Thursday, September 12, 2013

Matthew Fox Associates - MALIDOMA - EARTH RITUAL workshop this weekend September 13-15, 2013

A New Ager I have kept tabs on since the beginning of my research starting in 1981 was "Theologian" Matthew Fox (born 1940).  He was born as "Timothy Fox."  Matthew was the name he adopted when he entered the Roman Catholic priesthood.   He wreaked much damage across the board in theological circles.  His influence was felt across the entirety of the New Age Movement.  His publishing company, Bear & Company, subsequently merged in 2000 to with the operations of  New York occultist Ehud Sperling, and his "Inner Traditions".  Some of the most shockingly blasphemous literature of the New Age Movement including the works of close Matthew Fox associate  Barbara Hand Clow have come from the spider like workings of Matthew Fox and his "religious" associates.

Although both Randy England (Unicorn in the Sanctuary author) and I were both rudely challenged by Fr. Matt Pacwa's then defense of Matthew Fox who was subsequently excommunicated as a Roman Catholic priest in 1993 (about time!), Fox's New Age commitments were some of the deepest held in the Movement.

One of his associates was an African by the name of MALIDOMA.  I learned this on my ongoing library review which now has included Matthew Fox's autobiographical work, CONFESSIONS OF A POST-DENOMINATIONAL PRIEST.

"Malidoma" had up until now largely escaped my radar.  Thankfully, he had not escaped CARRIE TOMKO's.  Carrie left our world on April 6, 2009, but her work lives on in her valuable archives.  You may access them by going to

Malidoma, an African promoting African style earth worship and paganism was once a professor at the University of Michigan, only approximately 40 miles from my home.  My own work is archived there at the Bentley Historical Library.

The Promise Keepers Movement active in the 1990s and beyond drew heavily on the Men's Movement, a New Age operation largely shepherded by Robert Bly.  Robert Bly worked closely, as did Matthew Fox, with Malidoma.  Fox's autobiography CONFESSIONS opens with accounts of his conversations with Malidoma (pages 10-11, HarperSanFrancisco paperback edition, 1997)/

As that was then, I decided to see what was going with Malidoma now, and I found plenty.

This is from Carrie Tomko's accounts of this gang which includes Fox, Joanna Macy, John Seed, Earth Spirit Rising Council of Elders,


are sponsoring the EarthSpirit Rising Conference once again.

2005 EarthSpirit Rising Conference comes to Cincinnati

Cultivating Connections and Imago are pleased to annouce that Cincinnati's own Xavier University will host EarthSpirit Rising: A Conference on Ecology, Spirituality, and Community. We live in a time of crisis-crisis of Earth, crisis of Spirit, and crisis of Community. Many of us have come to recognize that these crises are not separate, but interpenetrating dimensions that must be addressed as a whole. It is only through understanding the deep interconnections between Earth, Spirit, and Community that we will be able to transform this time of crisis into a time of hope.
EarthSpirit Rising 2005 explores the connections between ecology and spirituality through the lens of community. We recognize that without community and collective action our hope for a more ecologically sustainable and spiritually rich world will never be realized.

Matthew Fox and John Seed will be back again for encore performances. No mention of the Council of All Beings this time, though. Maybe they have decided to tone down the channeling. I wonder what Matthew Fox's "9 C's of Education" are? They have some ritual tucked into Malidoma Some presentation. They are going to talk about "Dagara cosmology" opposed to Catholic cosmology, one wonders?The organizers are described here. Notice down there on the bottom the Brueggeman Center for Dialogue at Xavier University? That magical word "dialogue" that exempts Catholic facilities from teaching the faith...Check out the "Conference Related Links". Foundation for Shamanic Studies???????????????They are offering a Youth Conference for ages 8-14. Wonder what sort of program is going to fall under "creative expressions"? Would you trust your kids to a bunch of conference organizers who provided a lesson in channeling called Council of All Beings at a previous EarthSpirit Rising Conference?They are having an EarthSpirit Rising Council of Earth Elders. The Earth Elders want to arrange the "transformation of human-earth relations." Did you know you can have relations with a planet? Stick with the nuns and they will guide you through "these times of great danger and great hope"...with the help of their "ally" gleaned from the Council of All Beings held at a previous EarthSpirit Rising Conference, perhaps.Look at the lineup for the "Experiential Sessions"! It would take an entire day to explore all of these presenters. I'm intrigued by the "Sacred Body, Sacred Community" presentation "inspired by nature mystics." It includes "chants and circle dances that create a deep, connecting, and healing experience of being fully in our bodies, connecting with each other in a deeply reverent way, and celebrating the mutual blessing that we are to one another and the rest of the Earth Community."

Looks like it is taking place in a Catholic University again.
It also looks like the nuns haven't shied away from sponsoring it.

IMAGO is an "earth centered" organization located near Cincinnati, Ohio.  Undoubtedly, it has close links with another Catholic New Age organization that Ohioans turned me onto starting in 1982:  Yup, just checked and Grailville's facebook page makes that close relationship clear!

This brings me to a main point of my concern with the New Age spiritualities, the Environmental Movement, etc., ad nauseum, where they are clearly headed is in no small part, mandatory Earth worship.  This is a clear theological line that we dare not cross.  The much maligned biblical Book of Revelation contains critical language in chapter 14:

6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

The message of this movement of which Matthew Fox (the theologian, not the actor by the same name) are such a prominent part is that we worship the earth, we worship the seas, we worship ourselves;  we worship our our Ancestors (prominently advocated by Malidoma); we worship "the universe," we worship even Lucifer -- we worship everything and everybody but the Good Lord who created it.

The New Age Movement has many rabbit holes for us to wander down, but they all lead to potential ruin and desolation.  There is no advantage -- either here or in the hereafter -- to abandon our Creator by worshipping all else and ourselves as "co-evolutionists."

This very weekend "Malidoma" is conducting a form of Earth Worship workshop which they call "Earth Ritual."  My prescription?  Be aware, but don't participate.


1 – 200 of 325   Newer›   Newest»
Constance Cumbey said...

It should be further noted that Fox was in on the population reduction agenda aspect of the New Age Movement as well. Too many people???!!!

On page 173 of CONFESSIONS, this quote about THAT AGENDA appears:

As scientist Paul Ehrlich has remarked, looking at the crisis of the green- house effect, "scientific analysis points, curiously, toward the need for a quasi-religious transformation of contemporary cultures." Only a religious revival can turn things around and creation spirituality offers us that revival.


2:23 AM Delete

Constance Cumbey said...

For the record, Paul Ehrlich was THE population reduction advocate in the world. If anybody was "Mr. Population Reduction / Zero Population Growth" it was clearly Ehrlich.


Anonymous said...

All of the links related to Earth spirit rising are gone. However doing a websearch on that name brings up much information on it posted at other sites. The other links, including Maldoma information do come up.

You've always recommended copying and saving searched information because it does tend to disappear. This was a perfect example of that.

Anonymous said...

Dear Constance,

I am reposting this because I'm not sure that you saw it in the last comments section.

The Pope is calling for a week of prayer and fasting. It almost looks like the site was done by Evangelicals with the exception of Mary and the rosary. At first the it appears to be the White House, because of the Lincoln Monument, but you will see that it's Rome.

Tom Horn draws a link between Rome and Washington DC, because of the similarity of the design with the obelisk and the dome.

A friend sent me this with the Shift Network and a multi-religious group in support of the Pope's week long fasting and prayer:

Shift Network has just finished a Summer of Peace:

September 21, 2013 is a big day with the International Day of Peace and the Global March for Peace.

Is all of this be setting the stage for the false peace of the Antichrist? A war in Syria could easily become WWIII with Russia, Iran, Lebanon, Israel and Europe and other Middle Eastern countries.

6:25 AM

Anonymous said...

The new gospel according to Pope Francis:

Anonymous said...

Good information on architecture of DC and other tidbits:

Constance Cumbey said...

Re Pope Francis comments: Disturbing information. I'm interested in Susanna's take and interpretation. The headline says "Pope says atheists don't have to believe in God to go to heaven." HOWEVER, the quote imputed to him instead reads:
I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.

If I were his (Pope Francis') advocate, I would interpret the statement that an atheist who wanted to be saved would need to go to God -- if somebody truly did not believe in God, why would he go to Him?

Thanks for the links!


Anonymous said...

Happening more and more.....sadly America at large is buying into New Age events like this stuff.

Anonymous said...

211:52 link won't work-try this one

Anonymous said...

I interpret that to mean that the Pope believes all were given a conscience by God, and that a conscience is there in one whether or not one has faith that God is what man says he is. Many people on this earth have not encountered the Christian message of Jesus or the teachings of Judaism. Should they be condemned for eternity? Too many Christians see Christianity as a kind of exclusive country club, outsiders not given the same privileges as insiders. That is not humbleness. It is hubris.

The Pope's message suggests that everyone is given by God a conscience which supersedes cultural conditioning. If cultural conditioning is considered the prime conditioner, we are no more than conditioned robots and why would robots need knowledge of God or God as taught by humans.

Belief or faith that there is a God or that Jesus is the only human model of God reinforces the teachings of conscience and is one way of interpreting the Pope's statement.

I'm afraid the only thing that would convince some of the validity's of the Pope's studied statement would be studies comparing what an individual without acculturation and an unimpeded conscience believes is moral compared with what one believes if one is a true believer in Christianity. In other words, would both believe murder is wrong or that one acknowledges that one should walk in awareness that there are moral laws. I do not know of any such studies.

The Pope is not saying all religions are equal or that the state is God. By his actions and life it is clear that he believes that Christianity and Judaism, upon which Christianity was founded, reinforce the original conscience we are born with in ways that other religions do not, yet that original conscience we are born with is still there affecting moral decisions regarding our relationship with God and the community around us.

The idea of one religious establishment as the only top notch exclusive religious country club with privileges for members only is also believed by Muslims and atheists as well as others. Christianity and Judaism go beyond such simplistic viewpoints.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 2:38 (et al)....

Regarding the "disappearing" links:

The reason those links don't work is because they are copied from an article that was posted 8 years ago, for the "EarthSpirit Rising 2005" conference.

Anonymous said...

Because they are shown as links, many might go looking for them. I know I did. Just a side note, many old links still appear on the internet. They don't disappear because of age.

July 2003 Magazine Issue | Christianity Today › Magazine › 2003
A collection of articles from the July 2003 issue of Christianity Today Magazine.

Susanna said...

Dear Constance,

I will also repost what I posted on the previous thread since comments here seem to get lost in the shuffle. It is in response to
comments made by Anonymous 6:25 AM on the previous threadand 5:28 AM. here.

Dear Anonymous 6:25 A.M.

While there are apostate Catholics to be sure, people need to be very careful not to paint all Catholics with the same brush because of those apostates - just as Catholics likewise need to be careful not to paint all Protestants with the same brush because of a few apostates within their ranks who presume to speak in the name of all Protestants.

The Pope did call for a day of prayer and fasting on Saturday, September 8 when we appeared to be standing on the brink of war on account of Syria. And what, pray tell, is wrong with that???? ......especially since Christ Himself clearly tells us in the Bible that some devils can only be driven out by prayer and fasting ( Mark 9:29).

Moreover, as the Bible also tells us "For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. (Ephesians 6:12)

Christ did not drive the devil out by Beelzebub as he was accused of doing by the Pharisees. ( Luke 11:18-19 ) Neither does the Pope drive the devil out by Beelzebub. He drives them out in the name of Jesus Christ.

For those who do not know who Tom Horn is, he is the person who co-authored the sensationalistic piece of theology fiction entitled PETRUS ROMANUS which is said to be based on the "prophecies attributed to St. Malachy.

I say "theology fiction," because presumably Tom Horn is a Protestant whose rule of faith is "Sola Scriptura." Therefore "Petrus Romanus" would be fictitious by Tom Horn's own rule of faith since nowhere in the Bible does it clearly state that the Roman Catholic Pope is either the Antichrist, the false prophet or one of his minions.

To say that the reaction of certain Protestants like Tom Horn to the St. Malachy prophecies is strange is an understatement - especially in the last few years, during which vehemently anti-Catholic “religious groups” who consider themselves “Christians” have been having a veritable field day with the Petrus Romanus prophecy .... although they reject the Roman Catholic Church, reject her saints, and only accept biblical prophecy -from a severely edited Bible, which they interpret privately, each pretending his own views are inspirations from the Holy Ghost.

Catholics are not in the habit of allowing prophecies ( a.k.a. private revelations ) such as those of St. Malachy to trump Holy Writ.


6:51 PM

Susanna said...


Again, Tom Horn claims to base his theology fiction PETRUS ROMANUS on the so-called prophecies of Saint Malachy in his claim that the next pope (following Benedict XVI) is to be the final pontiff, Petrus Romanus or Peter the Roman. Unfortunately, this view is also held by certain radical Traditionalist Catholics, who likewise base their opinion not only on their assumption that the prophecies are authentic and on a par with Scripture, but also on a misreading of the Prophecies of St.Malachy themselves.

By the way, these prophecies which are attributed to St. Malachy were not discovered until 1590.

They were first published by Arnold de Wyon, and ever since there has been much discussion as to whether they are genuine predictions of St. Malachy or forgeries. The silence of 400 years on the part of so many learned authors who had written about the popes, and the silence of St. Bernard especially, who wrote the "Life of St. Malachy", is a strong argument against their authenticity, but it is not conclusive if we adopt Cucherat's theory that they were hidden in the Archives during those 400 years.

The Catholic encyclopedia goes into detail about St. Malachy's prophecies - including the last prophecies which concern the end of the world.

The last of these prophecies concerns the end of the world and is as follows: "In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations, after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. The End." It has been noticed concerning Petrus Romanus, who according to St. Malachy's list is to be the last pope, that the prophecy does not say that no popes will intervene between him and his predecessor designated Gloria olivæ. It merely says that he is to be the last, so that we may suppose as many popes as we please before "Peter the Roman". Cornelius a Lapide refers to this prophecy in his commentary "On the Gospel of St. John" (C. xvi) and "On the Apocalypse" (cc. xvii-xx), and he endeavours to calculate according to it the remaining years of time.

It was the Church Father St. Irenaeus who once warned us to be very careful about presuming to think that we knew the name of the antichrist..... since he could very well come having another name and we would then fail to recognize him in consequence of our own ignorant assumptions.

6:51 PM

Susanna said...

Dear Constance,

This is in response to Anonymous 8:31 who, on the previous thread, claims that Pope Francis did not refer to Jesus Christ: "The thing most telling about the pope's prayer for peace in Syria, was a total lack of reference to Jesus Christ,....

The Pope certainly did refer to Jesus Christ in his homily....

Violence, he said, repeats the sin of the first murderer, Cain.

“We bring about the rebirth of Cain in every act of violence and every war. All of us,” Pope Francis declared. “Even today we continue this history of conflict between brothers. Even today we raise our hand against our brother.”

He considered whether it was possible for humanity to change direction.

“Can we get out of this spiral of sorrow and death? Can we learn once again to walk and live in the ways of peace?” he asked.

“Yes, it is possible for everyone!” he declared. He called on every person, including those who govern nations, to say “yes” to peace.

The Pope placed the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ at the center of his homily.

“My Christian faith urges me to look to the Cross. How I wish that all men and women of good will would look to the Cross if only for a moment!”

“In the silence of the Cross, the uproar of weapons ceases and the language of reconciliation, forgiveness, dialogue and peace is spoken,” he explained.

The Pope reflected on the goodness of creation as taught in Genesis, where humanity is “one family, in which relationships are marked by a true fraternity.”

In the beginning, mankind’s relationship with God “mirrors every human relationship and brings harmony to the whole of creation,” explained Pope Francis.

Although the world is now marked by sin, this original goodness should inspire us, the Pope urged.

“This evening, in reflection, fasting and prayer, each of us deep down should ask ourselves: Is this really the world that I desire?”

Each person must realize that “to be human means to care for one another,” he continued, calling this a way to peace

John Rupp said...

I went to the Vatican website to read this letter to Dr. Scalfari from Pope Francis 1. Maybe I am missing something but I don't see anywhere in this letter the Pope saying that you don't have to believe in God to go to heaven. Infact the letter has lots of doctrine on the work of Jesus Christ. Here is the link to the letter from the Vatican Website and then just copy and paste it in Google Translate from Italian to English.

Susanna said...

Dear Constance,

Regarding the subject of this thread, Matthew Fox associates - Malidoma - Earth Ritual workshop this weekend Sepotember 13--15, 2013.....

Here is a little "blast from the past" - an older article posted at EWTN on the life and hard times of Matthew Fox. Your book A PLANNED DECEPTION is favorably mentioned and quoted in this article:


In this article we learn about another one of Matthew Fox's associates - a witch named Starhawk:

Miriam Simos (Starhawk) is a practicing witch on the staff of Matthew Fox's Institute for Culture and Creation Spirituality (ICCS). Her specialty is the teaching of ritual. Constance Cumbey calls her, "one of the world's most politically active and important witches. She is a high priestess in a major coven and has been [active] politically in both the witches/Neopagan movements as well as the feminist movement. She is a frequent speaker at New Age convocations and conferences."[24] Starhawk writes: "In the Craft, we do not believe in the Goddess—we connect with her; through the moon, the stars, the ocean, the earth, through trees, animals, through other human beings, through ourselves. She is here. She is within us all."[25]

Susanna said...


