earthmoss

• 13: The Sacraments
• 14: God’s Handbag – Ego and Manas – the Autodynamic and Homodynamic perspective – Merit and Grace
• 15: The shotgun prayer of salvation – the ultimate plenary indulgence
• 16: Gregory of Nyssa on the Resurrection Body
• 17: Back to Hell and Purgatory
• 18: Faster than the Speed of Light?
• 19: A Brief Kabbalistic Outline of the 10/11 Dimensions of the Universe as according to String Theory
• 20: Fundamental understanding required in order to read any Gospel but especially the Gnostic gospels
• 21: The Gnostic Gospels
• 22: The Sacraments explained through homodynamism
• 23: Purgatory
• 24: Assistance rendered to the Souls – Holy Mass – Jubilee of Leo XIII – Solemn Commemoration of the Dead on the Last Sunday in September

01: Introduction

Claire Farago – Silent Moves: On Excluding the Ethnographic Subject from the Discourse of Art History

[…] At the (not-so-hidden) core of contention in New Mexican identity politics today is a fundamental disagreement between contemporary Western assumptions that knowledge should be accessible to everyone, and the esoteric nature of certain Native American beliefs. According to Joseph Suina, a resident member of Cochiti Pueblo who teaches at the University of New Mexico, Native esoteric traditions account for the unwillingness of contemporary Pueblo people to discuss their sacred beliefs with outsiders:

‘Misinterpretation of Pueblo secrecy is partly due to differing views of knowledge held by different cultures. In the Anglo world, knowledge is highly regarded and its acquisition is rewarded in a variety of ways, including admiration of knowledge for its own sake. …But that is not the case in the Pueblo world. Like the Anglos, Pueblo Indians consider knowledge to be of high value. Some types of knowledge, however, are accessible only to the mature and responsible. This is particularly the case with esoteric information that requires a religious commitment.’

Many leading Native scholars and community leaders are more extreme than Suina in their rejection of the academic mainstream considered progressive and revisionist elsewhere. ‘Westerners’ are baffled by their resistance- which, in the final analysis, is not resistance to ownership, but rather resistance to the very idea of ownership.” (Preziosi:2009:198)

“The modern concept of ‘race’ is applied completely anachronistically to this period. As a category, racial thinking emerged fully only in the nineteenth century. In sixteenth-century Europe, the unity of all humankind was explained by our common descent from Adam and Eve. There was no abstract concept of or word for ‘race’ in the sense of black or white, Caucasian, negroid, oriental, and so forth. The sixteenth-century choices were different from our own: either the Tupi people were members of the human race, descended from wandering Ham or the lost tribes of Israel, or they were humanoids- that is, they were human in form only, lacking the distinctive rational powers that distinguish people from brutes (to use period language again). Since de Léry addressed these very issues with his scientific reportage, it is important to bear in mind that sixteenth-century vernacular terms such as nazione, gente, razza do not correspond to our own categories.” (Preziosi:2009:203)

The soul’s journey

Most of the tribes appear to have believed that the soul had to undertake a long journey before its reached its destination. The belief of the Chinooks in this respect is perhaps a typical one. They imagine that after death the spirit of the deceased drinks at a large hole in the ground, after which it shrinks and passes on to the country of the ghosts, where it is fed with spirit food and drink. After this act of communion with the spirit-world it may not return.  They also believe that everyone is possessed of two spirits, a greater and a less. During illness the lesser soul is spirited away by the denizens of Ghost-land. The Navahos possess a similar belief, and say that the soul has none of the vital force which animates the body, nor any of the faculties of the mind, but a kind of third quality, or personality, like the ka of the ancient Egyptians, which may leave its owner and become lost, much to his danger and discomfort.” (Lewis:2012:59-60)

Paradise and supernatural people

The Red Man appears to have possessed two wholly different conceptions of supernatural life. We find in Indian myth allusions both to a ‘Country of the Ghosts’ and to a ‘Land of the Supernatural People’. The first appears to be the destination of human beings after death, but the second is apparently the dwelling-place of a spiritual race some degrees higher than mankind. Both these regions are within the reach of mortals, and seem to be mere extensions of the terrestrial sphere. Their inhabitants… are by no means invulnerable or immortal….

The mythologies of the North American Indians possess no place of punishment, any more than they possess any deities who are frankly malevolent toward humanity. Should a place of torment be discernible in any Indian mythology at the present day it may unhesitatingly be classed as the product of missionary sophistication. Father Brébeuf, an early French missionary, could only find that the souls of suicides and those killed in war were supposed to dwell apart from the others.” [Author’s note- outer jihad]  (Lewis:2012:60-1)

The savage and religion

[…] in the Hopi emergence myth Spider-Woman, a powerful earth goddess, sang a duet with Tawa, the sun-god; Spider-Woman was able to weave the Tawa’s thoughts into solid form, creating fish, birds and other animals, including humans. Spider-Woman then divided the humans into groups, and led them to their homelands, after which she disappeared back into the earth, down through a whirpool of sand. [Author’s note- this is Isis and the saliva snake from Ra’s mouth]…

Several Native American mythologies, that of the Apache included, have a high deity, who is creator of the world. Where such a creator ‘Great Spirit’ exists he/she rarely, however, does the full work of creation alone, but disappears to heaven, and allows lesser gods to complete the project and supervise the workings of the planet. These secondary gods are often personifications of natural forces and elements, such as the wind. ..

The creator is not always separate from his creation. The Lakota (Sioux) people are pantheists, believing that the sun, earth, sky, wind, fire and other elements of the natural, spiritual and human worlds are all aspects of one, single supreme being Wakan Tanka, ‘The Great Spirit’ (or, in a more accurate translation of the Lakota, ‘the Great Mystery’).

It is notable that the concept of the creation of the world out of the imagination of God or out of nothingness is practically unknown in Native American mythology. In short, there is no Creator in North American mythology. The creator almost always moulds or rearranges what already exists into a new earth. Many contemporary folklorists define the maker deities in Amerindian myths as being ‘transformers’. Transformers do not create the world; they bring order from chaos.” (Lewis:2012:70-1)

“Here and in similar passages “whole” (kull) and “part” (juz’) signify the relation between God and created things, which is not that of whole and part in the ordinary acceptation of these words. God is one and indivisible; the so-called “parts” are nothing but phenomenal aspects of the universal Reality underlying every form of existence. As this verse refers directly to ….the first hemistich should be translated: “(I mean) the lovers of the Whole, not those who love the part.” Rumi Commentary Book I p 175)

Read juz zi-yak rú with Mm: i.e. from the single point of view that God is the essence of all existents- and what that means can only be realised in the mystical experience of the Perfect Man. On the other hand, everything in the world of contingency (imkán) is separated from the Absolute by individualisation (ta’ayyun). The prophets were sent to unite the particulars with the Universal (Cf. II 1750 sqq), i.e. to preach and teach the doctrine of the Divine Unity and the Sufi Way to union with God.” Rumi Commentary Book I p 175

Since Man is a single dhát, created in the image of God, why is he at strife with himself? “Because”, the poet answers, “he displays all the various attributes and aspects of the Divine Essence, which (from his point of view) are opposed to each other. These attributes are not parts of a whole…, but particular modes and individualisations of an Absolute; as such they are the Many, constituting the variety of Nature, though essentially each attribute is identical with every other and with the One. Hence their relation to God is not like that of the rose’s scent to the rose or the nightingale’s song to the nightingale, but like the relation of the songs of all birds and the beauty of all flowers to the nightingale and the rose respectively, inasmuch as these two are types of Absolute Beauty which is the essence of everything beautiful.” Cf. Ibnu ‘l-Fárid, Diwán, 347,6 sqq., translated in SIM, 176.

The author now resumes his explanation … of the origin of good and evil, and employs another analogy much favoured by Moslem mystics who, regarding the letter alif, whether spoken or written, as the archetype of the whole alphabet, use it to symbolise the Essential Unity (Ahadiyyah) that is manifested in all the multiplicity of the phenomenal existence …

“In the phenomenal forms the identities of the letters appear diverse,

But in the essence of Alif all are harmoniously united.

All are different, when regarded from the aspect of individualisation,

But from the aspect of reality all are identical with Alif”

“Lá and illá refer to lá iláha Illá Huwa in Qur. XXVIII 88… Lá= the self-existence which really is non-existence; illá= real existence in God. Elsewhere (e.g. IV 2948) these words are used as synonyms for faná and baqá; but the context makes it evident that lá has not that meaning here.

A_ With God as the one song- the Uni-Verse. Allah is the Alif combined with this song of La at its heart, i.e. the underlying harmonious unity of the Universe is the consciousness of Allah or God that churns the ocean of the cosmos and is churned by these actions through each state of sensory consciousness (life) in an evolutionary transformation that we are obviously not separate from as we like to think, act and hence perceive from our individualised perceptions of many sense-objects rather than a holistic single perspective view that ends the perspective of the words object/subject or cause/effect, known as ‘One Face’ in Zen or ‘the Face of God’ in Monotheistic religions.

“God is al-Hádi, He who lets men be guided to salvation, and also al-Mudill, He who lets them to be led to perdition: whether they appear to be saved or lost, in reality thy are doing His eternal will in the way decreed by Him. Ibnu ‘l-Arabi…draws the logical conclusion that all souls are ultimately saved, though the bliss of the ahlu’l-nár is less pure than that enjoyed by the ahlu ‘l-jannah. For the belief (supported by Qur. X 90) that Pharoah is among the saved, see Tawásin, 172 seq.”

Qur. LV 33: “O community of Jinn and mankind, if ye are able (istata’tum) to pass forth (tanfudhú) from the regions of heaven and earth, then pass forth! But ye shall not pass forth save by authority.” Baydáwi explains tanfudhú as “fleeing from God and His destiny (qadá)” or “exploring heaven and earth in order to know what is therein; but this knowledge cannot be gained save by Divinely appointed means, viz. reason (‘aql) and tradition (naql), leading up to that which lies beyond the highest heavens”. Rumi’s meaning agrees better with the interpretation given by Namju’ddin al-Kubrá (Mq, I 354, I sqq.): “O faculties of celestial and mundane, if ye are able to disperse and return to the heaven of spirituality and the earth of corporeality, then disperse! But ye cannot, save by Our authority and decree”; or “if ye are able to attain unto the sciences of the higher and lower worlds without the authority of mystic inspiration (al-wárid), then strive to do so; but ye will never succeed till the power of the wárid descends upon you.”

“The descending planes (SIM, 94 sqq.) or emanations Universal Reason, Universal Soul, etc.) of Being in the spiritual world may be likened to the heavens of the material world, which are ruled by these Modes of the Divine Essence in the same way as the earth is ruled by the planetary spheres. …”

Most commentators explain tawf as referring to the circumambulation of the Ka’bah, i.e. “when you circumambulate the  Ka’bah of Unity, wearing the ridá of egoism (instead of the ihram of self-abandonment), you cannot attain to the realisation of Unity”. In my opinion, however, tawf here describes the self-centred attitude of the penitent whose thoughts, instead of being fixed on God, are ever circling round his own past sins: he resembles a tourist (ta’if fi’l-bilád) who comes home so full of the sights he has seen that he cannot give his whole mind to urgent affairs.

Because self-consciousness is the greatest of all sins (I 517, note). Hence the elect do not repent of sinful acts as such, but only of ghaflat, i.e. forgetting God even for a moment. The true penitent is he who has been made immaculate by Divine grace, so that to him the very thought of sin is impossible; he is the lover in whom every attribute of self has been purged away. For the question whether sincere repentance involves remembering the sin (dhikru’l-dhunúb) or forgetting it (nisyánu’l-dhunúb)….The latter view, which was held by Junayd, is essential to the mystical doctrine of tawhid.

This chapter looks at change over from Pagan Logos to Christian Logos. The entire chapter revolves around the theology of God having a handbag, as in plato’s idea of matter being pre-existent to creation, and the idea of ex nihilo, as defined by koan about rock. The line to take is that plato means predestination a logical conclusion as per Augustine, as well as Christ being divided into God and human, thereby creating further distance between us and God- The Nicean creed- which serves Constantine and authority of the Church. However an aboriginal understanding of the koan makes ex nihilo the way forward which only appears in the church after the nicean creed has been sorted. This means predestination is not possible and embraces the early church understanding of the homoodynamic soul of which we are all apart, as per the Koran teaching- This understanding leads to a new understanding of the millennium of heaven on earth, as per the aboriginal stance, and of judgement day where we all stand as one before God to be judged- homodynamically, heterodynamically and autodynamically as souls within one spirit- wakan.

This understanding makes plain the arguments re the eucharist and bread as per Dionysian understanding- the symbol or cake of the sun, of the symposium of drunken egoistic sexual revelry and pederasty, versus the protestant unchanging nature of the bread- it is perspective that grants experience. Grace is constantly given but we turn away from it. Aquinas’ proof of God as most loving and most powerful is the balancing fulcrum by which to focus believers on this truth, whilst reason itself, using the imperial cult and Mithras ,etc, to show why Jesus had to be depicted as the Son of God, which Gnostics and Arians, and Donatists, etc, etc, didn’t believe- i.e. christ’s denial of messiah as his title. Whilst Manas, the baptism, the temptation in the wilderness prove that the holy spirit descended on his nature as per manas defined earlier. This must all be reflected against the stupid assertions of a heaven a hell a purgatory from tiny biblical quotes perverted to their use, and 30 year old baptised children in heaven- better to blow children’s heads off with a shotgun than let them live the mistake of life on Earth or better to live anyway you like but be saved anyway, as per Vatican II, or be predestined as per Augustine’s ‘good news’ gospel, where you worship a Calvinist god under the belief that you, autodynamically are already chosen to receive his Grace whilst others are not.

This is then all reflected through Pelagius to reflect karma as habit, and hence the actions of the church by which to judge them, throughout the medieval period in the next chapter.

“In the beginning, sacred beings are conceived in the form of an animal or vegetable, from which the human form is only slowly disengaged. It will be seen below that in Australia, it is animals and plants which are the first sacred beings. Even among the Indians of North America, the great cosmic divinities, which commence to be the object of a cult there, are very frequently represented in animal forms. “The difference between the animal, man and the divine being,” says Réville, not without surprise, “is not felt in this state of mind, and generally it might be said that it is the animal form which is the fundamental one.” To find a god made up entirely of human elements, it is necessary to advance nearly to Christianity. Here, God is a man, not only in the physical aspect in which he is temporarily made manifest, but also in the ideas and sentiments which he expresses. But even in Greece and Rome, though the gods were generally represented with human traits, many mythical personages still had traces of an animal origin: thus there is Dionysus, who is often met with in the form of a bull, or at least with the horns of a bull; there is Demeter, who is often represented with a horse’s mane, there are Pan and Silenus, there are the Fauns, etc. It is not at all true that man has had such an inclination to impose his own form upon things. More than that, he even commenced by conceiving of himself, as participating closely in the animal nature.” (Durkheim:1982:68)

What was it, after all, about Roman culture that was inherently desirable? According to the historian Ramsay MacMullen, the answer is “hot baths, central heating, softer beds, and the pleasure of wine.” Nor can it be said that Roman habits were adopted because they were self-evidently superior to the indigeneous….

Put another way, it is difficult to identify those who were, in varying degrees, partially Romanized. It might even be supposed that there existed a second world beneath the one described in our sources, a world that was wholly un-Roman in nature.

All this is not to deny either that Romanization occurred, and on a large scale, or that it had a significant impact on the cultural life of the provinces, especially in the western half of the Empire. It is, rather, to argue against assuming that the mass of ordinary provincials were affected in ways that were either profound or lasting. In Gaul, Spain, and parts of north Africa, cultural patterns were transformed, but mainly, it seems, among the wealthy, urban elites. The rhythms of rural life went on probably much as they always had.” (Le Glay:2009:364-66)

02: The Trinity

The Tao

Gives birth to the One;

The One

Gives birth to the two;

The two

Gives birth to the three-

The three gives birth to every living thing.

All things are held in yin and carry yang

And they are held together in the Ch’i

Of teeming energy.”  

“…. He who “sees the world dark” is in the stage of “separation” (farq or tafriqah); he is self-conscious and regards himself as an individual. He who “beholds one moon plainly” is in the stage of “union” (jam’); he is conscious of nothing but God. He who “beholds three moons together” is in the stage technically known as jam’u ‘l-jam’; he sees the Divine Unity under three aspects at once, viz. (1) the Essence, (2) the Creator (3) the creatures. …Others explain the three moons as symbolising the Divine Essence, Attributes, and Actions; or the Law (shari’ah), the Path (tariqah), and the Truth (haqiqah).” (Rumi; Commentary Bk I p 215)

In the previous chapter we discovered that the understanding of the sacred name of God, was the goat-song of the universe, wakan, the song of songs, or the vibration of energy as it forms into matter as space and time, as per the discoveries of science, and as per the understanding of the aborigines who worshipped the rainbow and the pagan sun in order to symbolise this same energy and the will of God. This will of God to create the Logos that brought forth his divine Nature, to produce nature (the universe) we also saw being identified with Christ in John’s Gospel, and Hebraic scripture, and Greek Dionysus, and Egyptian Osiris, and Persian Mithra, all of which we have seen influence the religious understanding of the Romans. Romans who have now abandoned these gods and become Christian.

It is the purpose of this chapter to show just how Christianity was taught to these people with this understanding of gods now become God and Son and finally Trinity

We need to understand that the teachings of Christ were contained within the perspective, experience, understanding, and hence language trap of this previous belief system, as well as being housed within the socio-political environment of Rome, whose imperial cult, that we met in the previous chapter, where the Alexandrian idea of the gods had become incarnate gods in the form of emperors, who had for centuries now, made themselves ever more divine.

What we are going to look at therefore is the early understanding of the Nature of Christ and the Trinity within this milieu of authority, hierarchy, esteem, and the empire of incarnate gods, and see how they formed the idea of Christ that has come down to us today.

Not only are we going to do that we are then going to look at the repercussions of this orthodox understanding of Christ in regards to the subsequent Nature of God, of heaven, hell, and even of our very own souls.

I will argue that there is a fundamental misunderstanding in orthodox Christianity that leads to a perversion of the Nature of God as defined by Christianity itself, and resolve this disparity by maintaining the understanding of the soul and its relationship to God as per the understanding of the soul, that we saw preformed before any religion or settled group began, around the entire world, as explained by Durkheim.

In order to prove my point I will look at the Nature of the Trinity and only use Christian arguments against other Christian arguments, from these early days of Christianity, and understood as canonical by Catholicism itself. This may seem far-fetched or ridiculous to many at present because the Canon is supposed to be a coherent cohesive body of ‘right’ belief (orthodox) but I hope that at the end of this chapter you will agree with me that it.

I hasten to add that this need not threaten any Christians belief system on a fundamental level. I am not going to say that Christ did not exist, or that God is an aberration, or that Christ was not God’s son, but what I am going to say may deepen ones understanding of the Nature of Christ and of God and of the Holy Spirit, and of our own existence.

I am aware, as I write this, that this is the first time that this book has struck upon a belief system of people in the present day western world. Zoroastrianism is still worshipped in some areas of the world today I know, as is paganism, but Catholicism is a majority faith with a clear hierarchical institutionalised power given by its people to its capital- the Pope. Therefore this chapter will challenge millions of people around the world, and their belief system. It is not something that I wished to challenge at the outset of this book, and it is not the purpose of this book to challenge Church canon. However it is the purpose of this book to provide an ecumenical universe in which we can all exist without throwing babies in the river as an institutional practice, and Catholicism does just that, due to this fundamental misunderstanding that I am about to try an elucidate.

If we remember back to ‘the unreasonableness of reason’ as defined by Kant which acknowledged that reason could never prove or disprove the existence of God but could still be used to understand the requisite Nature of God if he is to be a God at all, i.e. omnipotent, and omniscient for starters, then I hope that by using reason alongside only Canonical texts, then I can prove my point ‘within the church’. However, this being said, my point will necessarily broaden the meaning of church to what it is supposed to mean (universal) and not exclusivist as the Catholic canon makes not only itself, but also God, as we shall see canonically.

John Henry Newman on the Grounds of Faith

In his important Essay in Aid of Grammar of Assent (1870), the English theologian and philosopher John Henry Newman (1801-90) argues that the grounds of assurance of faith rest on a deep-seated intuitive or instinctive knowledge of God, which is not necessarily enhanced by rational arguments or demonstrations. The full logical structures of faith can thus never be fully understood, as religion ultimately depends upon an immediate and spontaneous “feeling” or “revelation”, which cannot be adequately grasped or expounded on the basis of reason. There are important parallels here, probably unknown to Newman, with Pascal’s emphasis upon the role of the heart in religious knowledge and experience….

Newman develops the “illative” sense of moral judgement– which can be argued to parallel a similar approach found in the writings of Aristotle, known as phronesis– by which the human mind reaches conclusion on grounds which, though rational, lie outside the limits of strict logic.” (McGrath:2011:32-3)

To begin this journey therefore it is necessary to understand the beginning of the journey that formed the canon itself. We have already begun this journey in fact, from chapter one, through to the imperial cult of chapter eight, in regards to understanding how the perspective, experience, and hence understanding and language of God changed throughout civilization and its phylogenic culture of culling, authority and desire. What we now need to understand is how the Roman Imperial Cult, itself imbued with ancient mysteries, from Egypt to India, courtesy of Alexander the Great, interacted with the understanding of the early church fathers as they attempted to not only understand who exactly Christ was himself, but also: firstly, within the pagan perspective of Rome; secondly under the protection of Rome’s authority, which had been God given to Constantine, the divine Emperor himself; and thirdly under its own authority at the collapse of Rome, whereupon the Catholic Church became the authority.

How did these early church fathers talk about Christ to pagans in order to use their language in order to elucidate the Nature of Christ before they had invented their own and called it right?

We will need therefore to look at the change from the imperial cult to the Christ cult that took place within this spiritual understanding of the world, in order to move towards answering this question.

Before I begin this massive theological juggling act, I would first of all like to elucidate the universal nature of the Christian Trinity itself, as this is the major centripetal authority from which I am to argue.

We have already seen above the Chinese religion of the Tao (Taoism) refer to the Nature of the One (God in monotheistic understanding) become that of two and then three before if creates everything, i.e. the universe. And we have also seen it in Islam through the words of the mystic poet Rumi, therefore travelling from our most ancient non-theistic religion to our most recent monotheistic tradition in tact as a useful symbol no matter the perspective upon which you begin this journey to a super-state perspective or superstition.

What I wish to now show you is the same trinity in Hindu myth, Greek myth, Egyptian myth, Alchemy and Hebraic understanding, so that we understand the Nature of these religious perspectives that predate Christianity itself and the universality of this pre-existent perspective. From here we can begin to understand the understanding of the early Christian fathers themselves:

Adolf von Harnack on the Origins of Dogma

In a series of important works, especially his mammoth History of Dogma (1886-9), the German Protestant theologian and “historian of dogma” Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930) set out his understanding of how “dogma” arose within the church. Harnack’s basic conviction was that many of the dogmas of the early church- such as that of the incarnation- resulted from an unhappy and quite inappropriate marriage between the Christian gospel and Hellenistic philosophy. In this extract, taken from the briefer work The Outlines of the History of Dogma, Harnack sets out his understanding of how dogma had its origins, and subsequently came to develop within the church…

5. The history of the rise of dogmatic Christianity would seem to close when a well-formulated system of belief had been established by scientific means, and had been made the articulus constitutivus ecclesiae, and as such had been imposed upon the entire Church. This took place in the transition from the first to the fourth century when the Logos-Christology was established. The development of dogma is in abstracto without limit, but in concreto it has come to an end. For,

(a) the Greek Church maintains that its system of dogma has been complete since the end of the “Image Controversy” [the Iconoclastic controversy];

(b) the Roman Catholic Church leaves the possibility of the formulating of new dogmas open, but in the Tridentine Council and still more in the Vatican it has in fact on political grounds rounded out its dogma as a legal system which above all demands obedience and only secondary conscious faith; the Roman Catholic Church has consequently abandoned the original motive of dogmatic Christianity and has placed a wholly new motive in its stead, retaining the mere semblance of the old;…

6. The claim of the Church that the dogmas are not simply the exposition of the Christian revelation, because deduced from the Holy Scriptures, is not confirmed by historical investigation. On the contrary, it becomes clear that dogmatic Christianity (the dogmas) in its conception and in its construction was the work of the Hellenic spirit upon the Gospel soil. The intellectual medium by which in early times men sought to make the Gospel comprehensible and to established it securely, became inseparably blended with the content of the same. Thus arose the dogma, in whose formation, to be sure, other factors (the words of Sacred Scripture, requirements of the cult, and of the organization, political and social environment, the impulse to push thing to their logical consequences, blind custom, etc.) played part, yet so that the desire and effort to formulate the main principles of the Christian redemption, and to explain and develop them, secured the upper hand, at least in the earlier times.

7. Just as formulating of the dogma proved to be an illusion, so far as the same was to be the pure exposition of the Gospel, so also does historical investigation destroy the other illusion of the Church, viz., that the dogma, always having been the same therein, has simply been explained, and that ecclesiastical theology has never had any other aim than to explain the unchanging dogma and to refute the heretical teaching pressing in from without. The formulating of the dogma indicates rather that theology constructed the dogma, but that the Church must ever conceal the labour of the theologians, which thus places them in an unfortunate plight. In each favourable case the result of their labour has been declared to be a reproduction and they themselves have been robbed of their best service; as a rule in the progress of history they fell under the condemnation of the dogmatic scheme, whose foundation they themselves had laid, and so entire generations of theologians, as well as the chief leaders thereof, have, in the further development of dogma, been afterwards marked and declared to be heretics or held in suspicion. Dogma has ever in the progress of history devoured its own progenitors….

8. An understanding of the dogmatico-historic process cannot be secured by isolating the special doctrines and considering them separately (Special History of Dogma) after the epochs have been previously characterized (General History of Dogma). It is much better to consider the “general” and the “special” in each period and to treat the periods separately, and as much as possible to prove the special doctrines to be the outcome of the fundamental ideas and motives. It is not possible, however, to make more than four principal divisions. viz:

i. The Origin of Dogma.

ii. a. The Development of Dogma in accordance with the principles of its original conception (Oriental Development from Arianism to the Image Controversy).

iii. b. The Occidental Development of Dogma under the influence of Augustine’s Christianity and the Roman papal politics.

iv. c. The Threefold Issuing of Dogma (in the churches of the Reformation- in Tridentine Catholicism- and in the criticism of the rationalistic age, i.e. of Socinianism). [Laelius Socinus 1525-62- anti-trinitarian rationalist resembling modern Unitarianism]

It is important to appreciate that Harnack is a critic of dogma, who believes that uncovering its history is the first stage in effecting its removal.” (McGrath:2011:33-6)

03: The Pre-Christian Trinity

In the last chapter we saw how the Ancients pictured the forces of Nature in the forms of gods. By using this method of relating to the world through their interactions with these gods they were able to understand the roles that these forces played, not only  in themselves, but also in the Universe. This understanding led them to the same big question of questions that science is still trying to answer today, namely, “What happened at the beginning of the Universe?”

The Ancients were able to understand the beginning of the Universe in a much simpler and truer way than science however, simply by using their ability to relate to the gods of Nature by seeing them in their own inner Human Nature. By using this method of looking inwardly in order to relate to the gods, instead of pointing a stick at them and measuring them as science does, they were able to understand what happened even before the Big Bang!

By understanding how we as Humans create a new life in the form of a child they were able to understand how all things are made by Nature, or in other words, what gods had to be present to enable the act of creation to take place.

The analogy is a simple, yet immensely far reaching one, that I will first explain using the creation of a Human baby before we look at the creation of an entire universe using this same parallel analogy.

When the Ancients saw a child created in the womb of a mother they marvelled at the magic of the gods, the wonder of Nature, the actions of the Neters. It was, in their minds, not just a bland chemical, cellular reaction that came about by the combination of sperm and egg. It was the creation of a new life, which by the interaction of the Nature of the Man and the Nature of the Woman had created a new life which also housed a soul of  its own, a piece of God’s life-force itself.

The Ancients meditated on this wonderful mystery of their power to create life through the mating of the male and female Natures, and by studying the rest of Nature, they saw that the animals and plants also required the mating of male and female in order to create their offspring.

By studying these actions of Nature in themselves and in the Universe the Ancients formulated an extremely subtle perception of the first three necessary steps required to create any new form of life. This level of subtlety penetrated to the creation of such things as a new thought or emotion, for to the Ancients you gave birth to a thought or emotion, just as you did with a child, hence they were just as valid a part of creation as the material world.

The forces of Nature that they identified as necessary to be able to create anything were given their own god names in each culture, but each culture has retained the fact that three gods are necessary in order to create. Whether the thing created is a Universe, a child, a simple thought, emotion or galaxy. We still retain this understanding in the Christian religion through the symbol of the Holy Trinity.

The Nature of the Three gods of Creation

Let us now define the Nature of these gods of creation so that we can begin to form some kind of idea as to who they are.

In the Holy Trinity we have three forces of Nature which have been named, ‘the Father’, ‘the Virgin Mother*’ and ‘the Son’. These titles reflect the very inner Nature of these gods for they combine to make all of the forms, thoughts and feelings that we perceive in the Universe. They are named, ‘Father, Mother and Son’, merely to intimate their actions and the repercussion of those actions, i.e. when their Natures mix they create a new form of life. What, therefore, is the ultimate Nature of these three gods?

With the analogy of the Mother and Father. It is the Father whose sperm actively seeks the still egg and the egg, which takes the activity of the sperm and forms it into the child in the Mothers womb. With the analogy of a thought it is the activity of the mind that eventually forms into a solid thought. With the analogy of an emotion it is the action of another that forms the emotion of love or anger inside of you.

The male god or Nature was therefore seen to be the activity or more correctly energy, that was given form by the female, just as the sperm and egg are formed into a new life inside the Mother.

This male nature, on its ultimate level, was therefore seen to be pure energy and was symbolised by Natures outward expression of this, i.e. The Lightning flash, or the Sun i.e. pure energy without form. The Mother or female goddess was therefore seen as the force of Nature that took this rough energy and gave it form.

Therefore on a ‘benne so’, ‘word from behind’ level we now know that when we read of a male and female god mating in a myth, an initiate would not imagine a man and woman coupling but pure energy combining with the Nature of being given form.

Science today tells us that all of the matter that makes up the Universe is nothing more than the energy from the big bang that has taken a stable form! In other words, matter is nothing more than organised energy.

The Ancients knew that thousands of years ago and put it in to their myths. They also however understood that a third god was necessary for this male energy and female form to come together.

The Ancients asked, “What is the force of Nature that decides what form this energy will take?” They could see that the child of a Mother and Father whilst being a combination of their two Natures also contained its own personality when it was born. What part of Nature was it that decided on the form of this personality?

To put this on a Universal scale, when the original Father and Mother came together or when energy and matter came together, what ‘god’ decided the form the Universe was going to take, and why did this third god decide upon that particular form?

We may use this same analogy in the world of the written word. The words you are currently reading are nothing more than pieces of ink that by being formed into shapes manage to convey information to you. The sequence that these shapes or forms of ink, that we call letters, take are structured according to what we want to convey. In other words we have taken the formless ink (energy) and given it form in order to convey our purpose. It would be of no use to form this formless ink into shapes that could not convey what it was that I was trying to say. In order to therefore form this ink (energy) into a useful form that would fulfil this purpose I had to use the power of my Will over the formless ink and form it into the thing that I was Willing into existence.

The easiest way to describe this is to look again at the analogy of creating a child ourselves. The three things necessary are the Nature of the male, the Nature of the female and the Will, love or desire between these two people to make it happen. If we had a Man and Woman standing next to each other completely naked, nothing would happen without the combined Will of both of them to mate. In the same way the Holy Trinity represents these gods on a much subtler level.

If we now look at how something more ephemeral such as how a thought is created we Will see that first of all we need to concentrate on something by the force of the Will. At this point we may begin to form an idea from the activity of the mind that starts to take place in the direction that the Will set it in. This forming of an idea is the same as the gestation period of a baby in the womb. It is the activity, or movement of energy, that eventually Will form itself into a thought and then be given birth to by being spoken.

Similarly with an emotion, we may love someone but if our loved one uses harsh words then their activity of saying a harsh word may form inside of us an emotion of anguish or anger. The emotion that we choose to feel depends on how we decide to receive the energy that formed these harsh words. This decision is made by our Will and this Will takes the energy received in the harsh words and forms them into the relevant actions, thoughts and emotion.

You can now see the subtlety of perception that the Ancients could achieve using this method. The repercussions of this way of thinking are that you are now are able to have a person give birth to a thought, which by recreating it in the form of written words could then cause the creation of a physical action or emotion in another who read it. In turn they could if they so willed, create another action or thought or emotion from this original created thought. Therefore the energy contained in the original thought can flow through the different forms of speech, written word, emotions, new thoughts, etc.

In other words the act of all creation, from a thought to a Universe, was seen as a combination of these three Natures of Will, energy and form, that was constantly taking place inside ourselves and the Universe. This meant that everything in creation was a part of this constant act of creation.  Each action and form of Nature created another reaction and hence another creation depending upon the Will of the Creator.   In this way the creation of the Universe was constantly being recreated by the activities that each form Willed.

Just as a tree Wills the creation of its fruit, so the Will of a human to eat that fruit creates the possibility for that fruit to be changed and recreated as a human arm or leg or emotion or thought.

The depth of understanding that is required to comprehend the vastness of this way of looking at the world is a staggering feat, made all the more difficult now due to our modern perception of the world.

The result however, of this way of viewing creation, is that if the Universe is a creation of the Divine Will of this Holy Trinity then we must also be an act of Will of the creator. This in turn means that if the creation of the Universe were an act of Will it had to have a purpose or else the Will for the Universe to be created would never have had enough energy or impetus to have begun!

If we look at the poem quoted at the beginning of this chapter you will see that the Chinese religion of Taoism calls this, Will the “Tao”. The word Tao means, “The Way” and is the Taoist word for God, the Christian parallel to this is, “I am The Way, the Truth, and the Life”. Analogously just as in the Christian religion we are told to surrender our Will to God, so the Taoists believe that by living the Tao (the way) they Will return to the Tao (the way).

The Taoist poem states that, “All things are held in Yin and carry Yang”. These terms of Yin and Yang are the Taoist names for the male and female gods. “Yin” is the female goddess, who holds everything in its form and “Yang” is the male god, whose energy exists in each form. This energy enables each form to change according to its Will or Ultimate Nature.

We must therefore attempt to understand what the Will or Tao of God was when he created the Universe. Why did he Will into creation these many diverse forms of energy that we call galaxies, planets, birds, beasts and plant life?

The Ancients sought the answer to this question by again looking at their own Nature to ascertain what the purpose of their own life was. They postulated that the Ultimate Nature, the Will of how they formed the actions of their lives was geared towards one Ultimate direction.

This direction, this ‘Way’ or ‘Tao’ controlled every part of their way of living and was often symbolised as a river that carried all of creation along with it towards its final destination, the sea, where all rivers converge and become one.

The Nature of this river that underpinned all of mans actions in the world they decided was to understand their own Nature, their own purpose. Or as Christ put it to, “Know thyself”.

On a verbose level if we imagine ourselves waking up in the middle of nowhere with no idea of who we were then what would be the question that would preoccupy you the most?

If you don’t know who you are then you don’t know whether or not your in the right place or are lost or what? Most of us on a deeper level feel these questions when we are sitting at our desk at work, filling out an application form or when really looking at ourselves in the mirror.

Therefore in order to know what it is that we are supposed to be doing with our lives, apart from just surviving, we must first of all know who exactly we are. What one finds however is that the journey of life itself is the teacher that answers that question!

So God Created Man in His Own Image

With this knowledge of our own Nature then the Ancients could look out into the world and notice this same force of Nature in the creation and the Creator of the Universe.

This wisdom was written in Genesis in order to express to the initiate that our Nature reflects the Nature of God:

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” Genesis 1:27

 If the deepest part of our Nature was therefore to “Know our self” then, as we are nothing but an image of Gods Will in human form, our in built desire to know our own Nature, must also be Gods inner most Nature!

Just as our nature is to wonder ‘who we are’, so God thought to himself, “Who Am I?” or “What is the Nature of God”. At this point God’s Will began to actively form, an answer to this question. Our own Nature is to do this also as we can witness our minds instantly start to think about the answer to the question of “Who Am I?” in order to give birth to a thought as an answer.

God’s Will had this same impetus of thought and at that point, in that timeless instant, God created the Nature of the male god, activity and the female goddess form. This Willed energy was created into the thought form of, “Who Am I?”, creating the Holy Trinity.

A Hindu myth of creation describes just this interaction of three gods communicating before ‘The Creation’ began:

“The world of existing things began when the god Brahma woke up one fine morning. He found himself seated on a splendid lotus flower, which had just opened its pure white petals on the surface of the primeval ocean. Surveying the empty world, sea and sky, Brahma meditated: Where did I come from? He looked down into the water from where the lotus stalk that supported him had grown up. He saw to his surprise that it grew out of the navel of a person who was lying asleep on the bottom of the world ocean. That sleeper was Vishnu…

“Who are you?” the two gods asked each other, and started quarrelling.

“I created you by thinking you,” argued Brahma.

“I gave birth to you, so I am your father and your mother,” retorted Vishnu.

 Suddenly they saw a pillar of light rising from the bottom of the ocean to the top of the sky. Vishnu and Brahma agreed that this curious phenomena must be investigated. Vishnu… started digging the Earth to find the root of the pillar, while Brahma… flew up into the sky to find its top. They both returned without success. Suddenly the pillar opened a door in the middle and there appeared Shiva.

The three gods were having a friendly competition before starting seriously on the creation. Each of them was the creator. They were not only brothers, they were identical, for there is only one God, who has a thousand names and as many shapes. Indian philosophers know that the divine reality will always elude our small minds.”1

“1. This patriarchal myth of Uranus gained official acceptance under the Olympian religious system. Uranus, whose name came to mean ‘the sky’, seems to have won his position as First Father by being identified with the pastoral god Varuna, one of the Aryan male trinity; but his Greek name is a masculine form of Ur-ana (‘queen of the mountains’, ‘queen of summer’, ‘queen of the winds’, or ‘queen of wild oxen’)- the goddess in her orgiastic midsummer aspect.” (Graves:1992:32)

“5.…The bestowal of sovereignty on Zeus recalls a similar event in the Babylonian Creation Epic, when Marduk was empowered to fight Tiamat by his elders Lahmu and Lahamu.

6.…The brotherhood of Hades, Poseidon, and Zeus recalls that of the Vedic male trinity- Mitra, Varuna, and Indra- (see 3.1 and 132.5) who appear in a Hittite treaty dated to about 1380 B.C.” (Graves:1992:43)

“2. The later Greeks read ‘Cronus’ as Chronos, ‘Father Time’ with his relentless sickle. But he is pictured in the company of a crow, like Apollo, Asclepius, Saturn, and the early British god Bran; and cronos probably means ‘crow’, like the Latin cornix and the Greek corōne. The crow was an oracular bird, supposed to house the soul of a sacred king after his sacrifice.” (Graves:1992:38)

 “One must begin, as a mathematician would, with the idea of Zero, which turns out on examination to mean any quantity that one may choose, but not, as the layman may at first suppose, Nothing, in the “absence of anything” vulgar sense of the word. The Qabalists, expanded this idea of nothing and got a second kind of nothing which they called “Ain Soph”- “Without Limit”… They then decided that in order to interpret this mere absence of any means of definition, it was necessary to postulate the Ain Soph Aur-“Limitless light”… All this is evidently without form and void; these are abstract conditions, not positive ideas. The next step must be the idea of position. One must formulate this thesis: if there is anything except Nothing it must exist within this boundless light; within this space; within this inconceivable nothingness, which cannot exist as nothingness, but has to be conceived of as a nothingness composed of the annihilation of two imaginary opposites. Thus appears the point which has neither parts nor magnitude, but only position.” “But position does not mean anything at all unless there is something else, some other position with which it can be compared. One has to describe it. The only way to do this is to have another point, and that means that one must invent two, making possible the line.

But this line does not really mean very much, because there is yet no measure of length. The limit of knowledge at this stage is that there are two things, in order to be able to talk about them at all. But one cannot say that they are near each other, or that they are far apart; one can only say that they are distant. In order to discriminate between them at all, there must be a third thing. We must have another point. One must invent the surface; one must invent the triangle. In doing this, incidentally, appears the whole of plane geometry. One can now say, “A is nearer to B than A is to C. But so far there is no substance in any of these ideas. In fact there are no ideas at all, except the idea of distance and perhaps the idea of between-ness…There has been no approach at all to the conception of a really existing thing. No more has been done than to make definitions, all in a purely ideal and imaginary world.”4

“Now then comes the Abyss, [known to us currently as the Big Bang]. One cannot go any further into the ideal. The next step must be the Actual-at least, an approach to the actual. There are three points, but there is no idea of where any of them is. A fourth point is essential, and this formulates the idea of matter. In Freemasonic terms we have now squared the circle.

The point, the line, the plane. The fourth point… gives the solid. If one wants to know the position of any point, one must define it by the use of the three co-ordinate axes. It is so many feet from the North wall, and so many feet from the East wall, and so many feet from the floor.

“Thus there has been developed from Nothingness a Something which can be said to exist. One has arrived at the idea of Matter. But this existence is exceedingly tenuous, for the only property of any given point is its position in relation to certain other points; no change is possible, nothing can happen. One is therefore compelled, in the analysis of known Reality, to postulate a fifth positive idea, which is that of Motion.

“This implies the idea of Time, for only through Motion, and in Time,

can any event happen. Without this change and sequence, nothing can be the

object of sense…It is the womb in which the Great Father moves and begets active existence.”

“There is now possible a concrete idea of the point; and at last, it is a point which can be self conscious, because it can have a Past, Present and future. It is able to define itself in terms of the previous ideas. Here is the number six, the centre of the system: self-conscious, capable of experience.”4

It is from this understanding of space and time coming into existence that we may begin to comprehend the vast secrets contained in the heretical Gnostic text called the Trimorphic Protennoia or ‘The First Thought, in Three Forms’:

“The Primordial thought, the original cosmic femaleness, came to exist as a triality moving everywhere and for all time…Father, Mother and Son, in which the Voice of the Thought comes as the ineffable one, the Christ: “I am Protennoia, the Thought that dwells in the All, she in whom the all takes its stand, the first born among those who came to be, she who exists before all. She is called by three names, although she dwells alone, since she is perfect. I am invisible within the thought of the invisible one. I am revealed in the immeasurable, ineffable. I am incomprehensible, dwelling in the incomprehensible. I move in every creature.” 5

“Alchemical science, or the science which investigates the transformations of the original substance, elementary matter (Lat. materea, root mater, mother). For the Virgin Mother, stripped of her symbolical veil, is none other than the personification of the primitive substance, used by the Principle, the Creator of all that is, for the furtherance of his designs. This is the meaning and indeed a very clear one) of this strange epithet, which we read in the Mass of the Immaculate conception of the Virgin, of which the text reads:

“The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his ways. I existed before he formed any creature. I existed from all eternity, before the earth was created. The abysses were not yet and already I was conceived… When he prepared the heavens, I was present; when he confined the abysses within their bounds… when he laid the foundations of the earth, I was with him and I regulated all things.”6

In Sanskrit the word for Mother is Matr; in Greek Meter, Latin Mater, German Mutter, French Mere, Russian Mat’, in Egyptian Maat.

The root of all of these words comes from the Aryan root Ma, meaning, “to measure” from where we obtain the length of measure the MeTRe, from the Greek MeTeR, and by which we measure reality in space and time, in science, which innately cannot look beyond this by its methodology born from this measuring perspective. The reason for the term measure relating to the term for Mother and Matter relates to the very reason for the existence of the Mother. Her role is to Measure the potential of the Universe through Creation in order to answer the question “Who Am I?” just as we have seen the distance between points A,B and C measured for this same purpose.

We receive a further confirmation of this in the Old English name for Mother. In Old English Mother was Modor, from the Dutch word moeder, meaning “womb”.

The Great Mother holds the entirety of creation in her womb (where the pure energy that is her Son brings life to matter through such things as time, motion, activity, breathe, consciousness, etc). That great womb is the universe itself, as it conceives (an image in matter) the Nature of God and reflects this back through experience in being.

“Referring to the conception of Jesus by the Divine Spirit which was breathed into the Virgin Mary (Qur. XXI 91, LXVI 12). Jesus is also called “the Word (Kalimah) of God, which He cast into Mary” (Qur. IV 169); this is the creative word (Kalám-I Haqq) comes into the heart of any one and the Divine inspiration enters his heart and soul, its nature is such that there is produced within him a spiritual child (walad-I ma’nawi) having the breath of Jesus that revives the dead.” Cf. Eckhart’s doctrine of the birth of Christ in the soul (Inge, Christian Mysticism, 162 seq.). His saying, “the Father speaks the Word into the soul, and when the ‘son’ is born every soul become Mary”, is curiously parallel to what Rumi says in this verse. See the Add. Notes on 1515-1521.”

“The commentators cite Traditions in which God says al-insánu sirr un min asrári and al-insánu sirri wa-ana sirruhu. The Divine consciousness is manifested completely in the Perfect Man, who is both real (haqq) and phenomenal (khalq), so that he is the medium through which God knows Himself and all His creation. …”

This separation of the Natures of the trinity that go to make the four elements are reflected equally well in the Egyptian myths of creation. Let us look at two Egyptian creation myths in order to firstly prove the creation of the Holy Trinity and secondly to show the creation of the four elements:

“In one account the God Ra says that he took upon himself the form of Khepera, the deity who was usually credited with the creative faculty. He proceeds to say that he continued to create new things out of those which he had already made and that they went forth from his mouth. “Heaven,” he says, “did not exist and earth had not come into being, and the things of the earth and creeping things had not come into existence in that place, and I raised them out of Nu from a state of inactivity.” This would imply that Khepera moulded life in the universe from the matter supplied from the watery abyss of Nu.

“I found no place,” says Khepera, “whereon I could stand. I worked a charm upon my own heart. I laid a foundation in Maat. I made every form. I was one by myself. I had not emitted from myself the God Shu (daylight), and I had not spit out from myself the Goddess Tefnut (moisture). There was no other being who worked with me…from the allusion to working a charm upon his heart we may take it that Khepera made use of magical skill in the creative process, or it may mean, in scriptural phraseology, that “he took thought unto himself” to make a world. The God continues that from the foundation of his heart multitudes of things came into being. But the Sun, the eye of Nu, was “covered up behind Shu (daylight) and Tefnut (moisture),” and it was only after an indefinite period of time that these two beings, the children of Nu, were raised up from out the watery mass and brought their fathers eye along with them…In the beginning of this Khepera tells us at once that he is Osiris, the cause of primeval matter.” 7

“Isis, weary of the world of mortals, determined to enter that of the gods, and to this end made up her mind to worm his secret name from the almighty Ra. This name was known to no mortal, and not even to any god but himself. By this time Ra had grown old, and, like many another venerable person, he often permitted the saliva to flow from the corners of his mouth.

Some of this fell to the earth, and Isis, mixing it with the soil, kneaded it into the shape of a serpent, and cunningly laid it in the path traversed by the great god every day. Bursting upon the world in his effulgence, and attended by the entire pantheon, he was astounded when the serpent, rising from its coil stung him. He cried aloud with pain, and, in answer to the agitated questions of his inferior divinities, was silent.

The poison swiftly overcame him, and a great ague seized him. He called all the gods to come that their healing words might make him well, and with them came Isis, who cunningly inquired what ailed him. He related the incident of the serpent to her, and added that he was suffering the greatest agony. “Then” said Isis, “tell me thy name, Divine Father, for the man shall live who is called by name.” Ra attempted a compromise by stating that he was Khepera in the morning, Ra at noon, and Atem in the evening; but the poison worked more fearfully within him than before, and he could no longer walk. Isis conjured him to tell her his name in order that he might live; so hiding himself from all the other gods, he acquainted her with his hidden title. When this was revealed Isis immediately banished the poison from his veins, and he became whole again…What Isis was able to do was aspired to by every Egyptian Magician who left no stone unturned to accomplish this end.”( P.259-60 Egypt-Lewis Spence)

In the last part of the above quote we learn that: “Khepera tells us at once that he is Osiris, the cause of Primeval matter”. To understand why “the deity who was usually credited with the creative faculty” should so obviously wish to be known to be Osiris we must look at the definition of the God Osiris given by Plutarch, a high priest of Delphi in Ancient Greece (therefore a high initiate) who tells us that Osiris is:

“The common reason which pervades both the superior and inferior regions of the Universe”

The saliva that is formed into the snake, is the energy that can sloth its form, its outer skin and change into a different form of matter. In Sumerian this creation myth has the Great Mother, transformed into a snake which the Christ figure Marduk, then splits up into the various parts of the universe, and finally Babyl itself, which as we saw split the universe into three levels of reality as Ea, Enu, and X, just as we saw the three gods of the trinity in the Hindu myth and just as the world was split tripartially as a subsequent experience or gods, humans, and demons.

A_ You haven’t  detailed this as you said you have in previous chapter. Plus add Marduk myth in here in full please.

Let us finally take a look at the Greek creation myth as a further analysis of this understanding, in order to bring all of the Creation myths of the Ancient cultures into this singular framework:

“At first, when all things lay in a great confused mass…The Earth did not exist. Land, Sea, and air were mixed up together; so that the earth was not solid, the sea was not fluid, nor the air transparent. Over this shapeless mass reigned a careless deity called Chaos, whose personal appearance could not be described, as there was no light by which he could be seen. He shared his throne with his wife, the dark goddess of night, named Nyx or Nox, whose black robes, and still blacker countenance (known to Christians as the Black Madonna, authors note), did not tend to enliven the surrounding gloom. These two wearied of their power in the course of time and called their son Erebus  (darkness) to their assistance. His first act was to dethrone and supplant Chaos; and then; thinking he would be happier with a helpmeet, he married his own mother, Nyx…

 Erebus and Nyx ruled over the chaotic world together, until their two beautiful children, Aether (light) and Hemera (day), acting in concert dethroned them, and seized the supreme power.

 Space, illumined for the first time by their radiance, revealed itself in all its uncouthness. Aether and Hemera carefully examined the confusion, saw its innumerable

possibilities, and decided to evolve from it a thing of beauty; but quite conscious of the magnitude of such an undertaking, and feeling that some assistance would be desirable, they summoned Eros (Amor or Love), their own child to their aid. By their combined efforts, Pontus (the Sea) and Gaea (Ge, Tellus, Terra), as the Earth was first called, were created.”9

As final understanding of all of this is revealed in Alchemy. Alchemy comes from the Arabic appellation for the Egyptians who were known as the ‘black-footed people, due to the black mud produced from the Nile, which died their feet with its Nature. The mysteries of alchemy were practiced by the Egyptians as part of their religion and were kept as the highest secrets of that religion. Its purpose was not, economic, as it has been perceived today, from a modern perspective, but was to transform the Platonic metals of our inner Nature to those of Gold, symbolising purity and light and highest value. The Alchemist Fulcanelli reiterates the Nature of matter and the Virgin Mother of Christ, upon this cross of the four alchemical elements (air, fire, water, earth) as the womb of the Universe using the symbol of Christs Mother and its animation through the male energy or light of Christs as the fire, that ‘lights’ the passions of our heart and  animates the actions of our lives just as the heat of the fire burns the contents of the crucible to transform it:

“She is the dispenser of the passive substance, which the solar spirit comes to animate. Mary, Virgin and Mother, then, represents form; Elias, the Sun, God the Father, is the emblem of the vital spirit. From the union of these two principles, the incarnate spirit, fire, incorporated in things here below:

AND THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH, AND DWELT AMONG US

…the Bible tells us that Mary, mother of Jesus, was of the stem of Jesse. Now, the Hebrew word Jes means fire, the Sun Divinity. To be of the stem of Jesse is thus to be of the race of the sun, of fire. Since matter derives from the solar fire, as we have just seen, the very name of Jesus appears to us in its original and celestial splendour: fire, Sun, God.”6

It must be stated that the utter ignorance of scientists today when we see them denigrate the idea of the four elements, as if they actually meant the physical matter of earth, air, fire, and water, is to say the least embarrassing to academia as a whole. The ancients used the elements to describe the elements of our inner world, that lies beneath empirical measurements of an outer world, that is formed by the interaction of these elements within us. Just as we have seen the universe change from God’s to our own property right by a change in this perspective, science today misunderstands the perspective of these elements, and calls it ‘right’. It is most assuredly not, it is wrong.

To give a brief overview of the depth of the meaning of these elements, whilst promising far greater elucidation in my next book, let us try to bridge our perspective gap, from one episteme to another. Rumi tells us:

“God in reality creates all causes and effects, though logically every cause seems to be the effect of another cause. Steel and flint cause fire to be produced, and themselves (according to Moslem physicists) are the product of “the seven Fathers” (the planets) and “the four Mothers” (the elements). Again, the planetary influences and elementary properties have causes above them: the orthodox view is that fire does not burn or water quench thirst by their own nature, but only as instruments for manifesting the will of God…

The literal signification of sabab (secondary cause, means) is “a rope (Arabic rasan) by means of which a bucket is let down into a well for the purpose of drawing water”. Here the poet likens the world to a well (cf. Diwán, SP, XXIV 8), and all phenomenal causation to the bucket-rope on a water-wheel: the rope appears to be moved by the rotation of the wheel, but the wheel itself is moved by the ox or ass harnessed to it. No less unreal is the supposed influence of the celestial sphere, Fortune’s wheel, on human affairs.” (Nicholson: 2003:71)

Air: This is the ‘world of thought’ where you can seem to, “pull a thought from thin Air”, if you’re not an “Airhead”. To “clear the Air” refers not only to the form of telling people what you really think when you could, “cut the Air with a knife” but also shows us the same analogy on a natural sense when the sun (Fire) and wind (Air) clear the Air after a thunderstorm. Air is the imagination of formlessness, of infinite potential.

Water: “Still waters run deep” These are the emotions, deep, mysterious. They can be still and calm or turbulent and stormy. If you are in control of your emotions insults are like, “Water off of a ducks back”, if not it is a struggle to “keep ones head above water”, “come hell or high Water”. It is also “the Water of life” for all creatures need water to live. By calming these waters we are able to draw them up towards God, just as water is drawn from the well or escapes from the womb to denote that a new life is about to be born. Water is the spirit that bears life and the emotional landscape of the gods and ourselves in their image.

Fire: This is the element of change and transformation. It is in the fire that the Alchemist places his stone and sees it turn into Gold. It is the “fire than burns in your soul” the passion and the drive to change. It is the light that guides you as a symbol of wisdom. It is the gift of Prometheus, symbol of evolution, that has allowed mankind alone to look upon his own face with the light of truth and see the transformation possible. This is the “ordeal of fire” to “go through fire and water”. The word fire itself coming from the Greek “pur” meaning pure. This is the act of purifying the soul, burning away the dross to find the gold hidden within by purifying the dross of the ego, and desire.

Earth: is the physical world that science acknowledges as truly existing, the matter that makes up the planets and stars and everything else that science can point a stick at and measure. It is also however on a subtle level the analogous word for action. The word action has a deep meaning here for it is when you “come back down to earth” that Airy wishes and daydreams are made reality by taking action. It is when we have travelled to the “ends of the Earth” that we have tried everything we can think of to actually “do”.

Therefore the trinity is a state of pure imagination, of infinite potential, that is not contained by the reality of space and time, of measure, as it is not within the Virgin Womb of reality, of the universe made of space and time. This is the play that the Hindu myth defines, where the Nature of the Trinity is seen as three natures within one continuum that cannot tell which one is first and which is last, as these linear languages traps formed by the experience of space and time, cannot contain it. Just as the Nature of God cannot be contained by a word, but is infinite, as are the vowels, that are used to suggest this sacred mystery.

04: The Eleusinian Mystery – back to Pandora and Prometheus

“In order to elevate the dignity of the priesthoods, Augustus assumed the principal ones himself. We know from the Res Gestae (7) that he was pontifex maximus, augur, quindecimvir in charge of sacred ceremonies, septemvir epulonum, and one of the Arval Brethren, the Titian Brethren, and the fetiales. He restored 82 temples (Res Gestae 20), and renewed rites that had fallen into disuse. …

The poet Ovid suggests a plausible senatorial and popular response to these practices. Celebrating the dedication of a shrine to the goddess Vesta on the Palatine, he says “Vesta has been received into the house of her relative, thus have the just senators decreed. Apollo holds a part of the house; another part has been given to Vesta; Augustus, third in line, occupies what remains from those two… a single abode houses three eternal gods.” (Fasti 4.949-54).” (Le Glay:2009:250)

Now that we have ascertained the universal understanding of the Trinity before Christianity, we need merely to join up the Romans and the imperial cult with these secret mysteries and once this is done it is safe to state that this was the world and the people to whom the early Christian fathers were talking to in order to understood Christ, and to convey their understanding of Christ to them.

Hadrian’s personality confounded even his contemporaries, who did not appreciate him greatly. … His admiration of Greece earned him the nickname Graeculus from the Romans. His spiritual concerns took several forms. Besides the usual interest in astrology and respect for traditional religion, he showed great enthusiasm for Greek cults (in particular that of Demeter at Eleusis, and Asclepius at Pergamum), as well as Egyptian cults.” (Le Glay:2009:332-34)

“This spread of education did not prevent the proliferation of superstitious beliefs, a staple of Roman civilization for centuries. Many lives were ruled by astrology, which claimed that humans were ruled by the movements of heavenly bodies. The observation of nature also encouraged a belief in magic, which claimed to be able to compel the gods through the action of spirits. Alchemy sought to transform base metals into gold. Practices of theurgy (“divine-work”) included meditation and invocation of the divine, and promised miracles and apparitions. Spell-casting tablets multiplied during the fourth century. At a mystical ceremony a magic text was inscribed on a papyrus, or a tablet of wood or metal, mostly lead, and then placed in a tomb or shaft. These tablets reveal what preoccupied people’s thoughts- love, revenge, winning on the horses, and bumper harvests.” (Le Glay:2009:525-26)

Gallienus, the last great ruler to emerge from the aristocracy, considerably strengthened imperial absolutism by imparting to it a theocratic character. This was symbolized by the diadem, which later became an abstract and eternal figure.

This cultured man, who was strongly philhellenic, had been initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries. He lived surrounded by a court led by the empress Salonina, where the neo-Platonist philosopher Plotinus was conspicuous. His reign witnessed a blossoming of culture and the arts..

But there was also soon a fresh internal threat. Aureolus, commander to the troops in Milan, proclaimed himself emperor. Gallienus, besieging him there, was assassinated by his own officers in 268. His successors pursued his work of re-establishing order. These “Illyrian” emperors came mainly from the ranks of the army….

But Aurelian is also remembered as a man of solar theology. His desire was to rebuild the moral unity of the Empire around the Sun god, and in 274 he proposed to his contemporaries a quasi-monotheism, or henotheism, something still alien to collective attitudes, though the forms of the cult remained close to traditional pagan (rites, the institution of priests of the Sun).” (Le Glay:2009:467-69)

“The Eleusian mysteries. The religious rites in honour of Demeter or Ceres, originally an agrarian cult, performed at Eleusis in Attica but later taken over by the Athenian state and partly celebrated at Athens. The rites included sea bathing, processions, and religious dramas, and the initiated obtained thus a happy life, beyond the grave. Little is known about the chief rites, hence the figurative use of the phrase to mean something deeply mysterious. The Eleusinian mysteries were abolished by the Emperor Theodosius about the end of the 4^th Century AD.” (Websters Dictionary of Phrase and Fable)

In the ancient world, religion had a private face, where those who followed the path of the religion and were seen as virtuous were exposed to the secrets that were held within the myths and stories that had been told to the public. By this initiation they were able to understand and hence experience a higher truth of the reality of God, that before had been in plain sight as the story of Osiris, or Dionysus or Demeter, etc, but which was now revealed to them as a deeper truth. We have already seen the fire of Prometheus and Pandora’s box to be far greater holders of truth, than they at first sight suggested, and indeed psychology today misuses these gods to define their own perspective, due to this lack of understanding, excepting Jung, but most certainly curtailing Freud and his narrow understanding of the three natures of the trinity, that he has named the id, the ego, and the superego.

Sigmund Freud: religion as wish-fulfillment

Earlier we explored Ludwig Feuerbach’s radical idea that the concept of God was fundamentally a human construction, based on the “projection” of fundamental human longings and desires. Feuerbach’s basic ideas were taken over, and given a new sense of direction, in the writings of the Austrian psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). “All I have done- and this is the only thing that is new in my exposition- is to add some psychological foundation to the criticisms of my great predecessors.” In fact, it is probably fair to say that Feuerbach’s “projection” or “wish-fulfillment” theory is best known today in its Freudian form, rather than in Feuerbach’s original version. “Religion”, Freud wrote, “is an illusion and it derives its strength from that fact that it falls in with out instinctual desires.”

The most powerful statement of Freud’s approach may be found in The Future of an Illusion (1927), which develops a strongly reductionist approach to religion. For Freud, religious ideas are “illusions, fulfilments of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind.” The parallels with Feuerbach are evident; yet Freud went on to develop a radical and original explanation of religion, grounded in the insights of the newly emerging discipline of psychoanalysis, which took Feuerbach’s critique of religion to new heights. Illusions are not deliberate deceptions; they are simply ideas that arise from within the human unconsciousness, as it seeks to fulfil its deepest yearnings and longings. For Marx, those longings were the tragic outcome of social alienation, requiring social transformation for their elimination. For Freud, their origins lie not in society, but in the human unconscious.

The first major statement of Freud’s views on the origin of religion- which he increasingly came to refer to as “the psychogenesis of religion”- may be found in Totem and Taboo (1913). Developing his earlier observation that religious rites are similar to the obsessive actions of his neurotic patients. Freud declared that religion was basically a distorted form of an obsessional neurosis. The key elements in all religions, he argues, are the veneration of a father figure (such as God or Jesus Christ), faith in the power of spirits, and a concern for proper rituals.

Religion, according to Freud’s historical account, arises through inner psychological pressures, which reflect the complex evolutionary history of humanity. …In The Future of an Illusion, Freud argued that religion represents the perpetuation of a piece of infantile behaviour in adult life. … Belief in a personal God is thus little more than an infantile delusion. Religion is wishful thinking, an illusion. The psychological origins of human belief in God are thus to be found in a projection of the intense, unconscious desires of humanity. …

The cultural impact of Freud’s approach has been immense, especially in North America. It is fair to say that, from about 1920, Freud’s account of religion gained the ascendancy within the American intelligentsia, attracting a following exceeding even that of such postmodern writers as Paul de Man and Michel Foucault in more recent times. …Although Freud’s theories of the origins of religion are now generally regarded as unscientific speculation, their influence lingers on, and they are still occasionally encountered in some discussions of the nature and origins of religion.” (McGrath:2007:430-1)

Attending an Eleusianian mystery rite would be to watch the story of Demeter or Dionysus being played out by the initiates, and to become involved one-self, thereby bringing your actions onto the earth into reality. The imbibing of the spirit of wine or mead in our earthly vessel enacting these dances and persona’s were a magical connection to the spirit of Dionysus, who we have already seen compared to Christ. The joining of two such possessed people around the central fire of transformation in sexual union, would have been a conjoining of spirit, not of the egoic desire of cock and pussy (Freud and Dawkins), it was a transcendent dance to the energy or  Logos of Dionysus or to the matter of space and time of Demeter or Pandora. It could be a dance to make energy enter matter, thereby creating a good harvest, or it could be a dance to make matter release its energy, thereby creating a pure soul, in its host, who, by understanding the true Nature of the dance, the myth, the wine, the song, the sexual communion, even the tearing apart of men (to symbolise the tearing apart of Christ or Osiris or Dionysus or the snake, etc) could experience the reality of these mysteries and receive revelation and enlightenment, or holy communion, depending on your language trap of choice.

We have therefore seen that the Roman emperor’s who thought themselves gods, were initiated into these secret mysteries that I have outlined in the previous chapters of this book, and which lead us all of the way back to prehistory, and the dawn of civilizations itself, and beyond into the murky past where the idea of the soul was first created, before Durkheim’s mechanism of ‘God creation through civilization’ could be said to have existed. We have also seen that this is a universal mystery practiced by all religions and philosophies throughout time, and that this source comes from the Altai who worshipped a golden mountain (the meaning of their name), i.e. a triangle that has entered the universe and become 4 dimensional as a pyramid.

It is important to note that a triangle has never ever been seen by any one in this outer world. It can only exist in the inner world. Scientists do not say that triangles do not therefore exist, as they do with God, because they require the authority of the triangle in order to measure the outer world, as defined by the first mathematician Euclid, from this inner one.

What I mean when I say the above is that a triangle is a Euclidian object, that does not exist in space and time but can easily be summoned up in our imagination. There it seats in your mind as you read this, effortlessly, whilst it also exists in my mind as I write this. Is it the same triangle in your head at the space and time that you exist in as the one in my head in this space and time that I exist in now?

A triangle when drawn on a piece of paper in the outer world, is a 3 dimensional object, in that it has a surface and a depth, because the atoms of the pencil that define the object are of a certain depth. Similarly if I drew a triangle on the computer screen, it has the depth of the photons of light, that form it. One can never hold a triangle in ones hand, as it will have depth, and therefore not be a triangle. We do not have a word for a triangle in the outer world other than triangle because our experience does not require a second word, triangle will suffice, but that does not mean that it is a triangle in reality.

How therefore can a triangle act in the world or become the element of Earth? And how can an authority based upon the receipt of this Trinitarian power be made to incarnate, become embodied in earth or clay, but by turning it into a pyramid, i.e. a hierarchy of authority based upon this truth, now revealed.

Gospel of Philip which has been unadulterated by the church:

     “Some said, “Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit”. They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman? Mary is the virgin whom no power defiled.”

The Authority of the Catholic Trinity, the Hierarchy of the Pyramid in a world of pure imagination

“The empire was threatened by attempts to split it up, and to make other cities than Rome the centre of its power, but its natural strength and powers of recovery were equal to these assaults. It found new vitality in the final revolution which placed absolute authority firmly in the hands of the head of state, whose position was based on the divinity of the emperor and the might of his armies.

This revolution, which gave complete power to the emperor, led to the complete eclipse of the social group from which for centuries Rome had drawn her administrators and commanders. Gradually, the senatorial caste was displaced from the dominant position that it had still retained at the beginning of the imperial era, and was replaced by a more docile and less exclusive governing class, formed from the ‘equites’, who still controlled most of the wealth of the empire. …

The new monarchy reaffirmed the religious basis of its legitimacy at a moment when a new period of history was beginning. Now that the god whose will legalised the ruler’s authority was no longer the god of the pagans, a new imperial unity began to grow up from the communion of believers in the Gospel.

In the course of centuries of revolution men had come to affirm the value of the individual and the importance of the fight to uphold justice in the political life of the community. In the place of the old Indo-European state based on racial unity, a new concept of citizenship had appeared, which gave to the groups making up the state a value which depended on their services to the community. These were the political discoveries of the ancient world, and they have made possible the modern forms of state organisation and the prospect of humanity united by a common faith in law and justice, liberty and respect for the individual, irrespective of his race and condition.” (Levi:1955:188-89)

Now that we have understood the universal application of the Trinity through the ancient religions we can begin to understand the Trinity as defined by the Catholic Church.

Let us first of all look at the early Church Fathers and the oppressive world of Roman sponsored paganism that they found themselves formulating their doctrines in, so that we may understand their language use and their authority to use it, and how this changed with the accession of Constantine who adopted Christianity. This period is known as the Patristic period:

05: Overview of the Patristic Period

The patristic period is one of the most exciting and creative periods in the history of Christian thought. This feature alone is enough to ensure that it will continue to be the subject of study for many years to come. The period is also of importance for theological reasons. Every mainstream Christian body- including the Anglican, Eastern, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, and Roman Catholic Churches- regards the patristic period as a definitive landmark in the development of Christian doctrines. Each of these churches regards itself as continuing, extending, and, where necessary, criticizing the views of the early church writers. For example, the leading seventeenth-century Anglican writer Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626) declared that orthodox Christianity was based upon two testaments, three creeds, four gospels, and the first five centuries of Christian history….

The patristic period: This is a vaguely defined entity, which is often taken to be the period from the closing of the New Testament writings (c.100) to the definitive Council of Chalcedon (451).” (McGrath:2007:7-8)

“During the first period of Christian history, the church was often persecuted by the state. Its agenda was that of survival; there was limited room for theological disputes when the very existence of the Christian church could not be taken for granted. This observation helps us to understand why apologetics came to be of such importance to the early church through writers such as Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165), who were concerned to explain and defend the beliefs and practices of Christianity to a hostile pagan public…

These conditions became possible during the fourth century, with the conversion of Constantine, who went on to become the Roman emperor. During this period as emperor (306-37), …

As a result, the later patristic period (from about 310 to 451) may be regarded as a highwater mark in the history of Christian theology. Theologians now enjoyed the freedom to work without the threat of persecution, and were able to address a series of issues of major importance to the consolidation of the emerging theological consensus within the churches. Establishing that consensus involved extensive debate and a painful learning process, in which the church discovered that it had to come to terms with disagreements and continuing tensions. Nonetheless, a significant degree of consensus, eventually to be enshrined in the ecumenical creeds, can be discerned as evolving within this formative period….

The period saw a major division arise, for both political and linguistic reasons, between the eastern Greek-speaking and the western Latin-speaking church. Many scholars discern a marked difference in theological temperament between theologians of the east and west: the former are often philosophically inclined and given to theological speculation, whereas the latter are often hostile to the intrusion of philosophy into theology, and regard theology as the exploration of the doctrines set out in Scripture.” (McGrath:2007:8-10)

Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165)

Justin is perhaps the greatest of the Apologists- the Christian writers of the second century who were concerned to defend Christianity in the face of intense criticism from pagan sources. Though born in Palestine, Justin eventually settled in Rome, where he gained a reputation as a Christian teacher. In his “First Apology”, Justin argued that traces of Christian truth were to be found in the great pagan writers. His doctrine of the logos spermatikos (“seed-bearing word”) allowed him to affirm that God had prepared the way for his final revelation in Christ through hints of its truth in classical philosophy. Justin provides us with an important early example of a theologian who attempts to relate the gospel to the outlook of Greek philosophy, a trend especially associated with the eastern church.” (McGrath:2007:10)

Justin Martyr on Philosophy and Theology

In his two apologies for the Christian faith, written in Greek at Rome at some point during the period 148-61, Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165) sets out a vigorous defense of Christianity in which he seeks to relate the gospel to secular wisdom. Justin has an especial concern to relate the Christian gospel to the forms of Platonism which were influential in the eastern Mediterranean region at this time, and thus stresses the convergence of Christianity and Platonism at a number of points of importance. In particular, Justin is drawn to the pivotal concept of the “Logos”…which plays a key role in Platonic philosophy and Christian theology….

‘We have been taught that Christ is the firstborn of God, and we have proclaimed that he is the Logos, in whom every race of people have shared. And those who live according to the Logos are Christians, even though they may have been counted as atheists- such as Socrates and Heraclitus, and others like them, among the Greeks….’

Note how Justine argues that Jesus Christ is the Logos. In other words, the foundational philosophical principle of the Platonic system, according to Justin, is not an abstract idea which needs to be discovered by human reason, but something which has been made known to humanity in a specific form. What the philosophers were seeking has been made known in Christ.

It follows that all true human wisdom derives from this Logos, whether this is explicitly recognized or not. Justin argues that philosophical contradictions and tensions arise through an incomplete access to the Logos. Full access to the Logos is now possible, however, through Christ.

Justin then asserts that all those who honestly and sincerely act according to what they know of the Logos can be reckoned as being Christians, including Socrates. It thus follows that what is good and true in secular philosophy can be accepted and honoured by Christians, in that it ultimately derives from the Logos, whether this is explicitly recognized or not.” (McGrath:2011:4)

Clement of Alexandria on Philosophy and Theology

The eight books of Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata (the word literally means “carpets”) deal at length with the relation of the Christian faith to Greek philosophy. In this extract from Stromata, originally written in Greek in the early third century, Clement (c.150-215) argues that God gave philosophy to the Greeks as a way of preparing them for the coming of Christ, in the same way as he gave the Jews the law of Moses. While not conceding that philosophy has the same status as divine revelation, Clement goes beyond Justin Martyr’s suggestion that the mere seeds of the Logos are to be found in Greek philosophy. …

‘But it might be that philosophy was given to the Greeks immediately and directly, until such time as the Lord should also call the Greeks. For philosophy acted as a “custodian” (epaidagōgei] to bring the Greeks to Christ, just as the law brought the Hebrews.’ …

Clement clearly regards philosophy as having a continuing positive role for Christians. It has not been made irrelevant by the coming of Christ; it remains a way by which sincere and truth-loving people can make their way to faith. Christ is seen as the perfection and fulfilment of philosophy, just as he is also to be seen as the perfection and fulfilment of the Old Testament,” (McGrath:2011:5)

Platonism

Plato (427-347 BC) is widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of the ancient world. He was born into an aristocratic family in Athens at the time of Pericles…

Perhaps the most important aspect of Plato’s thought is the “theory of Forms”. The “Forms” can be understood as the principles of being within the world. The world of appearances can be understood and accounted for in terms of being particular images of the Forms. Plato ascribed popular importance of the Form of the good, and to the notion of the logos (Greek: “word”) through which the rationality of the world is communicated and conceptualized. …[The common reason that pervades the universe]

The Platonic notion of the logos spermatikos (“seed-bearing word”) was widely invoked as a means of explaining how the wisdom of the Christian God could be discerned in non-Christian contexts, such as Greek philosophy. Similarly, the role of Christ in mediating God to the world was seen as paralleling the role of the logos in Middle Platonism.

The idea of Christ as the one who makes the order of the creation visible to humanity can clearly be seen in the writings of many Christian Platonists. Clement of Alexandria, presumably with a Platonic audience in mind, stresses that it is Christ who, as logos, is able to reveal what would otherwise be inaccessible to humanity. The truth is something that can be made known- that can be seen:

‘The Word of God himself says, “I am the Truth”. Now it is by the Spirit that God can be contemplated. But, Plato says, who are the true philosophers? Those who wish to see the truth. And in the Phaedrus, he speaks of Truth as an idea. But this “idea” is none other than the thought of God, which the pagans called his logos. Now the logos proceeds from God as the cause of the creation. Then the logos is himself begotten, when he becomes incarnate, in order that he may become visible.’

Clement thus simultaneously builds his thinking on Platonic ideas, while at the same time stressing the inadequacy of the philosophical system in comparison with Christianity. How can truth be seen? Plato has no answer to give; having stressed the importance of “seeing” the truth, he cannot make this happen. Christianity however, speaks and knows of the logos incarnate- and hence available and displayed to human sight.” (McGrath:2007:174-5)

Origen (c.185-c.254)

Origen, who was based in the great city of Alexandria, was one of the most significant defenders of Christianity in the third century. His theology provided an important function for the development of eastern Christian thought. Origen’s major contributions to the development of Christian theology can be seen in two general areas. In the field of biblical interpretation, Origen developed the notion of allegorical interpretation, arguing that the surface meaning of Scripture was to be distinguished from its deeper spiritual meaning. In the field of Christology, Origen established a tradition of distinguishing between the full divinity of the Father and a lesser divinity of the Son. Some scholars see Arianism as a natural consequence of this approach. Origen also adopted  with some enthusiasm the idea of apocatastasis, according to which every creature– including both humanity and Satan- will be saved.” (McGrath:2007:10-11)

Athanasius (c.293-373)

Athanasius’s significance relates primarily to Christological issues, which became of major importance during the fourth century. Possibly while still in his twenties, Athanasius wrote the treatise On the Incarnation of the Word. This was a powerful defense of the idea of the incarnation- namely, the belief that God assumed human nature in the person of Jesus Christ. This issue proved to be of central importance in the Arian controversy to which Athanasius made a major contribution. Athanasius pointed out that if, as Arius argued, Christ was not fully God, a series of devastating implications followed. First, it was impossible for God to redeem humanity, as no creature could redeem another creature. And, second, it followed that the Christian church was guilty of idolatry, as Christians regularly worshipped and prayed to Christ. As “idolatry” can be defined as “worship of a human construction or creation”, it followed that this worship was idolatrous. Such arguments eventually carried the day, and led to the rejection of Arianism.” (McGrath:2007:11)

Augustine of Hippoe (354-430)

Aurelius Augustinus, usually known as “Augustine of Hippo”, is probably the greatest and most influential mind of the Christian church throughout its long history. Attracted to the Christian faith by the preaching of Bishop Ambrose of Milan, Augustine underwent a dramatic conversion experience in a garden in Milan.

Augustine left Italy to return to north Africa, and was made bishop of Hippo (in modern Algeria) in 395. The remaining 35 years of his life witnessed numerous controversies of major importance to the future of the Christian church in the west, and Augustine’s contribution to the resolution of each of these was decisive. His careful exposition of the New Testament, particularly the letters of Paul, gained him a reputation which continues today, as the “second founder of the Christian faith” (Jerome). During the theological renaissance of the early Middle Ages. Augustine’s substantial body of writings would form the basis of a major program of renewal and development, consolidating his influence over the western church.

A major part of Augustine’s contribution lies in the development of theology as an academic discipline. The early church cannot really be said to have developed any “systematic theology”. Its primary concern was to defend Christianity against its critics (as in the apologetic works of Justin Martyr), and to clarify central aspects of its thinking against heresy (as in the anti-Gnostic writings of Ireneaus). Nevertheless, major doctrinal development took place during the first four centuries, especially in relation to the doctrine of the person of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity.

Augustine’s contribution was to achieve a synthesis of Christian thought, supremely in his major treatise On the City of God. Like Charles Dicken’s famous novel, Augustine’s City of God is a tale of two cities- the city of the world, and the city of God. However, in addition, it may be argued that Augustine made key contributions to three major areas of Christian theology: the doctrine of the church and sacraments, arising from the Donatist controversy; the doctrine of grace, arising from the Pelagian controversy; and the doctrine of the Trinity. Interestingly, Augustine never really explored the area of Christology (that is, the doctrine of the person of Christ), which would unquestionably have benefited them from his considerable wisdom and acumen.” (McGrath:2007:11-12)

Augustine of Hippo (354-430)

Augustine of Hippo developed an approach which is best described as the “critical appropriation of classical culture.” For Augustine, the situation is comparable to Israel fleeing from captivity in Egypt at the time of the Exodus. Although they left the idols of Egypt behind them, they carried the gold and silver of Egypt with them, in order to make better and proper use of such riches, which were thus liberated in order to serve a higher purpose than before. In much the same way, the philosophy and culture of the ancient world could be appropriated by Christians, where this seemed right, and thus allowed to serve the cause of the Christian faith. Augustine clinched his argument by pointing out how several recent distinguished Christians had made use of classical wisdom in advancing the gospel.

‘In the same way, pagan learning is not entirely made up of false teachings and superstitutions. […] It contains also some excellent teachings, well suited to be used by truth, and excellent moral values. Indeed, some truths are even found among them which relate to the worship of the one God…The Christian, therefore, can separate these truths from their unfortunate associations, take them away, and put them to their proper use for the proclamation of the gospel.’” (McGrath:2007:116-7)

Augustine on Philosophy and Theology

“Augustine argues that there is no reason why Christians should not extract all that is good in philosophy, and put it to the service of preaching the gospel…

‘If those who are called philosophers, particularly the Platonists, have said anything which is true and consistent with our faith, we must not reject it, but claim it for our own use, in the knowledge that they possess it unlawfully…. pagan learning is not entirely made up of false teachings and superstitions. […] It contains also some excellent teachings, well suited to be used by truth, and excellent moral values. Indeed, some truths are even found among them which relate to the worship of the one God. Now these are, so to speak, their gold and their silver, which they did not invent themselves, but which they dug out of mines of the providence of God, which are scattered throughout the world, yet which are improperly and unlawfully prostituted to the worship of demons. The Christian, therefore, can separate these truths from their unfortunate associations, take them away, and put them to their proper use for the proclamation of the gospel…And before all of these, we find that Moses, that most faithful servant of God, had done the same thing: after all, it is written of him that “he was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22).” (McGrath:2011:7-8)

“The word “canon” needs explanation. It derives from the Greek word kanon meaning “a rule” or “a fixed reference point.” The “canon of Scripture” refers to a limited and defined group of writings, which are accepted as authoritative within the Christian church. The term “canonical” is used to refer to scriptural writings accepted to be within the canon. Thus, the gospel of Luke is referred to as “canonical”, whereas the gospel of Thomas is described as “extracanonical” (that is, lying outside the canon of Scripture)….

By the time of Irenaeus, it was generally accepted that there were four gospels; by the late second century, there was a consensus that the gospels, Acts, and letters had the status of inspired Scripture. Thus, Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215) recognized four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, 14 letters of Paul (the letter to the Hebrews being regarded as Pauline), and Revelation. Tertullian declared that the “evangelical and apostolic writings” were to be read alongside the “law and the prophets”, both of which were as authoritative within the church. Gradually, agreement was reached over the list of books which were recognized as inspired Scripture, and the order in which they were to be arranged. In 367, Athanasius circulated his 39^th Festal Letter, which identifies the 27 canonical books of the New Testament, as we now know it.” (McGrath:2007:12-13)

Tertullian (c.160-c.225)

The most severe criticism of this kind of approach [using Greek philosophy] was to be found in the writings of Tertullian, a third-century Roman lawyer who converted to Christianity. What, he asked, has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What relevance has the Platonic Academy for the church? The manner in which the question is posed makes Tertullian’s answer clear: Christianity must maintain its distinctive identity by avoiding such secular influences. This wholesale rejection of every aspect of pagan culture had the advantage of being simple to understand. Christianity, according to Tertullian, was basically a countercultural movement, which refused to allow itself to be contaminated in any way by the mental or moral environment in which it took root…

Under such conditions, it is hardly surprising that many Christians felt negatively toward classical Roman culture. This was the culture of an oppressor, determined to eliminate Christianity. It was easy to see the force of Tertullian’s arguments under these circumstances. To adopt Roman cultural norms was tantamount to betrayal of the Christian faith. Yet if the relation of classical culture to Christianity were to change, the force of Tertullian’s arguments might be weakened significantly.

With the conversion of Constantine, the issue of the interaction of Christianity and classical culture assumed a new significance. Rome was now the servant of the gospel; might not the same be true of its culture? If the Roman state could be viewed positively by Christians, why not also its cultural heritage? It seemed as if a door had opened upon some very interesting possibilities. Prior to 313, this situation could only have been dreamt of. After 313, its exploration became a matter of urgency for leading Christian thinkers.” (McGrath:2007:115-6)

So we can clearly see that in the beginning of Christianity, Christ was regarded and described as ‘the Logos’ that we have seen described as Wakan, previously, but that as Christianity began to become free of paganism and more supported within the Roman world, in which it had been persecuted the separation of Christianity from the Greek philosophy of the Roman world became a matter of contempt and hatred, but that this hatred led to a rejection of the means to understand the world that Christ himself had lived and taught in. In other words, by removing the depth of the allegory of scripture through contempt the understanding of the Logos aspect of Christianity was lost, whilst the teachings of Christ himself would not have been spoken out of this contempted context. Without the ability to use the language that would have deepened this understanding, the Christians formed their opinions on just four gospels out of perhaps hundreds, and did so by culling those which referred to this Logos in a Greek philosophical fashion.

The vehement hatred and closed minded suppression of any such Platonic sounding gospels was one of violence and persecution on a scale unprecedented by the Romans upon the Christians in the past, and we will look at this more closely in the next chapter. For now let us focus on the world of pure imagination, theology in this instance, and have a look at some of these gospels that were banned from the Catholic canon. Many of these gospels were hidden in caves, stored in jars, by the churches which had been using them for two centuries and preaching them from the Catholic pulpits to believers everyday over and above those which made it into the Bible, whilst others were burnt and thrown into rubbish heaps.

“In general the orthodox church that defined itself, won, and as such it defined the Gnostics to the dustbin of history, and it did so often with intense violence. One thing one forgets about turning the other cheek, it doesn’t necessarily suggest that it will stop you burning people to death”. Professor Simon Goldhill- Director of Studies in Classics – King’s College Cambridge

This simplification of the teaching of Christ proved to very popular as it was so easily understand, now that all of the secret mysteries that those who had been initiated into the Eleusinian mysteries would have easily understood, had been removed.

“So one of the reasons for the success of what became orthodox Christianity was its ability to mass-market a message that could be understood, that was meaningful, they weren’t mystical, they weren’t so esoteric. They were digestable in a ‘survival of the fittest sort’ of thing. The emergent orthodox Christianity ‘won’, because they were simply more effective at the game, than the other version of Christianity.” Professor Larry Hurtado- Faculty of Divinity- University of Edinburgh

Therefore the message of Christ was simplified down into the simple ‘survival of the fittest’ category of understanding, which more simply put means, ‘I’m alright Jack’, ‘I will be saved and you will not be, because I believe in Christ- simple’. However this was not at all how Christ was understood until this contemptuous hatred and rejection of the thrownness of Christianity and of Christ himself became the Orthodox way to think of Christ.

The irony of this ‘survival of the fittest’ Christology is that we are currently living through the same problem in the western world since the advent of Darwins theory of evolution paraphrased as the ‘survival of the fittest’. The rediscovery of the gnostic gospels, that were culled from the Catholic canon was only taken up in the last two centuries were scholar were suddenly funded to make a concerted effort to recover these ancient documents and translate them. Ironically this was done, not in order to discover the wider truth about Christ in this Patristic Period, but precisely the opposite, namely, to prove that the bible contained the whole truth in order to consolidate its stance against Darwinism that had so seriously undermined the authority of the Church in the minds of the Victorians and subsequent generations.

06: The Darwinian Controversy and the Nature of Humanity

One of the most vigorous debates within modern Christian through concerns the implications of Darwinisim for religious belief- above all, the theological status of human nature. Traditional Christian theology regarded humanity as the height of God’s creation, distinguished from the remainder of the created order by being created in the image of God. …Yet Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) posed an implicit, and The Descent of Man (1871) an explicit, over a vast period of time, from within the natural order.

If there was one aspect of his own theory of evolution which left Charles Darwin feeling unsettled, it was its implications for the status and identity of the human race. In every edition of the Origin of Species, Darwin consistently stated that his proposed mechanism of natural selection did not entail any fixed or universal law of progressive development. It was not an easy conclusion for Darwin, or for his age.” (McGrath:2007:371-2)

The gospels that were discovered, and that we are about to look at in greater detail did not however reveal the homogenous world of Christ that the bible and the Catholic church hoped for, it did precisely the opposite. Unsurprisingly much work has gone on in order to suppress the translation of many of these texts, particularly the sensitive parts that really diverge from the orthodox mindset, by the Catholic Church, as well as scholars who are invested with maintaining this belief themselves. We have not got the space, or the reason, to outline this petty-mindedness, in greater detail, so let us hasten instead, through this wall of willed ignorance, past the noble lie of ‘right thinking’ accretised by the 5^th century by burning books, and look at the result of these scholarly translations in regards to proving that the bible is definitive as well as ‘right’.

