Exorcist Bishop Bryan D. Ouellette of the Sacred Order of St. Michael the Archangel (Order of Exorcists) and Presiding Bishop of the autocephalous Holy Nicholean Catholic Church continues his previous lecture on Exorcism by breaking down the identity of Satan on a theological, mythological, and esoteric level. By building upon the mystical foundation of what he calls "archetypal patterns," Bishop Bryan will expose Satan for what he really is. Once the mask is off, will we discover Lucifer the Fallen Angel or ultimately come face to face with the darkness within ourselves?
Showing posts with label gnostic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gnostic. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
Emanations of God: Understanding the Holy Trinity
Bishop Bryan discusses both the conventional and esoteric views on the nature of the Holy Trinity. Who is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? How do they relate to each other? Can Hinduism and Gnosticism shed some light on the nature of this Christian reality? Find out on this episode of Vestiges of Christianity.
Friday, September 5, 2014
Whose god is God?
It is largely taken for granted that the three primary western Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all worship the same deity, albeit in remarkably different ways. While this may be the sentiment behind each major religion, I do not think we can continue to assume that this is the case on an esoteric level. History has not been so kind to religion and in many ways has demonstrated that religion is retroactively evolving back into more primitive, primal tendencies, largely due to various contemporary extremisms. I would argue that at this point in time, through the development of each of these three religions, Abrahamic spirituality has become a polytheistic warzone between the Jewish god Yahweh, the confused Christian/Egyptian ”Trinitarian” god, and Allah, the Islamic god. And there is good reason for this distinction; each has truly become its own divine archetype!
On the archetypal level, as it relates to human comprehension, Yahweh has always been a rather blood thirsty, racist egomaniac. Allah too, with his ‘convert all infidels or massacre them’ approach toward the human race holds better resemblance to the pre-Arabic warrior moon god Hubal than to a supreme divine source of omniscient love. While the Christian Trinity perhaps does a slightly better job at understanding divine complexity, it too fails with its transformation of Jesus from a lover of peace in the Gospels to an executer of justice in the Book of Revelation, all which are clearly Egyptian pagan carryovers from Geb, Nut, and Osiris. The result of this is that ordinary, unsuspecting people will worship only their ideas about the actual God instead of the actual God, creating much spiritual confusion.
Classical Gnosticism saw much of this dissonance and attempted to reconcile the archetypal problem by expressing the actual God (capital G) via a series of truly endless emanations. Some of these emanations were higher than others and so were closer to the actual God which Gnostics saw as an Unknowable divine reality. It is ironic, then, that at this point in history, 1700 years later, that we must turn back to an ancient “heresy” so as to explain just what the hell is going on here with our bloody, deadly, reprehensible 21st century “religion” problems.
So far, yes, you have read this correctly. This Christian bishop is not only suggesting, but is absolutely affirming, that the gods (lower g) that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam hold dearly in their daily worship are merely crude emanations of the actual God they all claim to hold a monopoly on. In a very real sense, if you must wonder why people who claim to be Muslims are beheading innocent men, women and children, and why people who claim to be Christians are calling for war against our “enemies” in the Middle East while judgmentally attacking homosexuals, people of other faiths, etc. back here at home, and why people who claim to be Jews support the explosive slaughter of innocent people in Palestine, you can rest assured that the answer to this is only to be found within the spiritual manipulative possession tactics of these archetypes while they are at war with one another, using human being believers as paws in their very deadly game of psychology.
The moral of the story? Take control of your canon of beliefs and learn how to worship, not the ”true god”, but the ACTUAL God, while also learning what genuine worship is. OR… do us all a favor and commit apostasy for the safety of these innocent lives that are being lost in the name of your “god(s)”. Atheism is a far safer world-view in the hands of the spiritually deficient.
Bishop +Bryan D. Ouellette, Ph.D.
On the archetypal level, as it relates to human comprehension, Yahweh has always been a rather blood thirsty, racist egomaniac. Allah too, with his ‘convert all infidels or massacre them’ approach toward the human race holds better resemblance to the pre-Arabic warrior moon god Hubal than to a supreme divine source of omniscient love. While the Christian Trinity perhaps does a slightly better job at understanding divine complexity, it too fails with its transformation of Jesus from a lover of peace in the Gospels to an executer of justice in the Book of Revelation, all which are clearly Egyptian pagan carryovers from Geb, Nut, and Osiris. The result of this is that ordinary, unsuspecting people will worship only their ideas about the actual God instead of the actual God, creating much spiritual confusion.
