The Symbol of the Christian Cross

The stone cross on the hill: Tambako the Jaguar

By Art Gib

The topic of religion is often a touchy one, and often results in an apathetic discussion at best. However, no one can deny the prevalent influence that religion plays in many people’s lives. In the Western world, Christianity still dominates as the most popular religion among millions of people. And it is impossible not to recognize the many significant roles Christianity has played throughout history, whether it be through politics and government, wars and crusades, social structures, ideologies, and of course, personal convictions and practices.

Although Christian practices may be waning in several parts of the world, many people throughout the world are just as devout believers as ever have been before. Christianity continues to retain a strong presence in the world, even after thousands of years of history, as is evident by the many Christian symbols visible on streets, buildings, and elsewhere. And the most popular symbol of Christianity is the cross.

The Christian cross is by far the best-known Christian symbol, which often features atop church buildings, on walls and street corners, and on cross necklace jewelry. The symbol of the Christian cross has a long and interesting history that culminated to the present time in which, for Christian followers, the cross represents faith in Christ and is a symbol of hope in salvation through Christ.

Literally, the cross is a replica of the instrument on which Christ was killed. But it’s important to note that the symbol of the Christian cross is different than a crucifix. A crucifix is a cross that includes a representation of Jesus’ body and represents the crucifixion of Christ. On the other hand, while the cross still represents the instrument on which Christ was killed, it does not feature a representation of the Jesus’ body. The absence of Christ’s body makes the cross more of a symbol of Christ’s resurrection and the hope for life after death and salvation, rather than merely a symbol of death.

In early Christianity, the cross was seldom used as a hopeful symbol, as it directly correlated in most people’s mind to a painful and gruesome method of public execution that still occurred during the first two centuries of Christianity. Instead of the cross, Christianity was most often symbolized by a fish representation called the Ichthys.

However, as is made evident by early writings, the cross was associated with the Christian movement from as early as the second century, and there is evidence that the tradition of tracing the cross on foreheads was popular among Christians. Despite the introduction of the cross into worship practices, many early Church Fathers had to frequently defend themselves against the accusations that they worshipped the cross. There is also evidence that many of the early Christian faith used to swear by the power of the cross.

But early protestations against the use of the cross were not uncommon. Some church leaders condemned the sign of the cross, believing that it had pagan origins. Indeed, cross-like symbols were used prior to Christianity in several different religious rituals and practices. Eventually, the cross lost its pagan associations, and during the 5th century, the first Christian cross appeared on a piece of Christian architecture.

Interestingly, the first Christian crosses were not of the same shape that we are used to seeing today. The first crosses were Greek crosses which had four arms, all of equal length. Later, crosses in the shape of a “T” became common, and finally, the Roman cross, which is the cross most of us are familiar with today, became the Christian cross most prevalent among artwork and architecture.

Since the symbol’s inception, the popularity of the cross grew first among Catholicism, which places a great deal of emphasis on the use of symbols and tradition, and then among Protestantism. And the popularity of the symbol continues to grow into the present time. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox, and some members of Lutheranism and even some Anglicans and Protestants makes the sign of the cross on themselves as a sign of devotion and faith. And there are even a few Christian holidays that commemorate the cross.

In addition, during religious celebrations such as Easter, First Communion, baptism, and other Catholic and Protestant events, it is common to give cross necklace jewelry to loved ones to symbolize their faith, and many Christians adorn their homes with crosses.

The symbol of the cross is now farther removed from the notion of a painful and excruciating death and holds a variety of related meanings and reminders. The cross can be viewed as symbol of self-denial, as the Bible records that Christ asked his followers to take up their cross and follow him, indicating that those who believe in Christ should sacrifice their worldly ambitions and lead a life devoted to God.

The cross is also a symbol of the shame and suffering that Christ overcame out of love for humankind. The Christian cross serves as a reminder to believers all that Christ suffered in order to overcome death and provide salvation to his followers.

However, the cross is most often construed as a representation of God’s love and Christ’s sacrifice and atonement that took place at Calvary. Hence, the cross also symbolizes God’s reconciliation with humankind. The absence of Christ’s body on the cross also symbolizes Jesus’ victory over sin and death and that through him, humanity can also overcome death and achieve salvation.

The symbol of the Christian cross is a powerful representation for many Christian believers. The symbol has lasted centuries and is likely to last for several centuries to come. Although Christian practices may have evolved and changed, the symbol of the Christian cross has retained its singular importance in the Christian religion, and for those who believe in Christianity, the cross is a powerful representation of faith, devotion, and salvation.

Article Source: Articles Engine

Christian Gifts and Jewelry (http://www.christiangifts-jewelry.com/) are a Christian Store dedicated to bringing your quality inspirational gifts, keepsakes and cross necklace jewelry. Art Gib is a freelance writer.

Conversations with a Mystic, Part 3: Michael Clark, Ph.D. talks with Teresa Silverthorn

The Arrival by Paul Hocksenar

Copyright © Michael Clark and Teresa Silverthorn 2009. All rights reserved.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 4

The following took place January 28-February 11, 2009.

Michael Clark: Teresa, thank you once again for agreeing to speak with me at earthpages.org.

This time I’d like to touch on the topic of extraterrestrials. And perhaps we could take a look at the related area of UFOs.

But before we begin, we really should tell our readers that we’ve agreed to make this conversation a little bit different.

Perhaps you could say what’s different this time…

Teresa Silverthorn: Hello again, Dr. Clark.  Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain mysticism via this important dialogue.  I have been able to clarify, perhaps, a few things about mysticism that may have been misunderstood beforehand.  But, to answer your question, I would like the readers to understand, that at this point, I would like to afford Dr. Clark the same opportunity, and also begin a new dialogue on various vital subjects that should be examined.

Dr. Clark, I have noticed on your website, that you appear to be a very broad-minded individual, according to the articles you have shared on Earthpages.org.  I find it refreshing, that although you have a heavy background in religion, specifically Christianity, you seem to have a desire to understand not only other religions and faiths, but areas which most Christians normally avoid.  Such as: remote viewing, extraterrestrial life, PSI, ufology, sychronicity, and other metaphysical subjects that are both extremely popular and becoming widely accepted throughout the world.

I think the readers of this dialogue, would be fascinated to hear how you came to have these interests, whether you have found any validity in any of them, and if your Christian training has allowed this information to merge into your personal viewpoints, therefore enhancing your faith walk.

Would you care to elaborate on the above observations?

Michael Clark: Whoa! Teresa. What you’ve asked is for me to write my autobiography! Could you please break that down a bit? In all honesty I work best with short questions and answers. As a volunteer at allexperts.com I typically wince when I see long and involved questions. Not to say that your question is anything less than excellent. But please… where would you like me to begin?

Teresa Silverthorn: Begin with honesty, I suppose.  These are fair questions, but also important ones.  How do you coincide your Christian background with your study of the aforementioned metaphysical subjects?  As I stated, in my 30 years working for ministries, I know that these topics are considered taboo by every church I worked for. And, giving credence to other religions, was also not common, whatsoever.

Start there?

Michael Clark: Yes, thank you. That helps.

Well Teresa, they say that mystics are supposed to be wise. And your question hit me something like a bowling ball. 10-pin strike for sure!

Okay, humor aside, I’ve had a bit of time to mull over your excellent question.

I think the best place to start is childhood. Looking back I can say that God gave me an inquisitive mind. Although baptized in the Anglican Church of Canada, I never really went to church as a kid, other than the obligatory weddings and funerals.

But I was curious. Very curious. I recall spinning around in the living room as a child to purposely make myself dizzy to study the effects of disequilibrium. I was fascinated by the fact that the apparently solid world of our living room could appear in such an irregular, almost fluidic way.

Luckily I grew out of this and began to ponder the night summer sky at Georgian Bay, where in the 1960s almost no light pollution could be seen. Infinity… what is it? I remember grappling with that as a child. I mean, how can something just go on and on and on and on…

Getting the picture?