Starhawk appears to be involved with Malidoma's "Earth Spirit Rising" movement and has created an eco-feminist branch of her own called "Woman Spirit Rising" in celebration of the Goddess movement and Earth-based, feminist spirituality.

Starhawk's Tangled Web

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Starhawk's "web" is indeed a tangled one. She also has ties with the Institute of Noetic Sciences as as well as the self professed communist Van Jones who was at one time President Obama's "Green Czar."

She also has ties to the Tryon Life Community Farm in the Pacific Northwest which was financed in part by ShoreBank Pacific, a branch of the now failed Shore Bank Chicago and the first commercial bank in the U.S. with a commitment to environmentally sustainable community development. In other words an "ecovillage."

And of course, no ecovillage would be complete without some permaculture training and a few magic rituals conducted by Starhawk and friends.

By the way, Starhawk is also a co-founder of Code Pink along with Jodie Evans and Medea Benjamin and was involved in the so-called "Gaza Peace March" which was anything but and helped to foment the unrest in Egypt that led to the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak. Code Pink is in cahoots with the Muslim Brotherhood and even appeared on the Muslim Brotherhood Newsletter. Who knew?

If we tried people for treason anymore, Code Pink’s members (and Senator Boxer) should have been dragged in front of a federal judge the minute they hit customs on their return trip from Iraq. How is this allowed? And yet they’re still traipsing about the world embarrassing us, aligning themselves with terrorists and spitting on our soldiers free from consequence or censure.

Their connection to the Muslim Brotherhood is unapologetic. Here is a link to a screen shot of The Muslim Brotherhood’s official website and halfway down the page is an advertisement from Code Pink recruiting terrorists to their “anti-war” cause (which anyone with access to the Internet and Discover The Networks knows is a front for Communist activity in America.) Yes, they still exist. So it shouldn’t be surprising that commie-marxist-wannabes play nice with terrorists more...

As for Malidoma's tale about being kidnapped by Jesuit Missionaries when he was four years old in the 1950's I find it more than a little hard to swallow - especially since his father seems to have been either a Catholic or a believer in Roman Catholicism and according to at least one article Malidoma himself was baptised into the Catholic faith and named Patrice when he was an infant. If anyone know of any evidence to the contrary, I am willing to stand corrected, but I can't see how Malidoma Patrice would have been baptized without the knowledge and consent of at least one of his parents - before his so-called kidnapping.

Susanna said...

Dear JOhn Rupp,

Thank you !

Anonymous said...

Pope Francis assures atheists: You don’t have to believe in God to go to heaven

In comments likely to enhance his progressive reputation, Pope Francis has written a long, open letter to the founder of La Repubblica newspaper, Eugenio Scalfari, stating that non-believers would be forgiven by God if they followed their consciences.

Francis wrote: ....The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.

Robert Mickens, the Vatican correspondent for the Catholic journal The Tablet, said the pontiff’s comments were further evidence of his attempts to shake off the Catholic Church’s fusty image, reinforced by his extremely conservative predecessor Benedict XVI. “Francis is a still a conservative,” said Mr Mickens. “But what this is all about is him seeking to have a more meaningful dialogue with the world.”


Dave in CA

Anonymous said...

Francis is trying to please the spirit of this world. He will do a good job of that i'm sure.

I am a second generation european american, and both sides of my family are catholic to the core. In my conversations with them about the Savior Yeshua, they think of me as some religious extremist. They do not believe we are saved by faith in Christ alone. They have no Holy Spirit witness to them. They do not recognise the simplicity of the gospel. It saddens me deeply. They are blinded by religion. Their hope is in there membership with the catholic religion. I have met very few catholics in my life who had a Holy Spirit witness. The catholic religion is very effective at leading multitudes down a wide path. Not a good path to be on for sure! If this qualifies me as a catholic basher, then fine. It isn't my goal, but neither is it my goal to see family members lost. Nor anyone for that matter!

Anonymous said...

While we're on the topic of the Pope:

Susanna said...

Dave in CA,

The article also says:

Responding to a list of questions published in the paper by Mr Scalfari, who is not a Roman Catholic, Francis wrote: “You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.

“Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.”

What the Pope is saying is that the Law of God is written on every man's heart - including those who do not believe in God. Ergo, to obey this Law is itself "a preparation for the Gospels."

In spite of the misleading title of the article, Pope Francis and Rev. Rosica's words are drawn from the Catholic Church's affirmations on the salvific necessity of faith, the possibility (to be distinguished from certainty/actuality) that God leads to this faith those who are inculpably ignorant of the Gospel, the instrumentality of conscience as the proximate moral norm, and the salvific necessity of Christ and the Church—the latter, which was re-emphasized in the Declaration Dominus Iesus.

When these statements are read together, it's a massive oversimplification for The Independent to summarize Pope Francis's explanations as, "You don’t have to believe in God to go to heaven."

One Catholic blogger nailed it when she wrote:

This is just a quick response to the latest media misrepresentation of Pope Francis by the Independent: Pope Francis assures atheists: You don’t have to believe in God to go to heaven!

Whether one agrees with Catholicism or not, misrepresentation is not OK, and misquotes and misunderstandings of Pope Francis have reached such regularity they are hardly even worth answering anymore (although they do give the satirical The Turnip: The Roman Improvement on the Onion much fodder). Until one has read what he actually said (not just a one-sentence quote), and understood it in the context of Catholic dogma and vocabulary, it is easy to mistake what he means for what the media would like him to mean!

Here is the translation of the letter sent by Pope Francis in response to several questions made by him in various articles.

Here is my exegesis of his response.

First Things

The Pope sets up his response with statements like these: “Each one of us is called to make his own the look and the choice of love of Jesus, to enter into his way of being, of thinking and acting. This is the faih.” OK, so we all have to make our own choice to follow Christ. No problem there. He then says, “The Church is called to sow the leaven and the salt of the Gospel, and this is the love and mercy of God that reaches all men, pointing out the celestial and definitive goal of our destiny.” OK, so the love and mercy of God reaches all men because the gospel (*not salvation*) reaches all men. No problem there either.

Susanna said...


Then comes big question:

“You ask me if the God of Christians forgives one who doesn’t believe and doesn’t seek the faith.”

The Pope’s Actual Response

The Pope answers that, “The mercy of God has no limits if one turns to him with a sincere and contrite heart; the question for one who doesn’t believe in God lies in obeying one’s conscience.” This is a conditional statement which can be condensed to: “The God of Christians forgives one who turns to him with a sincere and contrite heart.”

The Pope does not state the obvious implication – but that does not make it any less obvious. Atheists do not turn to God because they cannot do so while remaining atheists! The statement of conscience reflects standard Catholic anthropology: Because we are humans, God respects our choices – even considering it sin to go against one’s conscience. His response, in other words, is that the atheist has to follow his conscience. If his conscience does not lead him to turn to God with a sincere and contrite heart, then God’s mercy should not be expected to be applied to him in a salvific way. This conclusion, unlike the media’s twisted interpretation, is perfectly in line with everything Francis said and with Catholic theology:

“But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”, the Church fosters the missions with care and attention. . . . Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.” - Lumen Gentium (emphasis mine)

Anonymous said...


... "Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience."

This quote supports the title of the article. All of us have sinned and come short of the glory of God. But "live the best you can (salvation by works) and that's enough" does not attain salvation.

Intent without the saving grace offered us through the death of God's son, Jesus, is not enough to resolve our separation from God. If intent is enough, then why bother sharing the good news of the Gospel and why did Jesus die on the cross?

(It's a very important statement by the Pope, but this is my last comment on the article - I don't want to get into a circular discussion.)

Dave in CA

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

let me weigh in on this one. First, Paul says in Romans 10:14, 15 how shall they believe who haven't heard and how shall they hear unles sone be sent to preach [my paraphrase.]

But he also reminds us in Romans 9:15, 16 that God told Moses "I wil have mercy on whom I will have mercy" and adds that it is up to God.

Now, "salvation by works" is not about practical righteousness, Paul ALWAYS stipulates that it is the ritual works of the Mosaic Law, circumcision, keeping holy days, food laws, and NAMES these, as being the dead works we are to leave off and forget about.

IF we have faith, it will affect our actions. Two Greek words one means turning, translated faith, Jesus uses this for faith in the Gospels, to turn to Him. The other word means belief that affects action and choices and that is the word Paul uses. James has to address people who think that external pieties is all that is needed but their faith has no works as its fruits, so it is dead.


Now, in Romans 2:12-16 Paul speaks of Gentiles who do not know about God's standards, but have some of them anyway in their consciences and follow these, and there will be a day when ALL will be judged by Jesus Christ.

Elsewhere he warns the believers will stand before the judgement seat of God. Jesus speaks of categories of believers in the Parable of the Sower, some never even receive the word, it gets snatched out of their minds by the devil, but others do believe, but abandon it under duress, or the cares of life and deceptions of wealth choke it out and they bear NO FRUIT. Also there are bad servants He warns will be cast out with unbelievers, and others who knew no better and did things deserving of lashes will get fewer, and those who knew better and did wrong anyway would get more lashes, THIS REFERRING TO THE SAVED.

There are gradations of salvation, a base level of not cast out altogether, and then gradations of blessedness with or without some punishments.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

part 2.
There are gradations of damnation. Jesus speaks of Sodom and Gomorrha being given a better situation at the Last Judgement because THEY WOULD HAVE REPENTED IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY, which they were not given, than Tyre and Sidon will have, because they were given the opportunities Sodom and Gomorrha were not given, but did not repent.
Also He speaks of where their fire is not quenched and their worm never dies (chewing on them forever I guess) and outer darkness. Fire and darkness don't match, so there are appropriate gradations and locations of final permanent existence in the resurrection immortal, indestructible body.

While RC reads all this in terms of purgatory, EO leaves this as relevant to the Last Judgement, and to possibly getting into hell but being rescued by God in response to prayer for the dead.

(Luther would have done better to cut the UNBIBLICAL filioque out of the Creed to which RC had added it, than to cut out prayer for the dead. At least he kept the literal understanding of the transformation of the bread and wine into Christ's Flesh and Blood.)

Now, given all this, the atheist etc. who has any appreciation for Christ as at least a good guy Who has not been well followed by the churches this hypothetical person avoids, has and follows a fairly godly conscience instead of the leading of the peer group, culture, politics, mobthink, habits, etc.,

has a good chance of escaping the worst damnation, just like Sodom and Gomorrha.

If you read The Bible through all at once, read an entire Gospel at one sitting, and so forth, you get a rather different picture than either RC or protestants teach.

Meanwhile, the once saved always saved so do evil if you feel like it and despise the poor type crew are in for a nasty surprise.

And the unbeliever who was compatible to some extent with Christ may meet Him at the moment of death just exiting the body, and recognize Him as the source of all the good the unbeliever had approved and as the opposer of the evils the unbeliever had opposed, and accept Him as Lord and Savior.

An interesting line in the TV series CSI, a girl had died as a result of being used for parts for her sibling, for who she had been conceived. Someone said to Grissom, who was the first to be doing anything for her instead of using her like her family was, "you may not believe in God, but you are doing the works of God."

I think this is the sort of thing the pope is talking about. (Now, he may be a closet heretic, but the words that came out are not that heretical whatever his intent.)

Constance Cumbey said...

Wonder how the Boulder floods are going to impact this upcoming Earth Worship event this weekend? Divine judgment, anybody?

Anonymous said...

FYI: Christian Book Distributors now carries a book by Matthew Fox. On their website they copy the publisher's description followed by their bio:

An internationally acclaimed theologian and member of the Dominican Order, Matthew Fox was forbidden to teach by then-Cardinal Ratzinger in 1988 and was later dismissed from the order. His experiences make him uniquely qualified to write about Pope Benedict XVI. Fox delivers a blistering indictment of Ratzinger, from his early career to his years as chief Inquisitor, from his protection of reactionary groups like Opus Dei to his role in covering up the pedophilia crisis. But Fox also sets forth his vision for a new Catholicism--one that is truly universal and celebrates critical thinking, diversity, and justice.

After being forbidden to teach theology by then-Cardinal Ratzinger in 1988, Matthew Fox was welcomed into the Anglican community, where he started the University of Creation Spirituality. He is now a visiting scholar, and operates a successful program for the education of inner-city teenagers. Matthew Fox lives in Oakland, CA.

Constance Cumbey said...

LYONS, COLORADO is where this earth ritual workshop of Malidoma is scheduled to be held September 13-15, 2013. LYONS, COLORADO is being evacuated due to Colorado's worst ever floods.

I know people don't like to think about JUDGMENT, but one has to wonder. This reminds me of Woodstock, NY in 1969 when people were shaking their finger at God and huge rains came upon the Woodstock Music festival that was such a big New Age coming out event.


Constance Cumbey said...

See this:

Tribune staff and wire reports
8:44 a.m. CDT, September 13, 2013

Authorities have ordered all residents of the town of Lyons, located north of Boulder, to leave this morning as deadly flooding worsened overnight as record rains continued in central Colorado.

The Boulder County Sheriff’s Office said officials planed to evacuate the town of about 2,000 around daybreak, according to KDVR in Denver. The Colorado National Guard has been called into to help.

Raw: Colorado Floods Force Thousands to Flee
Raw video: Floods force thousands to flee
Video: Boulder, Colorado Flooding
Videos: Colorado flooding
Video: Dramatic water rescue near Boulder
Video: Dramatic water rescue near Boulder
Video: City of Boulder closed after massive flooding overnight
Video: Boulder closed after massive flooding
Raw video: Flooding in Boulder
Raw video: Flooding in Boulder
The flooding has killed at least three people already, toppling buildings and stranding drivers, worsened overnight as record rains pounded the state, forcing thousands more residents to flee to higher ground, officials said.

The unusual late-summer downpours drenched Colorado's biggest urban centers, stretching 130 miles along the eastern slopes of the Rockies from Fort Collins near the Wyoming border south through Boulder, Denver and Colorado Springs.

In Boulder, the rainfall record for September set in 1940 was shattered, officials said, unleashing surging floodwaters in Boulder Canyon above the city that triggered the evacuation of some 4,000 residents late on Thursday.

"There's so much water coming out of the canyon, it has to go somewhere, and unfortunately it's coming into the city," said Ashlee Herring, spokeswoman for the Boulder office of Emergency Management.


Constance Cumbey said...

What was to happen there this weekend:

Earth Ritual Workshop Weekend in Boulder, CO ... -‎
Jul 2, 2013 - Malidoma will be conducting the Earth Ritual Workshop at Blue Mountain Retreat Center, 1200 Lonestar Road, Lyons, Colorado, 80540.
Divinations in Boulder, CO., September 16-18 ... -‎
Jul 8, 2013 - Malidoma will be conducting divination sessions at Blue Mountain Retreat Center, in Lyons, Colorado, For more info and to schedule a ...
MALIDOMA African shaman in Boulder CO on Ancestors Teachings ...‎
As an initiated elder, diviner and medicine man, Malidoma shares the ancient wisdom which has supported the ... 1200 Lonestar Road, Lyons, CO 80540.
Maildoma flyer_EMAIL and WEB-2 - Susan Manchester‎
WORKSHOP & DIVINATIONS. LOCATION. Blue Mountain Retreat Center. 1200 Lonestar Road, Lyons, CO 80540. MALIDOMA. BOULDER, COLORADO.
transformational healing - Susan Manchester‎
Aug 17, 2013 - Join with us in Lyons, Colorado to celebrate the wisdom of the earth! Malidoma suggests that many of us living in North America suffer from ...
Blog - Susan Manchester‎
Aug 17, 2013 - Join with us in Lyons, Colorado to celebrate the wisdom of the earth! Malidoma suggests that many of us living in North America suffer from ...

Constance Cumbey said...

Well, I wonder what MALIDOMA, MATTHEW FOX, and the rest of that bunch have to say about their "Earth Wisdom" now -- they need to call upon God who created the earth instead of worshipping their "Whole Earth" images.


Anonymous said...

I wanted to know more of what is going on in Colorado. Susan Manchester's business has a full New Age schedule it appears. I was curious so I started looking at what was going on there. What I learned is that it is a business rather than anything "spiritual." Weird. Customers dig a whole, go in up to their neck and stay until they are ready to come out. It's the Earth Burial Ritual. Look at the list under sessions and events. It's like going to the Feel Good Supermarket.

Anyway, they are looking for a place in Boulder to hold today's events.

It would be easy to dismiss this level of New Age practice as something for the weakminded only. The danger comes with the longer term goals and the substituting of these diversions for serious growth in moral behavior across the entire culture. One little business in Colorado multiplied thousands of time across the US changes many things.

Susanna said...


First of all, let me be clear about what I believe. I unequivocally believe that salvation is only to be had in Jesus Christ. I embrace the Creeds of Chalcedon and Nicaea.

