the purpose, and the the method.

Within your understanding, I can see how this makes sense, but let's not resort to a "my god," "your god" argument. Rather, let me show another understanding, and support it.

Christ as I regard Him has room for you (and for all) in his heart, his mind, his understanding, and His Plan (or God's Plan). I only presume to know, what I have found, and verified, to be true through my own experience(s). And these I would be most glad to share ... which I think Christians sometimes term witnessing. Please be willing to do likewise if you truly wish to help me understand how you regard Christ, and why you do (regard Him) in the way you do.

It saddens me that you choose to refer to the concept of `Christ and His Ashram' as seductive (this being the Eastern exact equivalent of the familiar "Christ and His Church," though certainly there are other appellations). You even state, VERBATIM, in your next caveat (see below), the exact point I was trying to make. It thoroughly confuses me, because it seems that you are interested in a semantics game. And I do not question or dispute that Catholic doctrine, the Catholic liturgy, and the Catholic Faith Community (or `Church') ... is "right for you." But, I do wonder - do you insist that it is "right for me?"

Further, do you, or would you, insist ... that the esoteric doctrine which I regard as valid, accurate, helpful and in a way, my very lifeblood (!) ... is not right for me? For that is a bold statement indeed, and implies that you possess a certainty - which I am not convinced you do (or that anyone does who makes such claims). At best (and if you know me well), you might assert that I should follow the path of karma yoga, or more simply put (and in Christian-enough terms), "put my money where my mouth is" ... "walk the walk!" I will buy that, for I know it to be true. But this does not require the abandonment of Eastern Teaching or esotericism. In my experience, it requires just the opposite! Taking to heart (!), rather than to mind alone.

In Eastern Teachings, an ashram is sometimes regarded as the physical location...

The Church is first and foremost a communion of the faithful, living and dead, in the Mystical Body.

As I say, why is it that you choose to focus on the first part of my sentence - excerpting the more important second half? I clearly go on to state, "esoterically, an Ashram is a magnetic rapport (formed at spiritual levels, and primarily within the Heart, not the mind) between all [of a Master's] disciples." If you insist on a semantics game, or are unwilling to see that we have (in this case, as in others) stated essentially the same idea, then I don't see how further dialogue will be possible. And that's okay ...

I still think there is one issue remaining which Thomas asked about, or expressed disagreement with ... and that's the notion of syncretism.

I would like to address this issue by itself, in another post.

Regards,

andrew

 

[taijasi]

I still think there is one issue remaining which Thomas asked about, or expressed disagreement with ... and that's the notion of syncretism.

I do not see how anyone can offer any useful synthesis to that which is in itself already 'simple' and 'universal' without confounding the issue.

In my experience I have been made aware of the difference between synthesis and syncretism, between diversity and difference.

Thomas

Imho, I think you want to have your cake and eat it too. Admittedly, this is an appealing notion. It is too easy, in my finding, and that is why it doesn't fit. Thus ... apparent simplicity and universality which works so well for you and just makes the most sense ... is not a glove cut for my hand. True, I have five fingers, and my glove size is average. (Where am I going with this, I wonder?)

The question is, am I happy with a red, woollen glove? Ahhhh. That's just it. I have a choice. I do have a choice, and this I will emphasize. Besides, I happen to be terribly allergic to wool!

My understanding is simply that - while all gloves serve the same essential function (practical and efficient) of keeping my hands warm - no one can deny that gloves come in many, many colors, and are made of various fibers, both manmade and synthetic.

So! If all you've got's a hammer ...

And while you aren't arguing that other tools don't exist, from my POV you are insisting that THIS HOUSE IS BUILT WITH ONE HAMMER ONLY.

Sorry, that don't cut it. A saw cuts it. But the level squares it. And so on. It takes many tools to build a house and build it well, as any carpenter knows.

It also takes cooperation, and so long as we're all following the Master Blueprints, we'll likely fare well. Everyone can serve a purpose, no matter how young, no matter what skills we bring to the table. Even a drill or a stick of dynamite .... has it's place and time.

Those who seek to tear down - have nothing to do with the actual building of the house, yet their purpose is also vital. For until the old structure is removed, a new one cannot be erected. I would rather be part of the building team, for I think the forces of destruction have enough help already.

Now, I know you started this Thread, Thomas, as one about Catholicism (with an uppercase `C') ... as well as Ecumenism and Soteriology. So I must defer on the first point, and leave this to you, Quahom, and others. As for Salvation, I do not dispute that the Catholic Church, as every other denomination and World Religion (or Spiritual Faith) ... can serve a role. I simply disagree with anyone who insists that a house is built with only a hammer ...or a screwdriver, what-have-you.