Let us here from the BBC Two documentary, that detailed the work of these scholars, ‘The Bible Hunters’:

“After everything that we have learned in the last 150 years of Bible hunting, is it even possible to defend the historical accuracy of the Bible?” Interviewer

“Yes and No. If you’re content to say, ‘Can we know the basics, that Jesus of Nazareth lived, that the apostles probably taught early Christian beliefs and developments. If you are content with that then Yes. If however your notion of historical accuracy is that, every single incident, as reported, must have happened that way, as if it is some sort of CCTV footage of an actual event, then you are going to be in big trouble.” Professor Larry Hurtado- Faculty of Divinity- University of Edinburgh

When these documents were rediscovered and the suppression of them was begun, in a world of Darwinism, it was a paradigm shift in our modern day understanding of Christianity, that is often not documented in history books about this period, but was one that actually shook the world and its faith. The result of this was ‘secularisation’, the idea of making religion a completely private affair, that was seen to have no effect, no authority- no right to power, within the world of politics. It is another aspect of the thrownness of our modern world:

‘Secularisation has been one of the causes of the discovery of these texts, due to the nature of tearing down the authority of the Bible as, The Text.’ Professor Simon Goldhill- Director of Studies in Classics- King’s College Cambridge

The ignorant phlegmatic denial of religion as an aberration of psychology by the lay man today comes from this secular perspective that has been taught and experienced by the political landscape of education, media, science, and law, that he has been brought up in, and not sufficiently questioned, in just the same manner as Christians who found themselves surrounded by hundreds of gospels for the last two hundred years,  but has been taught by experience by their political landscape of education, media, religion, and law, that he has been brought up in, and not sufficiently questioned. This is not to say that these questions have not been raised within science and within the Catholic Church, not at all, but they are not exactly advertised or well-funded, as the cohesive nature of the story in order to cohere the faith of the public is paramount, in both regards. For example, in physics, the idea of the big bang has been thought of as untrue for around two decades, but this has been suppressed as there is not another universal ‘right’ that can be cohered to by the priests of science. At school we are still teaching our children the big bang, and secular people still have faith in it, even though it is no longer believed by the very people who teach it, and write the textbooks, funded by the government, in order to maintain this cohesive version of ‘right’, so that secular people can feel ‘right’ to believe what no-one any longer actually believes.

What then was it that these Gnostics said about Christs teachings, whilst not denying the language game that Christ would have spoken in, in order to understand his teachings, that the Catholic church could not bear to have itself associated with, once the oppressive hand of the Romans freed them to unleash their murderous hatred upon those accepted teachings of the same Catholic church for two hundred years?

Well the Gnostics believed that the Bible contained secret information that was only imparted to initiates but was hidden in plain sight within scripture to those who knew. In other words they believed in the philosophy of the Logos, that had been housed in the Eleusinian mysteries, in the rites of Dionysus, and of Mithra and Osiris, and that had been outlined in the philosophies of the Greeks, especially, as we shall see, Plato.

Unfortunately, the understanding of Plato’s philosophy meant that Christ could not be the Son of God, in a simple to understand way, if you chucked out the philosophy of metaphysics that came with it.

“Gnosticism is all to do with secret knowledge. It was part of a philosophical intellectual movement, around the ancient near East, and many many many fathers in Egypt were Christians in their heart, but also gnostic in their mind, and this is the conflict between orthodox Christianity versus the intellectual free-thinkers”- Ahmed M Abul Ella Ali- Author and Lecturer on Egypt

In my next book I will detail many of the secret revelations hidden within the bible to those ‘who have eyes to see’. We have already seen the depth of understanding of seeing ‘Wedding at Canaan’ where Christ turns water into wine, in reflection to the Greek, Egyptian, and Roman imperial cult, that Christ would have known about, as would his apostles who wrote these gospels, and we have now learnt that these gospels were written in such a way as to house these mysteries, and were taught by many many Christian fathers within the Catholic church in parallel with philosophers of the Logos. The sole difference being that the Logos was a philosophical body of thought, whilst Christ was seen as the physical embodiment of this truth- revealed.

What happened when the philosophy and history of Christ was chucked out in a fit of hatred and violence, was that Christ had to also be separated from this legacy, and so it was no longer enough that a man called Jesus: became pure through his trial in the wilderness against the devil as a symbol of his inner jihad against being-in-Being, or being-for-itself, where he was tempted to see the whole world as his birth-right, or property right as we today call it; his baptism where the Holy Spirit in the symbolic form of a Dove came into his body and changed him by revelation as it would do the same to his disciples later, his alchemical wedding of the fusion of his will with the divine Will through the bond of love that turned his water element, his emotional body, as defined above, into wine as the understanding of any one in the world of Dionysus or Mithra, i.e. Christ’s Roman World would have immediately understood it to mean.

Instead we are left with a CCTV camera image of Christ, where one of the most important things to document is that he went to a wedding of some bloke and some bird not worth mentioning and then, just for kicks, turned water into wine, like some cheap street magician.

In like manner we are left with a CCTV image of Christ healing some-one who was blind by placing mud and spit in his eyes, and the man proclaiming, ‘I was blind but now I can see’. Let us look at the esoteric, gnostic, understanding of this story, as detailed by a Buddhist philosophical understanding through Govinda (who we met previously) because it will deepen our understanding of the Gnostic Christ at the same time, as well of the universe itself, and our own soul journey and our purpose within it. Perhaps after reading it we also may, to a tiny tiny particle of a degree, also state, ‘I was blind but now I can see’:

“In esotericism, the Ego is the self. This self is a droplet of the universal mind, or Godhead. The Sanskrit, manas, which may be translated as the immortal individual, as much as higher mind, is the equivalent of the real Ego. It is that droplet of the Godhead which has sought experience through involvement with matter. This minute particle of the Godhead is directed into matter in order to perceive Itself, or to gain experience in the realm of its own creation.

Because it holds this direct connection with the Godhead, the fully developed Ego is indestructible. However, through the effects of incarnation, and the consequent darkening through involvement in matter, the Human Ego does not remain omniscient, like its Godhead source. In this sense- in that its cosmic knowledge is limited by the “hooding” mask of selfhood- the Ego rarely works with its full spiritual potential. From incarnation to incarnation the Ego dwells in what must be termed spiritual darkness in comparison with the light of the spiritual planes. Even so, it is possible for the Ego, through his own efforts, to regain its former full potential, and to remove this darkening selfhood from its eyes.”( 191:1977:Govinda)

By this understanding we can see that Christ received his revelation of turning the ego towards manas, after he had had an inner jihad with his ego, the devil, that tempted him in the wilderness, before he was baptised by John the Baptist, where upon the revelation of the Holy Spirit came down upon him, revealing the world from this perspective. At the wedding in Canaan he became one with this spirit and was able to then teach this revelation, and reveal to others this truth, and impart this experience of the Godhead. The blindness is the “hooding” mask of selfhood, which we have seen already, in Greek philosophy and experience and Dionysian root, described as the persona, as will see the same use of the term in early Christianity shortly.

This work of Christ was to perfect his soul, as per the Platonic understanding of the soul, and as per the Buddhist and Hindu understanding of the soul, and that is the reason for our existence upon the earth. This is also the concept of the Christian soul as per Irenaeus:

Irenaeus on Human Progress

In this passage, which dates from the later part of the second century, Irenaeus of Lyons (c.130-c.200) develops the idea that humanity was created with the potential for perfection. Humanity was not created perfect: that perfection had to take place through a process of moral and spiritual growth. Irenaeus thus locates the origin of evil in human weakness and frailty, rather than in any defect of the part of God.

‘God, for his part, could have offered perfection to humanity at the beginning, but humanity was not capable of receiving it, being nothing more than an infant.’

Irenaeus is concerned to address the question of why God did not create humanity in a state of total perfection. Irenaeus’s answer is important, and can be summarized as follows: because humanity was simply not able to receive this gift of perfection. Perfection was something that came about through personal growth.” (McGrath:2011:343)

The idea that the Christ story is to be understood as a series of revelations towards God, that Christ himself undertook in order to receive them is totally lost within the Catholic understanding of Christ, as he was already fully holy, but to any initiate at that time, the alchemical wedding would have been clear due to the very word revelation in Greek, as it would have been read to them from the bible.

“Revelation, in common with most theological notions, is a complex concept. The Greek word usually translated as “revelation” (apokalypsis) has the basic meaning of “removing a veil so that something can be seen.” (McGrath:2007:153)

The veil of revelation was placed upon the bride of Sophia of wisdom, and upon the spirit entering Christ, this veil is removed, revealing this godhead through the experience of union

By removing these secrets from the story of Christ Christianity is ‘going to be in big trouble.’ as Professor Larry Hurtado- Faculty of Divinity- University of Edinburgh cited above, and as the early Christian fathers subsequently found themselves in, and that we are now going to wade through in order to elucidate the problem and the contention that these fathers found themselves fighting about, and by which misunderstanding Darwin would have to deny God over the truth of ‘the survival of the fittest’ which is the actual truth hidden within the Christian concept of God, as we shall see. The idea of the ‘embodiment of harmony’ known as ‘the Music of the Spheres’ to the ancients will become in like manner misinterpreted (as were the four elements above) by science, and believed to describe actual physical circles in the sky, that surprise surprise are proven to not actually exist by Copernicus, and was suppressed by the Catholic church who cannot understand why their shallow story of Christ and the bible could have been so wrong as to think that the sun revolved around the earth, i.e. around themselves, as beings-for-itself, and not around the sun as beings-in-Being had experienced the universe and worshipped for tens of thousands of years before, from that perspective, in an embodiment of harmony, that we have already seen detailed.

Let us begin this journey of confusion then with the orthodox truth, that heretics can make the bible scriptures say what they like, whilst orthodox Christianity apparently cannot. A not very tenable situation I would suggest. Before we see Christianity rise under the authority of Constantine and Christ become seen as the actual Son of God, and all of us reduced to human beings yet further still distant from the divine Being that for tens of thousands of years we had not been in a Garden of Eden that actually existed both in the inner and outer world, as we have seen:

The role of tradition: the Gnostic controversies

The early church was confronted with a major challenge from a movement known as Gnosticism. This diverse and complex movement, not dissimilar to the modern New Age phenomenon, achieved considerable influence in the late Roman Empire…For this reason, Gnosticism was viewed as a major challenge by many early Christian writers, especially Irenaeus of Lyons.

In such a context, an appeal to tradition became of major importance. The word “tradition” literally means “that which has been handed down or over”, although it can also refer to “the act of handing down or over.” Irenaeus insisted that the “rule of faith” (regula fidei) was faithfully preserved by the apostolic church, and that it had found its expression in the canonical books of Scripture. The church had faithfully proclaimed the same gospel from the time of the apostles until the present day. The Gnostics had no such claim to continuity with the early church. They had merely invented new ideas, and were improperly suggesting that these were “Christian”.

Irenaeus thus emphasized the continuity of the teaching and preaching office of the church and its officials (especially its bishops). Tradition came to mean “a traditional presentation of the Christian faith,” which is reflected in the creeds of the church and its public doctrinal pronouncements….

Tertullian adopted a related approach. Scripture, he argued, is capable of being understood clearly, provided that it is read as a whole. However, he conceded that controversy over the interpretation of certain passages was inevitable. Heretics, he observed gloomily, can make Scripture say more or less anything that they like…The right interpretation of Scripture was thus to be found where true Christian faith and discipline had been maintained. A similar view was taken by Athanasius” (McGrath:2007:13-14)

Irenaeus on the Role of Tradition

In his writings “Against Heresies”, originally written in Greek towards the end of the second century, but now known mainly through a Latin translation, Irenaeus of Lyons (c.130-c.200) insisted that the living Christian community possessed a tradition of interpreting Scripture which has denied to heretics. By their historical succession from the apostles, the bishops ensure that their congregations remain faithful to their teachings and interpretations.

‘When [the heretics] are refuted out of the Scriptures, they turn to accusing the Scriptures themselves, as if they were not right or did not possess authority, because the Scriptures contain a variety of statements, and because it is not possible for those who do not know the tradition to find the truth in them. For this has not been handed down by means of writings, but by the “living voice.” […] And each one of them claims that this wisdom is something that he has come across by himself, which is clearly a fiction. […] Thus they end up agreeing with neither the Scriptures nor with tradition. […] Everyone who wishes to perceive the truth should consider the apostolic tradition, which has been made known in every church in the entire world. We are able to number those who are bishops appointed by the apostles, and their successors in the churches to the present day, who taught and knew nothing of such things as these people imagine. For if the apostles had known secret mysteries [recondita mysteria] which they taught privately and secretly to the perfect, they would have passed them down to those to whom they entrusted the chuches…We point to the greatest, most ancient and most glorious of churches, the church known to everyone, which was founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, through which the apostolic tradition and the faith which is preached to humanity has come down to us through the successions of bishops. […] For every church ought to agree with this church, on account of its powerful position, for in this church the apostolic tradition has always been preserved by the faithful. […]

Therefore, as there are so many demonstrations of this fact, there is no need to look anywhere else for the truth which we can easily obtain from the church. The apostles have, as it were, deposited this truth in all its fullness in this depository, so that whoever wants to may draw from this water of life. This is the gate of life; all others are thieves and robbers.” (McGrath:2011:69-70)

Here we see then, that Irenaeus and Athanasius, like Tertullian, manufactured a belief that gave them the authority to say just what was right and who was wrong. Unfortunately those who were wrong did not see themselves as wrong and would not lie down and simply agree with them, or who would not take the easy way out and say that is a matter of faith, and we cannot hope to truly understand, and so must just go with tradition and fear the consequences of not having faith in Christ. Instead they chose to debate the nature of Christ as defined within the biblical gospels, that Irenaeus himself had decided were ‘orthodox’.

Tertullian on the Relation of Philosophy and Heresy

The Roman theologian Tertullian (c.160-c.225) was noted for his hostility toward the inappropriate intrusion of philosophy into theology…The Greek city of Athens was the home of the Academy, an institution of secular learning founded by Plato in 387 BC. For Tertullian, Christian theologians inhabited a completely different mental world to their pagan counterparts. How could there be a dialogue between them?

‘For philosophy provides the material of worldly wisdom, in boldly asserting itself to the be interpreter of the divine nature and dispensation. The heresies themselves receive their weapons from philosophy. It was from this source that Valentinus, who was a disciple of Plato, got his ideas about the “aeons” and the “trinity of humanity”. And it was from there that the god of Marcion (much to be preferred, on account of his tranquillity) came; Marcion came from the Stoics…We have no need for curiosity after Jesus Christ, nor for inquiry [inquisitio] after the gospel. When we believe, we desire to believe nothing further.’

Note how Tertullian argues that it is a simple matter of historical fact that heresies seem to derive their ideas from secular philosophy. This, in his view, is enough to raise very serious questions concerning the use of philosophy in theology.

Many of the heresies that Tertullian mentions are forms of Gnosticism. In particular, he makes reference to the second-century writer Marcion, who was excommunicated in the year 144. According to Marcion, Christianity was a religion of love, which had no place whatsoever for law. The Old Testament relates to a different God from the New; the Old Testament God, who merely created the world, was obsessed with the idea of law. The New Testament God, however, redeemed the world, and was concerned with love. For Marcion, the purpose of Christ was to depose the Old Testament God (who bears a considerable resemblance to the Gnostic “demiurge”, a semi-divine figure responsible for fashioning the world) and replaced this with the worship of the true God of grace.” (McGrath:2011:6-7)

“In choosing the New Testament canon, was the church exercising its authority over the texts? Or was the church discerning an existing authority within these texts? The first approach locates authority primarily with the church, the second primarily with the texts….

Most Christian theologians take the view that the canon is now fixed, representing a final account of the documents that the church has recognized as witnessing authentically to its faith. In recent years, however, the rediscovery of Gnostic writings, such as the Coptic gospel of Thomas, has led some scholars to argue for the belated inclusion of such works.” (McGrath:2007:127-8)

In what follows we are left therefore with a historical debate based upon a pittance of the gospels of Christ, written by people who actually knew him as initiates (as we shall clearly see shortly), i.e. the Gnostic gospels, and are left with just four, and these four are the ones that are deliberately the most distant from the philosophies, history, mythology, language, and initiate mysteries that the world consisted of when these gospels were born and Christ himself lived in. I do not wish to go into the idea that Christ went to Egypt and learnt these mysteries during the period of the bible where he suddenly goes from 12 to 30 years old with no mention of where he has been, but I also do not wish to leave this theory unstated. I do not believe that I will need to go any further down this particular path to prove what I am about to try and prove below, but I do not want to ignore such a crucial element from the Christ story.

Irenaeus, a man with no initiatory knowledge, but with a contempt for the above perspectives of understanding Christ, yet who still demanded that tradition minus this legacy, be regarded as the only truth, whilst insisting that scripture could be interpreted to mean anything, dictates the battle ground upon which these debates take place. With no sleight of hand, and using only the nature of these debates, and their resulting theologies, we will see the problems that this contempt of the past have produced for the theology of Catholicism, that will reveal a deep misunderstanding within the Catholic Church and a resultant teaching that it is not at all the ‘good news’ (gospel) that Irenaeus collated. This will be proved by Catholic canonical theology itself, and particularly by the doctrine of the Trinity.

We will also look at the heterodox Gnostic gospels and see why their understanding of Christ is also incorrect due to the nature of the Trinity as defined by the Catholic Church under the theological understanding of ‘ex nihilo’.

Through these discussions we will thereby be able to see the true nature of Christ and reconcile this with both the Gnostic gospels and the bible, into a much more pleasant version of God than that which Catholicism currently provides us with. It would not surprise me if most Catholics don’t actually know about this teaching of the Nature of God and his Universe, despite it being canon law, and tradition from this early period of Christianity that we are discussing, due to the shame of it, and its lack of advertising, as a part of the good news, that evangelists proclaim on the streets in a town near you. Maybe you can do me a favour and ask them if they know it or not when you see them?

I hasten to add that I do not believe that Catholicism is an inappropriate vehicle by which to attain an experience and even union with God, or that Christ as defined by Catholicism is not the ‘Way’ to God. What I am saying is that the ‘Way’ to God, or the Tao, as the Chinese called it, or wakan, etc, is not limited to the language trap of saying the word Christ over Tao or wakan, or Yahweh. This way of thinking, is in line with Vatican II:

The church as the people of God

Of the various models of the church set forth by the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), the most important is that of the church as “the people of God.” This is a strongly biblical idea, with deep roots in both Old and New Testaments. The Second Vatican Council is careful to avoid the direct identification of “the people of God” with “the Catholic Church” or the suggestion that the church has somehow displaced Israel as the people of God. Indeed, the second chapter of the Council’s text on the inner life of the church describes the church as the “new people of God”, continuous with Israel. The election of the church as the people of God does not entail the rejection of Israel, but rather the extension of God’s kingdom.

This point is made particularly clearly in the Council’s “Declaration on Non-Christian Religions,” which recognizes a special continuing place for Jews in God’s purposes of salvation.

‘The Church of Christ acknowledges that in God’s plan of salvation the beginning of her faith and election is to be found in the patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets. She professes that all Christ’s faithful, who as men of faith are sons of Abraham (cf. Galatians 3: 7), are included in the same patriarch’s call and that the salvation of the Church is mystically prefigured in the exodus of God’s chosen people from the land of bondage. On this account the Church cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament by way of that people with whom God in his inexpressible mercy established the ancient covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws nourishment from that good olive tree onto which the wild olive branches of the Gentiles have been grafted (cf.Romans 11:17-24). The Church believes that Christ who is our peace has through his cross reconciled Jews and Gentiles and made them one in himself (cf.Ephesians 2:14-16).” (McGrath:2007:390)

The distinction between Rahner and Vatican II can be summarized as follows: Rahner is both revelationally and soteriologically inclusive; Vatican II tends to be revelationally inclusive, yet soteriologically particularist.” (McGrath:2007:437-9)

            An influential variant of this approach was developed by the leading Jesuit writer Karl Rahner (1904-84), who rapidly became known as the leading advocate of this “inclusive” approach. Rahner developed the approach far beyond its earlier modest statements. …

1. Christianity is the absolute religion, founded on the unique event of the self-revelation of God in Christ. But this revelation took place at a specific point in history. Those who lived before this point, or who have yet to hear about this event, would thus seem to be excluded from salvation- which is contrary to the saving will of God.
2. For this reason, despite their errors and short-comings, non-Christian religious traditions are valid and capable of mediating the saving grace of God, until the gospel is made known to their members. After the gospel has been proclaimed to the adherents of such non-Christian religious traditions, they are no longer legitimate, viewed from the standpoint of Christian theology.
3. The faithful adherent of a non-Christian religious tradition is thus to be regarded as an “anonymous Christian.”
4. Other religious traditions will not be displaced by Christianity. Religious pluralism will continue to be a feature of human existence.

[…] This term has been heavily criticized. For example, John Hick has suggested that it is paternalist, offering “honorary status granted unilaterally to people who have not expressed any desire for it.” …

Rahner does not allow that Christianity and other religious traditions may be treated as equal, or that they are particular instances of a common encounter with God. …Rahner thus maintains that other religions are “lawful”, while insisting that this lawfulness is only temporary and provisional, valid only until an historical and existential encounter with Christianity. …(McGrath:2007:441-2)

“More recently, John Paul II emphasized the importance of dialogue between theology and philosophy. In his encyclical letter Faith and Reason (1998), he pointed to the integrity of philosophy, and its role in helping the church explore, defend, and communicate its ideas.

‘The Church cannot but set great value upon reasons’ drive to attain goals which render people’s lives ever more worthy. She sees in philosophy the way to come to know fundamental truths about human life. At the same time, the Church considers philosophy an indispensable help for a deeper understanding of faith and for communicating the truth of the Gospel to those who do not yet know it.’

…Philosophical systems and approaches that have had the greatest impact on Christianity include the following:

1. Platonism which, in various forms, was highly influential in shaping eastern and western Christian theology during the patristic period.
2. Aristotelianism, which exercised considerable influence during the Middle Ages, especially in the case of Thomas Aquinas.
3. Ramism, the system developed by Pierre de la Ramée (1515-72), which was seen by various Puritan writers as offering a philosophical system especially suited for the defense and communication of Reformed theology.
4. Cartesianism, the system associated with René Descartes (1596-1650), which sought to ground both philosophy and theology on absolutely secure first principles of knowledge.
5. Kantianism, based on the approach of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), which exercised considerable influence over late eighteenth-and early nineteenth-century German theology.
6. Hegelianism, based on the writings of G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831), which is reflected in different ways in the writings of Ludwig Feuerbach and Karl Marx, and which was taken up and developed by Idealist philosophers and theologians in the nineteenth century and by early twentieth-century theologians.
7. Existentialism, a general category of philosophies that emerged partly from the legacy of the Danish philosopher and theologian Sǿren Kierkegaard (1813-      55), which have influenced twentieth-century theologians such as Rudolf   Bultmann, Paul Tillich, and John Macquarrie.” (McGrath:2007:171-3)

Jesus Christ is bearer of salvation

A central theme of mainstream Christian thought is that salvation, in the Christian sense of the term, is manifested in and through, and constituted on the basis of, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It must be noted that the term “salvation” is complex. To assert that “Jesus Christ makes salvation possible” is not to deny that other modes of salvation are accessible by other means; it is simply to insist that, within the Christian tradition, the distinctively Christian understanding of what salvation is can only be realized on the basis of Jesus Christ.” (McGrath:2007:267-8)

So the Catholic Church, believes that revelation can come from any religion, but that only Christ can save you. As we have seen this Christ is the Logos by the very words of the early church fathers- hence by Iranaeian tradition-, and as we have seen this Logos is wakan, the common reason that pervades the universe, or energy as science names it, and hence since all religions reveal the truth, all religions worship the Logos and the Trinity as the God head, even Buddhism which does not use the word God to describe this union or enlightenment, we have seen quoted above can use this word to describe the revelation of the Logos. To futher reiterate this point before we begin to get lost in Catholic theology that arose from this moment in time let us hear once more from the early fathers:

Justin Martyr on Christianity before Christ

The question of the relation of Christianity to other religions was an issue at the time of the New Testament, and continued to be so into the second and third centuries. Christian writers found themselves confronted with demands to clarify the relation between Christianity and the imperial cult of emperor-worship, the gods of classical paganism, and Gnostic and other forms of religions of the later classical period. In this important second-century text, the apologist Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165) sets out the foundations of what he believes to be a viable approach.

‘It is unreasonable to argue, by way of refutation of our teachings, that we assert Christ was born a hundred and fifty years ago, under Cyrenius, and to have given his teaching somewhat later, under Pontius Pilate: and to accuse us of implying that everyone who was born before that time was not accountable. To refute this, I will dispose of the difficulty by anticipation. We are taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and […] he is the Word of whom all of humanity has a share, and those who lived according to the Logos [hoi meta kogou biōsantes] are therefore Christians, even though they were regarded as atheists; among Greeks, Socrates, and Heraclitus; and among non-Greeks, Abraham, Ananias, Azanas, and Misad, and Elijah, and many others.’

Justin, writing in the second century, solved the problem of the relation between Christianity and other religions (and he had the Greek religions particularly in mind) by arguing that anyone who “lived according to the Logos” is a Christian. Justin regarded the Logos to have dispersed its seeds throughout the word, with the result that it is to be expected that people living in every culture and at every time could become Christians.” (McGrath:2011:502)

What therefore did the first great debate, based upon this selective perspective revolve around, that Athanasius was so big a part of? They revolved around the Nature of Christ. The question being, was Christ a human being or a God when he came down to earth? We have to bear in mind the real world in which this question was posed. This was a world in which Constantine was a God not a human being, as per the imperial cult that we have seen manufactured from the time of Augustus the great noble liar of The Republic as a secret monarchy.

The debate is known as the Arian controversy and will be detailed below. What is important is that this controversy was ended under the aegis of Constantine himself at the Council of Nicaea, where Athanasius attempted to settle the debate by breaking Arius’ nose.

Will Constantine allow himself to worship a man or a God, being a God himself? Will he chose to derive his authority and the authority of his church upon a man just like you and me, or will he insist that actually Christ was the Son of God wholly and was not a man at all? Who benefits, may be our guide.

Religious policy

Constantine is known today above all for his religious policy. The first problem, his conversion to Christianity, is inevitably mired in the tradition of imperial biography, with its plentiful miracles and premonitions, as well as in the new genre of Christian hagiography, the biography of martyrs and saints (in fact Constantine and his mother Helena are honoured saints in the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches).

Constantine appears to have been originally a follower of the Sun god, led to henotheism by a vision of Apollo. On the eve of the battle of the Milvian Bridge, a second vision, Christian this time, caused him to make his troops carry a labarum, a standard on which were embroidered a chi and a rho, the first two letters in Greek of the name of Christ. The combination of these two symbols, one superimposed on the other, evoked the rays of the Sun, an iconography bound to appeal to Christian and pagan soldiers alike. We do not know precisely when Constantine decided that Christ was not to be regarded as a version of the Sun god (certainly not before 322). Nor do we know whether he eventually gained a clear understanding of Christian orthodoxy. But he certainly received counsel from Pope Miltiades and Ossius of Cordoba, a wealthy and cultured Christian. He had himself baptized only of his deathbed, which was not out of the ordinary for that period.

Regardless of the elusive personal motives behind his conversion, Constantine’s Christian policies combined genuine sympathy for Christianity and a pragmatic acceptance of its growing popularity. Galerius had issued a decree of toleration in 311, and Maximinus Daia one of persecution in 312. By the Edict of Milan in 313, Licinius and Constantine established the “peace of the church”: freedom of worship was assured and confiscated possessions restored. Furthermore, the government intervened in two church conflicts: Donatism was condemned as a schism by the Synod of Arles in 314, and Arianism as a heresy by the Council of Nicaea in 325.” (Le Glay:2009:479-80)

The Councils of Nicea (325) was convened by Constantine, the first Christian emperor, with a view to sorting out the destabilizing Christological disagreements within his empire. Constantine realized that the unity of the church was essential to the stability of the empire, and wanted to establish peace within the church over the issue of the identity of Christ.” (McGrath:2007:17)

Unfortunately, as we shall see, it does not go unnoticed, as a consequence of this, that Gods do not suffer and so Christ did not in fact suffer on the cross, which is the pertinent point of Christ being sent to suffer the fate of mankind and to, ‘die for our sins’, and so if he suffered then God must also have suffered, which is not possible. But if no one suffered then what is the whole point, so Christ must be human to a degree. In other words as Durkheim states at the very beginning of this chapter what do you do with the God bit of Dionysus or Mithra as symbolised by their bull aspect or their satyr goat legs? The part of God that cannot be related to by a human perspective does not exist in Christ and yet it does exist in Christ and yet it doesn’t for he is plainly symbolised and spoken of as a man. Let us see how this all plays out in regards to its theological repercussions before we end the debate once and for all with a perspective that we already know from pre-history:

Debates

The Arian controversy of the fourth century is widely regarded as one of the most significant in the history of the Christian church. Arius (c.250-c.336) argued that those scriptural titles for Christ that appeared to point to his being of equal status with God were merely courtesy titles. Christ was to be regarded as a creature, although nevertheless as pre-eminent among other creatures.

This provoked a hostile response from Athanasius, who argued that the divinity of Christ was of central importance to the Christian understanding of salvation (an area of theology known as “soteriology”). Arius’s Christology was, he declared, inadequate soteriologically. Arius’s Christ could not redeem fallen humanity. In the end, Arianism (the movement associated with Arius) was declared to be heretical.

This matter having been settled, a further debate followed. The Apollinarian debate, which centred on Apollinarius of Laodicea (c.310-c.390), focused on the question of whether Christ was fully or partly human. A vigorous opponent of Arius, Apollinarius argued that Christ could not be regarded as being totally human. In Christ’s case, the human spirit was replaced by the divine logos. As a result, Christ did not possess full humanity. This position was regarded as severely deficient by writers such as Gregory of Nazianzus as it implied that Christ could not fully redeem human nature.” (McGrath:2007:17)

Adolf von Harnack on the evolution of patristic Christology

On the basis of his historical studies of the development of Christian doctrine, the German liberal Protestant scholar Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930) argued forcefully that the transition of the gospel from its original Palestinian milieu, dominated by Hebraic modes of thought and rationality, to a Hellenistic mileu, characterized by a decisive turning point in the history of Christian thought….

In the first edition of this landmark work The History of Dogma (1894-8), Harnack illustrates this trend with reference to Gnosticism, the Apologists, and particularly the Logos-Christology of Origen. To a certain extent, the development of doctrine may be likened, in Harnack’s view, to a chronic degenerative illness. In the specific case of Christology, Harnack detects, in the shift from soteriology (an analysis of the personal impact of Jesus) to speculative metaphysics, a classical instance of the Greek tendency to retreat into the abstract.” (McGrath:2007:281)

07: The Patristic Debate Over the Person of Christ

“The patristic period saw considerable attention being paid to the doctrine of the person of Christ. The debate was conducted primarily within the eastern church…The period proved to be definitive, laying down guidelines for the discussion of the person of Christ which remained normative until the dawn of the Enlightenment…

The task confronting the patristic writers was basically the development of a unified Christological scheme, which would bring together and integrate the various Christological hints and statements, images and models, found within the New Testament…

Early contributions: from Justin Martyr to Origen

The first period of the development of Christology centred on the question of the divinity of Christ. That the New Testament spoke of Jesus Christ as a human being appeared to be something of a truism to most early patristic writers. What required exploration and explanation concerned the manner in which Christ differed from, rather than approximated to, other human beings.

Two early viewpoints were quickly rejected as heretical. Ebionitism, a primarily Jewish sect which flourished in the early centuries of the Christian era, regarded Jesus as an ordinary human being, the human son of Mary and Joseph. This approach assimilated Jesus to existing Jewish categories; above all, that of the prophet. This reduced Christology was regarded as totally inadequate by its opponents, and soon passed into oblivion.

More significant was the diametrically opposed view, which came to be known as Docetism, from the Greek verb dokeō, “to seem or appear”. This approach- which is probably best regarded as a tendency within theology rather than a definite theological position- argued that Christ was totally divine, and that his humanity was merely an appearance…

Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165), one of the most important second-century Apologists, was especially concerned to demonstrate that the Christian faith brought to fruition the insights of both classical Greek philosophy and Judaism. Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930) famously commented that Justin held that “Christ is the Logos and Nomos”. In other words, Christ brings both the philosophy, with its emphasis on the idea of the “word” (Greek: logos), to perfection. Of particular interest is the Logos-Christology which Justin develops, in which he exploits the apologetic potential of the idea of the Logos, current in both Stoicism and the Middle Platonism of the period.

Justin appeals to the contemporary philosophical use of the term logos, generally regarded as the ultimate source of all human knowledge. He argues that the one and the same Logos is known by both Christian believers and pagan philosophers; the latter, however, have only partial access to it through the mind, whereas Christians have full access to it, through the mind and in history, on account of its manifestation in Christ. The statement in the fourth gospel that the “word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14) plays a critically important role in Justin’s thought. Justin allows that pre-Christian secular philosophers, such as Heraclitus or Socrates, thus had partial access to the truth, because of the manner in which the Logos is present in the world….

Justin states this point clearly in his Second Apology:

‘Our religion is clearly more sublime than any human teaching in this respect: the Christ who has appeared for us human beings represents the Logos principle in all its fullness. […] Whatever either lawyers of philosophers have said well, was articulated by finding and reflecting upon some aspect of the Logos. However, since they did not know the Logos- which is Christ- in its entirety, they often contradicted themselves.’

The world of Greek philosophy is thus set firmly in the context of Christianity…

It is in the writings of Origen (c.185-c.254) that Logos-Christology appears to find its fullest development…In the incarnation, the human soul of Christ is united with the Logos. On account of the closeness of this union, Christ’s human soul comes to share in the properties of the Logos. Nevertheless, Origen insists that, although both the Logos and Father are coeternal, the Logos is subordinate to the Father. …

Origen adopts an illuminationist approach to revelation, in which God’s act of revelation is compared to being enlightened by the “rays of God”, which are caused by “the light which is the divine Logos.” For Origen, both truth and salvation are to be had outside the Christian faith.

The Arian Controversy

The process of exploring which religious and philosophical categories were most suitable for expressing the significance of Jesus of Nazareth reached a watershed in the fourth century. The controversy which forced the issue was precipitated by Arius (c.250-c.336), a priest in one of the larger churches in the great Egyptian city of Alexandria. Arius set out his views in a work known as the Thalia (“The Banquet”), which has not survived in its entirety. As a result, we know Arius’s ideas primarily through the writings of his opponents. …

1. The Son and the Father do not have the same essence (ousia).
2. The Son is a created being (ktisma or poiema), even though he is to be recognized as first and foremost among them, in terms of origination and rank.
3. Although the Son was the creator of the worlds, and must therefore have existed before them and before all time, there was nevertheless a time when the Son did not exist.

The most fundamental Arian belief was that Jesus Christ was not divine in any meaningful sense of the term. He was “first among the creatures”- that is, pre-eminent in rank, yet unquestionably a creature rather than divine. Christ, as Logos, was indeed the agent of the creation of the world, as stated in the Prologus to John’s gospel. Yet the Logos was itself created by God for this purpose. The Father is thus to be regarded as existing before the Son. “There was a time when he was not.” This statement places Father and Son on different levels, and is consistent with Arius’s rigorous insistence that the Son is a creature….Arius’s leading critic Athanasius reports him as making the following statements on this point.

‘God was not always a father. There was a time when God was all alone, and was not yet a father; only later did he become a father. The Son did not always exist. Everything created is out of nothing […] so the Logos of God came into existence out of nothing. There was a time when he was not. Before he was brought into being, he did not exist. He also had a beginning to his created existence.’ …

New Testament statements that refer to Jesus as the “Son” are, according to Arius, to be seen as honorific, rather than theologically precise, ways of speaking about Christ….

3. The status of the Son is itself a consequence not of the nature of the Son, but of the will of the Father.

…As a creature, the Son was changeable (treptos) and capable of moral development (proteptos), and subject to pain, fear, grief, and weariness. This is simply inconsistent with the notion of an immutable God. The notion of a changeable God seemed heretical to Arius. Furthermore, the notion that God the Son was divine seemed to compromise the fundamental themes of monotheism and the unity of God- themes which would re-emerge as central in early Islam….

Arius is often said to have developed his position on the identity of Jesus of Nazareth on the basis of a preconceived philosophical position which declared that, as a matter of principle, God could not become incarnate. There is some truth in this point, but it is not quite the whole truth. Arius’s concerns were partly apologetic since he clearly believed that many were being alienated from Christianity on account of its increasing emphasis upon an idea- the incarnation- which he believed many educated Greeks were unable to accept. Arius saw his approach to Christianity, in contrast, as representing a measured and judicious amalgam of philosophical sophistication and responsible biblical exegesis….

There are two points of particular importance that underlie Athanasius’s critique of Arius.

First, Athanasius argues that it is only God who can save. God, and God alone, can break the power of sin, and bring humanity to eternal life. The fundamental characteristics of human nature is that it requires to be redeemed. No creature can save another creature. Only the creator can redeem the creation. If Christ is not God, he is part of the problem, not its solution….

The only possible solution, Athanasius argues, is to accept that Jesus is God incarnate. His argument could be summarized as follows.

1. No creature can redeem another creature.
2. According to Arius, Jesus Christ is a creature.
3. Therefore, according to Arius, Jesus Christ cannot redeem humanity.

Arius was firmly committed to the idea that Christ was the saviour of humanity: Athanasius’s point was not that Arius denied this, but that he rendered the claim incoherent…

The second point that Athanasius makes is that Christians worship and pray to Jesus Christ…Athanasius argues that if Jesus Christ were a creature, then Christians were guilty of worshipping a creature instead of God- in other words, they had lapsed into idolatry. Did not the Old Testament law explicitly prohibit the worshipping Jesus; he refused, however, to draw the same conclusions as Athanasius. …

Arius on the Status of Christ

This letter, written in Greek around 321, is one of the few documents relating to Arius’s Christological views known to have been written by Arius (c.250-c.336) himself.

‘”God always, the Son always; at the same time the Father, at the same time the Son; the Son co-exists with God, unbegotten; he is ever-begotten, he is not born-by-begettting; neither by thought nor by any moment of time does God precede the Son; God always, Son always, the Son exists from God himself.” And Eusebius, your brother, Bishop of Caesearea, Theodotus, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregory, Aetius, and all the other bishops of the East, have been condemned for saying that God existed, without beginning, before the Son; except Philogonius, Hellanicus, and Macarius, men who are heretics and unlearned in the faith: some of whom say that the Son is an effluence, others a projection, others that he is co-unbegotten. We cannot even listen to these faithless things, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But what we say and think we both have taught and continue to teach; that the Son is not unbegotten, nor part of the unbegotten in any way, nor is he derived from any substance; but that by his own will and counsel he existed before times and ages fully God, only-begotten, unchangeable. And before he was begotten or created or appointed or established, he did not exist; for he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say: “the Son has a beginning, but God is without beginning.” For that reason we are persecuted, and because we say that he is from what is not. And this we say because he is neither part of God nor derived from any substance. For this we are persecuted; the rest you know.’

The most fundamental Arian belief was that Jesus Christ was not divine in any meaningful sense of the term. He was “first among the creatures”- that is, pre-eminent in rank, yet unquestionably a creature rather than divine. The Father is regarded as existing before the Son. “There was a time when he was not.” This statement places Father and Son on different levels, and is consistent with Arius’s rigorous insistence that the Son is a creature. Only the Father is “unbegotten”; the Son, like all other creatures, derives from this one source of being.” (McGrath:2011:226-7)

The Alexandrian school

The outlook of the Alexandrian school, to which Athanasius is to be assigned, focuses sharply on the significance of Christ as saviour (Greek: soter) of humanity. Jesus Christ redeems humanity, by taking human beings up into the life of God…

We could summarize the trajectory of Alexandrian Christology along the following lines: if human nature is to be deified, it must be united with the divine nature. God must become united with human nature in such a manner that the latter is enabled to share in the life of God. This, the Alexandrian argued, was precisely what had happened in and through the incarnation of the Son of God in Jesus Christ. The Second Person of the Trinity assumed human nature, and by doing so, ensured its divinization. God became human in order that humanity might become divine.

Alexandrian writers thus placed considerable emphasis upon the idea of the Logos assuming human nature…Particular emphasis came to be placed upon John 1:14 (“the Word became flesh”),…To celebrate the birth of Christ was to celebrate the coming of the Logos to the world, and its taking human nature upon itself in order to redeem it.

This clearly raised the question of the relation of the divinity and humanity of Christ. Cyril of Alexandria (c.378-444) is one of many writers within the school to emphasize the reality of their union in the incarnation. The Logos existed “without flesh” before its union with human nature; after that union, there is only one nature, in that the Logos united human nature to itself. …

This raised the question of what kind of human nature had been assumed. Apollinarius of Laodicea (c.310-c.390) had anxieties about the increasingly widespread belief that the Logos assumed human nature in its entirety. It seemed to him that this implied that the Logos was contaminated by the weaknesses of human nature….in Apollinarius’s view, if he were to possess a purely human mind: was not the human mind the source of sin and rebellion against God? Only if the human mind were to be replaced by a purely divine motivating and directing force could the sinlessness of Christ be maintained. For this reason, Apollinarius agrued that, in Christ, a purely human mind and soul were replaced by a divine mind and soul. “The divine energy fulfils the role of the animating soul and of the human mind” in Christ. The human nature of Christ is thus incomplete.

This idea appalled many of Apollinarius’s colleagues. The Apollinarian view of Christ may have had its attractions for some; others, however, were shocked by its soteriological implications. How could human nature be redeemed, it was asked, if only part of human nature had been assumed by the Logos? …

Athanasius on the Two Natures of Christ

In this letter, written in Greek around 350, Athanasius of Alexandria (c.296-373) argues for the divinity of Christ on soteriological grounds, while affirming the full humanity of Christ.

‘Being God, he became a human being: and then as God he raised the dead, healed all by a word, and also changed water into wine. These were not the acts of a human being. But as a human being, he felt thirst and tiredness, and he suffered pain. These experiences are not appropriate to deity. … And yet these are not events occurring without any connection, distinguished according to their quality, so that one class may be ascribed to the body, apart from the divinity, and the other to the divinity, apart from the body. They all occurred in such a way that they were joined together; and the Lord, who marvellously performed those acts by his grace, was one. He spat in human fashion; but his spittle had divine power, for by it he restored sight to the eyes of the man blind from birth.’

What are the soteriological implications of this ontological affirmation? Athanasius makes the point that it is only God who can save. God, and God alone, can break the power of sin and bring us to eternal life. An essential feature of being a creature is that one requires to be redeemed. No creature can save another creature. Only the creator can redeem the creation. Having emphasized that it is God alone who can save, Athanasius then makes the logical move which the Arians found difficult to counter. The New Testament and the Christian liturgical tradition alike regard Jesus Christ as Saviour. Yet, as Athanasius emphasized, only God can save. So how are we to make sense of this? The only possible solution, Athanasius argues, is to accept that Jesus is God incarnate.” (McGrath:2011:227-8)

The Antiochene School

…The Antiochene writers took a very different perspective at this point. Their concerns were primarily moral, rather than purely soteriological, and they drew much less significantly on the ideas of Greek philosophy. The basic trajectory of much Antiochene thinking on the identity of Christ can be traced along the following lines. On account of their disobedience, human beings exist in a state of corruption, from which they are unable to extricate themselves. If redemption is to take place, it must be on the basis of a new obedience on the part of humanity. Since humanity is unable to break free from the bonds of sin, God is obliged to intervene. This leads to the coming of the redeemer as one who united humanity and divinity, and thus to the re-establishment of an obedient people of God.

The two natures of Christ are vigorously defended. Christ is at one and the same time both God and a real individual human being. Against the Alexandrian criticism that this was to deny the unity of Christ, the Antiochenes responded that they upheld that unity, while simultaneously recognizing that the one redeemer possessed both a perfect human and a perfect divine nature. There is a “perfect conjunction” between the human and divine natures in Christ….

Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.350-428) stressed this point, asserting that the glory of Jesus Christ “comes from God the Logos, who assumed him and united him to himself. […] And because of this exact conjunction which this human being has with God the Son, the whole creation honours and worships him.”…

It also leads to a suspicion that the Logos merely puts on human nature, as one would put on a coat: the action involved is temporary and reversible, and involves no fundamental change to anyone involved. However, the Antiochene writers do not seem to have intended these conclusions to be drawn. Perhaps the most reliable way of approaching their position is to suggest that their desire to avoid confusing the divine and human natures within Christ led them to stress their distinctiveness- yet, in so doing, to inadvertently weaken their link in the hypostatic union. [that is to say- union in a super-state as defined by Wittgenstein previously- or the Alchemical wedding at Canaan]

The problems this raised are best seen from Theodore of Mopsuestia’s discussion of the nature of the “union of good pleasure” in his eighth Catechetical Oration:

‘The distinction between the natures does not annul the exact conjunction, nor does the exact conjunction destroy the distinction between the natures, but the natures remain in their respective existence while separated, and the conjunction remains intact because the one who was assumed is united in honour and glory with the one who assumed, according to the will of the one who assumed him” (McGrath:2007:273-80)

The “communication of attributes”

By the end of the fourth century, the following propositions had gained widespread acceptance within the church:

1. Jesus is fully human
2. Jesus is fully divine.

If both of these statements are simultaneously true, it was argued, then what was true of the humanity of Jesus must also be true of his divinity, and vice versa. An example might be the following:

Jesus Christ is God.
Mary gave birth to Jesus.

Therefore Mary is the Mother of God.

This kind of argument became increasingly commonplace within the late fourth-century church; indeed, if often served as a means of testing the orthodoxy of a theologian. A failure to agree that Mary was the “mother of God” became seen as tantamount to a refusal to accept the divinity of Christ.

But how far can this principle be pressed? For example, consider the following line of argument:

Jesus suffered on the cross

Jesus is God.

Therefore God suffered on the cross.

….It was axiomatic to most patristic writers that God could not suffer. The patristic period witnessed much agonizing over the limits that could be set to this approach. Thus, Gregory of Nazianzus insisted that God must be considered to suffer; otherwise the reality of the incarnation of the Son of God was called into question. However, it was the Nestorian controversy that highlighted the importance of the issues.

By the time of Nestorius, the title theotokos (literally, “bearer of God”) had become widely accepted with both popular piety and academic theology. Nestorius was, however, alarmed at its implications. It seemed to deny the humanity of Christ. Why not call Mary anthroptokos (“bearer of humanity”) or even Christiokos (“bearer of the Christ”)? His suggestions were met with outrage and indignation, on account of the enormous theological investment that had come to be associated with the term theotokos. Nevertheless, Nestorius may be regarded as making an entirely legitimate point, thus opening up an important theological discussion.” (McGrath:2007:280)

Gregory of Nazanius on Apollinarianism

In this letter, written in Greek at some point in 380 or 381, Gregory of Nazianzus (329-89) mounts a frontal assault on the central thesis of Apollinarianism: that Christ was not fully human, in that he possessed “an immutable and heavenly divine mind”, rather than a human mind. For Gregory, this amounts to a denial of the possibility of redemption. Only what is assumed by the Word in the incarnation can be redeemed. If Christ did not possess a human mind, humanity is not redeemed.

‘Do not let people deceive themselves and others by saying that the “Man of the Lord”, which is the title they give to him who is rather “Our Lord and God”, is without a human mind. We do not separate the humanity from the divinity; in fact, we assert the dogma of the unity and identity of the Person, who aforetime was not just human but God, the only Son before all ages, who in these last days has assumed human nature also for our salvation; in his flesh passible, in his Deity impassable; in the body subject to limitation, yet unlimited in the Spirit; at one and the same time earthly and heavenly, tangible and intangible, comprehensible and incomprehensible; that by one and the same person, a perfect human being and perfect God, the whole humanity, fallen through sin, might be recreated.” (McGrath:2011:229)

Ignatius of Antioch on Docetism

Ignatius of Antioch (c.35-c.107) is an important witness to a formative period in the development of Christian doctrine, and the controversies attending it. This text, written several years before Ignatius’s martyrdom around 107, deals with an early form of the Docetist heresy, which declared that Christ did not suffer in reality, but suffered only in appearance, and was thus not truly human.

‘[Jesus Christ] submitted to all of this for our sakes, so that we might have salvation. And he did suffer, really and truly, just as he really and truly rose again. His passion was no imaginary illusion, as some sceptics assert, themselves subject to illusion. The fate of those miserable people will one day match their beliefs, when they will themselves become such phantoms without any real substance. As far as I am concerned, I know and believe that he existed in real human flesh, even after the resurrection. When he appeared to Peter and his companions, he said to them:  “Take hold of me, touch me, and see that I am no incorporeal phantom.” And they touched him there and then, and believed, for they had contact with his physical reality.’” (McGrath:2011:221)

Tertullian on the Incarnation

In this polemical passage, directed against the teachings of Praxeas, Tertullian insists upon the unity of the person of Christ, while distinguishing the proper functions of the humanity and divinity of Christ. Note especially Tertullian’s rejection of the incarnational model of an “amalgam”, in which two metals are fused together in such a way as to lose their distinctive characteristics. “Electrum”, to which he refers in this context, is a naturally occurring amalgam of gold and silver.

‘Others attempt to distinguish two beings in one person, the Father and the Son, saying that the Son is the flesh, that is, the human being that is Jesus; while the Father is the spirit, that is, God that is Christ. Thus those who are trying to demonstrate the identity of the Father and Son seem to end up dividing them, rather than uniting them. […] Maybe they heard about this kind of “monarchy” [talem monarchiam], which distinguishes Jesus from Christ, from Valentinus. But […] their “Father” is described as Word of God, Spirit of God. […] Who was the God born in flesh? The Word, and the Spirit, who was born with the Word in accordance with the Father’s will. Therefore the Word was in flesh; but we must ask how the Word “was made flesh”; whether by transformation into flesh or being clothed with that flesh. The latter is surely the case. …Other things also support this interpretation. For if he was incarnate by transformation and change of substance, Jesus would then be one substance made of two, of flesh and spirit, a king of mixture, as electrum in an amalgam of gold and silver. Thus he would come to be neither gold (i.e., spirit) nor silver (i.e. flesh), since the one element is changed by the other and third thing is produced. Then Jesus will not be God, since he ceases to be the Word, which was made flesh; nor will he be flesh, that is, a human being: for that which was the Word is not flesh in the true sense.” (McGrath:2011:223-4)

Origen on the Two Natures of Christ

Origen (c.185-c.254) here sets out the case for the necessity of a mediator between God and humanity, noting the respective importance of both Christ’s divine and human natures in relation to his work. Note that although Origen originally wrote in Greek, many of his works only survive in Latin translation, as in this case.

‘Therefore with this soul acting as a mediator between God and flesh- for it was not possible for the nature of God to be mingled with flesh without a mediator- there was born the God-man [deus-homo], that “substance” [substantia] being the connecting link which could assume a body without denying its own nature. […] The Son of God by whom all things were created is called Jesus Christ, the Son of man….  as it is written, “The two shall be in one flesh, and they are now not two but one flesh” (Matthew 19:6)” (McGrath:2011:225)

Apollinarius of Laodicea on the Person of Christ

This passage, taken from a letter written to the bishops at Dioceasarea, sets out the leading features of the Christology of Apollinarius of Laodicea (c.310-c.390)

‘We confess that the word of God has not descended upon a holy man, which was what happened in the case of the prophets. Rather, the Word himself has become flesh without having assumed a human mind- that is, a changeable mind, which is enslaved to filthy thoughts- but which exists as an immutable and heavenly divine mind.’

Apollinarius of Laodicea had anxieties about the increasingly widespread belief that the Logos assumed human nature in its entirety. It seemed to him that this implied that the Logos was contaminated by the weakness of human nature. The sinlessness of Christ would be compromised, in Apollinarius’s view, if he were to possess a purely human mind; was not the human mind the source of sin and rebellion against God? Only if the human mind were to be replaced by a purely divine motivating and directing force could the sinlessness of Christ be maintained. For this reason, Apollinarius argued that, in Christ, a purely human mind and soul were replaced by a divine mind and soul” (McGrath:2011:228-9)

Theodore of Mopsuestia on the “Union of Good Pleasure”

During the years 1932-3, the patristic scholar Alphonse Mingana published two newly discovered Syriac versions of the lost Catechetical Orations on the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Mysteries of Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.350-428). These texts case much light on Theodore’s understanding of the incarnation, suggesting that he tended to think of a “conjunction” between the human and divine natures, rather than a “union” in the stricter sense of the term. This passage, taken from Theodore’s eighth Catechetical Oration, deals with the relationship of these natures in the incarnation, and casts light on fourth century debates on the nature of the incarnation.

‘The distinction between the natures does not annul the exact conjunction, nor does the exact conjunction destroy the distinction between the natures, but the natures remain in their respective existence while separated, and the conjunction remains intact because the one who was assumed is united in honour and glory with the one who assumed, according to the will of the one who assumed him […] The fact that husband and wife are “one flesh” does not impede them from being two. Indeed, they will remain two because they are two, but they are one because they are also one and not two. In this same way here [i.e. in the incarnation] they are two by nature and one by conjunction.’

In this passage, Theodore defends the growing consensus within the church concerning the identity of Christ. However, he formulates it in a way that caused concern to writers such as Cyril of Alexandria. The union between humanity and divinity in Christ is not described as a “union by nature”, but as a conjunction according to the will of the parties involved. This idea of a “union according to good pleasure” (henōsis kat’ eudokian) was conceived more as a contractual arrangement, comparable to a human marriage, than as a genuine union of natures.” (McGrath:2011:230-1)

Cyril of Alexandria on the Incarnation

“Nestorius had taught that Christ is one, by synapheia, conjunction, combination, connection. This term disturbed many theologians who used the stronger term henōsis (“union” or “unification”). In a period when it was becoming common to speak of Christ as one because his human and divine natures are the natures of the one hypostasis of the person, Nestorius spoke of a union kat’ eudokian, a union “according to good pleasure” (an idea that also find in Theodore of Mopsuestia). Many interpreted Nestorious to teach that Jesus is two persons, the Divine Logos and the human son of Mary, held in a merely “moral” unity by union of will, action, and choice. This view is opposed strongly by Cyril.” (McGrath:2011:234-5)

The Emperor Zeno on the Natures of Christ

This important document, which dates from 482, represents an attempt by the emperor Zeno (c.450-91) to resolve the differences which were opening up within the church over the “Monophysite” controversy. Unfortunately, the document- generally known as the “Henotikon”- served to make division even worse, leading to growing division between eastern and western Christians. Although Zeno may have assuaged Monophysite anxieties, the Henotikon caused considerable offence to orthodox Christians. The document’s affirmations concerning the divinity and humanity of Christ are an important witness to the tensions in Christology at this period.

‘As we noted in our comments on the Council of Chalcedon , there was unease over the way in which the Council appeared to criticise the views of Cyril of Jerusalem. As a result, some groups refused to accept the authority of the Council. The uncritical use of the single term “Monophysite” (Greek: “only one nature”) to refer to such groups is dangerous: a variety of different Monophysite positions exist, to some of which the fathers of the eastern Orthodox tradition were sternly opposed. Julian, Bishop of Halicarnassus, for example, taught that the flesh of Christ was incorruptible from the moment of the incarnation. This view was condemned by Severus of Antioch, one of the most important anti-Chalcedon theologians, as a form of Docetism: he labelled Julian and his followers “phantasists”, although it should be noted that they are more commonly known in the technical literature as “Aphthartodocetists”. Some of Severus’ followers were known as aktistoi (“uncreated ones”), since they denied that Christ’s body had ever been created….

The recognition that a substantial measure of agreement was possible between Chalcedonians and moderate Monophysites underlay several imperially sponsored attempts to generate a compromise doctrinal formula. The attempts ended in failure, not because no such formula could be constructed, but because the divisions between the parties were not merely theological. As we have stressed, political factors were deeply implicated in the ecclesiastical debates of this period.” (McGrath:2011:239-40)

“The patristic period saw the development of two rather different modes of understanding the nature of the union between humanity and divinity in the incarnation. One was associated with the school of Antioch, the other with Alexandria. As political considerations became increasingly important in the fourth century, the purely theological aspects of the question began to become mixed up with ecclesiastical political bickering over the role of the see of Alexandria. Alexandria was committed to the model of henōsis kata physin (“a union of natures”), with a real interpenetration of the two natures. Antioch preferred the model of henōsis kat’ eudokian (“union according to good pleasure”), in which the two natures coexisted amicably, but without any interaction or interpenetration.” (McGrath:2011:234-5)

The Nicene Creed

‘We believe in one God, the Father, the almighty, the maker of all things seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God; begotten from the Father; only-begotten- that is, from the substance of the Father; God from God; light from light; true God from true God; begotten not made; of one substance with the Father; through whom all things in heaven and on earth came into being; who on account of us human beings and our salvation came down and took-flesh, becoming a human being; he suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into the heavens; and will come again to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit.’” (McGrath:2007:16)

“It is clear that this creed is specifically directed against Arius’s position, which can be summarized in the following manner.

1. The Son is a creature, who, like all other creatures, derives from the will of God.
2. The term “Son” is thus a metaphor, an honorific term intended to underscore the rank of the Son among other creatures. It does not imply that Father and Son share the same being or status.
3. The status of the Son is itself a consequence not of the nature of the Son, but of the will of the Father.

Each of the specific condemnations in the text is directed against a fighting slogan of the Arian party.

The use of the phrase “being of one substance with the Father [homoousion tō patri]” is especially important. During the Arian controversy of the fourth century, debate came to centre upon two terms as possible descriptions of the relation of the Father to the Son. The term homoiousios, which means “of similar substance” or “of like being.” was seen by some as representing a judicious compromise, allying the close relationship between Father and Son to be asserted without requiring any further speculation on the precise nature of that relation. However, the rival term homoousios, “of the same substance” or “of the same being,” eventually gained the upper hand. Though differing by only one letter from the alternative term, it embodied a very different understanding of the relationship between Father and Son: namely, that the Son was identical with the Father in terms of their being or existence- or, to put this more formally, that the Son was ontologically identical with the Father. This affirmation has since come to be widely regarded as a benchmark of Christological orthodoxy within all the mainstream Christian churches, whether Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox.” (McGrath:2011:9-10)

“It was Pope Sylvester’s misfortune to witness, during his papacy, the appearance of the first of all the great heresies, that were to split the Church in the centuries to come. This was first propagated by a certain Arius Presbyter of Alexandria, a man of immense learning and splendid physical presence. His message was simple enough: that Jesus Christ was not coeternal and of one substance with God the Father, but had been created by him at a specific time and for a specific purpose, as his Instrument for the salvation of the world. Thus, although a perfect man, the Son must always be subordinate to the Father. Here, in the eyes of Arius’s archbishop, Athanasius, was a dangerous doctrine indeed; and he took immediate measures to stamp it out. In 320 its propagator was arraigned before nearly a hundred bishops from Egypt, Libya and Tripolitania and excommunicated as a heretic….

Then, a year or two later, Arius, who had hurriedly left Alexandria after his excommunication, returned in triumph. He had appeared before two further synods in Asia Minor, both of which had declared overwhelmingly in his favour, and now he demanded his old job back.

Finally, in 324, the Emperor intervened….It was Constantine too, who proposed the insertion into the draft resolution of the key word that was to settle, at least temporarily, the fate of Arius and his doctrine. This was the word homoousios– meaning consubstantial, or ‘of one substance’, to describe the relation of the Son to the Father…

The Emperor had hoped for a large attendance from the Western churches at the Council of Nicea; but he was disappointed. As against some 300 or more bishops from the East, the West was represented by just five- plus two priests sent more as observers than anything else, by Pope Sylvester from Rome. It was on the Pope’s part, an understandable decision; he probably considered that to make the journey would be demeaning both to himself and to his office. Besides, western churchmen lacked the insatiable intellectual curiosity of their eastern brethren; the Latin language, which had replaced Greek as the lingua franca of the Roman Church less than a century before, did not even possess the technical terms necessary to express the subtle shades of meaning that gave Orthodox theologians such delight.” (Norwich:2011:14-16)

Arian Heresy

Strict Arians (homoeans)        Father is God, Son is man, Son is subordinate to Father.

Extremist Arians (anomoeans) Father is totally different from Son.

Strict Nicaeans (homoousians) Father and Son are same substance.

Moderate Nicaeans (homoiousians) Father and Son are alike but not consubstantial.

We have seen that Constantine placed the appellation Homoousian into the Nicene Creed despite worshipping the Sun himself, in order to consolidate an empire that he had just moved to Constantinople, away from Rome, and hence the importance of such a coherence as only religion could provide, whilst maintaining the secular organisational techniques of the hierarchy of Rome.

What however will happen when Constantine’s son is threatened in the West, which still believes in Arianism over Athanasiusism, which had greater support in the South of the Roman Empire. Will Arianism suddenly be more politically correct and socially cohesive to believe in? Who benefits?

“The death of its initiator did not, however, put an end to Arianism. It continued to flourish in many parts of the Empire, until in 381, a fanatically anti-Arian Spaniard, the Emperor Theodosius the Great, summoned the second Ecumenical Council, which was held at Constantinople and finally worked out a satisfactory solution to the problem. Indeed, it did more. It decreed a general ban on all pagan and heretical cults. Heresy- any heresy- would henceforth be a crime against the State. In less than a century a persecuted Church had become a persecuting Church. The Jews in particular came under heavy pressure; it was they, after all, who had crucified Christ….

Pope Damasus (366-84) sent no representatives to this council, nor even were any Western bishops present; and he was horrified later to learn of its decree that ‘the Bishop of Constantinople shall have the pre-eminence in honour after the Bishop of Rome, for Constantinople is the New Rome’….Relations between Rome and Constantinople were deteriorating fast.” (Norwich:2011:17-9)

Constantine’s Sons: 337-361 CE

In the middle of the fourth century, the history of the Empire was dominated by three problems: government, Christianization, and the barbarians.

From the political viewpoint, the major undertaking of the era was the re-establishment of a single ruler by the elimination of all the rival emperors until only one remained. In 337, after three months of intrigue, Dalmatius was assassinated. The Empire was then divided into three: Constantine II, who was in authority over the imperial college, took charge of Gaul, Britain, and Spain; Constans of Africa, Italy, and Illyria; and Constantius II of the East. In 340 Constans reunified the West to his own advantage, after Constantine II had been defeated and killed. In 350, he in his turn was defeated and killed,  by the usurper Magnentius, who was himself beaten at Mursa in 351 by Constantius II, although not eliminated until 353.

Constantius II is regarded as the first Byzantine emperor.. Constantius II gave pride of place to the East, and despite the solemn nature he imparted to his visit to Rome in 357, he did not attempt to keep up appearances regarding the relative importance of the two parts of the empire….

Two dangers threatened the Empire at this time.

1. The religious question: whereas Constans had sincerely supported the orthodox party, notably under the influence of Athanasius, Constantius II had ended by supporting Arianism, with equal sincerity. To this risk of conflict between Christians was added the real conflict that set Christians against pagans (edict of 356). ..

When Constantinus II asked Julian for reinforcements to help him to repulse the Persians, the troops assembled at Lutetia (Paris) staged a rebellion, proclaiming a reluctant Julian as emperor (360). Constantius II died very opportunely (361).” (Le Glay:2009:481-84)

Ecumenical councils

325 Nicaea                   Arianism                    Condemned (homoousian success)

360 Constantinople I    Arianism                    Accepted (homoean success)

381 Constantinople II   Arianism                    Condemned (return to Nicaea)

431 Ephesus                Monophysitism          Adopted (Nestorianism condemned)

451 Chalcedon            Monophysitism           Rejected.

So we can clearly see, that Christ is the Logos without any question throughout all of the monotheistic religions of today in an early Christian conceptualisation of Christ. What the entire argument above revolves around is the Nature of that Logos as it enters Christ’s body, when and how it does this, and how this effects the suffering of Christ and his ability therefore to take upon himself our sins with true understanding, by the experience of this suffering of humanity, in order to forgive through this understanding.

What we will now look at is the repercussions of the homoousian orthodox idea that God is Jesus and Jesus was born by Mary and therefore Mary gave birth to God. What does this mean for original sin, for our place in the universe, for our ability to become wholly divine also as per Christ or merely to imitate Christ in order to receive not union with God, but a heavenly promised abode in a world of pure imagination. We will also see from this reasoning what heaven is like, according to the repercussions of these thoughts. Are we ourselves- as souls now- perceived as human in heaven, or as light, or what? What about if you are a cripple or a retard or die in infancy, does the fact that we have not had a chance to receive Christ’s logos sacrament of the sacred bull cake or eucharist, mean that my dead child in my arms is now bound to eternal hell, due to this lack? Let us answer all of these questions and there given reasons- for their veritable answers- as given within the Catholic Church in order to see these ramifications, of an earthly mother giving birth to God himself in a human form.

08: The Necessity of the Trinity According to Early Christianity

Trinity – The two powers of God

In his discussion of the opening line of the Apostles’ creed – “I believe in God, the Father  almighty”- Ockham asks precisely what is meant by the word “almighty” (omnipotens). It cannot, he argues, mean that God is presently able to do everything. God was once free to act in any way. However, by doing this, God has now established an order of things which reflects, a loving and righteous divine will and that order, once established, will remain until the end of time. God is therefore not now able to do anything which contradicts this established order.

Ockham uses two important terms to refer to these different options. The “absolute power of God” (potentia absoluta) refers to the options that existed before God had committed himself to any course of action or world ordering. The “ordained power of God” (potentia ordinata) refers to the order established by God their creator as an expression of the divine nature and character. The “two powers of God” do not refer to two different sets of options now open to God. Rather, they refer to two different moments in the history of salvation.

The distinction is important, yet difficult. In view of this, we shall explore it in a little more detail. Ockham is inviting us to consider two very different situations in which he might speak of the “omnipotence of God.” The first is this: God is confronted with a whole array of possibilities- such as creating the world, or not creating the world. God can choose to actualize any of these possibilities. This is the absolute power of God.

But then God selects some options, and brings them into being. We are now in the realm of the ordained power of God- a realm in which God’s power is restricted, by virtue of God’s own decision. Ockham’s point is this: by choosing to actualize some options, God has to choose not to actualize others….

This notion of divine self-limitation, explored by Ockham, is important in modern theology, and merits further exploration.

Son of God

The Old Testament used the term “Son of God” in a broad sense, perhaps best translated as “belonging to God.” It was applied across a wide spectrum of categories, including the people of Israel in general (Exodus 4:22), and especially the Davidic king and his successors who were to rule over that people (2 Samuel 7:14). In this minimalist sense, the term could be applied equally to Jesus and to Christians. Jesus himself does not appear to have explicitly used the term of himself. It is found used in this way elsewhere in the New Testament, especially by Paul and in the letter to the Hebrews. Paul, for example, stated that Jesus had “been declared Son of God” on account of the resurrection (Romans 1:4).

Paul uses the term “Son of God” in relation to both Jesus and believers. However, a distinction is drawn between the sonship of the believers, which arises through adoption, and that of Jesus, which originates from his being “God’s own son” (Romans 8:32). In the fourth gospel and the Johannine letters, the term “son” (huios) is reserved for Jesus, while the more general term “children” (tekna) tends to be applied to believers. …

For Paul, all believers- whether male or female- are “sons of God” by adoption. The point being made is that all believers enjoy inheritance rights– rights which, under the cultural conditions of the period, were enjoyed only by male children.” (McGrath:2007:269-70)

Son of Man

For many Christians, the term “Son of Man” stands as a natural counterpart to “Son of God.” It is an affirmation of the humanity of Christ, just as the latter term is a complementary affirmation of his divinity. However, it is not quite as simple as this. The term “Son of Man” (Hebrew ben adam or Aramaic bar nasha) is used in three main contexts in the Old Testament:

1. As a form of address to the prophet Ezekiel’
2. to refer to a future eschatological figure (Daniel 7: 13-14), whose coming signals the end of history and the coming of divine judgement.
3. to emphasize the contrast between the lowliness and frailty of human nature, and the elevated status or permanence of God and the angels (Numbers 23:19; Psalm 8:4)

The third such meaning related naturally to the humanity of Jesus, and may underlie at least some of its references in the synoptic gospels. It is, however, the second use of the term that has attracted most scholarly attention.

The German New Testament scholar Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) argued that Daniel 7:13-14 pointed to the expectation of the coming of a “Son of Man” at the end of history, and argued that Jesus shared this expectation. References by Jesus to “the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory” (Mark 13:26) are thus, according to Bultmann, to be understood to refer to a figure other than Jesus. Bultmann suggested that the early church subsequently merged “Jesus” and “Son of Man”, understanding them to be one and the same. The early church thus invented the application of the term to Jesus.

This view has not, however, commanded universal assent.” (McGrath:2007:270-1)

Lord

The acknowledgement that “Jesus Christ is Lord” (Romans 10:9) appears to have become one of the earliest Christian confessions of faith, serving to distinguish those who believed in Jesus from those who did not. The term “Lord” (Greek kyrios; Aramaic mar) appears to have had powerful theological associations, partly on account of its use to translate the “Tetragrammaton”- the four Hebrew characters used to represent the sacred name of God in the Hebrew version of the Old Testament, often represented in English as YHWH or “Yahweh”. It was regarded as improper within Judaism to pronounce the name of God” (McGrath:2007:270)

God

…the noted Catholic New Testament scholar Raymond Brown (1928-98) has argued that there are three clear instances of Jesus being called “God” in the New Testament with the momentous implications that this involves. These are:

1. The opening sections of the fourth gospel which includes the affirmation: “the Word was God” (John 1:1).
2. The confession of Thomas, in which he addresses the risen Christ as “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28).
3. The opening of the letter to the Hebrews, in which a psalm is interpreted as being addressed to Jesus as God (Hebrews 1:8).

Given the strong reluctance of New Testament writers to speak of Jesus as “God”, because of their background in the strict monotheism of Israel, these three affirmations are of considerable significance.” (McGrath:2007:271-2)

Changes to Christ, the Word and the World of the Individual arises at the birth of science

Irenaeus on the Trinity

This important statement of the basic elements of the doctrine of the Trinity is set out in a creedal form, presumably to allow its readers to relate the passage to any of the creeds then in circulation. The importance of the passage lies in the way in which it clearly assigns distinct functions to each person of the Trinity, and links the three persons together as a “rule of faith”, which expresses the distinctively Christian understanding of the nature of God

‘This is the rule of our faith, the foundation of the building, and what gives support to our behaviour.

God the Father uncreated, who is uncontained, invisible, one God, creator of the universe; this is the first article of our faith. And the second is:

The Word of God, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who appeared to the prophets according to their way of prophesying, and according to the dispensation of the Father. Through him all things were created. Furthermore, in the fullness of time, in order to gather all things to himself, he became a human being amongst human beings, capable of being seen and touched, to destroy death, bring life, and restore fellowship between God and humanity. And the third article is:

The Holy Spirit, through whom the prophets prophesied, and our forebears learned of God and the righteous were led in the paths of justice, and who, in the fullness of time, was pouted out in a new way on our human nature in order to renew humanity throughout the entire world in the sight of God.’

We can see here an early Trinitarian creedal formulation, in which the basic ideas of the Christian understanding of God are set out clearly, especially in order to refute Gnostic claims. The reference to the “rule of faith” is especially important, as it points to the growing trend to crystallize central defining Christian insights into short formulas for pedagogic and defensive purposes.” (McGrath:2011:153-4)

Tertullian on Creation from Pre-Existent Matter

In this controversial work, written to refute the views of his opponent Hermogenes, Tertullian (c.160-c.225) deals with Hermogenes’ idea that God created the world out of pre-existing matter.– to rule? Tertullian argues that a distinction may be drawn between the terms “God” and “Lord”. God has always been “God”. he only became “Lord” when there was something to be Lord over- in other words, once the creation had been brought into being. Tertullian’s views should be compared with those of Origen at this point.

‘[Hermogenes] argues that God made everything either out of himself, or out of nothing, or out of something. His intention here is to refute the first two of these possibilities, and to establish the third, namely, that God created out of something, and that the “something” was matter [material]. He argues that God could not have created anything out of himself, because whatever he created would then have been part of himself. But God cannot be reduced to parts in this way, in that he is indivisible and unchangeable, and always the same, in that he is Lord. Further, anything made of himself would have been something of himself. His creation and his creating would then have to accounted as being imperfect, so that they are only a partial creation and a partial creating. Or if God completely made a complete creation, then God must have been at one and the same time complete and incomplete; complete, that he might make himself, and incomplete, that he might be made of himself. There is a further serious difficulty; if he existed he could not be created, if he did not exist, he could not create. Again he who always exists cannot become, but is for everlasting.

Therefore he did not create out of himself: that would be inconsistent with his nature. Similarly, he argues that he could not have created out of nothing. He defines God as good, totally good, and therefore wishing to make all things good, just as totally good as he is himself […] but evil is found in his creation, and this is certainly not according to his will […] therefore we must assume it came into being as a result of a fault in something, and that something is undoubtedly matter.

He adds another argument: God has always been God, and always Lord. Now he could not be regarded as always Lord, as he is always God, if there had not been something already existing over which he could be accounted Lord. Therefore matter always existed for God to be always Lord over it. […] We maintain that he always has the title of God, but not always that of Lord; for the nature of these two titles is different. God is the title of the substance, the divine nature: Lord the title of power. […] He became Lord and acquired that name from the time when things come into being over which the power of the Lord was exercised: the position and the title come through the accession of power. God is father and judge: but it does not follow that he is father and judge eternally because he is always God. He could not be father before he had a son; nor a judge before sin was committed.’

This is an example of a specifically polemical work, in which Tertullian engages with ideas which he regards as mistaken and pose a threat to the integrity of the Christian faith. The specific issue is whether God created the world out of pre-existing matter- a Platonic idea, which enjoyed some popularity with several early Christian writers- or whether everything required to be created. Tertullian argues for the latter position, which would eventually become the norm within Christian thinking.” (McGrath:2011:154-5)

Origen on Creation from Pre-Existent Matter

In this work, written in the first half of the third century, the Alexandrian theologian Origen (c.185-c.254) argues that God created the world from pre-existing matter. This matter is understood to be formless, so that the act of creation consists in fashioning this material into its proper form. Origen’s views on this matter should be compared with those of Tertullian.

‘I do not understand how so many distinguished people have thought that it was uncreated, that is to say, that it was not made by God, the creator of the world; or how they throughout that its nature and action were the result of chance. I am astonished that these people blame those who deny that God is the creator and sustainer of the world, accusing them of impious thoughts, because they hold that the work [opus] of the world endures without a creator or someone to tend it, when they themselves are just as guilty of impiety when they say that matter is uncreated [ingenitus] and co-eternal with the uncreated God. According to this line of thought, God would have had nothing to do, not having any matter with which he could have begun his work; for they allege that he could not make anything out of nothing, and that matter was present by chance rather than by God’s design.

They thus believe that something which came into being by chance could be good enough for the mighty work of creation. […] This seems to me to be absurd, the result of people who ignore the power and the intelligence of the uncreated nature. But, in order to be able to consider the arguments at stake here, let us suppose provisionally that matter did not exist, and that God, at a point at which nothing existed, gave existence to whatever he wished. What follows? That this material which God was obliged to create, and to bring into existence through his power and wisdom, could have been better or superior to, or something very different from, what these people call “uncreated”? Or, on the contrary, that it could have been inferior or worse, or even similar or identical? I think that it is clear that neither a better material, nor a worse material, could have taken on the forms and species which are in the world; it would have had to be the kind of matter which, in fact, actually did assume them. Therefore it must be considered impious to call something “uncreated” which, if it is believed to have been created by God, would undoubtedly be found to be of the same type as that which is called “uncreated”.

This passage represents a continuation of the early Christian debate over the manner in which the credal assertion that God is “creator of the world” is to be understood. Origen was one of the group of early Christian writers who believed that God fashioned the world from pre-existent matter. The process of creation is thus to be conceived more in terms of the imposition of ordering upon the world. Origen was very sympathetic to Platonist ideas, and this can be seen clearly in his positive evaluation of the Platonic concept of creation.” (McGrath:2011:155-6)

Writer’s Voice: Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Gregory of Nyssa on Human Analogies of the Trinity

Surely the doctrine of the Trinity implies that there are three gods? This objection was frequently raised against the emerging Christian consensus on the nature of the godhead. One of the most important reponses to this takes the form of a short doctrinal treatise written by Gregory of Nyssa (c.330-c.395), in response to a question raised by his correspondent Ablabius. Three men might indeed share a common human nature- but they remain three individuals, nonetheless. Surely the same is true of the Trinity? The three persons may share in a common godhead- but are not all gods? And do not Christians therefore really believe in three Gods? What follows is Gregory’s response.

‘The question that you have raised before us is no small matter, nor is it such that only a little harm will arise if it is not answered properly. At first sight, your question forces us to accept one of two incorrect opinions, and either to say that “there are three Gods”, which is blasphemous, or not to acknowledge the Godhead of the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is impious and absurd. […]

But in the case of the divine nature, we do not believe that the Father does anything by himself in which the Son is not also involved. Again, we do not believe that the Son acts on his own apart from the Holy Spirit. Rather, every operation of god upon his creation is named according to our conceptions of it, and takes it origin from the Father, proceeds through the Son, and is perfected in the Holy Spirit. Rather, every operation of God upon his creation is named according to our conceptions of it, and takes its origin from the Father, proceeds through the Son, and is perfected in the Holy Spirit. For this reason the name derived from the operation is not divided with regard to the number of those who carry it out, because the action of each concerning anything is not separate and individual, but whatever takes place, in relation either to the acts of God’s providence towards us, or to the government and constitution of the universe, takes place by the action of the Three- yet what takes place is not three things.’

Gregory’s argument is as complex as it is important. The easiest way to grasp his point in his insistence that “the word ‘Godhead’ does not signify a specific nature but an operation.” We might think of individual shoemakers, farmers, or orators: each may share a common profession, but they are defined individually in that they operate individually. In the case of the Trinity, however, we are dealing with single operations in which all persons are involved cooperatively. To anticipate a later slogan, opera Trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt (“external actions of the Trinity are indivisible”). Therefore the Trinity cannot be thought of as three gods.” (McGrath:2011:159-61)

Gregory of Nazianzus on the Gradual Revelation of the Trinity

In this work, written around 380, the Cappadocian writer Gregory of Nazianzus (329-89) sets out the main features of the Christian faith. In this section he explains why the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly stated in Scripture. Note especially his understanding of the gradual revelation of the doctrine, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit within the church. Note also that the “theological orations” are generally distinguished from the “orations” as a whole, of which they are part. “Theological Oration 1” is “Oration 27,” “Theological Oration 5” is “Oration 31), and so forth.

‘The Old Testament preached the Father openly and the Son more obscurely. The New Testament revealed the Son, and hinted at the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Now the Spirit dwells in us, and is revealed more clearly to us. It was not proper to preach the Son openly, while the divinity of the Father had not yet been admitted. Nor was it proper to accept the Holy Spirit before [the divinity of] the Son had been acknowledged. […] Instead, by gradual advances and […] partial ascents, we should move forward and increase in clarity, so that the light of the Trinity [Trias] should shine’

This sequential development is acknowledged in this passage by Gregory, who argues for a gradual progress in clarification and understanding of the mystery of God’s revelation in the course of time. It was, he argued, impossible to deal with the question of the divinity of the Spirit until the issue of the divinity of Christ had been settled. The mind of the church thus developed gradually, in that the full exploration of the depths of the self-revelation of God requires many generations to undertake. The recognition of the dogma of the Trinity is thus the climax of the long and cautious process of reflection and analysis. Gregory is concerned to stress that the dogma of the Trinity is not a human imposition upon divine revelation, but a human discernment of the realities which are disclosed by that process of divine revelation.” (McGrath:2011:163)

Augustine on the Trinity

In his important treatise de Trinitate (“on the Trinity”), originally written in Latin over the period 400-16. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) sets out a distinctive approach to the Trinity which would have a major impact on western Trinitarian thought. The passage is notable on account of its detailed analysis of the concept of “love”, in which it is argued that this concept necessarily implies a lover, a beloved, and their mutual love. On the basis of this psychological analogy….

This is a highly important passage, which would have an immense influence on western Christian thinking about the Trinity. One of the most distinctive features of Augustine’s approach to the Trinity is his development of “psychological analogies”. Augustine argues that in creating the world, God has left a characteristic imprint (vestigium) upon that creation. As humanity is the height of God’s creation, Augustine argues, we should look to humanity in our search for the image of God. On the basis of his neo-Platonic worldview, Augustine asserts that the human mind is to be regarded as the apex of humanity. It is therefore to the individual human mind that the theologian should turn, in looking for “traces of the Trinity” (vestigial Trinitatis) in creation. The radical individualism of this approach, coupled with its obvious intellectualism, means that Augustine chooses to find the Trinity in the inner mental world of individuals, rather than- for example- in personal relationships (an approach favoured by medieval writers, such as Richard of St Victor…” (McGrath:2011:165&67)

Augustine on the Relation of God and Evil

In his early period, Augustine was attracted to Manicheism, partly because it provided a simply explanation of the origin of evil. According to this movement, evil had its origins in an evil or defective deity, who was opposed to the true and righteous God. On becoming a Christian, Augustine rejected this dualism, and was therefore obliged to give an alternative explanation of the origins of evil. In this passage from the treatise de libero arbitrio (“on the free will”), written in Latin during the period 388-95, Augustine argues that evil represents a free turning away from God, rather than a positive entity in its own right. However, he is unable to provide a convincing explanation of why someone should wish to turn away from God in this manner.

‘If there is a movement, that is a turning away [aversio] of the human will from the Lord God, which without doubt is sin, can we then say that God is the author of sin? God, then, will not be the cause of that movement. But what will its cause be? If you ask this question, I will have to answer that I do not know. While this will sadden you, it is nevertheless a true answer’” (McGrath:2011:168)

The Eleventh Council of Toledo on the Trinity

Perhaps the clearest statement of the doctrine of the Trinity to be found in the patristic period is that set out by the Eleventh Council of Toledo (675). This Council, which met in the Spanish city of Toledo and was attended by a mere 11 bishops, is widely credited with setting out the western view of the Trinity with an enviable clarity, and is regularly cited in later medieval discussions of this doctrine. In what follows, the Council explains the relation of the words “Trinity” and “God”, and stresses the importance of the relationalities within the Godhead, focusing especially on the relation of the Holy Spirit to the Son and Father.

‘We believe that the Holy Spirit, the third person in the Trinity, is God, one and equal with God the Father and God the Son, of one substance and of one nature; not, however, begotten or created, but proceeding from both, and that He is the Spirit of both. We also believe that the Holy Spirit is neither unbegotten nor begotten, for if we called Him “unbegotten” we would assert two Fathers, or if we called him “begotten,” we would appear to preach two Sons. Yet He is called the Spirit not of the Father alone, nor of the Son alone, but of both Father and Son….

This is the way of speaking about the Holy Trinity as it has been handed down: it must not be spoken of or believed to be “threefold” [triplex], but to be “Trinity”. Nor can it properly be said that in the one God there is the Trinity: rather, the one God is the Trinity.” (McGrath:2011:175-6)

Thomas Aquinas on Divine Omnipotence

The great scholastic theologian Thomas Aquinas (c.1225-74) provided a particularly influential account of the nature of divine omnipotence, which includes an important discussion of the question “Can God sin?” At first sight, it might seem that the suggestion that “God cannot sin” amounts to a denial of God’s omnipotence. However, Aquinas argues that sin is a defect, and is therefore inconsistent with the idea of God as a perfect being. God cannot sin, because it is not in God’s nature to be deficient. The Summa Theologiae (“The Totality of Theology”), which Aquinas began to write in Latin in 1265 and left unfinished at the time of his death, is widely regarded as the greatest work of medieval theology.

‘It is commonly said that God is almighty. Yet it seems difficult to understand the reason for this, on account of the doubt about what is meant when it is said that God is omnipotent because he can do everything possible to his power, the understanding of omnipotence is circular, doing nothing more than saying that God is omnipotent because he can do everything that he can do.’

In this passage Aquinas explores a number of issues relating to the omnipotence of God. One of these is the rule of noncontradiction, often stated in forms of the questions: “Can God create a square triangle?” Such things cannot be done due to a logical contradiction within the proposal.” (McGrath:2011:180)

Writer’s Voice: Omnipotence and Zen Koan of Rock

Thomas À Kempis on the Limits of Trinitarian Speculation

In his spiritual treatise de imitatione Christi (“On the imitation of Christ”), the noted late medieval spiritual writer Thomas à Kempis (c.1380-1471) sets out a strongly antispeculative approach to the Christian faith, which rests firmly on the need to obey Christ rather than indulge in flights of intellectual fancy. Speculation concerning the Trinity is singled out as a case of such a pointless activity, which he urges his readers to avoid.

‘What good does it do you if you dispute loftily about the Trinity, but lack humility and therefore displease the Trinity? It is not lofty words that make you righteous  or holy or dear to God, but a virtuous life. I would much rather experience contrition [compunctio] than be able to give a definition of it. If you knew the whole the Bible by heart, along with all the definitions of the philosophers, what good would this be without grace and love? “Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity” (Ecclesiastes 1:2)- except, that is, loving God and serving God alone. For this is supreme wisdom: to draw nearer to the heavenly kingdom through contempt for the world. […]”(McGrath:2011:184)

The development of Christian doctrine

The Christians believed that Christ is God. It had then to be explained how he could be simultaneously also the Son of God and part of a Holy Trinity completed by the Father and the Holy Ghost. Strict Christian monotheism forbade any compromise with paganism in such matters, as well as any worship of the gods in Rome’s traditional pantheon and any acceptance of the imperial cult…

Theory brought about a deepening of the doctrine, embodied most enduringly in the works of the Fathers of the Church, notably Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianus, and Augustine. The golden age of this movement occurred in the second half of the fourth century. Points of argument could be debated in assemblies that brought together the elite of clerics, in regional synods and councils, or in ecumenical councils, where there gathered, in theory, bishops from the whole inhabited world (in Greek, ecumene). This lively and multifaceted interaction, however, also brought divergences in its wake, leading to schisms and heresies.” (Le Glay:2009:536-37)

Athenagoras of Athens on the Christian God

In this defense of the Christian faith against pagan criticisms, written in Greek around 177 and addressed to the Roman emperors Marcus Aurelius Antonius and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, the second-century writer Athenagoras of Athens sets out the main features of the gospel in a lucid and reasoned manner. The early Christians were accused of atheism on account of their refusal to worship the emperor. In this extract, in which Athenagoras explains what Christians believe about God, important anticipations of later thinking on the Trinity can be detected. The work is known by various names, including Apologia, Legatio,… and Supplicatio pro Christianis.

‘So we are not atheists, in that we acknowledge one God, who is uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassable, incomprehensible, and without limit. He is apprehended only by the intellect and the mind, and is surrounded by light, beauty, spirit, and indescribable power. The universe was created and ordered, and is presently sustained, through his Logos. […] For we acknowledge also a “son of God”. Nobody should think it ridiculous that God should have a son. Although the pagan poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as being no better than human beings, we do not think in the same way as they do concerning either God the Father of God the Son. For the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, both in through and in reality. It was through his action, and after his pattern, that all things were made, in that the Father and Son are one. […The Son] is the first creation of the Father- not meaning that he was brought into existence, in that, from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [nous], had the Logos within himself, being eternally of the character of the Logos [logikos]. Rather, it is meant that he came forth to be the pattern and motivating power of all physical things. […] We affirm that the Holy Spirit, who was active in the prophets, is an effluence of God, who flows from him and returns to him, like a beam of the sun.’

Early Christian writers were often branded as atheists by their critics within the secular imperial establishment, in that they denied either the divinities of the classic Roman pantheon, or refused to conform to the imperial cult which had become particularly well-established in the eastern regions of the Roman Empire. Part of the task of the first Christian apologists was to rebut the charge of atheism; this was often combined with an explanation of the nature of Christian belief.” (McGrath:2011:152)

“The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the most difficult aspects of Christian theology. Many who are new to the study of theology find the doctrine perplexing. Some hold back from studying it seriously, believing that such study will persuade them that it is a piece of logical nonsense. Others are apprehensive about the Islamic critique of the doctrine, which treats it as tantamount to tritheism…

Can we speak of “a triune God” or the “three-in-one” without talking mathematical and metaphysical nonsense?