The way I am reading things here, the question is not whether or not salvation is only to be had in Jesus Christ- but how one can arrive at salvation in Jesus Christ.

And when we try to answer that question, we must be very careful not to presume to put limitations on the Holy Spirit or on God's mercy.

It is not my intention to get into a debate here about our respective Rules of Faith...especially since along with Sacred Tradition, the Bible is my Rule of Faith as well -"Sacred Tradition" being defined in terms of the truths revealed orally by Christ directly to Peter and the Apostles to be preserved by them and handed on intact by them to their successors in a concrete historical Apostolic succession.

Even if you do not acknowledge the authority of subsequent successors of Peter, I am sure you must acknowledge what the Bible says about the authority of Peter himself as an Apostle of Christ and eyewitness to the Risen Lord.

But I digress...

The first statement you quote is from the Vatican Council Document LUMEN GENTIUM ( "Light of the Gentiles" ) is based on John 10:16.

And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice.

I would agree with you that working out our salvation is not just a "works only," enterprise. People do not always act the way they think. Such "works" can deceive people - sometimes are even intended to deceive people.

It was T.S. Eliot once wrote in MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL:

The last temptation is the greatest treason/To do the right thing for the wrong reason

In those words, the main character, St. Thomas a Becket fears that because he is a sinner, it is possible that even his willingness to suffer martyrdom could be done out of less than pure motives - echoing Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Our Lord with a kiss.

The tragedy of Judas, by the way, is that he could have been "Saint Judas" if, like St. Peter, who also betrayed Our Lord by denying Him three times, he had been repentant unto Christ instead of repentant unto himself with all of its accompanying consequences of shame, self-loathing, despair and finally suicide.


Susanna said...


On the other hand, when in response to God's grace, the right thing is done for the right reason, works/deeds is "faith in action." This is why the Bible tells us that we will be judged - not for merely paying lip service to the Christian faith saying "Lord,Lord," but according to our deeds which stand either as a visible manifestation of our faith or as a visible manifestation of our damnation.

It is the Bible that clearly tells us "Faith without works is dead."

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my[b] works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[c] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[d] And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

James 2:14-26
Now your question - a legitimate one - reads thus:

If intent is enough, then why bother sharing the good news of the Gospel and why did Jesus die on the cross?

This question was best answered for me once by a priest who echoed the words of the Gospel "From him to whom much has been given, much will be expected."

He told me that we Christians who are charged with the evangelization of others will not necessarily see the results.

Nevertheless, we must humbly believe that all depends upon God, while acting as if all depends upon us."


Susanna said...


As for being saved through good intentions, the following article explains that those who are thus saved are saved in Christ whether they know it or not. Moreover, they are not saved BECAUSE of those good intentions, but through the infinite mercy of God they are saved IN SPITE OF THEM.

As for being saved through good intentions, the following article explains that those who are thus saved are saved exclusively in Christ whether they know it or not. Moreover, they are not saved BECAUSE of their good intentions, but through the infinite mercy of God they are saved IN SPITE OF THEM.

We begin with St. Justin the Martyr who c. 145 A. D. in 1. 46,
said that in the past some who were thought to be atheists, such as
Socrates and Heraclitus, who were really Christians, for they followed the
Divine Logos, the Divine Word. Further, in 2. 10 Justin adds that
the Logos is in everyone. Now of course the Logos, being Spirit, does not
take up space. We say a spirit if present .
What effect? We find that in St. Paul, in Romans 2:14-16 where he says that
"the Gentiles who do not have the law, do by nature the works of the law.
They show the work of the law ." and according to
their response, conscience will defend or accuse them at the judgment.

So it is the Logos, the Spirit of Christ, who writes the law on their
hearts, that, it makes known to them interiorly what they need to do. Some
then could follow it without knowing that fact. So Socrates: (1)read and
what the Spirit wrote in his heart; (2) he had ; (3) he . We see this obedience in the fact that Socrates
went so far as to say, as Plato quotes him many times, that the one who
seeks the truth must have as little as possible to do with the things of
the body.

Let us notice the three things, just enumerated: St. Paul in Romans 3:29
asks: "Is He the God of the Jews only? No, He is also the God of the
gentiles." It means that if God made salvation depend on knowing and
following the law of Moses, He would act as if He cared for no one but
Jews. But God does care for all. Paul insists God makes salvation possible
by faith for them (cf. Romans chapter 4). Faith in Paul includes the three
things we have enumerated which Socrates did.

So in following that Spirit of Christ Socrates was accepting and
following the Spirit of Christ, But then, from Romans 8:9 we gather that if
one has and follows the Spirit of Christ, he " Christ". That
is, He is a , which in Paul's terms means a , which is the Church.

So Socrates then was a member of the Church, but not formally, only
substantially. He could not know the Church. So he was saved, not his
false religious beliefs they are able
to find even outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church.

Many other Fathers speak much like St. Justin. A large presentation of
them can be found in Wm. Most, , in a 28 page appendix.

Lumen gentium also likes to speak of the Church as a . This
is correct, for it is a mystery, since it is . It does
have visible structure, and no one who knowingly rejects that can be saved.
It has members visibly adhering. But it also has members who belong to it
even without knowing that, and without external explicit adherence. Hence
there is much mystery, to be known fully and clearly only at the end.

Susanna said...

According to the following report, the entire town of Lyons had to be evacuated.

Boulder, Colorado (CNN) -- Three more days.

That's how long it may be before all the rain goes away in Colorado, where flash flooding has cut off towns, ripped out roads and killed at least three people.

More rain is forecast through Sunday for the region, on top of the 15 inches some parts of the state have already received. While meteorologists aren't sure which way the water will go, state officials warned that "very heavy rainfall" is likely again Friday.

"This isn't over," CNN meteorologist Chad Myers said.

Nineteen counties remained under high threat of flooding Friday, the state Office of Emergency Management said.

They include Boulder County, where National Guard troops were evacuating the entire town of Lyons, which had been cut off by flash floods......

See also....

Susanna said...

From The Blaze......

13 Pictures of the Colorado Flooding That’s ‘Like Something Out of the Bible’

Sep. 13, 2013

Susanna said...

Lyons Flooded: Colorado Town 'Completely Isolated,' With No Sewage, No Fresh Water

The Huffington Post
By Andrea Rael
Posted: 09/12/2013

Constance Cumbey said...

Well, if these Malidoma, Susan Manchester, et were the "seers" they claim to be, they should have seen this weekend coming!

God has a way of showing everybody who's Boss, and it's not us!


Anonymous said...

Re Pope Francis' comments, it does seem to me on the basis of scripture that you have to have faith in the true God in order to be saved. Faith in God can be set off against our sins, for Genesis 15:6 states, "Abraham believed, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

Are their any shades of grey in this criterion? First, all are sinners and one unforgiven sin is enough to debar you. No grey there - you need faith. Second, yes there are hints of levels in the lake of fire and in the New Jerusalem, but when all is said and done the experience is either of great joy or agony. No real shades of grey there. Strength of faith and (re Muslims) a proper understanding of God's identity? A huge shade of grey there, but each individual can know that s/he is saved if s/he knows that s/he knows God. You can be certain about your own salvation (unless you have suffered a major lapse of faith and have not felt God's presence since), but not about the salvation of others.

I think that violating your conscience is not ultimately the point, for the human conscience is FALLEN and liable to deceive oneself. So I respectfully disagree with Pope Francis about that.

What of those who died never having heard the gospel? Behind the question is the assumption that God is unjust if such people go to the fire. But this assumption is false. EVERYBODY deserves the fire, and some are by grace of God saved from it. There is no injustice of some people are treated better than they deserve and nobody is treated worse than they deserve.

There is no point in preaching grace until you have convinced people that they are sinners in God's world. That was John Wesley's way. It does not appear to be Pope Francis's, but his comments were fairly vague and we can hope and pray that he will clarify in the right way.

Anonymous said...

Susanna at 4:19: I was referring to this speech in which the Pope most certainly did not mention Jesus and instead makes Mary our Mediator, rather than the only High Priest of God- Jesus.

He did indeed mention the cross in his speech the next day, but the fact that New Age groups are embracing him to such an extent is disconcerting.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 6:12 P.M.

If you are a non-Catholic Christian, I understand and respect that your understanding of Scripture and mine are different. This is due to our respective Rules of Faith.

Nevertheless, the bottom line for Catholics is that salvation is to be found only in Jesus Christ - whether we seek that salvation formally and explicitly like you and I do as baptized Christians.....or implicitly and informally as a person, who through no fault of his own, has not come to explicitly believe in Christ, but nevertheless does the best he can with the knowledge he does have to live to the highest good that he knows.

You made a good point in saying
" it does seem to me on the basis of scripture that you have to have faith in the true God in order to be saved."

But what if a person through no choice or fault of his own, is born into non-Christian - even non-Abrahamic - religion?

I would also like to point out that the late Father Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for sayng that anyone who was not explicitly Catholic - including Protestants - was going to hell in a handbasket.


While you are to be commended for defending the truth that salvation is to be had only in Jesus Christ, you also need to be careful not to place limitations on God's grace, God's mercy or on the Holy Spirit.

When all is said and done we will most likely have to charitably agree to disagree on certain aspects of how we arrive at salvation in Christ.

But for what it is worth, the following article explains in detail the Catholic point of view of salvation for those who through no fault of their own have not arrived at faith in Jesus Christ.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life, none comes to the Father but by Me."

But if soneone is hanging onto a vague sense of "God" Who is supplying some sort of "instinctive" kind of feeling for some things and against others, that just might be Jesus or The Holy Spirit operating in that person's life, and at their death they will meet Him. They still get to The Father only through Jesus Christ, but when That Person Jesus Christ becomes evident to them is another matter. He may have been operating in their lives to some extent as far as they were willing to receive His influence.

This may not get them into full Kingdom of Heaven citizenship status, but it should keep them out of the lake of fire.

Those people who have converted to Jesus Christ out of secularism or atheism or nominal Christianity or God as just an idea sort of thing, usually report a long process of development.

This still leaves Jesus Christ as "the way the truth and the life," and as the only way to The Father.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 10:23 P.M.

I went to that site and the Pope DOES allude to Jesus Christ crucified AND the Blessed Virgn Mary:

"My Christian faith urges me to look to the Cross," he continued. "How I wish that all men and women of good will would look to the Cross if only for a moment! There, we can see God’s reply: violence is not answered with violence, death is not answered with the language of death. In the silence of the Cross, the uproar of weapons ceases and the language of reconciliation, forgiveness, dialogue, and peace is spoken."

I am not even going to get into the Mary argument. If you do not want to ask for the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, then don't. I don't think that the roof will fall in on you.

Anonymous said...


This is Anon of 6.12pm to whom you replied.

You wrote: "the bottom line for Catholics is that salvation is to be found only in Jesus Christ". Yet Abraham and the OT prophets are is obviously going to be saved and they didn't know Jesus. Perhaps you mean that salvation is found only in Jesus Christ since the crucifixion. But here is a counter-example to that too. Suppose that someone a few years before Jesus' ministry, living on the borders of the Roman empire, got hold of a copy of the Old Testament and came to believe in Jehovah, and decided to emigrate to the Holy Land as the OT suggests gentile God-fearers should, but died en route a few days after the Crucifixion and Resurrection? I believe that God will reveal himself to such a person, who will know that s/he knows God and will be saved. In heaven that person might behold the Trinity and realise that it was the second person with whom s/he had had dealings.

So I would say that the bottom line is a personal relationship with the Creator God, and that the normal way - and the only legitimate way to preach this today - is through Jesus Christ.

Consider Muslims, who know OF the Creator God via Jews and Christians, but because they trust the quran ascribe a grievously inaccurate personality to Him. Muslims are shocked at the idea of knowing the Creator personally. Sadly they will be locked out.

You asked: "what if a person through no choice or fault of his own, is born into non-Christian - even non-Abrahamic - religion?"

I thought I answered that but I'm glad to clarify. All are sinners; all need to have faith in the Creator God, to set off against their sin. Those who do not have sufficient faith to partake in a relationship (and know that they know God) will go to the fire. This penalty for sin is just, so God is not unjust if by 'unjust' you mean treating any person worse than they deserve. (Christians and people like Abraham get treated better than they deserve - that's grace.)

If this is what Vatican 2 meant about some non-Christians finding salvation then I have no problem with that. Ditto Pope Francis. But I do not find this clear from their words, and I cannot accept obedience to conscience as a bottom line because the human conscience is fallen.

Constance Cumbey said...

Just getting ready to go on the air Join us in the chatroom, please?! Thanks!!!


Susanna said...

Anon 6:47

Thank you for the clarification.

Re your comment:

You wrote: "the bottom line for Catholics is that salvation is to be found only in Jesus Christ". Yet Abraham and the OT prophets are is obviously going to be saved and they didn't know Jesus.


The Catholic understanding - including the Pope's - is that salvation is to be found exclusively in Jesus Christ whether the person saved explicitly knows it or not if, through no fault of his own, he has not come to explicitly know and believe in Jesus Christ, but nevertheless strives with all his being to live to the highest good that he does know.

It is not my intention to get into a lengthy debate here, but I think that this is one place where Catholics and Protestants may differ in their understanding of salvation in Jesus Christ.

If anyone doesn't agree with the Catholic view, fine, but don't hit on the Pope for being.....well... Catholic.

Re your comment:

All are sinners; all need to have faith in the Creator God, to set off against their sin.

That is right... and the Bible tells us, moreover, that the law of the Creator God is written on man's heart in terms of the Natural Law......his fallen nature notwithstanding. In spite of the Fall, man has never fallen into Total Depravity. He has always been capable of knowing what he ought - or ought not - to do ( conscience ) and freely acting accordingly.

When all is said and done, the best of every religion boils down to THE GREAT COMMANDMENT involving love of God and neighbor.

As Constance once put it in her book HIDEN DANGERS OF THE RAINBOW, there may be a few surprises on Judgement Day when certain poor pagans who did the best they could with what little knowledge they had are seen standing before the Lord joyous and redeemed while certain "Christians" who knew better are seen standing on the outside looking in.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

though man kept the ability to know right from wrong and chose right, sort of, his will is so corrupt that NO ONE EVER will do so in perfection.

The ones who made sin offering to YHWH before Christ came, were also offering to Christ though they didn't know it, because Jesus Christ is also YHWH, The Second Person of The Holy Trinity before He became (and remains) Incarnate.

Pelagianism holds that we can operate as if unfallen and be without sin. This is false. But the effort to reject evil and to follow such light as one has received is the issue.

Total depravity by the way is not so much about the way it sounds as that ALL faculties, mind included, have been touched by The Fall, there is no pure part of the soul or spirit or body.

We can I think all agree on that, but the amount of corruption, the locus and the devotion to and developing of it varies from one person to another.

Susanna said...

OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION further clarifies the Catholic position - especially in terms of its refuting the erroneous view held by the late Fr. Leonard Feeney that even Protestants were "outside the Church" and therefore bereft of salvation ( a.k.a. on their way to hell in a handbasket.)

Given my own Methodist ancestors, two of whom were Vermont abolitionists who volunteered to lay down their lives for their brethren in the fight against slavery in the Civil War and came back disabled veterans - one of them having lost an arm at the famous Battle of Winchester - I never bought into the Feeneyite point of view.

Given Feeney's view, I was of the opinion that he was more likely on his way to hell in a handbasket if he did not repent of his uncharitable opinion.

Here is the article:

Outside The Church There Is No Salvation


The doctrine that "Outside the Church there is no salvation" is one that is constantly misinterpreted by those who won't submit to the Magisterium of the Church. Faith does not depend upon our ability to reason to the truth but on our humility before the Truth presented to us by those to whom Christ entrusted that task. This is why the First Vatican Council taught that it is the task of the Magisterium ALONE to determine and expound the meaning of the Tradition - including "outside the Church no salvation."

Concerning this doctrine the Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:

We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

Again, in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore of 10 August, 1863 addressed to the Italian bishops, he said:

It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.

These statements are consistent with the understanding of the Church contained in the documents of Vatican II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as explaining why the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney (that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved) has been condemned by the Magisterium. It is ironic that precisely those who know their obligation to remain united to the Magisterium, and thus on whom this doctrine is morally binding, keep themselves from union with the Roman See on this point.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

In other words, the unchurched unbelieving etc. who are righteous otherwise, have some of the truth, we have the fullness of the truth, but their loyalty to such of the truth as they had will not be despised at the Last Judgement?

Condemnation said...

Who is more faithful? The Christian who cries out the name of Jesus, prays, goes to church, spends their time condemning others, but ignores his commandments to love others, to show mercy and compassion? Or, the non-Christian who doesn't even believe in God, but practices everything Jesus commanded us to do?

If you say you are a Christian, a follower of Jesus, but don't do what he says, are you really a Christian? This is how athiests might be saved--by the unfaithfulness of those who claim they are, but ignore the words of Jesus when he said he was sent here not to condemn the world, but to save it.

