"Church" does not mean the "Roman Catholic Church"

B

Bruce Michael

Well-Known Member
Messages
797
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Trans-Himalayas
Though most Christians belong to the Catholic Church (millions of 'em) it is by no means the only church. And within that Catholic Church there have always been various shades of belief from Franciscan to Jesuit.



Also the sacraments vary from church to church, from Mormon to Greek Orthodox. There are seven sacraments BTW.

The Petrene system is the corpse out of which the new Church will emerge. "At foot of ancient tree the new moss grows." It is an occult fact that new movements need to graft on to the old. Even the Roman Church latched on to an earlier powerful spiritual stream.

Some may wish to work within the old system in order to renew it (like the great Christian initiate Valentin Tomberg). Others are busy with the new. There are many authors who have begun the task of revealing the Christian Mysteries.

The members of the new Church will have a full ego awareness of the Christian Mysteries, as opposed to the soul wisdom which has heretofore sufficed.

I wouldn't suggest that those who are still at the stage of pure religious devotion be pushed into the realm of a full conscious understanding. It may be a shock.

But as time goes on we are called to be more and more conscious, not less. So we enter the world of knowledge- (true) Gnosis. This is the realm of spiritual science. (I must distinguish here between true Gnosis -Knowledge- and the false Gnosis- which is the Lucifer-Gnosis, found in such works as the "Gnostic" gospels.)

Earth to Heaven as opposed to Heaven to Earth as I see it. Those are our travelling plans.

"Not all trees may become Ash trees"- this means that not all Christians will go on to develop in the same way. Who would want that anyway? It would be terrifically boring.
 
Bruce Michael said:
The members of the new Church will have a full ego awareness of the Christian Mysteries, as opposed to the soul wisdom which has heretofore sufficed.
Click to expand...

You seem to be presenting the ego as superior to the soul?

Thomas
 
I have to say I'm confused by the initial post in this thread. It starts off by saying that there is not just one Christian Church, then later on goes on to imply that there is a single "new" Christian Church whose members "will have a full ego awareness of the Christian Mysteries..."

If there isn't just one Christian Church in the first place, why would we assume that only one Christian Church (new or not) has exclusive possession of Christian Mysteries?
 
At first I had to struggle with "full ego awareness" vs. "Soul Wisdom which has hitherto sufficed." No, Thomas, I think Bruce is saying that members of the New Church know it, outwardly so ... vs. a more Mystical (or truly Occult) type of awareness, including activity from behind the scenes.

If Bruce and I can agree that the `New Group of World Servers' as described by Alice Bailey is indeed the core of this future "church" ... then perhaps we'll be getting somewhere. It's only, after all, something I've been trying to say at CR for well over two years now. :eek:

A good definition is here, but is too long to quote in a post. One can read what is said, and should be able to intuit the meaning afterwards. And this, imho, is what `Christ and His Church' really are. :)
 
bgruagach said:
I have to say I'm confused by the initial post in this thread. It starts off by saying that there is not just one Christian Church, then later on goes on to imply that there is a single "new" Christian Church whose members "will have a full ego awareness of the Christian Mysteries..."

If there isn't just one Christian Church in the first place, why would we assume that only one Christian Church (new or not) has exclusive possession of Christian Mysteries?
Click to expand...

That is probably badly put.
"Many ministries but one Lord." - as Paul put it.

By "church" I don't mean earthly organisations.

Greetings,
Br.Bruce
 
Bruce Michael said:
"Full ego awareness" as opposed to a dreamy soul awareness.
Click to expand...

As union takes place in the soul, by 'dreamy' I assume you mean a limited understanding of what the soul is aware of?

The intellect is not extra to the soul – and the ego is certainly subsequent to it, being a faculty of the will, and moves either according to the data of ther soul, and/or the data of the intellect.

The soul is, in a certain sense, the 'most infallible' element of human nature in that it either 'reflects' the Divine image, or it does not;
The intellect is fallible in the degree of its own powers of penetrative illumination (ie some people see the truth in things that others can't);
The ego is the most fallible of all, as it is discursive and discriminative, and is motivated by the appetites rather than by truth.