Classical Gnosticism saw much of this dissonance and attempted to reconcile the archetypal problem by expressing the actual God (capital G) via a series of truly endless emanations. Some of these emanations were higher than others and so were closer to the actual God which Gnostics saw as an Unknowable divine reality. It is ironic, then, that at this point in history, 1700 years later, that we must turn back to an ancient “heresy” so as to explain just what the hell is going on here with our bloody, deadly, reprehensible 21st century “religion” problems.
So far, yes, you have read this correctly. This Christian bishop is not only suggesting, but is absolutely affirming, that the gods (lower g) that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam hold dearly in their daily worship are merely crude emanations of the actual God they all claim to hold a monopoly on. In a very real sense, if you must wonder why people who claim to be Muslims are beheading innocent men, women and children, and why people who claim to be Christians are calling for war against our “enemies” in the Middle East while judgmentally attacking homosexuals, people of other faiths, etc. back here at home, and why people who claim to be Jews support the explosive slaughter of innocent people in Palestine, you can rest assured that the answer to this is only to be found within the spiritual manipulative possession tactics of these archetypes while they are at war with one another, using human being believers as paws in their very deadly game of psychology.
The moral of the story? Take control of your canon of beliefs and learn how to worship, not the ”true god”, but the ACTUAL God, while also learning what genuine worship is. OR… do us all a favor and commit apostasy for the safety of these innocent lives that are being lost in the name of your “god(s)”. Atheism is a far safer world-view in the hands of the spiritually deficient.
Bishop +Bryan D. Ouellette, Ph.D.
Friday, February 10, 2012
You shall have no other gods before Me
Listen to internet radio with Vestiges of Christianity on Blog Talk Radio
Is God really a jealous God? Is salvation something attainable only through a confession of faith in Jesus Christ? Is the God of the Old Testament different from the Father of Jesus? These are just some of the issues Bishop Bryan Ouellette will cover tonight on Vestiges of Christianity. We hope to see you then!
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Welcome to the new Vestiges of Christianity Radio Show!
Listen to internet radio with Vestiges of Christianity on Blog Talk Radio
Tonight, Bishop Bryan D. Ouellette, Ph.D. speaks about the new outreach ministry radio show for the Holy Nicholean Catholic Church including new insights into future ministry programs. What is Vestiges of Christianity? What is the Holy Nicholean Catholic Church? What is esoteric Christianity and how does it relate to Epignosis? Find out on Vestiges of Christianity.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Contemporary, Classical Gnosticism, and Epignosticism
Dr. +Bryan D. Ouellette, speaking as Patriarch Nicholas III, discusses the essential reasons behind the departure of his ministries from the greater contemporary Gnostic community. He will also explain what roll epignosticism plays in relationship to what he understands to be "true gnosticism" and how this new direction will open new avenues of spiritual potential within the Patriarchate, without sacrificing authentic Christian ideology.
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO THE BROADCAST
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO THE BROADCAST
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
A More Complete Soteriology
Within its understanding of theology, the Holy Nicholean Catholic Church strongly asserts that salvation requires a triple formulation of Faith (πίστιν), Works (ἔργα), and Knowledge (ἐπίγνωσις). Protestantism has a long history of affirming its incomplete doctrine of Sola fide (i.e., faith alone is all that is required). In St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians he states, “For by grace (χάριτι) you have been saved through faith (πίστεως); and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God (2:8).” Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for such theology to be utilized outside of its original context. This manifests a certain theological premise without further essential consideration. Later, in verse 10, St. Paul writes, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works (ἔργοις), which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.” By this elaboration, it is clear that while salvation is attained via Grace (a free, unmerited gift from God) through Faith, man is not saved by the good Works he performs, but rather for the good Works he chooses to undertake.
In the Book of James, the Brother of Jesus writes, “What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith (πίστιν) but he has no works (ἔργα)? Can that faith (πίστις) save him (2:14)?” And later in verse 26, St. James writes, “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith (πίστις) without works (ἔργων ) is dead.” What is demonstrated here is a clear continuation of the thoughts of St. Paul above. Salvation is freely given by Grace through one’s Faith, but true Faith is unattainable without the good Works that produce it.