All of you are the hypocrites that Jesus warned believers about. You will find one phrase in the Bible that justifies your hatred of others, but ignore the very large passages of love, hope, service, salvation, and forgiveness. This is why you despise this new Pope--he lives out the words of Jesus. You can talk and talk and keep deluding yourselves that you are justified--but you can't fool God. When God separates the sheep from the goats, don't be surprised which herd you will be surrounded by.

Anonymous said...

To 11.35am:

It is impossible for nonbelievers in Jesus Christ to do all that he commands us to do! It is possible only for believers because God progressively sanctifies us. So far as I am aware that is agreed by both Catholic and protestant.

I agree with you that there are some who call themselves Christian who will get a nasty shock on the day of judgement. Jesus himself said the same (Matt 7:21).

Anonymous said...


This is Anon of 6.12pm and 6.47am; thank you for your further replies. Those two comments were my first contribution to this thread - it's not me above who has been 'hitting on' Pope Francis. We seem to disagree about the human conscience, for I say that as it is fallen it is an imperfect guide yet you suggest that a human can always know if what he or she is doing is sin. In that case, Moses would not have needed God to write ancient Israel's law.

There is a sense in which "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" is tautologous, if you define the church as the collective of the saved.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 12:35
Your post is an example of what I meant when I said some Christians think of Christianity as a kind of exclusive country club with privileges for members only while looking down noses at non-members. I see your views are so like that of certain country clubs with rich, upper class, Protestant, white skin snobs who consider themselves as so very superior to the rest of human beings. No need to do anything except believe you have the right credentials. You would be Aryans must wonder why God even bothered to create such non-perfect humans except maybe to have someone to compare yourselves to.

Anonymous said...

Dear 1.13pm: I am saved not by any merit of my own for I have none and deserve hell. I am saved because Jesus Christ chose in his mercy to throw me a lifebelt and I grasped it. It is beyond me why you think this is arrogant of me. That same offer is open to all people of all races and I look forward to meeting them all in heaven. You mentioned Aryanism, not me!


Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

even Christians do not operate in perfection all the time. And the fallen conscience cannot be correct all the time. Though there is probably a progressive moving away from a sense of "no that is wrong!" in favor of "my parents, society, peers, etc. say otherwise so it isn't wrong and/or I have to go along with it anyway I have no choice instead of resisting unto death if need be but rejection and ostracism seems worse than death" sort of thinking or feeling at a level one can't call explicit thought.

The issue however, is not that one's fallen conscience can guide one, but that to the degree one follows such of it as is right, as one follows the True Light from God, one gets more light, and will probably end up accepting the Gospel if it is available or meet and accept Christ at death if the Gospel isn't available or is taught falsely.

Jesus said that all who are taught by The Father come to Him.

John warns us in his first epistle that whosoever thinks he is without sin makes God out to be a liar. Even if only thought type sins. So even Christians, despite progressive sanctification, can't be counted on to always do and think right and have entirely right consciences. The sanctification is a process that is not completed in life.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 1:26
So, the man who runs the country club as opposed to the members, invited you in. How humble you must feel to be part of that exclusive club. Are you patting yourself on the back for acknowledging how you are without merit but were worthy to be one of the chosen because you said yes to the country club?

Is it just possible you in reality have no merit but are depending on that exclusive country club called some branch of Christianity to tell you that you really are one of the chosen?

I do wish more Christians took off their peacock feathers, quit saying they really are without merit, and really live a good Christian life. The world would be a better place.

I do respect those who respect Christianity enough to live that life.

Anonymous said...

"Are you patting yourself on the back for acknowledging how you are without merit but were worthy to be one of the chosen because you said yes to the country club?"

No. That I do something that is to my advantage does not make me worthy.

"Is it just possible you in reality have no merit but are depending on that exclusive country club called some branch of Christianity to tell you that you really are one of the chosen?"

I study the Bible and find it makes sense to me. I am in a particular congregation, of course, but my salvation comes from Jesus Christ and it is Him upon whom I depend.

"I do wish more Christians took off their peacock feathers, quit saying they really are without merit, and really live a good Christian life. The world would be a better place."

I emphasised my lack of merit because you were presuming (without evidence) that I thought otherwise. I agree that the more Christians who live a good Christian life, the better for the world. You do not know who I am so you do not know how I live my life. Let us leave judging to God.

Anonymous said...

It may have looked as if I was judging you. Maybe I should have made it clear that you just gave an example of rhetoric that I have heard over and over again yet never responded to. It was time.

God who created the beauty and magnificence of the universe, the variety in it, the complexity would not have carved out a tiny, tiny little piece and said only you are saved. God who watches over a sparrow and a tulip gave no indication that everything outside of that tiny, tiny little group is only worthy of destruction if they don't bow their knee to Jesus because they believe Jesus said so. The human part of Jesus might have said something along those lines, but God is said to love the entire world, not just one tiny little group of people.

Though easier to identify with than the totality of God, Jesus appeared in human form with all of the limitations of humanness, with the exception of some miracles if one believes there were miracles. His apostles were fully human also.

Anyone who has contact with the teachings of Christianity should be grateful for the opportunity to learn how to live a life worth living.

Craig said...

13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
- Matthew 7:13-14; the words of Jesus as recorded by Matthew.

One may choose not to believe me. No problem with that. One may choose not to believe the NT Scriptures. God allows that.

But, as for me and my home, we will serve the LORD.

Anonymous said...

And I'll serve God, not God the father, son or holy ghost, just God who created the universe.

And I'll not tell anyone that if they don't do it the way I saw it written, they are lost for eternity.

The God I worship doesn't run private country clubs closed to non-believers.

We are all free to believe what we believe is the right way. Those who feel free to evaluate what others believe regarding monotheism, should be ready to accept how others see them.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

The God Who created the universe IS The Father, and The Son and The Holy Ghost. also known as YHWH which means approximately The Self Existent Eternal Creator of all life.

Self Existent would mean does not originate from or depend on anyone else. In Buddhist terms, does not take His arising from anyone or anything else. (Buddha could figure out all the "gods" he knew about were false, but didn't figure out about the True God, so went agnostic, but said if there is a God He would have to be unlike all other beings, all others take their arising from someone or something else.) Existed from all eternity without beginning and exists forever without end. Revealed Himself in veiled ways and more overtly when part of The Holy Trinity Incarnated as Jesus Christ Who died and came back fully to life never to die again. Ascended to heaven and will come back from heaven with glory to judge the living and the dead and His Kingdom shall have no end.

Anonymous said...

"Revealed Himself in veiled ways and more overtly when part of The Holy Trinity Incarnated as Jesus Christ."

I'm not going to argue theology with you. understand God as a Holy Trinity. I can understand the need for others to identify with Jesus and then understand Jesus is God, but it does get confusing. I've never come across any prayers to God the Father or God the Trinity. It's as if Christians can't get past Jesus, the Son of God is God in totality and anything that is to be learned is to be learned from the teachings of Jesus. Whatever he says goes and forget the rest that may exist. It's as if nothing about God was to be learned before Jesus came on the scene, well except the creation part, and probably most believe that Jesus created the universe.

Over decades I've had to listen to people telling me I have to believe in Jesus as they see him or I won't be saved. I was always too polite to give a response. Today as the straw.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

try Eastern Orthodoxy.


On rising, make the sign of the Cross and say:

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Glory to Thee, our God, glory to Thee.

Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth, Who art everywhere present and fillest all things, Treasury of good gifts and Giver of Life, come and abide in us, and cleanse us of all impurity, and save our souls, O Good One.

Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us. (thrice)

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

Most Holy Trinity, have mercy on us. O Lord, wash away our sins, O Master, pardon our transgressions. O Holy One, visit and heal our infirmities, for Thy Name's sake.

Lord, have mercy. (3 times.)

Glory to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

Our Father, Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

For Thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

The Troparia to the Holy Trinity

As we rise from sleep we worship Thee, O good and powerful Lord, and to Thee we sing the Angel's hymn: Holy, Holy, Holy art Thou, O God; through the Mother of God, have mercy on us.

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.

Having raised me from bed and sleep, O Lord, enlighten my mind, and open my heart and lips to praise Thee, O Holy Trinity: Holy, Holy, Holy art Thou, O God; through the Mother of God, have mercy on us.

Now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

Suddenly the Judge will come, and the deeds of each will be laid bare; but at midnight let us cry with fear: Holy, Holy, Holy art Thou, O God; through the Mother of God, have mercy on us.

Lord, have mercy. (12 times.)

Prayer of St. Basil the Great to the Most Holy Trinity

As I rise from sleep I thank Thee, O Holy Trinity, for through Thy great goodness and patience Thou wast not angered with me, an idler and sinner, nor hast Thou destroyed me in my sins, but hast shown Thy usual love for men, and when I was prostrate in despair, Thou hast raised me to keep the morning watch and glorify Thy power. And now enlighten my mind's eye and open my mouth to study Thy words and understand Thy commandments and do Thy will and sing to Thee in heartfelt adoration and praise Thy Most Holy Name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

O come let us worship God our King.
O come let us worship and fall down before Christ our King and our God.
O come let us worship and fall down before Christ Himself, our King and our God.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
practical experience and I have had something similar in the past, The Name of Jesus drove it away and got me back in my body when something was trying to drag me out two or three times.

"What a relief it is to find the ce4 website! I have recently started to acknowledge my own experiences regarding spiritual warfare, a topic which all of my life has terrified me. I came across your site out of a reference from a YouTube video by 'u2beheavenbound'.
( felt intrigued enough to follow through the web search and was amazed reading the testimonials of other people experiences. It was something I could definitely relate to...." read the whole thing but here is what is similar to my experiences, "...The last major thing happened in December of 2012. I had just gotten out of the hospital for a severe kidney infection over the thanksgiving holiday. I was happy to be home with my husband and kids. Our (my husband and i) normal routine was to watch tv until we both got tired. I was again in the fuzzy area of sleep, where I still knew what was going on around me, but my mind was starting to wander. I laid on my stomach with my left Arm propped underneath my pillow. My husband was still sitting up watching tv.
Then-something happened...
In my spirit I saw my right arm lift up and down-something was playing with me. Provoking me, showing me that I wasn't in control. I was on alert, but unable to move. Frozen. I then felt an arm wrap around my neck and push down with unimaginable weight on my body. I COULDN'T BREATHE! I was panicking-this 'thing', this evil, was trying to kill me! I was paralyzed both physically and spiritually. Confusion and horror filled ever inch of my being.
As I was struggling to hold on-I remembered something that I was taught when I was little in church. I whispered 'Jesus' in the smallest voice. I'm sure not even a sound was audible. But the second I said it, the presence left. I shot up, shaking and told my husband to turn on the light. I cried and struggled for the words to tell him what had just happened. 'Something just attacked me!' Is all I could do to explain. I then proceeded to demand in the name of Jesus that any spirit that wishes to harm me or my family to leave. They had NO right to be there.
I called a family friend who is familiar with these sort of things. Left a message on his machine (obviously upset) and went to see him the next day.
He quoted Corinthians 12:4-11
And talked to me about the gift of discernment. I cried. I knew that hunch I felt my whole life really was leading me to be apart of something big. It can and will serve a purpose for HIS Glory. Satan has tried for 27 years to discourage and terrify me, but thankfully now-I know the power God has given me through His son Jesus' salvation and name...."

Anonymous said...

One of the regular posters here shared this with friends.

Before they harvest your organs, you should be dead. Read these articles before you sign something donating them. Organ donation is big business and where money is involved, morality may go out the window.

Anonymous said...

"I've never come across any prayers to God the Father or God the Trinity"

Our Father
Who art in heaven
Hallowed be thy name...

(2000 years old.)

Anonymous said...

UK Newspaper Mail on Sunday reports -

Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong

A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.

The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.

Read more:

~ K ~

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Actually we may be heading for an ice age immediately (like 10 years or so if not sooner). Warming like we have had immediately preceded previous ice ages.

(I am a creationist, but while an ice age may have happened right after The Flood there is evidence of more than one ice age. The only serious difference between creationist and standard geology and paleontology is not so much what happened - with some exceptions - as when it happened and why.)

Anonymous said...

The Our Father is a beautiful prayer, but it is also a rather patriarchal prayer just by the beginning words alone - Our father. I probably am stretching it, but it doesn't fit with the Trinity concept. Could Our Son or Our Holy Spirit be substituted for the words Our Father? Does the Father have a different role to play than the Son or Holy Spirit? For that prayer to have universal significance, it should be addressed to God period.

I know someone will bring up the way one individual can be a father, son, uncle, salesman, employer, etc. but in that case it does come down to one individual and not multiples of that one individual.

To go back to the beginning of my comments, while "John" may have different roles to play, "John" the employer doesn't take on the role of "Father" as he speaks to "John's" children. Each title takes on a different role and set of responsibilities. "John" doesn't become father to his employees. "John" the country club member can't control everyone in whatever relationship role they have to him.

And no, God can't do whatever he wants to do in the context of creator of the universe. The universe is not his day to day plaything. That would void the whole concept of free will which is a basic concept.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

free will is not absolute but relative and limited and a matter of degree. It is crippled by many factors. The interaction of free will and God's rule and foreknowledge and definitely in some cases intervention, is a mystery.

Yes He can do what He pleases with the universe, and that does not have ANY relevance to free will because that will is exercized in a context, and the changing of the context merely means the will must deal with things in that new context.

as for "patriarchal" the usual picture of femininity and motherhood is a crippled warped inadequate sometimes poisonous thing. Something Christians so infected with worldliness forget throughout the centuries, we have one model for both sexes, the man Jesus Christ.

Eve did not have a female model but a male to whom she was to be suitable partner ezer neged "help meet" is face to face partner type helper, in some slang his road dog, and ALL reference to her being radically different and subordinate with yearning urges to be led by him and approved by him come AFTER the Fall as part of a CURSE and are NO PART OF THE ORIGINAL PLAN.

Anonymous said...

I summarised the science of the climate change/global warming issue in a comment at 3:06 AM in the thread beneath Constance's post of 3rd April 2013. Regarding the politics, let me add this remarkably frank comment by the co-chairman of one of the IPCC's working groups, Ottmar Edenhofer, who stated that: “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy… one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” (Interview in the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung (New Zurich Times), 14th Nov 2010; translated). See:


Anonymous said...

"The Our Father is a beautiful prayer, but it is also a rather patriarchal prayer just by the beginning words alone - Our father. I probably am stretching it, but it doesn't fit with the Trinity concept."

Why not? Bear in mind that it was given by the Son (Luke 11).

Anonymous said...

All the links you posted to Earth Spirit Rising are gone. I had never heard of the organization so I did some googling and it appears that they constantly have their seminars at Catholic Universities as Carrie Tomko seemed to indicate. Wonder if you are aware of the Jesuit priest, Albert Fritsch? He seems to be high up there in the echelons of this earth worship nonsense as he appears prominently at their conferences. Here's his website:

I think you have suspected that the New Agers are behind the Occupy Wall street movement . This is a paper by Fr. Fritsch that indicates you are right. It calls for a world gov't and socialism, in addition to the cry to Occupy Wall Street, or Reclaim the commons.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, if all three parts of the Trinity are equal, there can be no father son relationship. Oh well. Believe whatever you think is right. There is much justification by Christian philosophers, and I'm not about to challenge them. That's not what this blog is about. However since many think promoting Christianity is what this blog is about and discussing it is, I felt it was just fine to put my two cents in to discuss it.

Anonymous said...

Rosemary Radford Ruether, eminent Catholic feminist and population-control advocate, echoed the cold sentiments of eugenicist Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, when she suggested that we should "find the most compassionate way to weed out people." At a four-day eco-spirituality conference hosted over Memorial Day weekend at Cincinnati's College of Mount St. Joseph, operated by the Sisters of Charity, Ruether provided a keynote address, outlining her plan to save the planet Earth from the "patriarchal-minded, elite male humans" who are living in "ecological sin." Approximately 400 attended; the majority of them were consecrated women religious.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Jesuits, this interview with Greg Hunter was pretty fascinating. Karen Hudes, former World Bank Chief Counsel and whistleblower, blows the lid off who the thugs are who are controlling the Fed, the media and all the corporations.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

The Father Son and Holy Spirit are equal in the sense of all are God, not gods but ONE God Who consists of Three Persons. The Father eternally begets The Son outside of time, so though The Father is unoriginate, The Son though co-eternal with The Father is originate from The Father but there was NEVER "a time when He was not" (quotes around the Arian heretical position that the Council of Nicea put a stop to though the heresy's supporters continued often from positions of power, and were the first Christians to use persecution on anyone), and The Father eternally spirates The Holy Spirit Who (Jesus said) proceeds from The Father (full stop here, not "and The Son" which the Latins added several hundred years later) and is coeternal with The Father and The Son. The Father outranks The Son and is the ground of being so to speak of The Son and of The Holy Spirit.

Anonymous, when you can't find a link go to,
and put the link (minus the http) into the wayback machine and you will usually find an old copy of it.

Anonymous said...