I began life with a combination of spiritual, scientific and philosophical roots. And I suppose I continue to develop those God-given attributes to this very day.

Teresa Silverthorn: I do have quite a bit of experience as a mystic, but I’m only hoping that I am wise.  I think wisdom is measured by how those experiences, and the information gained by them, is processed, and ultimately shared.

But, thank you for the compliment.  I’m honored that someone of your intellect even remotely considers me wise….

After reading your response, I began to wonder about other people who have had a more intense religious background than yourself, and whether they will ever have the common sense approach to these topics, that you have.

Even though you have obtained your P.h.d. in Religion, you have managed to keep a door open to many mysteries which, specifically, Christianity denounces as false and/or misleading.  I am surprised by these viewpoints, as they tend to directly contradict many of the teachings of the Bible.

Such as extraterrestrial life, for instance. While the Protestants seem to be dismissing the existence of other worlds altogether,  the Vatican released a statement to the press several years ago, confirming the probable existence of extraterrestrials.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/14/news/vat.php

Dr. Clark, coming from your broadminded perspective, how do you feel about this topic?  Do you agree with the Vatican, considering that you are a Roman Catholic?

Michael Clark: Well, Teresa, I think one of the great strengths of Catholicism is its willingness to look at the Bible in an intelligent manner. Not everyone is aware that Catholics don’t read the Bible as a scientific but, instead, as a moral and theological work.

So many folks seem to roundly criticize “Christianity” or “The Church” without taking into account important differences that exist among Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Fundamentalist and other denominations.

As a confirmed Catholic (2001), I don’t feel it’s my calling to vigorously defend the current state of Catholicism. There are aspects that I love, such as partaking in the Eucharist, and others that I feel could be further developed.

As for the topic of extraterrestrials, well, I thought I’d be asking you about that! And hopefully I can. But to answer your question, yes, I believe that extraterrestrials and extraordinary kinds of interstellar craft could exist. But I’ve never seen an extraterrestrial or UFO, so this hypothesis remains just that–an hypothesis.

Teresa Silverthorn: So, therefore, you believe they could exist.  But, since you’ve had no personal experience in that area, you do not know they exist. (And, thank you for clarifying that Catholicism looks at the Bible as merely a theological work, but I feel there are some eluded truths within it).

This topic is absolutely the most confounding I’ve ever encountered.. It amazes me how there are some people who still, to this day, object to the consideration that there could be another civilization beyond Planet Earth.

For instance, I have never seen, with my own eyes, the Tongan Trench.  But, to say that there is no possibility of life in the depths of the Pacific Ocean would be considered naive.  Honestly, there are times I am embarassed by my fellow human beings when they say such things.

But, I digress.

Dr. Clark, there is currently a theory that is becoming more and more common among the intellectual community. The theory is suggesting that humanity was more than likely created by an alien race. Science has begun studies and experimentation with dna cloning, and such, and the conjecture has been that this is perhaps, how we were created.

Cloning.

Does this not concur with the book of Genesis, that we were created in the image of our creators?  Meaning, the dna of an alien race was used as a “pattern” for creation.  Therefore, we hold many of the same characteristics, but have merely adapted to this planet, as many have had to adapt to their own.

Your thoughts?

Michael Clark: Well, actually I said I’ve never seen an extraterrestrial or UFO. But as a prayerful person I have, from time to time, discerned unconventional presences that certainly didn’t feel like the Holy Spirit. And I’ve wondered… could it be?

There’s also the possibility that demonic forces want people to believe in extraterrestrials for some nefarious reason.

So as a scientifically minded person I need hard proof. And that means seeing with the conventional senses.

Now as for the second part of your question, I do think it’s possible that we’ve been ’seeded,’ as it were. I know this sounds way out there for most people. But when you consider the scope of the universe and our littleness within it, why is it such a strange hypothesis?

However, I don’t think this is necessarily what the Book of Genesis is talking about because if extraterrestrials did seed the Earth, God would have created those extraterrestrials in the first place.

The extraterrestrials would not be equal to God.

And when we read that mankind is created in God’s image, I feel that this has some deep, mysterious meaning and should probably not be taken too literally-as with much of the Bible.

A Christian Scientist and I once talked about this “Man in His image” idea. I can’t remember exactly what she said but her view had something to do with mankind’s various attributes being a reflection of the fullness of God. It wasn’t a literal but a symbolic interpretation. And that’s how I tend to look at this aspect of the Bible, perhaps not in exactly the same way as the Christian Scientists… but interpretively.

Teresa Silverthorn: Most people, when asked who created humanity say:

God.

Therefore, if extraterrestrials created humanity, it appears that they would be God.

It’s amazing that after a person accepts that we were created by an alien race, and that humanity has been unknowingly calling  them God,  they immediately ask:

Then who created extraterrestrials?

I look at is this way.  It’s a big step to simply accept that extraterrestrials exist, that we were created by them, and that we have been calling them God for thousands of thousands of years.  As far as who created them?

We’ll leave that to the next generation.

And, I disagree about Genesis.  I think it does elude to extraterrestrials, and so do many other people.  And, I don’t think demonic forces are concerned with extraterrestrials, at all.

Michael Clark: Yes well, I said the possibility of demonic forces. After saying that I thought of another prospect-some extraterrestrials are real and others might be deceptions or misinterpretations.

I say this because, as a Christian, I believe that evil has power to influence people. I’d also say that some people go through a process of interpretation after having had an unconventional experience.

As for how to interpret the Bible, this raises some worthwhile questions that we might like to look at in future conversations. But right now I’d like to hear more about your views on extraterrestrials.

As a mystic, what do you know?

Teresa Silverthorn: I don’t think that Christians are the only ones that believe evil has power to influence people.  But, in the spirit of the current topic, extraterrestrials are the last thing to be concerned about when fearing evil influence.

If one has an inclination to fear, fear humans. There’s much more proof available of their destruction, than of any demon or extraterrestrial.

Yes, some extraterrestrials are deceptions.  Take every image you’ve seen in films and discard it, in that case.  Every science fiction magazine, conspiracy book and television series depicts misinterpretations of our creators.

Now, start over.

Can you do that?

Michael Clark: So what are extraterrestrials trying to tell us?

Some say that our invention of the atomic bomb caught their attention.

Apparently the blasts sent ripples through space-time that are messing things up in ways we can hardly understand. Almost like a toddler with a grenade in its hands. Concerned parents are going to say STOP! and do everything they can to take it away from the child.

Do you agree with this theory?

Teresa Silverthorn: The atom bomb came way after we initially caught their attention.  We’ve caught their attention since the beginning of time.  They’ve been here since we were created.

They have many ways of being here, tho.

Which, is probably why there is so much controversy over their existence to begin with.  You must remember that these visitors have their own form of existence, which doesn’t coincide with our own.

Which, again, is quite annoying to those people who are desperately trying to share this information with others.

Very sad.

Like trying to explain a cloud to a blind man, who doesn’t even believe there’s a sky.

Michael Clark: Are you talking about inter-dimensional beings?

This is something I’ve considered over the years. Initially I assumed these beings, if they existed, would not have physical bodies as we know them.

But it seems that some could have physical bodies and be able to project their thoughts through space and time.

An interesting twist to this is the notion that UFOs (that is, highly advanced spacecraft) act as a kind of amplifier to embodied extraterrestrials’ thoughts. In other words, extraterrestrials just think “I want to go to Earth” and their vehicle amplifies that, enabling them to create and travel through space-time corridors.

We’ve seen similar ideas in Star Trek and other science fiction books, TV shows and movies.

But could this be real?

Teresa Silverthorn: Well, Dr. Clark, they do exist.

Interdimensionally, or not. They are an amazing array of delightful individuals that will, someday, be allowed to share their knowledge, technology and stories with everyone – publicly.

Until both my government, and yours, introduces our worlds to each other, they will politely remain as non-visual as possible.

Michael Clark: Teresa, this brings me to my next and perhaps final question.