Finally, in the Second Book of St. Peter, the apostle writes, “seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge (ἐπιγνώσεως) of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust (1:3-4).” And then in verses 5-7, “Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith (πίστει) supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge (γνῶσιν), and in your knowledge (γνώσει), self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.” St. Peter forms a perfect synopsis of the Faith, Works, and Knowledge theology that our sacred tradition maintains. It can only be through the divinization of humanity (i.e., theosis) that humanity is truly saved; furthermore, theosis can only be achieved through a strong Faith, reflected by the good Works that produce it, and accomplished by a direct Knowledge merited via a first-hand relationship with God.
It is also important that we provide a final word about ἐπίγνωσις (transliterated to epignosis) [see 2Peter 1:3]. The Holy Nicholean Catholic Church wishes to distinguish itself from the contemporary Gnostic community that uses the word “gnosis” as a means to reflect the esoteric liberation and enlightenment of some ancient Christian theology. While our own theological interpretations strongly support the need to understand what ancient Gnostics taught and believed, our tradition should not be confused with Gnosticism as either an ancient or modern system. Ancient Gnosticism had a very strong propensity to assume that this soteriological Knowledge was only available to a certain elite. Our tradition, however, teaches that while this Knowledge may not be accessible to all, it is available to all who apply themselves through a praxis of Faith and Works. We attempt to emphasize this difference by use of the word “epignosis” rather than “gnosis”. Epignosis carries the Greek prefix “epi” which means a certain ‘fitting upon’ through a specific form of contact. This prefix then intensifies the word gnosis by emphasizing that true gnosis occurs via an appropriate, proper, yet direct, experiential relationship with God. In other words, true gnosis is a specific type of experience that only occurs given a specific approach. This is the fundamental mystery of God that our tradition teaches and protects. Exoterically, such an epignosis is facilitated through the administration and reception of the Sacrament of Eucharist and the eventual theosis that is produced by this Sacrament. Esoterically, however, it occurs beyond praxis, beyond tradition, and beyond any application of the will.
All my blessings,
Patriarch Nicholas III in mundo +Bryan D. Ouellette, Ph.D.
Holy Imperial Russian Orthodox Church
Holy Nicholean Catholic Church
Holy Monastic Order En Deus
Monday, February 28, 2011
Concerning our Departure from the Greater Gnostic Community
The communities of the Holy Monastic Order En Deus, the Holy Nicholean Catholic Church, and the Holy Imperial Russian Orthodox Church feel that we must formally separate ourselves from any membership in the greater (and somewhat amorphous) contemporary Gnostic community. As some of you may have been aware, we have been members in good standing with the Universal Church of Autogenes, now called the Universalist Gnostic Communion under the leadership of Bishop Mansell Gilmore and to this day we still feel that the UGC is one of the few Gnostic communities of quality currently in existence. They do hold valid apostolic succession under their bishop and through his inspiration they work very hard to share gnosis with the world. We love Bishop Gilmore dearly and we always will.
Our ministries, however, have come to some realizations concerning the contemporary Gnostic community that have left us deeply saddened and concerned. The following list will provide our followers with each specific reason for our departure. While it should be noted that the Universalist Gnostic Communion, as an institution, has not violated any of the principles we set forth below, the very use of the word “Gnostic” in the classical sense is something we wish to no longer apply to ourselves. We are a Christian ministry. We have always been a Christian ministry in the most orthodox sense of the term, but we have chosen to remain non-dogmatic, making Gnostic churches appealing to us. But as we have grown, we have truly discovered that our special charism is not to attach ourselves to what many in our circles consider to be heretical beliefs.
We are not heretics.
We are not apostates.
We love the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and we wish to heal her wounds. In light of this we offer the following reasons for our solemn decision:
1. We perceive in the greater contemporary Gnostic community a virulent reactionary approach toward the orthodox churches, particularly the Roman Catholic Church. We reject on our own moral principles, and even on the principles espoused by most of the Gnostic community that such frank bigotry is not something we can associate with in good conscience. Further, and as a result of this and other issues, including those outlined below, we feel any formal or even indirect association or affiliation with any Gnostic community at large or in particular inhibits our ability to heal the wounds of the greater One Holy catholic and Apostolic Church. To fail to do so would make it appear to most of those outside the Gnostic community, and in particular those to whom we feel called, that we approve of such bigotry, anger and hatred (whether overt or even unconscious).