Constance, it is very interesting that this event was to begin on 09/12 with a public talk in Boulder, the same day that the floods hit with full force. Then there was the weekend earth ritual workshop to be held in Lyons, which was completely cut off as all roads in and out were destroyed! The event was to wrap up 09/16-09/18 with divination sessions. I definitely think there was a connection. I lived and worked in the Boulder area for 18 years and I can attest to the strong New Age influence there. It is very much woven into the fabric of everyday life there as Naropa, where Ms. Manchester earned her Masters Degree, is very prominent and influential and a magnet for die hard New Agers as well as naive converts. I am so sad for all of the people who I know personally that are Godly, Christ honoring individuals who have been affected by this devastating I am reluctant to call it judgement, but the timing of it is incredibly "synchronistic" as the New Agers would say - so it has to make one wonder!

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous, if all three parts of the Trinity are equal, there can be no father son relationship."

That would be true if all three members of the Trinity were IDENTICAL. But when it is said that they are 'equal' it is an incomplete statement until it is specified in what way they are equal. for instance, I am equal in height to my neighbor, but not in weight.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 3:32
Do you really want to go there? What you are suggesting is three separate identities which would mean three gods which is paganism.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

No, there are no separate three gods. They are distinct as persons but united in essence beyond merely being the same species. It is ONE God Who subsists as Three Persons, this is why St. Patrick had trouble explaining triunity to a pagan Irish king, who was used to tritheism triplicities of gods, but that this is NOT the same thing.

Finally St. Patrick took a shamrock leaf, "one leaf, three parts."

This is not tri theism or three godism.

modalism is the heresy that says there is one God Who plays different roles three different faces or modes but not distinct persons. (In other words, when Jesus prayed to The Father He was talking to Himself in this scenario.)

The Holy Trinity is a mystery, and a misinterpretation of it may have been deliberately created and exploited, along with a kind of filioque perhaps which would require that if The Father begat The Son Who also begat The Holy Spirit then The Holy Spirit would have to beget also, as St. Photios the Great critiqued the filioque as potentially leading to, so in early
times paganism was developed using such ideas.

God fell back on the doctrine of His essential unity to combat this, leaving hints of plurality within Himself to be revealed again later in such a context that such developments couldn't happen again.

The filioque left to itself would allow this, but the RC of course put limits on this sort of thing. St. Photios pointed out that merely mitigating the damage of the falsity of the doctrine of the filioque (which is unbiblical in itself) does not eliminate the problem.

The essential inequality between The Persons of The Holy Trinity, is that The Father begets, The Son is begotten, and The Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father Who in addition to begetting also spirates (what is spirated from someone proceeds from the spirater).

Bear in mind that these are inadequate statements of finite ergo inadequate human minds, and the best we can do to understand what has been revealed. Since we are talking about things beyond finite minds to understand, we must
allow for things like this being beyond rational comprehension.

But it is not three gods but ONE God Who is Three Persons. Each is inifinite and the rule that two things cannot occupy the same space at the same time does not apply to them. Jesus may be limited now in His humanity, but He remains infinite in His divinity.

Anonymous said...

So sorry Christine. Your explanation leaves me cold. Inasmuch as there are four leaf clovers that as a childhood who found them considered them lucky it doesn't work.

I'm willing to accept the trinity as a religious mystery that others are willing to accept. I don't have to accept what others accept. I'm not converting.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

the existence of four leaf clovers is irrelevant, I don't see why it being thought lucky (because rare) is relevant to what St. Patrick did. the point is that the three leaf kind displays how there can be one thing which is composed of three, which St. Patrick used to make his point, one leaf (the thing growing on the stem) three parts. a rare variant, and a few five leafed and even more up to 56 found in Japan exist.

the normal form is three leaf, and actually they are lobes of the one leaf.

Marko said...

I thought Christine's example of the clover leaf representing the Trinity was well-done.

I've always used water as my closest representation of the Trinity that I could come up with. Water has three distinct forms: ice, water, and steam or water vapor. Each has it's own characteristics and functions, but each is fundamentally the same thing - water.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 5:08

In the following Fr. Fritsch and his co-author compare "earth-healing" to former Catholic Dominican priest Matthew Fox's "creation centered spirituality." See Chapter 4.

A resurrection-centered approach

Robert T. Sears, S.J.
Albert J. Fritsch, S J.

Anonymous said...

Christine, I do suppose that you know the difference between a plant the concept of God. While the analogy is gotcha clever, Whatever definition one wants to give about God, it's probable that there is something in the physical universe to use as an analogy.

In an effort to understand the concept of the Trinity, I came to this site.

Until I can understand what they are saying, I'll stay off the topic.

Marko said...


Interesting what a search on Google can find, if you use the right combination of words....

I wanted to learn more about what you said about Promise Keepers being tied in with the Men's Movement and shepherding.

I found an interesting article that focuses on Prayer circles (which Promise Keepers use, along with many other groups - some Christian, others not so much), and there are lots of interesting names and organizations listed in it.

What I found most interesting in the article was related to your concern about earth worship slowly becoming a coerced activity. Prayer circles seem to fit that same category of something that appears innocent at first, but that can be used to first unify, then coerce people into tapping into a power source that is not of God.


Marko said...


From the article:

Prayer circles are everywhere, but we need to take a serious look at exactly where and how they are being used. For instance, in the manipulative Promise Keepers Washington gathering, which had a strong flavor of unity and accountability, prayer circles were center-circle (no pun intended), and I believe they were used to energize the unity- consciousness of all present. Look at the following quote:

"'Stand in the Gap: A Sacred Assembly of Men' wasn't scheduled to start until noon. But when I arrived on the Washington Mall a little after midnight on the morning of October 4th, the first prayer circles had already started. Early arrivers were camped by the center stage that had been erected in front of the U.S. Capitol Building. The participants huddled close together, bowing their heads forward and raising their palms in the air. As with everything else in Promise Keepers, this circle was composed entirely of men. 'Jesus, Jesus, Jesus,' they sang in unison over and over again. 'I've decided to give my life to Jesus.'"(1)

Sound Christian? Look Christian? Absolutely, but really following the same Catholic pattern from the 1960's and 70's Catholic/Protestant ecumenical prayer meetings held in the early days of "God's" outpouring of love "for the sake of a manifested unity." Here is another innocent-sounding quote from a promise-keeping group:

"Another thing we have done every week is to pray for one another; for our families; for specific needs of the men, especially in areas of personal integrity; for the church and its leaders; and for the leaders of our country. Our prayer time has been powerful. We have stood holding hands in a circle on the front porch of the host's home, praying together boldly and unashamedly."(2)

Sound good? Absolutely. Accountability - Intimacy - Between men, families, and denominations - Based on Jesus! Well, wait a minute on that last one. As it was back in the old Charismatic, ecumenical prayer meeting days, so it is now: spirits not of God are energizing these prayer circles to bring people into a Shepherding/Intimacy/Accountability/Community situation. What will this eventually lead to in the end? I believe it will be a fallen church ripe for control by the world system.

I say this because prayer circles are not relegated to small accountability groups. There is a current move to link all of these small groups into a Global Prayer Circle for the sake of demonstrating unity in "Jesus" throughout the world. Christians may think that this unity would concern Christianity alone, but it does not. What is in view is all the religions of the world participating in a unified prayer circle formed around the globe. Because prayer circles are where the demon of power is based, they will be one of the energizing tools used to maintain control and bring in the final evolution of this beast, a world church. The intimate sharing of small prayer groups will turn into Big Brother knowing all about each member. Groups will be shepherded into a global community living under a system of controlled accountability to man. The New Age consciousness of unity in diversity, as well as peace based not on God's word, but on a universal set of values, will finally be realized by this global entity.

Link to article (which appears to be quite old - late 90s?):

Marko said...

I think you may have done articles in the past about prayer circles, but the article above put things together in a way I don't remember seeing before, and it makes a lot of sense.

Maybe prayer circles are something where people should, as you said, "Be aware, but don't participate."

Anonymous said...


When I was young and having difficulty comprehending the trinity, an elderly lady described it to me as an egg. An egg has a yolk, whites and shell. They are three different pieces of the whole egg.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

A good non pagan reason for eggs at Easter.

Anonymous said...

Not sure if this was posted:

I know some of the links also disappeared.

Anonymous said...

sorry just saw that Constance already posted the links.

Anonymous said...


Please check your e-mail inbox for an important message from me.

~ Rita

Constance Cumbey said...

Thanks, Rita. I just checked my email and I concur. I knew many wonderful Christians in Boulder. At one time John Loeffler and Don & Mignon McElvaney lived there. I have worked closely with both over the years. It was Don & Mignon who put me on to the Gold Lake event. Mignon accompanied me on the Barbara Marx Hubbard visit.


Constance Cumbey said...

To Anonymous 8:12

THANKS for the heads up on the Christian Book Distributor promotion and distribution of Matthew Fox's book. Why am I not surprised?! In 1983 Logos Bookstore in Seattle, Washington (supposedly an Evangelical Christian outlet) was selling my book under the counter in a plain brown paper bag with a critical article enclosed, but were selling about everything from Matthew Fox and others linked with the New Age Movement openly and unapologetically.


Craig said...

As regards Christian Book Distributors, there are many flat out antichristian books sold by that outfit. A while back I wrote a book review on the site, and the question posed to me as I was finishing up the review was if I would recommend CBD to others, to which I responded "no", for the very reason that CBD mixes orthodoxy with heresy and blatant antichristian material.

For another example, they sell John Hick's The Metaphor of God Incarnate, which has as its basic premise, as one may deduce from the title, that the Incarnation was not literal, but metaphorical. That is, Jesus was such a great example of how one can commune with God that he "incarnated" God, in the same way one could metaphorically describe a very graceful dancer as one who is "grace incarnate", or that an evil person is "the devil incarnate". Of course, some Christians believe the latter will actually come true in the person of the Antichrist.

Here's the blurb from the site:

In this re-issue of Hick's postmodern refutation of Christian tenets, the author continues his series of treatises illustrating his theory of normative pluralism. Hick posits (among other things) that so-called 'near-death experiences' account for much of the miraculous and supernatural events surrounding the death, resurrection and subsequent appearances of Christ, thereby discarding long-held elements of Christian faith. By challenging the Bible's inerrancy he in essence challenges the faith's relevancy, but he also outlines a system of accepting the broad sweep of the Bible without concentrating on those components that are incongruous with an all-embracing belief system.

I bought the book a while back from a local used book shop to use as reference, comparing to some of the doctrines taught in the NAR and, of course, New Age. From the back cover:

...[The book] is Hick's claim that Jesus himself did not teach what was to become the orthodox understanding of him; that the dogma that he had both a divine and a human nature is incoherent and unintelligible; that divine incarnation is a metaphorical idea; that its literal construal makes Christianity the only religion to have been founded by God in person, and thus uniquely superior to all others, a belief that has done much harm to the world; that Christians should take Jesus as the one who has made God real to us and challenged us to live in God's presence...

Constance Cumbey said...

Lyons - Boulder, Colorado last, Woodstock, NY next?! Malidoma's next upcoming events7:

Fire Ritual, Lecture, & Divinations in Upstate New York (Woodstock Area), October 9-13

« Back to Events
Event:Fire Ritual, Lecture, & Divinations in Upstate New York (Woodstock Area), October 9-13Start:October 9, 2013End:October 13, 2013Organizer:Debi MedeskiUpdated:July 3, 2013Venue:Unnamed Venue Address:

NY, United States

Fire Ritual, Lecture, & Divinations in Upstate New York (Woodstock Area), October 9-13

Please check our website in the coming months for more updated & detailed info.

Malidoma Returns to Nova Scotia, September 24-30

Lecture at CIIS, Friday, October 18th, 7 pm-9

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

looks like the lizard might be back, some people want him to run for Senator in Virginia. See Constance's remarks on him

Constance Cumbey said...

I am DEEPLY DISTURBED about Pope Francis' media comments today and I wonder what Susanna's take is on them. It looks, from my perspective, like a loosening of the standards the Catholic Church held inviolate over the centuries -- abortion, homosexuality, etc., etc.


Anonymous said...

It looks and sounds like the pope is fitting like a hand to a glove in the current political global one world government landscape.

Susanna said...

Hi Constance,

I really don't think that the Pope is advocating for a liberalization of Catholic moral teaching. I think that is wishful thinking on the part of radical liberal "Catholics."

Having read most of the wroks of the late Archcbishop Fulton J. Sheen, I would have to say that I think the Pope's comments echo the late Archbishop Sheen insofar as he is implying that if our hatred of sin is greater than our love for God, then in a way, we are on our way to making an idol out of sin.

Anything can be made into an idol -even the Pope...even the Bible. Anything that is not God that is put in the place of God.

In fact, the Pope's exact words were"

The new Pope’s words are likely to have repercussions in a church whose bishops and priests in many countries, including the United States, have often appeared to make fighting abortion, gay marriage and contraception their top public policy priorities. These teachings are “clear” to him as “a son of the church,” he said, but they have to be taught in a larger context. "The proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives........”

The following is from Father Z's blog. I am pretty much in agreement with his take on the Pope's comments.

Pope Francis’ comments on homosexuality in the Big Interview

Posted on 19 September 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Susanna said...


Here is the AP article posted at Breitbart.

Anonymous said...

60 percent of priests in the Catholic institution gay! U. S. News & World Report, July 29, 2013

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles. Matthew 7:16

What can we expect of religious institutions? Should we not rather focus on Christ, and His teachings? If we seek the Holy Spirit to lead us to a knowledge of the truth, will He lead us astray?

Why would we hope for anything good to come out of Rome? Has it not always been a housed divided. "Damnable duplicity" as the old time baptist preaches would say.

Why ask Susanna to weigh in on the Pope? She is a tireless, and masterful apologist for that institution.

I hope Susanna, that at some point you will walk away from that institution, and seek a church with a straight forward proclamation of the gospel. I live not to terribly far from Springfield. Its a good sized city. There must be several good fellowships there.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

you will find similar problems in protestant churches. note the evangelical compromises and the links I posted some months back to a page that links hundreds of press reports of protestant clergy involved in sexual sins.

Two dangers in opposing sin, one to so exalt some specific ones that one feels virtuous and pure because not doing them (the Pharisees, didn't do adultery physically but cultivated mental adultery; various kinds of corruption rendered legal by the corrupt writing the laws nowdays; etc. etc.) and thus fails to repent.

The other, to dismiss all sin as equal, and while originally this was intended to refocus on the sins it is easy to forget when confronted with gross open major sins, it works out in general to minimize everything including the horrible.

St. Paul makes it clear there ARE gradations of sin, so does Jesus.

But the problem with Rome (and lesser in Orthodoxy) is that it is possible to equate challenge to clergy wrong doing with opposition to Christ Himself via His Mystical Body the Church, usually rendering this more literal than metaphorical, and so forth.

NOTE TO ALL RC AND EO (from an EO) the saints got to be saints by focussing on Jesus, for the most part.

It is easy to forget that holiness isn't just a demand on priests and monastics.

Another protection against wrong is to remember Jesus' warning against false teachers and evil people among the church, and to study doctrine and The Bible and be able to judge what is presented publically or privately. Everyone should be a theologian or working on it.

The feeling that the priest is closer to God even God almost in person, is also found in the protestant scene regarding ministers. We have to each work on being closer to God.

Anonymous said...

Re Pope Francis' comments...

Abortion: I think it IS important to keep pro-actively banging the abortion drum. This is a terrible evil.

Homosexuality: I don't agree that the church (any church) is pro-actively banging a drum on the subject. Militant gay activists are doing that and the churches are simply responding. I hope that Rome will continue to do so.

Contraception: Primitive means existed in ancient times and were not banned between husband and wife in Mosaic Law. Nor, therefore, should the church ban non-conceptive means within marriage today.

My radical hope is that Francis will distinguish between these three things in these ways. I entirely agree with him that the church must preach God's love as well as point out evil that people must repent of.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

The primitive means of contraception mostly consisted of herbal potions, which induced miscarriage, i.e., abortion. A lot of them may tinker with ovulation, which is okay, but also thin the womb lining making implantation of a conceptus unlikely.

The early church canons prohibited this stuff, but always in context of killing the unborn. The only canon that doesn't mention this, is in the same cultural context and near in time to the others, so is simply a reiteration of this.

Barrier methods and withdrawing were never addressed by councils of bishops in those days. Onan was getting sex by deception, since Tamar wanted him only for reproduction, and maybe he even used force if she figured out his game and refused. "Onanism" is a very wrong term regarding masturbation.

Individual church writers like Augustine, who denounced wives kept for pleasure not reproduction as mere legal prostitutes, apparently he was less read in the Pauline epistles than in general doctrine and logical deductions. Because Paul NEVER specifies reproduction as the reason for marriage, always it is companionship like Gen. 3:18 and says that while marriage may distract you from putting God first all the time, it is better than fornication.

THERE IS ONE EXCEPTION about herbal potions. Pomegranate seed. This has estrone in it, which affects the pituitary gland and stops production of gonatrophins, and thus stops ovulation.
(none of the estrogen overloads that can do the other stuff. Interestingly, the pomegranate seemed important in the Mosaic system, since the priest was to wear clothing that had alternating bells and pomegranate shaped devices.)