A lot of folks are talking about “acclimatization.” They see sci-fi themes as a kind of acculturation of the human race to the concept and, in fact, subtle presence of extraterrestrial life.

You may have heard of this. If I’ve got it right, the idea is that extraterrestrials psychically influence some creative individuals to come up with seemingly far out themes in literature, TV, movies and even advertising.

Does this notion of acclimatization fit in with what you are saying?

Teresa Silverthorn: I suppose everyone must have time to accept that we aren’t the only living things in the universe, as we have, perhaps, been led to believe since childhood.  I’m sure our parents meant well when they told us that there was no such thing as ghosts, aliens, or anything else that might have frightened us.  And, in the meantime, the media will continue to depict such things in a sensational manner, in order to gain profit from  both our fears, and our ignorance.

Certainly, there is information for those who are willing to accept it, and merely “connect the dots” in order to infuse a higher understanding. But, there are, unfortunately, still those among us who only see dots, and have no willingness to see the bridges between them.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 4

~ ~ ~

Visit Teresa Silverthorn’s website, Confessions of a Mystic: True Stories

Conversations with a Mystic, Part 2: Michael Clark, Ph.D. talks with Teresa Silverthorn

Searching for enlightenment by Manny Z

Copyright © Michael Clark and Teresa Silverthorn 2009. All rights reserved.

Part 1 | Part 3 | Part 4

The following took place January 24-27, 2009.

Michael Clark: Teresa, thank you for agreeing to a second interview. Hopefully we can build on the first and explore topics which would benefit a wide variety of readers.

Teresa Silverthorn: Ahh, Dr. Clark.  We meet again..

Michael Clark: Yes, and I’d like to pick up from our last dialogue. You most eloquently spoke of a ”universal, non-selective grace, over all religions, and all people…”

Could you elaborate on this? It’s been my experience that numinosity differs among different paths, not just in intensity but in character. Along these lines, I’ve spoken to several others who have encountered different textures and qualities of the numinous.

You speak of a grace that runs over all religions. Are you suggesting, then, some kind of universal replacement for all existing religions?

Teresa Silverthorn: I would never suggest or imply that there is a need, or a desire, for universal replacement.  I simply hope that all religions would someday recognize that only one creation was made, which propagated:

Specifically, in this case, the human, in its most primitive form.

Therefore, when each religion refers and prays to their Creator, they would recognize that there was only one creator, and one creation.

(Unless, of course these religions are also stating that they were created by multiple creators.  But, then again, that would be saying that there is more than one “God” which doesn’t seem to be a popular belief, whatsoever. I am aware that the Hindus believe in several gods, so do the Pagans, but am not clear as to whether they feel these gods created their particular race or religion.)

At this point, it is mere logic to conclude that the division between religions is a human decision, not the decision of that creator.

Therefore, the Creator, is non-selective and non-exclusive.

I heard a quote one day, and never forgot it, closely concerning this very topic:

Put a group of Masters in a room, and they will agree on everything.

Put a group of students in a room, and they will disagree on everything.

In this case, we, the humans, are the students.

Michael Clark: Well, as you know, I lived and studied in India. And for the most part Hindus believe that their many gods and goddesses are manifestations of one God. Some schools call this one God the Brahman (not to be confused with the Brahmin caste).

The idea here is that the unmanifest aspect of God is one but the manifest aspect appears as many–for example, Brahma (Creator), Visnu (Preserver) and Siva (Destroyer). For Hindus these three phases of God help to keep the cosmos rolling. Otherwise, there would be no creation, time nor change.

To extend this idea a bit, do you suppose we might have a similar situation with regard to the existence of one God but many religions? And, if so, why? I mean, why does mankind splinter absolute truth into so many different and, I would argue, imperfect fragments?

Teresa Silverthorn: Why is this absolute truth splintered?  I’m glad you asked me that, because earlier today I was thinking of an analogy given to me by one of my dearest teachers, in my training:

“When the earth was first created, and the inhabitants grew in numbers, a crystal ball of truth was cast upon the land.  When it struck the surface, it shattered into many pieces.

Upon this, the inhabitants gathered and gazed up those shattered crystals, and carefully picked each one up, and gently carried them away.

Each person carried with them one piece of that crystal ball of truth, and began their own traditions, forms of worship and pathways of wisdom.

Therefore, in order to gain the entire truth, you must gather them back together, re-forming the original “whole.”

This satisfied my own curiosity as far as the division of religions and mindsets.  I needed no further answers, to this age-old question.

Michael Clark: That’s interesting. I’ve tended to view the division of religions in terms of cultural biases mingling with different types of spirituality and, in some instances, bona fide grace.

I say “in some instances” because I’m not convinced that one person’s experience of grace is the same as another’s. In fact, I question some forms of spirituality.

Do you believe in the existence of evil? And if so, would you say as a mystic that evil possibly generates deceptive interior lights, perceptions and powers which some believe are good and from God when, in truth, they’re not?

Teresa Silverthorn: This seems to be a popular topic among the philosophers and deep thinkers of our current times.  That is, does evil exist?

Instead of answering your question immediately, I find it interesting that the question even needs to be asked.  Not only by yourself, but by anyone.  It seems to be apparent to me, that evil does, indeed, exist.  Not only currently, but throughout history.

The Holocaust, would be a prime example.  I doubt anyone could argue that this event was anything but evil.

Seeking enlightenment by Adarsh Antony

Child abuse.

Hate crimes.

Unrighteous persecution of the innocent.

Need I continue?

As far as questioning someone else’s spirituality, I would tend to agree that there have been accounts in current times, where I would do the same. Several years ago, a young woman claimed that Jesus told her to kill her newborn infant.

Res Ipsa Loquitur.

But, she was obviously not a mystic.  A mystic is trained in discernment, and able to clarify the difference between the many facets of this topic.

But for those who are still wondering, I could only offer my opinion in this matter, which may concur with the popular viewpoint – or not.

Consider the term evil wrongdoing. Put the two words together, and you have an aggressive term.  Separate them, and they take on quite a different meaning.  The term evil, by itself, becomes passive.  It is only aggressive, when paired with wrongdoing.

Meaning, there are pools of dormant wrongdoings which lay within all of us.  But, it takes a human to make that pool gush upward, creating a ripple effect of evil.

Certainly, all of us have considered an act which have laid dormant in our minds.  Thoughts of revenge, specifically.  But, I wouldn’t consider them necessarily evil, unless we act upon them…

Michael Clark: This reminds me a bit of a priest in the RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults). He said we’re always under spiritual attack but sin only arises when one becomes aware of and chooses to act on a harmful influence.

But this isn’t just a Catholic perspective. Many traditions speak of demonic forces and the importance of discernment. I remember a Hindu teacher reading a passage about how the Indian mind is careful to distinguish among Godly powers, evil influences, delusions and the imagination.

And leads to my next question.

We’re not exactly born into this world with a ‘users manual’ in our hands. So what, in your opinion, are the main criteria for the discernment of positive and negative spiritual influences?

Teresa Silverthorn: I’m glad to see a commonality between Catholicism and the Hindu religion. If only they could see it themselves..

But, to answer your question, which, in my opinion, is one of the most important topics of this dialogue:

What is the main criteria for the discernment of positive and negative spiritual influences?

Although this information is rather complicated, I’ll do my best to simplify it as it is so important for you, and your readers, to understand.

Let’s begin by reducing the terminology to negative and positive spirits - instead of spiritual influence.  This might make it easier to explain.

Your thoughts, your behavioral patterns and emotional make-up will attract a common “crowd,” if you will.  In other words, you attract to yourself, that which you are.

Meaning, if you are a deceitful person, you will attract deceitful spirits.  If you are a truthful person, you will attract truthful spirits.

If you are a loving person, you will attract loving spirits.  And, if you are a hateful person, you will attract hateful spirits.

What creates these behavioral patterns, is something for psychologists to discern.  Personally, I feel it is upbringing, peer groups, experiences and even the media.  You are a product of all of these influences, and, in effect, become them.