The fundamental problem here is the inability of human language to do justice to the transcendent.” (McGrath:2007:234)

The Trinity as a statement about Jesus Christ

The distinctively Christian doctrine of God took shape in response to a question about the identity of Jesus Christ. The development of the doctrine of the Trinity is best seen as organically related to the evolution of Christology… As we noted earlier, a patristic consensus emerged that Jesus was, “of the same substance” (homoousios) as God, rather than just being “of similar substance” (homoiousios). But if Jesus was God, in any meaningful sense of the word, what did this imply about existing notions of God? Or was a radical reconsideration of the nature of God appropriate?” (McGrath:2007:235-6)

The Trinity as a statement about the Christian God.

…Illingworth argues that the doctrine of the Trinity results from exploring the implications of belief in the Christian notion of a personal God, which is radically different from the impersonal conceptions of God which are found in many philosophical systems–  such as those of Aristotle and Spinoza:

‘The doctrine of the Trinity, as dogmatically elaborated, is, in fact, the most philosophical attempt to conceive of God as Personal. Not that it arose from any mere process of thinking. […] It was suggested by the Incarnation, considered as a new revelation about God, and thought out upon the lines indicated in the New Testament. Upon this the evidence of the Fathers is plain. They felt that they were in the presence of a fact which, so far from being the creation of any theory of the day, was a mystery- a thing which could be apprehended when revealed, but which could neither be comprehended nor discovered.’

…Irenaeus made use of a term which featured prominently in future discussion of the Trinity: “the economy of salvation”. The term “economy” needs clarification. The Greek word oikonomia basically means “the way in which one’s affairs are ordered”…For Irenaeus, “the economy of salvation” meant “the way in which God has ordered the salvation of humanity in history.”

At the time, Irenaeus was under considerable pressure from Gnostic critics, who argued that the creator God was quite distinct from (and inferior to) the redeemer God. Marcion of Sinope (c.85-160) expressed this Gnostic idea in the following form: the Old Testament God is a creator God, and totally different from the redeemer God of the New Testament. As a result, the Old Testament, Irenaeus vigorously rejected this idea. He insisted that the entire process of salvation, from the first moment of creation to the last moment of history, was the work of one and the same God. …

In his Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, Irenaeus insisted upon the distinct yet related roles of Father, Son, and Spirit within the economy of salvation. He affirmed his faith in

‘God the Father uncreated, who is uncontained, invisible, one God, creator of the universe; this is the first article of our faith. […] And the Word of God, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, […] who, in the fullness of time, in order to gather all things to himself, he became a human being amongst human beings, capable of being seen and touched, to destroy death, bring life, and restore fellowship between God and humanity. And the Holy Spirit […] who, in the fullness of time, was pouted out in a new way on our human nature in order to renew humanity throughout the entire world in the sight of God.’” (McGrath:2007:236-7)

The Biblical Foundations of the Doctrine of the Trinity

The casual reader of Scripture will discern a mere two verses in the entire Bible which seem, at first glance, to be capable of a Trinitarian interpretation: Matthew 28:19 (“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”) and 2 Corinthians 13:13 (“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all of you”). …Yet these two verses, taken together or in isolation, can hardly be thought of as constituting a doctrine of the Trinity.

Happily, the ultimate grounds of the doctrine are not to be sought exclusively in these two verses. Rather, the foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity are to be found in the pervasive pattern of divine activity to which the New Testament bears witness. The Father is revealed in Christ through the Spirit. There is the closest of connections between the Father, Son, and Spirit in the New Testament writings. Time after time, New Testament passages link together these three elements as part of a greater whole. The totality of God’s saving presence and power can only, it would seem, be expressed by involving all three elements…

These are:

1. Wisdom: This personification of God is especially evident in the Wisdom literature, such as Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. The attribute of divine wisdom is here treated as if it were a person (hence the idea of “personification”), with an existence apart from, yet dependent upon, God. Wisdom (who is always treated as female, incidentally) is portrayed as active in creation, fashioning the world in her imprint (see Job 28; Proverbs 1:20-3, 9:1-6; Ecclesiastes 2:12-7).
2. The Word of God: Here, the idea of God’s speech or discourse is treated as an entity with an existence independent of God, yet originating with God. The Word of God is portrayed as going forth into the world to confront men and women with the will and purpose of God, bringing guidance, judgment, and salvation (see Psalms 119:89, 147:15-20; Isaiah 55: 10-11).
3. The Spirit of God: The Old Testament uses the phrase “the Spirit of God” to refer to God’s presence and power within the creation. The Spirit is portrayed as being present in the expected Messiah (Isaiah 42: 1-3), and as being the agent of a new creation which will arise when the old order has finally passed away (Ezekiel 36:26, 37:1-14).’

These three “hypostasizations” of God (to use a Greek word in place of the English “personification”) do not amount to a doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense of the term. Rather, they point to a pattern of divine activity and presence in and through creation, in which God is both immanent and transcendent. A purely Unitarian conception of God proved inadequate to contain this dynamic understanding of God. And it is this pattern of divine activity which is expressed in the doctrine of the Trinity.” (McGrath:2007:238-9)

Melchizedek was the only person who fulfilled the necessary requirements in accord with Judaism, to be named the Messiah apart from Christ, namely, being King and High Priest at the same time. He was King of Salem and Priest of God most High.  In Hebrews 5:10 we learn of how Christ:- “was designated by God to high priest in the order of Melchizedek”.  His full name of Zorocothora Melchizedek means “light-gatherer”.

The Historical Development of the Doctrine

It is important to appreciate that neither the developed Trinitarian vocabulary or the specific concepts developed by Christian theologians to express the Christian vision of God are explicitly stated in the New Testament. …

The emergence of the trinatarian vocabulary

… The theologian who  may be argued to have been responsible for the development of the distinctive Trinitarian terminology is Tertullian (c.160-c.225). According to one analysis, Tertullian coined 509 new nouns, 284 new adjectives, and 161 new verbs in the Latin language. …

Trinitas

Tertullian invented the word “Trinity” (Trinitas), which has become so characteristic a feature of Christian theology since his time. Although other possibilities had been explored, Tertullian’s influence was such that this term became normative within the western church. We shall use the original Latin terms coined by Tertullian, while providing English translations and commentary.

Persona

Tertullian introduced this Latin term to translate the Greek word hypostasis, which had begun to gain acceptance in the Greek-speaking church. … It is quite possible that Tertullian wanted his readers to understand the idea of “one substance, three persons” to mean that the one God played three distinct yet related roles in the great drama of human redemption.

Behind the plurality of roles lay a single actor. The complexity of the process of creation and redemption did not imply that there were many gods; simply that there was one God, who acted in a multiplicity of manners within the “economy of salvation” …

Substantia

Tertullian introduced this term to express the idea of a fundamental unity within the Godhead, despite the inherent complexity of the revelation of God within history. “Substance” is what the three persons of the Trinity have in common. It must not be thought of as something which exists independently of the three persons; rather, it expresses their common foundational unity, despite their outward appearance of diversity.” (McGrath:2007:239-40)

The emergence of trinitarian concepts

By the second half of the fourth century, the debate concerning the relation of the Father and the Son gave every indication of having been decided. The recognition that Father and Son were “of one being” settled the Arian controversy, and established a consensus within the church over the divinity of the Son. But further theological construction was necessary. What was the relation of the Spirit to the Father? And to the Son? There was a growing consensus that the Spirit could not be omitted from the Godhead. The Cappadocian fathers, especially Basil of Caesarea (c.330-79), defended the divinity of the Spirit in such persuasive terms that the foundation was laid for the final element of Trinitarian theology to be put in its place. The divinity and coequality of Father, Son, and Spirit had been agreed; it now remained to develop Trinitarian models to allow this understanding of the Godhead to be visualized. …

Perichoresis

This Greek term, which is often found in either its Latin (circumincessio) or English (“mutual interpenetration”) translations, came into general use in the sixth century. It refers to the manner in which the three persons of the Trinity relate to one another. The concept of perichoresis allows the individuality of the persons to be maintained, while insisting that each person shares in the life of the other two. An image often used to express this idea of that of “a community of being”, in which each person, while maintaining its distinctive identity, penetrates the others and is penetrated by them. …

Appropriation

This second idea is related to perichoresis and follows on from it. The modalist heresy argued that God could be considered as existing in different “modes of being” at different points in the economy of salvation, so that, at one point, God existed as Father and created the world; at another, God existed as Son and redeemed it. The doctrine of appropriation insists that the works of the Trinity are a unity: every person of the Trinity is involved in every outward action of the Godhead….Augustine of Hippo affirmed the unity of the actions of the Trinity, while allowing for distinction at points of detail.

‘There is one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When this Trinity is known, to the extent possible in this life, it is clear that every creature- whether intellectual, animal, or physical- may be perceived to derive its existence from this same creative Trinity. It has its own form, and is subject to this most perfect order. It is not as if the Father were understood to have made one part of creation, the Son another, and the Spirit another. Rather, the Father made everything through the Son in the gift of the Holy Spirit.’

Elsewhere, Augustine pointed out that the Genesis creation account speaks of God, the Word, and the Spirit (Genesis 1:1-3), thus indicating that all three persons of the Trinity were present and active at this decisive moment in salvation in history.” (McGrath:2007:240-1)

“During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the doctrine of the Trinity appears to have receded into the background. It was, of course, taught in seminaries. Yet the doctrine was increasingly regarded as something of an apologetic liability, on the one hand, and as being of little constructive use, on the other….

Anti-trinitarianism, already evident in the late 1520s, became a hallmark of the radical Reformation in the 1550s, causing widespread concern in both Protestant and Catholic circles. For Juan de Valdés (c.1509-41) and others, the doctrine of the Trinity was simply not to be found in the Bible, nor could it be defended on its basis…

In an age increasingly dominated by the Enlightenment, Christian apologists appear simply to have downplayed their commitment to the notion of the Trinity, presenting Christianity in theist, rather than Trinitarian, terms.

All this changed in the twentieth century. The pioneering work of Karl Brth (1886-1968) in Protestant dogmatics triggered a re-evaluation of the place of the doctrine…to the present Trinitarian renaissance in theology, which shows no sign of abating.” (McGrath:2007:242-3)

The problem of visualization: analogies of the Trinity

Gregory of Nyssa uses a series of analogies in his letters to help his readers grasp the reality of the Trinity, including:

3. The analogy of a rainbow. Drawing on the Nicene statement that Christ is “light from light”, Gregory argues that the rainbow allows us to distinguish and appreciate the different colours of a sunbeam. There is only one beam of light, yet the colours blend seamlessly into one another.” (McGrath:2007:243)

“One of the most sophisticated statements of these points was made by Karl Rahner in his treatise The Trinity (1970)….The “essential” or “immanent” Trinity can be regarded as an attempt to formulate the Godhead outside the limiting conditions of time and space; the “economic Trinity” is the manner in which the Trinity is made known within the “economy of salvation”, that is to say, in the historical process itself.” (McGrath:2007:244)

“Perhaps the clearest statement of the doctrine of the Trinity to be found in the patristic period is that set out by the Eleventh Council of Toldeo (675). This Council, which met in the Spanish city of Toledo and was attended by a mere 11 bishops, is widely credited with setting out the clarity, and is regularly cited in later medieval discussions of this doctrine…

‘This is the way of speaking about the Holy Trinity as it has been handed down: it must not be spoken of or believed to be “threefold” [triplex], but to be “Trinity”. Nor can it properly be said that in the one God there is the Trinity; rather, the one God is the Trinity. In the relative names of the persons, the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance. Although we profess three persons, we do not profess three substances, but one substance and three persons. For the Father is Father not with respect to Himself but to the Son, and the Son is not to himself but in relation to the Father; and likewise the Holy Spirit is not referred to Himself but is related to the Father and the Son, inasmuch as He is called the Spirit of the Father and the Son. So when we use the word “God”, this does not express a relationship to another, as of the Father to the Son or of the Son to the Father or of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, but “God” refers to Himself only.’” (McGrath:2007:246)

The Filioque Controversy

One of the most significant events in the early history of the church was the achievement of broad agreement throughout the Roman Empire, both east and west, on the text and leading ideas of the Nicene creed (325). This document was intended to bring doctrinal stability to the church in a period of considerable importance in its history. Part of that agreed text referred to the Holy Spirit “proceeding from the Father.” By the ninth century, however, the western church routinely altered this phrase, speaking of the Holy Spirit “proceeding from the Father and the Son.” The Latin term filioque, which literally means “and from the Son”, has since come to refer to this addition, now normative within the western church, and the theology which it expresses….

Within this context, it is unthinkable that the Holy Spirit should proceed from the Father and the Son. Why? Because it would totally compromise the principle of the Father as the sole origin and source of all divinity. It would amount to affirming that there were two sources of divinity within the one Godhead, with all the internal contradictions and tensions that this would generate. If the Son were to share in the exclusive ability of the Father to be the source of all divinity, this ability would no longer be exclusive. For this reason, the Greek church regarded the western idea of a “double procession” of the Spirit with something approaching stark disbelief….

This understanding of the procession of the Spirit from Father and Son was developed and given its classic statement by Augustine… Augustine argued that the Spirit had to be thought of as proceeding from the Son. One of his main proof texts was John 20:22, in which the risen Christ is reported as having breathed upon his disciples, and said: “Receive the Holy Spirit.” Augustine explains this as follows in his major treatise On The Trinity:

‘Nor can we say that the Holy Spirit does not also proceed from the Son. After all, the Spirit is said to be the Spirit of both the Father and the Son. [John 20:22 is then cited] The Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son.’

… Augustine developed the idea of relation within the Godhead, arguing that the persons of the Trinity are defined by their relations to one another. The Spirit is thus to be seen as the relation of love and fellowship between the Father and Son, a relation which Augustine believed to be foundational to the fourth gospel’s presentation of the unity of will and purpose of Father and Son. …

…the Council of Lyons (1274) stated that “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, yet not as from two origins but as from one origin.” However, despite such clarifications, the doctrine remains a source of contention between eastern and western Christians, which is unlikely to be removed in the foreseeable future.” (McGrath:2007:247-9)

“Augustine, basing his ideas loosely on 1 Corinthians 13:13 (“These three remain: Faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love”), argues along the following lines:

1. God’s greatest gift is love.
2. God’s greatest gift is the Holy Spirit.
3. Therefore the Holy Spirit is love.

This style of analysis has been criticized for its obvious weaknesses, not least in leading to a curiously depersonalized notion of the Spirit. The Spirit appears as a sort of glue, binding Father and Son together, and binding both to believers…

One of the most distinctive features of Augustine’s approach to the Trinity is his development of “psychological analogies”. The reasoning which lies behind the appeal to the human mind in this respect can be summarized as follows. It is not unreasonable to expect that, in creating the world, God has left a characteristic imprint upon that creation. But where is that imprint (vestigium) to be found? It is reasonable to expect that God would plant this distinctive imprint upon the height of this creation. Now the Genesis creation accounts allow us to conclude that humanity is the height of God’s creation. Therefore, Augustine argues, we should look to humanity in our search for the image of God.

However, Augustine then takes a step which some of his critics feel to have been unnecessary and unfortunate. On the basis of his neo-Platonic worldview, Augustine argues that the human mind is to be regarded as the apex of humanity. It is therefore to the individual human mind that the theologian should turn, in looking for “traces of the Trinity” (vestigial Trinitatis) in creation. The radical individualism of this approach, coupled with its obvious intellectualism, means that he chooses to find the Trinity in the inner mental world of individuals, rather than- for example- in personal relationships (an approach favoured by medieval writers, such as Richard of St.Victor)….

Augustine’s presentation of the Trinity exercised a major influence over later generations, especially during the Middle Ages. Thomas Aquinas’s Treatise on the Trinity largely represents an elegant restatement of Augustine’s ideas, rather than a subtle modification and correction of their deficiencies. Similarly, in the Institutes, Calvin is content to offer an interpretation of Scripture which is largely a direct repetition of Augustine’s approach to the Trinity, indicating a settled consensus within the western tradition at this point.” (McGrath:2007:251-2)

Deification: being made divine

“God became human, in order that humans might become God” (Athanasius of Alexandria). This theological refrain may be discerned as underlying much of the soteriological reflection of the eastern Christian tradition, both during the patristic period and in the modern Greek and Russian Orthodox theological traditions. The word “deification” translates two Greek words regularly used by writers such as Athanasius: theosis, “becoming divine”, and theopoieses, “being made divine.” As the citation suggests, there is an especially strong link between the doctrine of the incarnation and this understanding of salvation. For Athanasius, salvation consists in the human participation in the being of God. The divine Logos is imparted to humanity through the incarnation.

On the basis of the assumption of a universal human nature. Athanasius concluded that the Logos did not merely assume the specific human existence of Jesus Christ, but that of human nature in general. As a consequence, all human beings are able to share in the deification which results from the incarnation. Human nature was created with the  object of sharing in the being of God; through the descent of the Logos, this capacity is finally realized. Theosis is the means of salvation by which the believer is incorporated, not into the divine essence, but into the person of Christ who, by virtue of the hypostatic union, is the mediator of divinity to humanity….

A modern Orthodox writer who places considerable emphasis on the notion of deification is the Russian writer Vladimir Lossky (1904-58). In a 1953 essay on the theme of “redemption and deification”, Lossky sets out the distinctive Orthodox understanding of the relation of the descent of God to humanity and the subsequent ascent of humanity to God:

‘The descent (katabasis) of the divine person of Christ makes human persons capable of an ascent (anabasis) in the Holy Spirit. It was necessary that the voluntary humiliation, the redemptive self-emptying (kenosis) of the Son of God should take place, so that fallen men might accomplish their vocation of theosis, the deification of created beings by uncreated grace. Thus the redeeming work of Christ- or rather, more generally speaking, the incarnation of the Word- is seen as directly related to the ultimate goal of creatures: to know union with God. If this union has been accomplished in the divine person of the Son, who is God become man, it is necessary that each human person should in turn become god by grace, or become “a partaker in the divine nature”, according to St Peter’s expression (2 Peter 1:4).’

A distinction must be drawn between the idea of deification as “becoming God” (theosis) and as “becoming like God” (homoiosios theoi). The first, associated with the Alexandrian school, conceives of deification as a union with the substance of God; the second, associated with the Antiochene school, interprets the believer’s relationship with God more in terms of a participation in that which is divine, often conceived in terms of ethical perfection. The distinction between these approaches is subtle, and reflects significantly different Christologies.’” (McGrath:2007:339-40)

“The dialogue with Platonism was of immense importance during the first five centuries of the importance during the first five centuries of the Christian church, especially in the Greek-speaking world of the eastern Mediterranean. As Christianity expanded in that region, it encountered rival worldviews, of which Platonism was the most important. Such worldviews could be seen positively or negatively: they were both an opportunity for dialogue and intellectual development, and also a threat to the existence of Christianity. The task faced by writers such as Justin Martyr or Clement of Alexandria was how to make use of the obvious intellectual merits of Platonism in constructing a Christian worldview, without compromising the integrity of Christianity itself. After all, despite their occasional similarities, Christianity is not Platonism.

A new debate opened up in the thirteenth century, during the golden age of scholastic theology. The rediscovery of Aristotle by medieval writers seemed to offer new resources to help in every aspect of intellectual life, including physics, philosophy, and ethics. It was inevitable that theologians should also want to see what use they could make of Aristotelian ideas and methods in constructing a systematic theology- such as Thomas Aquinas’s massive Summa theologiae, widely regarded as one of the greatest works of theology ever written.

In both cases, using another intellectual discipline as the ancilla theologiae offers opportunities and risks in about equal measure. It is clearly important to appreciate what these opportunities and risks are. The two major opportunities offered to theology by the critical appropriation of another discipline can be summarized as follows.

1. It allows for a much more rigorous exploration of ideas than would otherwise be possible. Problems that Christian theology encounters in trying to develop its ideas often have their parallels in other disciplines. Thomas Aquinas, for example, found Aristotle’s notion of an ‘unmoved mover” helpful in setting out some reasons for defending the existence of God.
2. It allows Christian theology to engage in a dialogue with another worldview- a major element of the church’s witness to its secular context. In the second century, Justin Martyr clearly believed that many Platonists would be so impressed by the parallels between Platonism and Christianity that they might consider conversion. Similarly, in his “Areopagus address” (Acts 17:22-31). Paul draws on some themes from Stoic philosophy in attempting to communicate the Christian message to Athenian culture.’”

(McGrath:2007:173-4)

The doctrine of creation ex nihilo

Christianity initially took root and then expanded in the eastern Mediterranean world of the first and second centuries, which was dominated by various Greek philosophies. The general Greek understanding of the origins of the world could be summarized as follows. God is not to be thought of as having created the world. Rather, God is to be thought of as an architect, who ordered pre-existent matter. Matter was already present within the universe, and did not require to be created; it needed to be given a definite shape and structure. God was therefore thought of as the one who fashioned the world from this already existing matter. Thus, in one of his dialogues (Timaeus), Plato developed the idea that the world was made out of pre-existent matter, which was fashioned into the present form of the world.

This idea was taken up by most Gnostic writers, who were here followed by a few early Christian theologians such as Theophilus of Antioch and Justin Martyr. They professed a belief in pre-existent matter, which was shaped into the world in the act of creation. In other words, creation was not “from nothing [ex nihilo]”; rather, it was to be seen as an act of construction, on the basis of material which was already to hand, as one might construct an igloo out of snow, or a house from stone. The existence of evil in the world was thus to be explained on the basis of the intractability of this pre-existent matter. God’s options in creating the world were limited by the poor quality of the material available. The presence of evil or defects within the world are thus not to be ascribed to God, but to deficiencies in the material from which the world was constructed.

However, the conflict with Gnosticism forced reconsideration of this issue. In part, the idea of creation from pre-existent matter was discredited by its Gnostic associations; in part, it was called into question by an increasingly sophisticated reading of the Old Testament creation narratives. Reacting against this Platonist worldview, several major Christian writers of the second and third centuries argued that everything had to be created by God. There was no pre-existent matter; everything required to be created out of nothing. Irenaeus argued that the Christian doctrine of creation affirmed the inherent goodness of creation, which contrasted sharply with the Gnostic idea that the material world was evil.

Tertullian, writing in the third century, emphasized the divine decision to create the world. The existence of the world is itself due to God’s freedom and goodness, not to any inherent necessity arising from the nature of matter. The world depends on God for its existence. This contrasted sharply with the Aristotelian view that the world depended on nothing for its existence, and that the particular structure of the world was intrinsically necessary….

Yet not all Christian theologies adopted this position at this early stage in the emergence of the Christian tradition. Origen, perhaps one of the most Platonist of early Christian writers, clearly regarded the doctrine of creation from pre-existent matter to have some merit. By the end of the fourth century, however, most Christian theologians had rejected the Platonist approach, even in the form associated with Origen, and argued for God being the creator of both the spiritual and material worlds.” (McGrath:2007:219-20)

Implications of the doctrine of creation

The doctrine of God as creator has several major implications, of which some may be noted here.

1. A distinction must be drawn between God and the creation. Creation is not itself divine; it is a divine creation, which is ontologically distinct from its creator. God exists necessarily; the created order exists contingently….

According to Paul, there is a natural human tendency, as a result of sin, to serve “created things rather than the creator” (Romans 1:25). A central task of a Christian theology of creation is to distinguish God from the creation, while at the same time to affirm that it is God’s creation.

2. Creation implies God’s authority over the world. A characteristic biblical emphasis is that the creator has authority over the creation. Humans are thus regarded as part of that creation, with special functions within it. The doctrine of creation leads to the idea of human stewardship of the creation, which is to be contrasted with a secular notion of human ownership of the world. The creation is not ours; we hold it in trust for God. Human beings are meant to be the stewards of God’s creation, and are responsible for the manner in which they exercise that stewardship. This insight is of major importance in relation to ecological and environmental concerns because it provides a theoretical foundation for the exercise of human responsibility toward the planet.
3. The doctrine of God as creator implies the original goodness of creation… “And God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:10, 18,21,25,31)…There is no place in Christian theology for the Gnostic or dualist idea of the world as an inherently evil place….

This is not to say that the creation is presently perfect. An essential component of the Christian doctrine of sin is the recognition that the world has departed from the trajectory upon which God placed it in the work of creation. It has become deflected from its intended course. It has fallen from the glory in which it was created. The world as we see it is not the world as it was intended to be. The existence of human sin, evil, and death are themselves tokens of the extent of the departure of the created order from its intended pattern. For this reason, most Christian reflections on redemption include the idea of some kind of restoration of creation to its original integrity, in order that God’s intentions for his creation might find fulfilment.” (McGrath:2007:220-1)

10: Grace, sin and autodynamic perspectives

“That such changes occurred can be shown from the conceptual history of the word ‘word’. Within medieval theology, the prologue of the Gospel of John provided an important text in connection with which the changing practices of the formation of the semiotic triangle can be studied. The exegetical problems focused on the association in this text of the word ‘word’ with the divine…Throughout the early Middle Ages, the exegesis given to this phrase by St Augustine of Hippo was dominant…it is important to note that St Augustine did not associate the concept of ‘word’ with the divinity in a symbolic way- as if the word was a kind of representative for or abbreviation of the divine or a feature upon which the divinity could confer some of its characteristics. Instead, following the Gospel text closely, St Augustine insisted that the word is not only divine, but it is itself the divinity.

Put differently, in St Augustine’s use of the semiotic triangle, concept and matter melted into a single entity with regard to the sphere of the divine and were separated only for the limited purpose of communicating the exegesis of the Gospel. Taken comprehensively, the concept of ‘word’ defied determinedness and, for that matter, stood in itself as a metaphysical totality.

Up to the twelfth century, St Augustine’s views continued to be accepted as the standard exegesis of the prologue to the Gospel of John. After the twelfth century, however, a different approach to the formation of the semiotic triangle took precedence. It was most powerfully represented in the work of St Thomas Aquinas. Rejecting as too schematic St Augustine’s differentiation of the external word (the sound) and the internal word (the divine plan), St Thomas made a substantive effort towards distinguishing the divine word from the human word. To the divine word, he ascribed the characteristics, first, of being ‘semper in actu’ (the word always has a real existence), second, of existing ‘unicum verbum in actu’ (the divinity expressed everything in a single word at the same time), and, third, of being ‘eiusdem nature’ (the divinity itself is the word).

By contrast, St Thomas ascribed the following characteristics to the human word: First, the human word exists ‘in potential et in actu’ (humans need to form a concept before they can pronounce a word); second, the word exists ‘divism’ (humans require a series of words used in succession for the expansion of the conceptualised matter); third, the human word does not exist ‘eiusdem nature (humans use the word, but they are not words; instead, the relationship between communicating persons and the communicated matter).

In ascribing to the divine word characteristics in opposition to those of the human word, St Thomas retained the Augustinian conviction that the comprehensive divine word is a totality and, in this capacity, uniquely divine. But, at the same time, St Thomas denied the validity of this Augustinian conviction for the human word. The consequences for the exegesis of the prologue to the Gospel of John were grave. Because of the elaborateness of the differences between the divine and the human word, the Christological exegesis of the prologue became exceedingly difficult. Where St Augustine needed no more than a twofold simile, St Thomas had to delve into logical and philological niceties. Where St Augustine had been able to claim the identity of the word with Christ, St Thomas assumed a parallelism according to which the relationship between God and Christ ought to be seen as equivalent to the relationship between the divine and the word. Where St Augustine could argue that Christ remained divine as the divine plan even after he had begun to communicate in the human world, St Thomas had, on the one hand, to identify Christ as the personified integration of the otherwise separated spheres of the divine and the human world, while, on the other, having to retain the belief that Christ was coeternal with God.

St Thomas was aware of the possibility that his exegesis might trigger debates over the question whether God and Christ were one and the same essence. He was worried about the inherent possibility that- Christ being partly human- the God-Christ relationship could be seen as personified in the form of the material generation of the son through the father. In order to protect himself against such a potentially heretic misunderstanding, he concluded his exegesis with the argument that, in the prologue, Christ had not been named because the evangelist had wished to refer to the God-Christ relationship in the terms of an immaterial ‘intelligibilis processus’.

However, even that elaborate and painstakingly symbolic analysis of the God-Christ-human relationship as expressed through the concept ‘word’ and the word ‘word did not satisfy St Thomas. For he had compared the Greek and the Latin versions of the Gospel and found that, in the Greek version, an article precedes the word, (ho logos), whereas, in the Latin version, no article appears in connection with ‘verbum’. St Thomas concluded that, in the Latin version, the article must have been dropped. Why did that happen? Following the conventions set by ancient Greek and Latin grammarians, he argued that the article would have determined or specified the meaning of the concept so expressed, and concluded that such usage would have restricted the ‘supereminentia verbi Dei’, the complexity or totality of the divine word. Because this consequence was not desirable, St Thomas declared that the Latin version was preferable over the Greek usage. But that only meant that St Thomas understood that words can represent their concepts more or less adequately and that the concepts can no longer be identical with the matter they denote. In short, to St Thomas the semiotic triangle was composed of the three separate categories- words, concepts and matter- which did not overlap in human language.

To sum up the impact of these matters on the history of thinking, a change occurred, from a preference given to synthetic thinking in categories of comprehensiveness in the early Middle Ages, towards analytical thinking in categories of particularity from the twelfth century onwards. As a consequence of this change, it was perceived as becoming increasingly difficult to embrace totalities conceptually. It will be shown in what follows how this change of thinking affected the formation of concepts and the use of words.” (Kleinschmidt:2000:196-99)

Writer’s Voice: The Word becomes split into a concept that denies the ability to think about the universe as a whole with God, and becomes separated from him and from us through Christ, who becomes a bridge I presume

“Thus it can be argued that a change took place between the eleventh and the thirteenth centuries in the course of which thinking was transformed from sets of relational acts to sets of identity-establishing acts.” (Kleinschmidt:2000:202)

Writer’s Voice: identity of the individual becomes more important than the relationships of the individual to his group. Was it the historical thrownness of Aquinas against Augustines less war like world that created this experience of the word and God and Christ for Augustine, in a world of Aristocrats, Bourgeoius knights and peasants.

Changes in thinking and their impact on the use of concepts

With regard to concepts, similar changes can be observed, and they become visible, among other, from changes in the concept of person. It has long been recognised that verbal, pictorial and sculptural descriptions of individuals as persons were stereotyped in the early Middle Ages. The early medieval technique of describing persons as bearers of roles rather than as individuals coincided with a concept of the person that differed markedly from later usages. The changes from the early medieval to the high and later medieval concept of the person can easily be gleaned from contemporary exegetical views on the Holy Trinity. Enforced by the fixing of Trinitarian theological doctrine through the Nicene Council in 325, that is, since acceptance of the formula ‘tres personae- una substantia’, the concept of person retained much of the schematicism which had adhered to the Latin word persona and its Greek relative πϱόσωπον (prosopon), for the original meaning of both words belonged to the world of the stage and denoted theatrical masks as the bearers of the stereotyped schematic totality of a moveable image.

The latter meaning was a requirement for ancient and early medieval Christianity, because, as St Augustine’s exegesis of the prologue to the Gospel of John (as well as other writings on Trinitarian doctrine) shows, without the schematic totality adhering to the concept of person, it was difficult to reconcile the Nicene creed with the logos Christology of the Gospel. For it is only the stereotype schematicism attached to the concept of person that allows the conceptualisation of the inner Trinitarian relations in terms of an immaterial relationship and, beyond that, the simultaneous association of Christ with the divine and the human world.” (Kleinschmidt:2000:203)

“Despite Boethius’s and Isidore’s statements and despite the difficulties of communicating St Augustine’s Trinitarian doctrine to the believers, the concept of ‘person’ as a schematic totality prevailed throughout the early Middle Ages and was used to encapsulate what is typical of humankind and of the world at large in an individual, both in physical and in spiritual respects. At the end of the eighth century, when Alcuin, abbot of St Martin in Tours (c.732-804), discussed false testimony, he categorised three personae who could be victimised by this vice: the divinity whose omnipresence had been despised, the judges who had been made to believe in a lie, and the innocent suspect who had been hurt. Likewise, in a praise letter written for Charlemagne in June 799, he identified the three highest personae of the human world not as individuals but as roles, namely the apostolic highness (apostolica sublimitas), the imperial dignity (imperialis dignitas) and the royal divine and human world alike and could denote offices as well as their holders. …

It is difficult to explain these features in the early medieval descriptions of individuals except under the assumption that the underlying concept of ‘person’, up to and throughout the tenth century, retained core elements of the schematism which had belonged to the concept in Antiquity.

However, during a period between the eleventh and fourteenth centuries, the concept of ‘person’ became dissociated from the schematism of the theatrical mask and coincided with the concept of the individual as the creatura racionalis, the natural person as an individual actor. Life-size sculptures, which had appeared during the late tenth century, began in the early thirteenth century to express individual bodily features and specific emotions….

The person was no longer superimposed upon the individual as the role it had to play, but the person became synonymous with the individual.

Only in the jargon of jurists was the previous schematism retained and, at the same time, enlarged to express the persona juridica, the legal person. This applied to a group of individuals or an institution as the legal equivalent of the individual and as a collective actor. But this jargon could stem the individualisation of the concept of ‘person’ and, beyond that, the rising tide of an entire body of political thought which, since the twelfth century, had centred on the perception of political groups as a body politic as a metaphorical representation of the persona naturalis. In consequence, St Thomas Aquinas had to employ an elaborate apparatus of logical, philological and metaphoric arguments in order to provide an exegesis for the mystical union of persons and substance of Christian Trinitarian doctrine.” (Kleinschmidt:2000:205-07)

Writer’s Voice: We are by law and now by natural law individuals who act individually. Even as a company or a country that acts as one individual. But the consequences of this relationship of individuals acting as one individual, does not enter law or morals. That is a private matter. It is obviously a lie, as wealth and power are all relative.

A new political regime

On November 20, 284, Diocletian, proclaimed Augustus, became emperor. In order to solve military problems and to control the ever-diverging territories of the empire, he was the first to establish the rule of four emperors, which we call the First Tetrarchy. This consisted of two Augusti and two designated heirs, proclaimed Caesares.

In the spring of 285, after defeating his rival, Carinus in battle, Diocletian appointed Maximian first as Caesar and then (April 1, 286) as Augustus, his associate but nevertheless subordinate. In 293, Galerius and Constantius Chlorus both became Caesares. Each of these four received a town of residence, respectively Nicomedia, Milan, Sirmium, and Trier. However, they remained in close contact and were bound together in various other ways. A religiously based hierarchy was instituted: Diocletian, “Jupiterian”, prevailed over Maximian, who was merely “Herculean” (in both cases it was the office that was sacred, not the person). Family links were also forged, through marriage and adoption. The absolutism of power was in no way less than it had been in the preceding centuries, but the two Augusti committed themselves to abdicating simultaneously after 20 years, in favour of the two Caesares, on condition that they then in turn appointed two Caesares in their own place. In principle, this system of the rule of four (Tetrarchy) was an efficient way for a safe and peaceful succession.” (Le Glay:2009:473)

Writer’s Voice: Sorry, it was the office that was sacred not the person. Run that one by me again. The State institution is now named and experienced as The Sacred Object, not the person being that Object. This was an artifice by which to place men in power who could be removed from office whilst maintaining their blood-right authority of the right to office, through these god name labels of administrative etiquette. See etymology of ‘office’ as desire or wish through optative.

The bad-faith of the equestrian classes in the paranoia of being in greater fear of a change of the game. The same happens below in the other equestrian orders, the army and the magistri. Combine these quotes then:

“However, in the thirteenth century a minority of thinkers began to take a different point of view. Foremost among them was the Franciscan scholar Roger Bacon (c.1219-92) who insisted that thinking as an action had to take into account empirical observations of the physical and socio-political environments. This empiricism led Bacon to call into question the otherwise accepted theological doctrine that observations of the physical and socio-political environments had the sole task of verifying a priori metaphysical statements about the divinely created world….This minority view received some support from moderate fourteenth-century epistemological nominalists, particularly William Ockham. Ockham argued that, although the human mind was incapable of penetrating the mystery of the divine creation, it was capable of conceptualising empirical observations autodynamically. Like the view of the empiricists, the moderate nominalist stand argued in favour of the acceptance of a division between, on the one hand, what was empirically recognisable by the human mind, and, on the other hand, what had to remain behind the divinely willed veil of ignorance.” (Kleinschmidt:2000:209-10)

Writer’s Voice: The birth of science recognises that science cannot penetrate the mystery of the divine but can use reason to understand it and not just to verify metaphysical statements already concocted by individuals.

Defining Person

In everyday English the word “person” has come to mean little more than “an individual human being.” This makes it somewhat problematic to speak of a “personal God”. However, as might be expected, there are hidden depths to the idea of personhood, which are too easily overlooked. The English word “person” derives from the Latin persona, which originally had the sense of a “mask”.

The development of the meaning of persona is a fascinating subject in its own right. There may be an etymological connection between this Latin word and the Etruscan word for the goddess Persephone….Masks were worn by those participating in her festivals, which tended, by all reports, to degenerate into orgies. By the time of Cicero, the word had acquired a range of meanings. Although the sense of “mask” still predominated, important overtones had developed. Masks were used much in Roman theatres, being worn by actors to indicate the parts they were playing in dramas. Persona thus came to mean both “a theatrical mask” and “a theatrical character” or “a role in a play.”

The early development of this idea in Christian theology is due to Tertullian, who was active in the third century. For Tertullian, a person is a being who speaks and acts. …The final development of this definition is due to Boethius (c.480-524). Writing at the beginning of the sixth century, he offered the following definition: “a person is the individual substance of a rational nature.”)

For early Christian writers, the word “person” is an expression of the individuality of a human being, as seen in his or her words and actions. Above all, there is an emphasis upon the idea of social relationships. A person is someone who plays a role in a social drama, who relates to others. A person has a part to play within a network of social relationships. “Individuality” does not imply social relationships, whereas, “personality” relates to the part played by an individual in a web of relationships, by which that person is perceived to be distinctive by others. The basic idea expressed by the concept of “a personal God” is thus a God with whom we can stand in a relationship which is analogous to that which we could have with another human person.” (McGrath:2007:200)

Tertullian on the Origin of Sin

In this passage, originally written in Latin in the first decade of the third century. Tertullian (c.160-255) locates the origin of sin in Satanic temptation of humanity…

‘What offence is ascribed to humanity before the sin of discontent? Humanity was blameless, the intimate friend of God and the steward of paradise (Deo de proximo amicus et paradisi colonus]. But when he succumbed to discontent he ceased to care for God, and ceased to have the power to be content with heavenly things. From that moment, humanity was sent out on the earth, and cast out from God’s sight. As a result, discontent had no difficulty in gaining the upper hand over humanity, and causing it to do things which were offensive to God.’” (McGrath:2011:343-4)

Tertullian on Inherited Guilt

Tertullian here warns his readers against thinking of sin or redemption in purely individualist terms. Both sin and grace relate to the whole body of humanity. Tertullian points out that sin is inherited from our forebears, and passed down from one generation to another. Although he does not develop a doctrine of original sin in the strict sense of the phrase, some of the foundational ideas of this doctrine may be found in this passage.

‘But if the blessing of the fathers was destined to be transmitted to their posterity, without any merit on their part, why should not the guilt of the fathers be passed on to their sons, so that the transgression as well as the grace should spread through the whole human race? (Except for the point, which was to be made known later, that men shall not say, “The fathers have eaten a sour grape and the children’s teeth have been set on edge” (Jeremiah 31:29) that is, the father shall not take upon himself the transgression of his son, nor the son the transgression of his father, but each shall be guilty of their own transgression). This means that after the hardness of the people and the hardness of the law had been overcome, God’s justice should then judge individuals and not the whole race. If you would receive the gospel of truth you would discover to whom that saying refers which speaks of bringing home to the sons the transgressions of their fathers. It applies to all those who of their own accord applied to themselves the saying: “may his blood be on our heads and on the heads of our sons” (Matthew 27:25). That is why the providence of God, having already heard this, established it [i.e. the gospel of truth] for them.’

Sin is a complex notion, and in this passage, Tertullian explores some of its many aspects. Perhaps the most important is the corporate nature of guilt- an idea which is difficult for many modern readers to make sense of, on account of the strongly individualist assumptions of the Enlightenment, which still exercise considerable influence over western thinking.” (McGrath:2011:344-45)

Origen on Inherited Sin

Origen here argues that humanity is contaminated by sin from the moment of its entry into the world, with the sole exception of Jesus Christ.

‘Everyone who enters the world may be said to be affected by a kind of contamination [in quadam contaminatione effici dicitur]. […] By the very fact that humanity is placed in its mother’s womb, and that it takes the material of its body from the source of the father’s seed, it may be said to be contaminated in respect of both father and mother. […] Thus everyone is polluted in father and mother.’

Although Origen does not use the language of “original sin”- which became fully developed in the writings of Augustine- he nevertheless appears to have held beliefs about the original state of humanity which bear some resemblance to this later idea. Notice especially how Origen insists that Jesus Christ is exempt from this common human state of sinfulness.” (McGrath:2011:346-7)

Lactantius on Political Aspects of the Image of God

In this passage from his Divine Institutes, Lactantius (c.240-c.320) develops the political and ethical aspects of the doctrine of creation. As all human beings are made by the same God, bear his image, and were created from the same original human being- a reference to Adam- they must hold each other in respect. Lactantius uses the Latin term simulacrum for “image” instead of the more customary imago. This term is often used to refer to idols or statues of gods, and emphasizes the degree of likeness between the image and its object.

‘I have spoken about what is due to God; now I shall speak about what is due to other people, although what is due to people still equally relates to God, since humanity is the image of God [homo dei simulacrum est]. The first duty of justice concerns God and binds us to him; the second concerns humanity. The name of the first is religion; the name of the second is mercy or humanity. Religion is a characteristic of the righteous and those who worship God. It alone is life. God made us naked and fragile in order to teach us wisdom. In particular he gave us this affection of piety in order that we might protect our fellow human beings, love them, cherish them, defend them against all dangers, and give them help. The strongest bond which unites us is humanity. Anyone who breaks it is a critical and a parricide. Now it was from the one human bin that God created us all, so that we are all of the same blood, with the result that the greatest crime is to hate humanity or do them harm. That is why we are forbidden to develop or to encourage hatred.” (McGrath:2011:347)

Ambrosiaster on Original Sin

The Old Latin translation of Romans 5:12, on which Ambrosiaster here depends, mistranslates Paul’s Greek, interpreting a reference to “in that all have sinned” to mean “in whom [that is, Adam] all have had a considerable impact on Augustine’s teaching on the matter. Little is known of this fourth-century “In whom- that is, in Adam- all have sinned” (Romans 5:12). Notice that he uses the masculine (in quo) though he is speaking about the woman, because his reference was not to the sex, but to the race. So it is clear that all have sinned in Adam collectively, as it were (quasi in massa). He was himself corrupted by sin, and all that were born were therefore all born under sin. From him therefore all are sinners, because we are all produced from him.” ‘

This text is important because it illustrates how a translation mistake can have important theological implications. The Latin term ‘in quo’ can be treated as masculine or neuter. The Greek text of Paul’s letter to the Romans, which it translates, makes it clear that the neuter meaning is intended. Thus a text which meant something like “in what all have sinned” is interpreted as a reference to Adam, “in whom all have sinned”. Ambrosiaster thus interprets this text as meaning that all of humanity have corporately and originally sinned in the person of Adam, the first man. While the doctrine of original sin rests on other texts as well, this was widely regarded as an important textual foundation for the doctrine.” (McGrath:2011:348-9)

Writer’s Voice: Original sin is not true, but is an inherited karma.

The concept of sin

For the Cappadocian fathers, the fact that Adam was created in the image of God meant that he was free from all normal weaknesses and disabilities which subsequently afflicted human nature- such as death. Cyril of Jerusalem emphasized that there was no need for Adam or Eve to fall from this state of grace. It took place as a result of their decision to turn away from God to the material world. As a result, the image of God in human nature has been defaced and disfigured. Since all of humanity traces it origins to Adam and Eve, he argued, it follows that all humanity shares in this defacement of the image of God.

It should, however, be noted that Greek patristic writers do not speak of a “fall”, or expressed such a “fall” in terms of a doctrine of original sin, such as that which would later be associated with Augustine of Hippo. Most Greek writers insisted that sin arises from an abuse of the human free will. Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa both taught that infants are born without sin, an idea which stands in contrast with Augustine’s doctrine of the universal sinfulness of fallen humanity. Chrysostom, commenting on Paul’s assertion that many were made sinners through the disobedience of Adam (Romans 5:19), interprets the passage to mean that all are made liable to punishment and death. The idea of transmitted guilt, a central feature of Augustine’s later doctrine of original sin, is generally thought to be conspicuously absent from the Greek patristic tradition…

It is, however, during the Pelagian debate to, which we now turn, that these issues were first discussed at length.

11: The Misunderstanding of a Zen Koan that leads to stupidity on both counts

Anselm of Canterbury’s ontological argument

Anselm of Canterbury (c.1033-1109) was born in Italy. He migrated to Normandy in 1059 and entered the famous monastery of Bec, becoming its prior in 1063, and its abbot in 1078. In 1093, he moved to England, having been appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. He is chiefly noted for his strong defense of the intellectual foundations of Christianity, and is especially associated with the “ontological argument” for the existence of God. This ontological argument is first set out in his Proslogion, a work which dates from 1079. …

It may be helpful to set out Anselm’s argument in a series of numbered steps, so that each individual stage in the discussion can be appreciated.

1. God is the greatest possible being.
2. God exists in the human mind or understanding.
3. A being who exists only as a mental notion is not so great as a being who exists in reality, and not merely as a mental idea.
4. If God exists only in the human mind, then God is not the greatest possible being.
5. It therefore follows that God must exist in reality, as well as an idea in the mind…

Anselm…is not so easily dismissed. Part of his argument is that it is an essential part of the definition of God that he is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” God therefore belongs to a category totally different from islands or dollar bills. It is part of the nature of God to transcend everything else. Once the believer has come to understand what the word “God” means, then God really does exist for him or her. This is the intention of Anselm’s meditation in the Proslogion: to reflect on how the Christian understanding of the nature of God reinforces belief in his reality. The “argument” does not really have force outside this context of faith, and Anselm never intended it to be used in this general philosophical manner….

Anselm had argued for a being so great that a greater one could not even be conceived. The argument continues, and it remains a disputed question to this day whether Anselm’s argument has a genuine basis.” (McGrath:2007:180-1)

“So how did nature come to be in motion? Why is it changing? Why is it not static? Aquinas argues that everything that moves is moved by something else. For every motion, there is a cause. Things do not just move- they are moved by something else. Now each cause of motion must itself have a cause. And that cause must have a cause as well. And so Aquinas argues that there is a whole series of causes of motion lying behind the world as we know it. Now since there cannot be an infinite number of these causes. Aquinas argues, there must be a single cause right at the origin of the series. Form this original cause of motion, all other motion is ultimately derived. This is the origin of the great chain of causality that we see reflected in the way the world behaves. From the fact that things are in motion, Aquinas thus argues for the existence of a single, original cause of all this motion- and this, he concludes, is none other than God….

The Third way concerns the existence of contingent beings…While God is a necessary being, Aquinas argues that humans are contingent beings. The fact that we are here needs explanations. Why are we here? What happened to bring us into existence? Aquinas argues that a being comes into existence because something which already exists brought it into being. In other words, our existence is caused by another being. We are the effects of a series of causation. Tracing this series back to its origin, Aquinas declares that this original cause of being can only be someone whose existence is necessary- in other words, God.

The fourth way begins from human values, such as truth, goodness, and nobility. Where do these values come from? What causes them? Aquinas argues that there must be something which is in itself true, good, and noble, and that this brings into being our ideas of truth, goodness, and nobility. The origin of these ideas, Aquinas suggests, is God, who is their original cause.” (McGrath:2007:183-4)

1. “The term “apophatic” comes from the Greek word apophatikos, meaning “negative”, which is derived from the verb “to say no” or “to deny”. It denotes an approach to theology which stresses that we cannot use human language to refer to God, who ultimately lies beyond such language. It is sometimes also referred to as the via negativa (“negative way”).
2. The term “kataphatic” (sometimes spelled “cataphatic”) comes from the Greek word Kataphatikos, meaning “positive”, derived from the verb “to say yes” or “to affirm”. It denotes an approach to theology which holds that positive statements may indeed by made about God. It is sometimes also referred to as the via positiva (“positive way”).” (McGrath:2007:188)

Dialogical personalism: Martin Buber

In his major work I and You (1927- Ich und Du)… the Jewish writer Martin Buber (1878-1965) drew a fundamental distinction between two categories of relations…Buber is suggesting that human personal relationships exemplify the essential features of an I-You relation. It is the relationship itself, that intangible and invisible bond which links two persons, which is the heart of Buber’s idea of an I-You relation…

For Buber, an “I-You” relation is thus mutual, reciprocal, symmetrical, and contentless. Both partners remain their own subjectivity in the encounter, in which they become aware of the other person as a subject, rather than an object. Whereas an “I-It” relation can be thought of as the active subject pursuing and investigating the passive object, an “I-You” relation involves the encounter of two mutually active subjects. It is the relationship- something which has no real content, but which really exists nonetheless- that is the real focus of personal interaction. It is, to use Buber’s terms, “not a specific content, but a Presence, a Presence as power.”

Buber thus draws a distinction between the worlds of experience and relationship. In particular, Buber stresses the importance of reciprocity in an “I-You” relationship, which is direct and unmediated:

‘The You encounters me by grace- it cannot  be found  by seeking. But that I speak the basic word to it is a deed of my whole being, is my essential deed. The You encounters me. But I enter into a direct relationship to it. Thus the relationship is election and electing, passive and active at once. […] The relation to the You is unmediated. Nothing conceptual intervenes between I and You.’ …

1. Buber’s approach affirms that God cannot be reduced to a concept, or to some neat conceptual formulation. According to Buber, only an “It” can be treated in this way. For Buber, God is the “You who can, by its nature, never become an It. That is, God is a being who escapes all attempts at objectification and transcends all description.” Theology must learn to acknowledge and wrestle with the presence of God, realizing that this presence cannot be reduced to a neat package of contents…
2. Buber’s “dialogical personalism” also allows criticism of the idea that God is a passive object, perhaps the weakest and most heavily criticized aspect of some forms of nineteenth-century liberal theology. The characteristic noninclusive nineteenth-century phrase “man’s quest for God” summed up the basic premise of this approach: God is an It”, a passive object, waiting to be discovered by (male) theologians, who are viewed as active subjects. Writers within the dialectical school, especially Emil Brunner (1889-1966) in his Truth as Encounter (1937), argued that God had to be viewed as You, an active subject’.

This emphasis upon a “personal God” raises a number of questions, one of which concerns the extent to which human experiences can be said to be shared  by God. If God is personal, one can speak of God “loving” people. But how far can this be taken? Can, for example, one speak of God “suffering”?” (McGrath:2007:201-03)

Can God Suffer?

If God can be said to suffer, a point of contact is immediately established between God and the pain of the human world. God cannot then be thought of as being immune from the suffering of the creation. The implications of this for reflecting upon the problem of evil and suffering would be considerable.

But the question is also of interest in another respect. It invites us to consider why so many writers have an inbuilt aversion to thinking and speaking about “a suffering God.” To explore this point, we may consider the historical background to early Christian theology. Although Christianity had its origins in Palestine, it rapidly expanded into other areas of the eastern Mediterranean world, such as modern-day Turkey and Egypt, establishing strongholds in cities such as Antioch and Alexandria. In the course of doing so, it came into contact with Hellenistic culture and Greek ways of thinking.

One of the major questions that arise from this observation is the following. Did such Christian theologians, operating in this Hellenistic cultural environment, inadvertently incorporate some characteristically Greek ideas into their thought? In other words, did a basically Palestinian gospel become distorted by being refracted through a Hellenistic prism? Particular attention was focused on the introduction of metaphysical terms into theology. Some scholars regarded this as the imposition of a static Greek way of thinking upon a dynamic semitic worldview. The result, they argued, was a distortion of the gospel.

Since the time of the Enlightenment, this question has been taken with considerable seriousness. A movement of major importance in this respect is known as the “history of dogma” movement (a working translation of the somewhat formidable German term Dogmengeschichte). Writers such as Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930) believed that at least some classical Greek ideas had inappropriately found their way into Christian theology. One of these, in the view of some scholars, is the idea of a God who lies beyond suffering. In what follows, we shall explore the classic pagan idea of the apatheia or “impassibility” of God- the view according to which God lies beyond all human emotions and pain.” (McGrath:2007:203)

Writer’s Voice: Think of a game of chess without taking sides. Does he suffer, apart from witnessing the suffering of those who choose their own side. In other words our suffering is experienced by him, as our suffering, and that is one true perspective that can be housed within the total perspective, that reevaluates this truth accordingly. In that regard is it suffering? For natural disasters it is karma. Remove the trees and you will get typhoons and sediments build up. Settle in buildings and they will be blown over, as per the habit of settling. The individual judgement of individual people is not a perspective that God holds and that is why we will all be together at the day of Judgement- coalesced, not individuals together. Like watching your hand being pierced by a needle when hypnotized there is no pain, but under the trance of the ego there is.

The classic view: the impassibility of God

The notion of perfection dominates the classical understanding of God, as it is expressed in the Platonic dialogues, such as The Republic. To be perfect is to be unchanging and self-sufficient. It is therefore impossible for such a perfect being to be affected or changed by anything outside itself….If God is perfect, change in any direction is an impossibility. If God changes, it is either a move away from perfection (in which case, God is no longer perfect) or toward perfection (in which case, God was not perfect in the past). Aristotle, echoing such ideas, declared that “change would be change for the worse”, and thus excluded his divine being from change and suffering.

This understanding passed into Christian theology at an early stage. Philo of Alexandria (c.30 BC- C.AD45), a Hellenistic Jew whose writings were much admired by early Christian writers, wrote a treatise entitled That God is Unchangeable, which vigorously defended the impassibility of God. Biblical passages that seemed to speak of God suffering were, he seemed to speak of God suffering were, he argued, to be treated as metaphors, and not to be allowed their full literal weight…

The medieval writer Anselm of Canterbury, influenced by this idea, argued that God was compassionate in terms of our experience, but not in terms of the divine being itself. In his Proslogion, Anselm argued that the language of love and compassion is to be treated as purely figurative when used in relation to God. We may therefore say that we experience God as compassionate; this does not, however, mean that God is compassionate….

Thomas Aquinas developed a similar approach when reflecting on the love of God for sinners. Love implies vulnerability and, potentially, that God could be affected by our sorrows, or moved by our misery. Yet Aquinas regarded this as an impossibility: “Mercy is especially to be attributed to God, provided that it is considered as an effect, not as a feeling of suffering. […] It does not belong to God to grieve over the misery of others.”

An obvious difficulty arises here. Jesus Christ grieved over the misery of others. Furthermore, Christ suffered and died on the cross. Traditional Christian theology declared that Jesus Christ was God incarnate. It therefore seems to follow that God suffered in Christ…. Not so, declared most of the patristic writers, deeply influenced by the pagan idea of the impassibility of God. Christ suffered in his human nature, not his divine nature. God thus did not experience human suffering, and remained unaffected by this aspect of the world.” (McGrath:2007:204)

A suffering God: Jürgen Moltmann

…Yet there were protests against these developments. Perhaps the most celebrated of these is Martin Luther’s “theology of the cross”, which emerged during the period 1518-19. In the Heidelberg Disputation (1518), Luther contrasted two rival ways of thinking about God. A “theology of glory” perceives God’s glory, power, and wisdom in creation. A “theology of the cross” discerns God hidden in the suffering and humiliation of the cross of Christ. Luther deliberately uses the provocative and perhaps puzzling phrase, “a crucified God”, as he speaks of the manner in which God shares in the sufferings of the crucified Christ.

In the late twentieth century, it became “the new orthodoxy” to speak of a suffering God. The Crucified God (1972) by Jürgen Moltmann (born 1926) is widely regarded as the most significant and influential work to have expounded this idea….

1. The rise of protest atheism: The sheer horror of the First World War made a deep impact upon western theological reflection. The suffering of the period led to a widespread perception that liberal Protestanism was fatally compromised by its optimistic views of human nature…

Traces of such ideas can be found in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s classic nineteenth-century novel The Brothers Karamazov (1880). The ideas were developed more fully in the twentieth century, often using Dostoevsky’s character Ivan Karamazov as a model. Karamazov’s rebellion against God (or, perhaps more accurately, against the idea of God) has its origins in his refusal to accept that the suffering of an innocent child could ever be justified. Albert Camus (1913-60) developed such ideas in his novel The Rebel (1951), which expressed Karamazov’s protest in terms of a “metaphysical rebellion”. …

3. The growing impact of the “history of dogma” movement: Although this movement reached its climax in the closing days of the nineteenth century, it took some while for the implications of its program to percolate into Christian theology as a whole. By the time the First World War had ended, there was a general awareness that numerous Greek ideas (such as the impassibility of God) has found their way into Christian theology. Sustained attention was given to eliminating these ideas. Protest atheism created a climate in which it was apologetically necessary to speak of a suffering God. The “history of dogma” movement declared that Christian thinking had taken a wrong turn in the patristic period, and that this could be successfully reversed. Christian declarations that God was above suffering, or invulnerable, were now realized to be inauthentic. It was time to recover the authentically Christian idea of the suffering of God in Christ.” (McGrath:2007:204-5)

The Omnipotence of God

The Apostles’ creed opens with the confident words “I believe in God, the Father almighty.” Belief in an “almighty” or omnipotent God is thus an essential element of traditional Christian faith. But what does it mean to speak of God being “omnipotent”? The commonsense approach to the matter defines omnipotence like this: if God is omnipotent then God can do anything. Of course, God cannot make a square circle, or a round triangle; this is a logical self-contradiction. But the idea of divine omnipotence seems to imply that God must be able to do anything which does not involve obvious contradiction.

A more subtle problem is raised by the following question: can God create a stone which is too heavy for God to lift? If God cannot create such a stone, the idea of total divine omnipotence would seem to be denied. Yet if God could create such a stone, then there is something else which God cannot do- namely, lift that stone. And so, at least on the face of it, God turns out not to be omnipotent.

Such logical explorations are unquestionably valuable, in that they cast light on the difficulties of speaking about God.” (McGrath:2007:209)

Writer’s Voice: This is a classic misunderstanding of the koan about the rock, the answer is neither yes or no- the logical binary decision making process, but to break this understanding. The answer is, ‘God is the Rock’, i.e. making it the first logical commonsense understanding of the impossibility of making a round square.

Defining omnipotence

But what does it mean to say that God is omnipotent? Lewis argues that it does not mean that God can do anything. Once God has opted to do certain things, or to behave in a certain manner, then other possibilities are excluded.

‘If you choose to say “God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it”, you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire a meaning because we prefix to them the two other words: “God can”. It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but non-entities.’

God, then, cannot do anything that is logically impossible. But Lewis takes the case further: God cannot do anything that is inconsistent with the divine nature. It is not merely logic, he argues, but the very nature of God, which prevents God from doing certain things.

The point at issue here had been made much earlier by Anselm of Canterbury in his Proslogion, as he meditated upon the nature of God. Anselm noted that omnipotence- understood as the ability to do all things- was not necessarily a good thing. If God is omnipotent, God could do things such as tell lies or pervert justice. Yet this is clearly inconsistent with the Christian understanding of the nature of God. The concept of divine omnipotence must therefore be modified by the Christian understanding of the divine nature and character. This point is brought out particularly clearly by Thomas Aquinas, as he discusses the issue of whether God can sin.” (McGrath:2007:209)

12: Augustinian Predestination to Hell by the God of Love and Pelagian Merit to Heaven by the God of Indifference. Take Your Pick?!

In this section we are going to look at the differences between Augustine and Pelagius but contrast them with the heterodynamic concepts of inherited sin, that come from an understanding of early Christianity, as seen above, that we are humanity as one soul entity. In other words we are going to reflect the aboriginal, rainbow-God of wakan, as per their belief system that they are a part of a pandynamic universe in which the human soul is a part of its wakan-spirit. By doing so we will see that Augustine has a heterodynamic slant to his ideas of sin, whilst Pelagius has an autodynamic perspective. Neither is right and neither is wrong. They are respectively dividing God and calling it a rock- i.e. Peter the apostle cited as ‘the rock’ of the church by Jesus, being the founder of the Catholic Church, which by Augustine’s understanding of humanity separates the church as an institution from God and Nature yet states that it is all inclusive of humanity and our nature, as we shall see;  or dividing a rock and calling it God as Pelagius does insisting on autodynamic approach where upon God is distant, to be attained, rather than present through grace.

Augustine of Hippo and the Pelagian Controversy

The Pelagian controversy, which erupted in the early fifth century, brought a cluster of questions concerning human nature, sin, and grace into sharp focus. Up to this point, there had been relatively little controversy within the church over human nature. The Pelagian controversy changed that, and ensured that the issues associated with human nature were placed firmly on the agenda of the western church.

The controversy centred primarily upon two individuals: Augustine of Hippo (354-430) and Pelagius. The controversy is complex, at both the historical and the theological level, and, given its impact upon western Christian theology, needs to be discussed at some length. It is important to appreciate that “Pelagianism” is best regarded as an amalgam of the ideas of several writers working in Rome in the final years of the fourth century- primarily Pelagius himself, but also Caelestius, and Rufinus of Syria. “Pelagianism” certainly included some ideas and emphases deriving from Pelagoius; yet other ideas linked with the movement owe their origins to others. For example, Pelagianism’s views on mortality and the transmission of sin appear to owe more to Caelestius and Rufinus than to Pelagius himself. For this reason, it is probably best to think of “Pelagianism” as a movement based on a synthesis of the ideas of these three thinkers, rather than as representing the ideas of Pelagius himself.

We shall summarize the main points of the controversy under four heads:

1. The understanding of the “freedom of the will.”
2. The understanding of sin.
3. The understanding of grace.
4. The understanding of the basis of salvation.

The “freedom of the will”

For Augustine, the total sovereignty of God and genuine human responsibility and freedom must be upheld at one and the same time, if justice is to be done to the richness and complexity of the biblical statements on the matter. In Augustine’s own lifetime, he was obliged to deal with two heresies which be believed had simplified and compromised the Christian faith. Manichaeism was a form of fatalism (to which Augustine himself was initially attracted) which upheld the total sovereignty of God but denied human freedom, while Pelagianism upheld the total freedom of the human will while denying the sovereignty of God. Before developing these points, it is necessary to make some observations concerning the term “free will.”

The term “free will” translating the Latin liberum arbitrium) is not biblical, but derives from Stoicism. It was introduced into western Christianity by the second-century theologian Tertullian…Augustine retained the term, but attempted to restore a more Paulin meaning to it by emphasizing the limitation’s placed upon human free will by sin. Augustine’s basic ideas can be summarized as follows. First, natural human freedom is affirmed: human beings do not do things as a matter of necessity, but as a matter of freedom. Second, human free will has been weakened and incapacitated- but not eliminated or destroyed- through sin. In order for that free will to be restored and healed, it requires the operation of divine grace. Free will really does exist; it is, distorted, compromised, and weakened by sin.

In order to explain this point, Augustine deployed the analogy of a pair of scales, with two balance pans. One balance pan represents good, and other evil. If the pans were properly balanced, the arguments in favour of doing good or doing evil could be weighed, and a proper conclusion drawn. The human free will thus weighs up the arguments in favour of doing good and evil, and acts accordingly….

The human free will has become biased toward evil. It really exists, and really can make decisions- just as the loaded scales still work. But instead of giving a balanced judgement,  a serious bias exists toward evil.

For Pelagius and his followers (such as Julian of Eclanum), however, humanity possessed total freedom of the will, and was totally responsible for its own sins. Human nature was essentially free and well created, and was not compromised or incapacitated by some mysterious weakness. According to Pelagius, any imperfection in humanity would reflect negatively upon the goodness of God. For God to intervene in any direct way to influence human decisions was equivalent to compromising human integrity. Going back to the analogy of the scales, the Pelagians argued that human free will was like a pair of balance pans in perfect equilibrium, and not subject to any bias whatsoever….

God has made humanity, and knows precisely what it is capable of doing. All the commands given by God to humanity are capable of being obeyed, and are meant to be obeyed. It is no excuse to argue that human frailty prevents these commands from being fulfilled. God has made human nature, and only demands of it what it can endure.

‘[Instead of regarding God’s commands as a privilege…] we cry out and God and say, “This is too hard! This is too difficult! We cannot do it! We are only human, and hindered by the weakness of the flesh!” What blind madness! What blatant presumption! By doing this, we accuse the God of knowledge of a twofold ignorance- ignorance of God’s own commands. It would be as if, forgetting the weakness of humanity- which, after all, is God’s own creation!- God had laid upon us commands which we were unable to bear.’

Pelagius thus makes the somewhat uncompromising assertion that “since perfection is possible for humanity, it is obligatory.”

The nature of sin

For Augustine, humanity is universally affected by sin as a consequence of the Fall. The human mind has become darkened and weakened by sin. Sin makes it impossible for the sinner to think clearly, and especially to understand higher spiritual truths and ideas. Similarly, as we have seen, the human will has been weakened (but not eliminated) by sin. For Augustine, sinners are to be considered as being seriously ill, and are unable to diagnose their own illness adequately, let alone cure it. It is through the grace of God alone that humanity’s illness is diagnosed (sin), and a cure made available (grace).

For Augustine, humanity has no control over its sinfulness. It is something which contaminates life from birth, and dominates life thereafter. It is a state over which humans have no decisive control….Augustine explored this point by using three analogies to illuminate the nature of original sin: disease, power, and guilt.

1. The first analogy treats sin as analogous to some form of hereditary disease, which is passed from one generation to another. This disease weakens and incapacitates humanity and cannot be cured by human agency. Christ is the divine physician, by whose “wounds we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5). …
2. The second analogy conceives sin as a power which holds humanity captive, and from whose grip it is unable to break free by its own resources. The human free will is captivated by the power of sin, and may only be liberated by grace. Christ is thus seen as the liberator of humanity, the source of the grace which breaks the power of sin.
3. The third analogy considers sin in essentially judicial or forensic terms- guilt- which is passed down from one generation to another. Christ thus comes to bring forgiveness and pardon.

Pelagius, however, understood the notion of sin in a very different light. The idea of a human disposition toward sin had no place in Pelagius’s thought, or that of his colleagues. For Pelagius, the human power of self-improvement was not compromised. It was always possible for humans to discharge their obligations toward God and their neighbours. Failure to do so could not be excused on any grounds. Sin was to be understood as an act committed wilfully against God.

Pelagianism thus seems at times to amount to a rather rigid form of moral authoritarianism- an insistence that humanity is under obligation to be sinless, and an absolute rejection of any excuse for failure. Humanity is born sinless, and sins only through deliberate actions. Pelagius insisted that many Old Testament figures actually remained sinless. Only those who were morally upright could therefore be allowed to enter the church. Augustine, with his concept of fallen human nature, considered the church as being like a hospital where fallen humanity could recover and grow gradually in holiness through grace. There are thus important parallels between Pelagianism and Donatism, in that both have strongly optimistic views of human moral capacities.

The nature of Grace

…Augustine holds that human nature is frail, weak, and lost, and needs divine assistance and care if it is to be restored and renewed. Grace, according to Augustine, is God’s generous and quite unmerited attention to humanity, by which this process of healing may begin. …

Pelagius also wrote of divine grace, but interpreted this notion in a very different way. “Grace” can be understood in two ways. First, grace is to be understood as the natural human faculties, which were graciously given to humanity by God. For Pelagius, these are not corrupted or incapacitated or compromised in any way. When Pelagius affirmed that humanity could, through grace, choose to be sinless, what he meant was that the natural God-given human faculties of reason and will could and should enable humanity to choose to avoid sin….

Second, Pelagius understood grace to be external enlightenment or instruction graciously provided for humanity by God. God does not just demand that human beings should be “perfect”, which is a vague term. Rather, God graciously provides specific guidance as to what form of perfection is required- such as keeping the Ten Commandments, and becoming like Christ. Grace thus informs humanity what its moral duties are (otherwise, it would not know what they were); it does not, however, assist humanity to perform them, because there is no need for such assistance. Humanity is able to avoid sin through following the teaching and example of Christ.

Augustine argued that Pelagius and his followers thus located “the grace of God in the law and in teaching”. The New Testament, according to Augustine, envisaged grace as divine assistance to humanity, rather than just moral guidance. For Pelagius, grace was something external and passive; for Augustine, grace was the real and redeeming presence of God in Christ within the believer.

Pelagius held that God created humanity, and provided information concerning what is right and what is wrong. After that, however, God left humanity to its own resources (which were, Pelagius argued, God-given). Individuals will finally be judged according to whether they have fulfilled all their moral obligations in their totality.

For Augustine, however, humanity was created good by God, and then fell away from him– and God, in an act of grace, came to rescue fallen humanity from its predicament. … For Pelagius, humanity merely needed to be shown what to do, and could then be left to achieve it unaided; for Augustine, humanity needed to be shown what to do, and then gently aided at every point, if this objective was even to be approached, let alone fulfilled.

Writer’s Voice: How could something good fall away from him without the evil nature housed within that gives birth to free-will, the gift of the devil.

The basis of salvation

For Augustine, humanity is justified as an act of grace: even human good works are the result of God working within fallen human nature. Everything leading up to salvation is the free and unmerited gift of God, given out of love for sinners. Through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Augustine argues, God gives humanity what it does not deserve (salvation), and withholds from it what it does deserve (condemnation).

Augustine’s exposition of the parable of the labourers in the vineyard (Matthew 20: 1-16) is of considerable importance in this respect…Augustine emphasized that the labourers did not work for equal periods in the vineyard, yet the same wage (a denarius) was given to each. The owner of the vineyard had promised to pay each individual a denarius, providing he worked from the time when he was employed to sundown- even though this meant that some worked all day, and others only for an hour….

For Pelagius, however, humanity is justified on the basis of its merits. The human good works which secure salvation are the result of the exercise of the totally autonomous human free will, in fulfilment of an obligation laid down by God. A failure to meet this obligation opens the individual to the threat of eternal punishment. Jesus Christ is involved in salvation only to the extent that he reveals, by his actions and teaching, exactly what God requires of the individual. If Pelagius can speak of “salvation in Christ”, it is really only in the sense of “salvation through imitating the example of Christ.” …

Augustinianism would eventually gain the upper hand within the western theological tradition; nevertheless, Pelagianism continued to exercise influence over many Christian writers down the ages, not least those who felt that an emphasis upon the doctrine of grace could too easily lead to a devaluation of human freedom and moral responsibility.

The Pelagian controversy clearly raised the issue of the relation of grace and merit, which was discussed at some length in the Augustinian revival of the Middle Ages. …

The Medieval Synthesis of the Doctrine of Grace

The repercussions of the Pelagian controversy were considerable. It forced discussion of a number of issues upon the church, especially during the medieval period, in which Augustine’s legacy was subjected to a process of evaluation and development. While the modern discussion of the meaning of both terms may be said to have been initiated by Augustine, in the course of the Pelagian controversy, the medieval period saw his ideas being developed and modified.

The Augustinian legacy

…First, grace is understood as a liberating force, which sets human nature free from its self-incurred bondage to sin. Augustine used the term “the captive free will” (liberum arbitrium captivatum) to describe the free will which is so heavily influenced by sin, and argued that grace is able to liberate the human free will from this basis, to give the “liberated free will” (liberum arbitrium liberatum). To go back to Augustine’s analogy of the pair of scales, grace removes the weights disposing the scales toward evil and allows us to recognize the full weight of the case for choosing God. Thus, Augustine was able to argue that grace, far from abolishing or compromising the human free will, actually establishes it.

Second, grace is understood as the healer of human nature….

In exploring the functions of grace, Augustine developed three main notions, which have had a major impact upon western theology. The three categories are as follows:

1. Prevenient grace: The Latin term preveniens literally means “going ahead”. In speaking of “prevenient grace”, Augustine is defending his characteristic position, that God’s grace is active in human lives before conversion. Grace “goes ahead” of humanity, preparing the human will for conversion. Augustine stresses that grace does not become operational in a person’s life only after conversion; the process leading up to that conversion is one of the preparation, in which the prevenient grace of God is operative.
2. Operative grace: Augustine stresses that God effects the conversion of sinners without any assistance on their part. Conversion is a purely divine process, in which God operates upon the sinner. The term “operative grace” is used to refer to the manner in which prevenient grace does not rely upon human cooperation for its effects, in contrast with cooperative grace.
3. Cooperative grace: Having achieved the conversion of the sinner, God now collaborates with the renewed human will in achieving regeneration and growth in a holiness. Having liberated the human will from its bondage to sin, God is now able to cooperate with that liberated will. Augustine uses the term “cooperative grace” to refer to the manner in which grace operates within human nature after conversion.

Writer’s Voice: So it is free-will that is only free to act under the aegis of the devil or of God, where is the human free-will itself? Do I act by corruption or by God’s graceful puppetry? Neither I act by grace of free-will, that is a gift of God and the devil, the devil that was created by divine Grace. Or if not by divine grace then God is not God he is stupid.

The medieval distinction between actual and habitual grace

…However, the rise of university faculties of theology led to increasing pressure for systematization, which in turn led to the development of an increasingly precise and meticulous vocabulary of grace. The most important statement of the medieval understanding of the mature and purpose of grace is that of Thomas Aquinas. Although Aquinas treats Augustine’s analysis of grace with considerable respect, it is clear that he also has considerable misgivings concerning its viability. A fundamental distinction is drawn between two different types of grace, as follows:

1. Actual grace (often referred to by the Latin slogan gratia gratis data, “grace which is freely given”). Aquinas understands this to mean a series of divine actions or influences upon human nature.
2. Habitual grace (often referred to by the Latin slogan gratia gratis faciens, “grace which makes pleasing”). Aquinas understands this to mean a created habit of grace within the human soul. This notion is difficult and requires further explanation.”  …

The late medieval critique of habitual grace

The idea of “habitual grace” became the subject of considerable criticism in the later Middle Ages. During the fourteenth century, William of Ockham (c.1285-1347) used his famous “razor” to eliminate unnecessary hypotheses from every area of theology. It seemed to him that a habit of grace was totally unnecessary…

So persuasive was his argument that, by the end of the fifteenth century, the notion was widely regarded as discredited. Grace increasingly came to be understood as divine graciousness- that is, a divine attitude toward humanity, rather than a divine or quasi-divine substance within humanity. In many ways, this can be seen as laying the foundations for the Protestant Reformation’s insistence that grace was, at heart, noting more and nothing less than the “gracious favour of God” (favor Dei).

The medieval debate over the nature and grounds of merit

The Pelagian controversy drew attention to the question of whether salvation was a reward for good behaviour or a free gift of God. The debate indicated the importance of clarifying what the term “merit” actually meant. Once more, it was the medieval period which saw clarification of the term. By the time of Thomas Aquinas, the following points had been generally agreed.

1. There is no way in which human beings, can claim salvation as a “reward” on the basis of strict justice. Salvation is an act of God’s grace, in which sinners are enabled to gain something which would otherwise lie completely beyond them. Left to their own devices, human beings would be unable to achieve their own salvation. The view that humans could earn their salvation through their own achievements was rejected as Pelagianism.
2. Sinners cannot earn salvation, since there is nothing that they can achieve or perform which obliges God to reward them with faith or justification. The beginning of the Christian life is a matter of grace alone. However, although the grace of God operates on sinners to achieve their conversion, it subsequently cooperates with them to bring about their growth in holiness. And this cooperation leads to merit, by which God rewards the moral actions of believers.
3. A distinction is drawn between two kinds of merit: congruous and condign merit. Condign merit is a strict form of merit which is justified on the basis of the moral actions of the individual in question: congruous merit is a looser notion, based upon the liberality of God rather than on human deserving or achievement.

Within the context of this general consensus over the nature of merit, a debate developed during the later Middle Ages over the ultimate ground of merit, with two rival positions being distinguishable. The debate illustrates the growing influence of voluntarism in the later Middle Ages. The older position, which can be described as intellectualist, is represented by writers such as Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas argued for a direct proportional representation between the moral and the meritorious value of an action on the part of a believer. The divine intellect recognizes the inherent value of an action, and rewards it accordingly.

In contrast, the voluntarist approach, represented by William of Ockham, placed the emphasis upon the divine will. God determines the meritorious value of an action, by an act of divine will. For Ockham, the intellectualist approach compromised the freedom of God, in that God was placed under an obligation to reward a moral action with a meritorious response. In defending the divine freedom, Ockham argued that God had to be free to reward a human action in any way that seemed fit. There was thus no direct link between the moral and the meritorious value of a human action. To his critics, Ockham seemed to have snapped the connection between human and divine notions of justice and fairness- an issue to which we shall return when we consider the issue of predestination, which brings the role of the will of God into full focus.” (McGrath:2007:348-58)

Writer’s Voice: Juxtapose Aquinas’  proof of greatest god against Augustines predestination, against koan of rock and love. Grace is constant but our perspective is not. Merit is that perspective without perception of receiving grace, as perspective is not yet achieved but a karmic habit of self-restraint adopted to transform oneself and hence achieve the perspective that will experience the receipt of grace. God doesn’t stop giving grace at any time or reason, only we disable ourselves from experiencing it as such. Grace gives us life, breathe, nature, the universe, our soul, etc, but that is not appreciated by the ego that thinks all of these things exist as ‘mine’, anyway.

Thomas Aquinas on the Nature of Grace

“The Summa Theologiae (“The Totality of Theology”), which Aquinas began to write in Latin in 1265 and left unfinished at the time of his death, is widely regarded as the greatest work of medieval theology. In this section Aquinas (c.1225-74) deals with various ways in which the word “grace” may be understood, while affirming that in its proper sense, grace designates something supernatural implanted by God within the human soul.

‘To say that someone has the grace of God is to say that there is something supernatural in humanity, coming forth from God [quiddam supernaturale in homine a Deo proveniens].’

Note also that Aquinas understands grace in ontological, rather than relational terms. “To say that someone has the grace of God is to say that there is something supernatural in the soul, coming forth from God.” This contrasts with the Reformation viewpoint, which understands grace as the “favour of God” (favor Dei).” (McGrath:2011:364)

The Reformation Debates over the Doctrine of Grace

From “salvation by grace” to “justification by faith”

During the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, a fundamental shift in the vocabulary of salvation began to take place. Earlier Christian theologians- such as Augustine, had given priority to those New Testament texts that used the language of “salvation by grace” (e.g., Ephesians 2:5). However, Martin Luther’s wrestling with the issue of how God was able to accept sinners led him to focus on those passages in which Paul spoke primarily of “justification by faith.” (e.g. Romans 5:1-2). …

The doctrine of justification came to be seen as dealing with the question of what an individual had to do in order to be saved. As contemporary sources indicate, this question came to be asked with increasing frequency as the sixteenth century dawned. The rise of humanity brought with it a new emphasis upon individual consciousness, and a new awareness of human individuality. In the wake of this dawn on the individual consciousness came a new interest in the doctrine of justification- the question of how human beings, as individuals, could enter into a relationship with God.” (McGrath:2007:358-9)

Martin Luther’s theological breakthrough

…Luther set out how he discovered a “new” meaning of the phrase- namely, a righteousness which God gives to the sinner. In other words, the precondition for divine acceptance is provided by God, who graciously gives sinners what they require if they are to be justified.

Luther’s insight here is that God of the Christian gospel is not a harsh judge who rewards individuals according to their merits, but a merciful and gracious God who bestows righteousness upon sinners as a gift. The general consensus among Luther scholars is that his theology of justification underwent a decisive alteration at some point in 1515.” (McGrath:2007:359-60)

Luther on justifying faith

Central to Luther’s insights was the doctrine of “justification by faith alone”. The idea of “justification” is already familiar. But what about the phrase “by faith alone”? What is the nature of justifying faith?…

The doctrine of “justification by faith” thus does not mean that the sinner is justified because he or she believes, on account of that faith. This would be to treat faith as a human action or work. Luther insists that God provides everything necessary for justification, so that all that the sinner needs to do is to receive it. God is active, and humans are passive, in justification. The phrase “justification by grace through faith” brings out the meaning of the doctrine more clearly: the justification of the sinner is based upon the grace of God, and is received through faith.

The doctrine of justification by faith alone is thus an affirmation that God does everything necessary for salvation. Even faith itself is a gift of God, rather than a human action.

The concept of forensic justification

One of the central insights of Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone is that the individual sinner is incapable of self-justification. It is God who takes the initiative in justification, providing all the resources necessary to justify that sinner. One of those resources is the “righteousness of God.” In other words, the righteousness on the basis of which sinners are justified is not their own righteousness, but a righteousness which is given to them by God. Augustine had made this point earlier: Luther, however, gives it a subtle new twist which leads to the development of the concept of “forensic justification.”

The point at issue is difficult to explain, and centres on the question of the location of justifying righteousness. Both Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. For Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal: for Luther, it is external. …

For Luther, the righteousness in question remains outside the sinner: it is an “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena)….His comments on Romans 4:7 are especially important:

‘Since the saints are always conscious of their sin, and seek righteousness from God in accordance with his mercy, they are always reckoned as righteousness by God. Thus in their own eyes, and as a matter of fact, that are unrighteous. But God reckons them as righteous on account of their confession of their sin. In fact, they are sinners; however, they are righteous by the reckoning of a merciful God. Without knowing it they are righteous; knowing it they are unrighteous. They are sinners in fact but righteous in hope.’

…Through faith, the believer is clothed with the righteousness of Christ in much the same way, Luther suggests, as Ezekial 16:8 speaks of God covering the nakedness of sinners with a garment. …

Luther thus declares, in a famous phrase, that a believer is “at one and the same time righteous and a sinner” (simul iustus et peccator); righteous in hope, but a sinner in fact; righteous in the sight and through the promise of God, yet a sinner in reality.

These ideas were subsequently developed by Luther’s follower Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) to give the doctrine now generally known as “forensic justification”, hinted at but not fully developed by Luther. Where Augustine held that the sinner is made righteous in justification. Melanchthon argued that justification is about the sinner being counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, “justifying righteousness” is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed. …

According to Melanchthon, God pronounces the divine judgement- that the sinner is righteous- in the heavenly court (in foro divino). This legal approach to justification gives rise to the term “forensic justification”, from the Latin word forum (“marketplace” or “courtyard”)- the place traditionally associated with the dispensing of justice in classical Rome. …. it came too mark a standard difference between the Protestant and Catholic churches from that point onward.” (McGrath:2007:360-2)

Augustine of the Nature of Predestination

‘This is the predestination of the saints, and nothing else: the foreknowledge and preparation of the benefits of God, whereby whoever are set free are most certainly set free. And where are the rest left by the just judgement of God, except in that mass of perdition…From this, it seems that certain people have naturally in their minds a divine gift of understanding, by which they may be moved to faith, if they hear the words or see the signs which are adapted to their minds [si congrua sis mentibus]. But if, by virtue of a divine judgement which is beyond us, these people have not been predestined by grace and separated from the mass of perdition, then they must remain without contact with either these divine words or deeds which, if heard or seen by them, would have allowed them to believe.’

Augustine opens this passage with a definition of predestination. Notice how predestination is here defined in purely positive terms. Predestination concerns salvation. God does not predestine to condemnation: rather, God omits to predestine all salvation. The contrast with Calvin is of particular interest…,in that predestination is there defined as God’s decision to save some and condemn others.” (McGrath:2011:351-52)

Writer’s Voice: On what basis does perfect love chose to oblige some to suffer in ignorance whilst others are

Augustine on Fallen Human Nature

‘But this grace of Christ, without which neither infants nor grown persons can be saved, is not bestowed as a reward for merits, but is given freely [gratis], which his why it is called grace [gratia].’

…Augustine clearly sees a link between the Latin terms gratis (“freely or “without cost”) and gratia (“grace” or “gift”). How would you explain this?” (McGrath:2011:352-3)

Writer’s Voice: If Grace is free then why do some people get more? This is again explained by perspective of a karmic mind that perceives through meditation, prayer and practice the heterodynamic spirit of God as our collective soul, as per Islams understanding. This does not imply a separation from Nature but a particular ontology of spirit, i.e. humanity, that has the ability to commune with God through this ontology.

Pelagius on Human Responsibility

In this letter written to Demetrias, a Roman woman of high social status who eventually became a nun, Pelagius (c.355-c.435) argues that the divine commands are unconditionally binding upon Christians. God knows the abilities of humanity, and the commands reflect the ability with which God endowed humanity at creation. There is no defect in human nature which prevents them from achieving what God commands people to do. …

‘[Instead of regarding God’s commands as a privilege…] we cry out at God and say, “This is too hard”! This is too difficult! We cannot do it! We are only human, and hindered by the weakness of the flesh!” What blind madness! What blatant presumption! By doing this, we accuse the God of knowledge of a twofold ignorance- ignorance of God’s own creation and of God’s own commands. It would be as if, forgetting the weakness of humanity- God’s own creation- God had laid upon us commands which we were unable to bear. And at the same time- may God forgive us!- we ascribe to the righteous One unrighteousness, and cruelty to the Holy One; first, by complaining that God has commanded the impossible, second, by imagining that some will be condemned by God for what they could not help; so that- the blasphemy of it!- God is thought of as seeking out punishment rather than our salvation.’…

The fundamental point being made by Pelagius is this: God made humanity and is therefore fully apprised of human capacities. It is therefore inconceivable that God would ask anything of humanity, unless humanity already had the capacity to achieve it. For Augustine, however, the commands served the purpose of disclosing the human inability to keep the law of God without divine grace.” (McGrath:2011:355)

Writer’s Voice: If But this Grace is freely given is it not? Predestination looms.

Pelagius on Human Freedom

This extract is taken from what remains of an otherwise lost writing of Pelagius, which is cited by Augustine in order to criticize Pelagius’s views. For this reason it cannot be regarded as totally reliable; it may have been cited out of context, for example. The Pelagian idea to which Augustine takes particular exception is that humanity can exist without sin. However, he also criticizes Pelagius for ascribing the will to perform good works to human nature; for Augustine, such a will can only be a divine gift, in that fallen human nature inclines to do evil rather than good…

‘We distinguish three things and arrange then in a certain order. We put in the first place “possibility” [posse]; in the second, “will” [velle]; in the third, “being” [esse]. The posse we assign to nature, the velle to will, the esse to actual realization. The first of these, posse, is properly ascribed to God, who conferred it on his creatures; while the other two, velle and esse, are to be referred to the human agent, since they have their source in the divine will. Therefore human praise lies in being willing and in doing a good work; or rather this praise belongs both to humanity and to the God who has granted the possibility of willing and working, and who by the help of grace assists (gratiae suae adiuvat simper auxilio] exactly this possibility. The fact that someone has this possibility of willing and doing any good work is due to God alone.’ …

This extract is taken from Pelgius’s lost writing pro libero arbitrio (“for the free will”). In this work, Pelagius argues that God has endowed human beings with certain abilities- for example, the ability to avoid sin. When someone avoids sin, therefore, Pelagius argues, praise and thanks are due to God, for having given such an ability to the one who merely exercised, rather than achieved or created, such a talent. Note especially Pelagius’s assumption that human nature, as we now know it, is more or less the same as when God originally created it- an idea which Augustine opposed, believing that the Fall had radically distorted and weakened the original state of humanity.” (McGrath:2011:356)

Pelagius’s Rejection of Original Sin

This passage, taken from a lost writing of Pelagius, is cited in a work of Augustine, who quotes it in order to discredit it. Note the distinctive Pelagian idea that humanity is born with a capacity for good or evil, rather than being intrinsically evil. For Augustine, original sin contaminates humanity from its moment of conception, so that humanity is born sinful. …

‘Everything.” [Pelagius] says, “good and evil, concerning which we are either worthy of praise or of blame, is done by us, not born with us [non nobiscum oritur sed agitur a nobis]. We are not born in our full development, but with a capacity for good and evil; we are begotten without virtue as much as without fault [sine virtute ita et sine vitio], and before the activity of the individual will there is nothing in humans other than what God has placed in them.’