Pomegranate seed is not as reliable as the pill, but good enough it got noticed in ancient times. I don't know if the rind or its lining would be needed also.

So it took RC to be more influenced by philosophy shaped by the more ascetic kind of pagan philosophy on the one hand, and fertility on the other, to denounce all contraception.

paul said...

Anon 9:39
You seem to be correcting Jesus Christ.
He is the one who gave us that prayer.
It was in response to the disciples asking
him how they should pray.
Your academic hubris is amazing.

Anonymous said...

You can't have it both ways mr. pope.

Listen to the compromises he says and watch the compromises he does. What a fuzzy world of words. He is courting the political world's favor-the apostate church is growing on the earth. Catholic and Protestant alike fulfilling the endtimes timeline right on schedule...

Susanna said...

Anonymous 2:35 AM

The late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once said that it is often the case that people who excoriate the Roman Catholic Church do not hate the Roman Catholic Church... but what they THINK is the Roman Catholic Church. He went on to say that if the Roman Catholic Church were really what these critics say she is, Catholics would probably hate her even more than her critics do.

The reason why I am a Roman Catholic Christian is presumably for the same reason you are a non-Catholic Christian - because I honestly happen to believe that the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church - to be found in the Bible, Sacred Tradition ( the faith orally transmitted by Christ directly to Peter and the Apostles ), the Creeds of Chalcedon and/or Nicaea and the Catechism of the Catholic Church happen to be true.

Moreover, the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in matters of faith and morals which Pope Francis has clearly said he defends as a "son of the Church," were being taught long before Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elevated to the Papacy.

If you are satisfied that your own private interpretation ( out of thousands of other private interpretations ) of Holy Writ is the one true one and that the Sola Scriptura Rule of Faith which began with Martin Luther is also true, then far be it from me to rain on your religious parade.

But when people - especially the secular liberal news media - continue to misrepresent the Pope and put their own spin on everything he says, you bet I will defend him - and with no apologies - because anyone who knows me here also knows that I am the first one to drop the hammer on Catholic apostates while rarely criticizing non-Catholic Christian communions except when there is collusion in apostasy between the various Christian communions which involves Catholics.

On the contrary, rather than to participate in stone-throwing....I prefer instead to leave non-Catholic Christians to police the scandals in their own back yard.

If I have commented here about the Pope's comments at all, it is because Constance wanted to know what I thought about them.

In closing, I would point out that one of the axiomatic first principles of philosophy is "The whole is always greater than any of its parts." While Catholic Christian teaching on contraception, abortion and homosexuality are a very important part of Catholic moral teaching, they do not constitute the whole body of Catholic moral teaching.

This,in addition to what I have already said in my previous comment, is how I understood the Pope's remarks.......which, by the way were part of an interview and not an "ex cathedra" pronunciamento.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 4:51

Re: My radical hope is that Francis will distinguish between these three things in these ways. I entirely agree with him that the church must preach God's love as well as point out evil that people must repent of.


Susanna said...

Pope condemns abortion in strongest pro-life comments to date, day after controversial interview

by John-Henry Westen

Fri Sep 20, 2013

Anonymous said...

Very interesting information about the government and the effect of microwaves on a brain.

Anonymous said...

Jon Stewart on Pope Francis: "Gays are cool, priests can marry, and if you don't believe in God you can still go to heaven! I love this guy! So what's left of the Catholic church? Without Jesus and celibacy it's just an ornate hotel dispensing wafers."

Anonymous said...

Although I am no longer Catholic, I am sincerely trying to seek the Holy Spirit regarding Pope Francis. The greatest commandment is to love God first and then our neighbors as ourselves. I would love to see the backslid come back to God, but true repentance must come with the choice to come back into the fold and I am just not sure whether the feel-good, warm and fuzzy messages of Pope Francis are doing more harm or good. Jesus is the only way to heaven, and the pope clearly does not seem to be preaching that, but rather a "home-for-all, regardless of change of heart and true repentance. Hopefully, he is not an agent for the one World Religion of Universalism that will accompany the one World gov't of the anti-christ. More and more every day, I see things that are worrisome. That the Jesuits are reputedly militants who show one face to the goyim (uninitiated) and a totally different face to their own (the initiated) leaves room for doubt to this Pope's true intent.

Anonymous said...

New Agers fall for antisemitism
Good article, but the writer is wrong about one thing. New Age is antisemitic at its very core and has been for 100 plus years.

Just remember it's anti-Christian also.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 1:45 P.M.

I am truly sorry that you are no longer a Roman Catholic Christian. Whatever your reasons were for leaving the Roman Catholic Church, you come across as a sincere person and you are right in saying that the greatest commandment is love of God and neighbor.

My purpose here is not to criticize but to clarify.

The mistakes people seem to most frequently make about the Pope is to

1. think everything the pope says is infallible.

2. confuse infallibility with impeccability by thinking that infallibility means the Pope cannot sin.

Popes are sinners just like the rest of us. But we believe that vis a vis the Petrine office the Popes - in spite of their being sinners - are specially protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error in matters of faith and morals when they officially teach "ex cathedra."

That the Catholic Church has had bad Popes in the past is a historical fact. Nevertheless, we Catholics believe that in spite of their scandalous sinful lives, they were prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error "ex cathedra."

Not to be flippant, but these "Black Popes" were probably so absorbed with politics and the pursuit of every earthly pleasure that they had little time left to teach anyone anything about the Catholic Christian faith - infallibly or not.

So yes, Peter - in the persons of "Black Popes" of the past - indeed betrayed Christ. But fortunately, when the cock crowed, Peter repented. The Christian revelation remained preserved intact and still remains preserved.

The following exerpt from an article posted at EWTN further clarifies the Petrine office. If you don't agree with it, fine. All I ask is that you clearly understand precisely what it is that you are disagreeing with:

7. The exercise of the Petrine ministry must be understood - so that it "may lose nothing of its authenticity and transparency"31 - on the basis of the Gospel, that is, on its essential place in the saving mystery of Christ and the building-up of the Church. The primacy differs in its essence and in its exercise from the offices of governance found in human societies:32 it is not an office of co-ordination or management, nor can it be reduced to a primacy of honour, or be conceived as a political monarchy.

The Roman Pontiff - like all the faithful - is subject to the Word of God, to the Catholic faith, and is the guarantor of the Church's obedience; in this sense he is servus servorum Dei. He does not make arbitrary decisions, but is spokesman for the will of the Lord, who speaks to man in the Scriptures lived and interpreted by Tradition; in other words, the episkope of the primacy has limits set by divine law and by the Church's divine, inviolable constitution found in Revelation.33 The Successor of Peter is the rock which guarantees a rigorous fidelity to the Word of God against arbitrariness and conformism: hence the martyrological nature of his primacy........


Susanna said...


In order for me to believe that the Pope had definitively apostatized, he would have to deny the divinity of Christ and I would have to have "take it to the bank" proof that he had done so.

The revelation about Christ's divinity was one of the key revelations given personally to Peter by God the Father in the Gospels which Peter verbalized in his reply to Jesus' question "Who do you say I am?"

Peter replied, saying, "thou art the Christ the Son of the living God."

It was Christ Himself who confirmed that this truth ( Jesus is God made man ) had been revealed directly by the Father to Peter since there was no natural way that Peter could have ever discovered it.


As for the Jesuits, yes, there are some apostates in their ranks. Marxists and Modernists alike. But there are some saintly Jesuits as well. In addition to the Jesuit martyrs like St. Isaac Jogues and the North American Martyrs, there are the more modern saintly Jesuits like Father John A. Harden whose cause for sainthood is well underway. There is also Father Joseph Fessio who has heroically defended the Catholic faith against modernism and has been persecuted for it - by his fellow Jesuits!!! Just as Pope Francis was "punished" by his fellow Jesuits for defending the Catholic Christian faith in Argentina against Jesuits who were peddling Liberation Theology when he was the Jesuit provincial in Argentina. After his term as Jesuit provincial was over, he was exiled to a remote place by these same Jesuits.

Fortunately, his deliverance came at the hands of Blessed Pope John Paul II who elevated him to the rank of bishop and then cardinal.

For these reasons alone, I doubt that Pope Francis will ever become an agent of the antichrist, his totalitarian government or the pantheistic antichristian religion that will accompany it and work with it hand in glove.15A Submeri

Anonymous said...

"In order for me to believe that the Pope had definitively apostatized, he would have to deny the divinity of Christ"

Susanna, the bar is lower than that. I am talking about criteria for apostasy by anybody here. (This isn't an anti-papal rant.)

I would regard as apostate anybody who denies Christ's divinity, 'divinity' meaning in the same sense as the presumed Creator; anybody who denies His crucifixion and resurrection; and anybody who admits to regarding as divine anything or anyone else except the Holy Spirit.

Anonymous said...

Apostasy is apostasy whether catholic or protestant. Apostasy will deny Christ by denying sin is sin because He became sin for us on the Cross. What God calls sin in the Holy Scripture, man should not dispute, because that is based on His Authority as LORD. Apostasy will deny the Deity of Christ in practice before it begins denial in words.

Anonymous said...

What do you think of the four social networking sites listed? Conservative and New Age? Domain for sale text in About and Terms comes from Cicero

David Icke’s ‘The People’s Voice’ news organization would be an excellent platform.

All above are from the liberty friends blog.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Here's what I think. First, I agree with the attitude I think aznon 2:04 is expressing about the site, likening it to diseases.

Second, talk about apostasy. This liberty site has Thomas Paine and the American Crisis in its lists which I didn't read, but Paine was a rabid atheist (or deist, effectively the same thing, denies all revelation ergo all the LORD's statements about sin at best Jesus was a good guy with good ideas about how people should act, though I got my doubts about how much Paine or the rest would agree with the adultery even in one's heart issue, basically they didn't want anybody insulting them, telling them what to do even if its the right thing, or putting any limits on them or stealing their stuff or beating them up, so that standard was "reasonable.")

I checked the extraterrestrials.ning thing hoping it would be something rational and instead it is about "beings of light" or something similar. I didn't even bother checking healing humanity and the awarenessact thing is probably likeminded new age given the title and has nothing on its page giving any specifics except connect with like minded. Awareness can mean a lot of things, after all, we here cultivate awareness about the dangers of the New Age, but it is a buzzword out of some segments of the New Age.

Secondly, facebook may do surveillance openly, but the revelations about the NSA are old hat. I have always taken it for granted from the 1990s on that anything I did was potentially surveilled.

And the complaint of increasing "censorship" tells me these people like "liberty" that is what was called "license" in the days of Paine and Washington, because the Facebook censorship is about decency and morals and inciting violence. So what's wrong with that? "freedom of speech" was about politics not undermining public morals and so forth. It took a twisted interpretation accepted by a Supreme Court in the 1960s that probably had a lot of Hustler readers or worse among the justices, to get "freedom of speech" and/or the press to include pornography.

So altogether, nix on the liberty site.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

for those who don't understand why crashing the economy would be good for big money, here's a brief explanation after a description of the damage the derivatives market is doing. (Derivatives after being invented long ago, were made illegal by the Glass-Stiegel (sp?) Act, which was later repealed and it was off to the races.)

"Today’s events parallel the imperialists of the early 20th century which resulted in World War I. The Wall Street-led depression of the 1930s led to the rise of political extremism and ultimately to World War II. Today, Goldman Sachs and their fellow Wall Street cronies are currently running, or dare I say ruining the global economy. The consequences are going to result in the culmination of World War III from which these same gangster banksters will profit from the buildup, the death and destruction of billions of innocent people as well as profiting from the lucrative clean up which follows every war.

The ultimate prize for the coming war will be the ruination of the planet in order that the power structure of the earth can be reinvented in a manner that not even George Orwell could have imagined. Remember, as the globalists like to say in reference to their favorite Hegelian Dialectic quote, “Out of chaos comes order.” Of course, it won’t be Goldman Sachs’ money that pays for the destruction of humanity in the coming world war. This coming war and its subsequent blood money will be your money and my money. It goes without saying that it won’t be the executives of Goldman Sachs' children who are pressed into military service and will be eventually sacrificed on the battlefields of WWIII. It will be your children and my children who will be sacrificed in the name of furthering the bottom line of the Goldman Sachs Mafia and their masters at the Bank for International Settlements. Meanwhile, the Goldman Sachs children who will be safely tucked away as the world’s final chapter plays out as we know it."

while has a lot of things that a biblical Christian would dislike and rightly so, and a few New Agey, it also has a lot of anti NWO stuff because NWO can be very inconvenient to the average person, not to mention to anyone who operating out of immorality, the desire to have all options open to them, or just the sin of pride as motivator against all intervention good bad or indifferent, incl. the Ayn Rand crowd.

Anonymous said...


It's Glass-Steagall and its effect (although not its wording) was to separate Main Street from investment banking. I agree with you that its repeal was an evil thing.

The way Goldman and the others are doing this is indirect. They pressure Washington, sometime from the outside but sometimes by getting investment bankers into positions of political power, to get the Fed to print money so cheaply that interest rates are shockingly low and risk is vastly underpriced. In effect, when their speculation goes right they keep the profits, when it goes wrong they shout to Washington to bail them out. And Greenspan then Bernanke always does. Those profits don't come from nowhere - they come from normal investors who aren't in on it and get fleeced. This trick is a very effective way by which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It is iniquitous, and eventually there will come a crash that dwarfs 2008 and which money printing can't get out of. Then it's game over for Goldman and co, and a generation of pain for America but allowing moral renewal if the churches are on the job.

As to tie-ins with wars, certainly the military-industrial complex is oversized but I am not convinced that Goldman and co want WW3 (who wants to rule a radioactive pile?) and I leave such speculation - for that is what it is - to others.

Constance Cumbey said...

Just about read to go on air. Please join me in the chatroom of, by going to and give yourself a "handle" (Name) and your own password.



Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon 9:10, you need to focus on your comment about INDIRECT influence, and that by the way is taken for granted by researchers as understood by the readers, perhaps they should be more explicit,

AND GO FROM THERE. Connect more dots.

Goldman Sachs as an individual corporation might bite the dirt, but the people behind it (despite the name most would not be Jewish and I wouldn't be surprised if they chose to use those execs names precisely to blame criticism on antisemitism or to draw fire from the antisemitic crowd so as to bring all criticism into disrepute, remember the concept of operating INDIRECTLY with cunning) would not, the larger interests would gain immeasurably,


This would mean the whole country and some others could be overhauled and it would be an overhaul to the advantage of the power hungry (who are the main drivers up front of the NWO aside from any NAM motives any have or don't have) and look for the North American Union to go into full operation,

end of USA, Mexico and Canada as distinct independent nations, maybe some meaningless sop thrown them like having their local flags etc.,

here comes the Amero (like the Euro) backed by artificially high priced gold and silver, and everyone you thought was down are up and running again.

Except the average person, who is likely to be under vast controls and restrictions.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

oh, yeah, I forgot to mention, the powers that be, and that would be in full charge after such a scenario, are eugenic to the hilt and often depraved. Expect more soft kill and free abortion and encourage homosexuality, radical lowering of age of consent, suppression of any religion except atheism and occultism
(someone interestingly analyzed atheism as a kind of religion) and maybe the most innocuous (from their perspective) versions of Christianity and Judaism. Radical Islam would be (as it is now) secretly funded to keep a boogeyman on the horizon to justify whatever.

Education - more of that dumbing down and rewriting of history on steroids.

Reeducation camps, and determination perhaps of resistive sorts as mentally unstable and (here comes eugenics again) to be sterilized and perhaps even euthanized? A roundabout INDIRECT path complete with extra contaminated vaccines and sometimes direct termination of life, that ends effectively in a death camp situation.

Anonymous said...

Parent manhandled by cop after speaking out about Common Core at a public forum.

Marko said...

Anon 9:10 AM said:

"As to tie-ins with wars, certainly the military-industrial complex is oversized but I am not convinced that Goldman and co want WW3 (who wants to rule a radioactive pile?) and I leave such speculation - for that is what it is - to others."

Exactly my point when I say that the idea that world wars are run by higher-ups to profit from them is bunk. That some people did and do profit from war, does not mean they RAN the war, or planned it, or had anything even to do with starting it.

War ruins things. It destroys. It causes uncertainty and disorder in markets, which, if a group of bankers were running things, goes against their instincts for calmness and order.

There are certainly groups of people who plan on taking control of things if a major worldwide conflagration occurs, but they may find that their best-laid plans went up in smoke with everything else in the coming war(s). It is not certain that the NWO playbook will be followed at all. That's what annoys me about most NWO conspiracy theories - the CERTAINTY about the future that they propose to know.

You also say that "...certainly the military-industial complex is oversized..."

I believe that when Russia and China and Iran (or some combination of them, and maybe others, and perhaps not all at the same time) attack the United States, many who decry the oversized military will quickly realize that our military is not large enough.