We are born pure, in my opinion.  And, through time, are re-formed continually by those around us, causing our minds to develop certain behavioral traits.  These traits are the very thing that attracts both negative and positive spirits to your side.

If you want pure spiritual influence, purify your mind.  But, if it is not completely pure, you will still attract the company of spirits who have clued into that small piece of you – that isn’t clean.

So how do you discern what type of spiritual influence you are receiving?

Check yourself – first.

Michael Clark: Yes, in everyday conversation we hear about “bad vibes” and I think some of this could point to the existence of negative spirits, along with impure regions of the spirit, if you will.

I’ve often wondered if those who grumble about picking up other people’s bad vibes are on a spiritual ego trip. That is, do they see themselves as spiritually superior when perhaps they’re stuck in a kind of halfway house of spiritual egotism?

To me it seems that true spirituality is not about self-aggrandizement but, rather, about humility and trying to do God’s will.

Having said that, do you think it possible that some extremely pure and holy souls take on the sins of others? Isn’t that what intercession is partly about?

Along these lines, the Indologist Wendy Doniger says Hindus believe in the invisible transfer of karma from one living being to another. Adherents of Jainism, too, speak of karma transfer, using the analogy of a magnet. Jains say that spiritual impurities fly to the pure soul like “iron filings to a magnet.”

And among other non-Christian traditions we hear of the so-called Wounded Healer.

So, to return to my question, might some exceedingly pure and holy souls pick up bad vibes simply because they’re so close to God? Or does the dynamic of ‘impurity attracting impurity’ that you mention always apply?

Teresa Silverthorn: With all respect, I think you have misinterpreted the meaning of “bad vibes.”  As I recall, that term first came in the late 1960’s, and meant, simply, that a person was sensing a negative attitude (sometimes referred to as energy), from another person.

As far as karma, I’m not familiar with Doniger’s viewpoint, or her work. Karma, as I understand it, is simply work left undone.  If you pick up someone’s karma, you may end up on the receiving end of a debt they actually owed to someone else, but are unable to do it.

For instance, I worked for a wonderful employer at one time in my life.  He was exceedingly generous to me, but there was no possible way to return his kindness as he moved shortly thereafter.  Because of this, I devised “The Flanagan Fund,” which is my way of repaying that debt. I felt I owed “karma” and others are receiving that repayment of kindness, instead of my boss.

As far as exceedingly holy souls picking up negativity from others, the only thing I can offer, on that subject, is my sympathy.  It is a difficult world for all of us.  But, for those who are attempting, in these troublesome times, to do the right thing, I can only admire their efforts…

Michael Clark: Well, meanings within a living language such as English are often polymorphous. That’s why semiologists like Jacques Derrida talk about endless chains of connotation.

As for the notion of karma transfer and its possible connection to sin-taking, this is outlined a bit more fully here:

http://earthpages.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/karma-transfer/

To return to our dialogue, however, I wholeheartedly agree on the importance of trying to do the right thing.

We could continue here with a discussion about situational vs. absolute ethics, the art of compromise and so on. But we’ve already covered a lot of good ground and perhaps could look into these and other subjects at a later date.

Thanks again, Teresa, for generously offering your time and I truly hope we can do this again to probe deeper into even more esoteric and controversial topics.

It’s been most enjoyable!

Teresa Silverthorn: Dr.Clark, for the sake of our readers, in our next dialogue, I would like to ask you some questions that the world would be interested in asking people such as yourself. Would you agree?

Michael Clark: I’ll certainly agree to your asking questions. How I may or may not reply I’ll reserve for my own judgment!

Teresa Silverthorn: Excellent, we will meet again, Dr. Clark…

Part 1 | Part 3 | Part 4

~ ~ ~

Visit Teresa Silverthorn’s website, Confessions of a Mystic: True Stories

Conversations with a Mystic: Michael Clark, Ph.D. talks with Teresa Silverthorn

A Separate Reality by Norval Morrisseau, painted from 1979 - 1984. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Ottawa, Canada (Photo: Vlasta Juricek)

Copyright © Michael Clark and Teresa Silverthorn 2009. All rights reserved.

Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

The following took place January 19-22, 2009.

Michael Clark: Teresa, thank you for suggesting that we take time to engage in this online dialogue. I hope that our readers will find it illuminating.

My first question has to do with the nature of mysticism. Would it be possible for you to sum up what you feel are the main points in mysticism?

I mean, what is it?

Teresa Silverthorn: Thank you, Dr. Clark, for agreeing to share this information with your readers.  It is my greatest hope that I may be helpful to all people, within every religion, and aid in their own faith walk, with my personal experiences.

Each mystic, throughout history, has had varied experiences.  And, therefore, would define this term from their own perspective.  For myself, I would use the term explorer. I, and mystics with similar experiences, have gone beyond the written word, into the heights of the unknown, bringing back treasures of information from foreign locations which others have merely theorized as existing.  It is those that actually walk upon the land, that can verify its existence and return with the knowledge, that, to this day, has been used for many holy texts.

Therefore, after one actually experiences an event, or sees the varied landscapes of that unseen reality, they are now considered ones who know rather than ones who wonder. It is not a matter of ego to know that which you have experienced.  It is only a matter of factual recollection.

As a result, the explorer, becomes the point-of-contact for that theory, or wonderment.  Because, at this point, that explorer, that mystic – knows.

Michael Clark: When you speak of factual recollection are you talking in a Platonic sense, as in recollecting the allegedly timeless Forms or do you simply mean that one knows by remembering what one experienced?

Teresa Silverthorn: Admittedly, I had to brush up on my Platonic theories in order to fully understand your question. When I first discovered Plato, nearly 20 years ago, I wasn’t fully recognizing the sheer brilliance of his work.  I suppose I was more intrigued by the techniques that Socrates used in his dialogues, than the content.

But, when I read the Platonic theory of recollection, I had to smile.  I wouldn’t have agreed with him 20 years ago, but I do now, in a small sense.

While it is true that the soul matter is recycled, allowing the new user, i.e. the human, to access the hidden crevices of its databanks, it takes a certain type of environment in order to accomplish this.

And, in my opinion, if this environment were readily available, all people would have the information we’re discussing right now, and there would be no need to question it, whatsoever.

But, that isn’t the case.

Although, I do agree, in part, with Plato’s theory of factual recollection, I was only stating that term in its purest form.

I know – because I experienced these things firsthand, and can readily rally them to mind.

Michael Clark: Okay… now, you state that you know because you have had unconventional experiences which, I assume, were for you beyond a shadow of a doubt as to their truthfulness. And that knowing also involves your being able to “rally them” to mind.

By using the phrase “rally them” are we talking about electrochemically encoded memory (as in current theories about memory and the brain) or an ability to reactivate the total experience?

Teresa Silverthorn: By “rally them” to mind, I simply mean that after documenting them at the time, concurring with others that witnessed many of these events, extricating myself from the sense of denial that many people experience, I am able to consciously accept them as fact.

If there is a scientific term for this procedure, I am unaware of it.  You must understand that I did not enter the field of mysticism through books, or scientific terminology.  And, more than likely, no mystics, in history, have done so.  I would say, with all respect, that books and scientific terminology were created as a means of analyzing the experiences of people such as myself in order to categorize and better understand our efforts to share information with others.

Michael Clark: For many people the term ‘mysticism’ denotes an esoteric, internal experience that usually cannot be easily shared with others. But you say that you concur “with others that witnessed many of these events.”

Does this mean that others have the same type of inner experience or, by way of contrast, do they encounter some kind of outer phenomenon such as a miracle?

Teresa Silverthorn: Ah, you have asked an excellent question, Dr. Clark.  But, there is one vital point I’d like to make before I address the second half of your statement.