2. It has always been our contention that Gnosis never left the Greater Christian Church--it may have been sporadically forgotten, ignored, or repressed, although on occasion (unconsciously) taught and embraced. Our stated mission is not to replace the orthodox churches with a “gnostic system”, but, rather, to help the orthodox churches experience the gnosis they already possess. As such, we feel no new system is needed or required. Instead, we hope to heal the Greater Church from the outside in, recalling to it the teachings it has always held, albeit imperfectly.
3. Further, we perceive, and it seems unable to deny, that the greater contemporary Gnostic community is riddled with religious bigotry and intolerance projected back at the orthodox churches and those who sympathize with their sacred traditions. Our experience in the greater Gnostic dialogue is that the ‘rules’ of Gnostic ‘tolerance’ apply only to those that oppose the Church; anyone who asks the same tolerance for those within the mainstream churches are often ridiculed and chastised. In fact, many Gnostics appear to engage in the very behavior they report to be fighting.
4. Rightly or wrongly, recent history has imbued the word “Gnosticism” with a negative weight of which we have resolved to relieve ourselves for the sake of accurately describing our mission and charism. Again, the greater contemporary Gnostic Community often seems to use words like “heretic” and “apostate” as if it were a badge of honor in some imagined militia against their perceived enemies. We feel this tendency exacerbates an already difficult situation, making healing with the Greater Church impossible, and, frankly, marginalizing the movement unnecessarily. Our goal is to further gnosis---but Gnostics, in our opinion, and as a whole, are making the possibility of gnosis being again accepted by the Greater Church ever more remote. We cannot allow that to happen through any action or inaction of our own.
5. It is clear to us that most, if not all, contemporary Gnostic communities do not wish to be reunited with or recognized by the Mother-Church—far from it. While we see this as unfortunate, we of course respect the right of those individuals to maintain it. Our ministries, however, are only concerned with healing old (and new) wounds, not with cutting deeper ones.
We hope this helps to better define our position. We will continue to speak positively of Gnosis and Gnosticism as a philosophy, but from this point forward, only through the lens of our own authenticity, that is, as Christians. Again, we wish to affirm that these observations are general in nature and do not apply to any one group or institution. As we move forward, we hope that the world will be ready for what we have to share. The time for extremism is over. It is time to heal. Now.
With love and blessings,
Patriarch Nicholas III in mundo +Bryan D. Ouellette, Ph.D.
Holy Imperial Russian Orthodox Church
Holy Nicholean Catholic Church
Holy Monastic Order En Deus
Our ministries, however, have come to some realizations concerning the contemporary Gnostic community that have left us deeply saddened and concerned. The following list will provide our followers with each specific reason for our departure. While it should be noted that the Universalist Gnostic Communion, as an institution, has not violated any of the principles we set forth below, the very use of the word “Gnostic” in the classical sense is something we wish to no longer apply to ourselves. We are a Christian ministry. We have always been a Christian ministry in the most orthodox sense of the term, but we have chosen to remain non-dogmatic, making Gnostic churches appealing to us. But as we have grown, we have truly discovered that our special charism is not to attach ourselves to what many in our circles consider to be heretical beliefs.
We are not heretics.
We are not apostates.
We love the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and we wish to heal her wounds. In light of this we offer the following reasons for our solemn decision:
1. We perceive in the greater contemporary Gnostic community a virulent reactionary approach toward the orthodox churches, particularly the Roman Catholic Church. We reject on our own moral principles, and even on the principles espoused by most of the Gnostic community that such frank bigotry is not something we can associate with in good conscience. Further, and as a result of this and other issues, including those outlined below, we feel any formal or even indirect association or affiliation with any Gnostic community at large or in particular inhibits our ability to heal the wounds of the greater One Holy catholic and Apostolic Church. To fail to do so would make it appear to most of those outside the Gnostic community, and in particular those to whom we feel called, that we approve of such bigotry, anger and hatred (whether overt or even unconscious).