And that's why I am excited about Ecumenism. Because the Christ I believe in, is coming not to whisk away his chosen select, the faithful few ... but rather, to provide New Revelation - the next Chapter of God's ongoing Covenant with his People (that's us, Humanity). If Christ isn't Universal (sic), and if God isn't Universal (sic) ... then not only am I dead wrong ... but I don't want to be right! Isn't that a country song - If lovin' you is wrong, honey I don't wanna be right?

I am excited ... that the Temple of the New Religion is being built, both with human hands, and with ideas, with Love, with understanding, with tolerance, with Unity-in-Diversity ... for and by the faithful worldwide. I am excited that even given our individual shortcomings and failures, we shall each bear witness to the Glory that has been promised - not in the way a parent promises his child a lollipop if the kid quits screaming in the grocery store ... but in the way a man of Honor tells his comrades that his word is Good.

God's Word is Good. I just find that God speaks in many languages, at all times through human history, and to His people in every land - no matter what their choice of religious preference may be. Now, if I select Tibetan Buddhism as my chosen path, and I take the lay vows that come with this path ... have I not incurred certain responsibilities? You bet. I have entered into a covenant with God (or Adi Buddha, or simply my own Conscience, or Buddha-Nature - it matters not what I call it) ... and this is the binding pact. I have not simply walked through the cafeteria line, and chosen the Mystery Meat of the day.

One does not simply splat onto a tray a set of religious teachings and practices, and then sit down to swallow his meal hastily. Indigestion will invariably follow, and then it just gets worse.

Nor are we cutting out happy, bright, shiny & colorful little shapes to stick on a piece of construction paper. If this is what people think religion is all about ... then they have yet to get really serious about it. A spiritual path requires Discipline, and I would submit that the true, spiritual disciple (same root word) has undertaken a responsibility and tempering process which will, in time, make the US Marines & Navy Seals look like recess at kindergarten. I could name dozens of souls, known to the world for their outward accomplishments, who were (and are) esotericists, and who bear witness to the extremely demanding nature of the Narrow, Razor-Edged Path. Their lives are all marked by loving service, often at great personal cost ... but this is as the Masters require, and the Master of Masters.

The Buddhists in the monasteries I'm aware of ... (the Eastern Ashrams) ... know Christ quite well, btw, because some of them see him every day. It's their job. (I don't mean that to sound smug, but it reminds me of the title of an essay I once read, "Christ as He Is: Supreme Spiritual Executive"). Take that, Wall Street!

Namaskar,

andrew

 

[Bandit]

The Buddhists in the monasteries I'm aware of ... (the Eastern Ashrams) ... know Christ quite well, btw, because some of them see him every day. It's their job. (I don't mean that to sound smug, but it reminds me of the title of an essay I once read, "Christ as He Is: Supreme Spiritual Executive"). Take that, Wall Street!

Namaskar,

andrew

i dont think they are traditional buddhists & have a different spin on Jesus.
i dont see Christ in the Buddha religion. certainly not the same Christ of Calvary, the bible & from Galilee. from what i have seen, they teach Buddha, not Christ crucified. you certainly dont mention Jesus & God very long in the Buddha religion, in most cases.

 

[taijasi]

i dont think they are traditional buddhists & have a different spin on Jesus.
i dont see Christ in the Buddha religion. certainly not the same Christ of Calvary, the bible & from Galilee. from what i have seen, they teach Buddha, not Christ crucified. you certainly dont mention Jesus & God very long in the Buddha religion, in most cases.

Bandit,

Try looking under the name Issa. Records are kept in Tibetan monasteries (or were, prior to the chinese communist invasion and cultural "revolution") of Issa's visit. Remember those missing years from the Nazarene's life that the Bible doesn't mention - nearly twenty of them? The answer lies in Egypt and the Orient.

The reason Buddhist teachings don't dwell upon the bodily crucifixion of the Syrian Initiate (Jeshua ben Josef) ... is that his life is regarded as much more important. Buddhists don't regard the bodily death of Shakyamuni as the defining moment of his existence, or the greatest of his contributions. His "Paranirvana" (passing from the physical state of awareness directly into highest Nirvanic consciousness upon death) is simply the natural conclusion to his life of loving service.

And so with the Great Saviour of the West, usually regarded as Christ Jesus. Buddhists acknowledge his life of service, and some would probably see the Christ's teachings as another turning of the wheel of the Dharma (the Great Law, the Truth, Highest Love - and all that Christians mean by the term 'God'). Others might not.

But Buddhists do often acknowledge the attainment of arhatship by devoted followers of the One Law (the Dharma). In the Esoteric tradition, this signifies an extremely advanced disciple, and this is how Jesus of Nazareth is regarded relative to his Teacher, the Christ.

Yes, I realize this isn't mainstream Christianity, or exoteric Christianity ... but that is why, at best, I would term myself a Christian esotericist - or esoteric Christian, whichever Thomas insists upon. Labels matter not. But practice does. And that's why I usually just accept my own (temporary) apostasy.