This is an important passage, in that is casts light on Pelagius’s understanding of human nature. Basically, Pelagius argues that God endows humanity with certain capacities and abilities. It is then up to individual human beings to use these abilities appropriately. They may use them for good or evil, but Pelagius is clear that they are intended to be used for good, and that, when rightly used, they will achieve the good goals which God purposed.” (McGrath:2011:357)

The Council of Carthage on Grace

The Pelagian controversy was officially ended by the Council of Carthage (418), which laid down a series of propositions which it defined as the teachings of the catholic church on this matter. It explicitly condemned as heretical a series of eight teachings, as below. In the original document, each of these statements is prefaced with a condemnation, generally of the form “if anyone says… let him be condemned (anathema sit).”

‘1. That Adam, the first human being, was created mortal, so that, whether he sinned or not, he would have died from natural causes, and not as the wages of sin […]

2. That new-born children need not be baptized, or that they are baptized for the remission of sins, but that no original sin is derived from Adam to be washed away in the laver of regeneration, so that in their case the baptismal formula “for the remission of sins” is not understood in its true sense, but rather in a false sense [non vera sed falsa intelligatur […]
3. That the grace of God, by which we are justified through Jesus Christ our Lord, avails only for the remission of sins already committed, and not for assistance to prevent the sins being committed. […]
4. That this grace […] only helps us to avoid sin in this way: that by it we are given by revelation an understanding of God’s commands that we may learn what we ought to strive for and what we ought to avoid, but that it does not give us also the delight in doing, and the power to do, what we have recognized as being good […]
5. That the grace of justification is given to us so that we may more easily perform by means of grace that which we are commanded to do by means of our free will [per liberum arbitrium]; as if we could fulfil those commands even without the gift of grace, though not so easily […]
6. That the words of the Apostle John, “If we say that we have no sin, etc.” (1 John 1:8) are to be taken as meaning that we should say that we have sin not because it is true, but on account of humility on our part […]
7. That in the Lord’s Prayer the saints say “Forgive us our trespasses” not for themselves, because for them this prayer is unnecessary, but for others among their people who are sinners […]
8. That in the Lord’s Prayer the saints say “Forgive us our trespasses” out of humility and not because they are true […]”(McGrath:2011:357)

Writer’s Voice: If They are our trespasses because we are one soul heterodynamically and karmically.

The Synod of Arles on Pelagianism

The condemnation of Pelagianism continued in the fifth century, with southern France emerging as a region in which the issue was of particular importance. The southern Gallic city of Arles was the venue for a synod which confirmed a series of condemnations of Pelagianism. The precise date of this synod is not known; however, it is referred to in a letter of Faustus of Regium to Lucidus, dated 473, suggesting that the synod met shortly before the letter was written. The synod condemned a series of Pelagian statements, while offering positive statements of its own….

[The following statements are condemned:]  [The following statements are affirmed:] 1. That after the fall of Adam, human free      1. Human effort and endeavour are to be

choice [arbitrium voluntatis] was                       united with the grace of God;

extinguished;

2. That Christ, our Lord and Saviour; did 2. Human freedom of will [libertas

not die for the salvation of all people;                voluntatis] is not extinct but attenuated

and weakened [non extinctam sed

adtenuatem et infirmatam esse];

3. That the foreknowledge of God forces 3. Those who are saved could still be

People violently towards death, or that               lost,and those that have perished

Those who perish, perish on account of              could have been saved.

the will of God” (McGrath:2011:358-9)

The Second Council of Orange on Grace and Freedom

In 529 a local gathering of bishops convened in the southern Gallic city of Orange to deal with further issues which had arisen as a result of the Pelagian controversy. The Council made 25 rulings, in which it condemned a series of positions which it regarded as failing to do justice to the priority of God’s grace….

1. If anyone says that it is not the whole human person- that is, both body and soul- that was changed for the worse through the offense of Adam’s sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired, and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and opposes the Scriptures which say, “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18:20), and “Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?” (Romans 6:16), and, “For whatever overcomes someone, to that he is enslaved” (2 Peter 2:19).
2. If anyone declares that Adam’s sin affected him alone and not also his descendants; or that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also the sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race; he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all have sinned” (Romans 5:12; cf.Augustine).
3. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in the one who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit which corrects our will and turns it from unbelief to faith, and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for the blessed Paul says, “And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8). For those who declare that the faith by which we believe in God is natural declare that all who are separated from the Church of Christ are believers, at least to some extent (cf.Augustine).” (McGrath:2011:359-60)

The Critique of the Vulgate translation of Scripture

“The rise of humanist textual and philological techniques showed up some worrying discrepancies between the Vulgate and the texts it was supposed to translate- and thus to open the way to doctrinal reform as a consequence. It is for this reason that humanism is of decisive importance to the development of medieval theology: it demonstrated the unreliability of this translation of the Bible- and hence, it seemed, of some theological ideas based upon it. The biblical basis of several modern theological developments seemed to become open to challenge, as humanist scholarship raised questions concerning the reliability of the underlying biblical translations. We shall explore this point further in what following; it is unquestionably one of the most significant developments in the history of Christian theology at this time.

The rise of humanism

In the modern period, the term “humanism” has come to designate a worldview which denies the existence or relevance of God, or which is committed to a purely secular outlook. This is certainly not what the word meant at the time of the Renaissance. Most humanists of the period were religious, and were concerned to purify and renew Christianity, rather than eliminate it. This process of regeneration would take place by returning to the fountainheads of western thought.

The humanist program was set out in the Latin slogan ad fonts (“back to the sources”), which laid out the vision of returning to the wellspring and source of modern western culture in the ancient world, allowing its ideas and values to refresh and renew that culture. The classical period was to be both a resource and a norm for the Renaissance. In art and architecture, as in the written and spoken word, antiquity was seen as a cultural resource, which could be appropriated by the Renaissance. In the case of Christian humanism, believers would return directly to the simplicities of the New Testament, bypassing the complex theological programs of the Middle Ages. But it would be the original Greek text of the New Testament, not the Vulgate Latin translation, widely used by medieval theologians.

One of the most significant theological developments associated with the rise of humanism is the increased questioning of the reliability of the Vulgate text.” (McGrath:2007:30)

The literary and cultural program of humanism can be summarized in the Latin slogan ad fontes meant a direct return to the title-deeds of Christianity- to the patristic writers, and supremely to the Bible, studied in its original languages. This necessitated direct access to the Greek text of the New Testament.

The first printed Greek New Testament was produced by Erasmus in 1516…

Drawing on the work carried out earlier by the Italian humanist Lorenzo Valla (1406-57), of several major New Testament texts could not be justified. As a number of medieval church practices and beliefs were often justified by an appeal to these texts, Erasmus’s allegations were viewed with consternation by many conservative Catholics (who wanted to retain these practices and beliefs) and with equally great delight by the reformers (who wanted to eliminate them). Two classic examples of translation errors will indicate the relevance of Erasmus’s biblical scholarship.

1. The Vulgate translated the opening words of Jesus’s ministry (Matthew 4:17), as “do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” This translation suggested that the coming of the kingdom of heaven had a direct connection with the sacrament of penance. Erasmus pointed out that the original Greek text should be translated as “repent” for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” In other words, where the Vulgate seemed to refer to an outward practice (the sacrament of penance), Erasmus insisted that the reference was to an inward psychological attitude- that of “being repentant”. Once more, an important justification of the sacramental system of the medieval church was challenged.
2. According to the Vulgate translation of Luke 1:28, the angel Gabriel greeted Mary as one who is “full of grace” (Latin: gratia plena), thus suggesting the image of a reservoir full of grace, which could be drawn upon at time of need. But, as Erasmus pointed out, the Greek text simply meant “favoured one”, or “one who had found favour”. Mary was one who had found God’s favour, not necessarily one who could bestow it on others. The biblical basis of an important development within medieval theology thus seemed to be called into question by humanist New Testament scholarship.” (McGrath:2007:40-1)

The doctrine of grace: the Pelagian controversy

The doctrine of grace had not been an issue of significance in the development of theology in the Greek-speaking eastern church. However, an intense controversy broke out over this question in the second decade of the fifth century. Pelagius, a British ascetic monk based at Rome, argued forcefully for the need for human moral responsibility. Alarmed at the moral laxity of the Roman church, he insisted upon the need for constant self-improvement, in the light of the Old Testament law and example of Christ. In doing so, he seemed to his opponents- chief among whom was Augustine- to deny any real place to divine grace in the beginning or continuation of the Christian life. Pelagianism, a composite movement drawing on the ideas of Pelagius and his circle, came to be seen as a religion of human autonomy, which held that human beings are able to take the initiative in their own salvation.

Augustine reacted forcefully against Pelagianism, insisting upon the priority of the grace of God at every stage in the Christian life, from its beginning to its end. Human beings did not, according to Augustine, possess the necessary freedom to take the initial steps toward salvation. Far from possessing “freedom of the will”, humans were in possession of a will that was corrupted and tainted by sin, and which biased them toward evil and away from God. Only the grace of God could counteract this bias toward sin. So forceful was Augustine’s defense of grace that he later became known as “the doctor of grace.”..

According to Augustine, it follows that all human beings are now contaminated by sin from the moment of their birth. In contrast to those twentieth-century existentialist philosophies which affirm that “fallenness” is an option which we choose (rather than something which is chosen for us). Augustine portrays sin as inherent in human nature. It is an integral, not an optional, aspect of our being….

For Augustine, humanity, left to its own devices and resources, could never enter into a relationship with God. Nothing that a man or woman could do was sufficient to break the strangehold of sin…
Augustine held “grace” to be the unmerited or undeserved gift of God by which God voluntarily breaks the hold of sin upon humanity. Redemption is possible only as a divine gift. It is not something which we can achieve ourselves, but is something which has to be done for us. Augustine thus emphasizes that the resources of salvation are located in God, outside of humanity. It is God who initiates the process of salvation, not men or women.

For Pelagius, however, the situation was very different. Pelagius taught that the resources of salvation are located within humanity. Individual human beings have the capacity to save themselves. They are not trapped by sin, but have the ability to do all that is necessary to be saved. Salvation is something which is earned through good works, which place God under an obligation to reward humanity for its moral achievements. Pelagius marginalizes the idea of grace, understanding it in terms of demands made of humanity by God in order that salvation may be achieved- such as the Ten Commandments, or the moral example of Christ. The ethos of Pelagianism could be summed up as “salvation by merit”, whereas Augustine taught “salvation by grace”.

It will be obvious that these two different theologies involved very different understandings of human nature. For Augustine, human nature is weak, fallen, and powerless; for Pelagius, it is autonomous and self-sufficient. For Augustine, humanity must depend upon God for salvation; for Pelagius, God merely indicated what has to be done if salvation is to be attained, and then leaves men and women to meet those conditions unaided. For Augustine, salvation is an unmerited gift; for Pelagius, salvation is a justly earned reward.

One aspect of Augustine’s understanding of grace needs further comment. As human beings were incapable of saving themselves, and as God gave his gift of grace to some (but not all), it followed that God had “preselected” those who would be saved. Developing hints of this idea to be found in the New Testament, Augustine advanced a doctrine of predestination. The term “predestination” refers to God’s original or eternal decision to save some, and not others. It was this aspect of Augustine’s thought that many of his contemporaries, not to mention his successors, found unacceptable. It need hardly be said that there is no direct equivalent in Pelagius’s thought.

The Council of Carthage (418) decided for Augustine’s views on grace and sin, and condemned Pelagianism in uncompromising terms.” (McGrath:2007:19-20)

“According to Augustine, our feeling of dissatisfaction is a consequence of the Christian doctrine of creation- that we are made in the image of God. There is thus an inbuilt capacity within human nature to relate to God. Yet, on account of the fallenness of human nature, this potential is frustrated. There is now a natural tendency to try to make other things fulfull this need. Created things thus come to be substituted for God. Yet they do not satisfy. Human beings are thus left with a feeling of longing- longing for something indefinable.

This phenomenon has been recognized since the dawn of human civilization. In his dialogue Gorgias, Plato compared human beings to leaky jars. Somehow, human beings are always unfulfilled. Perhaps the greatest statement of this feeling, and its most famous theological interpretation, may be found in the famous words of Augustine: “You have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.”…

Augustine’s approach was echoed by the twentieth-century Oxford literary critic and theologian C.S. Lewis (1898-1963). Like Augustine, Lewis was aware of certain deep human emotions which pointed to a dimension of our existence beyond time and space. There is, Lewis suggested, a deep and intense feeling of longing within human beings, which no earthly object or experience can satisfy. Lewis terms this sense “joy”…Joy, according to Lewis, is “an unsatisfied desire which is itself more desirable than any other satisfaction […] anyone who has experienced it will want it again.”…

There is something self-defeating about human desire, in that what is desired, when achieved, seems to leave the desire unsatisfied.” (McGrath:2007:149-50)

The Doctrine of Predestination

In discussing the nature of grace earlier in this chapter, we noted the close relationship between “grace” and “graciousness”. God is under no obligation to bestow grace upon anyone, as it if were a commodity which functioned as a reward for meritorious actions. Grace is a gift, as Augustine never tired of emphasizing. Yet this emphasis upon the gift-character of grace, as will become clear, leads directly to the doctrine of predestination, often regarded as one of the most enigmatic and puzzling aspects of Christian theology.” (McGrath:2007:365)

Augustine of Hippo (354-430)

Grace is a gift, not a reward. This insight is fundamental to Augustine. If grace were a reward, humans could purchase their salvation through good works. They could earn their redemption. Yet this, according to Augustine, was totally contrary to the New Testament proclamation of the doctrine of grace…

Augustine’s insight had much to commend it. However, on further inspection, it proved to have its darker side. As the Pelagian controversy became increasingly hardened and bitter, the more negative implications of Augustine’s doctrine of grace became clearer. In what follows, we shall explore those implications.

If grace is a gift, God must be free to offer it, or not to offer it, without any external consideration. If it is offered on the basis of any such consideration, it is no longer a gift- it is a reward for a specific action or attitude. Grace, according to Augustine, only remains gracious if it is nothing more and nothing less than a gift, reflecting the liberality of the one who gives. But the gift is not given to all. It is particular. Grace is only given to some. Augustine’s defense of “the graciousness of God”, which rests on his belief that God must be free to give or withhold grace, thus entails that recognition of the particularity, rather than the universality, of grace.

If this insight is linked with Augustine’s doctrine of sin, its full implications become clear. All of humanity is contaminated by sin, and unable to break free from its grasp. Only grace can set humanity free. Yet grace is not bestowed universally; it is only granted to some individuals. As a result, only some will be saved- those to whom grace is given. Predestination, for Augustine, involved the recognition that God withholds the means of salvation from those who are not elected. …

It is important to note that Augustine emphasized that this did not mean that some were predestined to damnation. It meant that God had selected some from the mass of fallen humanity. The chosen few were indeed predestined for salvation. The remainder were not, according to Augustine, actively condemned to damnation; they were merely not elected to salvation.

Augustine tends (although he is not entirely consistent in this respect) to treat predestination as something which is active and positive- a deliberate decision to redeem on God’s part. However, as his critics pointed out, this decision to redeem some was equally a decision not to redeem others.

This question surfaced with new force during the great predestination controversy of the ninth century, in which the Benedictine monk Godescalc of Orbais (c.808-67), also known as Gottschalk) developed a doctrine of double predestination similar to that later to be associated with Calvin and his followers. Pursuing with relentless logic the implications of his assertion that God has predestined some to eternal damnation, Godescalc pointed out that it was thus quite improper to speak of Christ dying for such individuals; if he had, he would have died in vain, for their fate would be unaffected.

Hesitant over the implications of this assertion, Godescalc proposed that Christ died only for the elect. The scope of his redeeming work was restricted, limited only to those who were predestined to benefit from his death. Most ninth-century writers reacted to this assertion critically. It was, however, to resurface in the later Calvinist doctrine of “limited atonement” or “particular redemption”.” (McGrath:2007:365-6)

Catholic debates: Thomism, Molinism and Jansenism

… Thomas Aquinas followed Augustine in insisting that predestination was not the result of God’s foreknowledge of the human response to grace, or of the moral state of individuals. First and foremost, predestination was grounded in the free choice of God. Aquinas argues that eternal life lies in “the proportion and the capacity of created nature.” Humanity therefore requires direction and assistance if it is to achieve eternal life. So, just as an archer directs an arrow toward its goal, God directs the soul toward salvation. …

Some writers of the later Middle Ages took more radical views. For example, Gregory of Rimini (c.1300-1358) developed a doctrine of double predestination, arguing that God predetermined the identity of both elect and reprobate. Nevertheless, most medieval writers took a cautious view on the doctrine, partly because they were sensitive about its pastoral implications. The cautious formulations of the Council of Trent, for example, avoided laying down any precise teaching on the question, even though the matter had been raised by the Protestant reformers of that age.

Fresh debate over the doctrine flared within Catholicism in the seventeenth century. The theologian Luis de Molina, 1535-1600) argued that human freedom was not contradicted by divine predestination. God knows how any individual would freely act in any possible situation, when provided with certain resources. Predestination can therefore be thought of as God bringing about a situation in which an individual freely chooses what God wants….Most Molinists argued that God chose to create a world in such a way that God foresaw and foreknew how Peter would respond to grace. God is able to create those circumstances under which Peter would respond freely, thus maintaining both divine and human freedom. …

Such debates were never entirely resolved, but ceased to play a major divisive role within the Catholic church from about 1700 onward. Within Protestantism, however, the debates proved to be much more serious and important.” (McGrath:2007:366-7)

Protestant debates: Calvinism and Arminianism

John Calvin on Predestination

The doctrine of predestination is of major importance to John Calvin (1509-64). In this mature statement of his views, Calvin declares that some people are predestined to eternal life and others to eternal death. This doctrine, known as “double predestination”, affirms that only those who are elected to salvation will, in fact, be saved. Note how Calvin draws a clear distinction between “predestination” and “foreknowledge”.

‘If it is clear that salvation is freely offered to some while others are barred from access to it, on account of God’s pleasure, this raises some major and difficult questions. They can be explained only when election and predestination are rightly understood. Many find this a puzzling subject, in that it seems to be nothing less than capricious, that out of the human community some should be predestined to salvation, others to destruction. But it will become clear in the following discussion that such confusion is needless…

We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which God determined what God willed to become of each human being. For all are not created in equal condition [non enim pari conditione creantur omnes]; but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others.’

Note that Calvin explicitly defines predestination in terms of the divine decision to elect some to life, and others to death; this may be contrasted with Augustine’s views, which sees predestination as relating only to the divine decision to redeem some.” (McGrath:2011:375-6)

Writer’s Voice: If A_Cripples without re-incarnation must be justified some-how if God is to be just in one life chance.

Calvin adopts a distinctly low-key approach to the doctrine, devoting a mere four chapters to its exposition (book III, chapters 21-4). Predestination is defined as “the eternal decree of God, by which he determined what he wished to make of every person. For he does not create everyone in the same condition, but ordains eternal life for some and eternal damnation for others.”

Calvin’s analysis of predestination begins from observable facts. Some believe the gospel. Some do not. …

Far from being a central premise of Calvin’s thought, predestination seems to be an ancillary doctrine, concerned with explaining a puzzling pastoral aspect of the consequences of the proclamation of the gospel of grace. Yet as Calvin’s followers sought to develop and recast his thinking in the light of new intellectual developments, it was perhaps inevitable that alterations to his structuring of Christian theology might occur. In the remainder of this section, we shall explore the understanding of predestination which gained influence within Calvinism after Calvin’s death, often known as “Five Point Cavlinism”. …

The “Five Points” are often referred to using the mnemonic TULIP  ….

1. Total depravity of sinful human nature;
2. Unconditional election, in that humans are not predestined on the basis of any foreseen merit, quality, or achievement;
3. Limited atonement, in that Christ died only for the elect (an idea developed by Godescalc)
4. Irresistible grace, by which the elect are infallibility called and redeemed;
5. Perseverance of the saints, in that those who are truly predestined by God cannot in any way defect from that calling.” (McGrath:2007:367-8)

Predestination and economics: the Weber thesis

One of the most fascinating consequences of the Calvinist emphasis upon predestination is its impact upon the attitudes of those who held the belief. Of especial importance is the question of assurance: how may the believer know that he or she really is among the elect? Although Calvin stressed that works are not the grounds of salvation, he nevertheless allowed it to be understood that they are, in some vague way, the grounds of assurance. Works may be regarded as “the testimonies of God dwelling and ruling within us.” Believers are not saved by works; rather, their salvation is demonstrated by works. “The grace of good works […] demonstrates that the spirit of adoption has been given to us.” This tendency to regard works as evidence of election may be seen as the first stage in the articulation of a work ethic with significant pastoral overtones: it is by worldly activism that believers can assure their troubled conscience that they are among the elect. …

…the believer who performs good works has indeed been chosen…

‘All who are elected exhibit certain signs as a consequence of that election.

But I exhibit those signs.

Therefore I am among the elect.

The grounds of certainty of election are thus based on the presence of “certain signs” in the life of the believer. There was thus a significant psychological pressure to demonstrate one’s election to oneself and the world in general by exhibiting its signs- among which was the wholehearted commitment to serve and glorify God by labouring in the world. It is this pressure that, according to the sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920), lay behind the emergence of capitalism within Calvinist societies.

The popular version of the Weber thesis declares that capitalism is a direct result of the Protestant Reformation. This is historically untenable and, in any case, is not what Weber actually said. Weber stressed that he had

‘no intention whatsoever of maintaining such a foolish and doctrinaire thesis as that the spirit of capitalism […] could only have arisen as a result of certain effects of the Reformation. In itself, the fact that certain important forms of capitalistic business organizations are known to be considerably older than the Reformation is a sufficient refutation of such a claim.’

Rather, Weber argued that a new “spirit of capitalism” emerged in the sixteenth century. It is not so much capitalism as a  specific form of capitalism which needs to be explained.

Protestantism, Weber argued, generated the psychological preconditions essential to the development of modern capitalism. Indeed, Weber located the fundamental contribution of Calvinism as lying in its generation of psychological impulses on account of its belief systems. Weber laid especial stress upon the notion of “calling”, which he linked with the Calvinist idea of predestination. Calvinists, assured of their personal salvation, were enabled to engage in worldly activity without serious anxiety regarding their salvation as a consequence. The pressure to prove one’s election led to the active pursuit of worldly success- a success which, as history indicates, was generally not slow in coming.

It is not our concern here to provide a critique of the Weber thesis. In some circles, it is regarded as utterly discredited; in others, it lives on. Our concern is simply to note that Weber rightly discerned that religious ideas could have a powerful economic and social impact upon early modern Europe. The very fact that Weber suggested that the religious thought of the Reformation was capable of providing the stimulus needed for the development of modern capitalism itself is a powerful testimony to the need to study theology if human history is to be fully understood. It also indicates that apparently abstract ideas- such as predestination- can prove to have a very concrete impact upon history!” (McGrath:2007:370-71)

“Oscar Romero (1917-80) defined social sin as “the crystallization of individual egoisms in permanent structures which maintain this sin and exert its power over the great majorities. “ Sin is thus not seen primarily in individual terms, as in some western approaches to salvation. Rather, it is seen in terms of sinful and oppressive social structures, which are to be challenged and combated…

Liberation theology has been criticized for viewing both the figure of Jesus and the concept of salvation in the light of a predetermined interpretive grid derived from the Latin American context. However, all Christologies and soteriologies are vulnerable to this charge. For example, the writers of the Enlightenment interpreted both the person and the work of Jesus Christ in terms of a predetermined framework, derived in part from the middle-class European context in which most of them existed, and partly from the severely rationalist outlook characteristic of the movement. Equally, it can be argued that the Greek patristic writers tended to view Christ through a Hellenistic prism, which had significant consequences for their Christologies and soteriologies.” (McGrath:2007:342)

The Scope of Salvation in Christ

The Christian tradition has witnessed intense debate over the extent of the salvation which is made available and possible through Christ. Two central affirmations, both of which are deeply grounded in the New Testament, may be discerned as exercising a controlling influence over this discussion:

1. God wishes all people to be saved.
2. Salvation is possible only in and through Christ.

The various approaches to the question of the scope of salvation rest upon different manners of resolving the dialectic between these assumptions.” (McGrath:2007:344)

Universalism: all will be saved

The view that all people will be saved, irrespective of whether they have heard or responded to the Christian proclamation of redemption in Christ, has exerted a strong influence within the Christian tradition. It represents a powerful affirmation of the universal saving will of God, and its ultimate actualization in the universal redemption of all people. It most significant early exponent was Origen, who defended the idea at length in his First Principles….

In the end, God will overcome evil and restore creation to its original form. In its original form, creation was subject to the will of God. It therefore follows, on the basis of this “restorationist” soteriology, that the final redeemed version of creation cannot include anything along the lines of “a hell” or “a kingdom of Satan”. All “will be restored to their condition of happiness {…] in order that the human race […] may be restored to that unity promised by the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Related ideas have been developed in the twentieth century…In the end, love will conquer all, making the existence of hell an impossibility. “In a universe of love there can be no heaven which tolerates a chamber of horrors.”” (McGrath:2007:345)

Only believers will be saved

The position to be discussed in this section is one of the most influential positions in relation to the scope of salvation. Its most vigorous defender in the early church was Augustine, who consciously distanced himself from the universalism associated with Origen by stressing the need for faith as a precondition for salvation. In doing so, Augustine cited a large number of New Testament passages which emphasize the conditionality of salvation or eternal life upon faith. A classic example of such a text is John 6:51, in which Christ refers to himself as a bread which, if eaten, will bring eternal life. “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, they will live for ever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

This position was maintained by most writers of the Middle Ages. Thomas Aquinas argued that an act of faith was a necessary condition of salvation. This view is echoed in many popular devotional writings of the period, including the highly sophisticated Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri.

One of the most vigorous defenders of this position at the time of the Reformation was John Calvin, who dismissed the views of his fellow reformer Huldrych Zwingli to the effect that pious pagans could attain salvation. “All the more vile is the stupidity of those people who open heaven to all the impious and unbelieving, without the grace of him whom Scripture teaches to be the only door by which we enter into salvation.”

So what do such writers make of the biblical assertions that God wishes all to be saved, and all to come to a knowledge of the truth? Augustine and Calvin argue that such texts are to be interpreted soteriologically: God wishes all kinds of people- but not all people- to be saved. Redemption embraces all nationalities, cultures, languages, geographical regions, and walks of life. This is the soteriological equivalent of the doctrine of the catholicity of the church” (McGrath:2007:345-6)

Particular redemption only the elect will be saved

A final approach which should be noted is variously termed “definite redemption”, “particular redemption.” “effective atonement”, and “limited atonement.” This has Reformed associations, and is particularly influential in such circles in the United States. The basis of the approach lies in the Reformed doctrine of predestination, to be discussed in the next chapter. However, its historical origins can be discerned in the ninth century, in the writings of Godescalc of Orbais (also known as Gottschalk, c.808-67). Godescalc argued along the following lines. Let us suppose that Christ died for all people. But not all people will be saved. Therefore it follows that Christ died to no effect for those who are not saved. This raises the gravest of questions concerning the efficacy of his death. But if Christ died only for those who are to be saved, he will have succeeded in his mission in every case. Therefore Christ died only for those who are to be saved.

Related lines of argument can be discerned in the later sixteenth century, and especially during the seventeenth century. The doctrine which emerged at this time, especially within Puritan circles, can be summarized as follows: Christ died only for the elect. Although his death is sufficient to achieve the redemption of all people, it is effective only for the elect. Although his death is sufficient to achieve the redemption of all people, it is effective only for the elect. As a result, Christ’s work was not in vain. All those for whom he died are saved. Although this approach clearly possesses a certain logical coherence, its critics tend to regard it as compromising the New Testament’s affirmation of the universality of God’s love and redemption.” (McGrath:2007:346)

So predestination relies on an autodynamic understanding of the soul, as some can be unchosen.

What this leads to is a forced re-examination of the sacraments as how can some by saved and not others by baptism when nothing that we do holds any merit or changes Gods mind or even our own. And if we are all contaminated with original sin, then what about infant mortality, do they go to hell forever, in a predestined fate?

What about the Eucharist is that Jesus that we are eating and not bread, how does this happen and why?

13: The Sacraments

The Debate Concerning Infant Baptism

The second major sacrament which is virtually universally recognized throughout Christianity is baptism. Perhaps the most important controversy to centre upon this sacrament is whether it is legitimate to baptize infants– and, if so, what theological justification may be provided for the practice. It is not clear whether the early church baptized infants. The New Testament includes no specific references to the baptism of infants. However, it does not explicitly forbid the practice,…

What can be said is that the practice had become normal, if not universal, by the second or third century, and would exercise considerable influence over a major theological debate: the Pelagian controversy. In the third century, Origen treated infant baptism as a universal practice, which he justified on the basis of a universal human need for the grace of Christ. A similar argument would later be deployed by Augustine: in that Christ is the saviour of all, if follows that all- including infants- require redemption, which baptism confers, at least in part. Opposition to the practice can be seen in the writings of Tertullian, who argued that the baptism of children should be deferred until such time as they “know Christ”. …

Three major approaches to the question of infant baptism can be discerned within the Christian tradition. In what follows, we shall consider these individually.

Infant baptism remits the guilt of original sin

This position owes its origins to Cyprian of Carthage, who declared that infant baptism procured remission of both sinful acts and original sin. The final steps in the theological justification of the practice are due to Augustine of Hippo, in responding to the issues surrounding the Pelagian controversy. Had not the creed laid down that there was “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins?” It therefore followed that infant baptism remitted original sin.

This raised a question of potential difficulty. If original sin was remitted by baptism, why did the infants in question behave in a sinful manner in later life? Augustine met this objection by distinguishing between the guilt and the disease of original sin. Baptism remitted the guilt of original sin, but did nothing to get rid of its effects, which could only be eliminated by the continuing work of grace within the believer.

One major implication of this approach relates to the fate of those who die without being baptized, whether in infancy or later in life. If baptism remits the guilt of original sin, people who die without being baptized remain guilty. So what happens to them? Augustine’s position demands that such people cannot be saved. Augustine himself certainly held to this belief, and argued forcefully that unbaptized infants were condemned to eternal damnation. However, he conceded that such infants would not have as unpleasant a time in hell as those who lived to adulthood, and committed actual sins. …

Nevertheless, Augustine’s position was modified in the light of popular pressure, apparently based upon a belief that this doctrine was unjust. Peter Lombard argued that unbaptized infants receive only “the penalty of being condemned” and do not receive the more painful “penalty of the senses.” Although they are condemned, that condemnation does not include the experience of the physical pain of hell. This idea is often referred to as “limbo” (from the Latin limbus “edge” or “boundary”), although this has never become part of the official teaching of any Christian body, and is a somewhat vague notion. It is reflected in Dante’s description of hell… In 2007, the International Theological Commission (a body originally commissioned by Paul VI) reported on the notion of “limbo”. While noting that it remained “a possible theological opinion”, it emphasized that there are “strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.”” (McGrath:2007:420-2)

“Christian themselves have always been clear that Christianity is continuous with Judaism. The “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” is identical with the “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Early Christianity emerged within Judaism, and most of the first converts to the movement were Jews. The New Testament frequently mentions Christians preaching in local synagogues. So similar were the two movements that outside observers, such as the Roman authorities, tended to treat Christianity as a sect within Judaism, rather than as a new movement with a distinct identity. …

In part, this was due to the rise of Christendom. Western Europe, which was the stronghold for most of the world’s Christian population from about 1000 to 1800, tended to be a set of uniformly Christian societies, with little experience of religious diversity. …With only a few exception, western theology simply did not see the question of other religions as significant over the period 1000-1800. Two developments brought about a change of perception.

First, western colonial expansion led to firsthand encounters between Christianity and other religions, especially in South-east Asia and Africa.  …British theologians who taught there, especially during the nineteenth century, found themselves having to wrestle with issues arising from the cultural dominance of Hinduism, which had no parallel in any western society. How could this be accommodated within a Christian perspective?

Second, immigration to the west from regions in which Hinduism and Islam were culturally dominant because socially significant in the period after the Second World War. The growing presence of non-Christian communities in the west once more raised the profile of the question of how Christianity understood these faith communities.” (McGrath:2007:425-6)

The Early Development of Sacramental Theology

The New Testament does not make use of the specific term “sacrament.” Instead, we find the Greek word mysterion (which is naturally translated as “mystery”) used to refer to the saving work of God in general. This Greek word is never used to refer to what would now be regarded as a sacrament (for example, baptism). However, it is clear from what we know of the history of the early church that a connection was made at an early stage between the “mystery” of God’s saving work in Christ and the “sacraments” of baptism and the Eucharist. …

Tertullian’s contribution to the development of sacramental theology can be summarized in terms of three issues.

1. The use of the Latin term sacramentum (now familiar to use in its English form “sacrament”) to translate the Greek word mysterion. …
2. The use of the word “sacrament” in the plural. The New Testament spoke of “a mystery” in the singular. ….Tertullian thus uses the Latin word sacramentum in two different, though clearly related, senses: first to refer to the mystery of God’s salvation: and, second, to refer to the symbols or rites that were associated with the recollection and appropriation of this salvation in the life of the church.
3. The exploitation of the theological significance of the parallel between sacraments and military oaths. Tertullian pointed out that, in normal Latin use, the word sacramentum meant “a sacred oath”, referring to the oath of allegiance and loyalty was required of Roman soldiers. Tertullian used this parallel as a means of bringing out the importance of sacraments in relation to Christian commitment and loyalty within the Church- an issue of especial significance when the church was under persecution, and loyalty within the church was of paramount importance.”

(McGrath:2007:400-1)

A case study in complexity: the functions of the Eucharist

Recollection: looking backward

First, the Eucharist invites Christians to look backward into the past, and recalls the saving acts of God in general, and, above all, the cross and resurrection of Christ. The general principle of recalling God’s saving acts is firmly established in the Old Testament. For example, many of the Psalms (such as Psalm 136) invite Israel to remember God’s past actions in delivering them from Egypt and leading them into the Promised Land. The basic theme is simple: the God who acted faithfully I the past may be relied upon to do the same in the present and the future.

The recollection of the past also emphasizes the continuity between the church and Israel, the new and old convenants. …The Passover festival was celebrated with a meal. According to the synoptic gospels, the “Last Supper” was a Passover meal, suggesting that Jesus wished his followers to make a connection between the past act of delivering Israel from Egypt, and the greater act of deliverance that was about to take place. …

Anticipation: looking forward

Having invited Christians to look backwards in remembrance, the Eucharist then points to the future, inviting Christians to anticipate what has yet to happen. This theme is deeply embedded in the New Testament. For example, Paul’s account of the Eucharist makes specific reference to its anticipation of the return of Christ in the future (1 Corinthians 11: 23-6) …

This theme of anticipation is also focused on another biblical theme- the hope of the New Jerusalem. The vision of the New Jerusalem offered by the book of Revelation, the last book in the Christian Bible, speaks of “the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Revelation 19:9). The reference here is to Jesus Christ as the “lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1: 29). It is important to see the Eucharist as a present foretaste of this future event. For this reason, the Second Vatican Council referred to the Eucharist as a “foretaste of the heavenly banquet.” This point is made particularly clearly by Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.350-428), a writer standing within the Antiochene school of biblical interpretation. For Theodore, the Eucharist allows us to glimpse the realities of heaven, and anticipate our future presence there. …

Affirming individual faith

We have already seen that sacraments affirm the present faith of individual believers. This process of affirmation takes place through the mind and imagination. The believer, who is located in the present, is able to reflect on what God has done in the past, anticipate what God will do in the future, and deepen his or her faith and trust in God as a consequence.

Affirming corporate belonging

As noted earlier, sacraments can be regarded as strengthening the mutual commitment and support of members of the Christian community. In a sense, this can be seen as the original meaning of the word sacaramentum- a solemn oath of obedience and commitment.

The important point to appreciate is that different theologians place their emphases at different points. Some want to emphasize the Eucharist as a memorial of what God has done in the past. Others want to stress its potential to enhance unity and commitment within the church. Yet all these elements are present; the question concerns which is to be accentuated.

In considering these four aspects of the Eucharist, readers will have noticed that we have not addressed what is possibly the most interesting, and certainly the most debated, of its aspects- namely, the real presence. In what way, if any, does the Eucharist make Christ present to believers?” (McGrath:2007:413-4)

Medieval views on the relation of “sign” and “sacrament”

During the twelfth-century theological renaissance, the various aspects of sacraments were clarified by means of a threefold distinction… The scholastics distinguished between the sacramental sign itself (sacramentum tantum), the intermediate effect brought about by the sacrament (res et sacramentum), and the ultimate effect or “fruit” of the sacrament (res tantum)…

What follows is a loose paraphrase of Thomas Aquinas’s exposition of these concepts in his Summa theologiae. …

3. To appreciate the concept of the res tantum we need to ask what the Eucharist is intended to achieve. What is the goal of the Eucharist? What are its intended outcomes? What is the effect of consuming the bread and wine, both as sacramental sign and sacramental reality? What difference to they make to those who receive them? The res tantum of the Eucharist is communion of the believer with Christ, and the pledge of future glory in heaven. Christ is really and truly present in the Eucharist- but his presence is not an end in itself, but is intended to have a transforming effect on the believer. The intended function or final effect of the Eucharist is the union of the members of the church, considered as Christ’s Mystical Body, with Christ as their head, and with each other, and reassurance of the hope of glory in heaven.” (McGrath:2007:416-7)

Writer’s Voice: If With heterodynamic perspective all of these things are true, but not with an autodynamic one, other than a garment and not the naked body that lies beneath it, as did Moses in his tent, whilst his sons put a garment on and walked out of the holy of holies.

Transubstantiation

It was not until 1551 that the Council of Trent finally set forth the positive position of the Catholic church in the “Decree on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist”. Up to this point, Trent had merely criticized the reformers, without putting forth a coherent alternative position. This deficiency was now remedied. The Decree open with a strong affirmation of the real substantial presence of Christ: “After the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ is truly, really and substantially contained in the venerable sacrament of the holy Eucharist under the appearance of those physical things.” The Council vigorously defended both the doctrine and the terminology of transubstantiation. “By the consecration of the bread and wine a change is brought about of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood of Christ. This change the holy catholic church properly and appropriately calls transubstantiation.” …

One of the most interesting defenses of the doctrine is due to the French Catholic philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650). In a letter of 1645, Descartes suggested that the human digestive system offered a natural analogy for transubstantiation. The human body, he argued, was an organic model for the process. Was not the natural process of digestion about the transformation of bread into a human body? No appeal to the miraculous need be made.” (McGrath:2007:418)

Writer’s Voice: The human body is the soul and the soul is the human body, the soul is a part of wakan, and wakan is God. Therefore the Eucharist is God always, but it is our soul perspective that allows us to experience the transformation or not, as we will it. The Grace of God is ever present and ever given, experienced as that will after the transformation and as free-will before hand, the definition itself being one of perspective alone.

The Millennium

“The early Christian discussion of heaven tended to focus on a related, yet not identical idea- the millennium, or restored earthly kingdom lasting for a period of one thousand years, intervening between the coming of Christ and the establishment of a totally new cosmic order. This idea, which is based partly on a passage in the book of Revelations (Revelation 20: 2-5), had considerable appeal to early Christian writers. An excellent example is provided by Irenaeus of Lyons in the second century. The idea of a worldly millennium is, for Irenaeus, confirmed by a number of considerations, especially Christ’s promise at the Last Supper to drink wine again with his disciples. How can this happen, he asks, if they are disembodied spirits? The reference to the future drinking of wine is a sure indication that there will be a kingdom of God established upon earth before the final judgement. Perhaps the clearest statement of the idea can be found in the writings of Tertullian in the early third century.

‘For we also hold that a kingdom has been promised to us on earth, but before heaven: but in another state than this, as being after the resurrection. This will last for a thousand years, in a city of God’s own making, the Jerusalem which has been brought down from heaven which the Apostle also designates as “our mother from above” (Galatians 4:26). When he proclaims that “our politeuma” that is, citizenship, “is in heaven” (Philippians 3:20), he is surely referring to a heavenly city. […] We affirms that this is the city established by God for the reception of the saints at the resurrection, and for their refreshment with an abundance of all blessings, spiritual blessings to be sure, in compensation for the blessings we have despised or lost in this age. For indeed it is right and worthy of God that his servants should also rejoice in the place where they suffered hardship for his name. This is the purpose of that kingdom, which will last a thousand years, during which period the saints will rise sooner or later, according to their merit. When the resurrection of the saints is completed, the destruction of the world and the conflagration of judgement will be effected; we shall be “changed in a moment” into the angelic substance, by the “putting on of incorruption” (1 Corinthians 15: 52-3), and we shall be transferred to the heavenly kingdom.’

For Tertullian, the millennium was to be a period in which the righteous could be compensated for the suffering which they had endured for their faith, before their final transference to heaven itself.

However, opposition to the idea of a millennium began to grow during the third century. For example, Hippolytus argued that the reference to a period of a thousand years should not be understood as a literal prediction of the chronological duration of an earthly kingdom, but as an allegorical indication of the grandeur of the heavenly kingdom. As a result, the theme of the resurrection soon came to be of greater importance to patristic writers.” (McGrath:2007:460)

Tertullian on the Millenium

The work from which this extract is taken is a polemic against the heretic Marcion, dating from 207-8. Tertullian sets out the basic features of the Christian hope, and focuses on the idea of the millennium.

‘For we also hold that a kingdom has been promised to us on earth, but before heaven: but in another state than this, as being after the resurrection. This will last for a thousand years, in a city of God’s own making, the Jerusalem which has been brought down from heaven which the Apostle also designates as “our mother from above” (Galatians 4:26)’

The millennium here refers to an earthly reign of God, lasting for a thousand years, in which evil is eliminated from the earth. After enjoying the pleasures of this earthly paradise, believers are then finally raised to heaven. Tertullian uses the word “resurrection” to refer both to the entry into this kingdom, and subsequently entry into heaven.” (McGrath:2011:538-9)

Irenaeus on the Final Restoration of Creation

In the final book of his “Against Heresies”, the second-century writer Irenaeus of Lyons (c.130-c.200) turns to the theme of the Christian hope. In the course of this discussion he sets out his vision of the final restoration of God’s creation.

’29, “I will no more drink the fruit of the vine until I drink it anew in my Father’s kingdom.” [Iranaeus continues:] It is certain that he will drink it in the heritage of the earth, which he himself will renew and restore to the service of the glory of the sons of God. As David says, he “shall renew the face of the earth” (Psalm 104:30). He promised to “drink of the fruit of the vine” with his disciples (Matthew 26:29), and by doing this, he indicated two things: the inheritance of the earth in which the new fruit of the vine will be drunk, and the physical resurrection of his disciples. For it is the body which is raised in a new condition which receives the new drink. Now this should not be understood to mean that he will drink the fruit of the vine with his disciples in some higher region above the heavens [in supercaelesti loco]. Nor does it mean that those who drink it are disembodied, as the drink from the vine is more proper to the body rather than to the spirit.’

In this passage Irenaeus sets out his belief in a restored earthly realm, which will be set up at the second coming of Christ, and will last for a thousand years (the “millennium”). After this time, the final judgement will take place. This idea of a worldly millennium is, for Irenaeus, confirmed by a number of considerations, especially Christ’s promise to drink wine again with his disciples. How can this happen, he asks, if they are disembodied spirits? The reference to the future drinking of wine is a sure indication that there will be a kingdom of God established upon earth before the final judgement.”  (McGrath:2011:536)

Early Christianity and Roman beliefs about reunion after death

The human longing for consolation in the face of death may be traced back to classical times. Perhaps the most distressing aspect of death is that of separation- being forcibly, and it mist seen irreversibly, cut off from close friends and relatives, never to see them again. Classical mourning rites and funeral ornaments point to the sense of desolation that traditionally accompanied the death of a significant other. The Hellenistic world had become accustomed to the Hades myth, which portrayed Charon as ferrying the dead across the river Styx to the underworld for the fee of one obolos– a silver coin worth a sixth of a drachma- which was placed in the mouth of a dead person for this purpose. Once on the other side, the dead person took part in a family reunion.

This basic belief undergirds two important works of the Roman philosopher Cicero (106-43 BC), the dialogue On Old Age and, perhaps more importantly, the final section of On the Republic known as “Scipio’s Dream”. In this latter work, Cicero portrays Scipio meeting prominent Roman citizens in paradise, who take advantage of the occasion to lecture him on political ethics. Yet the work takes on a new tone as Cicero describes Scipio’s reunion with his father: “I now saw my dead father, Paulus, approaching, and I burst into tears. My father put his arms around me and kissed me, urging me not to weep.”

This classic scenario of a family reunion in the world to come had a significant impact on the style ad subject-matter of the Christian writings of the era, even if they ultimately rested on rather different theological foundations. Cyprian of Carthage, a martyr-bishop of the third century, tried to encourage his fellow Christians in the face of suffering and death at times of persecution by holding before them a vision of heaven, in which they would see the martyrs and apostles, face to face. More than that- they would be reunited with those whom they loved and cherished. Heaven is here seen as the “native land” of Christians, from which they have been exiled during their time on earth. The hope of return to their native land, there to be reunited with those whom they knew and loved, was held out as a powerful consolation in times of trial and suffering.

‘We regard paradise as our native land [Patriam nostrum paradisum computamus] […] Many of our dear ones await us there, and a dense crowd of parents, brothers, children, is longing for us, already assured of their own safety, and still longing for our salvation. What gladness there will be for them and for us when we enter their presence and share their embrace!’

Cyprian himself was martyred for his faith in 258, presumably consoled by precisely the ideas with which he sought to console others.

The motif is also found in Ambrose of Milan’s funeral eulogy for the emperor Theodosius, who died in Milan in January 395. Theodosius had earlier had a serious altercation with Ambrose as a result of his decision in 390 to order the slaughter of seven thousand citizens of Thessalonica to avenge the murder of the Roman governor Butheric. Ambrose, having consulted with his fellow bishops, informed Theodosius that he must do severe public penance before being allowed again to receive the sacraments. Theodosius eventually stripped himself of every sign of royalty and publicly repented of his sin. In his funeral oration, Ambrose asked his listeners to imagine the scene in heaven, in which Theodosius embraces his wife Flaccila and his daughter Pulcheria, before being reunited with his father and his predecessor as a Christian Roman emperor, Constantine.” (McGrath:2007:446-7)

Augustine: two cities

One of the most influential reworkings of the corporate dimension of the eschatological ideas of the New Testament is that of Augustine of Hippo, found in his City of God. …For Augustine, the church shares in the fallen character of the world and therefore includes the pure and impure, saints and sinners. Only at the last day will this tension finally be resolved.

Yet alongside this corporate understanding of eschatology. Augustine shows an awareness of the individualist dimensions of the Christian hope. This is especially clear in his discussion of the tension between what human nature presently is and what it finally will be. Believers are saved, purified, and perfected- yet in hope (in spe) but not in reality (in re). Salvation is something that is inaugurated in the life of the believer, but which will only find its completion at the end of history. This idea was also developed by Martin Luther” (McGrath:2007:447-8)

Eschatology

“Three general positions are widely encountered within twentieth-century Christia discussion of the eschatology of the New Testament, as follows. It should be noted that it is the second of the three positions, here described as “inaugurated”, which commands the greatest support within New Testament scholarship.

1. Futurist: The kingdom of God is something which remains in the future, and will intervene disruptively in the midst of human history (Weiss).
2. Inaugurated: The kingdom of God has begun to exercise its influence within human history, although its full realization and fulfilment lie in the future.
3. Realized: The kingdom of God has already been realized in the coming of Jesus (Dodd).

The second development which we need to consider concerns a general collapse in confidence in human civilization as a means of bringing the kingdom of God to  fulfilment. The First World War was an especially traumatic episode in this respect. The Holocaust, the development of nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear war, and the continuing threat of the destruction of the environment through human exploitation of its resources, have all raised doubts concerning the credibility of the vision of liberal humanist forms of Christianity.” (McGrath:2007:451)

Rudolf Bultmann: the demythologization of eschatology

Bultmann’s controversial program of “demythologization” proved to be especially significant in relation to beliefs concerning the end of history. Bultmann argued that such beliefs were “myths” which required to be interpreted existentially. The New Testament relates “stories” concerning remote and inaccessible times and places (such as “in the beginning” or “in heaven”), and involving supernatural agents or events. Bultmann declares that these stories possess an underlying existential meaning, which can be perceived and appropriated by a suitable process of interpretation. …

Thus, in the case of the eschatological myth, the recognition that history has not, in fact, come to an end does not necessarily invalidate the myth: interpreted existentially, the “myth” refers to the here and now of human existence- the fact that human beings must face the reality of their own death, and are thus forced to make existential decisions. The “judgement” in question is not some future event of divine judgement, to take place at the end of the world, but the present event of our own judgement of ourselves, based upon our knowledge of what God has done in Christ….

Christ is not a past phenomenon, but the ever-present word of God, expressing not a general truth, but a concrete proclamation addressed to us, demanding an existential decision on our part. For Bultmann, the eschatological process became an event in the history of the world, and becomes an event once more in contemporary Christian proclamation.

But such approaches failed to satisfy many critics, who felt that Bultmann had abandoned too many of the central features of the Christian doctrine of hope. For example, Bultmann’s notion of eschatology is purely individualist; it is clear that the biblical notion is corporate.” (McGrath:2007:452-3)

Hell

Interest in hell reached a climax during the Middle Ages, with artists of the period taking, one assumes, a certain delight in portraying the righteous watching sinners being tormented by burning and other means of torture. Commenting on the enthusiasm with which certain Paris theologians wrote about hell, Erasmus of Rotterdam remarked that they had evidently been there themselves! The most graphic portrayal of the medieval view of hell is that of Dante, in the first of the three books of his Divine Comedy. Dante portrays hell as nine circles at the centre of the earth, within which Satan dwells. On the gate to hell, Dante notices the inscription “Abandon hope, all ye who enter here!”

The first circle of hell is populated by those who have died without being baptized, and by virtuous pagans (this circle corresponds to the idea of “limbo”). Dante declares that it is the circle that was visited by Christ during his “descent into hell” between the time of the crucifixion and the resurrection. There is no torment of any kind in this circle. As Dante advances further into hell, he discovers those who are guilty of increasingly serious sins. The second circle is populated by the lustful, the third by the gluttonous, the fourth by the miserly, and the fifth by the wrathful. These circles, taken together, constitute “upper hell”. At no point does Dante refer to fire in this part of hell. Dante then draws upon Greco-Roman mythology in suggesting that the River Styx divides “upper hell” from “lower hell.” Now we encounter fire for the first time. The sixth circle is populated by heretics, the seventh by the violent, the eighth by fraudsters (including several popes), and the ninth by traitors.

This static medieval view of hell was unquestionably of major influence at the time, and continues to be of importance into the modern period. It may be found clearly stated in Jonathan Edward’s famous sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”, preached on July 8, 1741:

‘It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of Almighty God for one moment; but you must suffer it for all eternity. There will be no end to this exquisiste horrible misery. […] You will know that you must wear out long ages, millions of millions of ages, in wrestling and conflicting with this almighty merciless vengeance.’

However, the very idea of hell has been subjected to increasing criticisms, of whch the following should be noted.

1. Its existence is seen as a contradiction of the Christian assertion of the final victory of God over evil. This criticism is especially associated with the patristic writers Origen, whose doctrine of universal restoration ultimately rests upon an affirmation of the final and total triumph of God over evil. In the modern period, the philosopher Leibniz identified this consideration as a major difficulty with the doctrine of hell:

‘It seems strange that, even in the great future of eternity, evil must triumph over good, under the supreme authority of the one who is the sovereign good. After all, there will be many who are called, and yet few who are chosen or saved.’” (McGrath:2007:457-8)

Purgatory

One of the major differences between Protestant and Catholic understandings of the “last things” relates to the question of purgatory. Purgatory is perhaps best understood as an intermediate stage, in which those who have died in a state of grace are given an opportunity to purge themselves of the guilt of their sins before finally entering heaven. The idea does not have explicit scriptural warrant, although a passage in 2 Maccabees 12:39-46 (regarded as apocryphal, and hence as lacking in authority, by Protestant writers) speaks of Judas Maccabeus making “propitiation for those who had died, in order that they might be released from their sin.”

The idea was developed during the patristic period. Clement of Alexandria and Origen both taught that these who had died without time to perform works of penance would be “purified through fire” in the next life. The practice of praying for the dead- which became widespread in the eastern church in the first four centuries- exercised a major impact upon theological development, and provides an excellent case study  of the manner in which liturgy influences theology. What was the point of praying for the dead, it was asked, if those prayers could not alter the state in which they existed? Similar views are found in Augustine, who taught the need for purification from the sins of present life, before entering the joys of the next.

While the practice of praying for the dead appears to have become well established by the fourth century, the explicit formulation of a nation of “purgatory” seems to date from two centuries later, in the writings of Gregory the Great (c.540-604). In his exposition of Matthew 12:32, dating from 593 or 594, Gregory picks up the idea of sins which can be forgiven “in the age to come.” He interprets this in terms of a future age in which sins that have not been forgiven on earth may be forgiven subsequently. Note especially the reference to the “purifying fire” (purgatorius ignis), which became incorporated into most medieval accounts of purgatory, and from which the term “purgatory” derives:

‘As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the final judgement, there is a purifying fire, for he who is the truth declares that “whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be pardoned either in this age, or in the age which is to come” (Matthew 12:32). From this statement, it is to be understood that certain offences can be forgiven in this age, whereas certain others will be forgiven in the age which is to come.’

The theme of a fire which purifies- as opposed to a fire which punishes- is developed further by Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510) in her Treatise on Purgatory, which probably dates from around the year 1490:

‘Because the souls in purgatory are without the guilt of sin, there is no obstacle between them and God except their pain, which holds them back so that they cannot reach perfection through this instinct. They can also see that this instinct is held back by a need for righteousness. For this reason, a fierce fire comes into being, which is like that of Hell, with the exception of guilt. This is what makes evil the wills of those who are condemned to Hell, on whom God does not bestow his goodness; they therefore remain in their evil wills, and opposed to the will of God.’

The idea of purgatory was rejected by the reformers during the sixteenth century. Two major lines of criticism were directed against it. First, it was held to lack any substantial scriptural foundations. Second, it was inconsistent with the doctrine of justification by faith, which declared that an individual could be put “right with God” through faith, thus establishing a relationship which obviated the need for purgatory. Having dispensed with the idea of purgatory, the reformers saw no pressing reason to retain the practice of prayer for the dead, which was henceforth omitted from Protestant liturgies. Both the concept of purgatory and the practice of praying for the dead continue to find acceptance within Catholicism.” (McGrath:2007:459-60)

Heaven

The Christian conception of heaven is essentially that of the eschatological realization of the presence and power of God, and the final elimination of sin. The most helpful way of considering it is to regard it as a consummation of the Christian doctrine of salvation, in which the presence, penalty, and power of sin have all been finally eliminated, and the total presence of God in individuals and the community of faith has been achieved.

It should be noted that the New Testament parables of heaven are strongly communal in nature; for example, heaven is portrayed as a banquet, as a wedding feast, or as a city- the new Jerusalem. Individualist interpretations of heaven or eternal life can also be argued to be inadequate, on account of the Christian understanding of God as Trinity. Eternal life is thus not a projection of an individual human existence, but is rather to be seen as sharing, with the redeemed community as a whole, in the community of a loving God.

The term “heaven” is used frequently in the Pauline writings of the New Testament. Although it is natural to think of heaven as a future entity. Paul’s thinking appears to embrace both a future reality and a spiritual sphere or realm which coexists with the material world of space and time. …

One of Paul’s most significant statements concerning heaven focuses on the notion of believers being “citizens of heaven” (Philippians 3:20) and in some way sharing in the life of heaven in the present. The tension between the “now” and the “not yet” is evident in Paul’s statements concerning heaven, making it very difficult to sustain the simple idea of heaven as something which will not come into being until the future, or which cannot be experienced in the present.

Particularly in the Greek-speaking church, speculation focused on the nature of the resurrection body. What kind of body would believers possess when they were finally raised from the dead? The emphasis on the millienium had diverted attention away from this question, in that it had focused on the physical restoration of believers in an earthly realm, in which they retained human bodies. Yet the focus now shifted to the resurrection itself, with Origen (c.185-254) soon being established as a leading thinker on this issue.

Origen found himself obliged to defend the doctrine of the resurrection against two rival teachings, each of which seemed to him to be perversions of the Christian faith. On the one hand, some writers had argued that the resurrection was simply a reconstitution of the human body, including all of its physical aspects and functions, on the last day. On the other, Gnostic critics of Christianity argued that anything material was evil, and this rejected any understanding of the resurrection which included reference to physical elements. For Origen, it was clear that the resurrection body was a purely spiritual entity. Instead of having physical aspects suitable to life on earth, the resurrection body is adapted to the spiritual life of heaven. In part, this reflected his Platonist presuppositions, most notably the Platonic doctrine of the immortality of the soul.

‘By the command of God the body which was earthly and animal will be replaced by a spiritual body, such as may be able to dwell in heaven; even on those who have been of lower worth, even of contemptible, almost negligible merit, the glory and worth of the body will be bestowed in proportion to the deserts of the life and soul of each.’

However, Origen also insisted that the resurrection body possessed the same “form” (Greek eidos) as the earthly body. The resurrection thus involved a spiritual transformation without loss of individual identity. However, the approach adopted by Origen seemed to many to involve the radical separation of body and soul. This dualism had its origins in Greek philosophy, rather than Scripture.

According to some of his later critics, Origen’s Platonism also shows itself in another aspect of his teaching concerning the resurrection body. In the sixth century, the Roman emperor Justinian criticized Origen for teaching that the resurrection body was spherical. In his dialogue Timaeus, Plato had argued that the sphere was the perfect shape, and it is thus possible that Origen may have included this belief in his teaching. However, there is no explicit mention of this notion in any of Origen’s known writings. …

Origen’s approach was also criticized by Augustine of Hippo, who interpreted Paul’s statements concerning the spiritual nature of the resurrection body in terms of submission to the Spirit, rather than a purely spiritual body.

So what does the resurrection body look like? What will people look like in heaven? If someone of the New Jerusalem looking like a 60-year-old? And if someone dies at the age of 10, will they appear as a child? This issue caused the spilling of much theological ink, especially during the Middle Ages. By the end of the thirteenth century, an emerging consensus can be discerned. As each person reaches their peak of perfection around the age of 30, they will be resurrected as they would have appeared at that time- even if they never lived to reach that age. The New Jerusalem will thus be populated by men and women as they would appear at the age of 30, but with every blemish removed. Since Christ was aged about thirty at the time of his death, this is to be regarded as a perfect age. …

Subsequent Christian discussion on the resurrection body has attempted to explore the tension between physical and spiritual approaches to the issue. It must be said, however, that the debate is widely regarded as speculative and pointless. Other debates which are also viewed in this light include the question of whether there are relative grades or ranks among those in heaven. The fifth-century writer Theodoret of Cyrrhus argued, that, since there were “many rooms in the Father’s house” (John 14:2), it followed that the relative status and privileges of those in heaven were determined by their achievements during their lives. This doctrine of “status by merit” was continued in the writings of Ambrose of Milan, and echoed in medieval theology.

At the time of the Reformation this doctrine came into disrepute, partly due to the Protestant dislike of the idea of “merit” in general. However, the notion of various degrees of blessedness seems to have lingered on in the Puritan devotional writings of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Thus, William Fulke (1539-89) recognized a variation in degrees of glory in heaven, but put this down to God’s gracious ordering of things, rather than any merits on the part of those specially favoured” (McGrath:2007:461-3)

Peter Lombardy on the Appearance of Humanity in Heaven

One of the questions that has greatly vexed Christian theologians concerns the age of those who are resurrected. If someone dies at the age of 10, will they appear as a child? This issue cased the spilling of much theological ink, especially during the Middle Ages. By the end of the thirteenth century, an emerging consensus can be discerned. As each person reaches their peak of perfection around the age of 30, they will be resurrected as they would have appeared at that time- even if they never lived to reach that age. Peter Lombard (c.1100-60) discusses the matter in a manner typical of his age: “A boy who dies immediately after being born will be resurrected in that form which he would have had if had lived to the age of thirty years’. The New Jerusalem will thus be populated by men and women as they would appear at the age of 30 (about the age, of course, at which Christ was crucified)- but with every blemish removed.

The question of the apparent age of the occupants of heaven was important beyond the theological community. For example, many medieval and Renaissance artists were asked to paint murals of heaven to decorate private chapels, cathedrals, and monasteries. How should they represent the saints in heaven? Peter Lombard’s answer proved highly influential. Since Christ was aged about 30 at the time of his death, this is to be regarded as a perfect age- and is hence the apparent age of those raised to glory in heaven.” (McGrath:2011:545-6)

Tertullian on Hell and Heaven

The Apologetics is one of Tertullian’s earliest writings, dating from around 197. In this passage Tertullian (c.160-c.225) offers both an explanation and defense of the Christian view of judgement and immortality in the face of criticisms made against it by some pagan writers.

‘And so we are also ridiculed because we proclaim that God is going to judge the world. Yet even the poets and philosophers place a judgement seat in the underworld. In the same way if we threaten Gehenna, which is a store of hidden underground fire for purposes of punishment, we are received with howls of derision. Yet they likewise have the river Pyriphlegethon in the place of the dead. And if we mention paradise, a place of divine delight appointed to receive the spirits of the saints, cut off from the knowledge of this everyday world by a kind of barrier consisting of that zone of fire [maceria quadum igneae illius zonae a notitia orbis communis segregatum], then the Elysian Fields have anticipated the faith in this respect. So how, I ask you, do these resemblances to our doctrines on the part of the philsophers or poets come about? They are just taken from our mysteries. And our mysteries, being earlier, are more trustworthy, and more to be believed that these mere copies! If they invented these mysteries subsequently out of their senses, then our mysteries would have to be reckoned as copies [imagines] of what came later. For the shadow never preceded the body, nor the copy before the truth [Nunquam enim corpus umbra aut veritatem imago praedecit].’” (McGrath:2011:537-8)

Writer’s Voice: So Logos is older as Elysian fields than Christianity by thousands of years. They are the copy in history, but are consubstantiated as the Logos in Genesis. See Isis and Holy Name of Ra regarding creation.

Therefore either Christianity is a copy or it is saying that Christ is the Logos and hence all pagan religions worship the same guy, they just don’t believe that he came on earth in divine-human form, which the Gnostics don’t either, or the Muslims. Either way it is the Logos that is the truth that counts the most.

John Scotus Eriugena on the Nature of Paradise

In this passage the Irish theologian John Scotus Eriugena (c.810-c.877) spiritualizes the notion of paradise, denying that it is a place. Unlike writers such as Augustine, who understood paradise as a specific location in place and time, Eriugena argues that paradise is in reality perfect human nature. A similar line of though can be found in writers such as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Maximus the Confessor.

‘[Therefore] the praise of the life of humanity in paradise must refer to the future life that would have been ours if Adam had remained obedient, rather than to the life which he had only just begun, and in which he did not continue. For if he had continued in it for even a brief period, he must have achieved some degree of perfection, and in that case perhaps his master would not have said, “He began to live [vivebat]” but “he lived [vixit]”, or “He had lived [vixerat].” However, if he had used the past or pluperfect tenses in this way, or if he used them like this somewhere else, I would have thought that he was using the past tense to refer to the future, rather than meaning that Adam had continued for a space of time in the blessedness of paradise before the Fall. My reason for doing so is that he was giving expression to the predestined and foreordained blessedness, which was to be ours if Adam had not sinned, as though it had already happened- when, as a matter of fact, it was still among the things which were predestined to be perfect in the future, and which have yet to take place. Now I say this because often when he is writing about paradise, he does not use the past and pluperfect tenses. […] This is not surprising, in that the most wise divine authority often speaks of the future as though it had already taken place.” (McGrath:2011:361)

Writer’s Voice: This is the Garden of Eden of esse, velle and posse  of being in Being that has already taken place and is not beyond Earth as well as being beyond Earth.

14: God’s Handbag – Ego and Manas – the Autodynamic and Homodynamic perspective – Merit and Grace

As we have seen above, there are various problems associated with the idea of Christ being a human and a God, that lead to various misunderstandings, the most disingenuous of which, to my mind, is the idea that some people are actually predestined to Hell by a God whose proof for his existence through faith relies on his bond of love, a love that cannot be imagined to be any greater than that which we can imagine it to be.

In order to explain the various discrepancies of time, tradition, thought, and perspective and hence experience I will have to outline the means by which these errors have slipped into our understanding of the Logos and Christ, and the purpose of being human in the first place. The best way to do this is firstly to prove that God did not have a handbag!

As we saw above, it was a Platonic idea of pre-existent matter from which God, as architect (a perspective of the free-masons and their Eleusinian mystery, known as The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn) took these pre-existent matter and turned it into the universe. This was never a mythological reality as we have seen with the tearing asunder of Osiris, Dionysus and Tiamat in the Egyptian, Greek, and Babylonian understanding of the Logos. This is of course the perspective of the hunter-gatherer cave-man that we have met through his experience of being-in-Wakan, where the entire universe was made of energy- space and time. As we saw Cronos, the Greek God of all the gods, meant time. This concept does not mean an experience of time, i.e. being-in-time, as we experience time, but Being-Time.

Time itself is a word, a language trap, that suggests a measurement of space, and space is a word, a language trap, that suggests a measurement of time, experienced as speed or time saved in the experience of measuring.

In other words Cronos is the primordial God that creates the gods that will create the Universe out of his Nature, whilst his wife Rhea turns it into different Natures or gods by which to make the Universe with, i.e. what today science would call gravity, the strong and weak forces, and magnetism, or the laws of thermodynamics, all the way up to psychology, where the magic of these gods Natures is turned into purely chemical processes that are born from this same physics and humanity is an automaton of stimuli without free-will or transcendence as a possibility, merely a psychosis.

As we have also seen above, the Catholic Church denies Plato’s idea of pre-existent matter and also agrees with the ancient hunter-gatherer perspective of wakan as the identity of the Logos, phrasing this understanding in the words, ‘ex nihilo’.

The problem is that it took four centuries for the Catholic Church to work this argument out, and by this time the understanding of the Nature of Christ had taken priority and had been established at Nicaea and Chalcedon, etc, etc.

The understanding of the nature of Christ therefore had to be maintained whilst the fight for ex nihilo or pre-existent matter was resolved. This has led to the massive problems that are cited above. These are:

1. Some of us must be predestined to Hell, for the idea of salvation by faith to work.
2. Christ can be both God and Human at the same time, but we cannot be.
3. The soul of each human is a separate thing from the beginning to the end of creation.
4. Heaven and God are separate from us in space and time, meaning they must have a location, that is not here, but is ‘there’, and will be achieved primarily by dying only, with other proviso’s added on of course, but still death must come before these proviso’s have any effect at all.
5. That the image of God is human rather than the image of human is God. This is a massive concept, which has arisen primarily from art, and iconography, depicting God in human form.
6. That everyone in the world of pure imagination called heaven will be 30 years old and no longer crippled, as long as they have met the proviso’s and weren’t predestined to hell.
7. That life on earth has no merit to it, because all good work is merely grace and salvation is merely faith.
8. That souls suffer in purgatory for a purpose- salvation- whilst those who suffer in Hell are merely being punished for eternity with no other purpose.

All of these misconceptions have arisen because of the idea that God had a hand-bag. By this I mean that God under the idea of pre-existent matter cannot be God, because of the statement referred to above, ‘If God is all powerful can he create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it’.

As we saw above, the Catholic church, under the influence of pre-existent matter chose to state that God took pre-existent matter and then formed the universe from it. This meant that God, did have omnipotence over this pre-existent matter, but as he formed it into the actual Universe, then he gave up his omnipotence to the established rules of thermodynamics, etc, and therefore the universe is to an extent a clock-work mechanism, still separate from God who looks down upon it- separate from it.

From this perspective God becomes a pure good, whilst evil becomes a part of the universe that God allows to exist for some reason, we don’t actually know that reason, that is a matter of faith, but we are assured that a part of the reason is so that Hell can house souls that made a mistake over a brief number of years of life or simply weren’t baptised before they died at birth, for eternity in divine all-loving-revenge, for having not chosen the right way. In other words God thought, ‘Oh look there is a bit of matter, I know, I’ll take my love and turn some of this matter into hell.’

Now the interesting thing about this idea is of course, that this all-loving God, is also all-knowing and perfect, so the next thing that this all-knowing God does is to take this pre-existent matter and create an Angel that will suddenly become the Devil, taking God by surprise at his lack of knowledge of the very Nature of the Angel whose Nature he gave it.

It may come as some surprise to Christians that their God didn’t know that the Angel Lucifer would become the Devil when their God is all-knowing as according to their own theology, but apparently this is the state of play. To extend this ironic argument a little further- It is lucky that the Devil did rebel and create Hell because God had apparently predestined some souls to it, and had overlooked actually creating this space and time- or location.

Now, of course, if Christ is human, then he was made of pre-existent matter, and is therefore older than God himself as he pre-existed before God did, and so did we, and God is the new-kid on the block for all of creation. Where God came from is beyond me, and the Bible it would seem, because it starts with God creating the Universe.

Of course God actually created the universe from light or the Logos, which today we would scientifically call, energy, which became matter, or wakan that became form through the trinity as per the entire religious understanding of the world up until this point.

By focusing upon the nature of Christ as human or God, and deciding that he was both human and god, Catholicism fell into a language trap that Greek philosophy provided but which mythology did not, that legends and history could not contain but were a part of the thrownness of the perspective of authority that contained them, portrayed par excellence in the imperial cult that Christianity had to usurp in order to usurp that authority for itself, as it managed to do.

Bonaventure on the Origin of Evil

The question of the nature and origin of sin and evil has played a major role in Christian theology. One of the classic answers to the problem of evil can be traced back to Augustine of Hippo. According to this view, evil is not a positive reality, existing in its own right. Rather, it is to be seen as an absence of goodness- a privation, or deprivation, of the good. This view is set out with particular clarity in the writings of Bonaventue of Bagnoregio (1221-74), the leading Franciscan theologian of the thirteenth century. Our extract is taken from his Breviloquium (“Brief Discourse”), written in Latin around the year 1257.

‘Having already established certain truths about the divine Trinity and the creation of the world, we now briefly touch on the corruption of sin. On this subject we must hold that sin is not any kind of essence but a defect and corruption [non est essential aliqua sed defectus et corruptela] by which the mode, species and order of the created will are corrupted. Hence the corruption of sin is opposed to good itself. It has no existence except in the good. It has no source other than the good which is the free choice of the will, and the will is neither completely evil (since it can wish good) nor completely good (since it can fall into evil).’

Bonaventure locates the original sin in the human creature’s tendency to focus on itself, rather than on God, its creator and sustainer. Since evil is an absence of goodness, evil itself cannot really be said to have a nature. Not can there be a “greatest evil” that exists as a principle in its own right, because this “greatest evil” would not be able to exist. There is thus no question of there being an evil equivalent of “the first principle”. Evil is not a reality in its own right, but a deprivation of the good. It is like a hole in a piece of paper- something that is noted by its absence, not its presence.” (McGrath:2011:181)

When God created the Angel who was to become Satan he named this Angel Lucifer meaning the light bearer or Morning star. This Angel is referred to in the Bible in 2 Peter 1:19, In this reference however it is Jesus rather than the Devil who is referred to as the ‘Morning star’ which arises in your heart:

“For he received honour and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.” 2 Peter 17-19.

Later on the title of Lucifer ‘the Morning Star’ which was supposed to rise in our hearts, was however applied to Satan by St.Jerome, and it is for this reason that we all still associate the word Lucifer with Satan today and not Christ.

A_ Put in quote from my grail book about the devil from Crowley here

Why God did not have a Hand-bag

The interesting thing about the argument for pre-existent matter is that it rests upon the misunderstanding of its premise, namely- ‘If God is all powerful can he create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it’.

This question is a paradox, in that if he can create such a rock he is no longer all-powerful- a state, as we saw that Catholicism ends up prescribing for God through

‘The process of creation is thus to be conceived more in terms of the imposition of ordering upon the world’ (ibid).

Conversely, if God cannot create such a rock, then he was never all powerful in the first place.

This method of understanding the world is what we would call logic- ‘if something is this, then it cannot be that’. It is either a zero or a one. It is good or evil. It is black or white, etc, etc.

But the interesting thing about logic is that it relies on a premise of perspective that is always fundamentally unable to see higher than its own perspective by which to formulate its statements, and therefore cannot ever be proof of anything, other than the perspective that formulates it in the first place. In other words it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we programme a computer it never makes a mistake, but that doesn’t mean that the programme is the best programme- the God programme.

What is interesting is that the question about God and the rock, and the statement, ‘if something is this it cannot be that’, are not logical statements of reason and theology, at all, they are Koans taken from the Buddhist and Taoist traditions. Traditions that we have seen, also hold the idea of a trinity that makes the universe, but traditions that did not come from the perspective of trying to make the trinity fit in which a man/god (Jesus) as their first priority.

So in the God-Rock question of Christianity that formed predestination and the above problems, we find the same question posited by these pagan religions, hundreds of years before Christ existed, and Plato for that matter. Their answer to this question however, was one that is ex nihilo and not Platonic. In other words it is an answer that Catholicism agrees with four centuries after it’s desperate Constantine driven questions about the Nature of Christ under the thrownness of an imperial Cult, where its leader is himself a God as well as his mother, father and ancestors.

The first thing that needs to be said about the Koan itself is that it is not a question that logic can answer. It is in fact, purposely a question that logic cannot answer, because the entire purpose of the question is to get the recipient of the koan to break down the perspective that they are currently holding on to and see the concept of the World from a different perspective.

In this light a koan is not given to a Buddhist student until many many years of meditation by which to prepare his mind to receive the power of the koan itself. It is then to be meditated upon until the answer is realised, at which point the recipient is enlightened, by this new perspective.

It is this perspective that I am now going to attempt to provide to the reader, as best as I can in order to elucidate the actual Nature of Christ, of ourselves, and the Universe, and God, that will then answer the questions above regarding faith, merit, grace, heaven, hell, sin, purgatory, etc, etc, purely by this realisation. Obviously this being said, I must ask for some lenience from the reader, in that I am trying to very briefly outline a comprehension that takes years and years of meditation to experience as a real perspective by which to view the world. It is a life-changing experience if you can achieve such a permanent perspective and experience of the world, and I am going to attempt such an experience of perspective change within this chapter for the reader. Only the readers meditation upon these concepts can facilitate a permanent change of perspective, but I will try to make my words facilitate a temporary ability to perceive this perspective and from this perspective re-evaluate the problems of hell, purgatory, predestination, grace, merit and faith, etc from this perspective. I believe that it can explain them all through the understanding of the bond of love, that is the Augustinian perspective of God’s essential Nature.

I also believe that I am about to attempt the impossible in doing this and that is why I ask for leniency from the reader, because a lot of work in understanding my words will have to come from your own thought processes.

Before I begin then, I will raise the incentive bar for doing this. This perspective change is an essential one in regards to the second section of the book, and the possible solution for the worlds problems. It is not a small theological point. As we saw with the idea of predestination and how this has come to form the work-ethic and the Christian wealth of America that is causing more global warming and mental and physical illness than at any time in history for its proponents and its obliged global servants.

What then is the correct answer to the God-rock paradox, that will end the paradox and make sense and reveal a new perspective by which to view the world. A perspective that suddenly makes sense of infant mortality, original sin, grace and merit, heaven and hell, etc, as defined by the early church fathers.

The answer is simply this: God is the rock

This is an ex nihilo understanding of God, by which he does not have pre-existent matter to form the universe from but forms the universe from his own Natures, as did Cronos, and Ra, and Brahma, Dionysus, Osiris, etc, etc.

By this understanding we can see that God is the rock because when did God become separate from the rock he was creating from himself. It is like taking a pot of ink and pouring it onto a page and then writing the work rock in that ink, and then denying that the word rock is also ink at the same time, by its Nature. Or denying that the ink is also the word rock but only ink. ‘If something is this it cannot be that’.

The language trap that forms our perspective and the perspective that form our language trap of ‘this or that’ defines our perspective, our consequent actions, and our consequent experience. This we call the truth- or reality- but is a simple self-fulfilling prophecy that can only be changed by the force of will or by the force of Nature.

What I mean by this is that if one believes that one is the brilliant and deserving of one’s wealth, then only a force of willed perspective change towards a different perspective of how to value oneself can change this self-fulfilling prophecy, or otherwise an act of Nature by which one’s wealth is wiped out, and you are left feeling that one does not deserve one’s poverty. Or a more religiously minded example, to believe that you are saved whilst others are hell bound, and that one’s God is all loving can only  a force of willed perspective change towards the Nature of Love and hence God or otherwise an act of Nature such as an infant born to you that dies before baptism to leave a feeling of a decided lack of Love from God, that is deficient to your own. Which reasonably means that your God is not God but a diminished understanding of him, by definition of God.

If God is the rock, if God is this and that at all times, and it is merely a perspective of the soul that believes in-itself, as a separate entity, and forms language around this separate perspective, then we can clearly see that it is the perspective of the questioner that relies upon the answer given and its correctness in their personal worlding. But we can also clearly see that no matter this perspective it is a part of the perspective of God as this is God and that is God. This is their world and that is a part of what makes up the World.

To explain this more clearly it is helpful to name the two perspectives by which we see the world. These we have already met. They are ego and manas.

From the perspective of the ego a rock is a rock is a rock, but from the perspective of manas it is God and so is the perceiver of the rock and the air between it and the space and time that came before and after it, etc, etc, as aspects of God that can be described in linear space and time concepts by the words I have just used but which do not detract from this ultimate reality- the God perspective.

Therefore if I begin an allegorical journey as say a ‘prodigal son’ I begin my existence as a being-in-Being with my Father- God- but leave this perspective and descend into an egoic perspective where I will see the world as my possession and take from it what I will for myself. However as I experience the repercussions of these egoic experiences I witness the lack and the bad karma that comes from them, and decide to take the path back home, in my spiritual poverty. This turning back home can be seen as merit, the willed decision to turn back home. But it can also be seen as God, for all of the lessons experienced by the ego were God sent in order to teach wisdom through suffering. This is the perspective of Manas, of grace as a free gift that is constantly given to us by God. For Augustine it was heresy to speak of merit because it is an egoic perspective that denies the awe of God’s grace, whilst for Pelasgius who wished to get back to God, merit, was the vehicle par excellence by which to do so.

It is this paradox that leads to the idea of purgatory in which the merit of having willing chosen the path back to God in life on earth, means that you exist in Hell being burnt in the same fires of transformation but that you are going to be taken to heaven by this merit and not simply remain there forever for no purpose.

A_ Show the quotes re purgatory and merit

But this understanding of purgatory is born from Augustine’s idea of pre-existent matter and its logical corollary of predestination

We have just discovered however that all mankind up until Augustine believed in the wakan version of the ex nihilo God that Catholicism would later accept.

Under this understanding Hell is a part of God just as much as is the devil, Adam and Eve, you and me, Heaven and Purgatory. Is it possible that God has created Hell for parts of him to burn in for eternity without ever rejoining the Godhead. Is it possible that God can create a Hell so hot that he cannot touch it? No, because God is the rock, is the fire, is the heat, because all things are God, not from God, but are God. If that is not true then God is not all-powerful because he didn’t create Hell from himself but was predestined to create whatever he created by the pre-existent nature of this pre-existent matter. A matter that also does not exist within the concept of God as the Trinity. I refer you to the above mathematical exegesis of the Nature of God, by which matter, space and time, is brought into existence, as per Crowley’s definition, from nothing, meaning ex nihilo, or infinite potential.

Today mathematicians are split by this very same perspective shift between ego and manas in regards to the understanding of the language trap word- infinite. Some mathematicians believe that numbers are infinite. They cite the infinite hotel model by which they allegorise this understanding. In the infinite hotel any number of people can check in at any time and there will be a room for them, even if it is an infinite amount of people that check in and the hotel already has an infinite number of residents! Whilst on the other hand some mathematicians believe that there is a finite number of numbers and after reaching that number you will start again at one. So an infinite number of oranges plus one is not possible, they believe in an infinite number of oranges being counted that will suddenly make the next orange number one in the count! These are logical conclusions from mathematical perspectives that are all false due to the finite nature of numbers by which to describe either inner or outer world as perceived through the ego and not through manas, whereupon the idea of infinite becomes the reality of infinite potential- i.e. the infinite hotel, or finite potential i.e. the finite oranges. Both answers are right and wrong, until the perspective change shows number to be the perspective trap of the separation of the one into the infinite, of God into oranges an hotel rooms, zeroes and ones, this and that.

The Nature of Christ as human and God, God and human, or Mary giving birth to God and of God suffering, therefore all become language games set by these language traps, that only make sense from an egoic perspective.

If we take the allegorical story of the prodigal son and graft it onto the life of Christ in order to illustrate the sense of this perspective through that life, and reflect this against the nonsense of the homoousian perspective then this should help to bridge the gap that this paradoxical koan is supposed to achieve.

If God is Mary, and the Angel Gabriel, and Jesus, at all times through the story, then we can safely say that Jesus is the son of God and the son of man as defined by the early church fathers and the context in which they lived and wrote in, as we saw above, and which were the language game that they were using when speaking, and that Jesus used when speaking to the disciples that recorded these gospels from which the early church fathers betook their concept of God and Christ.

Christ’s temptation in the desert by the devil, makes no sense if Christ can experience himself as God in his incarnate body, and neither does the baptism by john the Baptist where the dove of the holy spirit descended upon Christ, nor does the wedding at Canaan, and most importantly nor does the denial of taking upon the cross of crucifixion in the Garden of Gethsemane, which Christ does three times. I can not think of a worse God/Person to worship than a Christ who knows that he is the Logos, the Son of God, and that he has the opportunity to save all of the souls of human-kind for a mere three hours on a crucifix (far worse fates have befallen many many people before and after him than this- see the fate of Sparticus and his people for instance, and what was their godly reward) and yet denies it three times. What a bastard, and what a lack of love. I personally would do that in an instant, without knowing that I was the Logos, without performing miracles, without raising the very dead from their graves, without walking on water. Just the sight of the saints sent to Christ at the Garden of Gethsemane would have been enough. Am I greater than Christ? No, and so either Christ did not know that he was God in the Garden of Gethsemane but had enough faith to still believe and act from that perspective or Christ is not very loving and a bit of a coward to boot.

Clement of Alexandria on the Results of Baptism

Clement here develops a strongly physical and realistic understanding of the effects of baptism. Note especially the emphasis upon “enlightenment” (phōtisma).

‘Being baptized, we are enlightened: being enlightened, we are adopted as sons: being adopted, we are made perfect; being made complete, we are made immortal. The Scriptures says “I said, You are gods, and are all sons of the Highest” (Psalm 28:6). This operation has many names; gift of grace, enlightenment, perfection, and washing (charisma kai phōtisma kai teleion kai loutron). Washing, by which we are cleansed from the filth of our sins; gift of grace, by which the penalties of our sins are cancelled; enlightenment, through which that holy light which saves us is perceived, that is, by which our eyes are made alert to see the divine; perfection means the lack of nothing, for what is still lacking to anyone who has the knowledge of God?’” (McGrath:2011:456)

If however we take the perspective of ego and manas, then suddenly Christ’s life becomes one where he becomes the Logos by his sacrifice of his ego, as he is crucified. His temptation in the desert is to an egoic Christ who is learning the lessons of life on earth, the temptations of worldly pleasures and power, against the soul calling or conscience, that living according to God’s will is the best way to live. After this trial of the ego and meditation and prayer, Christ is ready to act and experience the baptism of God’s grace, in the form of the Dove.

This is a revelation which allows the ego to perceive the manas perspective for the first time, and leads to further revelations whereby the nature of the egoic soul becomes fermented by life and turns into wisdom, a wisdom that defines the way to continue to exist on earth under God’s will and not one’s own. When this wisdom has become a part of the spirit of the soul, then the chemical wedding at Canaan becomes an allegorical story for this process, as it was for all time, before hand, as we have seen. From this wedding Christ goes out to teach and is able to perform further miracles.

Whether or not one wishes to see these miracles as real or allegorical or esoteric, does not matter at present (and will be explored in my next book), what matters is that upon receipt of this perspective change whereupon the wilful choice of Christ to go into the wilderness, to return to the path and enter the river of salvation, would have been perceived by Christ as merit for his wilful ego perspective actions- karma- and that by maintaining the actions and perspective through work and prayer and behaviour to others, etc, at the wedding at Canaan, this perspective is changed to perceiving all of these merits as grace. It was grace that sent the devil to tempt him, grace that sent the dove, grace that caused the marriage. But it was a grace that was always present, always given to those who merited it. Merit is the free-will to choose God, over the fearful hope of the down-trodden who just before the hammer falls, turn to God and ask for something for themselves, in return for which they will then turn to God if he does but this one thing for them.

In reality grace is Augustine’s definition of grace, it is constantly given and free. Your body is a gift of grace, as are the laws of thermodynamics, and the universe. Your family is an act of grace, you health, your lack of health, all are an act of grace. But from an egoic perspective, it is hard work upon oneself that has merited the wife/husband and family that you have created, not grace, or at least not just grace. If you hadn’t been loyal and worked at your relationship then none of this could exist. Both are right, but if it this right than it cannot be that right. This is the paradox of the ego and manas perspective that the koan attempts to get beyond.

When Christ was being crucified and humiliated, and forgave those who acted from an egoic perspective, because they knew not what they did, this was when he became the Logos and no longer the ego. This ultimate allegory of sacrifice was the wilful acceptance of God’s will, due to God’s wisdom being far greater than the ego’s. Christ became the Logos when he stopped perceiving the ego, and the last egoic drip was transformed in the fire in Gethsemane when he accepted God’s will.

In reality, from God’s perspective he never stopped being the Logos, but then again nor does anything, as the Logos is the common reason that pervades the entire universe- energy- wakan. We can be fed on manna from heaven in the desert or wilderness of the ego and its temptations or worship a false calf.

We, just as Christ, can be sons of man- egoic perspective- or sons of God- manas perspective. Christ was never to be thought of as a bit human and a bit God or any other variant of this because God was never to perceived of as being separate. This, as we have seen is a phylogenic repercussion of priests and their creation of civilization through the unity of spirit that is created by naming some as saved and others as not, and hence the right to kill others in a hierarchy of power and authority.

By understanding that the Nature of God and the Nature of Humans are the same nature but seen through a God or human perspective then we can see that to ask if God suffered upon the cross or came out of Mary’s womb, in the form of a human, is nonsensical, no matter how logical it may once have seemed to do so. God suffers only as much as the human who bears the suffering suffers, he is not separate from it, he is it and the sufferer. So he does suffer from one perspective and doesn’t from another, just as water flows in a river but is not the river but the river is the water through which the river flows. It is not the drop that becomes the ocean but the ocean that becomes the drop. I told you that years of meditation are required to understand this experientially.

What this also means is that the egoic drops that make up this ocean, God, are by their essence, a part of that ocean, but they perceive themselves to be entities in their own right, and deny the perspective of being a part of something bigger. This is symbolised by the story of the fish who hear the tale of a thing called water. They go to a wise old fish and ask him how to find it. He tells them that is all around them, but they do not understand because they have no experience of ‘not-water’ by which to differentiate their perspective. Or to put it another way, can an angel not believe in God? No, because he is in sight of God at all times. Humans have the ability of free-will to choose to experience God or not, because we ate of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil, of choosing God or not, that sent us out of this perspective and into the perspective of the ego, the perspective of desire, the possesses the world and calls it one’s own, by marking our territory with a piss-drop like animals, in an ocean of piss-drops called warfare and institutionalised religions.

