question for Christian Theology

[earl]

RubySera,

It definitely ties in, insofar as Duke University's Divinity School is fairly well-known. That of Wake Forest University (another private school, Baptist affiliation), just 30 minutes west of me (Duke/UNC are to the east) is perhaps better known.






Bart Ehrman's page at UNC is here, and his own personal website is here. It looks like his name is attached to about 20 scholarly works on Jesus and the Gospels. Amazon.com presents the following in the description of one of Ehrman's works:

"In Lost Christianities, Bart D. Ehrman offers a fascinating look at these early forms of Christianity and shows how they came to be suppressed, reformed, or forgotten. All of these groups insisted that they upheld the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, and they all possessed writings that bore out their claims, books reputedly produced by Jesus's own followers. Modern archaeological work has recovered a number of key texts, and as Ehrman shows, these spectacular discoveries reveal religious diversity that says much about the ways in which history gets written by the winners."





​

Another, similar work, looks interesting to me - Amazon's description being similar:

"We may think of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as the only sacred writings of the early Christians, but this is not at all the case. Lost Scriptures offers an anthology of up-to-date and readable translations of many non-canonical writings from the first centuries after
Christ--texts that have been for the most part lost or neglected for almost two millennia.
Here is an array of remarkably varied writings from early Christian groups whose visions of Jesus differ dramatically from our contemporary understanding."





​

Yes indeed, as Dr. Ehrman holds the following degrees and academic accomplishments, he is definitely a `scholar' in my book:

• Ph.D. Princeton Theological Seminary (magna *** laude), 1985
• M.Div. Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981
• B.A. Wheaton College, Illinois (magna *** laude), 1978

Folks who have seen any of the following TV shows might have seen him:

• “Lost Christianities,” National Public Radio (Fresh Air; State of Things; half a dozen other local NPR stations)
• “The Historical Jesus,” National Public Radio (Talk of the Nation)
• “The Mystery of Jesus,” CNN.
• “Pagans and Christians,” Soundings. National Public Radio.
• “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.” Soundings. National Public Radio.
• “Who Wrote the Bible?” “Mysteries of the Bible,” A & E Network.
• “The Last Days of Jesus,” “Mysteries of the Bible,” A & E Network.
• “Judas Iscariot,” History Channel.
• “The New Testament,” Opus TV (Wales)

But, is my own criteria for being scholarly, credible and "expert" that one simply has to appear on TV, or on TV often? Good god no! If that were all, the likes of Pat Robertson would somehow get included as a Christan scholar!

cheers,

taijasi

Hey Andrew-only recently heard of this guy. Obviously a man of great learning who should be taken seriously. Also read somewhere recently-don't recall where on web-that he considers himself an agnostic. interesting given how much time he's spent in study of Christianity. One of the odd things I've discovered over the years about academic religious studies scholars is just how often their field of study is just that-a field of study, while they personally do not necessarily subscribe to any faith resembling their field. Kind of strikes me as an oddity. Of course being what I call a "neo-gnostic" for lack of a better term, I find all the study & public discussion of "forgotten" Christianity (ies) refreshingly interesting. Have a god, (almost fixed this typo but decided it fit ) one, Earl

 

[Thomas]

Hi Earl -

There is a Thomist philosopher (whose name escapes me) who is regarded as one of the best in his field on the subject of Aquinas, lectures on Thomist theology, and yet is agnostic.

When asked, he simply replies that he received the charism of philosophy from the Doctor Angelicus, but not the charism of faith ... it's a strange world but that only makes it all the more wonder-full.

Thomas
(ps - look out for my PhD thesis on apophasis and kataphasis in Eriugena, Eckhart and Nicholas of Cusa, in about a million year's time)

 

[Thomas]

From a Catholic perspective a brilliant place to start is with 'ressourcement theology' ('back to the sources'), an initiative born of Vatican II to escape the mordant grip of neo-scholasticism that typified Catholic theology of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (as dry as dust ... one theological student mused that listening to Jesus talk could never have been so dull).

So we have a renewed interest in 'Patristics' - the Fathers of the Church - it covers a period from about 100AD to the late 600s.

Most of the questions that arise today were answered then.

