"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
Friday, June 4, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Basic Soteriology with Fr. Bryan D. Ouellette, Ph.D.
Basic Soteriology with Fr. Bryan D. Ouellette, Ph.D. from Universal Church of Autogenes on Vimeo.
Fr. Bryan discusses a Gnostic approach to the doctrine of Christian salvation. Is salvation necessary? It is important? Is it even compatible with the Gnostic world-view? Find out!
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
What is the Universal/Catholic Church?
The Catechetical Handbook of the Eastern Orthodox Church by D.H. Stamatis, Ph.D. (2003) describes a heretic as "a person who claims to be a Christian but does not believe in the Catholic faith. Instead, he holds to the teachings of men who mistakenly believe that every man has the right to explain the Holy Scriptures and its doctrines as seems best to himself."
Furthermore, it is stated that the fifth Commandment of the Orthodox Church "requires of us that we do not read the books of heretics, nor heed the blasphemous teachings of those who are untrained in Holy Scripture and in the Sacred Disciplines, nor take part in their discussions."
Part of my job as a priestly bridge between Orthodoxy and Gnosticism is to reconcile perceived differences, conflicts, and understandings of both theologies. I do honestly believe that the fundamental incompatibility of these two spiritual approaches are inherently derived from cultural bias and intentional ignorance. The above quote rather blatantly confirms the latter suspicion, but as I read and re-read these words, I felt compelled to deeply reflect upon how these words affect my Orthodoxy.
As a Gnostic and a Sethian, I could very well not care. Gnostics have an absolute right, as determined by the authority of their own tradition, to simply ignore any and all attempts at theological conformity. But as a minister of God who equally identifies himself as an "autocephalous Russian Orthodox priest," a simple dismissal of the core material would be both irresponsible and inconsiderate. In order to maintain the integrity of my ministerial description, that being both Sethian and Orthodox, I must make every effort to establish a firm position on all points that fall within expected contradiction between the two disciplines. But I have to say, this one was complicated and it led me to really wonder what is meant by the Universal/Catholic Church that I have been ordained into.
Let's first go back and reflect on the Orthodox definition of a heretic.
A heretic is defined to be, "a person who claims to be a Christian but does not believe in the Catholic faith". Incidentally, the Orthodox attach this term to all Protestants and all Roman Catholics, not just those of a Gnostic persuasion who consecrated their vocations outside of the "acceptable" episcopacy. Just by this acknowledgment, it becomes remarkably evident that "true" Catholicism is arbitrary and theoretical. Now, I must admit that Orthodoxy does have one powerful claim to hold the right to define it. It is their contention that the Universal/Catholic Church and all subsequent matters of faith and belief cannot be established by the act of one man's infallibility (in the case of the Papacy) or determined in the mind of private revelation (in the case of Gnosticism), but rather agreed upon by the counsels of the synod of Bishops. I do yield my objections this far in respect to this process. One of my primary criticisms of Protestantism is the personal interpretation of Holy Scripture. I've always felt that good theology is a group effort, maintained by the highest scholarly minds. But again, there is something also to be said for pure mystical experience, which is often something very much lacking in the left-brained world of higher theological education and conventional Church hierarchies.
Ultimately, I personally find the unfortunate flaw in Orthodoxy's approach to be written into the very "fifth Commandment of the Church". This idea that all Orthodox believers are "required" to not read heretical books or participate in similar discussions with such "problematic" people. Such a "law" can only lead one down a path of true ignorance, which is, not so ironically, the very antithesis of Gnostic ideology. A true Gnostic's purpose isn't to overthrow Orthodox teachings, lead the faithful astray, teach falsehood, lies, or to conduct one's affairs through premeditated treachery. No! Rather its only objective is to enlighten, to discern, to share, to experience, to realize, to know. And to do so never by means of coercion.
Which do you find to be the more enlightened approach?
Idealistically, my reconciliation between these two points of obvious contention rests within the simple fact that no man has any right of authority over any other man. Clergy are guides. Perhaps they have administrative authority by virtue of their positions, but this does not give them any right to perpetuate intentional ignorance and enforce it against their self-proclaimed subordinates. To assume such power as a clergyman is akin to what Orthodoxy would describe as Satanic manipulation.
I will always be troubled by this Orthodox definition of heresy and Catholicism. But I will remain forever hopeful that the Church's dynamic spirit will eventually move to such an enlightened state, that it will no longer be able to harbor such antiquated notions of censorship. Could it be that these Church leaders know, within their obvious wisdom and education, that there is truly more and they are afraid of it? I believe this is precisely the case and it is for this reason [sadly] that my autocephaly will remain my continued safeguard and protection against such pervasive dangers of conventionalism.
And yes, to you Dr. Stamatis, I am indeed a Christian and I most certainly believe in the Catholic faith and I do so with full intent because my own wisdom, experience, and intellect have confirmed that there is indeed more than what Orthodoxy is teaching us about God and I refuse to fear it. You may condemn me, my congregation, and my entire ministry, but such condemnation is based entirely upon the disease of intentional ignorance and that, my dear Dr. Stamatis, is a disease you can keep to yourself.
Fr. Bryan
Furthermore, it is stated that the fifth Commandment of the Orthodox Church "requires of us that we do not read the books of heretics, nor heed the blasphemous teachings of those who are untrained in Holy Scripture and in the Sacred Disciplines, nor take part in their discussions."
Part of my job as a priestly bridge between Orthodoxy and Gnosticism is to reconcile perceived differences, conflicts, and understandings of both theologies. I do honestly believe that the fundamental incompatibility of these two spiritual approaches are inherently derived from cultural bias and intentional ignorance. The above quote rather blatantly confirms the latter suspicion, but as I read and re-read these words, I felt compelled to deeply reflect upon how these words affect my Orthodoxy.
