Closed or Open Communion?

Today, Deacon Thomas Moreland joins us once again to discuss the issue of a closed communion with Bishop Bryan Ouellette. Mainstream Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox systems have stood by a long history of maintaining a closed communion, but in recent times, some leaders in the Roman Catholic Church have questioned the policy and would like to see Roman Catholics eventually offering the Eucharist to their protestant, non-Catholic Christian brethren. 

Should all Catholic Churches (Roman and Independent) move to adopt a tradition of open communion? What would Jesus do? This and more on the next new edition of Vestiges of Christianity.

Theological Conundrums: Who is Satan? Part 2

Last time Bishop Bryan introduced you to the problematic translations that gave rise to both Jesus and Satan being referred to under the same Biblical reference (i.e., satan {Hebrew for accuser} lucifer {Latin for Morning Star/Light-bearer} with the lower cases intentional). On Part 2, he will discuss the theological, esoteric, and mystical implications of this seemingly benign issue of semantics. Is the traditional interpretation correct? Is this just a play on Satan wanting to be worshiped like God? Is it simply an awkward translation problem? Or is there something deeper at work that only a reference to Hindu emanations can clarify?  Find out!

http://www.spreaker.com/user/eyeoftheseer

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

The Changing Face of Christianity

The death of liturgical Christianity is upon us. In a way, it was a death several hundred years in the making. But now, as we look upon the spiritual condition of our society, it has become abundantly evident as Christianity has slowly shifted towards a scriptural literalism that I believe is both dangerous and ill-conceived. Why has this happened? And what factors have contributed to this happening?

Central to this problem are many erroneous correlations currently being made by large groups of individuals with a specific agenda (i.e., the media). However, rather than spend more time on these entities than they are worth, it is best to simply consider the image they have projected to the rest of us. For example, the Roman Church is usually the first thought that comes to mind when one considers liturgical Christianity. After years of holy wars, religious intolerance, genocides, and child abuse scandals, society isn't as convinced that these ancient rituals of the Church lead one to a condition of holiness. In fact, it appears to such individuals that it does quite the opposite.

Next, we have the growing problem of immediate gratification. In a stress-based society such as ours where people thirst for instant results, expedient efficiency, and maximized utilization, three and a half hour liturgies don't make sense. I've watched Roman Catholics struggle to get through a 45 minute Mass on Sunday, a Mass that has been largely stream-lined to remain relevant to the weakening minds of the general population. I'd be a rather rich man if I could charge such people a nominal fee every time they walk out right after communion. Even that last six to ten minutes is so precious to them that they could not possibly allow the liturgy to conclude in its natural time. It's not good time utilization, you see.

Finally, we have the ever increasing problem of empiricism. In a world obsessed with scientific fact and historical certainty, the world has become less connected to mythological and archetypal truth. This again goes back to this absolute literalism that we so often see in the "feel-good" practices of modern evangelical Churches. To such people, symbolic truth isn't a truth at all.

In the first instance, one must remember that sacramental grace is not the same as a life of holiness. Ritual doesn't make one holy. The Sacraments provide a grace that is freely given, but must also be freely accepted in order to bring about a condition of holiness. While I would say that it is true that the power of a Sacrament is contained within the Sacrament itself, this power can only be activated by the faith of the individual. And honestly, faith is a condition terribly contradicted by our modern world.

The second and third issues are a defect of modern consciousness and are not easily resolved. Homosapiens are pack animals. Most people prefer to follow than to lead and right now we have a classic example of the blind leading the blind. Corporate America with its insatiable drive for ever greater expressions of absolute efficiency has indirectly (or maybe even directly) contaminated the human psyche. Now we have perfect little examples of the American Dream, no longer just in the world of consumerism, but in the very heart of the Church itself. Asinine doctrines like "prosperity theology" sell millions of people on the idea that God will write the checks as long as you continue to believe. When that doesn't work, people become victims to their own fear of hell and find themselves believing in God not because they love him, but because they want to get the most out of their afterlife. It's all about good business sense.

Like we have seen in our own history of western civilization, I believe that in the end, liturgical Christianity will be preserved only in the monasteries, by the monks who understand what great treasure it is that they have. As the Roman Church continues to disintegrate and the mass exodus of their congregations into the realms of blind evangelicalism and atheism endure, we will see a time where the mysteries of Christ are once again preserved for only those who "know" And this is fine. In a way, I almost prefer it this way. What Gnostic wouldn't?

Fr. Bryan