One could do a lot worse than take a look at the Veil (my website, shameless plug) www.theveil.net

The Rended Veil - speculative writings (will include, alongside Plotinus' The Enneads, other Hermetic and philosophical texts as well as Christian stuff)

The Sapient Spring - a range of doctrinal topics but writings of some of the Church's modern heavyweights - Jean Borella, Jean Danielou, Hans urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar - you will see that most of the really deep stuff is Continental - English speakers miss out on tons of good stuff.

The Trace of Tradition - Patristic texts

The Mystic Current - Mystical texts

The Noble Physic - Ascetical texts

Also, of course, Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI is no philosophical lightweight himself - and has written good basic texts on Catholicism.

Thomas

 

[earl]

Yo Thomas-did you know the first 2 are my favorite Christian mystics?! Rather like Nicholas of Cusa's analogy re God as relating to a circle & theologies re to being "lines of approximation" in our understanding re to God that, of course, can never quite accurately "know" God or something like that. Wasn't he the guy that talked about God being both the center point of a circle that's nowhere and simultaneously its circumference which is everywhere? Heck you could (would you?) probably rattle off some of the quotes I'm trying to remember here. Enjoy your studies but do drop us a line from time to time. Thanks for your info & views as always, Earl

 

[AletheiaRivers]

Yo Thomas-did you know the first 2 are my favorite Christian mystics?! Rather like Nicholas of Cusa's analogy re God as relating to a circle & theologies re to being "lines of approximation" in our understanding re to God that, of course, can never quite accurately "know" God or something like that. Wasn't he the guy that talked about God being both the center point of a circle that's nowhere and simultaneously its circumference which is everywhere? Heck you could (would you?) probably rattle off some of the quotes I'm trying to remember here. Enjoy your studies but do drop us a line from time to time. Thanks for your info & views as always, Earl

Hi Earl. I just "discovered" Nicolas of Cusa through rereading Thomas Moore's The Soul's Religion. Since I read the book the first time, I've had some pretty amazing "Aha" moments regarding polarities, opposites, dualities and unities. So this time through, stuff that didn't make an impression the first time hit me pretty profoundly. In fact, over at TCPC we were just discussing the "gyre."

Blessings,

Aletheia

 

[earl]

Hi Earl. I just "discovered" Nicolas of Cusa through rereading Thomas Moore's The Soul's Religion. Since I read the book the first time, I've had some pretty amazing "Aha" moments regarding polarities, opposites, dualities and unities. So this time through, stuff that didn't make an impression the first time hit me pretty profoundly. In fact, over at TCPC we were just discussing the "gyre."

Blessings,

Aletheia

hi Aletheia. Yes I have Moore's book, "The Soul's Religion." A wonderful book that would be worthwhile reading for anyone of any religious persuasion or none. He did seem to be taken by Nicholas of Cusa alot in that book didn't he? For those interested in Eriugena, modern writer, Christopher Bamford wrote the book, "The Voice of the Eagle: the Heart of Celtic Chrisitanity," his take on the homily on the prologue of the gospel of John by John Scotus Eriugena, which may be more reflective of Bamford's thinking than Eriugena but it certainly introduced me to a profound early Christian mystic thinker-8th c.e. "Irish" theologian. Bamford has a rather long history of writing on themes of Western esotericism/mysticism and is an interesting writer, though written few books-1 of the few was recently published-name's slipping the mind at the moment, "Invisibile Trace," I believe. Anyway, have a good one, Earl

 

[RubySera_Martin]

(ps - look out for my PhD thesis on apophasis and kataphasis in Eriugena, Eckhart and Nicholas of Cusa, in about a million year's time)

What's the problem? Did you lose enthusiasm for your topic? I looked in answers.com for definitions for those words and I can see that it is a very abstract topic. I have never heard of the authors you mention. One of my biggest fears is finding myself stuck with a dissertation topic I'm sick and tired of. I guess this is really off-topic for this thread but you did mention it and I am very interested in any tips on avoiding such a horror. Or what leads to it, etc.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Right now I've begun re-reading Meditations on the Tarot, a Journey Into Christian Hermeticism. This has got to be the most profound Christian book I've ever read. It's a mile deep and a hard read but very, very satisfying and exciting. I figure this may sound like it doesn't belong on this topic, so I want to C&P a review of the book from the Monastic Interreligious Dialog web site. This was written by Fr. Thomas Keating, OCSO.