+++

As the ego cannot know anything that the soul does not a priori know, its data arriving either via the spiritual or empirical senses, I think this highlights more the limitations of your own philosophy?

"Ego awareness' might equally mean the concreteness of one's own delusion surely, as this is where self deception arises?

Thomas
 
Perhaps it would be better to simply rephrase the expression "ego awareness" - and replace it with, outer, brain awareness ... as distinct from the Consciousnes of the Soul, on its own plane, or in its own world (?) ...

Still, there is a degree to which a kind of mystical (or even Occult) awareness can be had outwardly, yet lacking a concrete foundation - say with the certainty one usually has when we say, "This pitcher of water is sitting on the table."

Sensory data may be called into question, and there are issues of perception/perspective ... but I think it is really a complete misunderstanding of Eastern philosophy to ask such questions as "is the water pitcher, and the table, really there at all?"

Instead, a better question would be, "Is this ALL there is?" And that's where metaphysics really begins. It's not that external objects don't exist, but rather, they are just the tip of the iceberg.

We can have some awareness of the Soul, even as the Soul, but I'm guessing that the kind of ego awareness you're speaking of, Bruce, is really Soul Awareness, brought into the everyday field of awareness and activity of the personality. There is no question that `ego,' in the Western psychological sense of the term, is a temporary, necessary reality - but ultimately (like sensory data), an illusion, because in fact, NOTHING exists separately, or apart from, other things.

In Buddhism this is called dependent arising. We might speak of degrees of transcendence, but the notion that we will escape it anytime soon - even in many dozens of lifetimes - is probably absurd.

In terms of esotericism, it is a teaching in the East that the student must overcome the fetter of Sakkayaditthi, or `the illusion of the separated self,' before progressing onward to the 2nd stage of the Spiritual Path.


Compare this with the term, `ahamkara' (ahankara), which means literally `I-maker.' A brief definition might help:
In its lower aspect, the egoistical and mayavi principle, born of avidya (ignorance), which produces the notion of the personal ego as being different from the universal self. In Sankhya philosophy ahamkara is the third emanation: from prakriti (primal nature or substance) issues mahat (the great), standing for universal mind, which in turn produces ahamkara, selfhood, individuality; from ahamkara come forth the five tanmatras, the subtle forms of the elements or principles and "the two series of sense organs" (Samkhya-Sutra 1:61).​
In the Bhagavad-Gita (7:4), prakriti manifests in eight portions -- "earth, water, fire, air, ether [space: kham-akasa], mind [manas], understanding [buddhi] and egoity, self-sense [ahamkara]" -- all of which relate to the object side, which gives an erroneous sense of identity or egoity.​
To be certain, the "separated self" - or individual, "I-as-apart-from-you/all-others" consciousness - is ultimately an illusion (or delusion). Yet our very existence here, in the material world, leading up to the current phase of spiritual and material evolution ... has necessitated it. It is part of God's Plan.

Nor is the Spiritual Individuality (something quite different than ahamkar) just an illusion, so that we "cease to exist" once we have entered Nirvana. Though the dewdrop slips into the shining sea, the experience to the dewdrop has been likened to a sudden expansion of `Self-Conscious Awareness' - so that `oneself' suddenly becomes the fullness of the Ocean, rather than being swallowed up by it, or worse - annihilated.

But of course, leave it to the over-analytical, rational, empirical, logical-positivist Western mind to try and Intuit something of the most sublime of the Eastern philosophies ... which even the Buddha's Arhats managed to confuse, leaving us with notions like Anatman that supposedly contradicts the Vedanta Wisdom of thousands of years - and is it any wonder we haven't quite gotten it right? ;)

~-~-~-~-~

`Ego awareness' ... meaning here, outward, well-anchored awareness - something known factually. Even our lower, rational mind can be illumined by the Soul, from above - as that Soul "reflects the Divine image," as you have put it, Thomas. This is the activity of Buddhi, in the Eastern teaching. And this is what removes the vague, dreamy soul awareness in the brain - and replaces it with certitude.