2. It has always been our contention that Gnosis never left the Greater Christian Church--it may have been sporadically forgotten, ignored, or repressed, although on occasion (unconsciously) taught and embraced. Our stated mission is not to replace the orthodox churches with a “gnostic system”, but, rather, to help the orthodox churches experience the gnosis they already possess. As such, we feel no new system is needed or required. Instead, we hope to heal the Greater Church from the outside in, recalling to it the teachings it has always held, albeit imperfectly.
3. Further, we perceive, and it seems unable to deny, that the greater contemporary Gnostic community is riddled with religious bigotry and intolerance projected back at the orthodox churches and those who sympathize with their sacred traditions. Our experience in the greater Gnostic dialogue is that the ‘rules’ of Gnostic ‘tolerance’ apply only to those that oppose the Church; anyone who asks the same tolerance for those within the mainstream churches are often ridiculed and chastised. In fact, many Gnostics appear to engage in the very behavior they report to be fighting.
4. Rightly or wrongly, recent history has imbued the word “Gnosticism” with a negative weight of which we have resolved to relieve ourselves for the sake of accurately describing our mission and charism. Again, the greater contemporary Gnostic Community often seems to use words like “heretic” and “apostate” as if it were a badge of honor in some imagined militia against their perceived enemies. We feel this tendency exacerbates an already difficult situation, making healing with the Greater Church impossible, and, frankly, marginalizing the movement unnecessarily. Our goal is to further gnosis---but Gnostics, in our opinion, and as a whole, are making the possibility of gnosis being again accepted by the Greater Church ever more remote. We cannot allow that to happen through any action or inaction of our own.
5. It is clear to us that most, if not all, contemporary Gnostic communities do not wish to be reunited with or recognized by the Mother-Church—far from it. While we see this as unfortunate, we of course respect the right of those individuals to maintain it. Our ministries, however, are only concerned with healing old (and new) wounds, not with cutting deeper ones.
We hope this helps to better define our position. We will continue to speak positively of Gnosis and Gnosticism as a philosophy, but from this point forward, only through the lens of our own authenticity, that is, as Christians. Again, we wish to affirm that these observations are general in nature and do not apply to any one group or institution. As we move forward, we hope that the world will be ready for what we have to share. The time for extremism is over. It is time to heal. Now.
With love and blessings,
Patriarch Nicholas III in mundo +Bryan D. Ouellette, Ph.D.
Holy Imperial Russian Orthodox Church
Holy Nicholean Catholic Church
Holy Monastic Order En Deus
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Man, Myth & the Occult: A Complete Introduction to Gnosticism Part 5: Valentinianism
Today, Father Bryan Ouellette speaks about the Valentinian School of Gnosticism. Who were the Valentinians and what was their relationship to orthodox Christianity? Find out why history remembers the Christian Gnostics to be the followers of Valentinus and his theology.
Original Air Date: December 17, 2010
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN
Original Air Date: December 17, 2010
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN
Friday, September 24, 2010
A Complete Introduction to Gnosticism Part IV: Sethianism
Today, Father Bryan Ouellette speaks with Bishop Mani Gilmore about classical Gnosticism. Who were the "Sethians"? Who are they today? What did they believe and how does it apply to our modern practice?
CLICK HERE TO LSITEN
CLICK HERE TO LSITEN
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
The Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross
Today the Church celebrates the Seventh Century victory of Emperor Heraclius of Constantinople in his success of recovering the relic of the True Cross stolen by the King of Persia, Chosroes II, restoring it to its original placement in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem.
The faithful recall this history as they reflect upon the meaning of the Cross of Jesus Christ. As Gnostics, we often find it tempting to dismiss this conventional soteriology, but I strongly caution against such oversights. Gnostic wisdom traditions that only reflect upon "the Revealer" aspects of Jesus Christ can very quickly lose the Jesus Christ of faith altogether. Perhaps this is what they are hoping to do, but such an approach often leads to an unbalanced result. I suspect that this might have been why so many early Christians of antiquity attempted to separate the person Jesus from the Aeon Christ. Keeping this firmly in mind, however, it is my contention that the ancient Gnostics didn't have a literal Separationist Christology as is commonly assumed; rather, I would argue that this was a metaphorical way of indicating that the historical Jesus and the Savior Christ should be dealt with equally, but differently.