This work was originally written in French. A German translation with an introduction by Hans Urs von Balthasar appeared in 1972. A second revised German translation was published by Herder, Basel in 1983. The first French edition was published in 1980 and revised edition in 1984, both by Aubier Montaigne, Paris. The author wished the book to be published anonymously and posthumously.

In his foreword to the German edition, von Balthasar writes: “A thinking, praying Christian of unmistakable purity reveals to us to symbols of Christian Hermeticism in its various levels of mysticism, gnosis, and magic, taking in also the Cabbala and certain elements of astrology and alchemy. These symbols are summarized in the twenty-two so-called “Major Arcana” of the Tarot cards. By way of the Major Arcana the author seeks to lead meditatively into the deeper, all-embracing wisdom of the Catholic Mystery.”

This may be regarded as one of the great spiritual classics of this century. In the hands of this author of immense erudition and deep contemplation, the Tarot cards of ancient Egypt reveal their universal archetypal symbolic nature and become a school of objective insight. The meditations are, in the truest sense, a school of lectio divina requiring an activity more profound than that of study and intellectual explanation. The author gathers us into his own spiritual journey to the authentic Source of all true knowledge and compassion. This book in my view is the greatest contribution to date toward the rediscovery and renewal of the Christian contemplative tradition of the Fathers of the Church and the high Middle Ages. With its firm grasp of tradition, its balance, wisdom, profundity, openness to truth, and comprehensive approach to reality, it deserves to be the basis of a course in spirituality in every Christian institution of higher learning and what would be even better, the point of departure and unifying vision of the whole curriculum.

http://monasticdialog.com/a.php?id=127

Thomas, have you read this book? It sounds like your kind of thing. This is the only door I've found that links the Catholic "mysteries" with the hermetic arts. I'm trying to find out more, but it's like the biggest secret ever, and it's hidden under an enormous pile of DaVinci-esque doodoo. It's so hard to pick your way around and over all the foofoo stuff to get to the heart of the mysteries. Well, that's my experience anyway.

Chris

 

[Thomas]

Hi Earl -

Swiped from http://www.borthwick.com/findings/?p=86: my comments in blue.
'Nature is an infinite sphere of which the center is everywhere and the circumference nowhere.' Pascal / Penses (1670)

'Therefore, the world machine will have, one might say, its center everywhere and its circumference nowhere, for its circumference and center is God, who is everywhere and nowhere.'
Nicholas of Cusa, 1464
(this turns up a lot in his works - Docta Ignorantia, I think)

” … the nature of God as a circle whose centre was everywhere, and its circumference nowhere.” St. Augustine
This is, I believe, an apocryphal attribution.

God is a circle whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere.
Voltaire (1694 - 1778)

The nature of God is a circle of which the center is everywhere and the circumference is nowhere. ~Empedocles

Alain de Lille, a French theologian of the twelfth century, discovered a text attributed to Hermes Tirsmegistus from the Asclepius which stated “God is an intelligible sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. “

Me talking:

One of my favourites is the Arche and Apeiron of Anaximander - Arche being 'Principle' and is the first word of the Greek of Genesis, and John's Prologue.

Apeiron is 'the boundless' - what the Patristics called 'arche anarchos' - the Principle without Principle.

+++

Hi Chris:

Thomas, have you read this book?
I look at it often, but never worked through from cover to cover, as it were, but you're right. I've also got "Covenant of the Heart".

+++

Hi RubySera_Martin

What's the problem? Did you lose enthusiasm for your topic?
hardly. Quite the reverse, in fact.

I can see that it is a very abstract topic. I have never heard of the authors you mention. One of my biggest fears is finding myself stuck with a dissertation topic I'm sick and tired of. I guess this is really off-topic for this thread but you did mention it and I am very interested in any tips on avoiding such a horror. Or what leads to it, etc.
Depends what you like and dislike, I think.

For me, the answers offered by Catholicism are the most complete and comprehensive. Their metaphysical insight, their mystical knowing, and their philosophical rigour are, for me, second to none, but this is a personal view, and by such I do not wish to cast doubt on other traditions.