Good luck - I hear it doesn't come overnight ... ;) :p

Namaskar,

~andrew
 
Hi Andrew –

Buddhism doesn't really apply in this discussion because the Buddhist Tradition does not view the soul as the Abrahamic Tradition, so it doesn't really shed any light.

The point is, I am in full accord with bgruagach:
"If there isn't just one Christian Church in the first place, why would we assume that only one Christian Church (new or not) has exclusive possession of Christian Mysteries?"

That question has not been addressed, not least how the later church is in possession of those mysteries that the precursor is not, and what mysteries, precisely?

Thomas
 
Dear Br. Thomas,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments and questions. To answer them in full would take a lot of postings (or one very big one).

Let me start by saying that the "book of wisdom" flowed through Adam Kadmon- he was not stupid. He had access to the Cosmic Wisdom in a way that we don't.

But his wisdom was not worked for in a way that historically we have had to, and still do. We have to exercise our thinking to fully understand the world about us. So in a way we have to work for something that we had in the first place.

Our "ego" is our sense of self which directs our thinking in the full light of consciousness. Our feeling realm does not work in this way. We dream in our feelings.

The "Soul Wisdom" is our innate knowledge- the theosophists call it the Ancient Wisdom. It is knowledge we don't have to work for- not calling prayer and meditations "work" in this instance.

>The intellect is not extra to the soul – and the ego is certainly >subsequent to it, being a faculty of the will, and moves either according >to the data of ther soul, and/or the data of the intellect.

We certainly use our will to direct our thinking, but in our will we sleep. We are not fully aware of how our will wills.

We have the threefold man: Thinking, Feeling & Willing.
This is much talked about in Anthroposophy and Waldorf education.



>The soul is, in a certain sense, the 'most infallible' element of human >nature in that it either 'reflects' the Divine image, or it does not;

As Andrew put it- it stands between the spirit and our earthly self.

The spirit would be a slavedriver if it could. Some saints are very hard on themselves- I'm thinking of Catherine Emmerich at the moment, and the severe punishments she dealt out to herself.

>The ego is the most fallible of all, as it is discursive and discriminative, >and is motivated by the appetites rather than by truth.

There a little book coming out later this year which will explain more. How does the Christian see the problem of a healthy sense of self, without being an egotist?

+++

>As the ego cannot know anything that the soul does not a priori know, its data arriving either via the spiritual or empirical senses, I think this >highlights more the limitations of your own philosophy?

All good points which I can take up later.

>"Ego awareness' might equally mean the concreteness of one's own >delusion surely, as this is where self deception arises?

I remember Gurdijieff taught that most people are asleep. And this is a horrible thing to come to a realisation of- as Ouspensky found out.

-Br. Bruce
 
Thomas said:
That question has not been addressed, not least how the later church is in possession of those mysteries that the precursor is not, and what mysteries, precisely?
Click to expand...
Not to jump into semantics, but I'm guessing you are calling the Precursor the RCC, which really was that which organized, controlled and sanctified all the precursors to it, yes? Decided what is, and what isn't...

But that doesn't stop the RCC from having possession of those mysteries...I believe it does, or at least did, but decided for one reason or another that these things weren't to be.

The RCC could settle all arguments by letting google dust off those books in the basement...on trip through the scanner will do less damage than one researcher sanctified to look within. My understanding is there are books and that haven't been picked off the shelves for hundreds of years...

If one researcher carefully opens a book and reads and then says "huh, what did it say the last page...if he/she backs up just once, in one book looks at one page twice, that is more damage than those trained in scanning would do to any of the books.

Once they are all up on google, theologians researchers millions of them around the world will be able to delve into and through what has been kept dusty forever....and the RCC would be able to hold its head high...the time and technology coincide, the only excuse now is lame or a cover up...

Let it out, silence all detractors.....
 
Hi bgruagach,
What I should have done is describe it as a Temple and not a Church.

"The Temple of St. John was forged as the open gateway through to The Event which combined our Christ with His World, for the sake and sanity of all men."