As a Gnostic and a Sethian, I could very well not care. Gnostics have an absolute right, as determined by the authority of their own tradition, to simply ignore any and all attempts at theological conformity. But as a minister of God who equally identifies himself as an "autocephalous Russian Orthodox priest," a simple dismissal of the core material would be both irresponsible and inconsiderate. In order to maintain the integrity of my ministerial description, that being both Sethian and Orthodox, I must make every effort to establish a firm position on all points that fall within expected contradiction between the two disciplines. But I have to say, this one was complicated and it led me to really wonder what is meant by the Universal/Catholic Church that I have been ordained into.
Let's first go back and reflect on the Orthodox definition of a heretic.
A heretic is defined to be, "a person who claims to be a Christian but does not believe in the Catholic faith". Incidentally, the Orthodox attach this term to all Protestants and all Roman Catholics, not just those of a Gnostic persuasion who consecrated their vocations outside of the "acceptable" episcopacy. Just by this acknowledgment, it becomes remarkably evident that "true" Catholicism is arbitrary and theoretical. Now, I must admit that Orthodoxy does have one powerful claim to hold the right to define it. It is their contention that the Universal/Catholic Church and all subsequent matters of faith and belief cannot be established by the act of one man's infallibility (in the case of the Papacy) or determined in the mind of private revelation (in the case of Gnosticism), but rather agreed upon by the counsels of the synod of Bishops. I do yield my objections this far in respect to this process. One of my primary criticisms of Protestantism is the personal interpretation of Holy Scripture. I've always felt that good theology is a group effort, maintained by the highest scholarly minds. But again, there is something also to be said for pure mystical experience, which is often something very much lacking in the left-brained world of higher theological education and conventional Church hierarchies.
Ultimately, I personally find the unfortunate flaw in Orthodoxy's approach to be written into the very "fifth Commandment of the Church". This idea that all Orthodox believers are "required" to not read heretical books or participate in similar discussions with such "problematic" people. Such a "law" can only lead one down a path of true ignorance, which is, not so ironically, the very antithesis of Gnostic ideology. A true Gnostic's purpose isn't to overthrow Orthodox teachings, lead the faithful astray, teach falsehood, lies, or to conduct one's affairs through premeditated treachery. No! Rather its only objective is to enlighten, to discern, to share, to experience, to realize, to know. And to do so never by means of coercion.
Which do you find to be the more enlightened approach?
Idealistically, my reconciliation between these two points of obvious contention rests within the simple fact that no man has any right of authority over any other man. Clergy are guides. Perhaps they have administrative authority by virtue of their positions, but this does not give them any right to perpetuate intentional ignorance and enforce it against their self-proclaimed subordinates. To assume such power as a clergyman is akin to what Orthodoxy would describe as Satanic manipulation.
I will always be troubled by this Orthodox definition of heresy and Catholicism. But I will remain forever hopeful that the Church's dynamic spirit will eventually move to such an enlightened state, that it will no longer be able to harbor such antiquated notions of censorship. Could it be that these Church leaders know, within their obvious wisdom and education, that there is truly more and they are afraid of it? I believe this is precisely the case and it is for this reason [sadly] that my autocephaly will remain my continued safeguard and protection against such pervasive dangers of conventionalism.
And yes, to you Dr. Stamatis, I am indeed a Christian and I most certainly believe in the Catholic faith and I do so with full intent because my own wisdom, experience, and intellect have confirmed that there is indeed more than what Orthodoxy is teaching us about God and I refuse to fear it. You may condemn me, my congregation, and my entire ministry, but such condemnation is based entirely upon the disease of intentional ignorance and that, my dear Dr. Stamatis, is a disease you can keep to yourself.
Fr. Bryan
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Our new Gnosticism series on Blogtalkradio
With your hosts:
Dr. Michael Jon Kell &
Dr. Bryan D. Ouellette +
Join leading esotericist and scientist Michael Jon Kell, M.D., Ph.D. and autocephalous Russian Orthodox priest and metaphysician Bryan D. Ouellette, Ph.D. as they discuss applied Occultism, Metaphysics and Gnosticism in a new and ever dynamic way. Prepare yourself for Man, Myth & the Occult: the symbiosis of science and religion.
Science and mathematics are quite new to the mind of mankind, whereas magick and mythology arose during the earliest days of simple conscious thought and dreaming. Based upon the cave drawings and burial sites uncovered by archeologists in Europe, magick and myth date back at least 40,000 years.
People often associate magick with demons, witches and satanic rites, however magick is much more than these perceptions. High ceremonial magick is really a methodology for learning about the universe and its functions, and is the forerunner of modern scientific thinking.
The purpose of this program is to explore the mythology and magical world of our species in a manner helpful for dealing with the problems of today. The audience is welcome to call into the show.
On the last show of every month, Father Bryan D. Ouellette, Ph.D. will explore Gnosticism with our very special regular guest, Bishop Mansell C. Gilmore. Learn the truth about Gnosticism from both a historical and modern perspective.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Apostolic Succession with Fr. Bryan D. Ouellette, Ph.D.
Apostolic Succession with Fr. Bryan D. Ouellette, Ph.D. from Universal Church of Autogenes on Vimeo.
Father Bryan expresses his views on the importance of Apostolic Succession and how it has impacted his priesthood and ministry.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Practical Gnosticism
Practical Gnosticism with Fr. Bryan D. Ouellette, Ph.D. from Universal Church of Autogenes on Vimeo.
Fr. Bryan discusses the relevance of Gnosticism within the confines of the conventional Christian Churches.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