I disagree that mystics find it difficult to share these internal experiences with others.  I, like many others, have found that these experiences aren’t well received by others, therefore, am selective of who I share them with.  Mystics, in history, have been killed for sharing too much with others.  They have been slaughtered by those who are envious, and shunned by those who are concerned that these mystics will reveal something, perhaps, that would threaten their power, or control.  When I was a Catholic, I was warned, by the priest, to remain silent.  Afterwards, I heard that there was a group of mystics in another part of the country, who were ex-communicated from the Roman Catholic Church because their revelations did not coincide with the teachings of Christianity.

I did not remain silent.  And, I was not ex-communicated.

I left.

Interestingly, the Roman Catholic Church never questioned my validity. No one suggested that wasn’t a mystic. They were simply concerned that I would reveal something that was best left unsaid.

Luckily, there are laws now protecting people with special abilities, unlike in the past where innocent women were burned, dunked and hung for sharing their experiences with others. If not, I probably wouldn’t be here, today, speaking of mine…

Others have, indeed, been present to witness the result of my prayers.  But, my prayers were for protection, not for harm.  My requests have been for the good of all, not only for myself.  Yes, there have been witnesses to these events, and they have been documented for years.  But, this documentation isn’t necessarily for the public.  It is for me.  I consider these memoirs to be a constant reminder of my faith, in a world that is, at times, unstable.

Bear in mind, once again, that I am only answering your question truthfully.  My hope is to help all people nurture their own seeds of mysticism, through this information.

Michael Clark: It sounds like you are talking about the prayer of intercession. In Catholic circles this kind of prayer is understood to take two main forms–vocal and mental.

Mental doesn’t mean “crazy” as in popular discourse. Rather, it means the prayer is inward, quiet and benefits both self and others. It benefits self because the person praying continues to relate with God in a very personal, intimate and heartfelt manner. And it benefits others because purifying graces mystically transfer from God through the mediator to others in need of divine assistance. This is the belief, at any rate. The unifying factor is that which Catholics call the mystical body of Christ.

Now, I’m curious as to how your practice fits with this set of beliefs. Could it be that you really are a true Catholic after all, but just one turned off by the organizational aspects of Catholicism and perhaps lukewarm souls who just go for appearances, etc? This is just a thought off the top of my head. If I’m wrong, please say so.

Teresa Silverthorn: A true Catholic? In all honesty, sir, I wanted to be.  I sincerely wanted to be.  But, the power that surrounds me had its own ideas for my destiny.  I was only a fervent seeker of the Catholic path for a few, blissful years.  But, it was made clear to me, at a certain point, that it was time to go.

And, in retrospect, I was wise to leave.  If I hadn’t, I wouldn’t have expanded my knowledge to the point of clarifying the enormity of the aforementioned power, and its universal, non-selective grace, over all religions, and all people…

Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

~ ~ ~

Visit Teresa Silverthorn’s website, Confessions of a Mystic: True Stories

The Dislike of Catholicism: Understanding the Holy in the Catholic Tradition, Part 6 – Philosophical and Historical reasons / Conclusion

Roman Catholic by digitalexander

Copyright © Michael W. Clark, 2008.
All rights reserved.

Part 1 – Introduction
Part 2 – Theory and Method
Part 3 – Theological reasons
Part 4 – Social and Political reasons
Part 5 – Psychological reasons
Part 6 – Philosophical and Historical reasons / Conclusion

Philosophical Reasons

Philosophy is a diverse and ancient discipline, making it extremely difficult to write just a few lines on why people dislike Catholicism from that perspective.

Having said that, a very broad distinction can be made between philosophers who rely solely on thinking, or believe they do, and those who are open to the theological idea that reason can follow divine revelation or be inspired by God.

The former type, the thinkers, seem to get tangled up in a web of conceptual thinking, perhaps never learning anything beyond their own abstract ideas. For convenience we’ll call these ‘type A.’ The latter type, the experiential, consider the possibility that thought may be informed by religious experience. And these we’ll call ‘type B.’

Type A individuals may or may not believe in a Godhead. But their ideas tend to be limited to their likewise limited experience of the numinous.

Type B’s likely would believe in some notion of God, perhaps pantheistic or theistic. But even so, their ideas might be restricted by a particular numinous experience or set of experiences.

If neither A nor B had experienced the numinous within a Catholic setting, they’d have no reason to believe in the spiritual efficacy of Catholicism. By the same token, Catholics who consciously sense the Holy Spirit upon entering a Church and through the sacraments (such as the Eucharist) do have reason to believe in their religion. They may not agree with all aspects of Catholicism as it currently stands but a certain respect remains for its core elements.

Historical Reasons

Finally, there are definite historical reasons why people dislike Catholicism.

Often when one says the words ‘Mass’ or ‘Church’ others instantly recall the difficult aspects of Catholic history, such as the Inquisitions, the torture of so-called witches and blatantly greedy, reprobate Popes. This is unfortunate because it leaves very little room for considering the positive aspects of contemporary Catholicism.

And then we have Psycho-history. Perhaps an unfortunate sounding title, Psycho-history is not about Alfred Hitchcock’s Norman Bates or disturbed people who go on killing sprees. Rather,  it is about past generations influencing present ones through a particular genetic and cultural heritage.

The importance of Psycho-history cannot be overemphasized. Practically speaking, many have been raised in non-Catholic families that extend back for centuries.  When our roots are deeply defined by a given tradition, it’s arguably difficult to adopt a new set of beliefs. Not impossible, of course. But difficult.

And that’s another reason why some people dislike Catholicism. They’re psychologically biased by their unique non-Catholic genealogy. These individuals may see themselves as open-minded but inherited biases discourage them from exploring the Catholic vision on its own terms.

Conclusion

Many who believe they are freethinkers arguably aren’t as hip, liberated and progressive as they say. Some seem to shut down when it comes to talking about Catholicism in a mature, adult way. They’ve got it all figured out. At least, that’s what they believe.

But to be truly open-minded is to investigate even seemingly rigid and authoritarian areas to discover if there is anything of value within.

It’s about coming full-circle and getting past one’s preconceived beliefs about intellectual freedom. It’s also about humbly recognizing the limits of the intellect and understanding how past and present influences may inform our preferences, thoughts and opinions.

This kind of transformation looks on inner experience with the same kind of critical and scientific edge that we apply to outer experience. And its beauty is that one doesn’t have to travel around the world to get there. Nor does one have to agree with every aspect of contemporary Catholic teaching.

In fact, one may still disagree and even dislike aspects of Catholicism while being open-minded and balanced enough to appreciate its merits.

The Dislike of Catholicism: Understanding the Holy in the Catholic Tradition, Part 4 – Social and Political reasons

Lies by Leo Reynolds

Copyright © Michael W. Clark, 2008.
All rights reserved.

Part 1 – Introduction
Part 2 – Theory and Method
Part 3 – Theological reasons
Part 4 – Social and Political reasons
Part 5 – Psychological reasons
Part 6 – Philosophical and Historical reasons / Conclusion

Lies Lies Lies?

Previously I noted that Machievelli advocates a deceptive approach to truth – lying to the masses – that is apparently necessary for public leadership.

Perhaps this isn’t merely cynical but grimly realistic. To take an extreme example, it seems that in postwar times governments tend to paint a very different picture than the official wartime reports and media leaks.

Consider this excerpt from the documentary film, The Fog of War:

If you went to the C.I.A. and said “How is the situation today in South Vietnam?” I think they would say it’s worse. You see it in the desertion rate, you see it in the morale. You see it in the difficulty to recruit people. You see it in the gradual loss of population control. Many of us in private would say that things are not good, they’ve gotten worse. Now while we say this in private and not public, there are facts available that find their way in the press. If we’re going to stay in there, if we’re going to go up the escalating chain, we’re going to have to educate the people, Mr. President. We haven’t done so yet. I’m not sure now is exactly the right time.

Former US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara apparently believed he was acting in good faith, given the political realities he was faced with during the Vietnam war. Hindsight is 20/20. But those in power don’t have the benefit of hindsight and must make tough decisions in the heat of the moment.

McNamara, now in a safe position to do so, admits to having made egregious mistakes.