We see this to be true in the very concept of the word Catholic and its change in meaning from Universal as a perspective to that of a territory and phylogenic separation from this perspective as Constantine gets hold of Christianity:

Catholic

The term “catholic” derives from the Greek phrase kath’ holou (“referring the whole”). The Greek words subsequently morphed into the Latin word catholicus, which came to have the meaning “universal or general.” …

At no point does the New Testament use the term “catholic” to refer to the church as a whole. The New Testament uses the term ekklesia to refer to local churches or worshipping communities, which it nevertheless understands to represent or embody something which transcends that local body. While an individual church is not the church in its totality, it nevertheless shares in that totality. It is this notion of “totality” which is subsequently encapsulated in the term “catholic.” The term is introduced in later centuries, in an attempt to bring together central New Testament insights and attach them to a single term. The first known use of the phrase “the catholic church” occurs in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, who was martyred at Rome around 110: “Where Christ is, there is also the catholic church.” Other writings of the second century use the term to refer to the existence of a universal church alongside local congregations.

The meaning of the term changed fundamentally with the conversion of Constantine. By the end of the fourth century, the term ecclesia catholica (“the catholic church”) had come to mean “the imperial church”- that is, the only legal religion within the Roman Empire. Other forms of belief, including Christian beliefs that diverged from the mainstream, were declared to be illegal.

Further expansion of the church in this period contributed to a developing understanding of the term “catholic”. By the beginning of the fifth century, Christianity was firmly established throughout the entire Mediterranean world. In response to this development, the term “catholic” came to be interpreted as “embracing the entire world.”

In terms of its early development, the term “catholic” as applied to the church thus went through three stages of meaning:

1. A universal and all-embracing church, which underlies and undergirds individual local churches. In this sense, the term is descriptive and nonpolemical, pointing to the fact that a local church was the representative of the universal church. There is an obvious correlation here between the notions of “unity” and “catholicity.
2. A church which extends throughout the world. In the first phase of the Christian church, this interpretation of the term would have been implausible, given the localized character of Christianity. However, the strongly missionary character of Christianity (linked… with the idea of “apostolicity”) led to the expansion of the church throughout the civilized world of the Mediterranean. The term thus came to possess a geographical reference, originally absent.

The developed sense of the word is perhaps best seen in the fourth-century catechetical writings of Cyril of Jerusalem. In his eighteenth catechetical lecture, Cyril teases out a number of senses of the Greek word katholikos:

‘The church is thus called “catholic” because it is spread throughout the entire  inhabited world [oikoumene], from one end to the other, and because it teaches in its totality [katholikos] and without leaving anything out every doctrine which people need to know relating to things visible and invisible, whether in heaven and earth. It is also called “catholic” because it brings to obedience every sort of person- whether rulers or their subjects, the educated and the unlearned. It also makes available a universal [katholikos] remedy and cure to every kind of sin.’” (McGrath:2007:395-6)

“Why, many wonder, do Christians not simply see Jesus of Nazareth as a good religious teacher, and avoid the apparently complicated and puzzling ideas that are traditionally associated with the doctrine of the incarnation? The answer lies in the long tradition of Christians wrestling with the foundational events of their faith, as they are set out and analyzed in the New Testament. It has proved much easier to identify inadequate ways of speaking and thinking about Jesus than to do justice to his words and ways.

So which ways of conceiving Jesus of Nazareth is most faithful to the New Testament? Which way of picturing him seems best adapted to enfold the complex witness of the New Testament to his impact on people? As the church wrestled with the question of the identity and significance of Jesus of Nazareth, it realized that it had to experiment with a variety of models of understanding Jesus. Slowly and painfully, it would have to focus down on what seemed to be the best way of visualizing his significance, or placing him on the complex map charting the relationship of humanity and divinity. We thus find the church in the first four centuries exploring just about every possibility, trying to establish its strengths and weaknesses. …

There was no doubt in the mind of any of the gospel writers, or any of the first Christian witnesses to Jesus of Nazareth, that he was a human being. But they were compelled to draw the conclusion that he was more than that. For example, Jesus offered access to God, both by making God known and making God available. As part of their discipleship of the mind, Christians had to learn to “think of Jesus Christ as of God” (to quote the second Letter of Clement, a late first-century Christian writing which was greatly valued by the early church). But how was this to be expressed? How could the biblical witness to the identity and impact of Jesus be crystallized into verbal formulas?

By the end of the fourth century, the church had made up its collective mind, and decided that the only acceptable way of describing Jesus of Nazareth was using what was to come to be known as the “two natures” formula- namely, that Jesus is “truly divine and truly human”. This is often referred to as the “Chalcedonian definition”, as it was fully set out by the Council of Chalcedon in 451.” (McGrath:2007:265-6)

“Already for a century and more the Church, and particularly the Eastern Church, had been deeply divided on the question of the nature- or natures- of Christ. Did he possess two separate natures, the human and the divine? Or only one? And if only one, which was it? The leading exponent of the dual nature was Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, who had been consequently deposed in 431 by the Council of Ephesus. It was possible, on the other hand, to go too far in the opposite direction; such was the mistake of Eutyches, who held that Christ had only one nature, the human nature being absorbed in the divine. This theory, known as the monophysite, was equally unacceptable to Nestorius’s third successor, Bishop Flavian. Found guilty of heresy, condemned and degraded, Eutyches appealed to Pope Leo, to the Emperor Theodosius and to the monks of Constantinople, and in so doing unleashed a whirlwind of almost unimaginable ferocity. For three years the Church was in uproar, with councils summoned and discredited, bishops unseated and restored; with intrigues and conspiracies violence and vituperation, curses and anathemas thundering between Rome and Constantinople, Ephesus and Alexandria. In the course of all this, Pope Leo sent to Flavian a copy of his celebrated Tome, which, he believed, established once and for all the doctrine that Christ possessed two natures coexisting. Its findings were upheld in 451 by the Council of Chalcedon, at which the papal delegates presided and which condemned monophysitism in all its forms. The doctrine of the dual nature has remained ever since an integral part of orthodox Christian dogma” (Norwich:2011:21-2)

The perspective change of the Catholic church towards a more Roman perspective and Greek language lent itself to the ending of a perspective that until that time had existed within the experience of the early church fathers, that we have seen above, that is the idea of inherited sin, collective guilt and of the millennium. By explaining the perspective from which these concepts came about, and juxtaposing them against the reasons why they failed to continue to be church teachings, or, as in the case of purgatory, and hell, continue to be church canon but are kept quiet because they cannot be heard, in our modern day perspective, to be believed to be actual places in space and time, we can highlight this change in perspective and see the perspective that defeated it come to pass, as well as the reasons for this happening. This is no small claim but I feel confidant that this is possible, once again staying within the school of Christian thought and doctrine, with only a tad of previously held beliefs about these concepts as taught in the Eleusinian mysteries to back up my claim, as we have previously done, so far.

From this perspective it is possible to explain such realities as crippled children, retarded people, natural accidents, and to explain the lie of predestination, the nature of hell, purgatory and heaven, without ending up with a load of thirty year old ex-cripples, ex-retards, ex-victims, in heaven, and un-acceptable souls in hell, whilst giving purpose to life other than the simple act of baptism, by which action one is bound to end up in heaven. A perspective that I like to refer to as the shotgun perspective of theology.

15: The shotgun prayer of salvation – the ultimate plenary indulgence

Under the terms of Christian theology at present, one need only be baptised in order to be saved. As the only point in life is to be saved, and therefore to be baptised, it is logical to propose a theological plan of attack that makes utter sense but which is utterly horrendous to contemplate. If some of us are predestined to not be saved, then surely it makes sense for a hell-bound to be given a shotgun and team up with a priest. This salvationary team then go into maternity wards and baptise and then shoot babies as they are born. We have already seen that infant baptism was both condoned and disdained by the early church fathers, but was an important issue when it came to getting to heaven and infant deaths. This became such an important issue in medieval times that midwives were given the power to baptise infants who they believed might not live long enough for the priest to be summoned, and was so hated by the misogynistic priest-hood that it gave birth to the witch-hunts of that period as we shall see later. So it is a relevant theology to consider.

If you are a loving parent, why risk having you son or daughter live to make a mistake now that they have been baptised? Surely it is kinder and wiser to send them off to heaven and know them there for eternity? And surely if the only reason for our existence is original sin, then it makes double sense, because if we kill all the baptised babies, then there can be no more children born to this dreadful punishment and so the punishment itself will end and we will all be with God, apart of course from the shotgun wielding murderer, but he/she was never supposed to be in heaven anyway. The fact that my definition of heaven does not include the knowledge that someone-else is burning for ever in hell, does not need to bother us here, but it may still bother others, especially when it comes to the old God is all-loving argument once again.

The problem with a Christ-God is that he died for our sins, I believe that, and so now life itself becomes pointless. It never was before Christ, there was a little matter of self-perfection as defined by the Greeks, and a little matter of all being one-soul- wakan- as an experience here on earth throughout life.

As we have seen above, this heaven on earth- known as the millennium- was believed in by the early church fathers- but it cannot come into existence under the belief that Christ was a God and that we are forever separate from that as mere humans who might end up near God- albeit in a mansion- whilst others, who obviously don’t believe will end up in hell, even though this human-God came to save all of us. How can a millennium appear when we believe that it is separate from us in a different location, as we saw Maccabeus promulgate in order to cohere a load of ‘us’ together to kill ‘them’ a few hundred years earlier? How can a millennium appear when we believe that we are separate from each other as individual souls, when we are Wakan- the Logos- Christ- the universe-in-itself by our being-in-Being-God?

Or to come at it from another angle, what is the collective aspect of original sin, that the early church fathers believed in, as we saw above, but that is no hold on the individual soul that can look out for its own salvation, now that Christ has revealed this singularity by being manifest in an individual body, as we ontologically experience ourselves from an egoistic, legalistic, architectural and artistically portrayed technique under a Roman hierarchical experience of self-perfection as defined by the Greeks under the art of Homer’s Illiad, and no longer under the collective soul experience of the Dionysian chorus, or the hunter-gatherer clan and phratry system of unity, that manifested a garden of Eden or Millennium for millennia, in reality, now that Christ sees us individually?

All for One and One for All – Lack of Non-Inherent Existence – Reality

To understand these concepts it is easiest to begin in Hell, and work onesway out of it, through earthly existence and up, through purgatory, to heaven in such a manner that does not contradict Catholic canon, but enhances it, through the medium of understanding Christ to be the Son of God, as we all can be, as was the original meaning of that phrase as used by Christ himself, and as understood by his disciples and the gnostics, as we shall see.

The technique that I will use to begin this journey is to introduce three new words to your vocabulary by which to perceive the world. These are: Homodynamic;  Heterodynamic and Autodynamic.

Fortunately we are all, in the western world, trained today to think in an Autodynamic way, and so, because we think, perceive, experience, and act in this concept of being already, it is easy to understand the contra-distinct word homodynamic by its direct opposite, whilst, heterodynamic is somewhere in the middle. In the next chapter on the Medieval world, we will see in great detail just how and why the Catholic Church began to promulgate an autodynamic perspective upon the worlding of the World, and we will then see this perspective form that of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason, in which we currently live under the guise of post-modernism, that claims to have escaped these prison concepts and to be deconstructing them as we speak. For now, it is enough to hold these conceptual tools in your head as lenses through which to look at our current subject. I merely promise further elucidation in order to illicit this practice from you more easily.

To briefly describe the homodynamic perspective of the world, is to merely to tell you to remember the world of the hunter-gatherer that was described previously before the concept of sibs- families- came to mean a settled group of people linked by blood. Homodynamic means collective action, as in homogeneous spirit, where as we saw for thousands of years, the hunter-gatherer existed homodynamically under a phrartry system that truly was universal. We saw this way of life end at the beginning of settling and this caused a shift in dynamism to a Heterodynamic model,  meaning literally, other-action, which we referred to as being-for-others, where the sibs or family ancestral unit came to be the modus operandi of the concept of self, and this led to civilization that begins to hierarchisize this heterodynamic group of villages and tribes into an autodynamic mode of behaviour and self-concept, by individualising these greater families or sibs, and turning them towards becoming individual subjects of the state.

Autodynamic means literally self-action. To be autodynamic means to act for ones self- the ego as driver of behaviour, i.e. desire. To be heterodynamic means to act for others within your sib, to be homodynamic means to act for all things- i.e. the manas as driver of behaviour, i.e. sacrifice, which in autodynamic terms we would call sacrifice and experience it as a loss, whilst in homodynamic terms, as we have seen, sacrifice means an alimental communion with this all, described as wakan.

The experience of these wilfully chosen perspectives are surely the most disparate motivators for behaviour that can exist and as we actually experienced when leaving the homodynamic hunter-gatherer perspective to the heterodynamic settler perspective of the last 15,000 years up until Civilization, where the techniques of esteem, art, and the law, alimentally commune with the perspective of the individual, that so serves those in authority for each civilization to curb the desire of its pyramid of egos, that it creates and nourishes, by these very mechanisms of control.

From the homodynamic perspective, as we saw, the collective group of the ‘all’ was not just the human beings in the phratry but the entire animal kingdom, Earth, and Universe, or should I say the original meaning of the word Catholic as defined above. A perspective that- as we therefore can now say as proven- that would result in a Millennium as predicted by this same Catholic perspective, because it has actually previously been lived, or dwelled in, for thousands of years.

To understand the depths of this perspective is not an easy thing to do at all, after a life-time of walking the opposite pathein. To understand this further I would like to talk about the eastern religious concept of homodynamic perspectives in regards to their linguistic trap terminology- ‘non-inherent existence’.

A_ Put in quote about it from Govinda or Gyatso. Then cite facts about hinayana Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism in relation to saving oneself or all.

From the heterodynamic perspective, as we saw, the power of the collective group of the ‘other’, suddenly change to mean a means of power over the other, by which to empower ones self- ones autodynamic behaviour- and this led to the birth of the emperors new clothes, authority, institutionalised religion, civilization, and war- not the millennium, surprise, surprise, for the next 5,000 years up until to the present day and individual human rights, surprise, surprise.

We have already seen above, that the Roman way of life was a mere veneer of baths, aqueducts, bread, and circuses upon the actual way of life of the people of the Roman empire and their rivals, and we will see this way of life and perspective in greater detail in the next chapter as we witness the demise of the heterodynamic perspective and the rise of autodynamic one, but for now it must be stated that the majority of experience amongst the population of the world at this time would not have been the Greek-Roman one but that of the sibs settler heterodynamic perspective with barely a few towns and cities by which to promote the autodynamic ‘market place’ mentality that it produces.

With these two truths in mind about how the early church fathers would have experienced, thought, and hence wrote what they did about collective sin and guilt and heaven on earth and hell and purgatory, it is therefore necessary to look through this heterodynamic lense and translate their words coterminously with the homodynamic perspective that came before it. By doing so we may more clearly understand the theology behind their words.

To begin with let us descend into the depths of hell and see if we can find some reason for its existence.

Hell – It burns burns burns – leds add some fuel to the fire

What does hell burn? Souls, but what is a soul? As we saw previously, the concept of the soul was preformed before any religion or group gathered together to formulate a religion. And, as we saw, a soul was a part of wakan. So a soul is not an autodynamic entity whose actions in this world have no repercussions on others, it is a homodynamic entity whose actions in this world are based upon their repercussions on all things.  That,‘all’- ultimately, for the basement of judgement of what is right and wrong to ‘do’-, was God. Another way of putting it would be to say, that the energy or spirit of mankind- symbolised by Adam is particular natures of that spirit of wakan mixed together, like different coloured earths, and known as a human soul autodynamically, and the human soul homodynamically, or our collective soul, heterodynamically or corporately, as we saw the term Catholic come to mean after Constantine had got his hands on it, and turned it to his benefit i.e. the heterodynamic corporation of the Roman Empire.

But a homodynamic soul does not cease to act upon the soul of humanity, or the universe once it is dead. We saw, in the hunter-gatherer world, the idea of the altjira, the ancestor spirit that was a part of one’s clan soul, and phratry soul, transcending even this human aspect to be also considered to be a part of the ninurga and of wakan all at the same time and all at the same space, as an illustrative word of this perspective and experience of soul. We also saw this in the naming of Adam as a race, and Abraham, and Moses, in the Old Testament, and the adoption of names by sibs to become a homodynamic whole as an experience, as the Worlding became more heterodynamic and the name of an other group became the predominant form of self-concept. What it is important to realise is that the experience of these perspectives is that of being more other than self, more group soul than individual soul, more all soul than human soul, because of the reasonable truth of the lack of inherent existence that pervades the universe in quite a common fashion, as described above. This feeling is one that evades the linear concept of space and time that we will see, in the next chapter, become the most pervasive concept of time by which to frame one’s world.

From this perspective one exists in the super-state that is conclusive of all space and time. One’s existence pervades the soul of one’s children, one’s grandchildren, and on and on, whilst it also is a part of the continuum of existence that came before it and always was so. Time itself is contained, Cronos is defeated here, for all of the infinite play of the universe has been played out in an instant from the perspective of wakan, where all time is experienced without time and without space in a collective experience of All-Experience-itself, as the experience of wakan coming into material existence and then returning to its original state yet changed by the journey of existence, knowing itself on a deeper level of knowing in a homodynamic experience of love.

This space/time-void-all-experience is described as God, by mystics of monotheistic religions and as enlightenment, or liberation, by eastern religions, but it is the same thing, with infinite descriptions of its all-experienced and infinite nature of infinite potential. For example to look at the eastern terminology of this experience of describing the all-experience that is perceived upon full inner and outer world transformation of perspective to a homodynamic one, upon realisation of the truth of the koan we have discussed above, whereupon, as with Christ the ego transcends its autodynamic and heterdynamic perspectives and becomes homodynamic in its fullest sense and experiences the World from this perspective and receives the Logos, without the veil, or one sits naked in the tabernacle with God, or one walks once again in the Garden of Eden, or one begins a new millienium, or a utopia of equality. However one wants to describe this infinite experience:

“There are as many infinites as there are dimensions, as many forms of liberation as there are temperaments. But all bear the same stamp. Those who suffer from bondage and confinement, will experience liberation as infinite expansion. Those who suffer from darkness, will experience it as light unbounded. Those who groan under the weight of death and transitoriness, will feel it as eternity. Those who are restless, will enjoy it as peace and infinite harmony.

But all these terms, without losing their own character, bear the same mark: ‘infinite’. This is important, because it shows us that even the highest attainments may retain some individual taste- the taste of the soil from which they grew- without impairing thereby their universal value. Even in these ultimate states of consciouness there is neither identity nor non-identity in the absolute sense. There is a profound relationship between them, but no dull equality, which can never be an outcome of life and growth, but only a product of lifeless mechanism.

Thus the experience of infinity was expressed by the early Vedas in terms of cosmology, by the Brahmanas in terms of magic ritual, in the Upanisads in terms of idealistic monism, in Jainism in terms of biology, in Buddhism in terms of psychology (based on the experiences of meditation), in Vedantism in terms of metaphysics, in Vaishnavism in terms of bhakti (mystic love and devotion), in Shaivaism in terms of ‘non-duality’ (advaita) and asceticism, in the Hindu Tantras in terms of the female creative power (sakti) of the universe, and in Buddhist Tantrism in terms of the transformation of psycho-cosmic forces and phenomena by penetrating them with the light of transcendental knowledge (prajna).

This does not exhaust the different possibilities of expression, nor does it exclude their combination and their mutual penetration. On the contrary: generally many of these features are combined, and the different systems of religious thought and practice are not strictly separated, but penetrate each other more or less. However, the emphasis of the one or the other of these features gives to each of these systems its own character and its particular flavour.’” (Govinda:1977:24-5)

How did the Pagans envisage Hell? Hades, the Netherworld of the Soul

“Hades. In Homer the name of the god (Pluto) who reigns over the dead, but in later classical mythology the abode of the departed spirit, a place of gloom but not necessarily a place of punishment and torture. As the abode of the dead, Hades corresponds to the Hebrew Sheol, a word that, in the Authorized Version of the Bible, has frequently been translated by the misleading ‘Hell’. Hades is, therefore, often used as a Euphemism for hell. In fact, Hades itself represents Greek Aidēs, traditionally derived from ,a-, ‘not-, and eidō, ‘I see’, so that the sense is ‘invisible one’.” – Brewers Dictionary of Phrase and Fable

“c.One day, near Tempe, in the valley of the river Peneius, Eurydice met Aristaeus, who tried to force her. She trod on a serpent as she fled, and died of its bite; but Orpheus boldly descended into Tartarus, hoping to fetch her back. He used the passage which opens at Aornum in Thesprotis and, on his arrival, not only charmed the ferryman Charon, the Dog Cerberus, and the three Judges of the Dead with his plaintive music, but temporarily suspended the tortures of the damned; and so far soothed the savage heart of Hades that he won leave to restore Eurydice to the upper world. Hades made a single condition: that Orpheus might not look behind him until she was safely back under the light of the sun. Eurydice followed Orpheus up through the dark passage, guided by the sounds of his lyre, and it was only when he reached the sunlight again that he turned to see whether she were still behind him, and so lost her for ever.’” (Graves:1992:112)

“4.Eurydice’s death by snake-bite and Orpheus’s subsequent failure to bring her back into the sunlight, figure only in late myth. They seem to mistakenly deduced from pictures which show Orpheus’s welcome in Tartarus, where his music has charmed the Snake goddess Hecate, or Agriope (‘savage face’), into giving special privileges to all ghosts initiated into the Orphic Mysteries, and from other pictures showing Dionysus, whose Priest Orpheus was, descending to Tartarus in search of his mother Semele (see 27.k). Eurydice’s victims died of snake-bite, not herself.” (Graves:1992:115)

So Hell, as it is defined by the Greek word Hades, does mean a place of punishment but not one of eternal fire or cold as detailed by the Catholic church. In this light it is useful to state the in the eastern religions, Buddhism states that there are 136 levels of a place which may be named Hell, or Hades, where punishment of fire, cold, hunger, Sisyphean repression, etc, are also dealt to the dead souls who did not make it to enlightenment in this life. What is interesting to note however, is that the eastern religions have not done away with the idea of karma, and it is this concept that I wish to bring into the debate in order to explain the myths of the Greek Hades, and the idea of Purgatory and Hell that have become the dogma of the Catholic church. By doing so, all manner of theological debates will be settled automatically by the means of such reasoning.

One of the most well-known Greek myths concerning Hades, is that of Orpheus and Eurydice, in which Eurydice dies and is taken to Hades, but Orpheus, using his magical lyre, is able to use his music to descend into the underworld of Hades, to pay the river boat men Charon to take him across the river in music, and to persuade Hades to allow Eurydice to return to life on Earth. Hades agrees but on the condition that Orpheus walks ahead of Eurydice and does not look back to see that she is following until he has reached the Earth once again. Orpheus fails to do so, and upon, ‘looking back’ Eurydice is returned to Hades once again.

Eurydice means- wide Justice, and Orpheus means- of the river-bank, and we have already met another Greek myth about looking back and looking forward in Epimetheus and Prometheus respectively in regards to Pandoras box, which as we saw was a myth about the settling nature of heterodynamism entering the homodynamic world and the dawn of civilization that it heralded.

The question to be asked to start to make some head-way in piecing all of this together is this, ‘Why are the people in Hades invisible and not just gone and departed, as we refer to them?’ Invisible seems to indicate that their presence is still felt but is not seen by the outside world, and this I believe is the exact feeling that we homodynamically still relate to when in modern films and t.v. a dying person will often be heard to say, ‘I’ll still be alive in you, in their (pointing at the others heart), in everything you do, I’ll be right there beside you’ or some other mulchy sentimental kitch.

If we extend this analogy then we can understand that people do indeed live on within us, and in the outer world, simply by us remembering them

We have already seen that the Egyptians believed that one died when ones name was forgotten, and we have seen the real effect that a name can have upon the world to come, simply through the history resultant from Alexander the Great or Jesus himself, and so the truth of this statement is undeniable, both as an experience and as an academic principle of history.

In other words, we all agree that the decisions that we make in life are based to some degree upon the memories of our departed loved ones, and upon the thrownness in which we all find ourselves due to actions of these loved ones in their lives. Hence, we all agree that whilst these people cannot be seen, they also can be sensed as still contributing to the worlding of the World.

This World, however is not the autodynamic world that we moderns perceive but a world of soul depth, where the departed exist in Hades, in a gloom, as shadows of themselves, that are sense in themselves the living as a real existence, as altjira.

This magical effect upon the living by the dead through the power of memory can simply be euphemised into the term ‘looking back’ or epimetheus, but can also be understood by the term, ‘karma’, where the habits of a persons life create not just the outside world repercussions of art and work and children, etc, but also those magical influences, that psychology today so loves to turn into autodynamic perspectives as the reason for psychosis of the individual, and name science not magic, before hypnotising their clients into a trance or super-state of consciousness, which of course is the sole purpose of magic, and religion, in the first place. The psychologists religion is the religion par excellence science, which I think we have now firmly established.

So from a homodynamic and even to some extent heterodynamic perspective of the soul, the departed are still close by yet invisible and their effects can be seen by any one who cares to change their perspective before they begin their investigations, i.e. ‘not il-poche science’, and may even break-through into observations by autodynamic perspectives and be referred to as a belief in magic which cannot be seen or proved but yet still magically works, as we saw with placebos and operations that don’t happen yet still work, or as we saw with CIA and KGB trained soldiers using psychic powers to travel to remote locations, out of their body, in some form of mystical military manoeuvres.

So the ideas of Karma and of Hades and of the Egyptian Name, and the looking back of Orpheus are suddenly not three disparate ideas but one idea expressing the same thing with an added depth of homodynamic soul as the translatory perspective by which to comprehend them.

Now in order to understand this fully we need to return to the KaBa of Meccah that we have previously discussed as BaRaKa as the mystical energy that a Sufi master sends down upon his disciples, and we have seen this refer to the Ark of Noah, as the Black Cube outlined in the oldest story ever told- the Epic of Gilgamesh, thereby connecting it with Babylon. In Judaism the esoteric branch of its teachings is called the KaBaLah, and these people we have seen being captured by the Babylonians, which began the process by which the Old Testament, or Torah,  was written down. In other to understand these terms properly we need to turn to Egypt in order to understand the derivation of the words Ka, Ba, Ra, and La.

Ra is the Name of the Egyptian Sun God, and as we saw above is the Creator God of the Universe through the power of Isis as the female nature in the trinity, and the snake representing the descent of this energy, as the word (or dribble in this case) by which Isis gained the power of creation.

La is quite simply the sound of music, the mantric note of Ra, the Fiat of the Logos, the Will of creation coming down onto the earth, this is best outlined by the mantric use of the word or sound in Buddhism:

“‘LAM’, the symbol of the element Earth. Its vehicle (vahana) is Indra’s elephant Airavati with seven trunks.” (Govinda:1977:142)

“The next Centre, Savadhisthana-Cakra, corresponding to the plexus hypogastric, is shown as a six-petalled lotus with the seed-syllables Bam, Bham, Mam, Yam, Ram, Lam. Its pericarp contains a white semicircle or crescent with the main seed-syllable ‘Vam’, the symbol of the element water. Its vehicle is the crocodile (makara).” (Govinda:1977:142)

Writer’s Voice: Jesus as the Messiah, Messiah is the crocodile in Egyptian which explains how he walked on water. Meaning he travelled using this vehicle.

“Ba. The soul, which according to early primitive Egyptian belief, roamed the burial places at night. Later belief held that it became the manifested form of a god. The bull Apis is the Ba of Osiris and the star Sirius the Ba of Isis.”- Brewers dictionary of phrase and fable.

“the name Iahu is far older that the sixteenth century BC and of wide distribution. It occurs in Egypt during the sixth Dynasty (middle of the third millennium BC) as a title of the God Set: and is recorded in Deimel’s Akkadian-Sumerian Glossary as a name for Isis. It also seems to be the origin of the Greek name Iacchus, a title of the shape-shifting Dionysus Lusios in the Cretan mysteries. Thus although I.A.U. are the vowels of the three-season year of Birth, Consummation and Death- with Death put first…they seem to be derived from a name that was in existence long before any alphabet was formed, the components of which are IA and HU. “Ia” means “Exalted” in Sumerian and “Hu” means “Dove”; the Egyptian hieroglyph “Hu” is also a dove. The moon-goddess of Asianic Palestine was worshipped with doves, like her counterparts of Egyptian Thebes, Dodona, Hierapolis, Crete and Cyprus. But she was also worshipped as a long-horned cow; Hathor, or Isis, or Ashtaroth Karnaim. Isis is an onomatopoeic Asianic word, Ish-ish, meaning “She who weeps”, because the moon was held to scatter dew and because

Isis, the pre-Christian original Mater Dolorosa, mourned for Osiris when Set killed him. She was said to be white, or, according to Moschus, the golden Moon-cow Io who had settled down in Egypt after long wanderings from Argos. The o in Io’s name is an Omega, which is a common Greek variant of Alpha.

Ia-Hu therefore seems to be a combination of Ia, “The Exalted One”, the Moon-goddess as Cow, and Hu, the same goddess as Dove. We know from Plutarch that at mid-winter solstice mysteries Isis, as the golden Moon-cow, circled the coffin of Osiris seven times in commemoration of the seven months from solstice to solstice; and we know also that the climax of the orgiastic oak-cult with which the Dove-goddess was concerned came at the summer solstice. Thus Ia-Hu stands for the Moon- goddess as ruler of the whole course of the solar year. This was a proud title and Set seems to have claimed it for himself when his ass-eared sceptre became the Egyptian symbol of royalty. But the Child Horus, the reincarnation of Osiris, overcame Set yearly and it is a commonplace that conquering Kings their titles take from foes they captive make. Thus Horus was Iahu also, and his counterparts the Cretan Dionysus and Canaanite Bel became respectively Iacchus and (in an Egyptian record) IAHU-BEL…Iahu as a title of Jehovah similarly marks him out as a ruler of the solar year, probably a transcendental combination of Set,

Osiris and Horus (alias Egli-Iahu, the Calf Iahu). But the Hu syllable of his name has come to have great importance in Christianity: for when at Jesus’ lustration by John the Baptist the Coronation Psalm was chanted and a Dove descended, this must be read as the ka, or royal double, that descended on him in a stream of light from his father Iahu- as it descended on the pharaohs at their coronation from their father the Sun-god Ra, in the form of a hawk.” 2

In Judaism therefore the hawk had been transformed into the dove due to the fact that, “Iahu as a title of Jehovah similarly marks him out as a ruler of the solar year”. In other words the God of the Jews had taken over the powers of the Sun and Moon as the one true God. In this role Jesus had to be visited by the dove.

Ka means, the spirit or wakan or logos that remains a pure droplet of God and is wakan whilst we are alive and whilst we are dead, it is the constant remembrance of the soul of its greater homodynamic enlightened perspective or ultimate reality.

By looking at this form we Will begin to see the next stage of the journey back to God

This is the receipt of the perception and powers of Manas once the Ego has been mastered. Robert Graves explains this manifestation of Zeus in the form of an eagle as:

“an eagle darting at the thighs of a newly enthroned king named Zeus typifies the divine power conferred upon him- his ka, or other self- just as a solar hawk descended on the Pharoahs at their coronation”. 1

 This eagle descending upon the King therefore symbolises the Egyptian “ka” a word which we may translate to mean the Holy Spirit. The eagle symbolises the Etheric energy, the life-force of matter, the Light of the Son of God. Just as the Sun of God, issues the etheric life-force that animates the matter of the Earth.

same. Pyramid texts confirm this close relationship between the Ka and the physical body:

“Wash yourself and your ka washes itself,

Your ka sits down and eats bread with you,

Without ceasing for ever and ever.” (PT s789)

The method for calling the full power of your Ka down into you is still in use in Christianity today. In figure 36 below you can see reliefs and statues from Egypt and Christianity representing this sacred calling down of the Ka. It is done by the upturning and outstretching of the arms, communicating on a physical level that one wishes to receive and embrace the sacred gifts of Heaven. Try it the next time you pray and ask for this sacred gift.

Figure 36. Above: Egyptian Statues show the symbol of the ether or Ka with raised arms. Below: Christian paintings depict this same symbol in prayer.

In Egypt the holder of this sacred Ka was the Pharoah, meaning Great House, i.e. the House of God

This Ka would then be passed on from one Pharoah to the next:

“The preservation of the royal line involves many generations of kings, all of whom in their turn have been sons of the bull god and Isis; and all, too, have impregnated the mother for self-regeneration. Now Seti, the reigning king, is counted among these mighty ones of the past, known as, “the living Kas”, who live in him by virtue of the royal seed, carried in the womb of Isis, that courses through the generations. All have partaken in the mystery of Isis and the Bull (ka), through whom this perpetual cycle of reincarnation continues without ceasing.” 3

In the initiatory text that we are about to read the main character of the story, Padmasambhava, meets female goddesses known as ‘Dakinis’ or “Kha”-domas. As you Will see, by allowing these female goddesses to enter him he gains the Holy Grail. Before looking at this text let us understand more fully exactly what a Khadoma or Dakini represents:

“Khadomas, like all female embodiments of “vidya”, or knowledge, have the property of intensifying, concentrating, and integrating the forces of which they make use, until they are focused in one incandescent point and ignite the holy flame of inspiration, which leads to perfect enlightenment. The Khadomas, who appear as visions or as consciously produced inner images in the course of meditation, are therefore represented with an aura of flames and called up with the seed-syllable Hum, the mantric symbol of integration. They are the embodiment of the “inner fire”, which in Milarepas biography has been called the “warming breath of Khadomas”, which surrounds and protects the saint like a “pure, soft mantle,” 4

What we learn in the above quote is that whilst the male, fire energy of transformation may enter us as the hawk, it is the female aspect of wisdom that concentrates this fire, “intensifying, concentrating and integrating the forces”, of this royal Nature of the Ka. The female Nature of the Khadoma forms this Ka energy into visions or inner images, known to us as revelation or insight. Through these visions an initiate can learn to burn away the dross that stops him from gaining the kingdom of heaven.

These Gods were apportioned their own place in the celestial sphere (that is the view of the stars) as it would have been seen from the horizon of the Earth. “Come”, says the eagle, “I will bear you to the heaven of Anu!”.

Therefore the Sufi mystic sends an energy of transformation by which his disciple can ascend by using BaRaKa, which does not include La as the purpose is to transcend this earthly power. Whilst the KaBaLah is the word in its most earthly existence by which one can attain the Ra by following its pathways and using it as a vehicle.

To bring this back to usage of these terms in regards to the life and death of a person, we must use the analogy of ‘surprise, surprise’ the corn-goddes, Isis, Demeter, Rhea, etc, who we also saw previously was known as Pandora:

“8. Rhea’s name is probably a variant of Era, ‘earth’; her chief bird was the dove, her chief beast the mountain-lion. Demeter’s name means ‘Barley-mother’; Hestia (see 20.c) is the goddess of the domestic hearth. The stone at Delphi, used in rain-making ceremonies, seems to have been a large meteorite.” (Graves:1992:43)

The experience of the Ka and Ba upon death was linguistically framed within the experience of settlers who then recorded these stories in their writings. What I mean to say by this is that the story of the soul came to be told through the story of experience by the listener, and so the recorded version of this story is one revolving around corn.

In this story, the soul or Ba of the deceased is symbolised by the chaff of the corn, that is the outer skin that contains the golden-seed of alimental communion that the power of Ra, the sun combined with La, the earth had made possible. In just the same way as these powers were consumed by us in life and became a part of us, so in death, the same thing happens to us, whereupon the gods or God, partakes of us, consuming the seed or Ka contained with the chaff or Ba. By this process of alimental communion the life journey of each soul, enriched the wakan all-spirit or Ka and nourished God as God nourished us in life.

This was described cosmologically, as we saw it also done in the east by the Vedas, as we shall in greater detail shortly and the process of this tearing away of the chaff from the wheat was placed in the heavens themselves. Firstly let us hear the same thing from a Catholic writer:

16: Gregory of Nyssa on the Resurrection Body

After discussing Paul’s teaching on the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:35-9, Gregory of Nyssa (c.330-c.395) sets out his own ideas on the matter, and compares them with Paul’s (who he refers to as “the Apostle”).

‘It seems clear that the argument of the Apostle agrees in every way with our understanding of the notion of resurrection, and shows the same basic ideas that are contained in our definition of this matter- namely, that the resurrection is nothing other than the reconstitution of our nature to its pristine state. For we read in Scripture that, in the first act of creation, the earth initially brought forth the green plant; then seed was produced from this plant; and from this seed, when it had been scattered on the earth, the same form of the original growth sprang up. Now the inspired Apostle says that this is precisely what also happens at the resurrection. Thus we learn from him not only that human nature is changed into a far nobler state, but also that we are to hope for the return of human nature to its primal condition. The original process was not that of an ear of corn resulting from the seed, but of the seed resulting from the ear, after which the ear grew from the seed.” (McGrath:2011:542-3)

This process was also described cosmologically by the Babylonians and the Egyptians and of course the pyramid building Mayan, who as I have detailed all come from the same birth-place of these religions, the Altai.

If we look at the Great Pyramid of Giza, we can see this cosmological architecture as proof of this. There are two shafts in the King’s chamber of the Pyramid that have been shown to be aimed at the stars of Ursa Major and of Sirius, and is it through these two shafts that the Ka and Ba of the king were supposed to travel in order to be split in two.

I will go into this in much much greater detail in my next book, but what the ancient astronomers noticed about these stars is that Ursa Major never dips beneath the horizon of the Earth, whilst Sirius does. In fact Sirius dips beneath the horizon for exactly nine months, i.e. the incubation period of a new soul descending into earthly existence, within the womb of humans.

Ursa Major does more than just not set, or dip beneath the horizon, for Ursa Major contains the Pole Star. This star is the Star upon which it appears that the whole of the cosmos revolves around. In other words it is the cosmological centre of the Universe from our experienced perspective on Earth, and it was the key star that facilitated the navigation of the oceans for early civilization.

The mythical esoteric euphemism for the conditions for the path of these stars therefore was that Sirius, as seen dipping beneath the horizon, entered the waters of life, as it went beneath the oceans that the hunter-gatherers lived beside, and the ancient’s sailed upon and lived by, and planted their corn to its rhythms and used its seasonal rains to bring life. This was so true an experience in Egypt because the annual flooding of the Nile was actually timed by the moment that the star Sirius dipped beneath the horizon.

“The Egyptians called the circumpolar stars which never set the “Imperishable Ones” and “Rowers of the Ship of Ra”– the sun god. They were pictured as swallows which flew back and forth above a heavenly tree, feeding on its immortal fruit and therefore never dying or setting. This area of the sky was also where the pharaohs went after death. Other Egyptian writings give the name of the Jackal to what we call the Little Bear and connect it and the Great Bear with death in that they were conspirators in the killing of Osiris, the Pole Star representing his coffin.”3

“in ancient Egypt the image of time as an eternal serpent, endlessly swallowing its own tail, conditioned all thought about the past, present and future. For this reason it was not difficult for people to believe that every living, conscious soul, and every characteristic “epoch” of the earth, would return again and again into existence. Indeed, temples themselves were considered to be living beings, all of which were descended from a common ancestor- “a temple that once really existed”, as Reymond comments, “in the dim past of predynastic Egypt…It is entirely consistent with the cyclical time-frame of the Edfu Texts that the “far-distant” temple to which Reymond refers should have itself have been seen as a copy of an even earlier archetype. When the gods began to build it, we are told, they modeled it upon a place “that was believed to have existed before the world was created”. This place was called the Duat-N-Ba, literally the “Netherworld of the Soul”. Its location, which was in the sky…is hinted at by a curious detail concerning the orientation of the temple of Edfu that has come down to us in Building Texts. This inscription states that the temple was not aligned to any of the annual rising or setting points of the sun but that its “orientation lay from Orion in the south to the Great Bear in the North”. A related inscription confirms the general picture by telling us that the temple was built according to a plan, “which fell from heaven”.2

In this ceremony a sacred tool would be placed inside the mouth of the Pharoah in order to extricate the soul. This tool, as shown in figure 52, was called the Adze and was made of iron.

Figure 52. Left: the Adze, tool of the Egyptians used for opening the mouth of the deceased pharaoh in order to release his Ba or soul. Right: the constellation of Ursa Major to which the shaft of the Giza pyramid leads.

In this depiction of the Adze we can clearly see that this tool was nothing more that a representation of the constellation of Ursa Major, the main constellation in the Egyptian heaven.

The only source of iron that the Egyptians had was that found from meteorites as they did not yet know how to make it themselves. However the word that the Egyptians gave this meteoritic iron or ‘iron from heaven’ describes in more detail the Nature of this region of the celestial skies.

This word is “Bja” and relates to the Sanskrit word, “Bija” meaning semen. In other words this North-South Iron is the fecundating energy (semen) of the universe, which is being pulled, as in a tug-of-war, by good and evil or God and the Devil respectively.

This is confirmed in the Pyramid Texts in which we learn of this semen coming from the phallus of Osiris. The Phallus is none other than our Sacred Oak or Tjet from which the semen or energy of the universe comes in order to give life to form. We need only remember the practice of the Druids of collecting the semen like etheric liquid that grew from the sacred Oak in the form of mistletoe.

“The gods carried the mountain Mandera to the ocean, and placed it on the back of Kurma, the king of tortoises. Round the mountain they twisted the serpent…the asuras holding its hood and the gods its tail. As a result of the friction caused by the churning, masses of vapour issued from the serpents mouth which, becoming clouds charged with lightning, poured down refreshing rain on the weary workers. Fire darted forth and enwrapped the mountain.” 5

Figure 51. The Snake of the Cosmos is pulled back and forth in a tug of war, between good and evil, turning the central pillar round and round, creating friction and therefore fire.

This form is the Nirmanakaya and is the highest of all of the transformations of our spiritual bodies. This is because whilst we are in this human form we can call down upon us the power of these two higher bodies (Dharmakaya ‘truth body’ and Sambhogakaya ‘body of bliss’) into our physical form, transforming it into the Nirmanakaya:

“The body of an ordinary human being is maya <illusion, authors note>, and also the body of an Enlightened One is maya. But that does not mean that the body of an ordinary man can be called a Nirmanakaya. The difference is, that the body of an Enlightened One is his conscious creation, that of an unenlightened one, the creation of his subconscious drives and desires. Both are maya, but the one is conscious the other unconscious. The one is the master of maya, the other its slave. The difference consists in the knowledge (prajna)….

This, however, is synonymous with the transformation of the mind-and-body combination, i.e., of our whole personality, into the Nirmanakaya. Only in the Nirmanakaya can we realize the Dharmakaya effectively, by converting it into an ever-present conscious force, into an incandescent, all-consuming focus of experience, in which all elements of our personality are purified and integrated. This is the transfiguration of body and mind, which has been achieved only by the greatest of saints. The Nirmanakaya, therefore, is the highest form of realization, the only one in fact, that can open the eyes even of the spiritually blind wordling. It is the highest fruit of perfection,”  8

This Nirmanakaya then is the transformation of our physical, etheric and astral body into a receptacle for the Sambhogakaya and Dharmakaya to manifest. In other words it is the Holy Grail inside of which we are able to receive the Holy Blood of Christ and hence gain peace and immortality.

In like manner God is the Universe and hence as he reintegrates another piece of perfection into his whole so the Universe changes for the better:

“The image of the mill and its owner yielded elsewhere to more sophisticated ones, more adherent to celestial events. In Plato’s powerful mind, the figure stood out as Craftsman God, the Demiurge, who shaped the heavens. Tradition will show that the measures of a new world had to be procured from the depths of the celestial ocean and tuned with the measures from above, dictated by the “Seven Sages”, as they are often cryptically mentioned in India and elsewhere. They turn out to be the Seven Stars of Ursa, which are normative in all cosmological alignments on the starry sphere. These dominant stars of the Far North are peculiarly but systematically linked with those which are considered the operative powers of the cosmos, that is, the planets as they move in different placements and configurations along the zodiac.” 9

In the above quote we learn that Plato conceived of this constellation as taking on this very role as the, “the operative powers of the cosmos”, “Craftsman God, who shaped the heavens”.

He also saw that this transformation of God necessitated the descent of the spirit into the depths of the waters of life before it could return to change the universe, in a way that was in harmony with this new learning about Gods Nature. “Tradition will show that the measures of a new world had to be procured from the depths of the celestial ocean and tuned with the measures from above”. In other words the lessons of each of our lives become the wisdom of the Universe hence forming the Universe. Plutarch in ‘de Iside et Osiride’ tells us of this in relation to Horus’s Nature as the risen God:

“the images which the perceptible and corporeal nature fashions from it, and the ideas, forms and likenesses which this nature assumes, are like figures stamped on wax in that they do not endure forever. They are seized by the element of disorder and confusion which is driven here from the region above and fights against Horus, whom Isis brings forth as an image of what is spiritually intelligible, since he is the perceptible world. He (Horus) overcomes and wins the day since Hermes, that is, Reason  (Logos) is a witness for him and points out that nature produces that world after being remodelled in accordance with what is spiritually intelligible.” 10

The seven stars of Ursa Major are named above by Plato as the Seven Sages or Seven Rishis.

These Rishis or wise men, signify a correlation back to King Solomon, the wisest king of Judaism, whose temple was built upon the Threshing floor and it was upon this Threshing floor that the Holy of Holies was placed. It was at this same spot that the founder of the Muslim faith, ‘Muhammad’ was also taken up into heaven, see figure 53.

Figure 53. The Threshing Floor upon which Solomons Temple was built and where Muhammad was taken into heaven.

This title of ‘Rishi’ derives from Ursa Majors more famous name of ‘the GreatBear’.  The word Rishi comes from the Sanskrit word ‘Riksha’ meaning “a bear” and “a star”. In this regard we must remember the story of the birth of Zeus who turned himself into a serpent and his nurses into Bears.

What therefore is this correlation between the Wisest King of the Jews, and the Wisest of the Muslims and is there a Christian counterpart to this astrological analogy of the Bear and Ursa Major?

Well of course there is and his role was to send out his knights to locate the Holy Grail and bring justice, honour and peace to his lands. We know him as King Arthur with his twelve zodiacal ‘Knights of the Round Table.

“Moses, both the Bible and folklore tell us, stayed for forty days and nights on the Mountain. During this time he was taught all the Torah, that is those things that are to be revealed and those things not to be revealed. The reason why it is said all the teaching was given is because the term ‘forty days and nights’ is used. In Kabbalah this phrase means that Moses experienced all forty sefirot of the four Worlds in both their imparting and receptive aspects. During this time he neither ate nor drank because he was sustained by the same substance that feeds the angelic beings. This, Tradition says, is the Emanation of the Shekhinah, the Light proceeding from the World of Emanation. Thus it was that Moses slowly acquired the radiance that was to shine out from his face when he descended the Mountain.

Seen in individual terms, when a person reaches Moses’s level of Enlightenment, he has risen out of the mundane state of the body through the psychological World to the Place where the three upper Worlds meet. Here the Divine Glory radiates down upon his spirit and percolates his psychological organism. The greater the depth and duration of exposure to the upper Worlds, the deeper and longer the radiance remains. In the case of those in sustained contact like the Buddha, the radiance becomes a permanent feature. In lesser beings such as saints and sages the phenomenon is not so marked, although it is recorded as a halo, or an aura that is sensed if not seen by ordinary mortals. Here we have the process by which the Divine World penetrates the lower three vehicles of one who is purified enough to allow Emanation to shine through his being. The scripture goes on to describe the phenomenon. …

Moses, having reached the physical World, put a veil over his face. This is a metaphor for screening the interior radiance by the mask of the ego. The reason for this is that in life the ego not only acts as the shutter between the outside world and the inner to prevent the coarser levels entering into the psyche, but also protects the inner from blinding the outer as any mutual eye contact may do. When one is in the presence of a great being, the discrepancies of one’s own nature are illuminated by contrast, and this can be extremely painful. Both Jesus and Socrates were penalized by those they often inadvertently exposed as frauds by their clarity of vision. A teacher, therefore, will often shield his students from his full light out of consideration until they can bear to see themselves. Meanwhile instruction comes from behind a veil. Pythagoras and Mahomet are reported to have taught this way.” (Halevi:1993:211-13)

Robert Graves takes this title of the Great Bear and takes us back to the land of Arcadia:

“Another name for the Goddess of the Mill was Artemis Calliste, or Callisto (‘Most Beautiful’), to whom the she-bear was sacred in Arcadia;…The Great She-bear and Little She-bear are still the names of the two constellations that turn the mill around. In Greek the Great Bear Callisto was also called Helice, which means both ‘that which turns’ and ‘willow-branch’– a reminder that the willow was sacred to the same Goddess…’the White One’, son of Llye or Lludd was buried in a boat-shaped oak-coffin in his father’s honour: he was a sort of Osiris (his rival ‘Victor son of Scorcher’ being a sort of Set) and came to be identified with King Arthur.” 11  

This mythical esoteric king is not the only King in the Christian world associated with this constellation however for it is also the title of the Greatest Christian King who has ever lived! He was named as the first King of the Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope and was said to belong to the sacred bloodline of Christ.

His name is Charlemagne and it is too Ezekiels vision of the chariot that we must look in this regard. Ezekiel was taken up to heaven in a chariot where he saw the four elemental creatures as previously discussed. This four wheeled chariot was another title of Ursa Major being called the “Wain” meaning a four wheeled wagon. Over the years however this name given to Ursa Major has become corrupted to become the very same name as Charlemagne. Here is what the New English Dictionary gives for the definition of the phrase ‘Charles’s Wain’:

“Forms: carles-waen, Cherlemaynes-wayne, Charlmons wayn, carle wensterre, carwaynesterre, Charel-wyn, Charlewayn, Charle wane, Charles wayne or waine, Charles or Carol’s waine(e), Charlemagne or Charles his wane, wain(e), Charle-waine, Charlmaigne Wain, Charles’s Wain…The name appears to arise out of the verbal association of the star-name Arcturus with Arturus or Arthur, and the legendary association of Arthur and Charlemagne; so that what was originally the wain of Arcturus or Bootes (Bootes’ golden wain, Pope) became at length the wain of Carl or Charlemagne…”12

The Danes, Swedes and Icelanders knew Ursa Major as Karls Vagn, Karl meaning their God Thor who like Zeus owned the labrys or thunderbolt. The old Swedish rhyme chronicle, describes this relationship between their highest God and the seven stars of Ursa Major:

“The God Thor was the highest of them;

            He sat naked as a child,

            Seven stars in his hand and Charles’s Wain.”13

To round up all of the above titles of Ursa Major and its correlations with the Kings of many religions we shall look at the title of Mundilfoeri

Mundilfoeri means, “The mover of the handle”, Mundil meaning, the veering round or revolution of the heavens. This comes from the Sanskrit “Manthati” meaning to swing, twist or bore from the root Manth, which in Latin is Mentula meaning the male sex organ. From the root word Manth we go full circle to the Greek ‘bringer of light’ Prometheus who was known as Pra-Manth-a.

The title of this ‘bringer of light’ as Pramantha does not just mean fire-stick as previously discussed but is also the term for a symbol that most Western minds reel at when confronted by it, due to the negative associations from our recent history.

Pramantha also means ‘Swastika’. The Swastika was however stolen by Hitler and has hence become a Nazi symbol, whereas in reality it has been in use for thousands of years in Eastern countries. In Buddhism it represents ‘stability’ and ‘good fortune’. Originally it was an Aryan symbol explaining why Hitler adopted it.

The symbol of the Swastika represents the truth behind Ursa Major perfectly for here we may see the cross that represents the four elements, as witnessed by Ezekiel. This cross however is in motion symbolized by the extensions to the arms of the cross that denote the Swastika design. This movement is the movement of the millstone that grinds the corn into the three separate bodies of truth, bliss and form as described above as well as the heat produced by this movement described in the title of Pramantha as fire stick.

This bringer of light as Prometheus or as Lucifer or Horus, etc, we may compare to the symbol of Christ as spoken of in the seventh century AD Coptic manuscript, of a much earlier Gnostic document named the Pistis Sophia, in the fourth section of which we read:

“It came to pass then, when the Saviour had finished speaking these words unto his disciples, that Mary answered and said unto Jesus: “My Lord, I have heard thee say: “He who shall receive of the mysteries of the Ineffable or who shall receive of the mysteries of the First Mystery, –they become flames of light-beams and light-streams and penetrate all the regions until they reach the region of their inheritance.”

            The Saviour answered and said unto Mary:

            “If they receive the mystery when still in life, and if they come out of the body, they become light-beams and light-streams and penetrate all the regions until they reach of their inheritance.

“But if they are sinners and come out of the body and have not repented, and if ye perform for them the mystery of the Ineffable, in order that they may be removed out of all the chastisements and be cast into a righteous body, which is good and inheriteth the Light-Kingdom or is brought into the last order of the Light, then they will not be able to penetrate the regions, because they do not perform the mystery [themselves]. But the receivers of Melchizedek follow them and lead them before the Virgin of Light…”14

In figure 54 below you Will see this exact analogy. The circle of life draws ever on from birth to death, to birth once again. But standing out of this circle lies our Hero (Gilgamesh, Jason, Christ, Horus, etc) he is finally shedding his snake like skin of form and revealing to the others that he is a child of the light.

Above him in the Northern most region of the sky we can see the creation of the all of the beasts that inhabit the earth as they begin their journey from the light to the physical. This is where our Hero is to return and give his wisdom and truth to the King.

Figure 54. The garment of skin is shed to reveal beneath it the golden light of the true self. Around this central figure, those still upon the wheel of life look on in awe.

The Pole star is the only star in the entire cosmic cupola that never moves whilst everything else appears to move around it! In other words the Pole star is the centre in the circle. It is the hub of the millstone around which the energy of the Universe is ground out, it is the point at the top of the mountain, it is the pupil in the eye of God, the nucleus of transformation in the spawn of the frog prince:

“When the Norse gods were grinding the universe out of the bodies of their defeated enemies, the giants, on their great World Mill, they shaped the heavens as we know them now and fixed all the stars therein. Then they drove a huge spike into the center of the universe and around this spike they made the heavens revolve. It is Veralder Nagli, the ‘World Spike’, which holds creation together, the axis of the earth and sky alike. It is a spar so huge and mighty that it runs from Pole to Pole, with the earth turning in the center like a pig held fast on a roasting spit. And the end of the great spike is firmly fastened to the outer rim of the universe by means of a jeweled nailhead, which is the Pole Star. Therefore out of all the vast multitude of stars only the Pole Star remains fixed, immovable and forever stationary.” 15

In the above quote we see the axis or sacred Oak tree “which holds creation together” upon which the “great World Mill” shapes the heavens. This is the exact analogy of the Naga snake in the temple of Angkhor Wat that we saw earlier. It is at the Pole Star, the centre, the axis to the North-South Iron or Soul, that we have therefore come on an ‘As Above so Below’ level. For just as we must find our own centre so must we locate the centre of our cosmos in order to call upon its energies:

“The Mongols know the Pole Star as the Golden Peg, and like the Norsemen they think it to be a stake that holds the whirling heavens together. In India it was called the pivot of the Planets. In China it was the Emperor of Heaven the divine Prototype of the emperors who ruled China as “Sons of Heaven” 16

Before we move on to discover the secrets that this constellation holds in relation to Arcadia let us also remind ourselves of the Alchemical text of Fulcanelli which we have been using as a guide along our journey:

“Let me add that the Cosmopolite’s famous fish, which he calls Echineis, is the oursin (echinus, sea urchin)- the our son (Little Bear), the constellation containing the Pole Star. The fossilized shells of sea urchins, which are widely found, have their surface rayed like a star. This is the reason why Limojon de St.Didier advises investigators to direct their way, “by the sight of the north star”.17

In relation to Arcadia i.e. Et in Arcadia Ego, we find that the Pole Star is known in Greek Myth as the Son of Callisto (who is Ursa Major). His name is Arcas and he gave his name to the founding of the city, Arcadia!

The Latin word ‘arca’ means both chest and coffin as in Dionysus’ secret chest, Osiris’ bejeweled coffin, the tomb in the Poussin painting, etc:

“As in Arabia, so in Egypt Polaris was an evil star and there, too, it was associated with death and a coffin. It was the coffin of Osiris” 18

17: Back to Hell and Purgatory

From all of the above information we can see that the Ka or pure spirit of wakan that returned to the Mill and is ground down becomes consumed by God or the gods, and changes their nature, ‘We are what we eat’, being the esoteric euphemism for this truth. However the parts of our nature that are not pure spirit, those bits of us that we believe to be us as individuals, as our identity, as our self-concept, are represented by the chaff, the ba, of our soul, that is returned to Sirius whose La energy is taken by the moon and descends in the form of a dove, as grace, which contains wisdom in the form of the karmic script of our birth, life and death.

The form and ‘location’ (is use this term advisedly) of this new incarnation depends upon the karmic behaviour of this person in their previous existence. I like to think of this as the quality of the song of the person to its harmony with the song of the universe, or triumph, or Om, or Jehovah’s secret name, etc.

If a ba is out of harmony with the ka then the incarnation is one of total disharmony, that can be experienced as any of the hell realms, where the light of the ka burns of tortures or the lack of light chills and oppresses, etc, etc, the ba until such a time as it sees these very same flames, as those of transformation and not of torture.

In Buddhism this truth is represented by the Demon Yara, the highest demon who controls the wheel of life. He is rendered as a most frightening aspect of teeth, rage, and animal ferocity, but he is also another aspect of the enlightened one- Avalokitesvara, the most compassionate of all of the Buddhas, who is depicted in each realm of the wheel of life, held within Yaras claws, as the principal of salvation that remains within each of these realms to guide these ba’s towards enlightenment.

Therefore hell is a place of transformation, not of damnation

Now that we have understood the autodynamic perspective of hell through this new knowledge it is possible to add the homodynamic-karmic aspect and by way of doing so explain original sin, and inherited guilt, etc.

The ba that is unseen in the underworld, is a euphemism for the shadow world, that exists in our world, whereby the behaviour of the deceased still affects our own, and until they are forgotten then their ba remains in this place of gloom, where they have no ability to gain merit for themselves and escape from Hades without someone (Orpheus, Christ, Avalokitesvara, etc) to descend from the Earthly world and purify the ba. Psychologically we might say that stopping the cycle of drunk-fathers who abuse their children is a way of purifying the ba of the deceased father by which his power over the living is forgotten, and his name can be purified and forgotten. In Egyptian terms we might say that the ba is purified when the name Rameses is forgotten and the Giza Pyramid no longer stands, etc, etc. Until such time as this happens, the ba of Rameses exists in the invisible world that shapes our own, which we have previously named ‘Thrownness’.

In like manner as the actions of Orpheus it can be seen that some people are able to be saved and others are not. For Persephone, who was captured by Hades, she was allowed to leave because she did not eat of the food of Hades, as described below. In other words, she remained earth nourished and did not nourish her body with her existence as a shadow or ba and so she was allowed to return. This then is the difference between Hell and Purgatory as taught by the Catholic church, whereby the actions of an earth bound person can shorten the length of time that the ba exists within purgatory. For a ba in purgatory cannot attain merit for themselves or speed their journey. They are no longer a soul with free-will as their ka aspect has left them, they are therefore a shadow of karmic altjira soul music that effects the vibration of the universe, and that must be brought to harmony in order to become wholely ka or fully enlightened or manas or Holy.

This explains why a sacrifice or mass given in the Name of that deceased or even an action of immolation can cause the vibratory karmic effect of this ba become changed. In just the same way as the inner jihad of the abused child who becomes a father himself can result in repeating this disharmony or ending it and releasing the memory of looking back.

Therefore when Christ was crucified, his ba and ka were aligned through the power of manas and became the Logos of God wholely or holy. His descent into hell and his rise to heaven and his appearance on Earth as spirit to show his disciples the nature of his new existence, is therefore the altjira nature of the ba becoming existent in all realms of the universe as that all- that wakan. In other words as a homodynamic soul, being-in-Being to an extent where language breaks down and we require the description Being, or the koan, ‘One Face’. Whereby we lost the individual in the description. The antidote to this is to reread Govinda above in regards to infinity and pathein.

“c.Demeter lost her gaiety for ever when young Core, afterwards called Persephone, was taken from her. Hades fell in love with Core, and went to ask Zeus’s leave to marry her. Zeus feared to offend his eldest brother by a downright refusal, but knew also that Demeter would not forgive him if Core were committed to Tartarus; he therefore answered politically that he could neither give nor withhold his consent. This emboldened Hades to abduct the girl, as she was picking flowers in a meadow-….her own priests say that it was at Eleusis. She sought Core without rest for nine days and nights, neither eating nor drinking, and calling fruitlessly all the while. The only news she could get came from old Hecate, who early one morning had heard Core crying ‘A rape! A rape!’ but, on hurrying to the rescue, found no sign of her.” (Graves:1992:89-90)

“i.Because Core had refused to eat so much as a crust of bread ever since her abduction, Hades was obliged to cloak his vexation, telling her mildly: ‘My child, you seem to be unhappy here, and your mother weeps for you. I have therefore decided to send you home.’

3. Core’s tears ceased to flow, and Hermes helper her to mount his chariot. But, just as she was setting off for Eleusis, one of Hades’s gardeners, by name Ascalaphus, began to cry and hoot derisively. ‘Having seen the Lady Core,’ he said, ‘pick a pomegranate from a tree in your orchard, and eat seven seeds, I am ready to bear witness that she has tasted the food of the dead! Hades grinned, and told Ascalaphus to perch on the back of Hermes’s chariot.
4. At Eleusis, Demeter joyfully embraced Core; but, on hearing about the pomegranate, grew more dejected then ever, and said again: ‘I will neither return to Olympus, nor remove my curse from the land.’ Zeus then persuaded Rhea, the mother of Hades, Demeter, and himself, to plead with her; and a compromise was at last reached. Core should spend three months of the year in Hades’s company, as Queen of Tartarus, with the title of Persephone, and the remaining nine in Demeter’s. Hecate offered to make sure that this arrangement was kept, and to keep constant watch on Core. . …
5. Core’s abduction by Hades forms part of the myth in which the Hellenic trinity of gods forcibly marry the pre-Hellenic Triple-goddess-Zeus, Hera; Zeus or Poseidon, Demeter; Hades, Core- as in Irish myth Brian, Iuchar, and Iucharba marry the Triple-goddess Eire, Fodhla, and Banbha.” (Graves:1992:93)

The word Heart is an extremely interesting one in relation to its etymological derivations and to its primary meaning and use. To understand this further and to relate this word to the position of Tiferet on the Tree of Life, as wells as Adams journey, let us look at how the term Heart was first introduced into language and what it originally signified:

“In beginning such reflective exploration, one wonders…, whether the “first” meaning of heart is really the organic blood pump at the centre of the physiological system; whether in the beginning of language men spoke at a “literal”- i.e. sensorily objective- level and then transferred the term heart metaphorically to the “centre” of the “subjective” pole of experience…Here everything would be “metaphorical” and heart might very well be, as Karl Rahner for one suggests, an Urwort, standing for the organic totality of experience, the centre, the core.”  3

What this quote suggests is that the word Heart did not originally mean the organ of the body but became linked to this organ over time. Originally it stood for “the “centre” of the “subjective” pole of experience…the organic totality of experience, the Centre, the core.”

Let us now link this new information back to the etymological terms for the word, heart:

“Herz, heorte and heart trace back radically to the Sanskrit hrd- or kerd-. The latter yields another etymological line, beginning with the Greek kardia to the Latin cor, the French coeur and the English courage…Kardia stands in relation to another Greek term for heart thumos…Thumos signifies soul or spirit as the principle of life, feeling and thought, especially of strong feelings and passions. It is derived from thuo I seethe or rage- thus the Latin fumus, smoke and the English “to fume”. It does not seem to have been used for the physiological organ- unlike Herz and kardia and like the English spirit. Like spirit, from the Latin spiro, I breathe, thumos also meant breath.” 5

“The Greek, Phos can mean both “man” and “light” depending upon accentuation. This word, rather than Adam, is used to denote the developed man, or the initiate, in such texts. The Race of Adam, or the Men of Flame, are ordinary mankind. The Race of Phos, or Men of Light, are evolved mankind or those who have been initiated.

This application of the idea of a body of light was extended into the very highest levels of esoteric thought. The Greek-derived term for the transformed body of Christ is Augoeidean, meaning “ray-like”, or “shining like the Sun”…An equivalent Greek to photoeides, meaning “ray-like”, is used by Plutarch, when describing the sacred robe of Osiris, who also rose from the dead.”6

Enki’s mother, who we are told gave birth to all of the gods brings their tears to Enki saying:

“O my son, rise from your bed… Fashion servants of the Gods, may they produce their doubles.”

Enki then leads the host of “good and princely fashioners,” saying to his mother:

“O my mother, the creature whose name you uttered, it exists,

              Bind upon it the image of the gods;

             Mix the heart of the clay that is over the abyss,

             The good and princely fashioners will thicken the clay,

             You, do you bring the limbs into existence;

             Ninmah (the earth mother goddess) will work above you,

             The goddess (of birth)…will stand by you at your fashioning,

             O my mother, decree its (the new-borns) fate,

             Ninmah will bind upon it the image of the gods, it is man…”9

“In the Sumerian poem, one of Enki’s sick organs is the rib. The Sumerian word for, “rib” is ti (pronounced tee). The goddess created for the healing of Enkis rib is called Nin-ti, “the lady of the rib”. But the Sumerian word ti also means, “to make live”.9

Writer’s Voice: A_Underworld is the karmic memory of previous lives. Therefore whilst harmony of the soul gave Orpheus that power to resurrect the dead Eurydice he cannot look back into the past, and see her as a memory as karma.  Eurydice means ‘wide justice’ signifying the collective karma. Orpheus, meaning ‘of the river bank’ shows the river styx of death, where he could enter that river with his harmonious soul but also remain physically upon the river bank, and return. Use websters for definition of the rivers of greek myth.

“Thus the name Orpheus, if it stands for ophruoeis, ‘on the river bank’, may be a title of Bran’s Greek counterpart, Phoroneus (see 57.1), or Cronus, and refer to the alders ‘growing on the banks of’ the Peneius and other rivers. The name of Orpheus’s father, Oeagrus ‘of the wild sord-apple’), points to the same cult, since the sorb-apple (French- alisier) and the alder (Spanish= aliso) both bear the name of the pre-Hellenic River-goddess Halys, or Alys, or Elis, queen of the Elysian Islands, where Phoroneus, Cronus and Orpheus went after death. Aornum is Avernus, an Italic variant of the Celtic Avalon (‘apple-tree island’- see 31.2).” (Graves:1992:114)

“Zeus secretly begot his son Zagreus on Persephone, before she was taken to the Underworld by her uncle Hades. He set Rhea’s sons, the Cretan Curetes or, some say, the Corybantes, to guard his cradle in the Idaean Cave, where they leaped about him, clashing their weapons, as they had leaped about Zeus himself at Dicte. But the Titans, Zeus’s enemies, whitening themselves with gypsum until they were unrecognizable, waited until the Curetes slept. At midnight they lured Zagreus away, by offering him such childish toys as a cone, a bull-roarer, golden apples, a mirror, a knuckle-bone, and a tuft of wool. Zagreus showed courage when they murderously set upon him, and went through several transformations in an attempt to delude them: he became successively Zeus in a goat-skin coat, Cronus making rain, a lion, a horse, a horned serpent, a tiger, and a bull. At that point the Titans seized him firmly by the horns and feet, tore him apart with their teeth, and devoured his flesh raw.” (Graves:1992:118)

Writer’s Voice: Toys are esoteric especially the bull-roarer, the churinga, the Avalon apples, the mirror, the knuckle bones are fate as per the die is cast. The cone is the witches hat from the cycles of the moon each 18 years, the wool is ericthonious the sufi wool of the sacrificial lamb, ericthonius, the humility, that spares one from the fire of Aries.

This nourishment of the gods by the analogical experience of wheat was also taken up by the Babylonians who invested the entire purpose for mans’ creation as being to make bread for the gods, who were starving and required bread, a word that can also be translated as gold, and which has led to the assertion that Enki is an alien race that made humans intelligent and brought them culture in order to get them to mine gold for them. Another conspiracy theory disproved by reason. David Icke hangs much upon this aspect of his conspiracy that has these aliens still living as lizards who transform themselves into humans and abuse children whilst appearing to be the royal family of Great Britain, and the Presidents of America. As we have seen however, his understanding of why these Presidents of America worship Sumerian gods each year in a secret sect of initiates to an Eleusinian mystery is still a fact, as the video footage attests. Whether these presidents know what they are really doing there is another matter. Ronald Reagan worshipping a giant stone Sumerian owl whilst sacrificing the effigy of a baby on a river in a boat that is set on fire, may have been explained to him or may not, but someone must have known what they were doing when they commissioned the stone owl and created the magical rite. See wwww. XXX. For this footage.

A_ Find website. And find full myth about gods being hungry

By this understanding then we can see that the pagan world understanding of original sin or inherited collective guilt are none other than the words karma taken from a homodynamic soul perspective, and that the magical ritual of burning these shadows was not to go through years of psychological counselling as individuals but to invoke this homodynamic soul through alimental communion, i.e. mass in their name, or hiring someone to say prayers for the deceased by sacrificing money as value in exchange for their salvation, or by immolation of their own ba by tormenting their ba on the others behalf. By doing this the embodiment of harmony could be redressed through the collective nature of soul.

To extend this analogy still further, possibly for the sake of derision or of elucidation, it is possible to explain the visibility of ghosts and their shadow appearance on the earth, by the idea of a self-concept that refuses to eat of the world of Hades and remains upon the earth to some degree of reality that can be perceived by some under certain conditions. I would suggest that test conditions, i.e. the mindset that wants to test these things with material sensors such as cameras and audiotapes, are not conducive to bringing about such moments or super-states of consciousness, whilst creepy houses in shadow, could easily create such a super-state as well of course as hallucinations. I would not promulgate this theory, it is highly speculative. But by Ockhams razor I thought it worth noting, as it can sit quite comfortably within all of the above.

Life then, is not about believing in Christ without understanding the logos aspect of Christ

It is not enough to say I believe in some fellar who just also happened to be God. It is a perspective change that turns one away from the autodynamic egoic behaviour of the individual, and asks the heterodynamic perspective ‘to turn away from your father and mother if you wish to follow me’ (A_Find actual gospel quote) as Christ said in order to envoke this behaviour back to a homodynamic perspective and church. A church which the Rabbis withheld from the weak, the unbeliever, and even those of a different blood-line, as they do today, the karmic consequences of which are that Jews in New-York by law have to have a blood-test before conceiving a child to make sure that the child will not get a genetic disease that has appeared within these peoples due to the lack of Jews after the holocaust. It is a karmic fate of a misconception that the House of Israel means the blood and not the soul or the kabalah that tells them of this truth.

A_Find Halevi quote about what Israel means in ‘Kabbalah and exodus’

The ka takes on human existence as the ba which upon death is torn from the ka and returned to the carnation of the Universe either in hell or on earth, as animal or as man, etc, etc, ever transforming in an embodiment of harmony that will one day return fully to the ka reality along with the bread or gold, that existence has added as experience along the pathein to Being. This is done cosmologically by Ursa Major and Sirius for the human ba as it incarnates.

Today science also point to Ursa Major when it wishes to locate the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy because that is the direction in which the black hole in the centre of the galaxy takes the matter of the universe and tears it asunder until time and space no longer have any meaning or measurement, to be more scientifically exact, and where numbers break down into monisms. What happens to this energy so sundered? Well the current idea is that it comes out of the back of the funnel either within our universe or it makes another one in a karmic cause and effect matter of reason, that pervades the entire universe. So science agrees with the people of Altai and all that have come before them, it just can’t seen the invisible 99% of the universe which it calls dark energy and dark matter. It can only see the cause and effect and not the reason, which is very funny to say, because it the reason of cause and effect that stops them seeing this higher reason which we may call imagination, which is how we were made, ‘in his image’.

On top of this cosmological fact of science, we must look to its quantum physics, which just like the homodynamic concept of the soul, acknowledge that fact that any quantum particle that has come into contact with another quantum particle, from that instant knows where that other particle is in the Universe, and reacts when it is moved. This is an experiment actually achieved by physicists in the laboratory today. Now of course, at the Big Bang, all particles were infinitely dense and infinitely small, and hence infinitely touching, and hence the Universe is conscious of itself on a quantum level that we can measure and even effect in the laboratory. It is not too far a stretch of these facts to realise that consciousness, as a mere collection of atoms in our human or animal brains, does not need to be confined to that tiny amount of atoms that constitute such grey matter.

If consciousness is an aspect of ego and manas and their perspective experience, then consciousness is a gift of the spirit, that also bears free-will, and is therefore a super-state of the universe on a quantum level, otherwise known as wakan. If consciousness is just a connection between atoms and all the universe is so connected then surely consciousness is beyond the confines of brain atoms, etc. This understanding leads directly to allowing the placebo operations on people to make sense, as well as out of body experiences, remote viewing and visions of purgatorial fires throughout recorded history and religions.

To emphasize this scientific understanding further let us look at sciences word for God, and see the universe being made and how the universe work’s as per the understanding of cutting-edge theoretical physics at this present moment in time as suggested by such experimental evidence as provided by CERN and OPERA, as well as others, in order to see the ka of physical existence turn into an invisible anti-matter as it leaves the body or enters a black-hole. To do this I must hand you over to the transcript from the entire hour-long programme:

18: Faster than the Speed of Light?

BBC Four- Marcus du Sautoy

“Our story starts with light. For centuries light has fascinated us. Our ancestors built monuments to capture light from the sun at particular times of the year. Light gives us colour, it’s how we see the world, light floods the cosmos. But it has always been mysterious.

One of the biggest mysteries about light is how fast does it travel? Unravelling this question would lead to one of the greatest and most surprising leaps in the history of science. Until 350 years ago, many scientists argued that light didn’t really travel at all. It was transmitted instantaneously from source to eye. But then, as astronomer, making careful observations of the moons of Jupiter showed that it took of finite period of time for light waves to reach earth. That meant light travel couldn’t be instantaneous, it had to have a finite speed. But another puzzle remained. It light was a wave then scientists concluded that it must be travelling through some medium, just in the same way as sound travels through air. This new medium was given a name, ‘the Ether’.

It was thought that the ether was able to flow, like the wind. Therefore, light waves that were travelling in the same direction as the ether, should travel faster than those fighting against it. In the 1880s, scientists tried to measure variations in the speed of light travelling in different directions. But to there surprise, they found no difference. However you measured it, light always seemed to travel at the same speed. As the 20^th century dawned, scientists were still wrestling with the strange behaviour of light, and in particular what speed it travelled at.

The stage was set, for the arrival of a genius who would unravel the mysteries of light, and in the process transform our understanding of the Universe. … His name was Albert Einstein. …

Einstein was fascinated by the mysterious behaviour of light. It was a wave, yet it also had the properties of a particle. What came to be known as a photon. How fast did it travel he wondered, and did it have a speed limit.

From the age of 16, Einstein had been pondering a thought experiment. If I like look into this mirror, and I accelerate faster and faster towards the speed of light, then does my image suddenly disappear? If you think about it, the photons from my face have got to travel the distance from my face to the mirror, and if I am going at the speed of light, then those photons have got to go travelling faster than me. Namely, the light is travelling faster than the speed of light. Now Einstein believed that his image wouldn’t disappear, and so he started to think about how to resolve this paradox.

In the Spring of 1905, Einstein was ready to launch his ideas on the world. In that one year, Einstein published four papers, any one of which would have been enough to create a sensation in their own right. It was arguably one of the most sustained and extraordinary bursts of scientific creativity, the world has even seen. One of those papers transformed our understanding of light. …

It contains a set of scientific laws, that define not just our world, but also our entire universe. At the centre of these is the statement that the speed of light, when it travels through a vacuum is absolute, nothing can travel faster. It was an incredible audacious piece of reasoning. Einstein realised, that the way we look at the universe was wrong, particularly our intuitive sense of how time and space worked.

We can see how by doing a thought experiment of our own, with the help of a moving train.  If I shine this torch whilst standing still on this platform, then the beam of light from the torch is going to be going at the speed of light. That’s straightforward. But what happens to this same beam of light, when I’m on a train? …

Logic would suggest that the light is travelling at the speed of light from the torch but then I need to add on the 140 miles an hour that the train is going. But Einstein, said no. The speed of light is a constant. It doesn’t matter where you are in the universe,… the speed of light is the same.

Einstein’s brilliance, was to realise that if the speed of light was the same regardless of where you measured it from, then something else had to give. He concluded that it was time that was changing. Time was not a constant, instead it changed depending on how quickly you were moving. The faster you travel the slower time passes. Einstein’s view of the universe was seen as radical at the time, and it’s still hard to grasp, but over the years, countless experiments have proved him right. These theories have a practical impact in the real world, an example being the GPS or Global Positioning System.

GPS uses a network of satellites orbiting at speeds of 14,000 km’s per hour, to accurately pin-point locations all over the globe. To ensure precision, it’s vital that the time kept by the satellites is that same as the timers kept on the ground. But, the satellites travel so fast, that compared to the timers on Earth, time runs slower by seven microseconds per day. If we didn’t use Einstein’s theories and take this into account, the accuracy of our  GPS systems would drift by more than two kilometres a day.

Einstein didn’t stop there. He theorised that not only did light travel at a constant speed, but that speed was also the speed limit of the universe. Nothing can travel faster. That’s because of the relationship between mass and energy. Einstein said, that mass and energy were two sides of the same coin. That means that if the amount of energy an object has increases, then so does its mass. Crucially, increasing an objects speed increases its energy.

The faster I travel on this train, then the more mass I gain. So for example, if I was travelling at 99% of the speed of light then would be twice that as if I were stationary. The more I accelerate the more my mass increases and the more energy I am going to need to make me accelerate, until, when I reach the speed of light, the equation force my mass to be infinite, and I’m going to need an infinite amount of energy to get. But no-one can possess infinite energy, however hard they tried, and that’s why, according to Einstein, it’s impossible to cross the speed of light barrier. ….  These concepts are at the heart of our modern understanding of the universe.

The results picked up by the OPERA team in Italy were so shocking because they raise serious questions, not just about Einstein’s theory, but about all the evidence that’s been gathered to support it. That said, in some ways, we shouldn’t be shocked by the results, because the OPERA team were studying one of the strangest and least understood particles there is, the Neutrino. And if there was one particle that was going to break the rules it was this one.

“The neutrino has been the ‘bad boy’ of physics, basically putting physicists out of their comfort zone, I think that’s the best way to put it. A lot of unusual things have been revealed by the neutrino. So maybe we shouldn’t be so surprised by this novelty.” Prof.Joao Magueijo- Imperial College London

There are 16 types of fundamental particles, that of fundamental particles that are the smallest and simplest building blocks in the universe. Together, they explain the world and what holds it together. Three of those elementary particles are neutrinos. There existence was first predicted in 1930 by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli. But Pauli didn’t think it would ever be possible to find one, because there properties make them incredibly difficult to spot.

“She is a very anti-social particle, who doesn’t like to talk to the world in general. So right now, you are being crossed by billions of neutrino’s per second, and you don’t feel them because they just go through you, they go through the earth, they go through everything without interacting. And still, the universe is pervaded by them, it’s full of them. There is a swarm of neutrinos going around. Many more neutrino’s than particles of light, than atoms, than anything you are used to.” Prof.Joao Magueijo- Imperial College London

In order to understand how neutrinos can are able to travel straight through matter without being noticed, we need to think about what matter is made of. Every physical thing in the universe around us from mountains and buildings to you and me is made of atoms, and atoms are made up of a nucleus at the centre surrounded by orbiting electrons. A bit like a solar system with a sun and orbiting planets.

The mind boggling thing about matter, is that, although it looks and feels solid, it’s actually mostly empty space, there are vast swathes of nothing-ness between the tiny nucleus and the orbiting electrons. And the neutrino is so small and without any charge that it can pass through this space very easily. In fact, the neutrino’s so tiny, that if the atom was the size of a solar system, then the neutrino is the size of a golf ball.

These tiny particles, existed in theory for a quarter of a century without anyone being able to see them, but then something happened to change that, the nuclear bomb. The power of a nuclear bomb comes from the chain reaction of splitting atomic nuclei. In the 1950’s a young researcher called Fred Reines realised that this chain reaction, would produce an intense burst of neutrino’s and so would be the perfect place to hunt for the elusive particle. But detecting particles from a nuclear explosion wasn’t practical so Reines turned his attention to the much more controlled chain reaction in a nuclear reactor. Although most neutrinos produced by the reactor pass through the gaps inside atoms, so many neutrinos were produced that every now and then one would collide with an atoms nucleus, when it did a charged particle would be ejected. He set up his experiment which he called ‘project poltergeist’ and waited for the characteristic signal of this interaction….  In June 1956 Reines announced that he had detected the neutrino.

Since that first discovery, we have become a bit more adept at creating and observing this most elusive of particles. We have created neutrinos in man-made particle accelerators, like the ones in CERN in Geneva, as well as detecting them naturally in cosmic rays and from the sun. We now know that they are essential to our existence. All of the elements are made by nuclear reactions, that would be impossible without neutrinos. We also know that despite their tiny size, they do still have a small mass. Which means, according to Einstein, they can’t travel faster than the speed of light.

But that theory has now been challenged by a small group of scientists working in one of the most unusual science labs in the world. In the 1980s at Assergi a new road was planned here that would cut, right through the mountain, and Italian scientists….realised that the road would give them a unique opportunity to create a physics lab like no other. It would give them easy access to the heart of the mountain, the perfect place to build a neutrino detector. …

Neutrino’s, so rarely interact with matter, that it is easy for an experiment to be swamped with false readings. Readings triggered by naturally occurring radiation and charged particles, such as cosmic rays hitting the experiment. The only way to study neutrinos is to find some way to weed out as many of these interfering particles as possible.

Thanks to the mountain above it, this vast chamber is a natural laboratory for neutrino research. It was here in 2008 that scientists began work on a sophisticated experiment designed to study the nature of neutrino’s. It was called the Oscillation Project with Emulsion Tracking apparatus, or OPERA for short.

To begin with measuring the speed of neutrinos was not at the forefront of the scientists mind. They were trying to understand how the three different types of neutrinos were formed and how they behaved. The first step of the experiment was to create some neutrinos. For this they turned to another underground lab, CERN in Switzerland. …         

The scientists started by generating a beam of protons which they accelerated around CERN’s proton synchrotron. The proton beam was then passed into the Super proton synchrotron, to accelerate them even further. The resulting high-energy beam of protons was slammed into a graphite target. This produced a cocktail of exotic sub-atomic particles, including neutrino’s which then flew off through the Earth, in the direction of Grand Sassa [OPERA]. The 730 kilometre journey took them 2.4 milliseconds. …

Even with billions of neutrino’s streaming in to the laboratory every day, detecting them wasn’t easy. The key was the huge detector at the heart of the Grand Sassa lab. It’s made from 150,000 brick of lead and weighs 4,500 tons. Lead is particularly dense which increases the chances of a neutrino encountering a nucleus. As the neutrino’s smashed into the lead nucleus, they created charged particles which are detected as tiny flashes of light.

No body had anticipated what happened when they started measuring how long it took the neutrinos to arrive. They seemed to arrive early. Earlier than the laws of physics allow. Sixty billionth of a second or sixty nano-seconds sooner than a beam of light would if it were to cover the same distance. That meant that the neutrinos had travelled at just over two thousands of 1% faster than the speed of light… The thing about an absolute speed limit, is that it is absolute, it can’t be exceeded under any circumstances by however small an amount. Under our current understanding of the universe this just isn’t possible. … When the news broke it caused a sensation. …

“If the velocity of light turned out not to be absolute, we would just have to tear up all of the text-books and start all over again.” –Prof. John Ellis- King’s College London

“It would be a revolution, but to me it would also mean that Nature is just playing tricks with us.” Prof. Fay Dowker- Imperial College London

The first problem is that the finding calls into question one of the fundamental principles that under-pins our understanding of the Universe- Cause and Effect.

Cause and effect is a simple and yet powerful idea. One thing follows another in a logically ordered sequence. … [A happened before B]

Einsteins theory respects the relationship between cause and effect, because, with an absolute speed limit, the speed of light, time can only flow in one direction. If that isn’t the case then the world can quickly become a very strange place indeed. Here’s an example of what might happen.

So, I’m going to send a text to my friend with the winning lottery numbers that were just announced. … Now let’s suppose that my friend and I have both got phones that can send messages faster than the speed of light. Now for this to work my friend has got to be moving relative to me, so lets suppose that my friend is travelling on a space-ship  that travels close to the speed of light. This means that if I can send a message that travels faster than the speed of light then, as far as she is concerned, it would arrive before it had been sent.  Then it’s possible for me to send a text, and for her to reply, so that I get the reply before I’ve even sent the original text, which is really weird.  Things get even weirder if you start to think, if I could actually act on my friends text.  I could now change my lottery numbers to the winning numbers and become a millionaire. I can change my past, which just doesn’t make sense.

“If something can travel faster than the speed of light, then, in principle, you can time-travel is possible.” Prof. John Ellis- King’s College London

For physicists, a consistent theory of the Universe in which we can travel back in time to win the lottery, or kill our grandmother is almost impossible to imagine. It makes you wonder, are the speeding neutrinos, playing some sort of a joke on us?

“A bar-man says, sorry we don’t serve neutrinos. A neutrino walks into a bar”

In other words, neutrino’s that travel faster than the speed of light imply all sorts of ideas that don’t tally with our everyday experience of the universe

Another reason why many scientists are sceptical that neutrino’s can break the light barrier, is that is contradicts previous results. This not the first time that the speed of neutrinos has been measured. In fact, there is one particularly famous observation that was made back in the 1980s. Now the reason that you probably haven’t heard about it is because the results were in perfect accord with Einsteins theories, and so no news headlines, no t.v. programmes.

The action began on February 23^rd 1987. Astronomers realised that a star on the fringes of the Tarantula Nebula in the Large Magellanic Cloud had exploded. It’s called a supernova, one of the most violent and destructive events in the known universe.

“We observed it in 1987, but it actually happened over 100,00 years ago, and it took the energy or the light from that supernova over 100,000 years to reach us. This star exploding threw out enormous amounts of energy, most of it was in neutrinos, some of it was in light. The light from the supernova and the neutrino’s from the supernova reached us, almost exactly the same time.” Prof. Fay Dowker- Imperial College London

Scientists calculated that the neutrinos travelled just a tiny bit slower than the speed of light, just as you’d expect if Einstein was right. Had the neutrino’s been travelling at the speed that the OPERA scientists recorded, in other words, a little bit faster than the speed of light, then they would have arrived here four years before the light of the supernova. That didn’t happen. Given this rock solid verification of Einstein’s theory it is not surprising that when the OPERA results were published this year… most people thought that somewhere along the line they must have made a mistake.

The OPERA scientists themselves admitted that there are inaccuracies with their measurement… Yet, even adding together all of the potential errors identified so far, it only gives you around 10 nanoseconds. That still doesn’t come close to explaining why the neutrinos arrived 60 nanoseconds early….

So far dozens of suggestions have been made about potential errors in the experiment but none of them have yet been proven to explain the faster than light measurement. …

There is one intriguing additional piece of evidence that offers some support for the OPERA team. In 2007 scientists from Fermilab, the high-energy physics laboratory just outside Chicago, made a similar, but less precise neutrino measurement, using an experiment called, ‘MINOS’.

MINOS fired neutrino beams similar to those used at OPERA to a detector in a mine 800 kilometres away in Minnesota. … The MINOS neutrino’s did seem to be moving at a speed that was faster than the speed of light. However because their equipment was less precise the MINOS scientists had to allow for a larger area of uncertainty that the  Italians, and when this lack of precision was accounted for the results didn’t appear to be statistically very significant. …

So until we have evidence that there really is an error in the OPERA results it seems only fair to explore other options, and this is where it becomes particularly interesting, especially if you are a mathematician, because there is a whole range of other theories, that could explain this. At stake is one of the greatest prizes of science- The Theory of Everything.