Certainly the military-industrial complex is wasteful and corrupt, but in order to fight in the next world war and WIN, our Western armies are not ready for what is ahead. They have become emasculated from political correctness, they do not see the strategies in play by the new Evil Axis I mentioned above, they fail to understand the evil that still resides in those countries - their virulent anti-Americanism, and they are weak when they think they are strong.

Here are a couple of articles (both from Trevor Loudon's "New Zeal" blog, which I highly recommend) that I hope helps to explain why I say these things.

The first is one of the best I've seen yet in describing the dynamics of what's going on between East and West, specifically taking a look at Russian strategy, and showing how we miss it entirely.

The second is about China and Russia and Iran speedily ramping up on drone manufacture in preparation for a future conflict with the West.

And yet, most conservatives here in the West think that drone usage by OUR government is the thing to be feared. Wake up and smell the Vodka, folks. A storm from the East is coming, and I am convinced that whatever threats to our freedom and well-being exist resulting from abuses by our own government, they PALE in comparison to those looming in the war clouds from the East.

Anonymous said...

"anon 9:10, you need to focus on your comment about INDIRECT influence... AND GO FROM THERE. Connect more dots... Wake up and smell the Vodka..."

What a patronising tone!

Marko said...

Anon. 2:34....

My apologies for being patronizing.

I just get so frustrated with the view by so many that our government is the enemy, when there are bigger enemies out there. That isn't my opinion, that's fact. My tone wasn't appropriate, and for that I apologize.

But I do not apologize for being confrontational in trying to debunk world views that can end up playing into the strategies of those larger, more dangerous enemies.

Craig said...

As one who is interested in Church history for my own ongoing research, and one who is on a somewhat restricted budget, I buy used books when feasible. One of the books I picked up a while back was Henry Bettenson’s Documents of the Christian Church (second edition). Today I found a newer edition (co-edited/updated with Chris Maunder, 1999 third edition, Oxford) on the cheap. (There’s a fourth edition, but I don’t think it’s a necessary purchase for my purposes.)

Anyway, as I was skimming the book’s condition, i.e., for writing, highlighting, etc. I came right to a section titled Ecotheology with Matthew Fox as the first entry, referencing his 1983 book Original Blessing: A Primer in Creation Spirituality. After mentioning that “[h]is assault on the doctrine of original sin led to the disapproval of the Roman Catholic hierarchy” and how he “later left his order” (no mention of Fox’s expulsion / being defrocked – a rather one-sided and ‘polite’ way of phrasing, eh?) then joined the American Episcopalian Church [p 395], it goes on to quote from the book:

…In religion we have been operating under the model that humanity, and especially sinful humanity, was the center of the spiritual universe. This is not so. The universe itself, blessed and graced, is the proper starting point for spirituality. Original blessing is prior to any sin, original or less than original…

I’d say Fox’s view on this, as compared to historical orthodoxy, is “original”.

The quote itself is no news, of course, to Constance and others who’ve been studying the New Age movement in detail for a long time. But, I did find (and perhaps others will find) Maunder’s description of Fox’s leaving the RCC for the Episcopalian Church interesting. As a historian, it’s one thing to present the facts in a neutral manner, but it’s quite another to distort them by not providing the full account.

Anonymous said...


All of those quotes were from Christine, not you!


Marko said...

Anon. 5:17....

You used "Wake up and smell the Vodka" in your list of quotes, which I had used, so I figured you were referring to both of us....

Susanna said...

Dear Craig,

Unfortunately, Matthew Fox chose to glom on to the radical liberal branch of the Anglican/ Episcopalian communion vis a vis the encouragement of apostate Episcopalian Bishop William Swing who received Fox into said communion after he ( Fox ) was booted out of the Dominican Order in 1993 because of his heresies.

MATTHEW FOX (priest)

As many here already know, Swing is the founder and president of United Religions Initiative which has been discussed frequently here on Constance's blog and also by Lee Penn.




The Catholic Church: the Vatican versus dissenters

Vatican opposition to the URI

Within the Catholic Church, opinion about the URI is divided. Rome stands firm against it, but some theologians, priests and sisters - and a few members of the hierarchy - actively support the URI.

At Rome in 1996, Bishop Swing met with Cardinal Arinze, head of the Vatican's Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue. Bishop Swing reported a firm rebuff from the Cardinal, the strongest "no" that he got from anyone during his global pilgrimage:

[Cardinal Arinze] "said that a United Religions would give the appearance of syncretism and it would water down our need to evangelize. It would force authentic religions to be on equal footing with spurious religions." (232)

Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, who works under Cardinal Arinze, pointedly ignored Bishop Swing's invitation to attend the 1997 URI summit conference. (233)

At the time of the June 1999 summit conference, Bishop Swing said that "he doubted that the Roman Catholic Church would join [the URI], pointing out that it had not become a member of the World Council of Churches. But he added that he believed that Vatican would cooperate with, though not join, a body of world religions." (234)

This hope of Bishop Swing's has proved to be "a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty." (235) The Vatican recently restated its opposition to the URI. In a letter to the editor published in the June 1999 issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review, a magazine for Catholic priests, Fr. Chidi Denis Isizoh, of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (the Vatican body responsible for interfaith work) said:


Susanna said...


"Religious syncretism is a theological error. That is why the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue does not approve of the United Religions Initiative and does not work with it. Indeed, when Bishop Swing came to the Vatican City in 1996 to solicit support from the Council, Cardinal Arinze clearly expressed his reservations about the proposal. As the United Religions Initiative develops, the reasons for not collaborating with it become more evident." (236)

This much is clear: Rome stands against the URI.

Dissenters favor the URI more.....

Theologians supporting the URI include Paul Knitter, senior editor at Orbis Books and professor of theology at Xavier University,(267) and Leonard Swidler, professor of "Catholic Thought and Interreligious Dialogue" at Temple University.(268) Both theologians are open dissenters from official Catholic teaching. Knitter favors artificial birth control and the ordination of women as priests, and denies that Jesus is the unique Savior, the Son of God. (269) Knitter also finds the Resurrection to be "problematic," and denies the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.(270) Swidler's work includes such writings as "Feminism - the Renewal of the Catholic Church," "Seven Reasons for Ordaining Women," and "Yeshua, Feminist and Androgynous: An Integrated Human"; a course in "The Significance of the Thought of Teilhard de Chardin for the Future Global Community"; and a lecture titled, "Why Christians Need to Dialogue With - NOT Proselytize - Non-Christians."(271)


Susanna said...


"Religious syncretism is a theological error. That is why the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue does not approve of the United Religions Initiative and does not work with it. Indeed, when Bishop Swing came to the Vatican City in 1996 to solicit support from the Council, Cardinal Arinze clearly expressed his reservations about the proposal. As the United Religions Initiative develops, the reasons for not collaborating with it become more evident." (236)

This much is clear: Rome stands against the URI.

Dissenters favor the URI more.....

Theologians supporting the URI include Paul Knitter, senior editor at Orbis Books and professor of theology at Xavier University,(267) and Leonard Swidler, professor of "Catholic Thought and Interreligious Dialogue" at Temple University.(268) Both theologians are open dissenters from official Catholic teaching. Knitter favors artificial birth control and the ordination of women as priests, and denies that Jesus is the unique Savior, the Son of God. (269) Knitter also finds the Resurrection to be "problematic," and denies the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.(270) Swidler's work includes such writings as "Feminism - the Renewal of the Catholic Church," "Seven Reasons for Ordaining Women," and "Yeshua, Feminist and Androgynous: An Integrated Human"; a course in "The Significance of the Thought of Teilhard de Chardin for the Future Global Community"; and a lecture titled, "Why Christians Need to Dialogue With - NOT Proselytize - Non-Christians."(271)


Susanna said...


Last but not least, Hans Küng supports the URI. (272) Bishop Swing hails Küng as "the prime spokesperson for Vatican II and the single most important person who has written volumes on interfaith and ecumenical matters." (273) However, since 1979, Küng has been banned from teaching as a Catholic theologian at Tübingen University.(274) (Küng continued to teach at the University; the school moved him from the religious faculty to the secular faculty.) Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican, says of Küng that since 1979, "in Christology and in trinitarian theology he has further distanced himself from the faith of the Church." (275) Küng is not a representative of the Catholic Church or "the prime spokesperson for Vatican II"; he speaks only for entire article.......

MATTHEW FOX (priest)

Swing is the founder and president of United Religions Initiative which has been discussed on several occasions here on Constance's blog and also by Lee Penn.



by Lee Penn


The Catholic Church: the Vatican versus dissenters

Vatican opposition to the URI

Within the Catholic Church, opinion about the URI is divided. Rome stands firm against it, but some theologians, priests and sisters - and a few members of the hierarchy - actively support the URI.

At Rome in 1996, Bishop Swing met with Cardinal Arinze, head of the Vatican's Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue. Bishop Swing reported a firm rebuff from the Cardinal, the strongest "no" that he got from anyone during his global pilgrimage:

[Cardinal Arinze] "said that a United Religions would give the appearance of syncretism and it would water down our need to evangelize. It would force authentic religions to be on equal footing with spurious religions." (232)

Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, who works under Cardinal Arinze, pointedly ignored Bishop Swing's invitation to attend the 1997 URI summit conference. (233)


Susanna said...


At the time of the June 1999 summit conference, Bishop Swing said that "he doubted that the Roman Catholic Church would join [the URI], pointing out that it had not become a member of the World Council of Churches. But he added that he believed that Vatican would cooperate with, though not join, a body of world religions." (234)

This hope of Bishop Swing's has proved to be "a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty." (235) The Vatican recently restated its opposition to the URI. In a letter to the editor published in the June 1999 issue of Homiletic & Pastoral Review, a magazine for Catholic priests, Fr. Chidi Denis Isizoh, of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (the Vatican body responsible for interfaith work) said:

"Religious syncretism is a theological error. That is why the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue does not approve of the United Religions Initiative and does not work with it. Indeed, when Bishop Swing came to the Vatican City in 1996 to solicit support from the Council, Cardinal Arinze clearly expressed his reservations about the proposal. As the United Religions Initiative develops, the reasons for not collaborating with it become more evident." (236)

This much is clear: Rome stands against the URI.

Dissenters favor the URI more.....


Theologians supporting the URI include Paul Knitter, senior editor at Orbis Books and professor of theology at Xavier University,(267) and Leonard Swidler, professor of "Catholic Thought and Interreligious Dialogue" at Temple University.(268) Both theologians are open dissenters from official Catholic teaching. Knitter favors artificial birth control and the ordination of women as priests, and denies that Jesus is the unique Savior, the Son of God. (269) Knitter also finds the Resurrection to be "problematic," and denies the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.(270) Swidler's work includes such writings as "Feminism - the Renewal of the Catholic Church," "Seven Reasons for Ordaining Women," and "Yeshua, Feminist and Androgynous: An Integrated Human"; a course in "The Significance of the Thought of Teilhard de Chardin for the Future Global Community"; and a lecture titled, "Why Christians Need to Dialogue With - NOT Proselytize - Non-Christians."(271)

Last but not least, Hans Küng supports the URI. (272) Bishop Swing hails Küng as "the prime spokesperson for Vatican II and the single most important person who has written volumes on interfaith and ecumenical matters." (273) However, since 1979, Küng has been banned from teaching as a Catholic theologian at Tübingen University.(274) (Küng continued to teach at the University; the school moved him from the religious faculty to the secular faculty.) Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican, says of Küng that since 1979, "in Christology and in trinitarian theology he has further distanced himself from the faith of the Church." (275) Küng is not a representative of the Catholic Church or "the prime spokesperson for Vatican II"; he speaks only for himself entire article.......

Hans Kung is most definitely NOT the prime spokesperson for Vatican II. He was deprived of his "Missio Canonica" ( license to teach as a Catholic theologian ) under the pontificate of Blessed Pope John Paul II.

Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer said...

The New Age people do not worship

After reading articles and books by New Age movement leaders, I wrote:

(1.) "The belief in a world soul that is honored and prayed to, as is Gaia, by New Age Gaians, is not just a contemporary belief and spiritual practice. This belief and spiritual practice is ancient and found in both Eastern and Western culture."

(2.) "The world soul is a spiritual principle having the same relation to the physical world as the human soul does to the body. New Age Gaians of the New World Religion believe the world soul (Gaia) is not accorded the status of being the Ultimate Source, or Supreme Cosmic Spirit, but might be looked upon as an archangelic being, or Brahma in the Hindu religion, or the White Buffalo Cafe Woman in the Lakota people's Native American religion, or Mary the mother of Jesus in the Roman Catholic religion."

(3.) "James Lovelock wrote: 'What if Mary is another name for Gaia?' Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, is not worshiped."

(4.) "When referring to Gaia as the world soul, David Spangler, one of the founding figures of the modern New Age movement, wrote: 'It is generally not accorded the status of being the ultimate source, or Creator, but might be looked upon as a great angelic or archangelic being presiding over the well being of the world, or as the gestalt, the wholeness of all the lives and patterns that manifest upon, and as, the earth.'"

(5.) "Robert Muller (1923 - 2010), who was for a time the Assistant Secretary-General of the UN and called the "Prophet of Hope", wrote, 'Hindus call our earth Brahma, or God, for they rightly see no difference between our earth and the divine.' Brahma is not the Hindus Supreme Cosmic Spirit, or almighty God, and is considered somewhat corrupt. Hindus believe Brahma is divine, but most Hindus do not worship Brahma, or the Earth."

(6.) "The New World Religion views the world soul as the spirit of the earth, physically manifesting itself as the earth, or Brahma/Gaia, who presides over the well being of the world and is subject to the authority/will of God almighty."

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

depends on how you define supreme being, and also the average new ager or neo pagan or wiccan is not following everything these writers say. A lot in fact consider themselves to be God or consubstantial with God. Temple of Set founder Michael Aquino once said that the New Agers are satanists but don't know it, because they say they are god, but don't understand the implications
of what they are saying. Aquino being himself a satanist, he ought to know.

Also, these high level closer to Theosophy new age writers quoted above, undoubtedly have in mind someone very different from YHWH of The Bible when they speak of the creator or supreme being or whatever.

It comes down to exactly WHO is GOD.

Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer said...

It says in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that:

According to Sehgal, "the Vedas and the Upanishads preach and propagate neither pantheism nor polytheism but monotheism and monism". There are many Gods, but they represent different aspect of the same Reality. Monism and monotheism are found intertwined. In many passages ultimate Reality is represented as immanent, while in other passages ultimate Reality is represented as transcendent. Monism sees Brahman as the ultimate Reality, while monotheism represents the personal form of Brahman.

Jeaneane D. Fowler too discerns a "metaphysical monotheism" in the Vedas. The Vedas contain sparse monism. The Nasadiya Sukta of the Rigveda speaks of the One being-non-being that 'breathed without breath'. The manifest cosmos cannot be equated with it, "for "That" is a limitless, indescribable, absolute principle that can exist independently of it - otherwise it cannot be the Source of it." It is the closest the Vedas come to monism, but Fowler argues that this cannot be called a "superpersonal monism", nor "the quintessence of monistic thought", because it is "more expressive of a panentheistic, totally transcendent entity that can become manifest by its own power. It exists in itself, unmanifest, but with the potential for all manifestations of the cosmos.

God, who is Spirit and impersonable, both, transcends the Universe and is in the Universe, and while in the Universe...God is also immanent, personal and visible, She is the Universe. This is a type of pantheism/panentheism where God is precieved as being both personal and impersonable, visible and invisible, as well as immanent and transcendent.

Here is a footnote excerpt from the book Autobiogaphy of a Yogi, by Paramhansa Yogananda:

Father, Son and Comforter: These Biblical words refer to the threefold nature of God as Father, Son, Holy Ghost (Sat, Tat, Aum in the Hindu scriptures). God the Father is the Absolute, Unmanifested, existing beyond vibratory creation. God the Son is the Christ Consciousness (Brahma or Kutastha Chaitanya) existing within vibratory creation; this Christ Consciousness is the "only begotten" or sole reflection of the Uncreated Infinite. Its outward manifestation or "witness" is Aum or Holy Ghost, the divine, creative, invisible power which structures all creation through vibration. Aum the blissful Comforter is heard in meditation and reveals to the devotee the ultimate Truth.

When Jesus disciples asked Him to show them the Father, Jesus said "when you see Me you see the Father." At the time, Jesus' identity was one with Brahman. Jesus had the ability to lower His identity down to the level of Brahma. So when Jesus said "the only way to the Father is through Me" He was in the Brahma (Son of God) state of Being or identity.

Sri Yukteswar said: "Jesus meant, never that he was the sole Son of God, but that no man can attain the unqualified Absolute, the transcendent Father beyond creation, until he has first manifested the 'Son' or activating Christ Consciousness within creation. Jesus, who had achieved entire onenness with that Christ consciousness, identified himself with it inasmuch as his own ego had long since been dissolved."

The path to the unqualified Absolute, the transcendent "Father" beyond creation is through the creation. We need to first become one with the Universe, who is an imperfect expression of God, and then we can become one with the "Father" who is perfect.

Susanna said...

The idea of "world soul" (anima mundi) originated with Plato and was an important component of most Neoplatonic systems.