On this feast of the Cross, I invite all of you to ponder what this 2,000 year old Sacrifice means to you.
Fr. Bryan
The faithful recall this history as they reflect upon the meaning of the Cross of Jesus Christ. As Gnostics, we often find it tempting to dismiss this conventional soteriology, but I strongly caution against such oversights. Gnostic wisdom traditions that only reflect upon "the Revealer" aspects of Jesus Christ can very quickly lose the Jesus Christ of faith altogether. Perhaps this is what they are hoping to do, but such an approach often leads to an unbalanced result. I suspect that this might have been why so many early Christians of antiquity attempted to separate the person Jesus from the Aeon Christ. Keeping this firmly in mind, however, it is my contention that the ancient Gnostics didn't have a literal Separationist Christology as is commonly assumed; rather, I would argue that this was a metaphorical way of indicating that the historical Jesus and the Savior Christ should be dealt with equally, but differently.
On this feast of the Cross, I invite all of you to ponder what this 2,000 year old Sacrifice means to you.
Fr. Bryan
Friday, August 27, 2010
A Complete Introduction to Gnosticism: Part 3
Father Bryan and Bishop Mani continue their discussion from last month about the limitations of the human condition.
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN
Monday, August 23, 2010
Sin with Fr. Bryan D. Ouellette, Ph.D.
Sin with Fr. Bryan D. Ouellette, Ph.D. from Universal Church of Autogenes on Vimeo.
Father Bryan works through the theological difficulties involved with the subject and usual definition of sin. Can there be a Gnostic approach to sin? Is sin obsolete in a world that has come to embrace imperfection as part of ordinary human experience? In this video, you will learn more about this very misunderstood concept.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Reflections on Gnostic Humility
When you can find God in a beautiful sunset, you haven't yet arrived.
When you can find God in all living things, wisdom is still far off.
When you can find God in the deepest recesses of your heart, Gnosis is still eluding you.
When you can find God in not just the extraordinary, but the ordinary, you still have more steps to take.
But when you can find God in the most vile, repulsive, disgusting, reprehensible thing, then your enlightenment may just be right around the corner.
Take no glory in it, for it is fitting that there should be no rewards for seeing things as they actually are. Such an action is not a privilege, but our duty. Let us not be heros unto ourselves, but rather let us commit to the work we were born to accomplish.
Fr. Bryan
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Martyrdom, Sin, and the Need for Humility
Father Bryan speaks about the nature of humility in the context of the Christian understanding of martyrdom and sin. Are these concepts obsolete in a Gnostic world-view or do they still have a viable application?
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN
Friday, August 6, 2010
Why Dualism is a Cognitive Error
Dr. Bryan Ouellette and Dr. Michael Jon Kell explain why the human condition perceives the existence of evil. Is there more to Satan than just archetypal significance?
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN
Friday, July 30, 2010
A Complete Introduction to Gnosticism Part 2
Today, Fr. Bryan speaks with Bishop Mani about the limitations of the human condition. How do these natural restrictions affect our spiritual development and is there a way to transcend such obstacles?
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN
Friday, July 9, 2010
The Historical Jesus with Fr. Bryan D. Ouellette, Ph.D.
The Historical Jesus with Fr. Bryan D. Ouellette, Ph.D. from Universal Church of Autogenes on Vimeo.
Fr. Bryan speaks about the significance of the Historical Jesus within the framework of religious practice and salvation. Was the historical Jesus important? Did his historical actions matter or is the Gospel message a function of archetypal reality?
Friday, June 25, 2010
A Complete Introduction to Gnosticism Part 1
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN
AIRED 06/25/10 on Man, Myth & the Occult
Father Bryan D. Ouellette, Ph.D. welcomes Bishop Mansell C. Gilmore, presiding Bishop of the Universal Church of Autogenes, to launch this new monthly series on the subject of Gnosticism in practice. Tonight, they will begin the series with an introduction to the Church along with a discussion about what the audience can expect from this series, particularly concerning dispelling common myths attached to Gnosticism.