If I were not Catholic, I could not embrace another Christian denomination, I would have to look to something utterly different, the Moslem esoterism of the Sufi, perhaps, or more likely the Vedanta.

But I do hold to the notion that it is the tradition that calls the man.

Thomas

 

[Dondi]

If I were not Catholic, I could not embrace another Christian denomination, I would have to look to something utterly different, the Moslem esoterism of the Sufi, perhaps, or more likely the Vedanta.

But I do hold to the notion that it is the tradition that calls the man.

Thomas

Wow, that's a powerful statement, Thomas. To make a statement like that must have taken a lot of conviction about the exclusiveness about the Catholic Church and her traditions. You mean to tell me that you wouldn't even entertain the thought of any other Christian denomination? What about the Eastern Orthodox church? Don't they come closest to Catholicism?

Another thing striking is the leap you would make in abandoning Catholicism for the Moslem tradition. Why wouldn't you go back to the roots and examine the Jewish traditions?

 

[earl]

Hi Earl -

Swiped from http://www.borthwick.com/findings/?p=86: my comments in blue.
'Nature is an infinite sphere of which the center is everywhere and the circumference nowhere.' Pascal / Penses (1670)

'Therefore, the world machine will have, one might say, its center everywhere and its circumference nowhere, for its circumference and center is God, who is everywhere and nowhere.'
Nicholas of Cusa, 1464
(this turns up a lot in his works - Docta Ignorantia, I think)

” … the nature of God as a circle whose centre was everywhere, and its circumference nowhere.” St. Augustine
This is, I believe, an apocryphal attribution.

God is a circle whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere.
Voltaire (1694 - 1778)

The nature of God is a circle of which the center is everywhere and the circumference is nowhere. ~Empedocles

Alain de Lille, a French theologian of the twelfth century, discovered a text attributed to Hermes Tirsmegistus from the Asclepius which stated “God is an intelligible sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. “

Me talking:

One of my favourites is the Arche and Apeiron of Anaximander - Arche being 'Principle' and is the first word of the Greek of Genesis, and John's Prologue.

Apeiron is 'the boundless' - what the Patristics called 'arche anarchos' - the Principle without Principle.

+++

Hi Chris:

Thomas, have you read this book?
I look at it often, but never worked through from cover to cover, as it were, but you're right. I've also got "Covenant of the Heart".

+++

Hi RubySera_Martin

What's the problem? Did you lose enthusiasm for your topic?
hardly. Quite the reverse, in fact.

I can see that it is a very abstract topic. I have never heard of the authors you mention. One of my biggest fears is finding myself stuck with a dissertation topic I'm sick and tired of. I guess this is really off-topic for this thread but you did mention it and I am very interested in any tips on avoiding such a horror. Or what leads to it, etc.
Depends what you like and dislike, I think.

For me, the answers offered by Catholicism are the most complete and comprehensive. Their metaphysical insight, their mystical knowing, and their philosophical rigour are, for me, second to none, but this is a personal view, and by such I do not wish to cast doubt on other traditions.

If I were not Catholic, I could not embrace another Christian denomination, I would have to look to something utterly different, the Moslem esoterism of the Sufi, perhaps, or more likely the Vedanta.

But I do hold to the notion that it is the tradition that calls the man.

Thomas

Thanks for your "circular" info Thomas To correct my info re Eriugena-he was 9th c.e. not 8th (& remembered later that Bamford's book was "the Endless Trace"). For those that might like a taste of Eriugena, there's this quote, (taken from a discussion by contemporary Vajrayana Buddhist scholar, Alan Wallace's piece re whether Buddhism is necessarily "non-theistic-"; his answer, of course, it depended on how you defined the term ):

"...the ineffable, incomprehensible, and inaccessible brilliance of the divine goodness, which is known to all intellects, whether human or angelic, because it is superessential and supernatural. I should think that this designation ('nihil') is applied because, when it is thought through itself, it neither is nor was nor will be. For in no existing thing is it understood, since it is beyond all things. When it is understood as incomprehensible on account of its excellence, it is not improperly called 'nothing.'" You can see why that quote showed up in a Buddhist publication. Hey Thomas, Sufi, hmm? Ibn Arabi would be good company as would the Vedantists.Take care all, Earl

 

[Thomas]

Hi Dondi -

In retrospect that post needs revision.