The first issue to consider if the speed of light is really the absolute barrier that Einstein described. There are at least two arguments that suggest it might be possible, in certain circumstances to travel faster than the speed of light. The intriguing thing is that mathematically speaking, travelling faster than the speed of light, isn’t quite as difficult as the popular interpretation of Einstein’s theory suggest. In fact from a mathematical point of view it isn’t impossible at all. But to understand why, you need to explore the relationship between physics and maths. There are many examples in the history of physics where maths predicts something, which at first sight looks counter-intuitive, only for the maths to be proved right.

Back in the 1920s a scientist called Paul Dirac, came up with equations to describe what happened to electrons when they travelled close to the speed of light. But his equations led to a peculiar conclusion. They predicted that every particle had an equivalent anti-particle, with an opposite electric charge. These anti-particles would combine to form anti-matter. At the time the idea of anti-matter seemed mad. But eventually incontrovertible evidence for its existence was found. And we’ve seem something similar with the prediction that neutrino’s exist before they had been observed. So maths can sometimes suggest solutions that appear impossible in the real world, but then turn out to be feasible after all.    

Surprising enough, there are mathematical solutions to Einsteins’ equations, which do allow particles to go faster than the speed of light. We even have a Name for to describe these theoretical particles than can do this. They are called Tachyons. Now I have to admit, that on the surface tachyons are pretty strange. Most notably their maths is an imaginary number, but however strange that sounds, it doesn’t mean that they couldn’t exist. A surprisingly large part of the universe itself is built on imaginary numbers. So what’s special about tachyons, how could they travel faster than the speed of light?

The key is this. Einsteins formula forbids any particle to travel through the speed of light, because as its accelerates its mass gets greater and greater. But if a particle is formed when it is already travelling beyond the speed of light, then it gets passed this problem. Even before these results, a few scientists have suggested that some neutrino’s might have a tachyonic behaviour. In other words, there might be a link between tachyons and neutrinos. At this stage it is still early to say whether this theory has any legs, but it’s still good to know from a mathematical perspective that it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light.

There’s another reason for doubting that Einstein’s speed limit is quite as absolute as it appears. In fact, there a certain circumstances where the idea of an ultimate speed-limit doesn’t make any sense. …

“Obviously, this result contradicts what you find in textbooks, but if you are actually working on the frontier of physics, if you are really trying to find new theories, then it is not as tragic as you might think. It’s a crisis, but you need a crisis, because there are lots of things, in those text-books that don’t really make any sense.” Prof.Joao Magueijo- Imperial College London

Einsteins theories describe with astonishing accuracy the universe we can see, the planets, the stars, even the distant galaxies, and here the speed of light is indeed the ultimate speed limit. But even within this familiar universe there are places where Einsteins theories don’t work. In extreme conditions, the rules break down. Physics hasn’t yet developed a language to understand what happens inside a black-hole for example.

Einsteins ultimate speed limit also causes problems in trying to explain how the universe evolved from the birth of everything- the Big Bang. Physicists think that at the moment of the Big Bang, everything in the universe was crammed into one tiny point, smaller than at atom. At the Big Bang the universe expanded at astonishing speed, and as it expanded it cooled, allowing fundamental particles, then, protons and neutrons to condense out of the energetic soup. All of this happened in less than a second. Over the next 400,000 years the universe cooled enough to allow the first hydrogen atoms to form, creating vast clouds of gas that eventually began to collapse into the familiar stars and galaxies that make up the universe as we see it today.

But here’s the big problem, accepted science only seems to account for what happened, just after the Big Bang. If you want to understand what happened to our universe in its very first moments, Einstein can’t help you. And there’s a particular problem with Einstein’s idea of a constant cosmic speed limit, the speed of light, when you apply it to the Big Bang. Some physicists believe that for the universe around us to be as we see it today, then that speed limit, must have been broken in these instants- immediately after the Big Bang.

“In cosmology it’s very difficult to explain why the Big-Bang Universe is what it is if you have the speed limit which is really very constraining in the early universe. You don’t have enough time to see the universe we see if you have this speed limit which limits your range of action and ties your hands. So raising the speed limit can be the missing ingredient in explaining the Big-Bang.” Prof.Joao Magueijo- Imperial College London

It’s a contravesial theory, but it does support the idea that there are extreme circumstances in which the speed of light is not the ultimate speed limit of the universe

However, the most exciting attempt to explain how neutrino’s could travel faster than light, comes from the very frontier of theoretical physics. Scientists are attempting to create a unified theory of Everything. At the moment there are two sets of theories that explains the universe. Einsteins’ theories that explain the large, the things we can see in the universe, and a second theory called quantum physics which describes of the small, such as sub-atomic particles, and they just don’t add up.

“The dilemma we face at the beginning of this century, is that the two main pillars of last centuries physics seem to be mutually incompatible. So if something big has to give, then this augurs perhaps, a new scientific revolution.” Prof. Michael Duff- Imperial College London

There are however a number of candidates for this Grand Unifying Theory, the main one is ‘String theory’, and the exciting thing that is beginning to form in some scientists minds is that perhaps the OPERA results are the first experimental proof of it.

String theory is based on the idea that we only have a very partial view of the Universe. It suggests that the fundamental particles we see in the Universe are all related to each other through a string.

“In string theory, the particles are still there, but they no longer occupy centre stage. The fundamental object is a one-dimensional string, one can think in analogy of a violin string. The string can vibrate and each mode of vibration, each note if you like, represents a different elementary particle. So this note is an electron, that note a quark, yet another could be a Higgs-Boson. So it’s a much more economical way of describing dozens of elementary particles by a single string.” Prof. Michael Duff- Imperial College London

There are plenty of mathematical equations that describe string-theory, but they lead to a rather uncomfortable conclusion. The universe needs a lot more dimensions than we are used to dealing with.

“We are used to the idea of living in a three-dimensional world, forwards, backwards, up, down, left and right, and time is the fourth dimension, but string theory states that there has to be an extra six. But they would have to be curled up to an unobservably small size or else rendered invisible in some other way if they are to describe the universe we find ourselves in.” Prof. Michael Duff- Imperial College London

Scientists have come up with some wonderful language to describe this multi-dimensional world. The 3-D universe that we’re in, and familiar with, is known as a membrane or ‘brane’ [Author’s note this is esoterically termed, ‘the veil’ or ‘cloak’] for short. But this is just part of something much larger, which includes all the other membranes or dimensions, and this all-encompassing entity is known as ‘The Bulk’.

“The one possibility is that our universe, you, me, everything in it, is a three dimensional ‘brane’ which lives itself in a higher dimensional ‘Bulk’ space-time, which may have ten or eleven dimensions. And there can be other universes, parallel to ours. The analogy would be, slices of bread in a loaf. So ‘the Bulk’ is the loaf, the ‘brane’ is the slice of bread. We live on the ‘brane’ and light is confined, just to the ‘brane’ it doesn’t travel in ‘the Bulk’.” Prof. Michael Duff- Imperial College London

So here then, is one possible explanation. The neutrinos’ left CERN travelling at just below the speed of light on our ‘brane’. They then took a short-cut, through the Bulk, popped back into our universe, or  ‘membrane’ in time to be picked up at Grand Sassa.

“If a particle were to leave the ‘brane’, travel in the Bulk, and reappear on the brane, it would create the impression to someone living on the brane that it had travelled faster than light.” Prof. Michael Duff- Imperial College London

There are a couple of rather satisfying elements to this theory. First, Einstein’s theories still hold. Light still forms the ultimate speed limit in our membrane, just as Einstein said, but if particles like neutrino’s can travel in the Bulk that can do so at a faster speed. Second it might explain why the supernova neutrinos detected in 1987 travelled slower than the speed of light. Think of it this way, most of the time when ocean waves form, they behave in a predictable way because the energy that forms them is fairly consistent, but every now and then, there’s a freak wave, formed from a particularly violent collision. In the same way neutrinos created at CERN are the products of incredibly violent collisions, and this could be enough to throw some of them, briefly, out of our membrane and into the ‘Bulk’.  …

If this explanation is right then, these faster than light neutrino’s offer tantalising evidence, that string theory  could indeed be a theory of everything. But it’s only fair to say that many string theorists are far from convinced.

“Well I’ve be working on the idea of extra dimensions for over thirty-years, so no-one would be happier than if the experimentalists were to find evidence for them. However, to be frank, although I like the idea of extra-dimensions, this is not the way that they are going to show up, in my opinion, so I am not offering extra-dimensions as an explanation for the phenomenon that the Italian physicists are reporting.” Prof. Michael Duff- Imperial College London

So this is the energy of anti-matter, neutrinos and fundamental particles all upon one string is the Ain Sof Ur, the Logos of Christ symbolised as light, that plucks the string that becomes the ‘embodiment of harmony’ played by this monochord and is experienced by humans intuitively, ontologically, as atoms. Some of these particles, such as neutrinos and anti-matter can leave the universe and enter another dimension of the ten to eleven dimensions or become one with the ‘Bulk’ which is the all-encompassing entity known as God or wakan or Tao, etc. In this way cause and effect are broken down, along of course with reasoned arguments about empirical statements of proof that God doesn’t exist, or of super-states in a causal nexus.

The ka or spirit of God, which we may perhaps call anti-matter therefore returns to God, turning invisible, whilst the Ba, which we may perhaps call neutrinos, those elements of ‘scar tissue’ of our life-energy, from the sin of tearing our fabric (the quantum fabric) by acting in discord is either burnt in purgatory if one identifies with ones ka at the time of death/birth, or in hell if you are completely discordant at the time or death/birth, until you are pure enough to be reborn in one of these dimensions, perhaps as some creature that we can observe as humans on Earth, including humanity itself of course, and this reincarnation is enforced by your ba energy/vibration as to its level of creature, its location, and situation at birth, which is experienced as karma or hubris and nemesis.

All experienes of life  are woven into the loom that makes the magic carpet of your soul, from the saliva snake spirit or Logos that is the wool of the sacrificial lamb, the song of Dionysus, the sacred dance of Vishnu, the snake of Tiamat or Mount Meru or the Omphalos or Linga or ‘stone at the centre’ or ‘hamlets mill’ or ‘a black-hole’ etc, etc, and hence our homodynamic soul, and hence the experienced universe or ‘brane’ that is veiled by a garment through which the holy of holies can be approached through initiation. We are the music-makers, we are the dreamers of dreams, in a world of pure imagination. A world that we now know to exist as imaginary numbers that make up the majority of the universe we currently observe.

The single chord that underlies everything is of course the Om or one song, or Uni-verse that is the embodiment of harmony which separates the ka from the ba and which makes the Bulk’s existence. Pythagoras, who as we learnt above taught esoterically based his entire mystery school upon the ‘monochord’ which, like a violin, was a plank of wood with one string upon it, that the student would learn to divide into ever smaller proportions to find positions of harmony, such as the 3^rd, 5^th, and 7^th, that make up the pentatonic scale, that underpins not only all of the human music that civilization has made but was found carved into a bone at the oldest cave of hunter-gatherers found so far.

String theory suggests 10 or eleven dimensions and the kabalah states and maps and even translates the Old Testament, as we have read exerts of above, through this same world of 10 or eleven dimensions under its kaballistic rendering of the multi-dimensional universe of the string theory.

This map or key to kabalistic secrets is called the Tree of Life

It has ten fixed points that show the path of creation from the trinity down to the level of Earthly existence. It is also housed esoterically in the form of the two serpents that wind around the rod of Thoth, also known as Hermes, or Mercury, the swiftest of the gods, (perhaps a tachyon god therefore) who relays the messages to the gods, i.e. faster than Apollo could, who is light, i.e. slower. We know this symbol today as the symbol of The Doctor. Doctor Who, you may ask? Well the Doctor with a time-travelling tardis for one, but actually I mean normal doctors whose symbol is the caduceus, where two snakes wind around a central rod.

The eleventh dimension of the bulk that string theory some-times requires in order for it to work but some-times doesn’t is also depicted in the Tree of Life of Kabalah, it is Sophia, wisdom the dimension of transcendent intuition, that we saw esoterically described and explained by Govinda above through the story of Padmasambhava and the Dakhini. The ten dimensions of creation are shown above in Crowley’s exegesis of Egyptian esotericism that taught the Babylonians, Pythagoras and the Greeks and formed their myths, but was perverted by Greek philosophy by Plato and Aristotle, who were not a part of this initiatory school of Eleusis, it is my belief that Socrates was however, and his use of a daemon or muse to convey his wisdom was merely the wisdom to show the lack of wisdom of the reason of man-in-itself.

This is the dimension of understanding of consciousness that can exist within-side the Bulk but also with-in the higher dimensional ‘Bulk’ space-time where all-encompassing consciousness, i.e. omnipotence and omniscience can still be experienced, and wisdom as grace of holy spirit, is poured back into creation, perhaps through a vase that Isis holds, pouring out water, or perhaps as the other end of a black hole, as it is experienced on our ‘brane’, perhaps through everything that exists and beyond, into karma, love, hell, purgatory, etc, etc.

What ever way we come at it though, science, alchemy, cosmology, revelation, mysticism, magic, we seem to demand a bulk of bread to symbolise it and then tear it asunder into slices that somehow magically can be seen as either human perception or as the common reason that pervades the entire Universe. A universe that we also agree has ten or eleven dimensions, and that is animated by energy- the logos- in a Trinitarian method of creation.

The final and definitely the weakest addition to this that I can personally add is something I hesitate to offer but shouldn’t really withhold. It is my own personal experience of time-travel, similar to that described above by Marcus du Sautoy in regards to the winning lottery numbers but unfortunately not exactly that.

I am an experienced meditator and have had experiences that I will not share for now as they are irrelevant to prove my point.

This particular experience however, was not one of meditative trance or drug induced hallucination but in fact a very mundane happening.

My partner and I were just returning from a day-out into a city when, as I entered the train station I received a vision/voice that told me that I was going to be hit on the head with a stone when I was on the train and to be ready for it. I won’t go into trying to describe the nature of this ‘ordinary revelation’ as language breaks down too quickly. The only thing that I would like to convey was the ‘ordinariness’ of this revelation. It seemed totally true and yet I didn’t start to worry about the content of the message, but just accepted it. For some reason, due to the mundanity of this truth, I didn’t even turn and tell my partner about what I had just experienced.

She went off to the loo before the train arrived, and whilst she was in the loo, unbeknownst to myself, suddenly felt strongly compelled to gather bundles of tissue in case of something happening. Not in anyway a usual behaviour for her.

Anyway, the train arrived and we sat upon it waiting for it to go. But after ten minutes of waiting there was an announcement that the train was cancelled and we would have to join another one on a different platform. As I left that train I thought to myself, oh good maybe I’ve dodged my fate.

The train that we now boarded was full of passengers and so myself and my partner had to stand in the corridor of the train. It was a hot day and the window was open, a gap of maybe a foot, by which to aim a stone through.

            As we were leaving one of the sub-stations along the way to our town some boys lobbed stones at the train, and one sailed through the window and smacked me just above the eye, where today I have a scar of irrelevant proof to attest to it. It bled like a son of a bitch but, of course my partner was able to suddenly provide me with bundles of loo paper.

The mundanity of this story is why I have decided to share it with you. It surprised myself and my partner, was not under any trance or super-state of action or even a part of my mindset at the time. It was as if by looking for the time of the train that was coming in the future on the time-board at the station, I received that vision along with it.

Of course speculation of just how I received it, produced it, or was sent it (by whom) are very interesting but beyond the scope of reason that we are confining ourselves to in this book. I will add only this at present:

“Normally, it is not given to mankind to see into the future, for two reasons: first, because it would remove the act of free will; and, secondly, because, while the general and cosmic plan is pre-arranged, the individual details are not. However, occasionally an act of Grace might allow a person to see into his own future, to warn or advise him; and it has occasionally been granted to mankind that the faculty of general prophecy be given. In this phenomenon, the future of a nation or mankind at large is perceived, so that no one is in doubt as to which side of the predicted events he wishes to choose to be on. The vision of the Biblical prophets, such as Jeremiah, on the fate of ancient Israel and her neighbours, are a classical example.” (Halevi:1977:198)

I would hope that the mundanity of this book, in relation to depth of research and academic referencing also attests more to the mundanity of the author than just this little story, attests to the whacko job impression that the reader might attain. My scope is broad but my mind is firm I can assure you. It is by the methodology of constructive criticism combined with this scope that has allowed this mundanity to be profoundly mundane, and yet as we have seen verifiable through science, mysticism, alchemy, and all the of the major three theist and non-theistic religions of all civilization.

My next book will of course elucidate this understanding in greater detail, although I must admit that whilst I can do so in all of areas cited, my maths language use will not be offering string theory equations to back this up, unless some kind soul is willing to sit and teach me, and my brain can understand it, between the writing of said book and now. Sorry about that. Alternatively the reader can always simply read the more esoteric books on my bibliography, and that would be a very good start without waiting for me. It’s up to you. Obviously.

To return however, to the subject matter at hand- the Logos- the Trinity-and the early church fathers, let us now look at the writings of the Kabbalah on the purpose of mankind within the Universe as seen Kabbalistically before we move on to look at the  Gnostic Gospels that I have selected and see if we can find a bridge between the Egyptian secret knowledge, and that which science espouses, in their words.

19: A Brief Kabbalistic Outline of the 10/11 Dimensions of the Universe as according to String Theory

“We did not exist (actually), nor did we (explicitly) request Thee to bring us forth from potential into actual existence.”…“it was through Thy grace that in response to our (implicit) prayer (cf. Qur.LV 29) we received actual existence and thus realised our potentialities”. According to Ibnu ‘l-Arabi, there is no creation ex nihilo: “creation” is the emergence of the world from relative non-existence (=potential existence in God’s knowledge) into concreteness and self-consciousness; and this evolution is due to the desire of the world-ideas (a’yán) themselves. …

Existence (wujúd) is the gift of God, and Divine gifts are bestowed only on request (su’al). The request may be either explicit (bi-l-lafz) or implicit, i.e. in virtue of the state or capacity of the asker (su’al bi-l’hál or su’al bi-‘l-isti’ dád), as for example the state of a parched plant is virtually a request for water, while a seed buried in the earth is virtually a request for water, while a seed buried in the earth is virtually asking to grow and spring up (Fusus, 29 seq. and comm.. ad loc.) Hence “not-being” may be said to “love” God who endows it with being, just as the beggar loves the bountiful giver (I 2743 sqq.); for “everything was created at the demand of need” (III3204 sqq).” (Nicholson:2003:57)

These words, if they bear a technical sense as the commentators, suppose, probably refer to the original substance of all created things, the so-called “white Pearl or Corundum” [al-Durrah (or al-Yáqútah) al-baydá], which is often identified with the Light of Mohammed (the Logos) or Universal Reason, the spiritual essence of Man…..: “God regarded the Light of Mohammed with the eye of love, and it was overcome with shame, so that drops of sweat appeared. From these drops God created the spirits of the prophets; then from the lights of the prophetic spirits He created the spirits of the saints, and from these the spirits of the true believers, from which in turn He created the spirits of disobedient, and from these again the spirits of the infidels and religious hypocrites. Then from the lights of the human spirits He created the angelic sprits; from these the spirits of the Jinn; from these the spirits of satans and rebellious demons. From the dregs (durd) of the last-named spirits He created the spirits of animals; then plants and minerals, compounds and elements, and all grades of existence in the world of bodies.”

The multitudinous forms of phenomena produced by the manifestation of the diverse attributes of the One Real Being may be compared to shadows which owe their existence to sunlight falling on a wall. Demolish the wall of selfhood and illusion: all these phantoms will disappear, and you will see nothing but the Sun of Unity.

The exploration of the string theory universe and its 10/11 dimensions has been practiced and taught before the dawn of civilization as wakan, and today there are many tribes that still take natural plants such as peyote in order to induce visions where the soul of the individuals of the tribe can experience the homodynamic ontology of their tribe, their ancestors as altjira and ultimately wakan itself by travelling through the levels of these dimensions.

In my next book, then all of this will be explored in greater detail, but for now let us see a map of these dimensions as per kabbalistic understanding and then briefly here from a kabbalist, Z’ev ben Halevi on the Creation and of man’s purpose in life, as well as reincarnation being a major aspect of understanding this monotheistic theology of which Jesus would have been imbued: A Kabbalistic Universe

The ten dimensions that make up the ten dimension of the ‘Tree of Life’ have an eleventh called Daat which as we can see above is depicted with a dotted circle, indicated its permeable character by which Grace or Spirit can enter the central column of the meditator’s body (of which we are made in its image)and receive intuitive (immediate knowledge) wisdom. These ten perspectives or dimensions of the Universe are the energy of the Logos formed into dimensions through the power of the female, virgin, aspect of the Trinity. The twenty-two pathways of the Jewish model of the Tree of Life that join these dimensions are also reflected in their Hebrew alphabet which contains twenty-two letters, symbolising each of these pathways. Each letter contains a deep meaning in its shape, pronunciation and placement in the order of the alphabet that conveys the esoteric details of the section of the path that it represents, and is a vehicle for the teaching of that pathway to gain that experience

The Holy Name of God, or the energy that pervades matter which is infinite and the common reason pervading the entire universe (in accord with science and kabbalh, etc), are the vowel sounds of the Hebraic lexicon that contain this infinite nature. If we add 10 on to 22 than we have 32, which is the number of degrees in Freemasonry, with a 33^rd Degree being applied to those highest masons who live just a few doors down from the White House, and whose members frequent both establishments, where in each dwelling, they are named according to the power they have to control the worlding of the World, under divine authority- ‘In God we Trust’.

This same map is charted within eastern Chakra maps of the human body, and is described biblically as ‘Jacobs Ladder’, in my next book I will go into these two other esoteric versions of this same truth, and take them back to Babylon under the Epic of Etana and the Epic of Gilgamesh. I will briefly show this eastern connection now with the story of the Birth of Buddha, that reveals to the initiate the Nature of Buddha as a 32^nd degree initiate upon his reincarnation, in the same triple world that we have seen described in Sumeria, etc, in the same ten directions or dimensions that science has just stated, with an eleventh already revealed with the initiation of Padmasambhava above:

“Maitreya, the best of men, will then leave the Tushita Heavens, and go for his last rebirth into the womb of the woman (Brahmavati, wife of the Brahmin Subrahmana). For ten months she will carry about his radiant body. Then she will go to a grove full of beautiful flowers and there, neither seated nor lying down, but standing up, holding onto the branch of a tree she will give birth to Maitreya. He supreme among men, will emerge from her right side, as the sun shines forth when it has prevailed over a bank of clouds…He will fill this entire triple world with his splendour…He will raise his voice to the ten directions…And when his father sees that his son has the thirty two Marks of a superman…he will be filled with joy.”3

For now let us look at the kabbalistic understanding of the Universe as perceived from these dimensions, and how they figure in the creation of the Material Universe that we experience with our senses, and our place within that universe:

“The beginning of Existence comes into being with the Crown of Crowns, the Azilutic Keter of EHYEH- I AM. Out of the Endless Changeless World of Emanation, Creation emerges at the Tiferet of Azilut, which becomes the Keter of Beriah. From this place, the CREATOR generates the impulse of a Shemittah or Great Cosmic Cycle with all its created Worlds and creatures that inhabit them. The Sefirah of the Beriatic Keter is the second Sefirah of the Great vertical line of Light, or Will, that descends down through the central column of all four Worlds from Keter of I AM to the Malkhut of Asiyyah in the pillow stone of Shetiyah, meaning ‘Founded of God’, at the very foot of Jacob’s Ladder. Here is the Beginning and End of Time.

Changing Time comes into being at the Keter of Beriah. Above is the Abyss that acts as a veil between Creation and the Divine Crown of All that HAS BEEN, IS and WILL BE in existence. With change, the Great Cosmic Cycle begins to descend in a spiral that and back again as it brings each World into being. Running through the midst of this is the unfolding central column, which is ever-present at every level of Existence. This is the Eternal Now, the presence of the Unchanging in every World that balances and reconciles the past of the left pillar and the future of the right pillar as Existence continually shifts from potential to actual, or Force to Form, and back again.

When all the Worlds were completed, the cosmic Shemittah turned at the Malkhut at the foot of Jacob’s Ladder and began its retreat from the densest of materiality and complexity of law. This is the evolutionary return and rising of Experience back to its source. So far in the current cycle the outgoing impulse has been accomplished with the aid of the Shekhinah or Divine Presence exiled, as it is called in Kabbalah, in the most compressed of matter. At the present time the return, if it is to be judged by the general state of mankind, is to be seen somewhere between the central nervous system and the Self, or between the Hod and Tiferet of the Great Line of Light on the central column. This places most of incarnate humanity at the level of the ego, with some above and some below.

As we have seen, the reason for the process of human incarnation is that mankind should act as a bridge between the upper and lower Worlds

In this way, the Divine Presence may be realized consciously, even in the lowest depths of physical reality, as mankind raises, for example, the metal and mineral kingdoms into the upper levels of the Asiyyatic Tree and imbues them with an intelligence they would never have experienced while buried and in an unrefined state in the earth. This is also true of the plant and animal kingdoms, whose stock, despite periodic error, is slowly being improved and protected against disease. Thus, the planet is gradually lifted in its state of awareness as mankind husbands its surface and resources.

As regards mankind itself, there are very special circumstances. Because of the gift of free will, the evolutionary process within the returning tide of the Shemittah is not automatic. People may choose to remain in the general stream of evolution, go ahead of it by individual effort on spiritual work, or even go against the cosmic flow and sink below the level of the beasts and plants into a human mineral Hell of psychological crystallization where they are fixed until Time is finished at the End of Days.

Tradition tells us that humanity is divided, according to the decisions of each individual soul, into three types corresponding to the three pillars. Those who deny that there is a purpose to existence may be said to be of the left-hand pillar, where they incur negative debts and live out life after life of severe existence. Those who go with the gradual growth of evolution are said to be of the right-hand pillar, and these people, it is said, live through generation after generation of ever-expanding circumstance. Seen as the Ways of Fear and Love, such side-pillar paths are bound by the functional laws of Force and Form. Thus, while an individual may be good or bad, he is held at the level of existence by his Karma, to use a Hindu term. In Kabbalah it is called ‘Reward and Punishment until the third and fourth generation’. Thus, a person may live throughout the last part of the cosmic cycle in the incarnation of fate with its confines of pleasure or pain. The escape from this position is via the central pillar of Knowledge and Holiness.

Holiness means to be whole, that is balanced and complete, and this is the goal of those who go by the way of the central column. This Holy or Royal Way, like the other two, is also a matter of choice, except that in this case it is deliberate and conscious, as against a general and temperamental inclination towards a good or evil life. The Way of Knowledge is exactly what it says. It is sought by those who wish to know the true nature of themselves and the purpose of the Universe, and to know God face to face. In some cases such knowledge is given in one lifetime, but for most it is acquired over many lives that run parallel to the generations of the side columns. Sometimes there is a loss of the thread, and so perhaps a period of several transmigrations are spent on the left or the right pillars until the original aim is remembered. The story of the prodigal son illustrates the phenomenon well, as do many fairy tales that speak of lost miraculous objects, or people in captivity or sleep. These stories, treasured over many generations as containing more than just childish fantasy, have been written and scattered throughout the nations of the world by those belonging to the inner House of Humanity, who are responsible for helping those who wish to tread the Way of Knowledge.

The esoteric, mesoteric, and exoteric levels of spiritually evolved mankind are the result of conscious work by human beings who were first incarnated perhaps very near the beginning of the time when the first Adam and Eve were born into the flesh. Some members of this upper part of the human race may be, as some traditions call them. ‘old souls’- that is, they may have lived many times before on Earth. Kabbalists have sometimes referred to them as the 600,000 original souls that were present at Mount Sinai where the Ten Commandments were given. Other traditions seem them as members of ancient and lost civilizations who periodically incarnate to teach the latter-day seekers after truth. The fact that most esoteric traditions state that there are people of the higher levels, present in both incarnate and discarnate forms, indicates that the Kabbalistic concept of the spiritual Maggid or instructor is perfectly valid. More important, from this study’s point of view, is that these members of the House of Israel or spiritual beings of the World of Beriah are above the law of Yezirah or Karma, that is, they are no longer subject to the influence of the Earth or the planets, although when they incarnate they pass through a single outward fate which acts as a vehicle for their long-term destiny.

We now have a picture of humanity progressing through Time, with the three living generations on the crest of the ever-present moment Now, with the past crystallizing behind into Form and the future ever opening into possibility and the potential of Force. In the midst of this returning Time are those who know the purpose of the whole operation and aid in the Work of Unification. This is done either by being in amongst the living, who are continually being reborn into situations of their own choosing, or by assisting from above in the discarnate state. Such an operation may be performed via the vehicle of the Collective Unconscious of humanity at large, or through the direct guidance of individual revelation, for a person who wishes to ascend by the central column and so gain realization quickly instead of waiting until the End of Days.

At the present time, the Work of Unification is not only the gathering in from the Great Exile of those who want to enter the Promised Land of the Spirit, but the human and cosmic operation of helping Heaven to flow down into the lower Worlds at a particularly crucial period. This movement is seen behind the two World Wars, the breakdown of the old social and political order, the enormous creativity, population growth, global consciousness, conquest of space and the undoubted new interest in things spiritual among the current generation. All this cosmic movement can go negative or positive because the choice is in the hands of mankind, which can aid or mar the balance between the Worlds.

The process of Tikune, or Amendment, is one of the major tasks of evolved people. In this they have to correct, by conscious and directed will, the oscillations between the Good and Evil of the outer columns which are stimulated by the performance of natural humanity, who live in what is called the Katnut, or Lesser State of awareness. Those in the Gadlut, or Greater State, can perceive, moreover, because of their consciousness of the upper Worlds, a slow polarization occurring between evolution and regression, as the Cosmic Cycle proceeds on its return. This recurring situation is described periodically throughout the history of mankind in myth, scripture and revelation. …” (Halevi:1977:193-8)

Now that we have seen reincarnation and the journey of the soul  and spirit in order to make the universe and the purpose of life in the universe from this ‘embodiment of harmony’ let us finally look at the American version of this same truth, and also see these symbols reflected back to the Christian tradition. For this I turn over to Aby Warburg and his essay on the Pueblo Indians:

Images from the Region of the Pueblo Indians of North America by Aby Warburg

[…] In what ways can we perceive essential character traits of primate pagan humanity?

The Pueblo Indians derive their name from their sedentary lives in villages (Spanish: pueblos) as opposed to the nomadic lives of the tribes who until several decades ago warred and hunted in the same areas of New Mexico and Arizona where the Pueblos now live.

What interested me as a cultural historian was that in the midst of a country that had made technological culture into an admirable precision weapon in the hands of intellectual man, an enclave of primitive pagan humanity was able to maintain itself and- an entirely sober struggle for existence notwithstanding- to engage in hunting and agriculture with an unshakable adherence to magical practices that we are accustomed to condemning as a mere symptom of a completely backward humanity. Here, however, what we would call superstition goes hand in hand with livelihood. It consists of a religious devotion to natural phenomena, to animals and plants, to which the Indians attribute active souls, which they believe they can influence primarily through their masked dances. To us, this synchrony of fantastic magic and sober purposiveness appears as a symptom of a cleavage; for the Indian this is not schizoid but, rather, a liberating experience of the boundless communicability between man and environment… Drought teaches magic and prayer.       

The specific issue of religious symbolism is revealed in the ornamentation of pottery. A drawing I obtained personally from an Indian will show how apparently purely decorative ornaments must in fact be interpreted symbolically and cosmologically and how alongside one basic element in cosmologic imagery- the universe conceived in the form of a house- an irrational animal figure appears as a mysterious and fearsome demon: the serpent. But the most drastic form of the animistic (i.e., nature-inspiring) Indian cult is the masked dance, which is shall show first in the form of a pure animal dance, second in the form of a tree-worshipping dance, and finally as a dance with live serpents. A glance at similar phenomena in pagan Europe will bring us, finally, to the following question: To what extent does this pagan world view, as it persists among the Indians, give us a yardstick for the development from primitive paganism, through the paganism of classical antiquity, to modern man? …

There is no doubt that contemporary Pueblo pottery shows the influence of medieval Spanish technique….The excavations of Fewkes have established incontrovertibly, however, that an older potting technique existed, autonomous from the Spanish. It bears the same heraldic bird motives together with the serpent, which for the Mokis- as in all pagan religious practice- commands cultic devotion as the most vital symbol. …We know from work on Indian mysteries that these animals- for example, the frog and the spider- represent the points of the compass and that these vessels are placed in front of the fetishes in the subterranean prayer room known as the kiva. In the kiva, at the core of devotional practice, the serpent appears as the symbol of lightning.

In my hotel in Santa Fe, I received from an Indian, Cleo Jurino, and his son, Anacleto Jurino, original drawings that, after some resistance, they made before my eyes and in which they outlined their cosmologic world view with coloured pencils. The father, Cleo, was one of the priests and painter of the kiva in Cochiti. The drawing showed the serpent as a weather deity, as it happens, unfeathered but otherwise portrayed exactly as it appears in the image on the vase, with an arrow-pointed tongue. The roof of the worldhouse bears a stair-shaped gable. Above the walls spans a rainbow, and from massed clouds below flows the rain, represented by short strokes. In the middle, as the true master of the stormy worldhouse, appears the fetish (not a serpent figure): Yaya or Yerrick.

In the presence of such paintings the pious Indian invokes the storm with all its blessings through magical practices, of which to us the most astonishing is the handling of live, poisonous serpents. As we saw in Jurino’s drawing, the serpent in its lightning shape is magically linked to lightning.

The stair-shaped roof of the worldhouse and the serpent-arrowhead, along with the serpent itself, are constitutive elements in the Indian’s symbolic language of images. I would suggest without any doubt that the stairs contain at least a Pan-American and perhaps a worldwide symbol of the cosmos.

A photograph of the underground kiva of Sia, after Mrs. Stevenson, shows the organization of a carved lightning altar as the focal point of sacrificial ceremony, with the lightning serpent in the company of other sky-oriented symbols. It is an altar for lightning from all points of the compass. The Indians crouching before it have placed their sacrificial offerings on the altar and hold in their hand the symbol of mediating prayer: the feather. …

We travelled through this gorse-grown wilderness for about six hours, until we could see the village emerging from the sea of rock…we were immediately received with all the trappings of honour by the Governador- Spanish names for the ruling village chiefs are still in use. He put the priest’s hand to his lips with a slurping noise, inhaling, as it were, the greeted person’s aura in a gesture of reverential welcome…

The interior of the church has a genuine little baroque altar with figures of saints. The priest, who understood not a word of the Indian language, had to employ an interpreter who translated the mass sentence by sentence and may well have said whatever he pleased.

It occurred to me during the service that the wall was covered with pagan cosmologic symbols, exactly in the style drawn for me by Cleo Jurino

The church of Laguna is also covered with such painting, symbolizing the cosmos with a stair-shaped roof. The jagged ornament symbolizes a stair, and indeed not a perpendicular, square stair but rather a much more primitive form of a stair, carved from a tree, which still exists among the Pueblos.

In the representation of the evolution, ascents, and descents of nature, steps and ladders embody the primal experiences of humanity. They are the symbol of upward and downward struggle in space, just as the circle- the coiled serpent- is the symbol for the rhythm of time. …

Thus the Indian creates the rational element in his cosmology through his equation of the worldhouse with his own staired house, which is entered by way of a ladder. But we must be careful not to regard this worldhouse as a simple expression of a spiritually tranquil cosmology; for the mistress of the worldhouse remains the uncanniest of creatures: the serpent. …

When the hunter or tiller of the soil masks himself, transforms himself into an imitation of his booty- be that animal or corn- he believes that through mysterious, mimic transformation he will be able to procure in advance what he coterminously strives to achieve through his sober, vigilant work as tiller and hunter. The dances are expressions of applied magic. The social provision of food is schizoid: magic and technology work together. …

They stand on middle ground between magic and logos, and their instrument of orientation is the symbol. Between a culture of touch and a culture of though is the culture of symbolic connection. And for this stage of symbolic thought and conduct, the dances of the Pueblo Indians are exemplary. …

Then the dancers arrange themselves into two parallel rows and assumed the character of the antelope in mask and posture. The two rows moved in two different ways. Either they imitated the animal’s way of walking, or they supported themselves on their front legs- small stilts wound with feathers- making movements with them while standing in place. At the head of each row stood a female figure and a hunter. With regard to the female figure, I was able to learn only that she was called the ‘mother of all animals’. To her the animal mime addresses his invocations.

The insinuation into the animal mask allows the hunting dance to simulate the actual hunt through an anticipatory capture of the animal. This measure is not to be regarded as mere play. In their bonding with the extrapersonal, the masked dances signify for primitive man the most thorough subordination to some alien being. When the Indian in his mimetic costume imitates, for instance, the expressions and movements of an animal, he insinuates himself into an animal form not out of fun, but, rather, to wrest something magical from nature through the transformation of his person, something he cannot attain by means of his unextended and unchanged personality.

The stimulated pantomimic animal dance is thus a cultic act of the highest devotion and self–abandon to an alien being. The masked dance of so-called primitive peoples is in its original essence a document of social piety. The Indian’s inner attitude to the animal is entirely different from that of the European. He regards the animal as a higher being, as the integrity of its animal nature makes it a much more gifted creature than man, its weaker counterpart.

My initiation into the psychology of the will to animal metamorphosis came, just before my departure, from Frank Hamilton Cushing, the pioneering and veteran explorer of the Indian psyche. I found his insights personally overwhelming. This pockmarked man with sparse reddish hair and of inscrutable age, smoking a cigarette, said to me that an Indian had once told him, why should man stand taller than animals? ‘Take a good look at the antelope, she is all running, and runs so much better than man- or the bear, who is all strength. Men can only do in part what the animal is, totally.’ This fairy-tale way of thinking, no matter how odd it may sound, is the preliminary to our scientific, genetic explanation of the world. These Indian pagans, like pagans all over the world, form an attachment out of reverential awe- what is known as totemism- to the animal world, by believing in animals of all kinds as the mythical ancestors of their tribes. Their explanation of the world as inorganically coherent is not so far removed from Darwinism; for whereas we impute natural law to the autonomous process of evolution in nature, the pagans attempt to explain it through arbitrary identification with the animal world. It is, one might say, a Darwinism of mythical elective affinity which determines the lives of these so-called primitive people.

The formal survival of the hunting dance in San Ildefonso is obvious. But when we consider that the antelope has been extinct there for more than three generations, then it may well be that we have in the antelope dance a transition to the purely demoniac kachina dances, the chief task of which is to pray for a good crop harvest. In Oraibi, for example, there exists still today an antelope clan, whose chief task is weather magic.

Whereas the imitative animal dance must be understood in terms of the mimic magic of hunting culture, the kachina dances, corresponding to cyclic peasant festivals, have a character entirely of their own which, however, is revealed only at sites far removed from European culture. This cultic, magical masked dance, with its entreaties focused on inanimate nature, can be observed in its more or less original form only where the railroads have yet to penetrate and where- as in the Moki villages- even the veneer of official Catholicism no longer exists.

The children are taught to regard the kachinas with a deep religious awe. Every child takes the kachinas for supernatural, terrifying creatures, and the moment of the child’s initiation into the nature of the katchinas, into the society of masked dancers itself, represents the most important turning point in the education of the Indian child. …

On the evening before the actual dance, I was inside the kiva, where secret ceremonies take place. It contained no fetish altar. The Indians simply sat and smoked ceremonially. Every now and then a pair of brown legs descended from above on the ladder, followed by the whole man attached to them.

The young men were busy painting their masks for the following day. They use their big leather helmets again and again, as new ones would be too costly. The painting process involves taking into water into the mouth and then spraying it onto the leather masks as the colours are rubbed in. …

These humiskachina figures with artificial heads move them to real terror, all the more so as they have learned from the kachina dolls of the inflexible and fearsome qualities of the masks. Who knows whether our dolls did not also originate as such demons?…

The dancers mask are green and red, traversed diagonally by a white stripe punctuated by three dots

These, I was told, are raindrops, and the symbolic representations on the helmet also show the stair-shaped cosmos with the source of rain identified again by semicircular clods and short strokes emanating from them. … Throughout the dance, two priests sprinkle consecrated flour on the dancers. …

We are here in the realm of the perfect animistic and tree cult, which the work of Mannhardt has shown to belong to the universal religious patrimony of primitive peoples, and it has survived from European paganism down to the harvest customs of the present day. It is here a question of establishing a bond between natural forces and man, of creating a symbol as the connecting agent, indeed as the magical rite that achieves integration by sending out a mediator, in this case a tree, more closely bound to the earth than man, because it grows from the earth. This tree is the nature-given mediator, opening the way of the subterranean element. …

Late in the afternoon the dancers resume their indefatigable, earnest ceremonial and continue to perform their unchanging dance movements. As the sun was about to sink, we were presented with an astonishing spectacle, one which showed with overwhelming clarity how solemn and silent composure draws its magical religious forms from the very depths of elemental humanity. In this light, our tendency to view the spiritual element alone in such ceremonies must be rejected as a one-sided and paltry mode of explanation.

Six figures appeared. Three almost completely naked men smeared with yellow clay, their hair wound into horn shapes, were dressed only in loin cloths. Then came three men in women’s clothes. And while the chorus and its priests proceeded with their dance movements, undisturbed and with unbroken devotion, these figures launched into a thoroughly vulgar and disrespectful parody of the chorus movements. And no one laughed. The vulgar parody was regarded not as comic mockery, but, rather, as a kind of peripheral contribution by the revellers, in the effort to ensure a fruitful corn year. Anyone familiar with ancient tragedy will see here the duality of tragic chorus and satyr play, ‘grafted onto a single stem’. The ebb and flow of nature appears in anthropomorphic symbols: not in drawing but in the dramatic magical dance, actually returned to life. …

The most extreme approximation of this magical desire for unity with nature via the animal world can be observed among the Moki Indians, in their dance with live serpents at Oraibi and Walpi. …Whereas in San Ildefonso only a simulated version of antelope is visible- at least to the uninitiated- and the corn dance achieves the demoniac representation of corn demons only with masks, we find here in Walpi a far more primeval aspect of the magic dance.

Here the dancers and the live animals form a magical unity, and the surprising thing is that the Indians have found in these dance ceremonies a way of handling the most dangerous of all animals, the rattlesnake, so that it can be tamed without violence, so that the creature will participate willingly- or at least without making use of its aggressive abilities, unless provoked- in ceremonies lasting for days. This would surely lead to catastrophe in the hands of Europeans. …

The serpent ceremony at Walpi thus stands between stimulated, mimic empathy and bloody sacrifice. It involves not the imitation of the animal but the bluntest engagement with it as a ritual participant- and that not as sacrificial victim but, like the baho, as fellow rainmaker.

For the snakes themselves, the serpent dance at Walpi is an enforced entreaty. They are caught live in the desert in August, when the storms are imminent, and in a sixteen-day ceremony in Walpi they are attended to in the underground kiva by the chiefs of the serpent and antelope clans in a series of unique ceremonies, of which the most significant and the most astonishing for white observers is the washing of the snakes. The snake is treated like a novice of the mysteries, and not withstanding its resistance, its head is dipped in consecrated, medicated water. Then it is thown onto a sand painting done on the kiva floor and representing four lighting snakes with a quadruped in the middle. In another kiva a sand painting depicts a mass of clouds from which emerge four differently coloured lightning streaks, corresponding to the points of the compass, in the form of serpents. Onto the first sand painting, each snake is hurled with great force, so that the drawing is obliterated and the serpent is absorbed into the sand. I am convinced that this magic throw is intended to force the serpent to invoke lightning or produce rain. …

The serpents- numbering about a hundred including a distinct number of genuine rattlesnakes with, as has been ascertained, their poisonous fangs left intact- are guarded in the kiva, and on the festival’s final day they are imprisoned in a bush with a band wound around it. …

From what we know of Walpi mythology, this form of devotion certainly goes back to ancestral, cosmologic legend. One saga tells the story of the hero Ti-yo, who undertakes a subterranean journey to discover the source of the longed-for-water. He passes the various kivas of the princes of the underworld, always accompanied by a female spider who sits invisibly on his right ear- an Indian Virgil, Dante’s guide to the underworld- and eventually guides him past the two sun houses of the West and East into the great serpent kiva, where he receives the magic baho that will invoke the weather. According to the saga, Ti-yo returns from the underworld with the baho and two serpent-maidens, who bear him serpentine children- very dangerous creatures who ultimately force the tribes to change their dwelling place. The serpents are woven into this myth both as weather deities and as totems that bring about the migration of the clans.

In this snake dance the serpent is therefore not sacrificed but rather, through consecration and suggestive dance mimicry, transformed into a messenger and dispatched, so that, returned to the souls of the dead, it may in the form of lighting produce storms from the heavens. We have here an insight into the pervasiveness of myth and magical practice among primitive humanity.

The elementary form of emotional release through Indian magical practice may strike the layman as a characteristic unique to primitive wildness, of which Europe knows nothing. And yet two thousand years ago in the very cradle of our own European culture, in Greece, cultic habits were in vogue which in crudeness and perversity far surpass what we have seen among the Indians.

In the orgiastic cult of Dionysus, for example, the Maenads danced with snakes in one hand and wore live serpents as diadems in their hair, holding in the other hand the animal that was to be ripped to pieces in the ascetic sacrificial dance in honour of the god. In contrast to the dance of the Moki Indians of today, blood sacrifice in a state of frenzy is the culmination and fundamental significance of this religious dance.

The deliverance from blood sacrifice as the innermost ideal of purification pervades the history of religious evolution from east to west. The serpent shares in this process of religious sublimation. Its role can be considered a yardstick for the changing nature of faith from fetishism to the pure religion of redemption. In the Old Testament, as in the case of the primal serpent Tiamat in Babylon, the serpent is the spirit of evil and of temptation. In Greece, a well, it is the merciless, devouring creature of the underworld: the Erinyes are encircled by snakes, and when the gods mete out punishment they send a serpent as their executioner. …

The serpent as the demon in the pessimistic world view of antiquity has a counterpart in a serpent-deity in which we can at last recognize the humane, transfigured beauty of the classical age. Asclepius, the ancient god of healing, carries a serpent coiling around his healing staff as a symbol. His features are the features carried by the world saviour in the plastic art of antiquity. And this most exalted and serene god of departed souls has his roots in the subterranean realm, where the serpent makes its home. It is in the form of a serpent that he is accorded his earliest devotion. It is he himself who winds around his staff: namely, the departed soul of the deceased, which survives and reappears in the form of the serpent. For the snake is not only, as Cushing’s Indians would say, the fatal bite in readiness or fulfilment, destroying without mercy; the snake also reveals by its own ability to cast off its slough, slipping, as it were, out of its own mortal remains, how a body can leave its skin and yet continue to live. It can slither into the earth and re-emerge. The return from within the earth, from where the dead rest, along with the capacity for bodily renewal, makes the snake the most supernatural symbol of immortality and of rebirth from sickness and mortal anguish. …

On a Spanish calendar leaf from the thirteenth century, which I found in a Vatican manuscript, representing Asclepius as the ruler of the month in the sign of Scorpio, significant aspects of the Asclepian serpent cult are revealed in their coarseness as well as their refinement. We can see here, hieroglyphically indicated, ritual acts from the cult of Kos in thirty sections, all identical to the crude, magical desire of the Indians to enter the realm of the serpent. We see the rite of incubation and the serpent as it is carried by human hands and worshipped as a deity of the springs. [Author’s note- ‘snakes and ladders’ is a karmic game of the above cosmic stair-way to heaven and the descent of energy as Wakan into the Earth to create life.]

This medieval manuscript is astrological. In other words, it shows these ritual forms not as prescriptions for devotional practices, as had previously been the case; rather, these figures have become hieroglyphs for those born under the heavenly sign of Asclepius. For Ascelpius has become precisely a star-deity, undergoing a transformation though an act of cosmologic imagination which has completely deprived him of the real, the direct susceptibility to influence, the subterranean, the lowly. As a fixed star he stands over Scorpio in the zodiac. He is surrounded by serpents and is now regarded only as a heavenly body under whose influence prophets and physicians are born. Through this elevation to the stars, the serpent-god becomes a transfigured totem. He is the cosmic father of those born in the month when his visibility is highest. In ancient astrology, mathematics and magic converge. The serpent figure in the heavens, found also in the constellation of the Great Serpent, is used as a mathematical outline; the points of luminosity are linked together by way of an earthly image, in order to render comprehensible an infinity we cannot comprehend at all without some such outline of orientation. So Asclepius is at once a mathematical border sign and a fetish bearer. The evolution of culture toward the age of reason is marked in the same measure as the tangible, coarse texture of life, fading into mathematical abstraction.

About twenty years ago in the north of Germany, on the Elbe, I found, a strange example of the elementary indestructibility of the memory of the serpent cult, despite all efforts of religious enlightenment; an example that shows the path on which the pagan serpent wanders, linking us to the past. On an excursion to the Vierlande [near Hamburg], in a Protestant church in Lüdingworth, I discovered, adorning the so-called rood screen, Bible illustrations that clearly originated in an Italian illustrated Bible and that had found their way here through the hands of a strolling painter.

And here I suddenly spotted Laocoon [meaning very-perceptive- Robert Graves] with his two sons in the terrible grasp of the serpent. How did he come to be in this church? But this Laocoon found his salvation. How? Looming in front of him was the staff of Asclepius and on it’s a holy serpent, corresponding to what we read in the fourth book of the Pentateuch: that Moses had commanded the Israelites in the wilderness to heal snakebites by setting up a brazen serpent for devotion.

We have here a remnant of idolatry in the Old Testament. We know, however, that this can only be a subsequent insertion, intended to account retro-actively for the existence of such an idol in Jerusalem. For the principal fact remains that a brazen serpent idol was destroyed by King Hezekiah under the influence of the prophet Isaiah. …

In the battle against pagan idolatry, early Christianity was more uncompromising in its view of the serpent cult. In the eyes of the pagans, Paul was an impervious emissary when he hurled the viper that had bitten him into the fire without dying of the bite. (The poisonous viper belongs in the fire!) So durable was the impression of Paul’s invulnerability to the vipers of Malta that as late as the sixteenth century, jugglers wound snakes around themselves at festivals and fairgrounds, representing themselves as men of the house of Saint Paul and selling soil from Malta as an antidote to snakebites. Here the principle of the immunity of the strong in faith ends up again in superstitious magical practice.

In medieval theology we find the miracle of the brazen serpent curiously retained as a part of legitimate religious devotion

Nothing attests to the indestructibility of the animal cult as does the survival of the miracle of the brazen serpent into the medieval Christian world view. So lasting in medieval theological memory was the serpent cult and the need to overcome it that, on the basis of a completely isolated passage inconsistent with the spirit and the theology of the Old Testament, the image of serpent devotion became paradigmatic in typological representations for the Crucifixion itself. The animal image and the staff of Asclepius as reverential objects for the kneeling multitude are treated and represented as a stage, albeit to be overcome, in humanity’s quest for salvation. In the attempt at a tripartite scheme of evolution and of the ages- that is, of Nature, Ancient Law, and Grace- an even earlier stage in this process is the representation of the impeded sacrifice of Isaac as an analogue to the Crucifixion. This tripartite scheme is still evident in the imagery adorning the minister of Salem.

In the church of Kreuzlingen itself, this evolutionary idea has generated an astonishing parallelism, which cannot make ready sense to the theologically uninitiated. Here, on the ceiling of the famous Mount of Olives chapel, immediately above the Crucifixion, we find an adoration of this most pagan idol with a degree of pathos that does not suffer in comparison with the Laocoon group. And under the reference to the Tables of the Law, which as the Bible recounts, Moses destroyed because of the worship of the golden calf, we find Moses himself, forced into service as shield bearer to the serpent.

I shall be satisfied if these images from everyday and festive lives of the Pueblo Indians have convinced you that their masked dances are not child’s play, but rather the primary pagan mode of answering the largest and most pressing questions of the Why of things. In this way the Indian confronts the incomprehensibility of natural processes with his will to comprehension, transforming himself personally into a prime causal agent in the order of things. For the unexplained effect, he instinctively substitutes the cause in its most tangible and visible form. The masked dance is danced causality…..

In antiquity the serpent likewise represents the quintessence of the most profound suffering in the death of Laocoon. But antiquity is capable also of transmuting the inconceivable fertility of the serpent-deity, representing Asclepius as a saviour and as the lord of the serpent, ultimately placing him- the serpent-god with the tamed serpent in his hand- as a starry divinity in the heavens.

In medieval theology, the serpent draws from this passage in the Bible the ability to reappear as a symbol of fate. Its elevation- though expressly considered as an evolutionary stage that has been surpassed- posits it on par with the Crucifixion.

In the end the serpent is an international symbolic answer to the question, Whence come elementary destruction, death, and suffering into the world? We saw in Lüdingworth how Christological though makes use of pagan serpent imagery to express symbolically the quintessence of suffering and redemption. We might say that where helpless human suffering searches for redemption, the serpent as an image and explanation of causality cannot be far away. …

The replacement of mythological causation by the technological removes the fears felt by primitive humanity. Whether this liberation from the mythological world view is of genuine help in providing adequate answers to the enigmas of existence is quite another matter.

The American government, like the Catholic Church before it, has brought modern schooling to the Indians with remarkable energy. Its intellectual optimism has resulted in the fact that the Indian children go to school in comely suits and pinafores and no longer believe in pagan demons. That also applies to the majority of educational goals. It may well denote progress. But I would be loath to assert that it does justice to the Indians who think in images and to their, let us say, mythologically anchored souls. …

All humanity stands in devotion to the sun. To claim it as the symbol that guides us upward from nocturnal depths is the right of the savage and the cultivated person alike. Children stand before a cave. To lift them up to the light is the task not only of American schools but of humanity in general.

The relation of the seeker of redemption to the serpent develops, in the cycle of cultic devotion, from coarse, sense-based interaction to its transcendence. It is and has always been, as the cult of the Pueblo Indians has shown, a significant criterion in the evolution from instinctual, magical interaction to a spiritualized taking of distance…

The conqueror of the serpent cult and of the fear of lightning, the inheritor of the indigenous peoples and of the gold seeker who ousted them, is captured in a photograph I took on a street in San Francisco. He is Uncle Sam in a stovepipe hat, strolling in his pride past a neoclassical rotunda. Above his top hat runs an electric wire. In this copper serpent of Edison’s he has wrested lightning from nature.

The American of today is no longer afraid of the rattlesnake. He kills it in any case, he does not worship it. It now faces extermination. The lightning imprisoned in wire- captured electricity- has produced a culture with no use for paganism. What has replaced it? Natural forces are no longer seen in anthropomorphic or biomorphic guise, but rather as infinite waves obedient to the human touch. With these waves, the culture of the machine age destroys what the natural sciences, born of myth, so arduously achieved: the space for devotion, which evolved in turn into the space required for reflection.

The modern Prometheus and the modern Icarus, Franklin and the Wright brothers, who invented the dirigible airplane, are precisely those ominous destroyers of the sense of distance, who threaten to lead the planet back into chaos.

Telegram and telephone destroy the cosmos. Mythical and symbolic thinking strive to form spiritual bonds between humanity and the surrounding world, shaping distance into the space required for devotion and reflection: the distance undone by the instantaneous electric connection.” (Preziosi:2009:162-88)

Now that we have seen that indeed the logos is the same concept around the world, throughout time, and how this logos is the common reason that pervades the universe- energy or wakan, let us see the banned gospels of the Gnostics and see if we can bring all of the above together through their teachings.

20: Fundamental understanding required in order to read any Gospel but especially the Gnostic gospels

Irenaeus on Gnosticism in Christology

In this account of the impact of Gnosticism, dating from the second half of the second century, Irenaeus of Lyons (c.130-200) sets out a list of various Christological heresies which are due to Gnostic influence. Of particular importance is his reference to the Docetic view that Christ was a human being in appearance only.

‘Among these, Saturninus came from Antioch […] like Menander, he taught that there is one unknown Father [unum patrem incognitum], who made angels, archangels, virtues, powers; and that the world, and everything in it, was made by seven angels, Humanity was also created by these angels. […]

He also declared that the Saviour was unborn, incorporeal and without form, asserting that he was seen as a human being in appearance only [putative autem visum hominem].” (McGrath:2011:221-22)

I think therefore that we have proved that Jesus is God and God is Jesus and God is man and a rock and hell and the devil, etc, etc, etc, and that all of these aspects of wakan can be contained within the homodynamic understanding of the soul, in such a manner as to knit together the variant beliefs or let us more correctly say, language trap writings of these beliefs, into a homogeneous whole. Not only that but we can do say with every religious system the world has known through this same lense, and on top of that, show that every religion in the world, has continued these same beliefs, all but secretly or by initiatory revelation, and this being the case, there is surely enough evidence of similar visions by which to state that there must be some weight to this uniformity, especially as just four symbolic sounds, ka,ba,ra, and lah can be found in this same uniform context of meaning throughout them.

To reiterate the idea of Jesus being a human with the karmic ability to become divine over his life-time, which I have posited as being a slow accretion of initiation of grace, through that life-time, i.e. the wilderness, the baptism, the wedding at Canaan, the Garden of Gethsemane, and finally the crucifixion. This is all in accord with the Christology of Catholicism as defined by the Council of Chalcedon:

“One of the perennial tasks of Christian theology has been the clarification of the relationship between human and divine elements in the person of Jesus Christ. The Council of Chalcedon (451) may be regarded as lying down a controlling principle for classical Christology, which has been accepted as definitive within much Christian theology. The principle in question could be summarized like this: provided that it is recognized that Jesus Christ is both truly divine and truly human, the precise manner in which this is articulated or explored is not of fundamental importance…

In part, Chalcedon’s decision to insist upon the two natures of Christ, while accepting a plurality of interpretations regarding their relation. At a time when there was considerable disagreement within the church over the most reliable way of stating the “two natures of Christ”, the Council was obliged to adopt a realistic approach, and give its weight to whatever consensus it could find. That consensus concerned the recognition that Christ was both divine and human, but not how the divine and human natures related to each other.

An important minority viewpoint must, however, be noted. Chalcedon did not succeed in establishing a consensus throughout the entire Christian world. A dissenting position became established during the sixth century, and is now generally known as monophysitism– literally, the view that there is “only one nature” (Greek: monos, “only one”, and physis “nature”) in Christ.” (McGrath:2007:284-5)

The Chalcedon Definition of the Christian Faith (451)

The Council of Chalcedon (451) laid down an understanding of the relation of the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ which became normative for the Christian churches, both east and west. Notice how the Council is adamant that Christ must be accepted to be truly divine and truly human, without specifying precisely how this is to understood. In other words, a number of Christological models are affirmed to be legitimate, provided they uphold this essential Christological affirmation.

‘Following the holy Fathers, we all with one voice confess our Lord Jesus Christ to be one and the same Son, perfect in divinity and humanity, truly God and truly human, consisting of a rational soul and a body, being of one substance with the Father in relation to his divinity, and being of one substance with the Father in relation to his divinity, and being of one substance with us in relation to his humanity, and is like us in all things apart from sin (Hebrews 4:15). He was begotten of the Father before time in relation to his divinity, and in these recent days, was born from the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, for us and for our salvation….This distinction of natures is in no way abolished on account of this union, but rather the characteristic property of each nature is preserved, and concurring into one Person and one subsistence.’

It is important to appreciate that the councils which took such important theological decisions were often influenced by all kinds of political factors. This is especially clear in relation to the convening of the Council of Constantinople in 451. After Ephesus had condemned Nestorius, a writer known as Eutyches mounted a vigorous attack on Nestorius’s teaching in Constantinople. Eutyches made generous use of some phrases used earlier by Cyril of Alexandria. Unfortunately, Eutyches expressed his ideas in a rather muddled way, and gave the impression that he was denying that Christ is truly human. Opposition to his ideas grew. In November 448 Eusebius of Dorylaeum, a leading figure in the campaign against Nestorianism, charged Eutyches was excommunicated: he appealed to Pope Leo I.

Dioscoros, the Pope of Alexandria, became interested in the affair, and a retrial of Eutyches was eventually ordered. A second Council thus convened at Ephesus in 449, Leo’s legates arrived at Ephesus carrying his Tome, in the form of a letter to Flavian, but had little chance of a hearing. The proceedings were dominated by Pope Dioscoros, imperial troops, and aggressive Egyptian monks armed with staves. This Council, which Pope Leo was to name the Lactrocinium, the “Robber Council” of Ephesus, restored and exonerated Eutyches and deposed Flavian, who was so violently treated that he eventually died of his injuries.

This was not the end of the matter. In 451 the Emperor Marcian convened another Council at Chalcedon which anathematized both Nestorius and Eutyches. The Council also deposed and excommunicated Dioscoros, who was exiled to Gangra, where he died in 454. It seemed to some that Chalcedon had condemned not only Eutyches, but also Cyril of Alexandria, despite its warm references to him. Many loyal to the theology of Cyril repudiated Chalcedon as a result. Despite repeated endeavours to heal the breach, from Chalcedon onwards there have existed in eastern Christianity two orthodoxes, one accepting the Council as of ecumenical authority, the other rejecting it. The second tradition, that of the Oriental Orthodox, is often described as Monophysite.” (McGrath:2011:238-9)

I would also like to address the theological writings of Rudolf Bultmann whose research covers some of the same mythological aspects of Christology that we have covered and that like Harnack above he has attempted to remove from the Bible story. However his removal of these aspects is from an atheistic existentialist view, by which he believes that ontology can explain these same myths.

I hope that I have proven that the use of existential writings by Sartre, one of the greatest of the atheist existentialists, has indeed helped to explain much of the bible thus far, but that is has fallen far far short of explaining the depths of the Christ story as the above does, especially in its universal conformity to other religious revelatory experiences and practices. Bultmann would say that these experiences are universal due to the ontological existential nature of mankind, but ontological existentialism does not explain how the CIA have psychics or scientists have proof of out of body experience, or more importantly how the Universe could have been brought into existence in accordance with sciences ideas, proofs, and techniques. Rather it would be better to say that ontology is a word that describes a branch of magic or wakan that one of the initiatory levels of magic, but not the be-all-and-end-all of magic, in just the same way as ‘survival of the fittest’ can be housed within ‘the embodiment of harmony’ but not vice versa:

Rudolf Bultmann on Demythologization and Biblical Interpretation

On June 4, 1941, Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) delivered a lecture which introduced the phrase “the demythologization of the New Testament.” The basic contention of this controversial lecture was that the New Testament proclamation or kerygma concerning Christ is stated and understood in mythological terms (which Bultmann attempted to derive from existing Jewish apocalyptic and Gnostic redemption myths, borrowing ideas deriving from the “history of religions school”) which, although perfectly legitimate and intelligible in the first century, cannot be taken seriously today. It is therefore the task of New Testament interpretation to eliminate this mythological cosmology, and extract the existential truths which lie beneath it.

‘The cosmology of the New Testament is essentially mythical in character. The world is viewed as a three-storied structure with the earth in the centre, the heaven above, and the underworld beneath. […]

The real purpose of myth is not to present an objective picture of the world as it is, but to express human understandings of themselves in the world in which they live. Myth should be interpreted not cosmologically, but anthropologically, or better still, existentially. […] Hence the importance of New Testament mythology lies not in its imagery but in the understanding of existence which it enshrines. The real question is whether this understanding of existence is true. Faith claims that it is, and faith ought not to be tied down to the imagery of New Testament mythology. […] Our task is to produce an existentialist interpretation of the dualistic mythology of the New Testament. […] We have to discover whether the New Testament offers us an understanding if ourselves which will challenge us to a genuine existential decision.’

Bultmann follows Wilhelm Hermmann in emphasizing that theological statements cannot, in principle, be made about God as he is in  himself, but rather as he relates to us. Therefore, according to Bultmann, they must consist in statements concerning the human existential situation. For Bultmann, the New Testament makes statements about God, which are to be interpreted in terms of human existence. Bultmann therefore argues that it is both possible and necessary to interpret the New Testament myths in existentialist terms. It must be emphasized that the term “myth”, as used by Bultmann, does not in any way imply that the “religious story” in question is in any sense untrue. Indeed, Bultmann defines myth as a form of thought which seeks to represent a transcendent reality in this-worldly terms. Bultmann declares that these stories possess an underlying existential meaning, which can be perceived and appropriated by a suitable process of interpretation.

Bultmann’s theology may be regarded as an ellipse constructed around two foci: first, the program of demythologization, or existential interpretation, of the New Testament; second, the idea of the kerygma, the proclamation of a divine word addressed to us, occasioning an existential crisis and demanding an existential decision on our part. Beneath the strange language of the New Testament lies the proclamation of a way of life which is a present possibility for us and which we may appropriate as our own. The “husk” of the myth contains the “kernel” of the kerygma: by translating the mythological “husk” into contemporary existential terms, the heart of the Christian proclamation may be recovered and made intelligible to modern humanity.” (McGrath:2011:125-6)

Existentialism: a philosophy of human experience

In what way do human beings differ from other forms of life? Humans have always been aware of some basic distinction between themselves, on the one hand, and all other forms of life, on the other. But what is this difference? And what does it mean to exist? Perhaps the most important thing which distinguishes human beings from other forms of life is the fact that they are aware of their own existence, and ask questions about it.

The rise of existentialist philosophy is ultimately a response to this crucial insight. We not only exist: we understand, we are aware that we exist, and we are aware that our existence will one day be terminated by death. The sheer fact of our existence is important to us, and we find it difficult, probably impossible, to adopt a totally detached attitude to it. Existentialism is basically a protest against the view that human beings are “things”, and a demand that we take the personal existence of the individual with full seriousness.

The term “existentialism” can bear two meanings. At its most basic level, it means an attitude toward human life which places special emphasis upon the immediate, real-life experience of individuals. It is concerned with the way in which individuals encounter others, and gain an understanding of their finitude. In a more developed sense, the term refers to a movement, which probably reached its zenith in the period 1938-68, the origins of which lie primarily in the writings of the Danish philosopher Sǿren Kierkegaard (1813-55). Kierkegaard stressed the importance of individual decision and an awareness of the limits of human existence. In terms of the history of modern theology, the most important contribution to the development of existentialism was mad by Martin Heidegger (1888-1976), particularly in his Being and Time (1927). This work provided Rudolf Bultmann with the basic ideas and vocabulary he required to develop a Christian existentialist account of human existence, and the manner in which this is illuminated and transformed by the gospel.

Of fundamental importance is Heidegger’s distinction between “inauthentic existence” and “authentic existence”, which Bultmann creatively reinterprets in the light of the New Testament. According to Bultmann, the New Testament recognizes two types of human existence. First, there is unbelieving, unredeemed existence, which is an inauthentic form of existence. Here, individuals refuse to recognize themselves for what they really are; creatures who are dependent upon God for their well-being and salvation. Such individuals seek to justify themselves by trying to secure existence through moral actions or material prosperity. This attempt at self-sufficiency on the part of humanity is designated by both the Old and New Testament as “sin”.

Against this inauthentic mode of human existence, the New Testament sets the mode of believing, redeemed existence, in which we abandon all security created by ourselves, and trust in God. We recognize the illusion of our self-sufficiency, and trust instead in the sufficiency of God. Instead of denying that we are God’s creatures, we recognise and exult in this fact, and base our existence upon it. Instead of clinging to transitory things for security, we learn to abandon faith in this transitory world in order that we may place our trust in God himself. Instead of trying to justify ourselves, we learn to recognize that God offers us our justification as a free gift. Instead of denying the reality of our human finitude and the inevitability of death, we recognize that these have been faced and conquered through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, whose victory becomes our victory through faith.

The rise of existentialism is a reflection of the importance attached to the inner world of human experience in the modern period. Nevertheless, it must be appreciated that this concern with human experience is not something new: it can arguably be discerned in both Old and New Testaments, and it permeates the writings of Augustine of Hippo. Martin Luther declared that “experience makes a theologian”, and argued that it was impossible to be a proper theologian without an experience of the searing and terrifying judgement of God upon human sin. ….the literary movement known as Romanticism gave considerable importance to the role of “feeling”, and opened the way for a new interest in this aspect of Christian life.” (McGrath:2007:147-8)

In regards to the ability to of us to actually work upon ourselves within this life to bring ourselves into harmony to such a degree that we actually ‘see’ God, which Jesus did, and which many others throughout time and space have done through meditation and the use of mantra as described previously let us hear from some Christian heterodox methodologies that have instigated the same effect by this same cause and the importance placed upon this practice:

The hesychastic controversy

The second controversy, which broke out in the fourteenth century, focused on the issue of hesychasm (Greek: hēsychia, silence), a style of meditation through physical exercises which enabled believers to see the “divine light” with their own eyes. Hesychasm place considerable emphasis upon the idea of “inner quietness” as a means of achieving a direct inner vision of God. It was particularly associated with writers such as Simeon the New Theologian (949-1022) and Gregory Palamas, who was elected archbishop of Thessalonika in 1347. Its opponents argued that its methods intended to minimize the difference between God and creatures, and were particularly alarmed by the suggestion that God could be “seen”.

In responding to this criticism, Palamas developed the doctrine now generally known as “Palamism”, which draws a distinction between the divine energies and the divine essence. The distinction allowed Palamas to defend the hesychastic approach by affirming that it enabled believers to encounter the divine energies, but not the unseen, and ineffable divine essence. Believers cannot participate directly in the divine essence; however, that are able to participate directly in the uncreated energies which are God’s mode of union with believers.

Palamas’s theology was espoused and developed particularly by the lay theologian Nicolas Cabasilis (c.1320-c.1390), whose Life in Christ remains a classic work of Byzantine spirituality. His work has been reappropriated in more recent years by neo-Palamite writers such as Vladimir Lossky and John Meyendorff.” (McGrath:2007:32)

Simeon (or Symeon) was born into a wealthy family in Paphagonia, Asia Minor, in 949. At the age of 11, he was sent to the great city of Constantinople for further study. His parents had aspirations that he would go on to a political career, but he had a spiritual experience at the age of 20 which convinced him of the importance of a direct encounter with God. Although he did not immediately give up on his political hopes, his ecstatic experience of God as a living presence of radiant light had clearly made a deep impression on him. At the age of 27, he entered the monastery of Studios, and came under the spiritual direction of Symeon the Pious…

Simeon remains one of the most important theological influences on modern Orthodoxy, reflecting the high regard in which he is held. His theology echoes many of the now-traditional themes of Byzantine doctrine, particularly an emphasis upon the doctrine of the incarnation, and an accentuation on redemption as deification.” (McGrath:2007:33-4)

Christ as mediator between God and humanity

… The Logos-Christology of Justin Martyr and others is an excellent instance of the notion of the mediation of revelation through Christ. Here, the Logos is understood to be a mediating principle which bridges the gap between a transcendent God and God’s creation. Although present in a transient manner in the Old Testament prophets, the Logos becomes incarnate in Christ, thus providing a fixed point of mediation between God and humanity. A related approach is found in Emil Brunner’s The Mediator (1927), and in a more developed form in his 1937 work Truth as Encounter… For Brunner, “truth” is itself a personal concept. Revelation cannot be conceived propositionally or intellectually, but must be understood as an act of God, and supremely the act of Jesus Christ.

God is revealed personally and historically in Jesus Christ. The concept of “truth as encounter” thus conveys the two elements of a correct understanding of revelation: it is historical and it is personal. By the former, Brunner wishes us to understand that truth is not something permanent within the eternal world of ideas which is disclosed or communicated to us, but something which happens in space and time. Truth comes into being as the act of God in time and space. By the latter point, Brunner intends to emphasize that the content of this act of God is none other than God, rather than a complex of ideas or doctrines concerning God. The revelation of God is God’s self-impartation to us.” (McGrath:2007:286-7).

Christ as a symbolic presence of God

A related approach treats the traditional Christological formulas as symbols of a presence of God in Christ, which is not to be understood as a substantial presence. This symbolic presence points to the possibility of the same presence being available and accessible to others. Perhaps the most important representative of this position is Paul Tillich, for whom Jesus of Nazareth symbolizes a universal human possibility, which can be achieved without specific reference to Jesus.

For Tillich, the event upon which Christianity is based has two aspects: the fact which is called “Jesus of Nazareth”, and the reception of this fact by those who claimed him as the Christ. The factual or objective- historical Jesus is not the foundation of faith, apart from his reception as the Christ. Tillich has no interest in the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth: all that he is prepared to affirm about him (insofar as it relates to the foundation of faith) is that it was a “personal life”, analogous to the biblical picture, who might well have had a name other than “Jesus”. “Whatever his name, the New Being was and is active in this man.”

The symbol “Christ” or “Messiah” means “the one who brings the new state of things, the New Being.” The significance of Jesus lies in his being the historical manifestation of the New Being. “It is the Christ who brings the New Being, who saves men from the old being, that is from existential estrangement and its destructive consequences.”…

Jesus may thus be said to be a symbol which illuminates the mystery of being, although other sources of illumination are available. Tillich here regards Jesus of Nazareth as a symbol of a particular moral or religious principle. Tillich emphasizes that God himself cannot appear under the conditions of existence, in that he is the ground of being. The “New Being” must therefore come from God, but cannot be God. Jesus was a human being who achieved a union with God open to every other human being. Tillich thus represents a degree Christology, which treats Jesus as a symbol of our perception of God.” (McGrath:2007:289)

To return to the Catholicity of this belief and how it could bring about the millennium let us look at modern approaches to the idea of consciousness being the Core or heart of what it means to be human and how this conscience of the homodynamic perspective is to be conscious of this conscience, which lies at the heart of God’s laws and of Church laws, as according to the most recently extinct Pope Ratzinger and by the Second Vatican Council, before seeing this affirmed by more Catholic writings of these times:

The Second Vatican Council on Human Nature

The Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (“Joy and Hope”), promulgated in December, 1965, was one of the Second Vatican Council’s most significant contributions to theological reflection on human nature and dignity. It sets out the traditional Catholic understanding of human nature, paying particular attention to the place of humanity within creation, and the impact of sin upon the human capacity to choose rightly and do good.

’12. According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their centre and crown.

But what is man? About himself he had expressed, and continues to express, many divergent and even contradictory opinions. In these he often exalts himself as the absolute measure of all things or debases himself to the point of despair. The result is doubt and anxiety…

But God did not create man as a solitary, for from the beginning “male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). Their companionship produces the primary form of interpersonal produces the primary form of interpersonal communion. For by his innermost nature man is a social being, and unless he relates himself to others he can neither live nor develop his potential. Therefore, as we read elsewhere in Holy Scripture God saw “all that he had made, and it was very good” (Genesis 1:31) […]

16. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God: to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God. Whose voice echoes in his depths. In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbour. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.’

The Constitution sets out a view of human nature which is rigorously grounded both in the Old and New Testaments, and reflects the Christian exploration of these themes in the long subsequent tradition of theological reflection. The influence of Augustine of Hippo is evident at a number of points. Humanity is here portrayed as the height of God’s good creation. The constitution speaks of a “split” within human nature, as a result of sin, leading to a weakening of the human will, while at the same time affirming that the law of God is written on human hearts in the conscience.” (McGrath:2011:398-401)

Benedict XVI on the Identity of Humanity

Cardinal Joseph Alois Ratzinger (born 1927) was elected Pope in 2005, and took the name Benedict XVI. By this stage he had established an international reputations as a defender and interpreter of traditional Catholic orthodoxy. In this extract from a series of reflections on the doctrine of creation, Benedict reflects on the implications of the notion of humanity being created in the image of God. After noting that humanity is created from the earth, Benedict asks what additional factors shape human theological identity.

‘Hence the Bible says that whoever violates a human being violates God’s property (cf.Genesis 9:5). Human life stands under God’s special protection, because each human being, however wretched or exalted he or she may be, however sick or suffering, however good-for-nothing or important, whether born or unborn, whether incurably ill or radiant with health- each one bear’s God’s breath in himself or herself, each one is God’s image. This is the deepest reason for the inviolability of human dignity, and upon it is founded ultimately every civilization. When the human person is no longer seen as standing under God’s protection and bearing God’s breath, then the human being begins to be viewed in utilitarian fashion. It is then that the barbarity appears that tramples upon human dignity. …

Thus the image of God means, first of all, that human beings cannot be closed in on themselves. Human beings who attempt this betray themselves. To be the image of God implies relationality. It is the dynamic that sets the human being in motion toward the totally Other. Hence it means the capacity for relationships; it is the human capacity for God.’” (McGrath:2011:404)

Vladimir Lossky on Apophatic approaches to Theology

Vladimir Lossky (1904-58) was one of Russian Orthodoxy’s most significant theologians of the twentieth century. Following the Russian Revolution, he settled in Paris, where he wrote several works, of which the greatest is his Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, which sets out the leading themes of Orthodox theology, including its distinctively apophatic approach to theology. Lossky begins by tracing the roots of such an approach to Dionysus the pseudo-Areopagite, who is widely regarded as its intellectual fountainhead.

‘Dionysus begins his treatise with an invocation of the Holy Trinity, whom he prays to guide him “to the supreme height of mystical writings, which is beyond what is known, where the mysteries of theology, simple, unconditional, invariable, are laid bare in a darkness of silence beyond the light.” He invites Timothy, to whom the treatise is dedicated, to “mystical contemplation” (mystica theamata). It is necessary to renounce both sense and all the workings of reason, everything which may be known by the senses or the understanding, both that which is and all that is not, in order to be able to attain in perfect ignorance to union with Him who transcends all being and all knowledge. It is already evident that this is not simply a question of a process of dialectic but of something else: a purification, a katharsis, is necessary. One must abandon all that is impure and even all that is pure. One must then scale the most sublime heights of sanctity leaving behind one all the divine luminaries, all the heavenly sounds and words. It is only thus that one may penetrate to the darkness wherein He who is beyond all created things makes his dwelling.

This was of ascent, in the course of which we are gradually delivered from the hold of all that can be known, is compared by Dionysius to Moses’ ascent of Mount Sinai to meet with God…

Through them is revealed the presence of Him who is above all thought, a presence which occupies the intelligible heights of His holy places. It is then that Moses is freed from the things that see and are seen: he passes into the truly mystical darkness of ignorance, where he shuts his eyes to all scientific apprehensions, and reaches what is entirely untouched and unseen, belonging not to himself and not to another, but wholly to Him who is above all. He is united to the best of his powers with the unknowing quiescence of all knowledge, and by that very unknowing he knows what surpasses understanding.

It is now clear that the apophatic way, or mystical theology- or such is the title of the treatise devoted to the way of negations- has for its object God, in so far as He is absolutely incomprehensible. It would even be inaccurate to say that it has God for its object. The latter part of the passage which we have just quoted shows that once arrived at the extreme height of the knowable one must be freed from that which perceives as much as from that which can be perceived: that is to say, from the subject as well as from the object of perception. God no longer presents Himself as object, for it is no more a question of knowledge but of union. Negative theology is thus a way towards mystical union with God, whose nature remains incomprehensible to us.” (McGrath:2011:40-1)

It is through this type of understanding of Christ as the Logos and the Logos as being an ever changing Nature that is changed by our Natures as the Universe reforms according to our actions, that leads to an understanding of the homodynamic concept being one that could and should and indeed would bring about the predicted Millenium of the early Church Fathers. This has been reiterated in the writings of Liberation Theology that were crushed by the Pope John Paul II in the 1980s and 1990s. The Liberation Theologists were known to sell the gold and even the pews from their churches in order to help the poor:

Leonardo Boff on the Trinity as Good News for the Poor

The Brazilian writer Leonardo Boff (born 1938), one of the most noted exponents of Latin American liberation theology, set out his views on how the doctrine of the Trinity shapes social attitudes in his work Trinity and Society. Boff here provides an exploration of the manner in which the Trinity itself can provide a model for social living, arguing that the mutual relationship of a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit acts as a basis for Christian social theory and practice.

‘In what sense can the Trinity be called “gospel”, good news, to people, especially to the poor and oppressed? For many Christians it is simply a mystery in logic: how can the one God exist in three Persons? How can a Trinity of Persons form the unity of the one God? Any Christian coming into contact with debates on the Trinity for the first time might well form this impression: the Christian faith developed intellectually in the Hellenic world; Christians had to translate their doxology into a theology appropriate to that world in order to assert the truth of their faith. So they used expressions accessible to the critical reasoning of that time, such as substance, person, relation, perichoresis, procession. …We should never forget that the New Testament never uses the expressions “trinity of persons” and “unity of nature”. To say that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit is revelation; to say that God is “one substance and three Persons” is theology, a human endeavour to for the revelation of God within the limitations of reason.” (McGrath:2011:196)

Gustavo Gutiérrez on Theology as Critical Reflection

The Peruvian theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez (born 1928) is one of the most important representatives of Latin American liberation theology, noted particularly for its emphasis on practice rather than theory. This emphasis, whose origins may be traced back to Karl Marx’s distinction between theory and praxis, shows itself particularly in the liberationist emphasis on the need for practical social involvement and political commitment, and the implicit criticism of western understandings of theology as a disinterested and detached academic discipline. In this extract from his Theology of Liberation, Gutiérrez explores the significance of this point for a critical understanding of the nature of Christian theology

‘Theology must be critical reflection on humankind, on basic human principles. Only with this approach will theology be a serious discourse, aware of itself, in full possession of its conceptual elements. But we are not referring exclusively to this epistemological aspect when we talk about theology as critical reflection. We also refer to a clear and critical attitude regarding economic and socio-cultural issues in the life and reflection of the Christian community. To disregard these is to deceive both oneself and others. But above all, we intend this term to express the theory of a definite practice….

By preaching the Gospel message, by its members, the Church proclaims and shelters the gift of the Kingdom of God in the heart of human history. The Christian community professes a faith which works through charity. It is- at least ought to be- real charity, action, and commitment to the service of others…

To reflect upon the presence and action of the Christian in the world means, moreover, to go beyond the visible boundaries of the Church. This is of prime importance. It implies openness to the world, gathering the questions it poses, being attentive to its historical transformations. In the words of Yves Congar, “If the Church wishes to deal with the real questions of the modern world and to attempt to respond to them…it must open as it were a new chapter of theologicopastoral epistemology. Instead of using only revelation and tradition as starting points, as classical theology has generally done, it must start with facts and questions derived from the world and from history.” It is precisely this opening to the totality of human history that allows theology to fulfil its critical function vis-à-vis ecclesiastical praxis without narrowness.

This critical task is indispensable. Reflection in the light of faith must constantly accompany the pastoral action of the Church. By keeping historical events in their proper perspective, theology helps safeguard society and the Church from regarding as permanent what is only temporary. Critical reflection thus always plays the inverse role of an ideology which rationalizes and justifies a given social and ecclesial order…Theology as critical reflection thus fulfils a liberating function for humankind and the Christian community, preserving them from fetishism and idolatry, as well as from a pernicious and belittling narcissism. Understood in this way theology has a necessary and permanent role in liberation from every form of religious alienation- which is often fostered by the ecclesiastical institution itself when it impedes an authentic approach to the Word of the Lord…

A theology which has as its points of reference only “truths” which have been established once and for all- and not the Truth which is also the Way- can be only static and, in the long run, sterile. In this sense the often-quoted and misinterpreted words of Bouillard take on new validity: “A theology which is not up-to-date is a false theology.”…

In the last analysis, the true interpretation of the meaning revealed by theology is achieved only in historical praxis- “The hermeneutics of the Kingdom of God,” observed Schillebeckx. “consists especially in making the world a better place. Only in this way will I be able to discover what the Kingdom of God means.” We have here a political hermeneutics of the Gospel…

But in order to make our contribution, this desire for universality- as well as input from the Christian community as a whole- must be present from the beginning. To concretize this desire would be to overcome particularistic tendencies- provincial and chauvinistic- and produce something unique, both particular and universal, and therefore fruitful. …

This is a theology which does not stop with reflecting on the world, but rather tries to be part of the process through which the world is transformed. It is a theology which is open- in the protest against trampled human dignity, in the struggle against the plunder of the vast majority of humankind, in liberating love, and in the building of a new, just, and comradely society- to the gift of the Kingdom of God.” (McGrath:2011:50-3)

With all of this said, it is necessary to reflect about the contra-distinct perspectives of the Universe that have currently been espoused in this work, namely the concept of ‘survival of the fittest’ versus ‘the embodiment of harmony’.  The above system of perspective (the manas perspective) of the mill that forms a clear alimental communion with the gods eating us and us eating the gods and thereby forming the Nature of Nature alimentally, coalescingly,  reveals this may go someway towards the fundamentalist understanding of the Bible that denies any initiatory method of understanding the story of Christ- who is, demonstrably, the Logos- and how this shallow understanding has led to its mirror image in a shallow scientific understanding of the abilities of science that is viewed upon this same fundamentalist platform. It has been clearly shown that both science and fundamental readings of the empirical world and of the Bible, cannot explain either of these ‘truthful’ worlds, that they then come up with.

Why pagan gods were born from virgin mothers on the 25^th December, use holy-cakes and turn water into wine, or why sugar pills, claims of reincarnation, or CIA psychics that prove their worth with results, cannot be fundamentally explained under their models of ‘survival of the fittest’ i.e. that we are nothing but genes in a sack, or that Mary gave birth to God as a virgin when she had already had two sons previously as we are told in the Bible. Both of these are not fundamental truths as they are claimed but are instead acts of faith in the respective religion, that denies the fundamental reasons upon which these acts are based. The problem is not with the universe or with the Bible, it is with the fundamentalist attitude that these religions (science and fundamentalism) take in the first place when looking at them.  Until a universal reason can explain these things, then it is unreasonable to promulgate them as truth.

As we have seen, there is an ‘inner world’ that is important to understand as any aspect of how we perceive either the outer world, or the words used to describe this. The Bible is not an outer world ‘CCTV’ recording of Christ’s life, but an initiatory story framed by his actual life’. The universe is not the 1% of matter that we can see and measure, as medical operations that don’t happen, but have the same result as doing them, show us.

However the homodynamic view that quantum physics and astrology reveal as does ancient understanding of the soul, and myths from around the world that outline the teaching of karma, and mantric practices from around the world that outline the same revelatory visions, as well as all of the above ‘unexplainables’ of religious fundamentalism or scientific fundamentalism, can be explained through this perspective.

This understanding is not a radical one at all, in both of these fields of perspective, but is in fact regarded today as obvious, it is only in the press and in popular culture that this ignorance is still promulgated as a ‘live debate’:

The opposition of science and theology

One of the most influential understandings of the relation of science and theology holds that they are in a state of permanent warfare. This viewpoint was popularized in the second half of the nineteenth century, and has been given a new lease of life by its aggressive adoption by the “New Atheism”, especially obvious in Richard Dawkin’s God Delusion (2006). It is only a matter of time before science, according to Dawkins, will eliminate religion. The “warfare” model of science and religion is now regarded as discredited by historians; this has not, however, prevented it from continuing to be influential, especially in popular culture.Yet it is not merely the “New Atheism” that advocates the warfare of science and theology. This perspective is also found in more conservative forms of Protestantism, especially in the United States. According to this approach, the Genesis creation accounts represent a legitimate understanding of the origins of the world, which remain valid in the face of the rival theories offered by the natural sciences. This view does not regard biblical and scientific approaches as complementary. Rather, it regards the biblical material as presenting a valid and objective account of the origins and development of humanity, which is in tension with theories of evolution- and, for this reason, it says that theories of evolution are incorrect. This is particularly associated with conservative American evangelism. It is increasingly referred to as “scientific creationism” and can be studied in writers such as Henry M.Morris, particularly his Scientific Creationism (1974).” (McGrath:2007:170)

Augustine on the Literal and Allegorical Senses of Scripture

One of Augustine’s earliest and most important controversies related to the Manichaeans, a sect which dismissed the Old Testament as an irrelevance, on the basis of an excessively literal approach to its meaning…

‘For this reason: “The letter kills but the Spirit brings life” (2 Corinthians 3:6). And again: “The same veil remains in the reading of the Old Testament and there is no revelation, for in Christ the veil is removed” (2 Corinthians 3:14). It is not the Old Testament that is abolished in Christ but the concealing veil, so that it may be understood through Christ’

This is an important passage, as it sets out an approach to the relation of the Old and New Testaments which would become widely accepted within Christianity. Note especially the way in which Augustine uses the image of a “veil”, which he finds in Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians. There is, he argues, no tension between the Old and New Testaments; it is simply that we are unable to see their proper connection and relationship until the veil which obscures our view is removed. The development of a proper hermeneutical scheme is therefore an integral element of theological reflection.” (McGrath:2011:75-6)

Cyril of Alexandria on Mary as the Mother of God

At the Council of Ephesus (431), the term “Theotokos” (literally, “bearer of God”) was formally endorsed as an appropriate title for Mary, as mother of Jesus Christ. Cyril’s homily celebrates the dignity of Mary as a result of her bearing Jesus Christ….