Cover-ups and Sin

Sex abuse victims' dad angry with Pope by Sam Herd

But what do the pressures of political leadership and the management of public knowledge have to do with Catholicism?

To answer this question, let’s look at the Catholic hierarchy’s response to the sad fact that not a few priests sexually abused young geople.

Some argue that Catholic officials tried to cover up priests’ transgressions with dubious politics reminiscent of a medieval kingdom. Pedophile priests were shuffled around to different parishes with hardly a slap on the wrist.

As scandalous as this most certainly is, it does not diminish the holy within Catholicism.

And it seems that practically every human organization contains at least some degree of corruption. If we upheld sin and corruption as a basis for worthlessness, then pretty well no human enterprise would be of any value. But Matthew 13:24-29 suggests otherwise:

Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

Outdated Teachings

Bible with Cross Shadow by knowhimonline

Another reason Catholic detractors dislike Catholicism has to do with the belief that Catholic leaders perpetuate outdated teachings going back to ancient times, apparently legitimized under the guise of sacred ‘Tradition.’

For those unfamiliar with Catholicism, Tradition refers to the Catholic Church’s teachings that are said to complement the Bible with equal weight and authority “like two branches of the same tree,” to quote a metaphor popular among Catholic apologists.

At loggerheads with Catholic Tradition is the sola scriptura approach. Sola scriptura simply means that the Bible is the only source of God’s revelation to mankind. One form of sola scriptura, sometimes called solo scriptura, selects individual passages from the Bible to apparently prove a particular perspective.

We’ve all encountered this before. Believers in solo scriptura cite the Old Testament book of Leviticus, for instance, to allegedly prove the evils of hot moral issues such as homosexuality:

If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them (Lev. 20:13).

But these same people often conveniently overlook other passages from the very same Old Testament concerning the evils of usury.

You shall not lend him your money for usury, nor lend him your food at a profit (Leviticus 25:35-37).

It seems that Christians profiting from a bank account or any other kind of financial investment would be sinning if this Bible passage were upheld as truth.

Women’s Issues

Patricia Fresen by Northfield.org

An additional sociopolitical objection to Catholicism arguably overlaps with theology and psychology. This dislike concerns the exclusion of women from the upper end of the Catholic hierarchy.

To critics, the absence of female priests leaves the entire faith assembly with a dry, one-sided feeling. That ‘yin-yang’ sense of balance and complementarity just isn’t there.

However, the psychologist Carl Jung, coming from a Protestant background, argued that the strong presence of the Virgin Mary in Catholic dogma was a step in the right direction. Jung felt that Mary played an important compensatory role for Catholics’ psychological needs.

But some reply that this doesn’t help real flesh and blood Catholic women who yearn to enter the priesthood. Nor does it help Catholic women and men who tire of the mostly male presence at the altar.

Celibacy and the Perception of Women

Critics also say that celibate priests conforming to pre-established, chauvinistic structures find it all too easy to avoid dealing with women as equals.

Papa Freud, conflicted, with cigar by Carla216

As far back as 1972 The US Catholic bishops conducted a Freudian study indicating that many priests are psychologically arrested at a ‘ young adult’ stage of emotional development. This and other studies have been hastily upheld as alleged proof that arrested emotional development is a by-product of celibacy, the exclusion of women or some combination of these and other factors, such as repressed or clandestine homosexuality.

As to the validity of this study, Patrick Guinan, M.D. says

Freudian theory is incapable of acknowledging religious experience or integrating the concept of chastity or asceticism into its idea of healthy human development.

Likewise Elizabeth Abbott argues that celibacy can be a healthy choice. She points out that cultural attitudes are quickly changing in this area, especially with the drastic and sometimes deadly increase of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

Meanwhile, the Church’s stance on gender-equality is simple. Men and women are equal but essentially different.

Obviously this truth claim does not sit well with those deploring absence of women in the upper register of the Catholic hierarchy. For critics it’s just so much culturally backward claptrap that excludes women from positions of power and contributes to the current and grave shortage of newly ordained priests.

Proceed to Part 5 – Psychological Reasons

The Dislike of Catholicism: Understanding the Holy in the Catholic Tradition, Part 3 – Theological reasons

Copyright © Michael W. Clark, 2008.
All rights reserved.

Part 1 – Introduction
Part 2 – Theory and Method
Part 3 – Theological reasons
Part 4 – Social and Political reasons
Part 5 – Psychological reasons
Part 6 – Philosophical and Historical reasons / Conclusion

Sociologists and philosophers, alike, say the Catholic religion generates truth claims.

The idea of a ‘truth claim’ gives us a convenient way to talk about a given set of beliefs without necessarily advocating or dismissing them.

Meanwhile, non-Catholics often say that many Catholic truth claims are not eternal but rather culturally and politically motivated truths–that is, relative truths.

Infallibility

The notion of Papal infallibility is probably one of the biggest reasons why people dislike Catholicism.

But educated Catholics realize that only two Catholic truth claims are deemed infallible while most others are said to be less authoritative, merely disseminated as general guidelines for good moral behavior.

Many lay-critics of Catholicism don’t know that not every Catholic teaching is forwarded as an eternal, unchangeable truth. Instead, Catholic theologians say there are various levels of certainty when it comes to the Church’s teachings.

In fact, Papal infallibility only refers to these dogmas:

1. The Blessed Virgin Mary’s sinless birth (Dogma of the Immaculate Conception)
2. Her bodily assumption into heaven (Dogma of The Assumption)

All other Catholic teachings are not infallible.¹ And it’s a faulty assumption to presume that all Catholic teachings are infallible when they’re not.

True, some fanatical Catholics say that infallibility includes all of the Church’s teachings. But these fanatics – and that’s what they are – are a vocal minority which the majority of sober scholars would readily dismiss.

Papal Authority

Some non-Catholics argue that even two allegedly infallible declarations are good enough reason to dislike a religion that endorses Popes who are mere pretenders to the throne of truth.

This is variation on the above reason why people object to Catholicism. They just do not believe in any kind of Papal infallibility whatsoever.

And the fact that only two dogmas are deemed infallible makes no difference. These people want none of it.

Christianity as a Stereotype

A third theological reason why people dislike Catholicism is based on a misunderstanding and, arguably, unclear thinking.

Many use ‘Christianity’ as a blanket term for all different types of Churches, organizations and individuals designating themselves as Christians.

If one says “I’m a Catholic” sometimes it’s like waving a red flag in front of individuals who dislike Evangelicals, Fundamentalists and Televangelists, and who really don’t know the difference between these types and the Catholic type of Christianity.

It’s just one big amorphous dislike for all things Christian.

But differences among Christian denominations (and even among individual believers within each one) are tremendous.

In Ireland, for instance, Protestant and Catholic youth gangs engage in violent clashes. And as CNN’s Anderson Cooper once pointed out, some Christians align themselves with the Green movement while others are out to make greenbacks.

Falling Short of the Ideal

People also dislike Catholicism because of churchgoers who inevitably fall short of the Christian ideal. Some Catholics sharply criticize and even denounce one another. Mean-minded gossip and talking behind another person’s back is not unheard of in Catholicism, even though Jesus tells us to love one another.

As in most spheres of humanity, pettiness and hypocrisy are alive and unwell in Catholicism, which clearly is a turn-off for many.

Private and Public

With a little probing it sometimes becomes clear that a given Catholic’s private beliefs are quite different from his or her apparent beliefs as publicly expressed at the Mass.

After all, human beings are social animals and usually don’t want to rock the boat.

But arguably just as important, most Catholics believe in the necessity of liturgical structure. Structure affords unity and continuity amidst inevitable points of disagreement. So they’re not necessarily just toeing the line at the Mass. They could very well be respecting the need for structure while perhaps secretly believing in and, indeed, doing their own thing (e.g. using birth control, engaging in homosexual relations or premarital sex).