If I walked away from Catholicism, it would be from Christianity and religion generally. (I regard Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism as 'two lungs' of the one body, as Pope John Paul II described it.)

It would be a total collapse of faith - in everything -

If I then went anywhere, it would not be towards another theism, nor even a non-theism - which rather limits my options - but rather towards that thing that led me to Catholicism in the first place ... philosophy.

Let me explain -

From my late teens the questions began a series of focussings to where they are now, or rather toward the solutions that 'illuminate' me both objectively and subjectively - what is the nature of being? what is the nature of person? What is the nature of God? what is the nature of man? Can the two ever meet?

After years spent looking, I came upon some fundamental metaphysical 'definitions' that 'lit me up' when I read them. 'God is Absolute, Infinite, All-Possible' ... nothing new, but presented in such a way as to give a comprehensive understanding of the principles in, by and through which 'being' comes to be...

(this was the writings of the Perennial Tradition - the voice of Comparative Religion without equal - René Guénon, Frithjof Schuon, Leo Schaya, Sidi Hoosein Nasr, Marco Pallis, Martin Lings, Phillip Sherrard, Jean Borella, Titus Burkhardt, Huston Smith, Robert Bolton...)

This led me to Neoplatonism (occidental metaphysics) and Vedanta (Oriental metaphysics) - and Sufi esoterism, which treats of such matters as the 'stuff' of their considerations.

Two subjective factors remained:
A belief in a 'First Cause' - who is The Absolute, The Infinite, the All-Possible - or rather in whom alone all three coincide - and with whom some order of dialogue is possible...

A belief in the fundamental unity and dignity of the human person - body, soul and spirit - and that any 'solution' that requires the abandonment of any aspect of that tripartite anthropology is lacking.

Then I found the Christian Greek Fathers - and Oh my God - here were discussions of the most profound and fundamental questions. In effect here the Hellenic metaphysic tradition received a transcendant insight and illumination - and the speculations of the Fathers was in a language stripped of all hermetic fabric and symbolist pseudo-esoterism.

Ther 'trouble' is the Fathers talk in terms of 'distance', 'movement', 'change' rather than in terms which are immediate signifiers of the esoteric, so their writings are often devoid of the 'ooh' factor and one can read them as quite mundane ... then when one does realise there's more here than meets the eye, the ground just falls away and you're left tip-toeing on the edge of an abyss ...

... on a family holiday I read 'Bridget Jones' in an afternoon, one of the Harry Potters in two days, and a book on the metaphysics of St Maximus (half as thick as the Harry Potter) that took the rest of the two weeks. I've got W. Otten's book on 'The Anthropology of John Scottus Eriugena' (hey, Earl!) and can only read less than a page at a time ...

... But here was the voice of faith and reason speaking as one - an unbroken chain of transmission - in which the gnosis of being - the knowledge of things - is transcended by the gnosis of relation - that things derive their meaning and their purpose only in relation to other things - only God stands alone, above all dependency as that in whom all things are founded - and He alone is the thing that binds them all together, and this gnosis is called love.

The Cretan poet/philosopher Epiphemides said, and St Paul repeated:
'In him we live and move and have our being'

God the Father is He from whom we receive our being;
God the Son is He through whom we receive our life;
God the Holy Spirit is He in whom we move.

And where that can be found, outside of the heart of religion, I have no idea.

So I have, at this stage of my journey, no intention of going anywhere else.

Thomas

 

[wil]

Amazing path Thomas...so in which paragraph do we insert...I stepped into a Catholic church...or were you raised Catholic and then after your investigations and readings returned?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil -

Close, on both counts -

The first, yes I was raised in a Catholic family. That lasted until my late teens.

The second was due to the Perennialists, whom I discovered in my late thirties. It is axiomatic amongst them that the 'spiritual gifts' of a given Tradition are exclusive to that Tradition - were they not, then everything lacks meaning - although there is an equivalence (to a degree) between traditions.

This was a hard and unwelcome lesson, but one that cannot be argued round, as far as I can see.