‘Is there a single person who can worthily celebrate the praises of Mary? She is both mother and virgin. What a marvellous thing! It is a marvel which overwhelms me! Has anyone ever heard it said that the builder was prevented from dwelling in the temple which he himself built? Has anyone the right to speak ill of the one who gave his own servant the title of mother? Thus everyone rejoices! […]

This passage illuminates the reasons why so many patristic writers of the eastern church saw it as essential to maintain that Mary as indeed “the bearer of God” (Theotokos). Cyril clearly regards this teaching as safeguarding a series of important theological and spiritual insights which could be lost if this title were to be abandoned or declared to be incorrect.” (McGrath:2011:235-6)

Vincent of Lérins on the Role of Tradition

Writing in the year 434, in the aftermath of the Pelagian controversy, Vincent (who died at an unknown date before 450) expressed his belief that the controversies of that time had given rise to theological innovations. It is clear that he regarded Augustine’s doctrine of double predestination as a case in point. But how could such doctrinal innovations be identified? In response to this question, he argues for a triple criterion by which authentic Christian teaching may be established: ecumenicity (being believed everywhere), antiquity (being believed always), and consent (being believed by all people).

‘…Now in the catholic church itself the greatest care is taken that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all people [quod ubique, quod simper, quod omnibus creditum est]. This is what is truly and properly catholic. This is clear from the force of the word and reason, which understands everything universally. We shall follow “universality” in this way, if we acknowledge this one faith to be true, which the entire church confesses throughout the world. We affirm “antiquity” if we in no way depart from those understandings which it is clear that the greater saints and our fathers proclaimed.’

Vincent was concerned for the stability of the Christian theological tradition, and was anxious that certain doctrinal innovations were being introduced without adequate reason. Vincent was especially troubled by some of Augustine’s views on predestination, which he regarded as unwise and hasty improvisations. There was a need to have public standards by which such doctrines could be judged. So what standard was available, by which the church could be safeguarded from such errors? For Vincent, the answer was clear- tradition. The phrase- “that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all people” (quod ubique, quod simper, quod ab omnibus creditum est) has come to be known, as the “Vincentian Canon”.” (McGrath:2011:78-9)

21: The Gnostic Gospels

Before we move on to look at the concept of the sacraments and purgatory as per the Catholic understanding of them, in order to see how these canons of the Catholic way of life can be explained let us now see if the above understanding can be further elucidated by referring to banned gospels of the Catholic church, that as we saw used this Greek-pagan language in order to describe Jesus and God and Mary and the Trinity, etc. Remembering that these gospels were anathema for that reason as well as the misunderstanding of pre-existent matter, which as we have seen above was a misunderstanding of Plato’s and not of the Pagan Eleusinian mysteries themselves, and is not one of the Catholic churches i.e. ex nihilo.

These gospels were written by people that knew Christ in life and are therefore to be read under that perspective and not one of anathema or heterodoxy, apart from the pre-existent matter understanding.

In them we will find the initiatory story of Jesus revealed, the idea of reincarnation and of celestial realms that are invisible to humanity, we will find Noah’s drunkenness and the Eucharist as seen through the eyes of Sufi mystics, that under Islam will not exist for another 600 years before they too write the same revelations, as we have seen most eloquently by Rumi.

Let us then take the above ‘secret knowledge’ that I have stated above, and see how the Catholic church spoke of them for the first three hundred years of its existence in these gospels, before they were suddenly not the teachings of Christ anymore.

If what I have said above is right then surely it is in this world of Gnosticism that the reader will be able to bridge the ‘initiatory gap’ between the Bible and the Pagan world that it so violently  rejected, taking these Gnostics along with it.

Roman Christianity – the Culling of those who actually Knew Jesus –  The Gnostics

 “Whatever else Jesus Christ might have been, the Church refused to make him a demigod, and the various forms of speculation that were defined as Gnostic coined terms and conceptions which did attempt to bridge the gulf.” Revd Dr Vrej N. Nersessian, Curator, The British Library, Christian Middle East Section

“Gnostic authors speak of God in imagery that is both male and female. “I am the Father; I am the Mother; I am the Son,” God says in The Apocryphon of John. Elsewhere a spirit of wisdom announces, “I am the Voice… in the likeness of a female…in the thought of the likeness of my masculinity…I am androgynous…” The unification of the sexes served in early Christianity as a symbol of salvation, and in the memorable announcement of St Paul in his Letter to the Galatians, in Christ “there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ” (Gal.3:28). Paul borrows this text from Gnostic literature. The theme of “making the male and female into a single one” is also explicit in The Gospel of Thomas. And in The Gospel of Mary Magdalene the apostle Levi admonishes Peter “for doubting a woman worthy”, reminding Peter that:

‘If Jesus made her upright,

Who are we to disown her?

Jesus knew her well, that’s why he lover her more than us.

Let’s be penitent…’

Also shared by Gnosticism and Orthodox writers was a sense that Christ was really polymorphous, that he had many different appearances depending on who was perceiving him. The chameleon-like changeability of Christ in early Christian art may be linked to the belief that the Lord “hath no form nor comeliness” (Isaiah 53:2)

Christianity, having opted for the most “visual”, “tangible” and “materialist” expressions, has deprived its followers of the need to “seek”, to “search”, to “look for the ‘hidden’”. The formulaic definition of the “mystery profound” within fixed doctrines has meant that these positions outside their historical context have become incomprehensible, irrelevant and absurd. Today, Christianity constantly needs to re-invent itself.” Revd Dr Vrej N. Nersessian, Curator, The British Library, Christian Middle East Section

The Fable of the Pearl

A dramatic Greek myth depicting the Soul’s bodily incarnation and its eventual liberation. Attributed to Jude Thomas the Apostle, it summarises the “Gnostic Call” to awaken from the dream of life into Self or God Realisation.

“I remembered my robe and

purple cloak, which I had

left in my parents’ house, and

the treasures they’d given me.

When I pictured the robe in its

full glory it suddenly seemed to be

a reflection of my Real Self.

I saw my own Self in this clear mirror,

knowing the see-er and the seen

were not two but One.

The King of Kings was imaged there

Shimmering all over, as the true Gnosis.

I saw He was poised to sing,

and I heard the murmur of His song. …

My Love raced to greet Him,

I expanded, cladding myself

with His rainbow hues.

I threw His royal cloak

over my whole Self.” (Jacobs:2005:16-7)

The Gospel of Thomas

A primary scripture of the Early Eastern Church, recorded by Jude Thomas the Apostle, relating intimate Gnostic sayings of Jesus to his disciples, many of which do not appear in the New Testament. Originally written in Greek before AD 200.

“If those who lead you

say ‘God’s Kingdom’s in Heaven,’

then birds will fly there first.

If they say ‘It’s in the sea,’

the fish will swim there first.

For God’s Kingdom dwells in

Your heart and all around you;

When you know your Self

you too shall be known!

You’ll be aware that you’re

the sons and daughters of

our living Father.

But if you fail to know

your own Self

you’re in hardship.” (Jacobs:2005:20)

“They answered,

“Shall we, being as children,

come into His Kingdom?”

Jesus replied,

“Make the two into One

and the inner as the outer

and the outer as the inner,

the above as below,

the male and female

into a single One.

So the male isn’t male and

the female isn’t female any more.

When you make two eyes

into a single eye,

a hand into a hand,

a foot into a foot,

a picture into a picture,

then you’ll enter the Kingdom.” (Jacobs:2005:29-30)

“My soul was afflicted for

mankind, for they are blind

at heart and do not see.

Empty, they enter this world,

empty they’ll leave!

But now they’re drunk!

When they sober up they’ll

change their Knowledge.” (Jacobs:2005:31)

“His disciples asked,

“On which day will peace

for the dead come about

When will a new world come?”

Jesus replied,

“What you desire

has already come,

but you don’t realise it.” (Jacobs:2005:35-6)

“There was a rich man who

said, “I’ll use my wealth

to sow, reap and plant

and fill up my barns

so I lack nothing.’

That night he died.” (Jacobs:2005:38)

“He who drinks my words with

Understanding shall be like me,

and I shall become him and the

secret things will be revealed.” (Jacobs:2005:50)

“His disciples enquired,

“On what day will

the Kingdom come?”

Lord Jesus replied, “It won’t

come through anticipation;

they won’t say, ‘Look, it’s here,

or look over there.’

The Kingdom of Heaven

covers the Earth with glory,

but mankind fails to see it!” (Jacobs:2005:51)

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene

Originally written in Greek, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene tells the disciples about Mary’s unique revelations through her relationship with Jesus. Andrew and Peter question her veracity and ask why a woman should become a favourite disciple. They are admonished by Levi.

“Mary questioned her Master,

“At the end of an aeon,

will all matter be destroyed?”

Jesus answered,

“All of nature, its forms and

creatures are interrelated;

all will be returned to their

original source.

The essence of matter also returns

to the source of its own nature.

He who has ears, let him comprehend!” (Jacobs:2005:53)

“Then Jesus greeted them saying,

“Peace be with you all.

Take my peace into your Selves;

be watchful so nobody leads

you astray claiming ‘Look there,

look here for the son of man.’

I tell you that the son of man

is within you all!

Seek him inside; those who

search diligently and earnestly

shall surely find him.

Then leave and preach the truth

of the Kingdom to those with

ears to hear; don’t invent rules

beyond those I’ve given.

Don’t make laws like law-makers do

or else you’ll be held back.”

After he had said this he left.” (Jacobs:2005:55)

“Peter said to Mary, “Dear sister,

we know our Saviour loves

you more than the rest of women.

Tell us his words that you remember,

those we’ve never heard before.”

Mary answered,

“What’s concealed from you I’ll tell;

I asked, ‘Lord, does he or she

who sees the vision perceive

it through soul or spirit?’

He answered, ‘One perceives

through neither soul nor spirit

but by mind, which mediates

between both; visions are mental.’” (Jacobs:2005:57)

“When my soul had conquered ignorance

it rose up and saw the fourth power,

which assumes seven forms.

The first is darkness, the second

desire, then ignorance, fear of death,

power of the flesh, foolish reason,

and self-righteous pedantry.

These are the powers of anger

and doubt; they ask, ‘From where

did you come, killer of men;

where are you heading,

slayer of space?’

My soul replied,

‘What bound me is dead,

what enveloped me has been

vanquished; my desires are over

and ignorance is no more.

In this life I was freed from the

world and the chains of forgetfulness.

From now on I will rest

in the eternal now; for this age,

this aeon, and in stillness.’”

Then Mary was silent, for this was

the truth Jesus had revealed.

Andrew then spoke,

“Say what you like about

what Mary has said, but I

don’t believe Jesus would tell

us such strange notions!”

Peter said, “Did he really speak

with Mary, a woman, without our

knowing? Are we to listen to her

Did he favour her more than us?’”

Then Mary cried to Peter,

“My brother, do you believe

I made this up, or that I would

lie about Jesus?”

Levi admonished Peter,

“You’ve always been

quick to anger;

now I see you doubting

a woman as worthy as Mary.

Who do you think you are

to dispute her testimony,

like an enemy?

If Jesus  made her upright,

Who are we to disown her?

Jesus knew her well; that’s

why he loved her more than us.

Let’s be penitent and don the robe

of the perfect man and make him

one with ourselves, as he taught.” (Jacobs:2005:58-61)

Melchizedek

An Apocalyptic Gospel, originally written in Greek, telling of the visions received from celestial beings by the legendary Melchizedek. It contains prophecies concerning the death, ministry and resurrection of Jesus and the heretics who will deny him.” (Jacobs:2005:62)

“It’s not a trifling matter

that Almighty God is with us.

and His angels that dwell in the world.” (Jacobs:2005:68)

The Gospel of Philip

An early Greek, Valentinian collection of Jesus’s sayings to his disciples. Many refer to the profound sacramental mysteries of Baptism, Anointment, the Eucharist and the Bridal Chamber.

A slave yearns to be free but he doesn’t

hope to inherit his Master’s house.

A boy isn’t only a son, but in time

will lay claim to his father’s estate.

Those who crave to be heirs of

the dead are already spiritually dead

and will inherit death.

Those who seek to be heirs of

the living are spiritually alive

and will inherit what is both

alive and dead.

The dead inherit nothing,

yet if they inherit what is living,

they’ll gain Eternal Life.

A true Christian never dies

for he has not lived in vain,

to inherit spiritual death.” (Jacobs:2005:72-3)

“For the good are not wholly good

nor the wicked wholly wicked,

nor is life merely life,

nor death merely death;

each will return to its primal source.

But those who transcend these

apparent opposites are eternal;

worldly names are full of deceit

and delude our minds.

They muddy the distinction

between right and wrong

with words like father, spirit, son,

life, light, resurrection and church.

In the eternal world there

are no such deceptions.

One Name is never uttered,

the Name the Father gave His Son.

For the Son couldn’t have become

the Father unless he knew His Name.

Those who know this

Name never speak it.

Truth brought names into

being for our sake.

The dark powers wanted to

deceive man, to confuse his

relationship with the truly good.

They took good names and gave

them to the bad, so that with these

names they might bind them.” (Jacobs:2005:75-6)

“Some claim that Mary’s

conception was immaculate.

They’re mistaken; women cannot

conceive from the Holy Spirit,

which is feminine.

It means that Mary wasn’t

defiled by dark powers,

which defile themselves.” (Jacobs:2005:77-8)

“Echamoth means wisdom of death;

one who knows death is termed

“the lesser wisdom.” (Jacobs:2005:84)

“The Perfect Man ploughs

through his subdued powers,

preparing for all to come into Being.

Thus the world is established

through good and evil, right and left.” (Jacobs:2005:85)

“God consumes man,

egos are sacrificed before Him;

animals were sacrificed

to those who weren’t God.” (Jacobs:2005:88)

“A mule that turned a mill stone

walked a hundred leagues,

but when released it was still

on the same spot!

There are folk who make

pilgrimages without progress….

Jesus is the Eucharist;

in Syriac he’s called Pharisatha,

“the one who is stretched out”;

Jesus came to nail this world

to the Cross!

Jesus entered Levi’s dye works;

he took seventy-two dyes and

threw them in the vat.” (Jacobs:2005:88-9)

“”Jesus said, “Blessed be he who IS,

before he came into being,

for he who IS has always been

and always shall be.

Man’s mastery is invisible,

and lies in the concealed.”  (Jacobs:2005:90-1)

“In Jerusalem there were

three temples for the sacrifice.

The one facing west

was named “Holy”,

the south-facing temple

was the “Holy of the Holy”,

the east-facing one

the “Holy of Holies”,

where only the High Priest was allowed.

Baptism is the Holy,

Redemption is the

Holy of the Holy;

The Holy of Holies

is the bridal chamber.” (Jacobs:2005:100)

“I must speak about the great mystery;

The Father of All married a virgin,

who descended, and fire glowed

upon their wedding day.

His visible body, the whole universe,

came into Being on that day…

It is best for each disciple

to abide in his peace.

Adam came into being

from two virgins:

the Spirit and the Earth.” (Jacobs:2005:102-3)

“Children of the bridal

chamber minister to the

children of their marriage.

The name of these offspring is peace.

They don’t need form

Because they have meditation;

they are abundant in their Glory….

Those who say they’ll die first

and then rise again are mistaken.

If they do not receive

resurrection while alive,

they’ll receive nothing when they die.” (Jacobs:2005:104-5)

“The Father anointed the Son

in the bridal chamber

of the heart’s core;

the Son surrendered his will.

The Father was in the Son

and the Son in the Father.

This is the Kingdom.”” (Jacobs:2005:107)

“It failed to reach His aim;

things cannot be immutable

but His Sons are; no one can become

immutable without first becoming

His Son. But he who is unable

to receive cannot give.

[Authors note] For immutable, replace this with ‘non-inherent existence’, and the Son as ‘the Logos’ makes deeper sense of this passage.

The grail contains water and wine,

consecrated as His blood,

for which we give thanks.

It is filled with Holy Spirit

and is from the perfect man;

when we drink we receive

His perfection.

The living water is His body.

We must don the living man;

Before we bathe in the living waters

we must strip bare so we can

wear the perfect man.” (Jacobs:2005:108)

“In this life, marriage between

husband and wife shows strength

offset by physical frailty;

 in the eternal sphere

the form is not the same.

They are not separate;

both come from the one

strong enough to rise above

the heart of flesh.” (Jacobs:2005:109)

“Truth is the mother,

Knowledge the father;

those whom the world believes

to be sinless are free.

Knowledge of Truth

can make people proud;

real freedom is being free

from arrogance. …

Love never controls;

it doesn’t claim this is “yours”

and this is “mine” but says,

“All is yours!”” (Jacobs:2005:110-1)

“He who becomes free

by grace of his master,

but then barters himself back

to hard slavery of his personal will,

won’t ever be free again.” (Jacobs:2005:113)

“Each one of us must dig down deep

within ourselves and find the root

of this evil egotism in the heart,

so it will perish.

If we ignore this root,

more poisonous fruit

is produced in the heart;

it becomes our task master

and enslaves us, forcing us

to do what it desires.” (Jacobs:2005:118)

“Divine perfection is revealed

with the concealed secrets of Truth.

The Holy of Holies opens;

we are invited to the bridal chamber.” (Jacobs:2005:121)

Poimandres or The Power and Wisdom of God

A famed Gnostic work by the legendary Hermes Trismegistus. After an Angelic Revelation, he describes the mysteries of Creation, the Destiny of Man and the Soul. The Tract concludes with an important Gnostic Sermon and a devotional Prayer.

Once, while meditating

on “what is”, my soul soared,

my senses stood firm, like those

of a man drunk with sleep,

from too much flood and

physical exertion.” (Jacobs:2005:124)

“When Man saw his form

so mirrored, he fell into self love

and inhabited this imagination…

This is the mystery of

Gnosis, kept secret until now.” (Jacobs:2005:132)

“The one who recognized

his true Self reached the

chosen Good.

But those still identified

with the body from desire

transmigrated to the darkness

of continuous rebirth.” (Jacobs:2005:134)

[Authors note] Note here the idea of Reincarnation in a Christian gospel that was taught in Catholic churches for over a hundred years before its violent repression, that we shall see more of in the next chapter.

“He graciously replied,

“In renouncing the gross

body, you hand yourself over

to transformation and the

old form goes.

The wicked demon

to whom you gave

your temperament

becomes powerless.

The body’s senses rise up

and return to the Source.

Separating and remingling

with His original energy.

The old feelings and cravings

return to irrational nature,

and the regenerated Man

is reborn through the spheres.

[Authors note] Here we see the ka and ba desribed as ‘original energy’ and ‘irrational nature’, which we then clearly being separated and returning to the source (Ursa Major- cosmologically- the Mill) and through the Spheres, meaning the music of the spheres, in a reincarnation of these natures, to go through the process of purification once again. The sphere of human reincarnation being the star Sirius of course, as per the above.

The methodology by which to attain this purification then follows, and we can quite easily strap Christ’s story to this methodology, as well as Catholic teachings and laws, in order to reveal the semi-initiatory words of this passage and the gospels deeper initiatory words, (which I will uncover still further in my next book).

At the first, he renounces

getting and letting go;

at the second, evil inclination. [Authors note]- Forty days and nights in the wilderness

At the third,

illusion and delusion.

At the fourth, his usurping,

cardinal, egotistic arrogance.  [Authors note]- Baptism with John the Baptist

At the fifth,

wilful presumption

and jeopardising bravado.      

[Authors note] the Wedding at Canaan, where his egoic will becomes the spirit of manas, turning the waters of  life into the wine of fermented spirit.

At the sixth,

greed, avarice, miserliness,

springing from passion for wealth

and perishable possessions.   

[Authors note] This is the actions of such a person now possessed by this spirit to such a degree. Turning the tables of the money-lenders in the Temple of Solomon, teaching the word of God to all, including the whores and beggars.

At the seventh, all deceit, betrayal, guile, and calumny, lurking in ambush. [Authors note]- This is the denial in the Garden of Gethsemane where the last vestiges of egoic ‘survival of the fittest’, ‘fight of flight’ response is evealed to Christ, and he defeats them and accepts his divine purpose and acts accordingly, taking on the worlds pains upon his back as a response to the homodynamic understanding and experience that comes with realising this soul-pain of the human soul from its egoic desires, symbolised by the Roman soldiers treatment as the stick-wielders of civilization, and the betrayal of the priests and citizens who spit and revile Christ and cheer his torturers. By experiencing these pain and accepting ‘we know not what we do’, Christ becomes literally and transcendentally fixed upon the cross of his body, and on the Cross of the World, of the worlding that humanity places upon the divine World, and deeper still as the transcendent Logos where he is torn asunder and becomes the World, descending to hell and ascending to heaven, whilst appearing on earth to his initiates who at first fail to recognise this transcendent form.

Then, stripped naked of the old man, he enters the sphere of Sophia, Divine Wisdom.    [Authors note]- This is his ascension where he takes his place on the right hand of God, meaning that aspect of the Trinity that is the Logos or Ka when incarnate in a human form. There was no ba, and no physical body to be found in the tomb because Christ was so transformed into the Logos that all of these levels of existence, (the ba, the body, and the ka) were transformed into pure Logos. This is the revelatory nature of the full extent of Christ’s divinity. In Buddhism this is known as ‘the rainbow body’, and is said to have been attained by some. When such a transcendent person dies, then their entire body disappears as well.

I cannot attest to having witnesses this, but some do. But it is certainly true that many highly attained Buddhist monks do fail to decompose for weeks and even months after their death, as well as a striking tradition of willingly dying in humorous positions, such as standing on one’s head, showing that the monk had the power to die at will from the ontological state of consciousness that was his ka, and not from the physical ontological state of  consciousness that requires cause and effect in order for death to ‘happen’. It is called the rainbow light body, because all of the seven chakras have to be completely pure in order for it to be achieved. That is how many colours as rainbow has, and how many levels of earth that went into making man in the first place, as well as the seven initiatory levels of Christs story, and of the Gnostic Gospel that we are currently reading.

He has restored his own natural

power, and along with the Elect

worships his Father.” (Jacobs:2005:138-40)

The Sophia of Jesus Christ

This complex revelational discourse given by the Resurrected Christ declares invisible celestial regions. Christ is the Incarnation of the Gnostic Saviour and Sophia the female personification of Divine Wisdom, an archetype of the Great Mother.

After his resurrection from the dead,

Christ’s twelve disciples with the

seven women, went to the Mountain

of Divination and Joy at Galilee.

They were concerned about the

substratum of the universe,

its plan, the power of the State,

Divine providence, and the Saviour’s

hidden way towards them.

When suddenly he appeared,

not in his familiar form but as an

invisible, almost palpable spirit.

His similitude resembled

a vast angel of pure light. …

Jesus laughed and said,

“Why are you so concerned.

What are you seeking?”

Philip answered,

“We are questing for the

Knowledge underlying substance

and the Divine plan.” (Jacobs:2005:163)

“Since He isn’t subject to

any object, He is nameless;

He that is named is the

notion of another.

He is formless but has a strange

representation, like no one else,

superior even to the universal.” (Jacobs:2005:166)

“Thomas asked, “Lord,

how did these powers come to be

and why were they created?”

Jesus answered, “I come

from the limitless that I might

inform you about the All.” (Jacobs:2005:168)

“Seeing His own Self as

if reflected in a mirror,

He manifested,

representing Himself.” (Jacobs:2005:169)

“The male was termed

Congregation; the female, Life,

so it might be shown that from

the female issued Life, in all Aeons.

Each name was accepted

from the beginning! …

All this happened by

the will of the Divine

Universal Mother.” (Jacobs:2005:180-1)

“The Gospel of Truth

This powerful early Greek Gnostic Treatise covers topics such as “The Quest for the Father”, the “Hope of Salvation” and the “Need for a Saviour”. All will help to redeem the Soul from its ignorance.” (Jacobs:2005:189)

“He showed how his sacred

letters are neither vowels

nor consonants, so that one

could read them and think

they were unwise.

Yet they are letters of Truth

to those who know how to read

Each letter is a total conception,

like a whole volume, for they are

letters inscribed by the One!” (Jacobs:2005:200)

“The lack manifests because

our Father was unknown;

when He’s known,

that will vanish.

It’s like a man in nescience;

when knowledge comes,

nescience is dissolved.” (Jacobs:2005:202)

The Greatest Human Evil is Forgetfulness of God

An early Gnostic text warning of the grave spiritual dangers should the Soul lose hold of its essential Self. It stresses the need for Recollection and Self Remembering leading to eventual salvation.

[Authors note] please think of self-remembering on a homodynamic level- to ‘re-member-self’ is to realise ones membership or worship to this ‘all’ or lack of non-inherent existence or God or wakan. Such a member would ontologically be a part of a phratry that embraced the entire universe because that is the nature of Nature]. What is the garment that you wear and what is the wine that you drink? What was it that Noah wore and drank, whose wine was it, Dionyus, Osiris, Mithra, Christ, Allah, Jehovah, the Logos? Any other language traps here, or shall we revert to the old wisdom and refuse to name God to the extent of not even putting vowels down in writing the word, and keeping secret his true name, so that ignorant, arrogant opinion about a language trap doesn’t kill yet more people who are not ‘us’, even though we are All His, or should I say, All lack inherent existence, or more simply, deny grace, and name egoic desire, merit, in a world of suffering.

“Dear fellows, where are you

Rushing to like drunkards, tipsy

and staggering on the rich wine

of reason, forgetful of God? …

For the degeneration that flows

from forgetfulness is drowning

the earth, infecting soul and body,

veiling the soul like a cloak and

stopping you from abiding in the heart.

So don’t be swept away

by this mad flood!” (Jacobs:2005:228-9)

“That Great Being cannot

be seen or heard, or spoken

or thought about,

only by a higher subtle

intellect that transcends

normal matters of the mind.

But first strip off the

soiled cloak you wear,

the foul mantle of forgetfulness…

Such is the habit;

the filthy coat you’ve put on,

that is your foe!” (Jacobs:2005:230)

“This complete totality,

the Aeon above Aeons,

the power and glory,

the virgin spirit,

the womb for creation,

Mother-father,

Archetypal Man,

Macrocosm and microcosm.” (Jacobs:2005:237-8)

Thunder

A unique Gnostic revelation by a mysterious Female Deity, stressing the importance of the essential “I-Am-ness”. Also known as the “Perfect Mind”, it contains parallels with ancient Indian literature which refers to the I AM form.

[Authors note] Or should we describe God as the eastern religions do, not as a word or a cover for a secret word, but as steadfast silence, as the primal thought that bore the universe of sounds from this one voice that appears in different frequencies of light or energy that we experience ontologically as the Universe?

“I am the unfathomable silence

and the thought that comes often,

the voice of many sounds,

and the word that appears frequently.” (Jacobs:2005:244)

If a tree falls in the middle of the woods, does it make a sound?

What is the sound of one hand, clapping?

Am I in the distance, yet?

22: The Sacraments explained through homodynamism

“Augustine on Donatist Approaches to the Sacraments.

Augustine’s view of the church accepts that congregations and priests will include sinners as well as saints. So does this invalidate the sacraments? This passage provides his answer.

‘When baptism is administered by the words of the gospel, however great the evil of either minister or recipient may be, the sacrament itself is holy on account of the one whose sacrament it is. In the case of people who received baptism from an evil person [per hominum perversum], if they do not receive the perverseness of the minister but the holiness of the mystery, being united to the church in good faith and hope and charity, they will receive the forgiveness of their sins. […] But if the recipients themselves are evil, then that which is administered does not avail for their salvation while they remain in their errors.’” (McGrath:2011:460)

Writer’s Voice: His evil has no effect but yours does though, how on earth does that happen?

Augustine on the “Right to Baptize”

The issue of who had the authority to baptize became of especial importance during the Donatist controversy. This debate raised a number of issues. For example, was the efficacy of a sacrament dependent upon the morality of the one who baptised, or the faithfulness of the one to whom baptism points? And are sacraments valid outside the sphere of the church?

‘Now to make a schism from the unity of Christ, or to be in schism, is indeed a great evil. And it is not possible in any way that Christ should give to the schismatics what is his own- not faith, that is, but a sacrilegious error; or that a schismatic should cleave, in Christ, to the root; or that Christ should be the fountain head to schismatics. And yet, if [a schismatic] gives the baptism of Christ, if it is given and it if is received, it will be received, not to eternal life but to eternal damnation of those who persevere in sacrilege, not by converting a good thing into evil but by having a good thing to their evil, so long as he receives evil.’

Augustine lays down a fundamental distinction between an “irregular” and “invalid” administration of a sacrament. What makes a sacrament invalid is not sin on the part of the one who administers or receives it, but a deliberate breaking away from the body of Christ in schism. Augustine’s view of the church as a “mixed body” recognizes that the church will include sinners as well as saints; however, he insists that schism leads to a break with the church and its sacraments, with the result that the latter are no longer of any benefit to their recipients. The sacraments are valid only within the church.” (McGrath:2011:461)

Paschasius Radbertus on the Real Presence

The monastery of Corbie in Picardy was the scene for some theological fireworks during the ninth century, focusing on the doctrine of predestination and the nature of the real presence. The two extracts which follow are from the writings of Paschasius Radbertus (c.790-865) and Ratranmus of Corbie (died 868), who were both monks at Corbie during this period. Each wrote a work with the same title: De corpore et sanguine Christi, yet developed very different understandings of the real presence. Radbertus, whose work was completed around 844, developed the idea that the bread and the wine become the body and blood of Christ in reality; Ratranmus, whose work was written shortly afterwards, defended the view that they were merely symbols of body and blood.

‘No one who believes the divine words of the Truth declaring “For my flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink” (John 6:55-56)” can doubt that the body and blood are truly created by the consecration of the mystery. […] Because it is not seemly to devour Christ with our teeth, he willed that, in this mystery, the bread and wine should truly be made his body and blood through their consecration by the power of the Holy Spirit, who daily creates them so that they might be sacrificed mystically for the life of the world. Just as through the Spirit true flesh was created without sexual union from the Virgin, so the same body and blood of Christ are created by mystical consecration out of the substance of bread and wine.’

In this, and the reading which follows, we consider the Eucharistic debate at the monastery of Corbie. Paschasius may be regarded as a supporter of what was by now the traditional viewpoint- namely, that there was a real change in both bread and wine. The term “transubstantiation” had yet to be invented; there is no doubt, however, that Paschasius’s general position could be described in this manner. For Paschasius, the Eucharistic body of Christ was to be defined precisely as the flesh born of Mary, which was crucified and rose again, and which was miraculously multiplied by God at each consecration. Paschasius’s emphatically realistic view of the transformation of the bread and the wine met with critical responses from a number of writers, including Rabanus Maurus.” (McGrath:2011:462-63)

Ratranmus of Corbie on the Real Presence

As noted in the previous reading, an important debate developed at the monastery of Corbie during the ninth century. Paschasius Radbertus developed the idea that the bread and the wine become the body and blood of Christ in reality; we now turn to consider the views of Ratranmus, who defended the view that they were merely symbols of the body and blood.

‘The bread which, through the ministry of the priest, becomes the body of Christ, exhibits one thing externally to human senses, and points to something different inwardly to the minds of believers. Externally, the bread has the same shape, colour, and flavour as before; inwardly, however, something very different, something much more precious and excellent, is made known, because something heavenly and divine, that is, the body of Christ- is revealed. This is not perceived or received or consumed by the physical senses, but only in the sight of the believer. The wine also becomes the sacrament of the blood of Christ through priestly consecration. Superficially, it shows on thing; yet inwardly, it contains something else. What can be seen on the surface other than the substance of wine? Taste it, and it has the flavour of wine; smell it, and it has the aroma of wine; look at it, and see the colour of wine. […] Since nobody can deny that this is the case, it is clear that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ in a figurative sense.’

Offended and puzzled by what he clearly regarded as the unacceptable position of Paschasius Rabertus, Ratranmus set out a rival position, in direct response to Paschasius. An important distinction is drawn between the physical reality of the elements, and their spiritual impact. Ratranmus attracted no criticism at the same time for his insistence that there was no ontological change in the bread and the wine; however, by about 1050 there was increasing concern over his views, given the growing sympathy for the view which would later be known as “transubstantiation.”” (McGrath:2011:463-4)

Candidus of Fulda on “This is my Body”

The Benedictine monastery of Fulda, founded in 744, became a leading centre of the theological reflection under the influential Carolingian writer Rabanus Maurus, who held the position of abbot during this period was Candidus of Fulda (died 845), whose views on the nature of the Eucharistic bread attracted some debate.

‘What he took from us, he has now given to us. And you are to “eat” it. That is, you are to make perfect (perficite) the body of the church, so that it might become the entire, perfect one bread, whose head is Christ.’

Candidus’s interpretation of the phrase “this is my body” (Matthew 26:26) is quite remarkable. Candidues understands this phrase to refer to the “body of Christ” in the sense of the church. The purpose of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ is to nourish and bring to perfection the church as the body of Christ.” (McGrath:2011:464-5)

Lanfranc of Bec on the Mystery of the Sacraments

Lanfranc of Bec (1010-89), who preceded Anselm of Canterbury both as Abbot of the monastery of Bec in Normandy, and as Archbishop of Canterbury, was outraged by what he regarded as totally logical explanations of the eucharist, especially that offered by Berengar of Tours.

‘So, as the apostle Andrew says, while the bits of [Christ’s] flesh [carnes] are really eaten and his blood is really drunk, he himself nevertheless continues in his totality [integer], living in the heavens at the right hand of the Father until such time as when all will be restored. … It is a mystery of faith…to investigate is cannot be of any use.’

…In this treatise, written around 1070, Lanfranc vigorously defended the mystery of the sacraments, drawing a sharp distinction between the sacrament itself, and the thing which the sacrament signified. Without really providing an explanation of the point, Lanfranc insists that it is possible to eat “bits of Christ’s flesh”, while Christ’s body remains intact in heaven.” (McGrath:2011:465)

Thomas Aquinas on Transubstantiation

Aquinas (c.1225-74) sets out an approach which would become normative for medieval catholic theology.

‘4. Whether bread can be changed into the body of Christ.

[…] This conversion is not like natural conversions but is wholly supernatural, brought about only by the power of God. […] All conversion which takes place according to the laws of nature is formal. […] But God […] can produce not only a formal conversion, that is, the replacement of one form by another in the same subject, but also the conversion of the whole being, that is, the conversion of the whole substance of A into the whole substance of B. And this is done in this sacrament by the power of God, for the whole substance of bread is converted into the whole substance of Christ’s body. […] Hence this conversion is properly called transubstantiation. […]

5. Whether the accidents of bread and wine remain in the sacrament after this conversion.

[…] It is obvious to our senses that after consecration all the accidents of bread and wine remain. And, by divine providence, there is a good reason for this. First, because it is not normal for people to eat human flesh and to drink human blood; in fact, they are revolted by this idea. Therefore Christ’s flesh and blood are set before us to be taken under the appearances of those things which are of frequent use, namely bread and wine. Secondly, if we ate our Lord under his proper appearance, this sacrament would be ridiculed by unbelievers. Thirdly, in order that, while we take the Lord’s body and blood invisibly, this fact may avail towards the merit of faith.’

This important discussion of the nature of the eucharist real presence can be seen as a definitive statement of the concept of transubstantiation. Note that the passage makes an important distinction, based on Aristotelian philosophy, between the “accidents” (outward appearances) and “substance” (inward reality) of the bread and wine.” (McGrath:2011:467-8)

The Council of Trent on Transubstantiation

During the course of its 13^th session, which ended on October 11, 1551, the Council of Trent set out a definitive statement on its understanding of the nature of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, affirming that the term “transubstantiation” was appropriate to refer to the change in the substance of the bread and wine resulting from their consecration.

‘To begin with, the sacred Council teaches and confesses, openly and clearly, that in the noble sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and human being, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things….

Because Christ our Redeemer declared that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the belief of the Church of God, which this sacred council reaffirms, that by the consecration of the bread and wine a change takes place in which the entire substance of the bread becomes the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and the whole substance of the wine becomes the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and correctly called “transubstantiation”” (McGrath:2011:483

Other stuff that I haven’t used yet in this chapter

Kabbalah and Exodus

Z’ev ben Shimon Halevi

1993- ISBN NO. 0 946551 36 7

Gateway Books

(Halevi:1993:

“ ‘Vayarah Malach YAHVEH alux’: ‘the angel of YAHVEH appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a thorn bush’. Traditionally this angel, or archangel to be precise, is Michael who, the rabbinical commentary tells us, descended from the place of the Shekhinah or Divine Presence to manifest the Spirit of the Divinity below. Kabbalistically this is Grace as it comes down from the place where three uppoer Worlds meet to the place where three lower Worlds meet, at the self in the centre of the psyche. Here Moses perceived, while none with him could, the Burning Bush that did not consume itself. That is, it was re-created as it burnt; the spiritual level, that of Creation, is the meeting ground between God and man.” (Halevi:1993:49)

“During this ascension Moses is shown Purgatory and its various degrees of punishment and Paradise and its thrones of reward. He sees the other-worldly beauty of Eden and Heaven and experiences the profound ecstasy that is reserved for those who perform spiritual work. He is shown the unfolding of the Divine plan, the history of Israel, the building, destruction and rise of the Temple and the coming of the Messiah at the End of Days. He is made acquainted with the purpose of his life and how he will continue teaching even after earthly death.” (Halevi:1993:50)

“The Ark was to be the place where the Divine reached down through the Worlds to talk with man. In front of this earthly altar an individual could address his Maker, Who was prepared to come out of Absolute Transcendence into the relative Universe so as to speak directly to a human being ‘as a man speaks to his friend’. Such an event had the most extraordinary implications for all mankind. Indeed the Ark would not only be the centre of the Tabernacle, the Israelite camp the surrounding nations, but the focus of Creation as the Divine communed with man, the Image of God in the midst of Existence.” (Halevi:1993:146)

“Now Moses, having climbed the Holy Mountain with these Elders, left them below while he went up into the place where the three highest Worlds meet. There he said to God, ‘This people has sinned a great sin. They have made for themselves a god of gold.’ That is, they have (the Hebrew word for sin means) ‘missed the mark’ and worshipped a material image of Existence. This is the situation for those bound by a sensual view of the Universe. Its result is the lowest kind of appreciation of reality based upon nothing but an egocentric view. For example, a deep devotion to physical possessions or worship of worldly status is, for most people, the extension and projection of ego love, or one’s personal Golden Calf. For the person interested in developing his Soul, such exclusive preoccupations preclude any possibility of spiritual evolution. The sin is particularly bad for one who like the Israelites has been shown the way but chooses like them to turn his back upon the Covenant. This is, it must be repeated, to become ignorant in the full sense of ignoring what was placed before one. It is indeed a great sin to sin.

Moses then said, ‘If Thou wilt forgive them, forgive. But if not, blot out my name, I pray, from Thy book which Thou hast written.’ Upon this verse there is much interesting oral teaching. According to tradition, before the Throne of Glory are a Book of Life and Book of Death. Into these are inscribed all the deeds of the creatures in Existence, especially those of the human race which having free will can choose good or evil. These Two Books are opened for ten days at the beginning of each new year for the consideration of who will live and who will die during the next twelve months. This process of Judgement and Mercy is continuous throughout Time until the End of Days when the total performance is assessed on the Last Day, when every creature in all the Worlds comes before the Lord to present its report on how it fulfilled the mission for which it was created, so that God might behold God.

The Divine reply to Moses’s question is, ‘Whosoever has sinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book.’ In this is the Teaching on the direct opposition to the Divine Will. This is the sin of a person who knows what he is doing as against one who is still in a state of innocence. The undeveloped soul acts blindly without experience or knowledge and therefore is not fully responsible. But the individual who sins against God is perceived as being responsible for his own actions because he has reached some level of spiritual maturity. It is therefore much graver Judgement that is applied. Here the most severe sentence of being taken out of the Book of Life is to be given for the highest rebellion.

The chapter however ends with a blend of Mercy and Justice. Moses is told to lead the people towards the Promised Land. ‘But the day will come,’ the Lord says, ‘when I shall visit upon them their sin.’ (Note, the word ‘visit’ is used in the original Hebrew, not ‘punish’). This means the choosing of a moment which will teach the Israelites a lesson about their defection. Anyone who has practised a spiritual discipline has this experience of Karmic law. However it must be said it is never applied without Mercy, for the moment the lesson has been learnt the severity stops. The operation of Justice and Mercy is not to destroy but correct balance, educate the soul, teach cosmic law and reveal Divine Grace. One rule is that should an individual recognize his misdemeanour and repent, then the laws of reward and punishment will be adjusted by the Holy One who forgives all who turn towards the Divine.” (Halevi:1993:195-8)

“The conversation between God and Moses in the Tent of Meeting outside the camp may be considered as a metaphor of the dialogue within an individual between Thou and I. The level at which it takes place would be between the self, where the three lower World meet, and the place where the three upper Worlds meet. This position is the sefirah at the very centre of Jacob’s Ladder which acts both as the Knowledge of the psyche and the Foundation of the spirit. This station is also associated with the Archangel Gabriel who is the Anunciator. Here too is the place of the Holy Spirit as its manifests to the psyche. The Kabbalistic significance of this position is that it enables a man to hear and even see into the upper Worlds, even though he is still in the flesh. It moreover facilitates his communication with the Divine at the Crown of his psyche. Thus it was possible for Moses to converse with God while at ground level in the lower Worlds.” (Halevi:1993:203)

“Biblical legend tells us that Moses’s next stage of instruction was to be shown the treasures that are stored up for those who behave with integrity and charity, that is, with Justice and Mercy. He saw also that rewards were destined for those who failed their mission as well as those who completed their task. This puzzled Moses, until he was reminded that Divine Ways are not like man’s. The Lord is gracious to whom the Divine wishes to be gracious. The Lord, perceiving Moses’s perplexity, demonstrated how sometimes the appearance of reward and punishment is misleading to the unperceptive eye as Moses in clairvoyant vision had a real-life incident played out before him. A man was killed without apparent reason, until it was revealed that this violent death was the result of a previous crime. As a result the dead man’s property was then restored to its original owner, from whom it had been stolen. Thus, through a chain of apparently unconnected events Justice and Mercy brought about equilibrium in the World.

Moses not only saw the laws of reward and punishment at work but was allowed, legend tells us, to glimpse deep into the future where he saw every generation and its spiritual leaders. This showed him how the world was governed, not by the power of physical might or psychological willpower, but by spiritual and cosmic forces that operated according to the Heavenly watchfulness of Providence- unless the Divine chose to intervene. By such an act it was revealed that Divinity would grant Grace even to the undeserving if they prayed for mercy, having acknowledged their stupidity.

At the end of this lesson Moses asked that he be shown the Divine Glory. In Kabbalistic terms, he wished to view the World of Emanation without the veiling of the lower Worlds. The reply was that he would not be allowed to see the Divine Light directly because it would destroy his acquired individuality. Only those who were prepared to sacrifice their sense of self in the presence of Eternity could be considered ready for this stage of union. For ‘no man may see the Face of God and live.’ Besides Moses had work to do below on Earth. However Moses would be granted an oblique vision of the Glory by being placed in a cleft of the Rock. The word ‘Hatsur’ is used in the text. Kabbalistically it indicates the legendary Rock of Shetiyah, which is ‘the Foundation Stone of the World’. Besides being Jacob’s pillow when he saw the Great Ladder of Heaven, it is the Rock which the Creator case into the Abyss at the beginning of Creation to act as the connection between Divinity and the lower World. Moses was to be placed within this Rock, that was, according to legend, to form the base of Solomon’s Temple. From its protection he would glimpse the hind part of the Glory of God.” (Halevi:1993:204-5)

“Moses, both the Bible and folklore tell us, stayed for forty days and nights on the Mountain. During this time he was taught all the Torah, that is those things that are to be revealed and those things not to be revealed. The reason why it is said all the teaching was given is because the term ‘forty days and nights’ is used. In Kabbalah this phrase means that Moses experienced all forty sefirot of the four Worlds in both their imparting and receptive aspects. During this time he neither ate nor drank because he was sustained by the same substance that feeds the angelic beings. This, Tradition says, is the Emanation of the Shekhinah, the Light proceeding from the World of Emanation. Thus it was that Moses slowly acquired the radiance that was to shine out from his face when he descended the Mountain.

Seen in individual terms, when a person reaches Moses’s level of Enlightenment, he has risen out of the mundane state of the body through the psychological World to the Place where the three upper Worlds meet. Here the Divine Glory radiates down upon his spirit and percolates his psychological organism. The greater the depth and duration of exposure to the upper Worlds, the deeper and longer the radiance remains. In the case of those in sustained contact like the Buddha, the radiance becomes a permanent feature. In lesser beings such as saints and sages the phenomenon is not so marked, although it is recorded as a halo, or an aura that is sensed if not seen by ordinary mortals. Here we have the process by which the Divine World penetrates the lower three vehicles of one who is purified enough to allow Emanation to shine through his being. The scripture goes on to describe the phenomenon. …

Moses, having reached the physical World, put a veil over his face. This is a metaphor for screening the interior radiance by the mask of the ego. The reason for this is that in life the ego not only acts as the shutter between the outside world and the inner to prevent the coarser levels entering into the psyche, but also protects the inner from blinding the outer as any mutual eye contact may do. When one is in the presence of a great being, the discrepancies of one’s own nature are illuminated by contrast, and this can be extremely painful. Both Jesus and Socrates were penalized by those they often inadvertently exposed as frauds by their clarity of vision. A teacher, therefore, will often shield his students from his full light out of consideration until they can bear to see themselves. Meanwhile instruction comes from behind a veil. Pythagoras and Mahomet are reported to have taught this way.” (Halevi:1993:211-13)

23: Purgatory

Gregory the Great on Purgatory

This important early reference to the idea of purgatory, dating from 593 or 594, is grounded on Gregory’s (c.540-604) exposition of Matthew 12:32, especially its references to sins which can be forgiven “in the age to come”.” (McGrath:2011:544)

Catherine of Genoa on Purgatory

The date of composition of Catherine of Genoa’s Treatise on Purgatory is not known for certain, although it may date from the 1490s. In this work, written in Italian, Catherine (1447-1510) sets out her influential understanding of the basis and purpose of purgatory, stressing the importance of the notion of being purged from sin.

‘The basis of all the pains [of purgatory] is sin, whether original or actual. God created the soul pure, simple, and clean from all stain of sin, with a beatific instinct towards the one from whom original sin, in which the soul presently finds itself, draws it away. When actual sin is added to this original sin, the soul is drawn still further from him. […].

When a soul draws near to the pure and clear state in which it was at its first creation, its beatific instinct is rediscovered and grows continually stronger with such force that any obstacle  preventing the soul from finally reaching its goal appears to be unbearable. The more it glimpses this vision, the greater its pain.

Because the souls in purgatory are without the guilt of sin, there is no obstacle between them and God except their pain, which holds them back so that they cannot reach perfection through this instinct. They can also see that this instinct is held back by a need for righteousness. For this reason, a fierce fire (un tanto extreme foco) comes into being, which is like that of Hell, with the exception of guilt. This is what makes evil the wills of those who are condemned to Hell, on whom God does not bestow his goodness; they therefore remain in their evil wills, and opposed to the will of God […].

The souls in purgatory have wills which are in all things in accord with the will of God himself. For this reason, God bestows upon them his goodness. As a result they are joyful and cleansed of all their sin.

And as for guilt, these souls are just as they were when they were originally created by God, in that God forgives immediately the guilt of those who have passed from this life distressed by their sins, and having confessed them and resolved not to commit them any more. Only the corrosion of sin is left, and they are cleansed from this by pain in the fire.

When they have been cleansed for all guilt, and united in their wills with God, they may see him clearly (to the extent that he makes himself known to them), and see also how much it means to enjoy him, which is the goal for which they have been created.’” (McGrath:2011:547)

Purgatory- explained by the lives and Legends of the Saints

By Fr.F.X. Schouppe, S.J.

Tan Books- 2012

ISBN: 978-0-89555-831-2

(Schouppe:2012:

Decree Concerning Purgatory. The Council of Trent. Session XXV. December 4, 1563

Since the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, following the sacred writings  and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught in sacred councils and very recently in this ecumenical council, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are aided by the suffrages of the faithful and chiefly by the Acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar, the Holy Council commands the bishops that they strive diligently to the end that the sound doctrine of Purgatory, transmitted by the Fathers and sacred councils, be believed and maintained by the faithful of Christ, and be everywhere taught and preached.” (Schouppe:2012:vi)

“Canons concerning the Sacrament of Penance. The Council of Trent. Session XIV, November 25, 1551.

Canon 13. If anyone says that satisfaction for sins, as to their temporal punishment, is in no way made to God through the merits of Christ by the punishments inflicted by Him and patiently borne, or by those imposed by the priest, or even prayers, almsgiving or other works of piety, or even those voluntarily undertaken, as by fasts, prayers, almsgiving or other works of piety, and that therefore the best penance is merely a new life, let him be anathema.” (Schouppe:2012:vii)

“Today, little mention is made of Purgatory, even in Catholic circles, with the result that many who profess to be Catholics no longer believe in this doctrine. This is the natural consequence of the relative scarcity of good Catholic literature on the subject. If people never read about Purgatory, and seldom hear it spoken of, they are naturally going to place less and less credence in it.

Nonetheless, it is natural for human beings to believe in Purgatory, for it is completely logical and just- even prescinding from the fact that it is a Catholic teaching that comes down to us from the Apostles and is also found in Sacred Scripture. It may even come as a revelation to many Catholics today that in order to be a Catholic one must believe in the existence of Purgatory, for the existence of Purgatory is a dogma of the Church, and to be a Catholic requires that one adhere to all the teachings which the Church teaches as dogmatic.

It must be remembered that what any given person thinks or believes in relation to any specific teaching of Religion has nothing whatever to do with its truth. The truth is always the truth, no matter what anyone thinks or believes in its regard. That many today do not speak about or believe in Purgatory does not take away the reality. Purgatory exists, for the Church teaches that it exists, and it was Christ who taught this to the Church.

We know that the Protestant “reformers” of the 16^th Century rejected the Church’s teaching on Purgatory, though, as Calvin admitted, it had always been a common belief… Protestants languish the longest and suffer the worst in Purgatory because they generally have so few friends and relatives to pray for them. “Protestants” who save their souls but who do not merit Heaven directly will find themselves in Purgatory, just like everyone else.” (Schouppe:2012:xxiv-xxv)

“the author says the sufferings of Purgatory are basically of the same nature and intensity (depending on the severity of the punishment) as those of Hell. Yet, the Poor Souls do not wish to return to this world because they know that they are saved for sure since they are in Purgatory. …The Poor Souls can pray for us while still in Purgatory, even though they cannot help themselves. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which we cause to have offered for them is more efficacious than any other work or devotion we can do. Yet our almsgiving for them is more efficacious than either our prayer or fasting. And finally, all that we offer in charity for the Poor Souls is ultimately accounted to our own merit as well …

Fr.Schouppe quotes a disproportionate number of instances where religious, rather than lay people, have come back from Purgatory to make revelations about their sufferings.” (Schouppe:2012:xxvi-xxvii)

“One of the best points scored by the author is the fact that we who are still among the Church Militant have a sacred duty to pray for and make sacrifices on behalf of the Poor Souls in Purgatory, for even the saints in Heaven, though they can aid the Poor Souls in their sufferings, still cannot gain for them indulgences, let alone plenary indulgences, as we can who are still on this earth….

Another important point to remember is the fact that prayers and sufferings offered to God during our life actually gain us merit, an increase in sanctifying grace, a higher degree of charity, closer union with God, and thus a higher degree of glory in Heaven for all eternity. But the sufferings of Purgatory, on the other hand, are useless as far as further advancement in holiness is concerned; they simply enable us to pay those debts which we should never have incurred in the first place.” (Schouppe:2012:xxviii-xxix)

“The Dogma of Purgatory is too much forgotten by the majority of the faithful…

This truly deplorable forgetfulness was a great sorrow to St. Francis de Sales. “Alas!” said this pious doctor of the Church, “we do not sufficiently remember our dear departed; their memory seems to perish with the sound of the funeral bells.” (Schouppe:2012:xxxiii)

“The vision of Purgatory has been granted to many holy souls. St.Catherine de Ricci descended in spirit into Purgatory every Sunday night; St. Lidwina, during her raptures, penetrated into this place of expiation, and, conducted by her angel guardian, visited the souls in their torments. In like manner, an angel led Blessed Osanne of Mantua through this dismal abyss.” (Schouppe:2012:xxxviii)

The Word Purgatory – Catholic Doctrine – Council of Trent – Controverted Questions

The word Purgatory is sometimes taken to mean a place, sometimes as an intermediate state between Hell and Heaven. It is, properly speaking, the condition of souls which, at the moment of death, are in the state of grace, but which have not completely expiated their faults, nor attained the degree of purity necessary to enjoy the vision of God.

Purgatory is, then, a transitory state which terminates in a life of everlasting happiness. It is not a trial by which merit may be gained or lost, but a state of atonement and expiation. The soul has arrived at the term of its earthly career; that life was a time or trial, a time of merit for the soul, a time of mercy on the part of God. This time once expired, nothing but justice is to be expected from God, whilst the soul can neither gain nor lose merit. She remains in the state in which death found her; and since it found her in the state of sanctifying grace, she is certain of never forfeiting that happy state, and of arriving at the eternal possession of God. Nevertheless, since she is burdened with certain debts of temporal punishment, she must satisfy Divine Justice by enduring this punishment in all its rigor.

Such is the signification of the word Purgatory, and the condition of the souls which are there.

On this subject the Church proposes two truths clearly defined as dogmas of faith: first, that there is a Purgatory; second, that the souls which are in Purgatory may be assisted by the suffrages of the faithful, especially by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.” (Schouppe:2012:8-9)

Location of Purgatory – Doctrine of Theologians – Catechism of the Council of Trent – St. Thomas

Although faith tells us nothing definite regarding the location of Purgatory, the most common opinion, that which most accords with the language of Scripture, and which is the most generally received among theologians, places it in the bowels of the earth, nor far from the Hell of the reprobates. Theologians are almost unanimous, says Bellarmine, in teaching that Purgatory, at least the ordinary place of expiation, is situated in the interior of the earth, that the souls in Purgatory and the reprobate are in the same subterranean space in the deep abyss which the Scripture calls Hell. (Catech. Rom, chap, 6,§1).

When we say in the Apostles’ Creed that after His death Jesus Christ descended into Hell, the name Hell, says the Cathechism of the Council of Trent, signifies those hidden places where the souls are detained which have not yet reached eternal beatitude. But these prisons are of different kinds. One is a dark and gloomy dungeon, where the damned are continually tormented by evil spirits, and by a fire which is never extinguished. This place, which is Hell properly so called, is also named Gehenna and abyss.

There is another Hell, which contains the fire of Purgatory. There the souls of the just suffer for a certain time, that they may become entirely purified before being admitted into their heavenly fatherland, where nothing defiled can ever enter.

A third Hell was that into which the souls of the saints who died before the coming of Jesus Christ were received, and in which they enjoyed peaceful repose, exempt from pain, consoled and sustained by the hope of their redemption. They were those holy souls which awaited Jesus Christ in Abraham’s bosom, and which were delivered when Christ descended into Hell. Our Saviour suddenly diffused among them a brilliant light, which filled them with infinite joy, and gave them sovereign beatitude, which is the vision of God. Then was fulfilled the promise of Jesus to the good thief: This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.” (Schouppe:2012:8-9)

Location of Purgatory – St. Francis of Rome – St. Magdalen de Pazzi

[…] Purgatory, she said, is divided into three distinct parts, which are as the three large provinces of that kingdom of suffering. They are situated the one beneath the other, and occupied by souls of different orders. These souls are buried more deeply in proportion as they are more defiled and farther removed from the time of their deliverance.

The lowest-region is filled with a fierce fire, but which is not dark like that of Hell; it is a vast burning sea, throwing forth immense flames. Innumerable souls are plunged into its depths: they are those who have rendered themselves guilty of mortal sin, which that have duly confessed, but not sufficiently expiated during life. …

The saint was then conducted into the three distinct compartments; one resembled an immense dungeon of ice, the cold of which was indescribably intense; the second, on the contrary, was like a huge cauldron of boiling oil and pitch; the third had the appearance of a pond of liquid metal resembling molten gold or silver.

The upper Purgatory, which the saint does not describe, is the temporary abode of souls which suffer little, except the pain of loss, and approach the happy moment of their deliverance.

Such, in substance, is the vision of St. France relative to Purgatory.” (Schouppe:2012:16-17)

“Location of Purgatory- St.Gregory the Great- the Deacon Paschasius and the Priest of Centumcellae- Blessed Stephen, a Franciscan, and the Religious in his Stall- Theophilus Renaud and the Sick Woman of Dôle.

[…] Know, also, that in Purgatory we are confirmed in grace, marked with the seal of the elect, and therefore exempt from all vice.” (Schouppe:2012:31)

“The Pains of Purgatory, their Nature, their Rigor- Doctrine of Theologians- Bellarmine- St. Francis of Sales- Fear and Confidence.

[…] Behold was St.Augustine says, and what St.Gregory, Venerable Bede, St.Anselm, and St.Bernard have said after him. St Thomas goes even further; he maintains that the least pain of Purgatory surpasses all the sufferings of this life, whatsoever they may be. …

We may, says this holy and amiable director of souls, draw from the thought of Purgatory more consolation than apprehension. The greater part of those who dread Purgatory so much think more of their own interests than of the interests of God’s glory; this proceeds from the fact that they think only of the sufferings without considering the peace and happiness which are there enjoyed by the holy souls. It is true that the torments are so great that the most acute sufferings of this life bear no comparison to them; but the interior satisfaction which is there enjoyed is such that no propensity nor contentment upon earth can equal it.

The souls are in a continual union with God. They are perfectly resigned to His Will, or rather their will is so transformed into that of God that they cannot will but what God wills; so that if Paradise were to be opened to them, they would precipitate themselves into Hell rather than appear before God with the stains with which they see themselves disfigured. They purify themselves willingly and lovingly, because such is the Divine good pleasure.

They wish to be there in the state wherein God pleases, and as long as it shall please Him. They cannot sin, nor can they experience the least movement of impatience, nor commit the slightest imperfection. They love God more than they love themselves, and more than all things else; they love Him with a perfect, pure, and disinterested love. They are consoled by angels. They are assured of their eternal salvation, and filled with a hope that can never be disappointed in its expectations. Their bitterest anguish is soothed by a certain profound peace. It is a species of Hell as regards the suffering; it is a Paradise a regards the delight infused into their hearts by charity- Charity, stronger than death and more powerful than Hell; Charity, whose lamps are all fire and flame. (Cant.8). “Happy state!” continues the holy Bishop, “more desirable than appalling, since its flames are flames of love and charity.”” (Schouppe:2012:34-36)

Pains of Purgatory – The Pain of Loss – St.Catherine of Genoa – St. Teresa – Father Nieremberg

[…] St Catherine of Genoa in her treatise on Purgatory says, “The souls endure a torment so extreme that no tongue can describe it, nor could the understanding conceive the least notion of it, if God did not make it known by a particular grace.” (Chap.2,8). “No tongue”, she adds, “can express, no mind form any idea of what Purgatory is. As to the suffering, it is equal to that of Hell.”” (Schouppe:2012:37)

The Pain of Sense – Torment of Fire and Torment of Cold – Venerable Bede and Drithelm

[…] In the first place, let us see what the pious and learned Cardinal Bellarmine quotes from the Venerable Bede. England has been witness in our own days, writes Bede, to a singular prodigy, which may be compared to the miracles of the first ages of the Church. To excite the living to fear the death of the soul, God permitted that a man, after having slept the sleep of death, should return to life and reveal what he had seen in the other world. The frightful, unheard-of-details which he relates, and his life of extraordinary penance, which corresponded with his words, produced a lively impression throughout the country. I will now resume the principal circumstances of this history.

There was in Northumberland a man named Drithelm, who, with his family, led a most Christian life. He fell sick, and his malady increasing day by day, he was soon reduced to extremity, and died, to the great desolation and grief of his wife and children. The latter passed the night in tears by the remains, but the following day, before his interment, they saw his suddenly return to life, arise, and place himself in a sitting posture. At this sight they were seized with such fear that they all took to flight, with the exception of the wife, who, trembling, remained alone with her risen husband. E reassured her immediately “Fear not”, he said; “it is God who restores to me my life; He wishes to show in my person a man raised from the dead. I have yet long to live upon earth, but my new life will be very different from the one I led heretofore.” Then he arose full of health, went straight to the chapel or church of the place, and there remained long in prayer. He returned home only to take leave of those who had been dear to him upon earth, to whom he declared that he would live only to prepare himself for death, and advised them to do likewise. Then, having divided his property into three parts, he gave one to his children, another to his wife, and reserved the third part to give in alms. When he had distributed all to the poor, and had reduced himself to extreme indulgence, he went and knocked at the door of a monastery, and begged the Abbot to receive him as a penitent Religious who would be a servant to all the others.

The Abbot gave him a retired cell, which he occupied for the rest of his life. Three exercises divided his time-prayer, the hardest labour, and extraordinary penances. The most rigorous fasts he accounted as nothing. In winter he was seen to plunge himself into frozen water, and remain there for hours and hours in prayer, whilst he recited the whole Psalter of David.

The mortified life of Drithelm, his downcast eyes, even his features, indicated a soul struck with fear of the judgements of God. He kept a perpetual silence, but on being pressed to relate, for the edification of others, what God had manifested to him after his death, he thus described his vision:

“On leaving my body, I was received by a benevolent person, who took me under his guidance. His face was brilliant, and he appeared surrounded with light. He arrived at a large deep valley of immense extent, all fire on one side, all ice and snow on the other; on the one hand braziers and caldrons of flame, on the other the most intense cold and the blast of a glacial wind.

“This mysterious valley was filled with innumerable souls, which, tossed as by a furious tempest, threw themselves from one side to the other. When they could no longer endure the violence of the fire, they sought relief amidst the ice and snow; but finding only a new torture, they case themselves again into the midst of the flames.

“I contemplated in a stupor these continual vicissitudes of horrible torments, and as far as my sight could extend, I saw nothing but a multitude of souls which suffered without ever having repose. Their very aspect inspired me with fear. I thought at first that I saw Hell; but my guide, who walked before me, turned to me and said, ‘No; this is not, as you think, the Hell of the reprobate. Do you know’, he continued, ‘what place this is?’ ‘No’, I answered. ‘Know’, he resumed, ‘that this valley, where you see so much fire and so much ice, is the place where the souls of those are punished who, during life, have neglected to confess their sins, and who have deferred their conversion to the end. Thanks to a special mercy of God, they have had the happiness of sincerely repenting before death, of confessing and detesting their sins. This is why they are not damned, and on the great day of judgement will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Several of them will obtain their deliverance before that time, by the merits of prayers, alms, and fasts, offered in their favour by the living, and especially in virtue of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered for their relief.” …

This fact, adds Bellarmine, appears to me of incontestable truth, since, besides being conformable to the words of Holy Scripture, Let him pass from the snow waters to excessive heat (Job 29:19), Venerable Bede relates it as a recent and well-known event.” (Schouppe:2012:41-44)

Pains of Purgatory – Bellarmine and St.Christine the Admirable

[…] Cardinal Hames de Vitry, in the preface to the Life of Maria d’Ognies, speaks of a great number of holy women and illustrious virgins; but the one whom he admires above all others is St. Catherine, of whom he relates the most wonderful deeds.

This servant of God, having passed the first years of his life in humility and patience, died at the age of thirty-two. When she was about to be buried, and the body was already in the church resting in an open coffin, according to the custom of the time, she arose full vigour, stupefying with amazement the whole city of St.Trond, which had witnessed this wonder. The astonishment increased when they learned from her own mouth what had happened to her after her death. Let us hear her own account of it.

“As soon”, said she, “as my soul was separated from my body, it was received by angels, who conducted it to a very gloomy place, entirely filled with souls. The torments which they there endured appeared to me so excessive, that it is impossible for me to give any idea of their rigor. I saw among them many of my acquaintances, and deeply touched by their sad condition, I asked what place it was, for I believed it to be Hell. My guide answered me that it was Purgatory, where sinners were punished who, before death, had repented of their faults, but had not made worthy satisfaction to God. From thence I was conducted into Hell, and there also I recognized among the reprobates some whom I had formerly known.

“The angels then transported me into Heaven, even to the throne of the Divine Majesty. The Lord regarded me with a favourable eye, and I experienced an extreme joy, because I thought to obtain the grace of dwelling eternally with Him. But my Heavenly Father, seeing what passed in my heart, said to me these words: ‘Assuredly, My dear daughter, you will one day be with Me. Now, however, I allow you to choose, either to remain with Me henceforth from this time, or to return again to earth to accomplish a mission of charity and suffering. In order to deliver from the flames of Purgatory those souls which have inspired you with so much compassion, you shall suffer for them upon earth; you shall endure great torments, without, however, dying from their effects. And not only will you relieve the departed, but the example which you will give to the living, and your life of continual suffering, will lead sinners to be converted and to expiate their crimes. After having ended this new life, you shall return here laden with merits.’

“At these words, seeing the great advantages offered to me for souls, I replied, without hesitation, that I would return to life, and I arose at that same instant. It is for this sole object, the relief of the departed and the conversion of sinners, that I have returned to this world. Therefore be not astonished at the penances that I shall practice, nor at the life that you will see me lead from henceforward. It will be so extraordinary that nothing like it has even been seen.”

All this was related by the saint herself; let us now see what the biographer adds in the different chapters of her life. “Christine immediately commenced the work for which she had been sent by God. Renouncing all the comforts of life, and reduced to extreme destitution, she lived without house or fire, more miserable than the birds of the air, which have a nest to shelter them. Not content with these privations, she eagerly sought all that could cause her suffering. She threw herself into burning furnaces, and there suffering so great torture that she could no longer bear it, she uttered the most frightful cries. She remained for a long time in the fire, and yet, on coming forth, no sign of burning was found upon her body. In winter, when the Meuse was frozen, she plunged herself into it, staying in that cold river not only hours and days but for entire weeks, all the while praying to God and imploring His mercy. Sometimes, whilst praying in the icy waters, she allowed herself to be carried by the current down to a mill, the wheel of which whirled her round in a manner frightful to behold, yet without breaking or dislocating one of her bones. On other occasions, followed by dogs, which bit and tore her flesh, she ran, enticing them into the thickets and among the thorns, until she was covered in blood; nevertheless, on her return, no wound or scar was to be seen.”” (Schouppe:2012:45-8)

Pains of Purgatory – Brother Antony Pereyra – The Venerable Angela Tholomei

To the two preceding facts we shall add a third, taken from the Annals of the Company of Jesus. We speak of a prodigy which was wrought in the person of Antony Pereyra, Brother Coadjutor of that Company, who died in the odor of sanctity at the College of Evora, in Portugal, August 1, 1645. Forty-six years previous, in 1599, five years after his entrance into the novitiate, this brother was attacked by a mortal malady on the island of St. Michael, one of the Azores. A few moments after he had received the Last Sacraments, in presence of the whole community, who assisted him in his agony, he appeared to breathe forth his soul, and soon became as cold as a corpse. The appearance, though almost imperceptible, of a slight beating of the heart, alone prevented them from interring him immediately. He was therefore left for three entire days upon his bed, and his body already gave evident signs of decomposition, when suddenly, on the fourth day, he opened his eyes, breathed, and spoke.

He was then obliged by obedience to relate to his superior, Father Louis Pinheyro, all that has passed within him since the last terrible moments of his agony. We here give an abridged account of it, as written by his own hand.

“I saw first”, he says, “from my deathbed my Father St. Ignatius, accompanied by several of our Fathers from Heaven, who came to visit his sick children, seeking those whom he thought worthy to be offered by him and his companions to Our Lord. When he drew near to me I believed for a moment that he would take me, and my heart thrilled with joy; but soon he pointed out to me that of which I must correct myself before obtaining so great a happiness.”

Then, nevertheless, by a mysterious disposition of Divine Providence, the soul of Brother Pereyra separated itself momentarily from his body, and immediately a hideous troupe of demons rushing towards him filled him with terror. At the same moment his guardian angel and St. Antony of Padua, his countryman and patron, descended from Heaven, put to flight his enemies, and invited him to accompany them to take a glimpse of, and taste for a moment, the joys and sufferings of eternity. “They led me then by turns”, he adds, “towards a place of delights, where they showed me a crown of incomparable glory, but which I had not as yet merited; then to the brink of an abyss, where is saw the reprobate souls fall into the eternal fire, crushed like the grains of wheat cast upon a millstone that turns without intermission.

[…] Let us relate a similar instance which confirms in every point that which we have just read. We find it in the Life of the venerable servant of God, Angela Tholomei, a Dominican nun. (Cf.Rossignoli, Merveilles,7). She was raised from the dead by her own brother, and gave a testimony of the rigor of God’s judgements exactly conformable to the precedent….

Whilst she was being carried to the tomb, Blessed John Baptist, in obedience, no doubt, to an inspiration of the Holy Spirit, approached the coffin, and, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, commanded his sister to come forth. Immediately she awoke as from a profound slumber, and returned to life.

That holy soul seemed struck with terror, and related such things concerning the severity of God’s judgements as make us shudder. She commenced, at the same time, to lead a life which proved the truth of her words. Her penance was frightful. Not content with the ordinary practices of the saints, such as fasting, watching, hairshirts, and bloody disciplines, she went so far as to cast herself into flames, and to roll herself therein until her flesh was entirely burnt. Her macerated body became an object of pity and of horror.” (Schouppe:2012:49-53)

Pains of Purgatory – St. Perpetua – St. Gertrude – St. Catherine of Genoa – Brother John de Via

[…] When St. Perpetua (Cf.Mar., ch.7) saw her young brother Dinocrates in Purgatory, the child did not seem to be subjected to any cruel torture. The illustrious martyr herself writes the account of this vision in her prison at Carthage, where she was confined for the faith of Christ during the persecution under Septimus Severus in the year 205. Purgatory appeared to her under the figure of an arid desert, where she saw her brother Dinocrates, who had died at the age of seven years. The child had an ulcer on his face, and, tormented by thirst he tried in vain to drink from the waters of a fountain which was before him, but the brim of which was too high for him to reach. The holy martyr understood that her brother was in the place of expiation, and that he besought the assistance of her prayers. She then prayed for him, and three days later, in another vision, she saw the same Dinocrates in the midst of lovely gardens. His face was beautiful, like that of an angel; he was clad in a shining robe; the brink of the fountain was beneath him, and he drank copiously of those refreshing waters from a golden cup. The saint then knew that the soul of her young brother now enjoyed the bliss of Paradise.

We read in the Revelations of St.Gertrude that a young Religious of her convent, for whom she had a special love on account of her great virtues, died in the most beautiful sentiments of piety. (Revelationes gertrudiana ac Mechtildiana. Henri Oudin, Poitiers, 1875). Whilst she was fervently recommending this dear soul to God, she was rapt in ecstasy and had a vision. The deceased sister was shown to her standing before the throne of God, surrounded by a brilliant halo and in rich garments. Nevertheless, she appeared sad and troubled; her eyes were cast down, as though she were ashamed to appear before the face of God; it seemed as though she would hide herself and retire. Gertrude, much  surprised, herself and retire. Gertrude, much surprised, asked of the Divine Spouse of Virgins the cause of this sadness and embarrassment on the part of so holy a soul. “Most sweet Jesus”, she cried, “why does not Your infinite goodness invite Your spouse to approach You, and to enter into the joy of her Lord? Why do You leave her aside, sad and timid?” Then Our Lord, with a loving smile, made a sign to that holy soul to draw near; but she, more and more troubled, after some hesitation, all trembling, withdrew.

At this sight the saint addressed herself directly to the soul. “What! My daughter,” she said to her, “do you retire when our Lord calls you? You, that have desired Jesus during your whole life, withdraw now that He opens His arms to receive you!” “Ah! My dear Mother”, replied the soul, “I am not worthy to appear before the Immaculate Lamb. I have still some stains which I contracted upon earth. To approach the Sun of Justice, one must be as pure as a ray of light. I have not yet that degree of purity which He requires of His saints. Know, that if the door of Heaven were to be opened to me, I should not dare to cross the threshold before being entirely purified from all stain. It seems to me that the choir of virgins who follow the Lamb would repulse me with horror.” “And yet,”

Continued the Abbess, “I see you, surrounded with light and glory! “What you see”, replied the soul, “is but the border of the garment of glory. To wear this celestial robe we must not retain even the shadow of sin.”

This vision shows a soul very near to the glory of Heaven; but her enlightenment concerning the infinite Sanctity of God was of a different order from that which has been given to us. This clear knowledge causes her to seek, as a blessing, the expiation which her condition requires to render her worthy of the vision of the thrice holy God. This is precisely the exact teaching of St. Catherine of Genoa. …She wrote a work entitled A Treatise on Purgatory, which has an authority equal to that of St. Teresa. …But I see also that the Divine Essence is of such purity that the soul, unless she absolutely immaculate, cannot bear the sight. If she finds in herself the least atom of imperfection, rather than dwell with a stain in the presence of the Divine Majesty, she would plunge herself into the depths of Hell. Finding in Purgatory a means to blot out her stains, she casts herself into it. She esteems herself happy that, by the effect of a great mercy, a place is given to her where she can free herself from the obstacles to supreme happiness.”” (Schouppe:2012:69-73)

Diversity of the Pains – King Sancho and Queen Guda – St. Lidwina and the Soul Transpierced – Blessed Margaret Mary and the Bed of Fire

According to the saints, there is great diversity in the corporal pains of Purgatory. Although fire is the principal instrument of torture, there is also the torment of cold, the torture of the members, and the torture applied to the different senses of the human body. This diversity of suffering seems to correspond to the nature of the sins, each one of which demands its own punishment, according to these words: Quia per quae pecat quis, per haec et torquetur– “By what things a man sinneth, by the same also is he tormented.” (Wis. 11:17). It is just that it should be so with regard to the chastisement, since the same diversity exists in the distribution of the reward.” (Schouppe:2012:78)

Diversity of the Pains – Blasio Raised from the Dead by St. Bernadine – Venerable Frances of Pampeluna and the Pen of Fire – St. Corpreus and King Malachy

[…] A short time after the canonization of St.Bernadine of Siena, there died at Cascia, in the kingdom of Naples, a child aged eleven years, named Blasio Masseï. His parents had inspired him with the same devotion which they themselves had towards this new saint, and the latter was not slow to recompense it. The day after his death, when the body was being carried to the grave, Blasio awoke as from a profound slumber, and said that St.Bernadine had restored him to life, in order to relate the wonders which the saint had shown him in the other world….

At the moment of his death, he said, St.Bernardine appeared to him, and taking him by the hand, said, “Be not afraid, but pay great attention to what I am going to show you, so that you may remember, and afterwards be able to relate it.”

Now the saint conducted his young protégé successively into the regions of Hell, Purgatory, Limbo, and finally allowed him to see Heaven. …

When interrogated as to the state of a departed soul, he answered without hesitation, and gave the most precise details. “Your father”, said he to one of his visitors, “has been in Purgatory since such a day; he charged you to pay such a sum in alms, and you have neglected to do so.” “Your brother”, he said to another “asked you to have so many Masses celebrated; you agreed to do so, and you have not fulfilled your engagement; so many Masses remain to be said.”” (Schouppe:2012:84-6)

Duration of Purgatory – Opinions of the Doctors – Bellarmine – Calculations of Father Munford

[…] According to the common opinion of the doctors, the expiatory pains are of long duration. “There is no doubt”, says Bellarmine (De Gemitu, lib.2,c.9), “that the pains of Purgatory are not limited to ten and twenty years, and that they last in some cases entire centuries. But allowing it to be true that their duration did not exceed ten or twenty years, can we account it as nothing to have to endure for ten or twenty years the most excruciating sufferings without the least alleviation? …Shall we find any difficulty in embracing labour and penance to free ourselves from the sufferings of Purgatory? Shall we fear to practice the most painful exercises: vigils, fasts, almsgiving, long prayers, and especially contrition, accompanied with sighs and tears?”

These words comprise the whole doctrine of the saints and theologians.” (Schouppe:2012:89-90)

Duration of Purgatory – The Cistercian Abbot and Pope Innocent III – John de Lierre

[…] Since I am mentioning St.Lutgarda, ought I to speak of the celebrated apparition of Pope Innocent III? I acknowledge the perusal of this incident shocked me, and I would fain pass it over in silence. I was reluctant to think that a Pope, and such a Pope, had been condemned to so long and terrible a Purgatory. We know that Innocent III, who presided at the celebrated Council of Lateran in 1215, was one of the greatest Pontiffs who ever filled the chair of St. Peter. His piety and zeal led him to accomplish great things from the Church of God and holy discipline. How, then, admit that such a man was judged with so great severity at the Supreme Tribunal? How reconcile this revelation of St. Lutgarda with Divine Mercy?  I wished, therefore, to treat it as an illusion, and sought for reasons in support of this idea. But I found, on the contrary, that the reality of this apparition is admitted by the gravest author, and that it is not rejected by any single one….

Pope Innocent III died July 16, 1216. The same day he appeared to St. Lutgarda in her monastery at Aywieres, in Brabant. Surprised to see a spectre enveloped in flames, she asked who he was and what he wanted. “I am Pope Innocent”, he replied. “Is it possible that you, our common Father, should be in such a state” “It is but too true. I am expiating three faults which might have caused my eternal perdition. Thanks to the Blessed Virgin Mary, I have obtained pardon for them, but I have to make atonement. Alas! It is terrible; and it will last for centuries if you do not come to my assistance. In the name of Mary, who has obtained for me the favour of appealing to you, help me.” With these words he disappeared. Lutgarda announced the Pope’s death to her sisters, and together they betook themselves to prayer and penitential works in behalf of the august and venerated Pontiff, whose demise was communicated to them some weeks later from another source.” (Schouppe:2012:93-5)

The Cause of Suffering – Matter of the Expiations of Purgatory – Doctrine of Suarez – St. Catherine of Genoa.

Why must souls thus suffer before being admitted to see the face of God? What is the matter, what is the subject of these expiatons? What has the fire of Purgatory to purify, to consume in them? It is, says the doctors, the stains left by their sins.

By what is here understood by stains? According to  most theologians, it is not the guilt of sin, but the pain or the debt of pain proceeding from sin. To understand this well, we must remember that sin produces a double effect on the soul, which we call the debt (reatus) of guilt and the debt of pain; it renders the soul not only guilty, but deserving of pain or chastisement. Now, after the guilt is pardoned, it generally happens that the pain remains to be undergone, either entirely or in part, and this must be endured either in the present life or in the life to come.

The souls in Purgatory retain not the slightest stain of guilt; the venial guilt which they had at the moment of their death has disappeared in the order of pure charity, with which they are inflamed in the other life, but they still bear the debt of suffering which they had not discharged before death.

This debt proceeds from all the faults committed during their life, especially from mortal sins remitted as to the guilt, but which they have neglected to expiate by worthy fruits of exterior penance.

Such is the common teaching of theologians, which Suarez sums up in his Treatise on the Sacrament of Penance. (Vol.19, De Poenit., Disput. 11, sect.4). “We conclude then,” he says, “that all venial sins with which a just man dies are remitted as to the guilt, at the moment when the soul is separated from the body, by virtue of an act of love of God, and the perfect contrition which it then excites over all its past faults. In fact, the soul at this moment knows its condition perfectly, and the sins of which it has been guilty before God; at the same time, it is mistress of its faculties, to be able to act. On the other hand, on the part of God, the most efficacious helps are given to her, that she may act according to the measure of sanctifying grace which she possesses. It follows, then, that in this perfect disposition, the soul acts without the least hesitation. It turns directly towards its God, and finds itself freed from all its venial sins by an act of sovereign loathing of sin. This universal and efficacious act suffices for the remission of their guilt.

All stain of guilt has then disappeared; but the pain remains to be endured, in all its rigour and long duration, at least for those souls that are not assisted by the living. They cannot obtain the least relief for themselves, because the time of merit has passed; they can no longer merit, they can but suffer, and in that way pay to the terrible justice of God all that they owe, even to the last farthing Usque ad novissimum quadrantem. (Matt. 5:26). …

Since the souls in Purgatory are freed from the guilt of sin, writes St.Catherine of Genoa, there is no other barrier between them and their union with God save the remains of sin, from which they must be purified. (Traité du Purgatoire, chap.3)” (Schouppe:2012:111-13)

Matter of Expiation – Worldliness – St.Bridget – The Young Person – The Soldier – Blessed Mary Villani and the Worldly Lady

[…] Blessed Mary Villani, a Dominican Religious (Sa Vie, par Marchi, I,2,c.5; Merv., 41), had a lively devotion to the holy souls, and it often happened that they appeared to her, either to thank her or to beg the assistance of her prayers and good works. One day, whilst praying for them with great fervour; she was transported in spirit to their prison of expiation. Among the souls that suffered there she saw one more cruelly tormented than the others, in the midst of flames which entirely enveloped her. Touched with compassion, the servant of God interrogated the soul. “I have been here”, she replied, “for a very long time, punished for my vanity and my scandalous extravagance. Thus far I have not received the least alleviation. Whilst I was upon earth, being wholly occupied with my toilet, my pleasures, and worldly amusements, I thought very little of my duties as a Christian, and fulfilled them only with great reluctance, and in a slothful manner. My only serious thought was to further the worldly interests of my family. See now how I am punished; they bestow not so much as a passing thought upon me: my parents, my children, those friends with whom I was most intimate- all have forgotten me.”” (Schouppe:2012:119-20)

Matter of Expiation – Scandal given – Immodest Paintings – Father Zucci and the Novice

“What!” said the Religious, “have you to endure such pain, after leading so good a life and dying so holy a death?” “Alas!” replied he, “it is on account of the immodest picture that I painted some years ago. When I appeared before the tribunal of the Sovereign Judge, a crowd of accusers came to give evidence against me. They declared that they had been excited to improper thoughts and evil desires by a picture, the work of my hand. In consequence of those bad thoughts some were in Purgatory, others in Hell. The latter cried for vengeance, saying that, having been the cause of their eternal perdition, I deserved, at least, the same punishment. Then the Blessed Virgin and the saints whom I had glorified by my pictures took up my defense. They represented to the Judge that that unfortunate painting had been the work of youth, and of which I had repented; that I had repaired it afterwards by religious objects which had been a source of edification to souls.

“In consideration of these and other reasons, the Sovereign Judge declared that, on account of my repentance and my good works, I should be exempt from damnation; but at the same time, He condemned me to these flames until that picture should be burned, so that it could no longer scandalize anyone.”…

If such as the consequences of an immodest picture, what, then, will be the punishment of the still more disastrous scandals resulting from bad books, bad papers, bad schools, and bad conversations? Vae mundo a scandalis! Vae homini illi per quem scandalum venit! “Woe to the world because of scandals! Woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh!” (Matt. 18:7).

Scandal makes great ravages in souls by the seduction of innocence. Ah! Those accursed seducers! They shall render to God a terrible account of the blood of their victims.” (Schouppe:2012:124-6)

Matter of Expiation – the Life of Pleasure – The Pursuit of Comfort – Venerable Frances of Pampeluna and the Man of the World – St. Elizabeth and the Queen, her Mother

In our days there are Christians who are total strangers to the Cross and the mortification of Jesus Christ. Their effeminate and sensual life is but one chain of pleasures; they fear everything that is a sacrifice; scarcely do they observe the strict laws of fasting and abstinence prescribed by the Church. Since they will not submit to any penance in this world, let them reflect on what will be inflicted upon them in the next. It is certain that in this worldly life they do nothing but accumulate debts. Since they omit to do penance, no part of the debt is paid, and a total is reached that affrights the imagination. The venerable servant of God, Frances of Pampeluna, who was favoured with several visions of Purgatory, saw one day a man of the world, whom although he had otherwise been a tolerably good Christian, passed fifty-nine years in Purgatory on account of seeking his ease and comfort. Another passed thirty-five years there for the same reason; a third, who had too strong a passion for gambling, was detained there for sixty-four years. Alas!

If God is severe towards the rich and the pleasure-seekers of the world, He will not be less so towards princes, magistrates, parents, and in general towards all those who have the charge of souls and authority over others.” (Schouppe:2012:128-9)

Matter of Expiation – Want of  Respect in Prayer – Mother Agnes of Jesus and Sr.Angelique – St. Severin of Cologne – Venerable Frances of Pampeluna and the Priests – Father Streit, S.J

[…] Venerable Sister Frances of Pampeluna, whom we have before mentioned, one day saw in Purgatory a poor priest whose fingers were eaten away by frightful ulcers. He was thus punished for having at the altar made the Sign of the Cross with too much levity, and without the necessary gravity. She said that in general priests remain in Purgatory longer than laymen, and that the intensity of their torments is in proportion to their dignity. God revealed to her the fate of several deceased priests. One of them had to undergo forty years of suffering for having by his neglect allowed a person to die without the Sacraments; another remained there for forty-five years for having performed the sublime functions of his ministry with a certain levity. A Bishop, whose liberality had caused him to be named almoner, was detained there for five years for having sought that dignity; another, not so charitable, was condemned for forty years for the same reason. (Vie de la Vénér. Mère Franc. Cf.Merv.,25)” (Schouppe:2012:138-9)

Matter of Expiation – Sins against Charity – Blessed Margaret Mary – Two Persons of Rank in the Pains of Purgatory – Several Souls Punished for Discord

We have already said that Divine Justice is extremely severe in regard to sins against Charity. Charity is, in fact, the virtue which is dearest to the Heart of our Divine Master, and which He recommends to His disciples as that which must distinguish them in the eyes of men. By this, He says, shall all men know that you are My disciples, if you have love one for another. (John 13:35). It is, then, not astonishing that harshness towards our neighbour, and every other fault against Charity, should be severely punished in the other life.

Of this we have several proofs, taken from the Life of Blessed Margaret Mary. “I learned from Sister Margaret,” says Mother Greffier in her Memoirs, “that she one day prayed for two persons of high rank in the world who had just died. She saw them both in Purgatory. The one was condemned for several years to those sufferings, notwithstanding the great number of Masses which were celebrated for her. All those prayers and suffrages were by Divine Justice applied to the souls belonging to some of the families of her subjects, which had been ruined by their injustice and lack of charity. As nothing was left to those poor people to enable them to have prayers offered for them after their death, God compensated these poor people in the manner we have related. The other was in Purgatory for as many days as she had lived years upon earth. ….