Anyway, for a more practical take on how Buddhists view Jesus of Nazareth, I would refer you to the Buddhist forums on CR, perhaps to Vajradhara. I can but point in that direction. I can say more about the esoteric tradition, but I think St. Paul's words are much more poignant:

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.​

In Love & Light,

andrew

 

[Bandit]

thanks taijasi
have already been there & done it. buddha & Zen & all that does not get it for me, it only gets ya half way & it is not enough.

without the death burial & resurrection of Jesus, you do not have life though his teaching is true, it would mean nothing without Calvary. Jesus is more than a teacher my friend. He is life.

Remember those missing years from the Nazarene's life that the Bible doesn't mention - nearly twenty of them? The answer lies in Egypt and the Orient.

maybe, maybe not.

i have one new age teacher that i really like. her name is Gangaji, but it is all very basic. ever hear of her?
i still enjoy & learn from her. i actually enjoy her more than the TV preachers.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Taijasi!

Remember those missing years from the Nazarene's life that the Bible doesn't mention - nearly twenty of them? The answer lies in Egypt and the Orient.

Well...that might be one set of stories to answer the question. I'm a bit more inclined to go along with the Traditions of Glastonbury, that say Jesus travelled with his uncle, Joseph of Arimathea, who happened to be a tin trader. They travelled to the south of England, the area around Avalon (where King Arthur and Guinevere were later laid to rest), and there founded the first Christian church. The remains of the monastery built over the wattled church still exist. The Catholic Church recognized the validity of the claim of age and authenticity of that church during one of the controversies that split the papacy.

It is said that Joseph carried Mary the mother of Jesus to Glastonbury after Jesus was crucified. There is a tree there that still grows native to the Holy Land, and not locally. There is a great deal more to the Traditions of Glastonbury that escape me just now, but I am fairly well convinced of the authenticity of the story.

 

[taijasi]

I think it might be appropriate to post something at this point which could draw the last few posts together. And I must apologize in advance to Thomas, whom I know is occupied, and already has my usual novella to reply to before he gets to this ... honestly, Thomas, I'm not trying to hijack your thread!

I must also beg forgiveness of the mods, because I know they prefer we post our own ideas and not quote excessively ... but I'll try to grab the highlights of the message without losing the essence. Besides, there is a valid historical point to be made, and I think Thomas & Quahom might at least raise an eyebrow.

The words of the Nazarene, as found in a book first copyrighted in 1933 (please note the year):

What say the learnèd of my Gospels? Lo, that they were written long years after my feet had ceased to walk the highways and byways of Palestine. And they speak truth.
And they say also that my scriptures are replete with utterances and doctrines from older religions, from Judaism, from the religions of Egypt, from the religions of Greece and from those of India: and again they speak truth. Yet have the uninitiated made false deductions, so that scepticism has come into being in place of knowledge.
And even those who do not discredit me and my teachings have been puzzled in their minds as to whether I was not born fivescore years prior to the date of my reputed birth.
And again others have pronounced my life-story, as set down in the Gospels, to be for the most part an allegory portraying in narrative form the Way of Initiation which is the great pathway to God-Consciousness, which in those Gospels is termed the Kingdom of Heaven.
So have the sceptical negated, and the learnèd pondered, and the seers pronounced; yet ever does my life present a mystery baffling to the brains of men.
And inevitably so; for enemies of various sects encompassed me on every side, and because my soul was as a veritable target for the spears of baneful thoughts that were hurled at me by mine adversaries, too intent was I on confounding them to take measures that my deeds be rightly chronicled and my sayings be written down.
Nevertheless, when my days among men drew towards their close, a few of my acts and sayings were truthfully recorded. But the records themselves, because of the persecution of my followers, had perforce later on to be hidden away in a secret place: and only at the appointed time shall they again be brought to light.
But that time is not yet; and even when those scripts shall be found for the puzzling-over by savants, no great satisfaction will they yield save to those who have the key to their hidden meanings.​

Now this year of publication can be verified, for I have a friend with a copy of the first edition. Note: 1933.

For those unfamiliar with the history of the Dead Sea Scrolls, consider:

They were discovered by a Bedouin shepherd in 1947​

Does not the Syrian Master's description fit perfectly with the scene 14 years later, and unto the present day? Indeed, much puzzling-over, and little agreement, little satisfaction.

What can I say? His word is true, as ever.

Kindest,

andrew

 

[taijasi]

There is a great deal more to the Traditions of Glastonbury that escape me just now, but I am fairly well convinced of the authenticity of the story.

Well, I couldn't resist saying, juantoo, that on the Travel Channel (in the US) right now, they're about to feature Glastonbury and the Cathedral (Tower?) there. Amazing! You posted, and the TV delivered. lol

andrew