So it left me with something of a problem. There were many issues I had with Catholicism, aspects of its history, a negative view of the world and the body ... I could not stand the 'happy clappy' Novus Ordo, I began attending Mass, but was simply going through the motions. Catholicism of my experience seemed a far cry from the Catholicism of the Fathers ... and my pew fellows seemed a far cry from God's chosen people.

Concurrent with this was a series of family tragedies, and the external pressures piled in on the internal conflicts to the point where, quite literally, I was struck with a kind of paralysis. I could not move. I was locked in a struggle and could see no outcome - this was physical as well as mental, there was a Saturday when I stood for some considerable time in the kitchen of an empty house, unable to move, unable to think. No way forward, no way out.

The feeling was, as someone once said: As one door closes, another one slams in your face.

So I gave up. I think my actual prayer in that moment was 'You do it. I'm not playing any more. I'm too tired.'

Sunday Mass was going through the motions as usual. Mass ended, and I sat for a while as the church emptied, building up the courage to drag myself away from another non-event and face the world.

And then I got my answer.

Now I know, sure as eggs is eggs, that there is a perfectly sound and reasonable psychological explanation for what happened ...

... but I also know what I experienced.

Thomas.

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Sunday Mass was going through the motions as usual. Mass ended, and I sat for a while as the church emptied, building up the courage to drag myself away from another non-event and face the world.

And then I got my answer.

Now I know, sure as eggs is eggs, that there is a perfectly sound and reasonable psychological explanation for what happened ...

... but I also know what I experienced.

Thomas.

Would you mind expanding on this i.e. what was the psychological explanation and what did you experience?

Maybe I shouldn't ask; if you use philosophy lingo to answer I won't understand. If you use psychology or theology I might. I am seriously interested in how others decide to turn their life around in the middle of adulthood. And/or make a serious change in religious commitments. Both apply to my own life and there is a lot about my experience that I just don't understand. Sometimes I can learn from the stories of other people's exeperiences. That's the reason for my question.

 

[Thomas]

Hi RubySera_Martin -

I'll leave the psychological explanation to the psychologists ... they can make of it what they will.

The experience sits within a context of doubt and struggle with the Church, the Faith, the Holy Spirit - it is all one. You have to read the 'prelude' above, as it were, for this to make sense ... but suffice to say that without some resolution, I was feeling an imposter, someone, as I said, just going through the motions, for the sake of appearances, even if only for himself.

Mass is finished and I'm sitting in the pew as the church empties. St Dominic's is big and old, timber and stone. there's some pictures of it here:
http://www.op-london.org/photosinside.html

Just sitting, when I'm suddenly aware of a tremendous feeling of warmth. Now St Dominic's is not what you'd call a warm building (you can see the gas heaters atop the pillars) and when the heaters are on, you can feel them. But this is an internal warmth, not external, and for a few moments I was utterly bemused by the sensation. Then I looked round to see where it was coming from.

St Dominic's has a fair bit of statuary ... and as I looked, every statue was pulsing with warmth and life ... I could see they were stone still, yet beneath the stone surface I could see the colour of the flesh, I can see the blood flowing in the veins beneath the skin ... there's a statue of The Sacred Heart, St Dominic, St Thomas, St Catherine ... they were all the same, and as I recall, they were all cold stone, and they were all, simultaneously, very much alive ... they were the source of the warmth which fills me.

Along with this was the most tremendous sensation of ... home ... of being where I belong, and not only that I belong to 'it', but that 'it' belongs to me. The feeling was that if the Pope and the College of Cardinals had turned up there and then and ordered me out of the building, my answer would have been "Don't be silly. I live here."

And then it passed. I sat for a few minutes more, and then I went home.

Thomas

 

[lunamoth]

Hi RubySera_Martin -

I'll leave the psychological explanation to the psychologists ... they can make of it what they will.

The experience sits within a context of doubt and struggle with the Church, the Faith, the Holy Spirit - it is all one. You have to read the 'prelude' above, as it were, for this to make sense ... but suffice to say that without some resolution, I was feeling an imposter, someone, as I said, just going through the motions, for the sake of appearances, even if only for himself.