AIRED 06/25/10 on Man, Myth & the Occult
Father Bryan D. Ouellette, Ph.D. welcomes Bishop Mansell C. Gilmore, presiding Bishop of the Universal Church of Autogenes, to launch this new monthly series on the subject of Gnosticism in practice. Tonight, they will begin the series with an introduction to the Church along with a discussion about what the audience can expect from this series, particularly concerning dispelling common myths attached to Gnosticism.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Everlasting Life?
"May almighty God bless us, protect us from all evil, and bring us to everlasting life."
Such are the words that close out the Latin Offices of Lauds and Vespers. We hear these words echoed constantly in the scriptures. The very message of Jesus was centered upon this concept and it is no mystery that such words led to our common perceptions of heaven, afterlife, and eternity. Yet, in Gnosticism, we can very often experience a far less identifiable role for the afterlife. Many Gnostics, in fact, subscribe to the far eastern philosophies of nirvana rather than to the western Christian obsession with eternal life. At worst, many sound like nihilists and materialists as the doctrine of heaven is slowly lost to the sometimes oppressive empirical observations of science and reason.
It begs the question: what was Jesus talking about when he referred to everlasting life and/or the Kingdom of Heaven?
And...
If there is no actual everlasting life, what then is the point of having a religious practice at all?
Are we just wasting our time if a successful 'Gnosis experience' leads us to conclude that intrinsically we are nothing and everything we are dissolves into this nothingness after death? Personally, I don't think so.
Ask any conventional theologian what the most important day of the Christian year is and he will tell you Easter. The reason for this is that the very heart of conventional Christian theology is absolutely dependent upon the physical rising of Christ from the dead. This theology teaches that by death Jesus Christ conquers death, not just for himself, but for all mankind. This was the purpose of the sacrifice on the cross. In a sense, he reverses the damage caused by Adam and Eve when their actions brought the condition of death into the world. Theologically and mythically, this sounds wonderful. Unfortunately, the empirical reality is that people still died and continue to die, so that while the effects of Jesus' physical rising from the dead somehow [theologically] removes the penalties death imposes upon us (i.e., dissolution into nothingness), we certainly do not physically share in this same experience (unless one were to subscribe to the raising of the dead at the end of time, which most Gnostics do not).
While it is true that one can draft a fairly reasonable psychological assessment about the afterlife and apply to it humanity's innate requirement for security coupled with its subconscious fear and insecurity (the root of most acquired psychological disorders), I cannot help but suspect that there is a deeper message here and that this afterlife doctrine must hold some ultimate truth at its heart. While I will not be so quick to declare that there is an affirmative continuity of consciousness [as we know it] at the point of death and beyond, I do believe there is enough philosophical evidence to suggest that all this religious practice is actually doing something remarkable for the practitioner.
For example, ask somebody to tell you who you are. I don't mean to suggest that they express what you are like, but rather what you are. And by you, I don't mean your body, but your essence or your essential self, if you will. Can they do it? Can you even do it? When describing another person, it is usually necessary to use a simile, a metaphor, or some basic adjectives (i.e., George is like an ox, he's so strong. Jessica is an angry person. Bob is so quiet and peaceful. The Dalai Lama is so full of compassion, etc.) The problem here is that these are merely aggregates of our ego states. They do not make up anything essential to who or what we think we are. In a sense, we could argue that the reason we must use such terminology when describing a person, is because such a person is, in actuality, nothing more than a careful, but random, accumulation of such aggregates.
So far, it may seem as if we are walking down that dark road of nihilism again, but when one considers that these aggregates are in fact universal, particular, profoundly transcendent, and eternal realities, the concept of everlasting life becomes more and more of an absolute reality. Some people might find me to be a compassionate person. One could then say that compassion is an aggregate that makes up my ego state. Now, when I die, my brain (which science would say contains my ego state) will rot along with the rest of my body, but compassion will live on transcendent and completely independent from any corruptible matter.
It would appear, then, that our eternal life awaits us within this intangible realm of universal properties- the same properties we attempt to acquire in abundance through the faith and works of religious practice. We are, most explicitly, a construct of universal principles set into motion by material forms. This matter obviously dissolves, but the universal principles cannot. They clearly live on in other people, future generations, and most certainly within the fabric of the cosmos itself. Why it is that these aggregates coming together within material form results in consciousness is still somewhat of a mystery, but I suspect it might have a lot to do with the possibility that consciousness and intelligence are eternal aggregates as well and that, by their very nature, ultimately prove the definitive existence of the eternal life of the Kingdom of Heaven Jesus talked so much about.
