The Church of Peter & the Temple of St. John

Bruce Michael · 05-20-2007, 12:55 AM

Taking over the work from the Church of Peter will be the Temple of St. John. The Temple of St. John is not an earthly church. It is presided over by the author of St. John's Gospel, who as promised, is incarnated at present:

"Jesus saith to him, 'If him I will to remain till I come, what is it to thee? be thou following me.' This word, therefore, went forth to the brethren that that disciple doth not die,"
John 21:22

How can the Church of Peter be improved right now?:

"even an ‘exoteric’ and visible church as is Peter’s needs be honourably representative to that which it maintains it is. What we are saying is, that there need not be specific instruction into the esoteric sciences on offer there amongst the traditional worship, but there does necessarily need to be a healthy respect that does not negate the supersensible existences and all of the miracles within and without.

"The individual can then go inwardly and discover for himself those spiritual truths he needs to decipher. But this will be very much blocked from him if the elementals of doubt, superstition and materialism are entertained within the faith. The goodwill, the psychological sciences, the fellowship and the humanitarian projects (including prayer in this) are all wonderful and noble practices. However, the individuals within are at risk of becoming so waylaid with the effect of the great sadness which is about them, that they shall be scored and depressed out from the faith which would and should be their greatest deliverer."

Thomas · 05-22-2007, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

[B]Taking over the work from the Church of Peter will be the Temple of St. John.

This, surely, is duality?

Thomas

Dondi · 05-22-2007, 11:41 AM

I thought the Church belonged to Christ.

Thomas · 05-23-2007, 09:51 AM

The above statement of yours, Dondi, has never been more than a moment's distance from my thoughts ever since I read it ... there's a lot more in it, about you, and Him, and you-and-Him, than at first appears.

I didn't want to just say 'brilliant' or 'spot on' ... it doesn't do it credit.

Thomas

Dondi · 05-23-2007, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

The above statement of yours, Dondi, has never been more than a moment's distance from my thoughts ever since I read it ... there's a lot more in it, about you, and Him, and you-and-Him, than at first appears.

I didn't want to just say 'brilliant' or 'spot on' ... it doesn't do it credit.

Thomas

Wow, really? It's just simple faith.

pattimax · 05-23-2007, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dondi

I thought the Church belonged to Christ.

Thank you. I wasn't quite sure what he was talking about.

pattimax · 05-23-2007, 04:46 PM

[quote=Bruce Michael;106187

How can the Church of Peter be improved right now?:

[/quote]

Okay, now I think I understand what you are saying... Do you view this as earthly?

Bruce Michael · 05-24-2007, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

This, surely, is duality?

Thomas

Br. Thomas,
If we look at the many churches we see about us today, we see a multiplicity, not a duality.

As I have posted before, Christians will go on to develop in their own unique ways. This is the way of nature.

The Church of Christ is the community of all true Christians who are born.

Warm Regards,
Br. Bruce

Thomas · 05-24-2007, 03:51 PM

There is a distinction between duality and diversity.

It seems to me that what you're proposing is to impose artificial distinctions and difference into the diversity of faith.

Thomas

AndrewX · 05-24-2007, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

It seems to me that what you're proposing is to impose artificial distinctions and difference into the diversity of faith.

I dunno if this is true ... but I should certainly hope not!

The entire point of a Gnosis, possible within the inspired heart and illumined mind of every follower ... is just that. It is an affirmation of the Invitation from the living Christ, offered *directly* to each of us, without an intermediary - yet with a recognition that there is a graded path to Spiritual awareness, or greater degrees thereof, just as in ALL OTHER MODES of learning and progression which Humanity experiences.

Why should things of the Spirit suddenly signify the miraculous and extra-ordinary? Or do we insist, as the Manicheans, that Spirit is the antithesis of matter, rather than its complement? Does not the Spirit manifest in the world?

Gnosis, or an esoteric Christianity, simply means that we recognize and acknowledge both the Lesser, and the Greater, Mysteries ... as did all the Church Fathers who did not buckle under the weight of dead-letter ecclesiasticism and dogma.

The Christian Church as it exists today should celebrate its role as a sort of gatekeeper - not the gatekeeper, but one of many - to these Lesser Mysteries. And they are being restored, all around - and within us.

But if we insist that "any fool" can suddenly experience the Greatest Revelation, and come to the Godhead directly, fully and - worst of all - simply by virtue of kneeling at the Communion (Eucharist) Rail, and saying a few Hail Marys ... then I fear the (outer) Church's days - as an institution - may well be numbered.

My own belief is that there are spiritual forces working hard to insure that Christianity survives. But they cooperate with like forces seeking to vivify, and revivify, other religions also. And all, together, serve one great Whole.

There is such a thing as `Christ and His Church,' or `the Church Invisible,' and I assume this is what you are referring to, Bruce. I don't know Steiner that well, but I do realize he lectured a great deal on the Christ, and on an esoteric Christianity.

It is a great mistake to think that there is no "esoteric Christianity." At most, we can pretend it doesn't exist. But sooner or later, I think every Christian layperson (and the clergy too) will get curious ... and investigate. When all is said and done, many people may well just say, "Hmmph!" - and be done with it.

But that is as it should be. As you have just said, Bruce, "Christians will go on to develop in their own unique ways. This is the way of nature."

Thomas · 05-24-2007, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewX

I dunno if this is true ... but I should certainly hope not!

I know not! There's no need to introduce distinctions where none exists.

Thomas

AndrewX · 05-24-2007, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

I know not! There's no need to introduce distinctions where none exists.

Thomas

Nota Bene:

And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. (Mark 4:10-12)

All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. (Matthew 13:34-35)

Ah so ...

Thomas · 05-24-2007, 09:22 PM

All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. (Matthew 13:34-35)

And now we know ...

Thomas

AndrewX · 05-24-2007, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas

And now we know ...

We do indeed, know many of the parables, as they have been recorded - with a legend, happily provided, for the most indicative, or illustrative of Christ's Teachings. Yes we do!

Meanwhile, there is always that issue of applying what was taught ...

edit: And I'm not looking down my nose at anyone in saying that (my eyes are crossed at the tip!

).
Just pointing out that faith alone, is only half of the equation. Moving a mountain is well and good. Now what?

Namaskar,

~andrew

Thomas · 05-25-2007, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Just pointing out that faith alone, is only half of the equation. Moving a mountain is well and good. Now what?

Sheesh! Whaddaya want ... another miracle ... ain't one enough?

Seriously, a good point, although we'd probably differ in the context. To me faith is a charism and the source from which all charism flows ... without faith, nothing is possible.

Thomas