Mass is finished and I'm sitting in the pew as the church empties. St Dominic's is big and old, timber and stone. there's some pictures of it here:
http://www.op-london.org/photosinside.html

Just sitting, when I'm suddenly aware of a tremendous feeling of warmth. Now St Dominic's is not what you'd call a warm building (you can see the gas heaters atop the pillars) and when the heaters are on, you can feel them. But this is an internal warmth, not external, and for a few moments I was utterly bemused by the sensation. Then I looked round to see where it was coming from.

St Dominic's has a fair bit of statuary ... and as I looked, every statue was pulsing with warmth and life ... I could see they were stone still, yet beneath the stone surface I could see the colour of the flesh, I can see the blood flowing in the veins beneath the skin ... there's a statue of The Sacred Heart, St Dominic, St Thomas, St Catherine ... they were all the same, and as I recall, they were all cold stone, and they were all, simultaneously, very much alive ... they were the source of the warmth which fills me.

Along with this was the most tremendous sensation of ... home ... of being where I belong, and not only that I belong to 'it', but that 'it' belongs to me. The feeling was that if the Pope and the College of Cardinals had turned up there and then and ordered me out of the building, my answer would have been "Don't be silly. I live here."

And then it passed. I sat for a few minutes more, and then I went home.

Thomas

Very beautiful Thomas; thank you for sharing your experience. I hope you don't mind me tagging along to add that I had my own 'on my knees' experience in Church. Not as visual as what you describe, but the exact same feeling of being home, and also a profound sense of love and the presence of the Comforter.

luna

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Thomas, thank you. Now I understand. I've heard testimonies of others who have had similar experiences including light and visual perceptions, and often times feeling warmth and "at home" is also part of it.

I looked at the website--the pictures and the history. I read your story again. I think I'm beginning to understand why Catholics feel such a deep bond with the church of their ancestors and why the material church building itself is also experienced as sacred.

Not to detract from the above but rather to add to it, I want to look at Luna's post.

Luna said:

Not as visual as what you describe, but the exact same feeling of being home, and also a profound sense of love and the presence of the Comforter.

Based on these, and the testimonies of others with similar experiences from a large variety of religions and practices across time and geography, I conclude that God or The Ultimate speaks to each person in his or her own cultural "language." A Catholic experiences it differently from a Protestant, a Pagan differently from a Christian, etc. And once in a while we come across a person who simply finds him or herself in the wrong religious situation, e.g. a person born into a Christian church identifies far more deeply with Buddhist thought and symbolism, or vice versa. In all cases, we are addressed via symbolism that is intensely meaningful to us personally. And it is convincing for time and eternity.

 

[wil]

Namaste Thomas, Awesome experience...

It seems to me when folks gather, the space becomes sacred. When a church is built, the intention, the labor, the love increases the sacredness of the space...and then week after week, day after day folks gather in support of that energy.

The statuary, the stain glass, the pews, the furnishings all go into place and each and every look brings with it thoughts from other churches, other cathedrals other ceremonies from all over the world...

lotta power there...I think almost all of us feel it as we walk in and sit down to some degree...absolutely lovely experience you had...thanx for sharing

 

[Quahom1]

Namaste Thomas, Awesome experience...

It seems to me when folks gather, the space becomes sacred. When a church is built, the intention, the labor, the love increases the sacredness of the space...and then week after week, day after day folks gather in support of that energy.

The statuary, the stain glass, the pews, the furnishings all go into place and each and every look brings with it thoughts from other churches, other cathedrals other ceremonies from all over the world...

lotta power there...I think almost all of us feel it as we walk in and sit down to some degree...absolutely lovely experience you had...thanx for sharing

I believe it depends upon the congregation and the amount of time the "church" has been in existence.

For example, to walk in the Crystal Cathedral/church in California, left me feeling...empty. It was just a building. On the other hand, to sit in a small church that is over 100 years old, and offered cover to many parishners through the ages, there is a powerful build up of energy. The sense is the...awe, penitence, humbleness, gratefulness, of those who passed before. One can sit for hours in such a church and simply soak up sense of comfort and understanding.

I suppose I could rationalize away the reasons for sensing such peace and solace, but I don't want to. It is one of the few things in life that I don't care to pick apart to understand. It just is, and it is comfort, and in this case, that is enough.

v/r

Q