The Church will be renewed.

Here is our vision of what the Church can be:
[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]Holy Sanctuary[/FONT][FONT=&quot]; carer, instructor,[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Deliverer of the Sacraments,[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]High example of all heavenly and worldly virtue;[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Font of charity,[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Both in distribution of physical property,[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]But more importantly in the element of conduct;[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Guardian and distributor of spiritual and devotional knowledge – Acknowledged with Reason,[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Unimpinged by dogma or exclusivity;[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]A home dedicated to the living Christ,[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]AndHis entire Family;[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Perpetuate to His Law,[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]His Being,[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]And His Incarnation within [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Man.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Conveyor of the Spiritual Worlds[/FONT][FONT=&quot],[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Emissary for the Physical World;[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Respecter and receiver for the angelic realms;[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Party to attendant beings;[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Prayer, counsel and remembrance for the dead;[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Vessel of purity, encouraging to the downcast;[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Promoting striving and working,[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]For the transformation of worldly matter;[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Convoy of courage,[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Defiant to all doubts warring against the spirit;[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Defender for all children,[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]The weak, the sick and the disadvantaged;[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Ennobling men from demons,[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Unresponsive to their cause or chaos;[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Chartered by divinity, yet with community consent;[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Infertile to bickerings, disputes and unkind intent – displayed or hidden;[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Appealing to all three commodities:[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]The past, the future, and the present.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Passion of the Saints made real, [/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Art-divine, relished in beauty and in musical theme;[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Construct eternal – [/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Bringing something out from nothing, again and again;[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Hope-child of the gods, and Love of the Father of All;[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Welcomer to the higher senses now awakening,[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Becoming and responding,[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Synchronically with the world,[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Taming the imaginations,[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Perceiving intuition alongside discrimination;[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Ceasing all superstition, calming, supporting, making healing,[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot] Andexplaining the Living Doctrines as made manifest in actual Love.[/FONT]​


​


​
-Br.Bruce
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]​
 
Bruce Michael said:
Let me start by saying that the "book of wisdom" flowed through Adam Kadmon - he was not stupid. He had access to the Cosmic Wisdom in a way that we don't.
Click to expand...

Ah. I follow a different book. Mine is Scripture, the Wisdom of the Word of God, "for both the Jews require signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom" 1 Corinthians 1:22.

Thomas
 
Thomas said:
Ah. I follow a different book. Mine is Scripture, the Wisdom of the Word of God, "for both the Jews require signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom" 1 Corinthians 1:22.

Thomas
Click to expand...

Errrr. I don't get what your saying... There were no books in the time of Adam Kadmon- certainly none of paper and print!

It's a funny thing, I was just listening to a radio program today that described how the Jesuits promoted scepticism in defence against Protestantism. The Protestants wanted to find their all in Scripture!

There you go,
Br. Bruce
 
Thomas said:
Ah. I follow a different book. Mine is Scripture, the Wisdom of the Word of God, "for both the Jews require signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom" 1 Corinthians 1:22.

Thomas
Click to expand...

Bruce Michael said:
Errrr. I don't get what your saying... There were no books in the time of Adam Kadmon- certainly none of paper and print!

It's a funny thing, I was just listening to a radio program today that described how the Jesuits promoted scepticism in defence against Protestantism. The Protestants wanted to find their all in Scripture!

There you go,
Br. Bruce
Click to expand...

Perhaps Luke chapter 18 (in it's entirety,) might help you to understand.
excerpt said:
31 Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished. 32 For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. 33 They will scourge Him and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again.”
34 But they understood none of these things; this saying was hidden from them, and they did not know the things which were spoken.
Click to expand...
 
Bruce Michael said:
Hello,
Do you understand the concept of "Adam Kadmon"?
Greetings,
Br.Bruce
Click to expand...
As referred to (not by that name) in 1 Corinthians chapter 2, the chapter immediately following that Thomas cited? (Please understand that I have a different vocabulary than you.)
Kinda like {but not quite like} Purusha, as contrasted to Prakriti, in the Samkhya tradition?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top