On the need for structure, learned Catholics point out that even the very first Christian disciples disagreed on certain issues (Acts 15: 1-21; Galatians 2: 11-14; 1 Corinthians 3: 1-23), hence the perceived need for outlining a clear set of teachings to carry the Catholic ship of salvation through all storms of disagreement.

Judging a Book by its Cover

Another reason people dislike Catholicism has to do with their perception of what it means to be ‘alive in the spirit.’

Some non-Catholics say the Catholic Mass looks or feels quite dead. Catholic parishioners apparently behave like robotic victims of a Roman cult, just going through the motions, not really thinking nor believing in what they profess during the Mass.

With few outward signs of ecstatic joviality, critics wrongly assume that apparently wooden Catholics are inwardly drab and unhappy. These critics really have no appreciation for the possibility that Catholics may experience a very high kind of interior sweetness, healing and delight.

By way of contrast, Catholics, especially contemplative ones, may see non-Catholic forms of easily recognizable joy as commendable and perhaps even of Christ. But these manifestations of the spirit are usually subjected to the critical analysis of discernment which tries to determine if they’re possibly of a different interior quality than the sacramental graces afforded through the Catholic Church.

Catholics are instructed to respect other religions. And the late Mother Teresa of Calcutta once said that she “loved” all religions while being “in love” with her own.

Along these lines, the existence of worldwide Catholic Missions speaks volumes. Why would Catholic missions exist if the majority of Catholics did not believe that their religion was best? And would not many of these Catholics base that belief on how their religion made them feel?

Jesus as another Avatar

An additional theological reason many non-Catholics dislike Catholicism is that Christ is taken as just another avatar, not unlike the Buddha or the Hindu Krishna.

For them it’s a mistake to insist on Jesus’ uniqueness. And the highly structured Catholic liturgy just gets in the way of their allegedly genuine, gnostic spiritual experiences.

In response, the Vatican tries to recognize any partial truths in non-Christian religious figures and their associated teachings but firmly disagrees with the belief that Buddha or Krishna, for example, are equal to Christ. It’s as simple as that and no politically correct or sugar-coated interfaith dialogue will probably ever change this fundamental point of disagreement.

From a Catholic standpoint it’s conceivable that some non-Catholic critics have yet to reach a point in their spiritual formation to appreciate the fullness of Christ as experienced through the sacraments.

Mary and the Saints

Another theological reason why people dislike Catholicism relates to Saint Mary and the other Catholic saints. Misinformed Christians often dispute the supposed Catholic ‘paganism’ of praying for the saints’ intercession.

As outlined at earthpages.ca:

Some Protestants and Fundamentalists complain that Catholics have got it all wrong because, so they say, Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and Man. But these very same people freely ask their friends and associates to “pray for them” which to any thinking person is clearly a request for intercession.

The Catholic reply to this contradictory Protestant and Fundamentalist charge is that if you can ask souls on Earth to pray for you, why not souls in heaven? » See in context

Catholicism clearly outlines its stand on intercession.

Asking the saints to pray for us does not elevate them to the status of gods and goddesses, as so many non-Catholic detractors will say. Theologically this is just incorrect and represents another groundless reason for disliking Catholicism.

—

¹ Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Rockford, Illinois: 1974 [1960], Tan Books, pp. 8-10 » See online discussion at socrates58.blogspot.com

Proceed to Part 4 – Social and Political reasons

The Dislike of Catholicism: Understanding the Holy in the Catholic Tradition, Part 2 – Theory and Method

Uffizi statue: Niccolo Machiavelli

Originally uploaded by
Crashworks

Copyright © Michael W. Clark, 2008.
All rights reserved.

Part 1 – Introduction
Part 2 – Theory and Method
Part 3 – Theological reasons
Part 4 – Social and Political reasons
Part 5 – Psychological reasons
Part 6 – Philosophical and Historical reasons / Conclusion

Theory and Method

Religion deals with truth, be it the alleged authority of the Hindu Veda, the Catholic Magisterium or the Jewish Torah.

While religious leaders often claim to be open to dialogue, it seems that many aren’t so keen on considering different ideas and practices.

They’ve invested their lives in a given belief system. And unless they are outright charlatans, as some TV evangelists have proved to be, advancing their particular “truth” ensures a comfortable standard of living along with personal meaning.

One can only wonder if, after all the pomp and circumstance of interfaith conferences has subsided, religious leaders walk away virtually unchanged, each still believing… My way is best.

How convenient it must be to have truth all nicely packaged in a manageable box.

Some religious leaders may believe theirs is a great, grand box but it’s actually small and petty if wrapped up tight in a given set of concepts (and practices) influenced by oppressive, backward or just plain dumb cultural beliefs and assumptions.

Yes, there’s a political aspect to religion. And if anyone thinks otherwise they might do well to think again.

In his political classic The Prince Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) wrote that good ruling means

One must know how to colour one’s actions and to be a great liar and deceiver. Men are so simple, and so much creatures of circumstance, that the deceiver will always find someone ready to be deceived.¹

Granted, one may say that ruling in the Machiavellian sense differs from religious leadership. The one deals with worldly matters while the other addresses the spiritual needs of a given flock.

But surely there are similarities–that is, points of contact between the two, especially when dealing with large religious organizations and their substantial financial holdings.

Sociologists influenced by the granddaddy of societal analysis, Karl Marx, have variously elaborated on Machiavelli’s hard-hitting advice with notions like ideology, false consciousness and hegemony. And more recently the idea of ’spin’ has become fairly common in pop culture.

After Marxism and neoMarxism ran their course as the trendiest objects of sociological study, postmoderns like Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida and Jean Baudrillard virtually took over, having a tremendous impact on sociology, philosophy and the arts.

Prefiguring the idea of spin, Foucault once said he ‘fictions’ truth.

I am well aware that I have never written anything but fictions. I do not mean to say, however, that truth is therefore absent…a true discourse engenders or ‘manufactures’ something that does as yet not exist, that is, ‘fictions’ it. One ‘fictions’ history on the basis of a political reality that makes it true, one ‘fictions’ a politics not yet in existence on the basis of a historical truth.²

Meanwhile, Baudrillard arguably went a step further in his book Forget Foucault/Forget Baudrillard where the title, alone, pretty well says it all.³

But how does sociological theory relate to the dislike of Catholicism?

The short answer is that Catholicism deals with the entire human being, from the union of sperm and egg to a supposed afterlife. Indeed, Catholicism attempts to deal with individuals and groups at every stage and level of human existence, from infant to saint, beastly to beatific.

Countless researchers try to carve up people and the world into precise economic, political, scientific or theological slices. But these analyses usually leave us with a feeling that something’s missing.

To avoid limiting ourselves to any single method, an interdisciplinary approach seems best suited to the task at hand.

In fact, the present analysis considers as many perspectives as practically possible. And this is its great strength.

An unavoidable weakness, however, is that it’s largely based on just one person’s immediate observations and reflections–I, me, me, mine, as the Beatles once put it.

So the word ‘interpretation’ might be more appropriate than ‘analysis.’ Fair enough.

This is a hermeneutical problem found in any independent study. And even if I were to band together with a thousand brilliant thinkers, there’s no guarantee we wouldn’t all be way off the mark.

Like most of what I write, the following should be taken as food for thought which hopefully will stimulate dialogue.

It’s admittedly far from comprehensive and not to be regarded as the final word.

—

1. See XVIII. How princes should honour their word

2. Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writings, 1972-1977, ed. Colin Gordon, trans. C. Gordon et al. New York: Pantheon Books, 1980, p. 193.

3. Forget Baudrillard (back cover title) a “reverse dialogue” with Sylvere Lotringer, was published in a single book in the US along with the front cover title, Forget Foucault (Foreign Agents Series. New York: Semiotext(e), 1987).

Proceed to Part 3 – Theological Reasons

The ABC’S of The Basic Theological Teachings: The Meaning of God and His Creatures

The ABC’S of The Basic Theological Teachings: The Meaning of God and His Creatures

By Fr. Thomas R. Harding, Th.D.