Let us add one more extract from Memoirs of Mother Greffier. “It happened whilst Sister Margaret was praying for two deceased Religious, that their souls were shown to her in the prisons of Divine Justice, but one suffered incomparably more than the other. The former regretted greatly that be her faults against mutual Charity, and the holy friendship that ought to remain in religious communities, she had in part deprived herself, among other punishments, of the suffrages which were offered for her by the community. She received relief only from the prayers of three or four persons of the same community for whom she had had less affection and inclination during her life. This suffering soul reproached herself also for the too great facility with which she took dispensations from the rules and exercises of the community. Finally, she deplored the care which she had taken upon earth to procure for her body so many comforts and commodities.” (Schouppe:2012:149-51)

Matter of Expiation – Lack of Charity and of Respect towards our Neighbour – St. Louis Bertrand and the Departed Soul asking Pardon – Father Nieremberg – Blessed Margaret Mary and the Benedictine Religious

True Charity is humble and indulgent towards others, respecting them as though they were their superiors. Her words are always friendly, and full of consideration for others, having nothing of bitterness nor coldness, nothing savouring of contempt, because she is born of a heart that is meek and humble like that of Jesus. She also carefully avoids all that could disturb unity; she takes every means, makes every sacrifice to effect a reconciliation, according to the words of our Divine Master, If thou offer thy gift at the altar; and there thou remember that they brother hath anything against thee, leave there they offering before the alter, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother, and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift. (Matt. 5:23)” (Schouppe:2012:152)

Matter of Expiation – Abuse of Grace – St. Magdalen de Pazzi and the Dead Religious – Blessed Margaret Mary and the Three Souls in Purgatory

There is another disorder in the soul which God punishes severely in Purgatory, to wit, the abuse of grace. By this is understood the neglect to correspond to the aids which God gives us, and to the invitations which He presses upon us to the practice of virtue for the sanctification of our souls. This grace which He offers us is a precious gift, which we may not throw away; it is the seed of salvation and of merit, which it is not permitted to leave unproductive. Now, this fault is committed when we do not respond with generosity to the Divine invitation. I receive from God the means of giving alms; an interior voice invites me to do so. I close my heart, or I give with a miserly hand; this is an abuse of grace. …

Now this sin, as we have said, is severely punished in Purgatory. St. Magdalen de Pazzi tells us that one of her sisters in religion had much to suffer after death for not having on three occasions corresponded to grace. It happened that on a certain feast day she felt inclined to do some little work; it was only some simple piece of embroidery, but it was not at all necessary, and could be conveniently postponed to some other time. The inspiration of grace told her to abstain from it through respect for the solemnity of the day, but she preferred to satisfy the natural inclination which she had for that work, under pretext that it was but a trifle. Another time, noticing that the observance of a certain point of the Rule had been omitted, and that by making it known to her superiors some good would have resulted to the community, she omitted to speak of it. The inspiration of grace told her to perform this act of charity, but human respect withheld her. A third fault was an ill-regulated attachment to her relatives in the world. As spouse of Jesus Christ, all her affections belonged to the Divine Spouse; but she divided her heart by being too much occupied with the members of her family. Although she knew that her conduct in this respect was defecting, she did not obey the impulse of grace, nor did she labour strenuously to correct it.

This sister, otherwise most edifying, died some time after, and Magdalen prayed for her with her usual fervour. Sixteen days passed, when she appeared to the saint to announce her deliverance. Magdalen expressing her astonishment that the sister had been so long suffering, it was revealed to her that this soul had to expiate her abuse of grace in the three cases of which we have just spoken, and that these faults would have detained her longer in her torments had not God taken into consideration the more satisfactory part of her conduct….

Those who in this world have received more grace, and more means of discharging their spiritual debts, will be treated with less consideration that those who have had less opportunity of making satisfaction during life.” (Schouppe:2012:156-9)

Writer’s Voice: So if talent is given by grace, then that does not justify charging more for your grace-filled services. It does for the office but not for the person who fills that office. That is a willed moral decision against the grace of a Christian. If this is not true, then what is grace, and what is merit, and what is taking a wage and choosing to believe that it is yours to do with as you wish, and not God who gave you the grace, to have the ability to do that job.

In like manner with merit, if you love cycling and train to go cycling and then ask to be sponsored to do what you love, for a good time for you. One should always offer that person twice as much to be sponsored to spend the time they would have spent training, travelling, and achieving their own personal goal be converted into actually helping people in their community, such as the unemployed who make their wage possible, or the mentally ill soldiers who make their property rights possible, or the poor who make their office of discrepant humanity possible. See how many choose their self-merit and align it to charity, and how many take the money doubling and earn divine-merit as well? The people organising these great race events, the police, the first aid, the health and safety people, the insurance, the equipment, the time, the prizes, the hotel rooms, the fuel, the money to set it all up and make it happen, could all be converted to actually helping the people that these dramas are supposed to help, but cannot because they are morally corrupt from the outset. Begging an ego to help you by feeding that ego is not helpful, it is worse than a waste of time, it is destructive.

Fear and Confidence – The Mercy of God – St. Lidwina and the Priest – Venerable Claude de la Colombière

[…] Good will consists, properly speaking, in submitting and conforming our will to that of God, who is the rule of all good will; and this good will attains its highest perfection when we embrace the Divine Will as the sovereign good, even then when it imposes the greatest sacrifices, the most acute suffering. Oh, admirable state! The soul thus disposed seems to lose the sensation of pain, and this because the soul is animated with the spirit of love; and, as St. Augustine says, when we love we suffer not, or if we suffer, we love the suffering. Aut si laboratur, labor ipse amatur. …

Behold to what an excess of Charity, the love of God and our neighbour transports us when it has once taken possession of the heart; it transforms, transfigures suffering in such a manner, that all its bitterness is changed into sweetness. “When thou shalt arrive thus far, that tribulation shall be sweet to thee, and thou shalt relish it for the love of Christ: then think that it is well with thee, for thou has found a Paradise upon earth.” (Imit.2,12). Let us therefore have great love for God, great Charity, and we shall have little fear of Purgatory. The Holy Ghost bears testimony in the depths of our hearts that, being children of God, we have no need to dread the chastisements of a Father.” (Schouppe:2012:167-8)

Consolations of the Souls – St. Stanislaus of Cracow and the Resuscitated Peter Miles

The celebrated miracle of this resurrection happened in 1070. It is thus related in the Acta Sanctorum on May 7. St Stanislaus was Bishop of Cracow when the Duke Boleslas II governed Poland. He did not neglect to remind this prince  of his duties, who scandalously violated them before all his people.

Boleslas was irritated by the holy liberty of the Prelate, and to revenge himself he excited against him the heirs of a certain Peter Miles, who had died three years previously after having sold a piece of ground to the church of Cracow. The heirs accused the saint of having usurped  the ground, without having paid the owner. Stanislaus declared that he had paid for the land, but as the witnesses who should have defended him had been either bribed or intimidated, he was denounced as a usurper of the property of another, and condemned to make restitution. Then, seeing that he had nothing to expect from human justice, he raised his heart to God, and received a sudden inspiration. He asked for a delay of three days, promising to make Peter Miles appear in person, that he might testify to the legal purchase and payment of the lot.

They were granted to him in scorn. The saint fasted, watched, and prayed God to take up the defense of his cause. The third day, after having celebrated Holy Mass, he went out accompanied by his clergy and many of the faithful, to the place where Peter had been interred. By his orders the grave was opened; it contained nothing but bones. He touched them with his crosier, and in the name of Him who is the Resurrection and the Life, he commanded the dead man to arise.

Suddenly, the bones became reunited, were covered with flesh, and, in sight of the stupefied people, the dead man was seen to take the Bishop by the hand and walk towards the tribunal. Boleslas, with his court and an immense crowd of people, were awaiting the result with the most lively expectation. “Behold Peter”, said the saint to Boleslas; “he comes, prince, to give testimony before you. Interrogate him; he will answer you.”

It is impossible to depict the stupefaction of the Duke, of his councillors, and of the whole concourse of people. Peter affirmed that he had been paid for the ground; then turning towards his heirs, he reproached them for having accused the pious prelate against all rights of justice; then he exhorted them to do penance for so grievous a sin. …

After that, accompanied by the Bishop and a vast multitude, Peter returned to his grave, laid himself down, his body fell to pieces, and his bones resumed the same state in which they had first been found. We have reason to believe that the saint soon obtained the deliverance of his soul.” (Schouppe:2012:171-4)

Consolations of Souls – St. Catherine de Ricci and the Soul of a Prince

Let us relate another example of the interior consolations and mysterious contentment which the souls experience in the midst of the most excruciating sufferings: we find it in the Life of St.Catherine de Ricci, a Religious  of the Order of St.Dominic, who died in the convent of Prato,February 2, 1590. This servant of God cherished so great a devotion towards the souls in Purgatory that she suffered in their place on earth that which they had to endure in the other world. Among others, she delivered from the expiatory flames the soul of a prince, and suffered the most frightful torments in his place for forty days.

This prince, whose name is not mentioned in history, in consideration, no doubt, of his family, had led a worldly life, and the saint offered many prayers, fasts, and penances that God would enlighten him as to the condition of his soul, and that he might not be condemned. God vouchsafed to hear her, and the unfortunate prince before his death gave evident proofs of a sincere conversion. He died in good sentiments and went to Purgatory. Catherine learned this by Divine revelation in prayer, and offered herself to satisfy Divine Justice for that soul. Our Lord accepted the charitable exchange, received the soul of the prince into glory, and subjected Catherine to pains entirely strange to her for the space of forty days. She was seized with a malady which, according to the judgement of the physicians, was not natural, and could neither be cured nor relieved. According to the testimony of eyewitnesses, the body of the saint was covered with blisters filled with humour and inflammation, like water boiling upon the fire. This occasioned such heat that her cell was like an oven, and seemed filled with fire; it was impossible to remain there for a few moments without going outside to breathe.

It was evident that the flesh of the patient was boiling, and her tongue resembled a piece of red-hot metal. …

Nevertheless, in the midst of this torture the saint did not lose the serenity of her countenance nor the peace of her soul; she seemed to rejoice in her torments.” (Schouppe:2012:175-6)

Consolations of Purgatory – The Blessed Virgin Mary – Privilege of Saturday – Venerable Paula of St.Teresa – St. Peter Damian and the Deceased Marozi

It is especially on certain days that the Queen of Heaven exercises her mercy in Purgatory. These privileged days are, first, all Saturdays, then the different feast days of the Blessed Virgin, which thus become as festivals in Purgatory. We see in the revelations of the saints that on Saturday, the day specially consecrated to the Blessed Virgin, the sweet Mother of Mercy descends into the dungeons of Purgatory to visit and console her devoted servants. Then, according to the pious belief of the faithful, she delivers those souls who, having worn the holy scapular, enjoy this Sabbatine privilege, and afterwards gives relief and consolation to other souls who had been particularly devout to her. A witness to this was the Venerable Sister Paula of St.Teresa, a Dominican Religious of the Convent of St. Catherine in Naples. (Rossign., Merv., 50; Marchese, tom.i., p.56)

Being rapt in ecstasy one Saturday, and transported in spirit into Purgatory, she was quite surprised to find it transformed into a Paradise of delights, illuminated by a bright light, instead of the darkness which at other times prevailed. Whilst she was wondering what could be the cause of this change, she perceived the Queen of Heaven surrounded by a multitude of angels, to whom she gave orders to liberate those souls who had honoured her in a special manner, and conduct them to Heaven.

If such takes place on an ordinary Saturday, we can scarcely doubt that the same occurs on feast days consecrated to the Mother of God. Among all her festivals, that of the glorious Assumption of Mary seems to be the chief day of deliverance, St. Peter Damian tells us that each year, on the day of the Assumption, the Blessed Virgin delivers several thousands of souls. (Opusc.34,c.3.p.2)” (Schouppe:2012:179-80)

Assistance given the Holy Souls – Suffrages- Meritorious, Impetratory, and Satisfactory Works – God’s Mercy – St. Gertrude – Judas Machabeus

[…] the state of grace, ordinarily possessed a triple value in the sight of God.

1. The work is meritorious, that is to say, it increases our merit; it gives us right to a new degree of glory in Heaven.
2. It is impetratory (impetrate, obtain), that is to say that, like a prayer, it has the virtue of obtaining some grace from God.
3. It is satisfactory, that is to say that as having, as it were, a pecuniary value, it can satisfy Divine Justice and pay our debts of temporal punishment before God.

The merit is inalienable, and remains the property of the person who performs the action. On the contrary, the impetratory and satisfactory value can benefit others, in virtue of the communion of the saints. This understood, let us put this practical question- What are suffrages by which, according to the doctrine of the Church, we may aid the souls in Purgatory?

To this question we answer: They consist of prayers, alms, fasts, and penances of any kind, indulgences, and above all the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. …

Even in the Old Law prayers and sacrifices were offered for the dead. Holy Scripture relates as praiseworthy the pious action of Judas machabeus after his victory over Gorgias, general of King Antiochus. The soldiers had committed a fault by taking from among the spoils some objects offered to the idols, which by law they were forbidden to do. Then Judas, chief of the army of Israel, ordered prayers and sacrifices for the remission of their sin, and for the repose of their souls. Let us see how this fact is related in Scripture. (2 Mach. 12:39).

“After the Sabbath, Judas went with his company to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers.

“And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews; so that all plainly saw that for this cause they were slain.

“Then they all blessed the just judgement of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden.

“And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought Him that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, for so much as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sin of those that were slain.

“And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection.

“(For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness had great grace laid up for them).

“It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.”” (Schouppe:2012:192-4)

24: Assistance rendered to the Souls – Holy Mass – Jubilee of Leo XIII – Solemn Commemoration of the Dead on the Last Sunday in September

[…] “For this reason, since it is certain from Catholic doctrine that the souls detained in Purgatory are relieved by the suffrages of the faithful, and especially by the august Sacrifice of the Altar, we think we can give no more useful nor more desirable pledge of our love than by every where multiplying, for the mitigation of their pains, the pure oblation of the Holy Sacrifice of our Divine Mediator.

“We therefore appoint, with all necessary dispensations and derogations, the last Sunday of the month of September next as a day of ample expiation; on which day there shall be celebrated by us, and likewise by our brethren the Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, and by all other Prelates exercising jurisdiction in a diocese, each in his own patriarchal church, metropolitan or cathedral, a special Mass for the dead, with all possible solemnity, and according to the rite indicated by the missal for the Commemoration of all the Faithful Departed. We approve that the same be done in the parochial and collegiate churches, secular as well as regular, provided the Office proper for the Mass of the day everywhere where such obligation exists be not omitted.

“As regards the faithful, we earnestly exhort them, after having received the Sacrament of Penance, to devoutly nourish themselves with the bread of angels by way of suffrage for the souls in Purgatory.

“By our apostolic authority, to those of the faithful who do so we grant a plenary indulgence, to be applied to the souls departed, and the favour of the privileged altar to all those who, as we have said above, shall celebrate Mass.

“Thus, the holy souls who expiate the remains of their faults by those sharp pains will receive special and efficacious relief, thanks to the Saving Host which the Universal Church, united to her visible Head, and animated with the same spirit of charity, will offer to God, that He may admit them into the abode of consolation, of light, and of eternal peace.

“Meanwhile, venerable brethren, we grant you affectionately in the Lord, as a pledge of these heavenly gifts, the apostolic benediction to you, to all the clergy, and to all the people confided to your care.

“Given at Rome, under the seal of the Fisherman, on the solemnity of Easter, in the year 1888, the eleventh of our Pontificate.”” (Schouppe:2012:200-1)

Relief of the Holy Souls – Holy Mass – Father Gerard – The Thirty Masses of St.Gregory

[…] The thirty Masses which were said for thirty consecutive days is not an English custom only, as it is called by Father Gerard, it is also widely spread in Italy and other Christian countries. These Masses are called the Thirty Masses of St.Gregory, because the pious custom seems to trace its origin back to this great Pope. It is thus related in his Dialogues (Book 4, chap.40): A Religious, named Justus, had received and kept for himself three gold pieces. This was a grievous fault against his vow of poverty. He was discovered and excommunicated. This salutary penalty made him enter into himself, and some time afterwards he died in true sentiments of repentance. Nevertheless, St.Gregory, in order to inspire the brethren with a lively horror of the sin of avarice in a Religious, did not withdraw the sentence of excommunication: Justus was buried apart from the other monks, and the three pieces of money were thrown into the grave, whilst the Religious repeated all together the words of St.Peter to Simon the Magician, Pecunia tua tecum sit in perditionem– “Keep thy money to perish with thee.”

Some time afterwards, the holy Abbot, judging that the scandal was sufficiently repaired, and moved with compassion for the soul of Justus, called the Procurator and said to him sorrowfully, “Ever since the moment of his death, our brother has been tortured in the flames of Purgatory; we must through charity make an effort to deliver him. Go, then, and take care that from this time forward the Holy Sacrifice be offered for thirty days; let not one morning pass without the Victim of Salvation being offered up for his release.”

The Procurator obeyed punctually. The thirty Masses were celebrated in the course of thirty days. When the thirtieth day arrived and the thirtieth Mass was ended, the deceased appeared to a brother named Copiosus, saying, “Bless God, my dear brother, today I am delivered and admitted into the society of the saints.”

Since that time the pious custom of celebrating thirty Masses for the dead has been established.” (Schouppe:2012:212-13)

Relief of the Holy Souls – Eugenie Wybo – Lacordaire and the Polish Prince

[…] The Polish Prince X., an avowed infidel and materialist, had just composed a work against the immortality of the soul. He was on the point of sending it to press, when one day walking in his park, a woman bathed in tears threw herself at his feet and in accents of profound grief said to him, “My good Prince, my husband has just died. … At this moment his soul is perhaps suffering not even the small sum required to have a Mass celebrated for the dead. In your kindness come to my assistance in behalf of my poor husband.”

Although the gentleman was convinced that the woman was deceived by her credulity, he had not courage to refuse her. He slipped a gold piece into her hand, and the happy woman hastened to the church, and begged the priest to offer some days later, towards evening, the prince, in the seclusion of his study, was reading over his manuscript and retouching some details, when, raising his eyes, he saw, close to him, a man dressed in the costume of the peasants of the country. “Prince”, said the unknown visitor, “I come to thank you, I am the husband of that poor woman who besought you the other day to give her an alms, that she might have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered for the repose of my soul. Your charity was pleasing to God: it was He who permitted me to come and thank you.”” (Schouppe:2012:217)

Relief of the Holy Souls – Liturgy of the Church – Commemoration of the Dead – St. Odilo

Holy Church possesses a special liturgy for the dead: it is composed of vespers, matins, lauds and of the Mass commonly called the Mass of Requiem. This liturgy, as touching as it is sublime, through mourning and tears unfolds to the eyes of the faithful the consoling light of eternity. This liturgy she reads at the funerals of her children, and particularly on the solemn day of the Commemoration of the Dead. Holy Mass here holds the first place; it is like the divine centre round which all other prayers and ceremonies cluster. The day following All Saints’ Day, the great solemnity of All Souls, all priests must offer the Holy Sacrifice for the dead; at which the faithful make it their duty to assist, and even to offer Holy Communion, prayers and alms, for the relief of their brethren in Purgatory. This feast of the departed is not of very ancient origin. From the beginning the Church has always prayed for her departed children: she sang psalms, recited prayers, offered Holy Mass for the repose of their souls. Yet we do not see that there was any particular feast on which to recommend to God all the dead in general. It was not until the tenth century that the Church, always guided by the Holy Ghost, instituted the Commemoration of all the faithful departed, to encourage the faithful to fulfil the great duty of prayer for the dead, prescribed by Christian charity.

The cradle of this touching solemnity was the Abbey of Cluny. St. Odilo, who was Abbot there at the close of the tenth century, edified all France by his charity towards his neighbour. Extending his compassion even to the dead, he ceased not to pray for the souls in Purgatory. It was this tender charity which inspired him to establish in his monastery, as also in its dependencies, the feast of the commemoration of all the souls departed. We believe, says the historian Bérault, that he had received a revelation to that effect, for God manifested in a miraculous manner how pleasing to Him was the devotion of His servant. It is thus related by his biographers. …

A practice so pious soon passed over to other churches, and in course of time became the universal observance of the whole Catholic world.” (Schouppe:2012:218-20)

Relief of the Souls through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass – Venerable Mother Agnes and Sister Seraphique – Margaret of Austria – The Archduke Charles – Father Mancinelli

[…] Christian families, which possess a spirit of lively faith, make it their duty, according to their rank and means, to have a large number of Masses celebrated for the dead. In their holy liberality, they exhaust their resources in order to multiply the suffrages of the Church, and thus give relief to the holy souls. It is related in the Life of Queen Margaret of Austria, wife of Philip III, that in one single day, which was that of her obsequies, there were celebrated in the city of Madrid nearly eleven hundred Masses for the repose of her soul. This princess had asked for one thousand Masses in her last will; the king caused twenty thousand to be added to it. When the Archduke Albert died at Brussels, the pious Isabella, his widow, had forty thousand Masses offered for the repose of his soul, and for an entire month she herself assisted with the greatest piety at ten each day. (Father Mumford, Charité envers les Défuncts).” (Schouppe:2012:230)

Relief of the Souls through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass – St.Teresa and Bernadino de Mendoza – Multiplicity of Masses – Pomp of the Obsequies

[…] But since the Divine Sacrifice is of such value, it may here be asked if a large number of Masses procures for the souls more relief than a smaller number, whose defect is supplied only by magnificent obsequies and abundant alms? The answer to this question may be inferred from the spirit of the Church, which is the spirit of Jesus Christ Himself, and the expression of His Will.

Now the Church advises the faithful to have prayers said for the dead, to give alms, and perform other good works, to apply indulgences to them, but especially to have Holy Mass celebrated, and to assist thereat. Whilst giving the first place to the Divine Sacrifice, she approves and makes use of various kinds of suffrages, according to the circumstances, devotion, or social condition of the deceased or his heirs.

It is a Catholic custom religiously observed from the remotest antiquity to have Mass celebrated for the dead with solemn ceremonies, and a funeral with as much pomp as their means will allow. The expense of this is an alms given to the Church, an alms which, in the eyes of God, greatly enhances the price of the Holy Sacrifice, and its satisfactory value for the deceased.

It is well, however, so to regulate the funeral expenses, that a sufficient sum be left for a certain number of Masses, and also to give alms to the poor. …

What must be further avoided are the profane mourning emblems which are not comformable to Christian tradition, such as the wreaths of flowers, with which, at a great expense, they load the coffins of the dead. This is an innovation justly disapproved by the Church, to which Jesus Christ has intrusted the care of religious rites and ceremonies, not excepting funeral ceremonies.  …

What is there of all this in the cold wreaths of violet? They say nothing to the Christian soul; they are but profane emblems of this mortal life, that contrast strangely with the cross, and which are foreign to the rites of the Catholic Church.” (Schouppe:2012:234-5)

Relief of the Holy Souls – Fasts, Penances, and Mortifications, however Trifling – A Glass of Cold Water – Blessed Margaret Mary

[…] We wish to remark that what we here say is not restricted to acts of supererogatory mortification; it must be understood of obligatory mortification; that is to say, of all that we have to undergo in the fulfilment of our duties, and in general to all those good works to which our duties as Christians or those of our particular state of life oblige us.

Thus every Christian is bound by virtue of the law of God to refrain from wanton words, slander, and murmuring; thus every Religious must observe silence, charity, and obedience as prescribed by the Rule. Now, these observances, though of obligation, when practiced in the true spirit of a Christian, with a view to please God, in union with the labours and sufferings of Jesus Christ, may become suffrages and serve to relieve the holy souls.

In that famous apparition where Blessed Margaret Mary saw the deceased Religious suffering intensely for her tepidity, the poor soul, after having related in detail the torments which she endured, concluded with these words: “Alas! One hour of exactitude in silence would cure my parched mouth; another passed in the practice of charity would heal my tongue; another passed without murmuring or disapprobation of the actions of the Superior would cure my tortured heart.”

By this we see that the soul asked not for works of supererogation, but only the application of those to which the Religious are obliged.” (Schouppe:2012:243-44)

Relief of the Holy Souls – Holy Communion – St.Magdalen de Pazzi delivering her Brother – General Communion in the Church

If ordinary good works procure so much relief for the souls, what will not be the effects of the holiest work a Christian can accomplish, I mean Holy Communion? When St. Magdalen de Pazzi saw her brother in the sufferings of Purgatory, touched with compassion, she melted into tears and cried in a lamentable voice, “Oh, afflicted soul, how terrible are your pains! Why are they not understood by those who lack the courage to carry their cross here below? Whilst you were still in this world, my dear brother, you would not listen to men, and now you desire so ardently that I should hear you. Poor victim! What do you require of me?” Here she stopped and was heard to count up to the number one hundred and seven; then she said aloud that this was the number of Communions which he begged in a tone of supplication. “Yes”, she said to him, “I can easily do what you ask, but, alas!” what a length of time it will take me to pay that debt! Oh, if God permitted, how willingly would I go where you are, to deliver you, or to prevent others from descending into it.”

The saint, without omitting her prayers and other suffrages, made with the greatest fervour all the Communions which her brother desired for his deliverance.” (Schouppe:2012:244-45)

Relief of the Holy Souls – The Stations of the Cross – Venerable Mary d’Antigna

[…] In permitting the erection of these holy Stations, the Roman Pontiffs, who understood all the excellency and all the efficacy of this devotion, deigned also to enrich it with all the Indulgences which they had granted to a real visit to the Holy Land. And thus, according to the Briefs and Constitutions of the Sovereign Pontiffs Innocent XI, Innocent XII, Benedict XIII, Clement XII, and Benedict XIV, those who make the Stations of the Cross with proper dispositions gain all the Indulgences granted to the faithful who visit in person the Holy Places of Jerusalem, and these Indulgences are applicable to the dead.

Now it is certain that numerous Indulgences, whether plenary or partial, were granted to those who visited the Holy Places of Jerusalem, as may be seen in Bullarium Terrae Sanctae, so that as regards Indulgences we may say that of all practices of piety the Way of the Cross is the most richly endowed.

Thus this devotion, as well on account of the excellence of its object as by reason of the Indulgences, constitutes a suffrage of the greatest value for the Holy Souls.

We find an incident relating to this subject in the Life of Venerable Mary d’Antigna. (Louvet, Le Purgatoire, p.332). For a long time she had the pious custom of making the Stations of the Cross each day for the relief of the souls departed; but later, for motives more apparent than solid, she did it but rarely, and finally omitted it altogether. Our Lord, who had great designs in regard to this pious virgin, and who desired to make her a victim of love for the consolation of the poor souls in Purgatory, vouchsafed to give her a lesson which serves as an instruction to us all. A Religious of the same convent, who had died a short time previously, appeared to her, complaining sorrowfully, “My dead sister,” she said, “why do you no longer make the Stations of the Cross for the souls in Purgatory? You were formerly accustomed to relieve us every day by that holy exercise; why do you deprive us of that assistance?”

Whilst the soul was still speaking Our Lord Himself appeared to His servant, and reproached her with her negligence. “Know, My daughter,” He added, “that the Stations of the Cross are very profitable to the souls in Purgatory, and constitute a suffrage of the greatest value.” (Schouppe:2012:248-9)

Relief of the Holy Souls – Indulgences – Blessed Mary of Quito and the Heaps of Gold

Let us pass to those indulgences applicable to the dead. Here Divine Mercy reveals itself with a sort of prodigality. We know that an indulgence is the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, granted by the power of the Keys, outside of the Sacrament of Penance.

In virtue of the power of the Keys, which she has received from Jesus Christ, the Church may free the faithful from every obstacle to their entrance into glory. She exercises this power in the Sacrament of Penance, where she absolves them from their sins; she exercises it also outside of the Sacrament, in remitting the debt of temporal punishment which remains after the absolution; in this second instance it is the indulgence. The remission of temporal punishment by indulgences is granted to the faithful in this life only; but the Church may authorize her children whilst still living to transfer to their departed friends the remission accorded to themselves; this is the indulgence applicable to the souls in Purgatory. To apply an indulgence to the dead is to offer it to God in the name of His Holy Church, that He may deign to employ it for the benefit of the suffering souls. The satisfactions thus offered to the Divine Justice in the name of Jesus Christ are always accepted, and God applies it either to some soul in particular or to certain souls which He Himself wishes to benefit, or to all in general. Indulgences are either plenary or partial. A plenary indulgence is, to such as gain it, a remission of all the temporal punishment which it deserves in the sight of God. Suppose that, in order to acquit ourselves of this debt, we should be obliged to perform a hundred years of canonical penance upon earth, or suffer for a still longer time in Purgatory, by the virtue of a plenary indulgence properly gained all this punishment is remitted, and the soul no longer retains in the sight of God any shadow of sin, which prevents it from seeing His Divine face.

The partial indulgence consists in the remission of a certain number of days or years. These days and years in no way represent days and years of suffering in Purgatory; it must be understood of days and years of public canonical penance, consisting principally in fasts, and such as were formerly imposed upon sinners, according to the ancient discipline of the Church. Thus, an indulgence of forty days or seven years is a remission such as was merited before God by forty days or seven years of canonical penance. What proportion exists between those days of penance and the duration of the sufferings of Purgatory? This is a secret which it has not pleased God to reveal to us.

Indulgences are, in the Church, a true spiritual treasure laid open to all the faithful; all are permitted to draw therefrom, to pay their own debts and those of others. …Alas! The souls in Purgatory are in such extreme necessity, they supplicate us with tears in the midst of their torments; we have, the means of paying their debts by indulgences, and we make no endeavour to do so….

Ought we not then to do at least as much to save from expiatory flames those souls ransomed by the Blood of Jesus Christ? But Divine goodness asks nothing so painful: it requires only such works as are ordinary and easy- a Rosary, a Communion, a visit to the Blessed Sacrament, an alms or the teaching of the elements of the Catechism to abandoned children. And we neglect to acquire the most precious treasures by such easy means, and have no desire to apply them to our poor relatives languishing in the flames of Purgatory.” (Schouppe:2012:250-53)

Relief of the Holy Souls – Indulgences – Mother Frances of Pampeluna and the Bishop de Ribera – St. Magdalen de Pazzi – St. Teresa

“As the Holy See had then granted to Spain the Bulls of the Crusade, which permitted the gaining of a plenary indulgence under certain conditions, she believed that the best means of assisting those poor souls would be to procure for each of them the advantage of a plenary indulgence.

She spoke to her Bishop, Christopher de Ribera, acquainting him with the fact that three of his predecessors were still in Purgatory, and urging him to procure for her three indulgences of the Crusade. She fulfilled all the conditions required, and applied a plenary indulgence to each of the three Bishops. The following night they all appeared to Mother Frances, delivered from all their sufferings. They thanked her, and begged her to thank also the Bishop Ribera for the indulgences which had opened Heaven to them. (Vie de Françoise du Sacrem., Merv., 26).” (Schouppe:2012:254)

Relief of the Holy Souls – Alms Raban – Maur and Edelard at the Monastery of Fulda

It remains for us to speak of a last and very powerful means of relieving the poor souls: viz., almsgiving. The Angelic Doctor, St.Thomas, gives the preference to alms before fasting and prayer, when there is a question of expiating past faults. “Almsgiving”, he says, “possesses more completely by virtue of satisfaction than prayer, and prayer more completely than fasting. …

Father Trithemius, a well-known writer of the Order of St.Benedict, caused abundant alms to be distributed for the dead. He had established a rule that whenever a Religious died, his portion of food should be distributed among the poor of thirty days, that the soul of the deceased might be relieved by the alms.  … “Take great care”, said he, “that our constitutions be faithfully observed, and that the poor be fed for a whole month with the food destined for the brethren we have lost.”

Edelard failed both in obedience and charity. Under pretext that such liberality was extravagant, and that he must economize the resources of the monastery, but in reality because he was influenced by a secret avarice, he neglected to distribute the food, or did so in a manner far short of the command he had received. God did not leave this disobedience unpunished.” (Schouppe:2012:258-9)

Relief of the Holy Souls – The Heroic Act of Charity towards the Holy Souls – Father Mumford – Denis the Carthusian and St. Gertrude

Thus far we have spoken of the different kinds of good works which we may offer to God as suffrages for the dead. It remains for us to make known an act which comprises all works and means, whereby we can most effectually assist the poor souls; it is the heroic vow, or, as others call it, the Heroic act of Charity towards the souls in Purgatory.

This act consists in ceding to them all our works of satisfaction, that is to say, the satisfactory value of all the works of our life and of all the suffrages which shall be given to us after our death, without reserving anything wherewith to discharge our own debts. We deposit them in the hands of the Blessed Virgin, that she may distribute them, according to her good pleasure, to those souls which she desires to deliver from Purgatory.

It is an absolute donation in favour of the souls of all that we can give them; we offer to God in their behalf all the god we do, of what kind soever, either in thought, words or works, all that we suffer meritoriously during this life, without excepting anything that we may reasonably give them, and adding even those suffrages which we may receive for ourselves after death.

It must be well understood that the matter of this holy donation is the satisfactory value of our works…, and in not way the merit which has a correspondingly degree of glory in Heaven; for merit is strictly personal, and cannot be transferred to another.

Formula of the Heroic Act: “O Holy and Adorable Trinity, desiring to co-operate in the deliverance of the souls in Purgatory, and to testify my devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, I cede and renounce in behalf of those holy souls all the satisfactory part of my works, and all the suffrages which may be given to me after my death, consigning them entirely into the hands of the most Blessed Virgin, that she may apply them according to their good pleasure to those souls of the faithful departed whom she desires to deliver from their sufferings. Deign, O my God, to accept and bless this offering which I make to Thee at this moment. Amen.”

The Sovereign Pontiffs, Benedict XIII, Pius VI, and Pius IX have approved this heroic act, and have enriched it with indulgences and privileges, of which the principal are the following: 1) To priests who have made this act the indult of a privileged altar every day in the year. 2) The simple faithful can gain a plenary indulgence, applicable to the souls in Purgatory only, each time they communicate, provided they visit a church or public oratory, and there pray for the intention of His Holiness. 3) They may apply to the holy souls all those indulgences which are not otherwise applicable by virtue of confession, and which have been granted up to the present time, or which shall be granted in the future. (Pius IX, Decr.30 Sept.1852).

“I advise all true Christians,” says Father Mumford (Charity to the Departed), “to cede with holy disinterestedness to the faithful departed all the fruit of their good works which are to our disposal. I do not believe that they can make a better use of them, since they render them more meritorious and more efficacious, as well for obtaining grace from God as for expiating their own sins and shortening the term of their Purgatory, or even of acquiring an entire exemption therefrom.”” (Schouppe:2012:264-67)

Relief of the Holy Souls – Which of them should be the Objects of our Charity – All the Faithful Departed – St.Andrew Avellino – Sinners dying without the Sacraments – St.Francis de Sales

[…] For what souls should we pray and offer our suffrages to God? To these questions we must answer that we should pray for the souls of all the faithful departed, omnium fidelium defunctorum, according to the expression of the Church. Although filial piety imposes special duties upon us with regard to parents and relations, Christian charity commands us to pray for all the faithful departed in general, because they are all our brethren in Jesus Christ, all are our neighbours, whom we must love as ourselves.

By these words, faithful departed, the Church means all those actually in Purgatory, that is to say, those who are neither in Hell, nor as yet worthy to be admitted into the glory of Paradise. But who are these souls? Can we know them? God has reserved this knowledge to Himself, and, except so far as He is pleased to show us, we should remain in total ignorance of the state of souls in the other life. Now, he rarely makes known that a soul is in Purgatory or in the glory of Heaven; still more rarely does He reveal the reprobation of a soul. In this uncertainty we must pray in general, as does the Church, for all the departed, without prejudice to those souls whom we wish to aid in particular.

We may evidently restrict our intention to those among the dead who are still in need of our assistance, if God grants us the privilege which He accorded to St.Andrew Avellino, of knowing the condition of souls in the other life. When this holy Religious of the Order of Theatines was, according to his pious custom, praying with angelic fervour for the departed, it sometimes happened that he experienced within himself a sort of resistance, a feeling of invincible repulsion; at other times it was, on the contrary, a great consolation and a particular attraction. He soon understood the meaning of these different impressions; the first signified that his prayer was useless, that the soul which he his prayer was useless, that the soul which he desired to assist was unworthy of mercy, and condemned to eterneal fire; the other indicated that his prayer was efficacious for the relief of the soul in Purgatory. It was the same when he wished to offer the Holy Sacrifice for someone deceased. He felt, on leaving the sacristy, as though withheld by an irresistible hand, and understood that that soul was in Hell; but when he was inundated with joy, light, and devotion, he was sure of contributing to the deliverance of a soul. …

As for us, who have not these supernatural lights, we must pray for all the departed, even for the greatest sinners and the most virtuous Christian. …

As regards great sinners, who die without being outwardly reconciled with God, we may not exclude them from our suffrages, because we have not the certainty of their interior impenitence. Faith teaches us that all men dying in the state of mortal sin incur eternal damnation; but who are those that in reality die in that state? God alone, who reserves to Himself the judgement of the living and the dead, knows this. As to ourselves, we can but draw a conjectural conclusion from exterior circumstances, and from [even] this we must refrain. It must, however, be confessed that there is everything to be feared for those who die unprepared for death, and all hope seems to vanish for those who refuse to received the Sacraments. The latter quit this life with exterior signs of reprobation. Nevertheless, we must leave the judgment to God, according to the words, Dei judicium est– “To God belongs judgement.” (Deut 1:17)” (Schouppe:2012:269-71)

Motives for Assisting the Holy Souls – Excellence of this Work – St. Francis de Sales – St.Thomas of Aquin – St.Bridget

We have just passed in review the means and resources which Divine Mercy has placed in our hands for the relief of our brethren in Purgatory. These means are powerful, the resources rich; but do we make an abundant use thereof? Having it in our power to assist the poor souls, have we zeal enough to do so? Are we as rich in Charity as God is rich in mercy? Alas! How many Christians do little or nothing for the departed! And those who forget them not, those who have sufficient Charity to aid them by their suffrages, how often are they not lacking in zeal and fervour!…

Are we equally fervent, solicitous, eager to procure them relief? “No”, says St.Francis de Sales, “we do not sufficiently remember our dear departed friends. Their memory seems to perish with the sound of the funeral bells, and we forget that the friendship which finds an end, even in death, was never genuine friendship.”

From whence this sad and culpable forgetfulness? Its principal cause is want of reflection. Quia nullus est qui recogitat corde– “Because there is none that considereth in the heart.” (Jer.12:2). We lose sight of the great  motives which urge us to the exercise of this Charity towards the dead. It is, therefore, to stimulate our zeal that we are about to recall to mind these motives, and to place them in the strongest possible light.

We may say that all these motives are summed up in these words of the Holy Ghost. It is a holy and wholesome though to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins, that is, from the temporal punishment due to their sins. (2 Mach.12:46). In the first place, it is a work, holy and excellent in itself, as also agreeable and meritorious in the sight of God. Accordingly, it is a salutary work, supremely profitable for our own salvation, for our welfare in this world and the next.” (Schouppe:2012:277-78)

Motives for Aiding the Holy Souls – Excellence of the Work – Controversy between Brother Benedict and Brother Bertrand

[…] It is related in the Chronicles of the Friars Preachers (Cf. Rossign., Merv. I), that a spirited controversy arose between two Religious of that Order, Brother Benedict and Brother Bertrand often celebrated Holy Mass for sinners, and prayed continually for their conversion, imposing upon himself the most severe penances; but he was rarely seen to say Mass in black for the dead. Brother Benedict, who had great devotion towards the souls in Purgatory, having remarked this conduct, asked him why he thus acted.

“Because”, replied he, “the souls in Purgatory are sure of their salvation, while sinners are continually exposed to the danger of falling into Hell. What more deplorable condition that that of a soul in the state of mortal sin? She is in enmity with God, and bound in the chains of the devil, suspended over the abyss of Hell by the frail thread of life, that may be broken at any moment. The sinner walks in the way of perdition; if he continues to advance, he will fatal into the eternal abyss. We must, therefore, come to his assistance, and preserve him from this, the greatest of misfortunes, by labouring for his conversion. Moreover, was it not to save sinners that the Son of God came upon earth and died upon a cross? St.Denis also assures us that the most divine of all divine things is to work with God for the salvation of souls. As regards the souls in Purgatory, they are safe, their eternal salvation is secure. They suffer, they are a pray to great torments, but they have nothing to fear from Hell, and their sufferings will have an end. The debts they have contracted diminish each day, and they will soon enjoy eternal light; whilst sinners are continually menaced with damnation, the most terrible misfortune that can befall one of God’s creatures.”

“All that you have said is true,” replied Brother Benedict, “but there is another consideration to be made. Sinners are slaves of Satan, of their own free will. Their yoke is of their own choosing, thy could break their chains if they pleased; whereas the poor souls in Purgatory can but sigh and implore the assistance of the living. It is impossible for them to break the fetters which hold them captive in those penal flames. Suppose you met two beggars, the one sick, maimed, and helpless, absolutely incapable of earning his livelihood; the other, on the contrary, although in great distress, young and vigorous; which of the two would deserve the greater share of your alms?” …

Notwithstanding the force of these arguments, Brother Bertrand persisted in his first opinion. But the night following he had an apparition of a soul from Purgatory, which made him experience for a short time the pain which she herself endured. This suffering was so atrocious that it seemed impossible to bear it. Then, as Isaias says, torture gave him understanding: Vexatio intellectum dabit (Is. 28:19), and he was convinced that he ought to do more for the suffering souls. The next morning, filled with compassion, he ascended the altar steps vested in black, and offered the Holy Sacrifice for the dead.” (Schouppe:2012:281-83)

Writer’s Voice: So fuck those in hell is the overall compassion of these heaven bound father’s. Nice! This is like the hinayana and not the Mahayana of Buddhism.

Motives for Assisting the Holy Souls – Intimate Ties which Unite us to them – Filial Piety – Cimon of Athens and his Father in Prison – St. John of God saving the Sick from the Conflagration

If we are obliged to assist the holy souls because of the extreme necessity in which they are how much greater does this motive become when we remember that these souls are united to us by the most sacred ties, the ties of blood, by the Blood of Jesus Christ, and by the ties of human flesh and blood, whence we have been brought forth according to the flesh?

Yes, there are in Purgatory souls united to us by the closest family ties. It may be a father or a mother, who, languishing in those horrible torments, extend their arms in supplication towards me. What would we not do for our father or for our mother, if we knew they were pining away in some loathsome dungeon?” (Schouppe:2012:284)

Motives for Assisting the Holy Souls – Facility in Relieving them – The Example of the Saints and of all Fervent Christians – The Servant of God, Mary Villani – The Burned Forehead

We have already seen how St. Catherine de Ricci and several others carried their heroism so far as to suffer instead of the souls in Purgatory. Let us add a few more examples of this admirable Charity. The servant of God Mary Villani, of the Order of St. Dominic, whose life was written by Father Marchi (Cf. Rossignoli, Merv., 41) applied herself day and night to the practice of satisfactory works in favour of the departed. …

Thus far I have not received the least relief, because God has permitted that I should be forgotten by my parents, my children, my relatives, and friends: they offer not a single prayer for me. When I was upon earth, being exclusively occupied with my extravagant toilet and worldly vanities, with feasting and pleasure, I cast but a passing thought upon God and my duties. My only serious desire was to further the worldly interests of my family. I am well punished; for you see I am entirely forgotten by all.”” (Schouppe:2012:287-89)

Writer’s Voice: Are these people more loving than God, is there a purpose to purgatory that is allowed to be purified by another person. I.e. it is inherited karmic sin, that a mass eradicates that sin, for the deceased in the underworld.

Motives for Assisting the Holy Souls – Obligation not only of Charity, but also of Justice – Pious Legacies- Father Rossignoli and the Devastated Property – Thomas of Cantimpré and the Soldier of Charlemagne

[…] As there exists a general obligation of Charity for almsgiving, with how much greater reason are we not bound by the general law of Charity to assist our suffering brethren in Purgatory?

This obligation of Charity is often joined to an obligation of strict Justice. When a dying person, either by word of mouth or by written testament, expresses his last wishes in regard to works of piety; when he charges his heirs to have a certain number of Masses celebrated, to distribute a certain sum in alms, for any good work whatsoever, the heirs are obliged in strict justice, from the moment they come into possession of the property, to fulfil without delay the last wishes of the deceased.

This duty of Justice is more sacred as these pious legacies are frequently but disguised restitutions. Now, what does daily experience teach us? Do people hasten with religious exactitude to acquit themselves of these pious obligations which concern the soul of the departed? Alas! Quite the contrary. A family which comes into possession of a considerable fortune doles out to its poor departed relative the few suffrages that he has reserved for his own spiritual benefit; and if the subtilities of the civil law favour them, the members of this family are not ashamed, under the pretext of some informality, to fraudulently set aside the will in order to rid themselves of the obligation of making those pious legacies. It is not in vain that the author of the Imitation counsels us to make satisfaction for our sins during our life and not to depend too much upon our heirs, who often neglect to execute the pious endowments made by us for the relief of our poor souls.

Let such families beware! This is sacrilegious injustice combined with atrocious cruelty. To steal from a poor person, says the Fourth Council of Carthage, is to become his murderer. (Egentium necatores).” (Schouppe:2012:298-99)

Motives of Justice – St. Bernadine of Siena and the Unfaithful Widow – Disguised Restitutions – Neglect to Execute the Last Will

[…] Let us explain this more clearly. A dying man has been guilty of some injustice during his life. This is of a more frequent occurrence than we imagine, even in regard to men who are most upright in the eyes of the world. At the moment when he is about to appear before God, this sinner makes his Confession; he wishes to make a full reparation, as he is bound to do, of all the injury which he has caused his neighbour, but he had not the time left to do so himself, and is not willing to reveal the sad secret to his children. What does he do? He covers his restitution under the veil of a pious legacy.

Now, if this legacy is not paid, and consequently the injustice not repaired, what will become of the soul of the deceased? Will it be detained for an indefinite length of time in Purgatory? We know not all the laws of Divine Justice, but numerous apparitions serve to give us some idea of them, since they “all declare that they cannot be admitted into eternal beatitude so long as any part of the debt of Justice remains to be cancelled.” Moreover, are not these souls culpable for having deferred until the death the payment of a debt of Justice which they had owed for so long a time? And if now their heirs neglect for so long a time? And if now their heirs neglect to discharge it for them, is it not a deplorable consequence of their own sin, of their own guilty delay? It is through their fault that these ill-gotten goods remain in the family, and they will not cease to cry out against them as long as restitution be not made. Res clamat domino, property cries out for its lawful owner; it cries out against its unjust possessor.

If, through the malice of the heirs, restitution is never made, it is evident that that soul cannot remain in Purgatory forever; but in this case a long delay to his entrance into Heaven seems to be a fitting chastisement for an act of injustice, which the soul has retracted, it is true, but which still abides in its efficacious cause. Let us therefore think of these grave consequences when we allow days, weeks, months, and perhaps even years to elapse before discharging so sacred a debt.” (Schouppe:2012:305-6)

A_ Put last few quotes at least in IRFMOS chapter

Motives of Justice – Prayer for Departed Parents – St. Catherine of Siena and her Father, Jacomo

[…] Seeing his condition, his daughter, as was her custom, betook herself to prayer, beseeching her Heavenly Spouse to cure him whom she so tenderly loved. He answered that Jacomo was at the point of death, and that to live longer would not be profitable to him. Catherine then went to her father, and found him so perfectly resigned to leave this world, and without any regret, that she thanked God with all her heart.

“But her filial love was not content; she returned to prayer in order to obtain from God, the Source of all grace, to grant her father not only the pardon of all his faults, but also that at the hour of his death he might be admitted into Heaven, without so much as passing through the flames of Purgatory. She was answered that Justice could not sacrifice its rights; that the soul must be perfectly pure to enter the glory of Paradise. ‘Your father’, said Our Lord, ‘has led a good life in the married state, and has done much that was very pleasing in My sight; above all, his conduct towards you has been most agreeable to Me; but My Justice demands that his soul should pass through fire, in order to purify it from the stains which it contracted in the world.’ ‘O my loving Saviour’, replied Catherine, ‘how can I bear the thought of seeing him who has nourished me, who has brought me up with such tender care, who has been so good to me during his whole life, tormented in those cruel flames? I beseech Your Infinite Goodness not to permit his soul to leave his body until in some way or another it shall have been so perfectly cleansed that it shall have no need to pass through the fires of Purgatory.’”

Admirable condescenscion! God yielded to the prayer and desire of His creature. The strength of Jacomo was exhausted, but his soul could not depart as long as the conflict lasted between Our Lord, who alleged His Justice, and Catherine, who implored His Mercy. Finally, Catherine resumed: “If I cannot obtain this grace without satisfying Thy Justice, let, then, that Justice be exercised upon me; I am ready to suffer for my father all that Thy Goodness may be pleased to send me.” Our Lord consented. “I will accept thy proposal,” He said, “on account of thy love for Me I exempt thy father’s soul from all expiation, but thou shalt suffer as long as thou livest the pain that was destined for him.” Full of joy, Catherine cried out, “Thanks for Thy word, O Lord, and may Thy will be done!”

The saint immediately returned to her father, who had just entered upon his agony. She filled him with courage and joy by giving him, on the part of God, the assurance of his eternal salvation, and she left him not until he had breathed forth his soul.

At the same moment that the soul of her father was separated from the body, Catherine was seized with most violent pains, which remained until her death, without allowing her one moment of repose.” (Schouppe:2012:311-12)

“Motives and Incentives to Devotion towards the Holy Souls – St.John of God – Give Alms for your Own Sake – St.Bridget – Blessed Peter Lefévre

We have just seen how holy and meritorious Charity towards the holy souls is before God- Sancta cogitation. It remains to show how salutary, at the same time, it is for ourselves- Salubris cogitation. If the excellence of the work in itself is so powerful an incentive, the precious advantages which we derive from it are no less a stimulus. They consist, on the one hand, of the graces which we receive in recompense for our generosity, and, on the other hand, of the Christian fervour with which this good work inspires us.

Blessed, said our Saviour, are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. (Matt. 5:7). Blessed is he, says the Holy Ghost, that understandeth concerning the needy, and the poor: the Lord will deliver him in the evil day. (Ps.40). As long as you did it to one of these My brethren, you did it to Me. (Matt. 25:40). The Lord deal mercifully with you, as you have dealt with the dead.(Ruth 1:8). These different sentences express, in their strongest sense, Charity towards the departed.

All that we offer to God in Charity to the dead, says St.Ambrose in his book of Offices, is changed into our merit for ourselves, and we shall find it after our death increased a hundredfold- Omne quod defunctis impenditur, in nostrum tandem meritum commutatur, et illud post mortem centuplum recipimus duplicatum. […]

Redeem thou thy sins with alms, and thy iniquities with works of mercy to the poor.” (Dan. 4:24). In giving alms, you labour in your own interest, since you thereby diminish the terrible chastisements which your sins have merited.” (Schouppe:2012:314-16)

Advantages – Temporal Favours – The Neapolitan Woman and the Mysterious Note

To prove that the souls in Purgatory show their gratitude even by temporal favours, Father Rossignoli relates a fact that happened at Naples, which bears some resemblance to that which we have just read.

If it is not given to all to offer to God the abundant alms of Judas Machabeus, who sent twelve thousand drachms to Jerusalem for sacrifices and prayers to be offered in behalf of the dead, there are very few who cannot at least make the offering of the poor widow of the Gospel, who was praised by our Saviour Himself. She gave only two mites, but, said Jesus, “these two mites were of more value than all the gold of the rich, because she of her want cast in all she had, even her whole living.” (Mark 12:44).” (Schouppe:2012:328-9)

Advantages – Gratitude of the Divine Spouse of Souls – Venerable Archangela Panigarola and her Father, Gothard

[…] “Moreover, this is the rule of Justice which our Saviour has established in the Gospel: With what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Matt 7:2).” (Schouppe:2012:342)

Advantages – Stimulant to Fervour – Cautions to us – Probability of going to Purgatory – Means of Escaping it – Employment of those Means – St.Catherine of Genoa

[…] Now, to employ them seriously and with perseverance, one condition is necessary: it is to form a firm resolution of satisfying in this world rather than in the next. This resolution must be based upon faith, which teaches us how easy is satisfaction in this life, how terrible is Purgatory. Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, says Jesus Christ, whilst thou art in the way with him; lest, perhaps, thy adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Amen, I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing. (Matt. 5:25)

To be reconciled with out adversary in the way, signifies, in the mouth of Our Lord, to appease Divine Justice, and to make satisfaction on our  way through life, before reaching that unchangeable end, that eternity where all penance is impossible, and where we shall have to submit to all the rigors of Justice. Is not the counsel of our Divine Savior most wise?

Can we appear before the tribunal of God burdened with an enormous debt, which we might so easily have discharged by some works of penance, and which we shall then have to pay by years of torment. … We must, therefore, begin with the firm and efficacious resolution of making satisfaction in this world; that is the foundation stone. This foundation once laid, we must employ the means enumerated above.” (Schouppe:2012:367-8)

Means to Avoid Purgatory – Great Devotion to the Blessed Virgin – Father Jerome Carvalho – St. Bridget – The Scapular of Mount Carmel

A servant of God sums up these means, and reduced them to two, saying, “Let us cleanse our souls by water and by fire”; that is to say, by the water of tears, and by the fire of charity and good works. In fact, we may classify them all under these two exercises, and this is conformable to Holy Scripture, where we see that souls are cleansed from their stains, and purified like gold in the crucible. But since we must seek above everything to be practical, let us follow the method we have indicated, and which has been practiced, with so much success, by the saints and by all fervent Christians.

In the first place, in order to obtain great purity of soul, and in consequence to have little reason to fear Purgatory, we must cherish a great devotion towards the Blessed Virgin Mary. This good Mother will so assist her dear children in cleansing their souls and in shortening their Purgatory, that they may live in the greatest confidence. She even desires that they should not trouble themselves on this subject, and that they should not allow themselves to be discouraged by excessive fear, as she herself deigned to declare to her servant, Jerome Carvalho, of whom we have already spoken. “Have confidence, my son,” she said to him. “I am the Mother of Mercy for my dear children in Purgatory, as well as for those still living upon earth.” In the Revelations of St.Bridget we read something similar: “I am”, said the Blessed Virgin to her, “the Mother of all those who are in the place of expiation; my prayers mitigate the chastisements inflicted upon them for their faults.” (Book 4, chap.1)

Those who wear the holy scapular have a special right to the protection of Mary. The devotion of the holy scapular, unlike that of the Rosary, does not consist in prayer, but in the pious practice of wearing a sort of habit, which is as the livery of the Queen of Heaven. The scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, of which we here speak, traces its origin back to the thirteenth century, and was first preached by Blessed Simon Stock, fifth General of the Order of Mount Carmel. This celebrated servant of Mary, born in Kent, England, in the year c1165, whilst yet young, retired into a solitary forest to apply himself to prayer and penance. He chose as his dwelling the hollow of a tree, to which he attached a crucifix and a picture of the Blessed Virgin, whom he honoured as his Mother, and ceased not to invoke with the tenderest affection. For twelve years he entreated her to make known to him what he could do that would most agreeable to her Divine Son, when the Queen of Heave told him to enter the Order of Mount Carmel, which was particularly devoted to her service. Simon obeyed; and, under the protection of Mary, became an exemplary Religious and the ornament of the Order of Mount Carmel, of which he was elected Superior General in 1245.

One day- it was the 16^th of July, 1251- the Blessed Virgin appeared to him surrounded by a multitude of heavenly spirits, and, with a countenance radiant with joy, she presented to him a scapular of a brown colour, saying, “Receive, my dear son, this scapular of thy Order; it is the badge of my Confraternity and the pledge of a privilege which I have obtained for thee and for they brethren of Mount Carmel. Those who die devoutly clothed in this habit shall be preserved from eternal fire. It is the sign of salvation, a safeguard in peril, a pledge of peace and special protection, until the end of time.” The happy old man everywhere published the favour he had received, showing the scapular, healing the sick, and working other miracles in proof of his marvellous mission. Immediately, Edward I, king of England, Louis IX, king of France, and after their example almost all of the sovereigns of Europe, as also a great number of their subjects, received the same habit. From that time commences the celebrated Confraternity of the Scapular, which was soon afterwards canonically erected by the Holy See.

Not content with granting this first privilege, Mary made another promise in favour of the members of the Confraternity of the Scapular, by assuring them of a speedy deliverance from the sufferings of Purgatory. About fifty years after the death of Blessed Simon, the illustrious Pontiff, John XXII, whilst at prayer in the early morning, saw the Mother of God appear surrounded with light, and bearing the habit of Mount Carmel. Among other things she said to him, “If among the Religious or members of the Confraternity of Mount Carmel there are any who, on account of their faults, are condemned to Purgatory, I will descend into the midst of them like a tender Mother on the Saturday after their death; I will deliver them and conduct them to the holy mount of eternal life.” These are the words which the Pontiff places in the lips of Mary in his celebrated Bull of 3^rd March 1322, commonly called the Sabbatine Bull. He concludes in these words: “I therefore accept this holy indulgence; I ratify and confirm it upon earth, as Jesus Christ has graciously granted it in Heaven through the merits of the most Blessed Virgin.” This privilege was afterwards confirmed by a great many Bulls and Decrees of the Sovereign Pontiffs.

Such is the devotion of the holy scapular. It is sanctioned by the practice of pious souls throughout the Christian world, by the testimony of twenty-two Popes, by the writings of an incalculable number of pious authors, and by multiplied miracles during the past 600 years; so that, says the illustrious Benedict XIV, “he who dares call in question the validity of the devotion of the scapular or deny its privileges, would be a proud despiser of religion.”

Writer’s Voice: So Jesus’ sacrifice is no where near as good as his Mum’s or there is a deeper connection between the Holy Spirit and the Virgin mother. I deny it. Why did she wait so long to reveal her Saturday powers, and why didn’t Jesus do it?

Means to Avoid Purgatory – Privileges of the Holy Scapular – Venerable Father de la Colombière – The Hospital at Toulon – The Sabbatine – St.Teresa- A Lady at Otranto

According to what we have said, the Blessed Virgin has attached two great privileges to the holy scapular; on their part, the Sovereign Pontiffs have added to them the richest indulgences. We shall not speak here of the two indulgences; but we consider it useful to make these two precious privileges thoroughly known, the one under the name of Preservation, the other under that of Deliverance.

The first is the exemption from the torments of Hell: In hoc moriens aeternum non patietur incendium– “He who dies wearing this habit shall not suffer the fire of Hell.” It is evident that he who dies in mortal sin, even whilst wearing the scapular, will not be exempt from damnation; and such is not the meaning of Mary’s promise. This good Mother has promised mercifully so to dispose all things that he who dies wearing that holy habit will receive an efficacious grace worthily to confess and bewail his faults; or, if he is surprised by sudden death, he will have the time and will to make an act of perfect contrition. We might fill a volume with the miraculous events which prove the fulfilment of this promise. Let is suffice to relate a few to them.

Venerable Father de la Colombière tells us that a young person, who was at first pious and wore the holy scapular, had the misfortune to stray from the path of virtue. In consequence of bad literature and dangerous company, she fell into the greatest disorders, and was about to lose her honour. Instead of turning to God and having recourse to the Blessed Virgin, who is the refuge of sinners, she abandoned herself to despair. The demon soon suggested a remedy to her evils- the frightful remedy of suicide, which would put an end to her temporal miseries to plunger her into eternal torments. She ran to the river, and, still wearing the scapular, threw herself into the water. But, oh wonder! She floated instead of sinking, and could not find the death she sought. A fisherman, who saw, her, hastened to give her assistance, but the wretched creature prevented him: tearing off her scapular, she cast it far from her and sank immediately. The fisherman was unable to save her, but he found the scapular, and recognized that this sacred livery while she wore it had prevented the sinner from committing suicide. …

The second privilege, that of the Sabbatine or Deliverance, consists in being released from Purgatory by the Blessed Virgin on the first Saturday after death. To enjoy this privilege, certain conditions are to be fulfilled: First, to observe the chastity of our state. Second, to recite the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin. Those who recite the Canonical Office satisfy this condition. Those who are unable to read must, instead of saying the Office, observe the fasts prescribed by the Church, and abstain from flesh meat on all Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays. Third, in case of necessity, the obligation of reciting the Office, the abstinence and fasting, may be commuted into other pious works, by those who have the power to grant such dispensations. …

We know that doubts have been raised concerning the authenticity of the Sabbatine Bull, but besides constant tradition and the pious practice of the faithful, the great Pope, Benedict XIV, whose eminent learning and moderation of opinions are well known, has pronounced in its favour. …

Whilst praying in her oratory for the soul of her dear mother, and shedding abundant tears, a great servant of God, who was habitually favoured with supernatural communications, went to her and said, “Cease to weep, my child, or rather let your grief be turned into joy. I come to assure you, on the part of God, that today, Saturday, thanks to the privileges granted to the members of the Confraternity of the Scapular, your mother has gone to Heaven, and is numbered among the elect. Be consoled and bless the most August Virgin, the Mother of Mercy.”” (Schouppe:2012:372-76)

Means to Avoid Purgatory – Charity and Mercy – The Prophet Daniel and the King of Babylon – St. Peter Damian and John Patrizzi

[…] All these words indicate clearly that [for our] Charity, Mercy, and Benevolence, whether towards the poor or towards sinners, towards our enemies and those who injure us, or towards the departed who are in the great need of our assistance, we shall find mercy at the tribunal of the Sovereign Judge.

The rich of this world have much to fear. Woe to you that are rich, says the Son of God, for you have had your consolation. Woe to you that are filled: for you shall hunger. Woe to you that laugh now: for you shall mourn and weep. (Lk. 6:24). Certainly, these words of God should cause the wealthy votaries of this world to tremble; but if they wished, their wealth itself could become for them a great means of salvation; they might redeem their sins and pay their terrible debts by abundant alms. Let my counsel, O king, be acceptable to thee, said Daniel to the proud Nabuchodonosor, and redeem thy sins with alms, and thy iniquities with works of mercy to the poor. (Dan. 4:24). For alms deliver from all sin and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness. Alms shall be a great confidence before the Most High God to all them that give it, said Tobias to his son. (Tob. 4:11-12). Our Saviour confirms all this, and goes even further when He says to the Pharisees, But yet that which remaineth, give alms; and behold all things are clean unto you. How great, then, is the folly of the rich, who have in hand so easy a means of ensuring their future spiritual welfare, and yet neglect to employ it! What folly not to make a good use of that fortune of which they shall have to render an account to God! What folly to go and burn in Hell or Purgatory, and leave a fortune to avaricious and ungrateful heirs, who will not bestow upon the departed so much as a prayer, a tear, or even a passing thought! But, on the contrary, how happy are those Christians who understand that they are but the dispensers, before God, of the goods which they have received from Him, who think only of disposing of them according to the designs of Jesus Christ, to whom they must render an account, and, in fine, who make use of them only to procure friends, defenders, and protectors in eternity!” (Schouppe:2012:377-79)

Means to Avoid Purgatory – Holy Acceptation of Death – Father Aquitanus – St. Alphonsus Liguori – Venerable Fracnes of Pampeluna and the Person who was not Resigned to Die – Father Vincent Caraffa and the Condemned Man – Sister Mary of St. Joseph and Mother Isabella – St. John of the Cross – Sweetness of the Death of the Saints

The sixth means to avoid Purgatory is the humble and submissive acceptation of death in expiation of our sins: it is a generous act, by which we make a sacrifice of our life to God, in union with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross. …

When, a victim of his Charity, he lay extended upon his bed of death, he were asked if he willingly made the sacrifice of his life to God. “Oh!” he replied full of joy, “if I had a million lives to offer to Him, he knows how readily I would give them to Him.” Such an act, it is easy to understand, is very meritorious in the sight of God. Does it not resemble that supreme act of charity accomplished by the martyrs, who died for Jesus Christ, and which, like Baptism, effaces all sins and cancels all debts? Greater love than this, says Our Lord, no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friend. (Jn. 15:13).” (Schouppe:2012:393-94)

Indulgences

An indulgence is the remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven. The faithful, properly disposed and under certain definite conditions, can acquire this remission through the Church, which, as minister of the Redemption, authoritatively dispenses and applies the treasure of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints.

That the Church has the power of granting indulgences is a matter of faith, defined by the Council of Trent on December 4, 1563, in the 25^th session.

A partial indulgence frees one from part of the temporal punishment due to sin (punishment which must be undergone either in this life or in Purgatory), and a plenary indulgence frees one from the whole of the temporal punishment due to sin. Both partial and plenary indulgences can always be applied to the departed by way of suffrage.

One must always remember that a prayer or good work itself is more precious than the indulgence that may be attached to it; for an indulgence is merely the remission of temporal punishment; whereas, a prayer devoutly said means an increase of grace and merit for eternity. There is all the difference between the temporal and the eternal.

To be capable of gaining an indulgence for oneself, a person must be baptized, not excommunicated, and in the state of grace, at least when complying with the last work prescribed. One must have at least the general intention of gaining indulgences and must comply with the conditions prescribed. To gain an indulgence attached to a prayer, it is sufficient to recite the prescribed prayer alone or together with another person, or even to follow with the mind while the prayer is recited by another. …

How to Gain a Plenary Indulgence

In order to gain a plenary indulgence, one must perform the prescribed work (for example, reciting the Rosary under the circumstances specified below) and also fulfull three conditions: sacramental Confession, Eucharistic Communion, and prayer for the intention of the Supreme Pontiff. …

The conditions of Confession, Communion, and prayer for the Pope’s intentions may be fulfilled several days before of after the performance of the prescribed work. But it is fitting that the Communion and the prayer for the Pope’s intention be on the same day the work is performed. And though one Confession suffices for gaining several plenary indulgences on different days (for gaining daily plenary indulgences, go to Confession at least once every two weeks), Communion must be received and prayer for the Pope’s intention said for the gaining of each plenary indulgence. The condition of praying for the Pope’s intention is fully satisfied by reciting one Our Father and one Hail Mary, though one is free to recite any other prayer….

Worthy of special mention are the following four ways of gaining a plenary indulgence:

1. A plenary indulgence is granted to one of the faithful who visits the Blessed Sacrament to adore It for at least one-half an hour.
2. A plenary indulgence is granted to one of the faithful who spends at least half an hour in reading Sacred Scripture with the veneration due to the divine word, as spiritual reading.
3. A plenary indulgence is granted to one of the faithful who performs the pious exercise of the Way of the Cross. … However, nothing more is required than a devout meditiation on the Passion and Death of Our Lord, which need not be a particular consideration of the individual mysteries of the stations. … Those “impeded” from making the stations can gain the same plenary indulgence by devout reading and meditation on the Passion and Death of Christ for at least half an hour.
4. A plenary indulgence is granted to one of the faithful, who recites the Rosary of at least five decades, with devout meditation on the mysteries, in a church or public oratory, or in a family group, or in a religious community, or in some pious Association. To the vocal recitation must be added devout meditation on the mysteries.” …

How to Gain a Partial Indulgence

One of the faithful who, with at least a contrite heart, performs a work enriched with a partial indulgence, obtains, in addition to the remission of temporal punishment acquired by the action itself, an equal remission of punishment through the power of the Church. In other words, the remission is doubled, and that as often as the prescribed work is performed. … How much punishment is remitted depends upon the degree of charity of the one performing the act and is in proportion to the degree to which the act itself is performed in a more perfect way.

There are three general ways to gain a partial indulgence. These are as follows:

1. A partial indulgence is granted to one of the faithful who, in the performance of his duties and the bearing of the burdens of life, raises his mind to God in humble trust, adding- even if only mentally- some pious invocation [ejaculation]….

The invocation may be very short, consisting of only a few words, or even of only one word. For example: “My God, I Love Thee.” “Jesus!” “All for Thee.” “Thy Kingdom come.” “Jesus, Mary, Joseph, save souls.” “Heart of Jesus, I trust in Thee.” “Mary Immaculate!” “God’s holy will be done.” “Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death. Amen.” …

It is easy to see that if one is diligent and fervent in spreading acts of this kind throughout the moments of the day, he justly merits (in addition to a copious increase of grace) a more generous remission of the temporal punishment due to his sins. And what is more, if in his great charity he applies all these partial indulgences to the Poor Souls in Purgatory, he can send many of them to Heaven, there to love, adore, and praise God and to pray for their earthly benefactor.

2. A partial indulgence is granted to one of the faithful who, animated by a spirit of faith and mercy, gives of himself or of his goods to the service of the brethren who are in need.

Not every work of charity is thus indulgenced, but only those that are for the service of the brethren who are in need, say of food or clothing for the body or of instruction or comfort for the soul. Since such good works are very pleasing to God, they bring great merit to the one who performs them; they also make satisfaction for the temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven- and such remission is doubled because of the partial indulgence here granted.

3. A partial indulgence is granted to one of the faithful who, in a penitential spirit, of his own accord abstains from something permitted and pleasing to him.

By this concession one is urged to bring this body into subjection and into conformity with the poor and suffering Christ. This self-denial is more excellent when united with charity- for instance, when what would have been spent on amusements and self-indulgence is given to the poor in one form or another.” (Schouppe:2012:404-07)

The Brown Scapular

Promises Of the Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel

Two wonderful promises of Our Lady are available to those who have been enrolled in the brown scapular. Enrollment is a simple procedure. (One should ask a priest to make this enrolment.)

The great promise of the Blessed Virgin Mary, given to St. Simon Stock on July 16, 1251, is as follows: “Whoever dies wearing this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire.”

Our Lady’s second Scapular Promise, known as the Sabbatine Privilege (the word “Sabbatine” meaning “Saturday”), was given by the Blessed Virgin Mary to Pope John XXII in the year 1322 and is as follows: “I, the Mother of Grace, shall descend on the Saturday after their death, and whomsoever I shall find in Purgatory, I shall free.”

There are three conditions for obtaining this privilege: 1) the wearing of the Scapular; 2) the practice of chastity according to one’s state of life; 3) the daily recitation of the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Those who cannot read can abstain from meat on Wednesdays and Saturdays instead of reciting the Little Office. Also, any priest who has diocesan faculties (this includes most priests) has the additional faculty to commute (change) the third requirement into another pious work- for example, the daily Rosary.

Because of the greatness of the Sabbatine privilege, the Carmelite Order suggests that the third requirement not be commuted into anything less than the daily recitation of seven Our Fathers, seven Hail Marys, and seven Glory Be to the Fathers.” (Schouppe:2012:411-12)

A Prayer for a Deceased Priest

O God, Thou didst raise Thy servant, N., to the sacred priesthood of Jesus Christ, according to the Order of Melchisedech, giving him the sublime power to offer the Eternal Sacrifice, to bring the Body and Blood of Thy Son Jesus Christ down upon the altar, and to absolve the sins of men in Thine own holy Name. We beseech Thee to reward his faithfulness and to forget his faults, admitting him speedily into Thy holy presence, there to enjoy forever the recompense of his labours. This we ask through Jesus Christ Thy Son our Lord. Amen.” (Schouppe:2012:418)

Messiah

The New Testament’s reflections on the significance of Christ are to be set against an Old Testament context. The term “Christ”- so easily treated as a surname- is actually a title, with a range of meanings which can only be fully appreciated in the light of the Old Testament expectation concerning the coming of God’s “messiah” (Greek: Christos). The Greek word Christos translates the Hebrew term mashiah, most familiar in its anglicized form of “Messiah”, with the root meaning of “one who has been anointed.” Although the ancient Israel anointed both prophets and priests, the term is primarily reserved for the anointing of a king. Within the context of ancient Israel’s strongly theocentric worldview, the king was regarded as someone who was appointed by God….

The New Testament evidence for the use of this title for Jesus is complex, and its interpretation is open to dispute. For example, some have suggested that the Messiah was a divine figure; others have argued that this is not the case, and that the Messiah was merely one favoured and acknowledged by God. However, it seems that a good case can be made for suggesting that the following four statements are plausible:

1. Jesus was regarded by some of those who were attracted to him as a potential political liberator, who would rally his people to throw off the Roman domination.
2. Jesus himself never permitted his followers to describe him as “Messiah”- something which has subsequently come to be known as the “messianic secret” (a phrase coined by the German New Testament scholar, William Wrede, 1859-1906).
3. If Jesus regarded himself as the Messiah, it was not in the political form that was associated with Zealot or other strongly nationalist circles.
4. The contemporary expectation was that of a victorious Messiah. The fact that Jesus suffered was seriously at odds with this expectation. If Jesus was a Messiah, he was not the kind of Messiah that people were expecting.”

(McGrath:2007:268-9)

Simeon the New Theologian

“Duns Scotus (c.1265-1308)

Scotus was a champion of the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Thomas Aquinas had taught that Mary shared the common sinful condition of humanity. She was tainted by sin (Latin: macula) like everyone else, apart from Christ. Scotus, however, argued that Christ, by virtue of his perfect work of redemption, was able to keep Mary free from the taint of original sin. Such was the influence of Scotus that the “immaculate position” (from the Latin immacula, “free of sin”) became dominant by the end of the Middle Ages.” (McGrath:2007:35-6)

“The eleventh-century writer Anselm of Canterbury gave expression to this basic relief in the rationality of the Christian faith in two Latin phrases which have come to be linked with his name: fides quaerens intellectum (“faith seeking understanding”) and credo ut intellegam (“I believe, in order that I may understand”). His basic insight was that, while faith came before understanding, the content of that faith was nevertheless rational. These definitive formulae established both the priority of faith over reason and the entire reasonableness of faith. In the preface to his Monologium. Anselm stated explicitly that he would establish nothing in Scripture on the basis of Scripture itself; instead, he would establish everything that he cold on the basis of “rational evidence and the natural light of truth”. Nevertheless, Anselm is no rationalist- reason has its limits!

The eleventh and early twelfth centuries saw a growing conviction that philosophy could be an invaluable asset to Christian theology at two different levels. In the first place, it could demonstrate the reasonableness of faith, and thus defend it against non-Christian critics. In the second place, it offered ways of systematically exploring and arranging the articles of faith, so that they could be better understood. But which philosophy? The answer to this question came through the rediscovery of the writings of Aristotle, in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. By about 1270, Aristotle had become established as “the Philosopher”. His ideas came to dominate theological thinking, despite fierce opposition from more conservative quarters.

Through the influence of writers such as Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus, Aristotle’s ideas became established as the best means of consolidating and developing Christian theology. The ideas of Christian theology were thus arranged and correlated systematically, on the basis of Aristotle presuppositions. Equally, the rationality of Christian faith was demonstrated on the basis of Aristotelian ideas. Thus, some of Thomas Aquinas’s famous “proofs” for the existence of God actually rely on principles of Aristotelian physics, rather than on any distinctively Christian insights…

Thomas Aquinas’s Summa contra Gentiles, is an excellent example of a work of theology which draws on Aristotelianism as a common philosophy shared by Christians and Muslims, which would allow the attractiveness of the Christian faith to be explained within the Islamic world. At this points, Aquinas’s argument seems to run like this: if you can agree with the Aristotelian ideas presented in this writing, then you ought to become a Christian. As Aristotle was highly regarded by many Muslim academics of the period, Thomas can be seen as exploiting the apologetic potential of this philosopher.

This development came to be viewed with concern by some late medieval writers, such as Hugolino of Orvieto (died 1373). A number of central Christian insights seemed to have been lost, according to such critics, as a result of a growing reliance upon the ideas and methods of a pagan philosopher. Particular concern centred on the doctrine of justification, in which Aristotelian ethical ideas came to play a significant role. The idea of the “righteousness of God” came to be discussed in terms of the Aristotelian idea of “distributive justice”. Here, “righteousness” was defined in terms of “giving someone what they were entitled to”. This seems to lead to a doctrine of justification by merit. In other words, justification takes place on the basis of entitlement, rather than grace. It can be shown without difficulty that this concern lies behind Martin Luther’s growing dislike of Aristotle, and his eventual break with scholastic doctrines of justification.” (McGrath:2007:38-9)

Aristotelianism

Aristotle (384-322 BC) was born in the northern Greek region of Stagira, and began to develop his considerable talents of observation in response to his father’s interest in the natural world. Aristotle’s influence was such that he, perhaps more than any other thinker, can be said to have determined the orientation and the content of much of western intellectual history, especially as a result of the Aristotelian Renaissance of the thirteenth century.

Aristotle was the author of a philosophical and scientific system that through the centuries became the support and vehicle for both medieval Christian and Islamic scholastic thought. Indeed, it can be argued that, until the end of the seventeenth century, western culture was Aristotelian….

Aristotle began to attend the Platonic Academy in 367 BC: at the age of 17. However, it became clear that he had a concern for the observation of the natural order that had no direct parallel in Plato. His studies of animals laid the foundations for the biological sciences, and were not superseded until more than two thousand years after his death….

The differences between Plato and Aristotle could hardly be overlooked, and led to a certain coolness toward Aristotle within the Academy. Having failed to secure the position of head of the Academy, Aristotle responded by founding his own school- the Lyceum- in Athens in 335 BC. The Platonic Academy had tended to be rather narrow in its teaching interests; Aristotle ensured that the Lyceum pursued a broader range of subjects. Prominence was given by Aristotle to the detailed study of nature. Aristotle wrote some 30 works, none of which appears to have been intended for publication. They were provided with their current titles in 60 BC by Andronicus of Rhodes, the last head of the Lyceum. The writings include important works on both the observation of nature- such as the Physics– and logic, including the important Analytics, which deal with the structure and progression of logical reasoning.

Aristotle’s influence on Christian theology has been considerable. An excellent example is provided by one of Thomas Aquinas’s “Five Ways”- that is, arguments for the existence of God,… Aquinas bases his argument from motion on the following principle: everything that is moved is moved by something else. This principle is taken directly from Aristotelian physics.

It could therefore be suggested that some of Aquinas’s arguments in defense of the Christian faith actually rest on Aristotelian ideas. In his Summa contra Gentiles, Aquinas makes extensive use of Aristotelian arguments, apparently believing that the Islamic scholars who he hoped would read this book would find this an acceptable way into the Christian faith.” (McGrath:2007:175-6)

The Relation Between the Person and Work of Christ

…The importance of this point can be seen by comparing a Nestorian-style Christology (which stresses the humanity of Christ, especially in relation to his moral example) with a Pelagian soteriology (which stresses the total freedom of the human will). For Pelagius, humanity had the ability to do right; it merely needed to be told what to do. The moral example of Christ provided this example…As the English theologian Charles Gore (1853-1932) pointed out incisively over a century ago, in an oft-quoted passage:

‘Inadequate conceptions of Christ’s person go hand in hand with inadequate conceptions of what human nature wants. The Nestorian conception of Christ […] qualifies Christ for being an example of what man can do, and into what wonderful union with God can be assumed if he is holy enough: but Christ remains one man among many, shut in within the limits of a single human personality, and influencing man only from outside. He can be a Redeemer of man if man can be saved from outside by bright example, but not otherwise. The Nestorian Christ is logically associated with the Pelagian man. […] The Nestorian Christ is the fitting Saviour of the Pelagian man.’

An exemplarist soteriology, with its associated understanding of the nature and role of the moral example of Jesus Christ, is ultimately the correlative of a Pelagian view of the situation and abilities of humanity. The ontological gap between Christ and ourselves is contracted, in order to minimize the discontinuity between his moral personality and ours. Christ is the supreme human example, who evinces an authentically human lifestyle which we are alleged to be capable of imitating. Our view of who Jesus is ultimately reflects our understanding of the situation of fallen humanity.” (McGrath:2007:283-4)

Kenotic approaches to Christology

During the early seventeenth century a controversy developed between Lutheran theologians based at the German universities of Giessen and Tübingen. The question at issue can be stated as follows. The gospels contain no reference to Christ making use of all his divine attributes (such as omniscience) during his period on earth. How is this to be explained? Two options seemed to present themselves to these Lutheran writers as appropriately orthodox solutions: either Christ used his divine powers in secret, or he abstained from using them altogether. The first option, which came to be known as krypsis, was vigorously defended by Tübingen; the second, which came to be known as kenosis, was defended with equal vigour by Giessen.

Yet it must be noted that both parties were in agreement that Christ possessed the central attributes of divinity- such as omnipotence and omnipresence- during the period of the incarnation. The debate was over the question of their use: were they used in secret, or not at all?” (McGrath:2007:293)

“In view of its emphasis upon the resurrection, Enlightenment writers suggested that the New Testament misrepresented (accidentally or deliberately) the significance of Christ. Whereas Jesus of Nazareth was actually little more than a thoroughly human itinerant rabbi, the New Testament writers presented him as a saviour and risen Lord. These beliefs were, it was argued, often little more than fanciful additions to, or misunderstandings of, the history of Jesus. …

Three specific aspects of the Enlightenment critique of classical Christology are of such importance that they require to be noted in more detail.

The cross and forgiveness

A third approach centres on the idea of the death of Christ providing the basis by which God is enabled to forgive sin. The notion is traditionally associated with the eleventh-century writer Anselm of Canterbury (c.1033-1109), who developed an argument for the necessity of the incarnation on this basis…

In part, Anselm’s reason for developing this model appears to have been a deep-seated dissatisfaction with the Christus victor approach, which seemed to rest upon a series of highly questionable assumptions about the “rights of the devil” (ius diaboli), and an implicit suggestion that God acted with less than total honesty in redeeming humanity. Anselm was unable to understand why the devil can be said to have “rights” of any kind over fallen humanity, let alone why God should be under any obligation to respect them….Anselm’s emphasis falls totally upon the righteousness of God. God redeems humanity in a manner that is totally consistent with the divine quality of righteousness.

Anselm’s treatise Why God Became Man (1099) is a sustained engagement with the question of the possibility of human redemption, cast in the form of a dialogue…The argument is complex, and can be summarized as follows:

1. God created humanity in a state of original righteousness, with the objective of bringing humanity to a state of eternal blessedness.
2. That state of eternal blessedness is contingent upon human obedience to God. However, through sin, humanity is unable to achieve this necessary obedience, which appears to frustrate God’s purpose in creating humanity in the first place.
3. In that it is impossible for God’s purposes to be frustrated, there must be some means by which the situation can be remedied. However, the situation can only be remedied if a satisfaction is made for sin. In other words, something has to be done, by which the offense caused by human sin can be purged.
4. There is no way in which humanity can provide this necessary satisfaction. It lacks the resources which are needed. On the other hand, God possessed the resources needed to provide the required satisfaction.
5. A “God-man” would possess both the ability (as God) and the obligation (as a human being) to pay the required satisfaction. Therefore, the incarnation takes place, in order that the required satisfaction may be made, and humanity redeemed. Anselm also makes the additional point that Christ’s obedience to God during his life and his death endowed his sacrifice with sufficient merit to redeem human nature at large- a theme that would be developed considerably in later writings on this theme.

A number of points in Anselm’s account require comment. First, Anselm does not offer a Trinitarian account of atonement. Anselm works with an “over-against” framework, failing to appreciate or appropriate the insight that, in sending the Son, the Father is actually sending himself. A Trinitarian framework makes it clear that the Father was not doing something to the Son; the father was actually giving or offering himself.

Second, note how sin is conceived as an offense against God. The weight of that offense appears to be proportional to the status of the offended party. For many scholars, this suggests that Anselm has been deeply influenced by the feudal assumptions of his time, perhaps regarding God as the equivalent of the “lord of the manor.”..

Third, Anselm tends to conceive of sin as something that can be deleted- like a debt- through Christ’s death. Anselm shows little awareness that sin might be an ongoing issue- something that requires both forgiveness and purging or healing. Sin is treated in almost economic terms- as a certain quantity of “offense” that needs to be counter-balanced by an equally large “merit”.

Fourth, Anselm seems to argue that redemption is a necessity- in other words, that Christ’s death was required in order to effect human salvation. In taking this view, he is in a minority. We may be able to make sense of Christ’s death as the basis of salvation, but that does not mean that it had to happen this way. For Augustine, Aquinas, and Scotus, God could have redeemed us by other means. …

Fifth, there has been considerable debate over the origins of the idea of a “satisfaction.” It is possible that the idea may derive from Germanic laws of the period, which stripulated that an offense had to be purged through an appropriate payment. However, most scholars believe that Anselm was appealing directly to the existing penitential system of the church. A sinner, seeking penance, was required to confess every sin. In pronouncing forgiveness, the priest would require that the penitent should do something (such as go on a pilgrimage or undertake some charitable work) as a “satisfaction”- that is, a means of publicly demonstrating gratitude for forgiveness. It is possible that Anselm derived the idea from this source.

The theological basis of the notion of “satisfaction” was developed further in the thirteenth century by Thomas Aquinas (c.1225-1274). Aquinas grounds the adequacy of the “satisfaction of Christ” to compensate for human sin in three considerations.

‘A proper satisfaction comes about when someone offers to the person offended something which gives him a delight greater than his hatred of the offense. Now Christ by suffering as a result of love and obedience offered to God something greater than what might be exacted in compensation for the whole offence of humanity; firstly, because of the greatness of the love, as a result of which he suffered: secondly, because of the worth of the life which he laid down for a satisfaction, which was the life of God and of a human being: thirdly, because of the comprehensiveness of his passion and the greatness of the sorrow which he took upon himself.’

…Aquinas follows Anselm in arguing that the inherent worth of Christ’s death is grounded in his divinity. Why is Christ’s death so significant, and possessed of a capacity to redeem us? Because, Aquinas argues, he- and he alone- is God incarnate. As Aquinas puts it, “the worth of Christ’s flesh is to be reckoned, not just according to the nature of flesh but according to the person who assumed it, in that it was the flesh of God, from whom it gained an infinite worth.”…

Anselm’s insistence that God is totally and utterly obliged to act according to the principles of justice throughout the redemption of humanity marks a decisive break with the dubious morality of the Christus victor view. In taking up Anselm’s approach, later writers were able to place it on a more secure foundation by grounding it in the general principles of law. The sixteenth century was particularly appreciative of the importance of human law, and saw it as an appropriate model for God’s forgiveness of human sin. Three main models came to be used at this time to understand the manner in which the forgiveness of human sins is related to the death of Christ.” (McGrath:2007:326-8)

Representation

Christ is here understood to be the covenant representative of humanity. Through faith, believers come to stand within the covenant between God and humanity. All that Christ has achieved through the cross is available on account of the covenant. Just as God entered into a covenant with his people Israel, so he has entered into a covenant with his church. Christ, by his obedience upon the cross, represents his covenant people, winning benefits for them as their representative. By coming to faith, individuals come to stand within the covenant, and thus share in all its benefits, won by Christ through his cross and resurrection- including the full and free forgiveness of our sins.

This idea is particularly associated with Reformed theology during the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which developed a sophisticated covenant theology. Adam was humanity’s representative under the old covenant of works; Christ has become our representative under the new covenant of grace. These covenant theologies are seen in their most fully developed form in New England Puritanism during the eighteenth century.” (McGrath:2007:328)

Participation

Through faith, believers participate in the risen Christ. They are “in Christ”, to use Paul’s famous phrase. They are caught up in him, and share in his risen life. As a result of this, they share in all the benefits won by Christ, through his obedience upon the cross. One of those benefits is the forgiveness of sins, in which they share through faith….

Participating in Christ thus entails the forgiveness of sins, and sharing in his righteousness. This idea is central to Luther’s soteriology, as his image of the marriage between Christ and the believer makes clear. In some way, faith unites us to Christ, and thus enables us to participate in his attributes.” (McGrath:2007:328-9)

The Christian Theology Reader

-Edited by Alister E. McGrath

Fourth edition

Blackwell Publishing Ltd- 2011

(McGrath:2011:

Writer’s Voice: Socianism is anti-trinity Socinus (1525-62) is a Unitarian perspective.

Kevin Vanhoozer on the Challenge of Postmodernity for Theology

Kevin Vanhoozer (born 1957) here considers the challenges that are raised by postmodern thought for traditional Christian approaches to theology. Vanhoozer’s writings have focused on the complex relationship between biblical interpretation and theological exposition. In this extract from a 2003 review of the present understanding of the situation, Vanhoozer identified four leading ways in which postmodernity raises questions that require responses from Christian theology…

‘Eating from the postmodern tree of knowledge occasions a new “fall” and loss of innocence. No longer can we aspire to the knowledge of angels, much less a God’s eye point of view. How, then, are we to make judgements as to true and false, right and wrong? Lyotard acknowledges that the central issue of postmodernity is the possibility of ethics, that is, right action. Lyotard, for his part, is content to live with “little narratives”, and this plurality is what makes the postmodern condition one of legitimation crisis: ‘whose story, whose interpretation, whose authority, whose criteria counts, and why?’” (McGrath:2011:59)