Fr. Bryan
Such are the words that close out the Latin Offices of Lauds and Vespers. We hear these words echoed constantly in the scriptures. The very message of Jesus was centered upon this concept and it is no mystery that such words led to our common perceptions of heaven, afterlife, and eternity. Yet, in Gnosticism, we can very often experience a far less identifiable role for the afterlife. Many Gnostics, in fact, subscribe to the far eastern philosophies of nirvana rather than to the western Christian obsession with eternal life. At worst, many sound like nihilists and materialists as the doctrine of heaven is slowly lost to the sometimes oppressive empirical observations of science and reason.
It begs the question: what was Jesus talking about when he referred to everlasting life and/or the Kingdom of Heaven?
And...
If there is no actual everlasting life, what then is the point of having a religious practice at all?
Are we just wasting our time if a successful 'Gnosis experience' leads us to conclude that intrinsically we are nothing and everything we are dissolves into this nothingness after death? Personally, I don't think so.
Ask any conventional theologian what the most important day of the Christian year is and he will tell you Easter. The reason for this is that the very heart of conventional Christian theology is absolutely dependent upon the physical rising of Christ from the dead. This theology teaches that by death Jesus Christ conquers death, not just for himself, but for all mankind. This was the purpose of the sacrifice on the cross. In a sense, he reverses the damage caused by Adam and Eve when their actions brought the condition of death into the world. Theologically and mythically, this sounds wonderful. Unfortunately, the empirical reality is that people still died and continue to die, so that while the effects of Jesus' physical rising from the dead somehow [theologically] removes the penalties death imposes upon us (i.e., dissolution into nothingness), we certainly do not physically share in this same experience (unless one were to subscribe to the raising of the dead at the end of time, which most Gnostics do not).
While it is true that one can draft a fairly reasonable psychological assessment about the afterlife and apply to it humanity's innate requirement for security coupled with its subconscious fear and insecurity (the root of most acquired psychological disorders), I cannot help but suspect that there is a deeper message here and that this afterlife doctrine must hold some ultimate truth at its heart. While I will not be so quick to declare that there is an affirmative continuity of consciousness [as we know it] at the point of death and beyond, I do believe there is enough philosophical evidence to suggest that all this religious practice is actually doing something remarkable for the practitioner.
For example, ask somebody to tell you who you are. I don't mean to suggest that they express what you are like, but rather what you are. And by you, I don't mean your body, but your essence or your essential self, if you will. Can they do it? Can you even do it? When describing another person, it is usually necessary to use a simile, a metaphor, or some basic adjectives (i.e., George is like an ox, he's so strong. Jessica is an angry person. Bob is so quiet and peaceful. The Dalai Lama is so full of compassion, etc.) The problem here is that these are merely aggregates of our ego states. They do not make up anything essential to who or what we think we are. In a sense, we could argue that the reason we must use such terminology when describing a person, is because such a person is, in actuality, nothing more than a careful, but random, accumulation of such aggregates.
So far, it may seem as if we are walking down that dark road of nihilism again, but when one considers that these aggregates are in fact universal, particular, profoundly transcendent, and eternal realities, the concept of everlasting life becomes more and more of an absolute reality. Some people might find me to be a compassionate person. One could then say that compassion is an aggregate that makes up my ego state. Now, when I die, my brain (which science would say contains my ego state) will rot along with the rest of my body, but compassion will live on transcendent and completely independent from any corruptible matter.
It would appear, then, that our eternal life awaits us within this intangible realm of universal properties- the same properties we attempt to acquire in abundance through the faith and works of religious practice. We are, most explicitly, a construct of universal principles set into motion by material forms. This matter obviously dissolves, but the universal principles cannot. They clearly live on in other people, future generations, and most certainly within the fabric of the cosmos itself. Why it is that these aggregates coming together within material form results in consciousness is still somewhat of a mystery, but I suspect it might have a lot to do with the possibility that consciousness and intelligence are eternal aggregates as well and that, by their very nature, ultimately prove the definitive existence of the eternal life of the Kingdom of Heaven Jesus talked so much about.
Fr. Bryan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