This homily has been posted with the direct and generous permission of the late Fr. Thomas Harding, Th.D. (1918-2005).

As we celebrate the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000, the Feasts of the Liturgical Year have taken on a deeper meaning now we are approaching some important ones, the Ascension of the Lord into Heaven, the Coming of the Holy Spirit and the Blessed Trinity. It is time to consider again the Meaning of God and His Creatures.

Before time began, there was a point when there was only one Being in existence, God the Father; God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, omnipotent, omniscient, uncaused, eternal, infinite. God was perfectly happy and did not need anything else, but good tends to diffuse itself and so God created Angels, meaning messengers, the universe, human beings and all the other animate and inanimate beings. Let us consider these beings briefly.

In the whole realm of being, there is, first and foremost, the Supreme Being, God. How is it that there is such a Being? St. Augustine says that theology is faith seeking understanding. In doing the theology of the Unity and Trinity of God, the theologians begin with the basic revealed truth that there is One God in Three Divine Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and they go on to consider the Divine Processions, Missions and Relations.

To put it simply, it goes something like this. From all eternity God the Father knows himself and thus God the Son proceeds from the Father by an intellectual act of generation for the Son is the Image of the Father or the Knowledge of God Personified or the Word of God. Again from all eternity, the Father and the Son are united in a bond of love and thus the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son by a Divine Act of spiration as the Love of God Personified. The Three Persons are all truly God and perfectly equal in all things. There are only three members by nature in the Family of God.

There are four Divine Relations in the Blessed Trinity, Paternity or Fatherhood, Sonship or Filiation, Active Spiration or the Love of the Father and the Son and Passive Spiration or the Holy Spirit who is the Love of God.

Let us consider briefly the attributes of God. There are two kinds of Divine attributes, entitative, pertaining to His Being and operative, pertaining to His operations.

The entitative attributes are necessity, transcendence, immanence, infinity, perfection, unity, goodness, truth, beauty, simplicity, omnipotence, omnipresence, eternity, immutability, pure act, and God alone is a pure and simple spirit. We know some of these by analogy, that is by way of excellence, by affirming created qualities in creatures to infinity, and we know others by way of negation, that is, by denying to God some created qualifies by using negative terms such as infinite which means not finite.

The Operative attributes of God are His Divine intelligence, that is, He knows everything in one idea and His divine volition, that is, His will is perfectly free.

We can know about the Existence of God, that He exists, by reason, by the things that He has made, as St. Paul says in Romans I :20. But we can know much more about God by Faith in Divine Revelation in Scripture and Tradition.

First, Almighty God alone is a pure and simple spirit, that is, He is uncaused and not complex in any way.

Second, the angels are pure spirits but not simple spirits because they are created and complex. However they are created in the state of maturity, with all their infused ideas. They do not have to grow up and go to school. Each angel is a different species which determines their degree of knowledge and love. In the hierarchy of spirits, God has only one idea with which He knows everything actual and possible. Then the highest angel needs many ideas with which to understand his more limited capacity. In a descending order, each angel needs more ideas than the one just above him. Even the lowest angel is far smarter than the most intelligent humans.

Angels have such a superior knowledge and will that they were only given one chance when they were tested. Apparently, they would not have repented and changed their minds. Thus Lucifer said “I will not serve” (Isaiah 14:12) and he and the other fallen angels were cast into hell by St. Michael the Archangel (Apoc. 12:7). They are allowed to roam through the world seeking the ruin of souls. But the name of Jesus is stronger than hell.

The good angels continue to serve before the throne of God and they also act as guardian angels. They also have other functions as messengers, defenders and directors of the two hundred billion galaxies in the universe. Sacred Scripture tells us there are nine choirs of angels: (Col. 1:16) Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominations, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Archangels and Angels. Beings spirits, they can travel through the world and the universe instantaneously by a simple act of the will. St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor has a great tract on angels in his Summa Theologica.

Third, human beings, in comparison with God and Angels, are relatively imperfect spirits. Because of the relative dimness of their intellects they have to inform a body and they have infra-intellectual faculties, as well as spiritual faculties, an intellect and will; that is, they also have faculties of the vegetative and animal stages of life. Thus, man is a spirit informing a body. He needs a body in order to function or to get started in the process of knowing and willing. Therefore there would be no use giving humans infused ideas at the moment of creation. We would not understand them anyway: e.g. E=mc.

What’s that?

Who cares?

We have to learn laboriously by abstracting ideas from our sense knowledge, verifying ideas by judgments and using these ideas and judgments in syllogisms to reason and to move from the known to the unknown. There are five operations we go through in knowing and willing: experiencing, understanding, judging, reasoning and deciding. What a tough life! We have to grow up, go to school for years and spend the rest of our lives in continuing to learn. I was a slow learner. I went to school for twenty one years and I still know only the ABC’s.

Because we need bodies, God created a material universe. How extravagant He was to make a universe with 200 billion galaxies and it is expanding! We share the world with other animate and inanimate beings. Is there human life on other planets? We have not the time or the knowledge to answer that. We have not yet communicated with people on other planets. Some have seen UFO’s, they say.

I have always wanted to know what God looks like but was running into a brick wall trying to understand Him and describe Him until I discovered that a finite person cannot comprehend an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Infinite Being. To visualize Him, to reduce him to our comprehension, to describe Him in our language is impossible in the present order.

But cheer up. St. John says in his first Epistle, Chapter 3, Verse 2: “Beloved now we are the children of God and it has not yet appeared what we shall be. We know that when He appears we shall be like to Him for we shall see Him just as He is.” So we look forward to the Beatific Vision.

Oh pardon me, I forgot a few important things.

First, God has only three members in His family by nature, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but he has billions of children by adoption because He created angels and humans and raised them to the supernatural level so that they share His life by sanctifying grace, i.e., God living in us as a friend.

Second, God is immanent in that He is with us and within us. He is Transcendent in that He is infinitely beyond us as the God of all glory. Never separate His Immanence and Transcendence. Never forget that the Immanent God is also the Transcendent God.

Third, we are so earth bound that we cannot imagine anyone without a body but the pure spirits don’t need bodies. For our benefit they may sometimes appear as though they had bodies, e.g. angels with wings.

Fourth, Scripture says “God made men just a little less than the angels.” There are two exceptions: Jesus Christ is a Divine Person and infinitely superior to them. Our Lady is Queen of the Angels because she is the daughter of God the Father, the spouse of the Holy Spirit and the Mother of God the Son and She is superior to the Angels.

No Wonder the Fallen Angels were Mad.

Fifth, The hypostatic union means that Jesus is One Person (the Divine Person) and He has two natures, Human and Divine.

* * * * *

This homily is not to be copied, duplicated, modified nor distributed in any way.

Catholics to have serious dialogue with Hindus and others

Autumnal Faith by paulbence photography (CCL)

Special to Earthpages.org

Catholics will have a serious dialogue with Hindus and other religions during the Annual Diocesan Conference of Reno (Nevada, USA) Catholic Diocese in January next.

According to Father Charles T. Durante, Pastor of Saint Teresa of Avila Catholic Church of Carson City, it will include dialogue among leaders of Muslim, Protestant, Hindu, and Jewish faiths besides Catholic. The Conference will be held on January ninth and tenth.

Invited religious figures include acclaimed Hindu leader Rajan Zed, Reverend V. James Jeffrey, Rabbi Myra Soifer and Imam Abdul Rahim Barghouthi, besides Durante.

Catholic Diocese of Reno, established in 1931, covers 70,852 square miles spread in eleven Nevada counties in addition to Carson City. Before 1840, this area was under the Diocese of Sonora in Mexico, when it came under the jurisdiction of Bishop Moreno of California. Current Bishop is Most Reverend Randolph R. Calvo.

Rajan Zed has congratulated the Catholic Diocese efforts in reaching out to other religions for a dialogue. “Religion is a complex component of human life. Dialogue helps us to see interconnections and interdependencies between religions and even similarities in doctrines,” Zed adds.