In the Timaeus, Plato writes:

Therefore, we may consequently state that: this world is indeed a living being endowed with a soul and intelligence ... a single visible living entity containing all other living entities, which by their nature are all related

St. Thomas Aquinas rejects this monistic error pointing out how it derives from an inability on the part of Plato and his disciples to consider BEING from a truly unified point of view - from the point of view of BEING itself.


....Although there may seem to be many differences between Plato and St. Thomas Aquinas, they all stem from one primary difference; that is in the idea of existence. All of the other differences between the two philosophers can be traced to this point. Plato was unaware of the nature of being from the point of view of existence. This resulted in significant consequences: one such consequence being the rejection of existence itself. Anton C. Pegis writes the following in reference to Plato's concept of Forms or Ideas: "The Ideas are models of material things whose materiality, they are yet powerless to cause, by so much Plato excludes from his explanation of reality the existential conditions of sensible beings. This dose not mean merely that Plato was unable to account for the existence of matter, or to include matter within the causality of the intelligible source of all being. The malady is much more deeper than this. Plato's flight from matter is bound to be a flight from existence; for a metaphysics which does not deal with being as a whole does not deal with being at all. Plato could not successfully exclude matter and becoming from the domain of being, however much he may have tried rather, by trying to exclude them, he excluded himself. And this is another way of saying the Platonic metaphysics of the Ideas is a metaphysics of flight from existence."


Susanna said...


Aquinas rejected Plato's notion that man is a soul simply using a body. This would lead us to the conclusion that the whole nature of man is in the soul. But we know that the soul alone is not a complete being. A man is only a man when he can not only think, but see, hear, imagine, and remember. These things are not possible by the soul alone. It requires a body. According to Aquinas, man is a composite being; he is composed of both body and soul. But instead of the Platonic view of man being a soul in a body, Aquinas maintains that it is the body that is in the soul, not the soul in the more....

In modern times, the neo-gnostic concept of "world soul" was embraced by Hegel.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (August 27, 1770 – November 14, 1831) was a German philosopher, and a major figure in German Idealism. His historicist and idealist account of reality revolutionized European philosophy and was an important precursor to Continental philosophy and Marxism.

Hegel developed a comprehensive philosophical framework, or "system", of Absolute idealism to account in an integrated and developmental way for the relation of mind and nature, the subject and object of knowledge, psychology, the state, history, art, religion, and philosophy. In particular, he developed the concept that mind or spirit manifested itself in a set of contradictions and oppositions that it ultimately integrated and united, without eliminating either pole or reducing one to the other. Examples of such contradictions include those between nature and freedom, and between immanence and transcendence.

Hegel influenced writers of widely varying positions, including both his admirers and his detractors. Michel Foucault has contended that contemporary philosophers may be 'doomed to find Hegel waiting patiently at the end of whatever road we travel.' Hegel's influential conceptions are of speculative logic or "dialectic", "absolute idealism". They include "Geist" (spirit), negativity, sublation (Aufhebung in German), the "Master/Slave" dialectic, "ethical life" and the importance of history.

Susanna said...


The Thomistic view of reality called "moderate realism" rejects absolute idealism - an ontologically monistic philosophy. Moderate realism holds , moreover, that reality does not actually exist in terms of contradictions and opposition, but in terms of complimentarity.

Certain aspects of reality may appear to exist in terms of contradiction and opposition when considered in the abstract, but they do not actually exist thus.

The absolute opposite of "Something" is not "Something Else." The opposite of "Something" is "Nothing."

The idea of equal but opposite absolutes is the founding principle of certain forms of Gnosticism.

Published: Cornell University Press 2001


Hegel's notion of a "reconciliation of opposites" is a hallmark of occultism. It is also the modern origin of the so-called "dialectic" - Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis - which is simply the "reconciliation of opposites" tricked out in "scientific" garb.

Karl Marx was at one time a member of a branch of the Young Hegelians that came to be known as the "Doktorklub" - which name was an allusion to Goethe's (Doktor) Faustus who sold his soul to the devil for power and knowledge.


Anonymous said...




Craig said...

Anon 2:50,

Perhaps you should be the one to instruct Susanna and the rest of us, since you are the one making the comment; because, at least from my vantage point, I've no idea what you mean.

But, then it seems you may need instruction on how to bold and italicize rather than SHOUT. That is, unless you just prefer SHOUTING.

Anonymous said...

Just wanted to make sure the comment stood out for those skimming. I probably shouldn't have made it. Many people must be taking a college philosophy course and want to know more about Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Goethe, Hegel. the Pope, the Catholic church, Father Feeney, and many others.

I apologize. I'm so stupid I had to look up the word exegesis.

Susanna said...


First of all, thank you.

FYI Thomas Ivan Dalheimer - presumably the same Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer who has posted on this same thread, is involved with one of the Creation
Spirituality Communities.

Here is a link.

Mr. Dahlheimer is a devotee of Matthew Fox and his "creation-centered spirituality."

Ergo my post on the idea of "world soul," its having originated with Plato and why it is erroneous from the authentic Christian ( Catholic and non-Catholic ) point of view that embraces the Creeds of Chalcedon and/or Nicaea.

The reason why I thought it appropriate to mention St. Thomas Aquinas and his refutation of Plato's idealism which was a consequence of Plato's inability to consider BEING from a truly unified point of view is because in the Old Testament, the most Sacred name of God ( JHVH ) revealed to Moses atop Mount Horeb is an archaic verb for absolute, self-existent, uncreated BEING in the present tense. Exodus 3:14



The present tense indicates God's existence in an absolute eternal NOW.

The "I" and the "HE" indicate the absolute Personhood of God as opposed to some impersonal amorphous "Force" thsat can be tapped into by use of meditation and/or magickal rituals.

It was precisely on this fine pinpoint of revealed Biblical truth that St. Thomas Aquinas constructed his whole theological edifice.

The reason why Jews were forbidden to make images of God was because try as they might, they would not have been able to make an image that was capable of properly representing the God who had revealed Himself as "BEING/I AM WHO AM/He Who Is."

In an article entitled Constance Cumbey, Matthew Fox And The "New Age Christ," Mr. Dahlheimer mentions Constance Cumbey as one of two specific people Matthew Fox blames for his troubles with the Vatican.....the other being then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger who became Pope Benedict XVI.

Mr. Dahlheimer has posted part of the following on this thread.

Constance Cumbey, Matthew Fox And The "New Age Christ"

by Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer

Here is Constance's post for November 27, 2011 which mentions Mr. Dahlheimer.

The Fifth Seal? Persecution of the Church?

Just thought the folks here might like to know about this in addition to Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Goethe, Hegel, etc. :-)

Craig said...

First of all, I thought Susanna’s comments above were quite relevant. As but one example (besides what she’s already stated in the immediately preceding), it’s important to understand Hegel’s worldview, as his Hegelian Dialectic is used to coerce change.

But also, I find Dahlheimer’s input invaluable. His thoughts are how I understand New Age ideology. My contention has long been (well, at least the past two years or so) that there are not many true pantheists. Matter is merely a means to an end, with the end-goal a uniting to the ‘god within’ – whatever that means exactly to a particular religion’s adherents. Monism then, like Dahlheimer states, is the idea that there is only one true “god”. Yet, Monism is also panentheistic – there’s the transcendent aspect and the immanent aspect. Through contemplation, one eventually unites with the immanent aspect, and at some point – sometimes immediately, sometimes at a point later – the adherent unites with the transcendent aspect. Again, this all depends on the particular religious view of the adherent. Of course, Bailey’s Theosophy is also panentheistic, utilizing this same transcendence/immanence. My contention is that this framework is used precisely to appear at least somewhat “Christian”.

Interestingly, for the past two weeks I’ve been working on an article on this very thing, with the intent of using it as an apologetic, as I find panentheistic ideology within “Christian” circles, and a severe lack of understanding what this really entails. My sticking point has been making sure that I concisely write the true Christian concept of the Trinity (and a bit of Christology) that is technical enough to be precise and yet concise, yet somewhat simple enough for the average church goer to comprehend. The objective will be a compare and contrast. In addition, I’m aiming to be a bit homiletic in the explanation of the Trinity.

Anonymous said...

Chris Rock thinks the pope may be the greatest man alive! Jane Fonda seems fond of the pope!

Other comments in todays news about the pope being "progressive", bringing "change" He sounds more, and more like Obama every day.

Seems the pope wants to take a big earth mover to the "narrow path" so everyone can fit on it.

Lets get Susanna to "weigh in on this"?

Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer said...

I see Susanna and Craig weighed in on my posts. I like Craig's post.

Susanna's post presented a link to my article "Constance Cumbey, Matthew Fox and the New Age Christ."

A new article of mine is entitled
"The Hippie New Age Christ And The Second Coming."

The first part of the article reads:

The hippie counterculture revolution is making a comeback and it's leaders will soon usher in a new age and new world order. The spirituality of the New-Age hippies of the 1960s has found its way into many Christian Churches. This is causing a growing number of Christians to radically transform their faith, so that it embraces the hippie New-Age Hindu/Buddhist spiritual philosophy. Many are doing this to prepare themselves and the world for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the establishment of the fullness of the Kingdom of God on earth.

The hippies' New-Age spirituality of the 1960s is now being called the New Spirituality. A big part of what is causing the New Spirituality to increase in popularity is the fact that modern-day scientific discovery has revealed that, both, the central foundational dogma of Christianity/Catholicism is a false dogma and Hindu beliefs and scientific truth are compatible.

One of the leaders of the New Spirituality movement is the internationally acclaimed spiritual theologian Rev. Matthew Fox, a former Roman Catholic priest. He will be one of the speakers at "The New Spirituality" session during an upcoming Science and Nonduality Conference.

Some of the people who have embraced the New Spirituality say they are of a " new form of Roman Catholicism" and that they now have a " new eschatology." They are beyond the dogmatic boundries of the Roman Catholic Church. However, they believe that eventually the Holy See will "deconstruct" the church and then establish a new church that will have the New Spirituality. I also believe that a new church will be established. And I believe that it will be named the Wahkon Catholic Church.

My article is located at:

Susanna said...

With all due respect, my problem is not over the sincerity with which Matthew Fox has embraced his neo-gnostic/neo-pagan beliefs.

My problem is that Matthew Fox continued for so long to call himself a "Roman Catholic Christian" and "Dominican priest" while simultaneously continuing to embrace them....and leading others astray who should have had every expectation of being taught sound Christian doctrine.

In 1988, for example, a follower of "wicca" named Miriam Simos - a.k.a. "Starhawk" was teaching at the Institute in Culture and Creation Spirituality in Oakland, California, then headed by the already renegade Roman Catholic priest Matthew Fox. When Matthew Fox was investigated and silenced by the Vatican late that year, he showed the press a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It ordered him to "disassociate himself" from "wicca, the ideology of Starhawk."

Those who cluelessly embrace what they think is the "New Spiritality" are merely embracing old errors wearing new labels. The New Spirituality is only "new" to people who do not know the history of Christianity.

While these neo-gnostics see themselves as having moved " beyond the dogmatic boundaries of the Roman Catholic Church" - or any other authentically Christian communion - the Bible would describe them as "walking away backwards."

Woe to the sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a wicked seed, ungracious children: they have forsaken the Lord, they have blasphemed the Holy One of Israel, they are gone away backwards. Isaias 1:4

In my opinion, the idea that eventually the Holy See will "deconstruct" the Church and then establish a new church that will have the "New Spirituality" is wishful thinking on the part of those who hijacked Vatican II and tried to deploy it in the service of their own agenda. If history is any indicator, it is more likely that the "New Church" will be "deconstructed" and dismantled and not the Roman Catholic Church.

This is because many who embrace the New Spiritually are intellectually crippled to a point where they are often incapable of presenting sound logical arguments to defend their philosophical position.

Many of the more radical among them do not even acknowledge the objective validity of reason.....sometimes going as far as denying the basic principle that "all knowledge is rooted in sense experience."

Hindus believe the material world is "Maya" illusion. Where the essential and valid link between sense experience and knowledge ( i.e. common sense ) is rejected, there is nothing left with which to anchor the mind into reality.

When all is said and done, even if there were one single person left in the world who bore witness to the true Christian message - like St. Athanasius - there would still be a Church. This is because truth does not depend upon a consensus as some of the neo-modernists would have us believe. St. Athanasius was not described as "Athanhasius contra mundi" for nothing.

Re:I also believe that a new church will be established. And I believe that it will be named the Wahkon Catholic Church.

That might not be a bad idea for the followers of the "New Spirituality" to start their own church.....without the words "Roman Catholic" in their new moniker.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 8:17 A.M.

This one is especially for you.

"I'm not Tarzan," Pope Francis tells young crowd

CAGLIARI, Sardinia (Reuters) - Pope Francis brought laughter to a crowd of young people on Sunday when he told them he was not "Tarzan" but gets his staying power during times of difficulty from his faith.

Speaking off the cuff at the end of a trip to Sardinia, he said he had recently marked the 60th anniversary of the day he first felt the vocation to be a priest.

"I have not regretted it. And it's not because I feel like Tarzan and have the (physical) strength to go ahead," he said, prompting of laughter and applause for comparing himself to the fictional character raised by apes in the jungles of Africa.

"No, I have not regretted it because always, even in the darkest moments, in the times of sin, in the times of fragility, in the times of failure, I looked to Jesus and I trusted him and he did not abandon me. He is a faithful companion," Francis said.

(Reporting By Philip Pullella; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)

But hey, misleading reports by the secular media notwithstanding, if the Pope were to be instrumental in leading Chris Rock and Jane Fonda to Christ who are you to say "Katy bar the door" to the Holy Spirit?

Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer said...

Peter R. Jones wrote and posted an online article titled:

The New Spirituality
Dismantling and Reconstructing Reality

The following excerpts are from this article of his:

Our culture is reaching a tipping point of momentous implications where the "New Spirituality" may well represent the next phase of the faith and practice of modern autonomous humanity, whose goal is nothing less than the construction of a new Sodom and Babel.

Few were expecting this. Most merely saw a cloud the size of a man's hand appearing on the Western horizon. That marginal "hippy" revolution of spiritual and sexual experimentation would quickly dissipate. The real threat was secular humanism. The fact is this New Age "cloud of unknowing" has morphed into a perfect storm of latter rain that intends to irrigate the entire planet with the Aquarian "living water" of integrative monistic oneness.

The cloud has become a tsunami; the Sixties' sexual liberation was not a mere dream of hippies who had opted out of public life. In fact, in a long march through the institutions, the "Flower Power" children cleaned themselves up and became the "establishment" them-selves. They have demonized the patriarchal society of Western and biblical civilization as the greatest expression of human evil, and replaced it with a radical egalitarianism that knows no gender roles and believes that the murder of unborn babies is not only settled law but vital to the emancipation of women. In one generation, this sexual liberation has become public policy. The ideas behind these social changes are deeply and spiritually pagan-as even a cursory examination of Romans 1:18-28 will show.

Indeed, the Sixties was a spiritual revolution that has now morphed into a worldview that promises to alter how we all believe and act in the planetary era. The New Age began to change when the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who died February 4, introduced notions such as tran-scendental meditation, "mantra," and "karma" into the mainstream through converts like the Beatles, Mike Love of the Beach Boys, Mia Farrow, Merv Griffin, Joe Namath, and Deepak Chopra. Marilyn Ferguson published her significant work, The Aquarian Conspiracy with the significant subtitle Personal and Social Transformation in the 1980s, in which she asked hundreds of scientists, philosophers, and spiritual seekers to name the person most influential in their lives: first and second were Teilhard de Chardin and Carl Jung!

Clearly, we were no longer dealing with chakras and crystals, but with a spiritual/intellectual worldview movement based on "spiritual" evolution and the new psychology of the subconscious. It was Jung who said, "We are only at the threshold of a new spiritual epoch." This epoch of the New Spirituality claims to be able to put our deconstructed world back together again scientifically, philosophically, economically, geo-politically, ecologically, and spiritually through the power of the myth of the divinity of Nature. James Herrick calls this movement the "New Religious Synthesis," and believes it has already eclipsed traditional "Christian" culture.

In my article The Hippie New Age Christ And The Second Coming there is a link to a webage of mine about the New Spirituality. The webpage is located at:

Craig said...


While I’m glad you liked my comment, I hope you understand that I adhere to the historical, orthodox view of Christianity. In any case, I’ll be clear. Jesus of Nazareth is the one and only Christ/Messiah. He alone was/is the God-man, fully God and fully man. The Trinity is the Father, the Son (Christ/Messiah, Word), and the Holy Spirit. The godhead is transcendent – wholly apart from creation. Yet the godhead is also immanent, i.e., present in and among His creation – as opposed to strictly within, though indwelling true Christians – by virtue of His omnipresence.

The value I received from your earlier comment was in helping to confirm my understanding of the New Age / New Spirituality view of panentheism – that the NA / NS god is both transcendent and immanent, with immanence understood as ‘god within’, as opposed to the true Christian understanding as outlined in brief above.

Anonymous said...

First of all, when analyzing the words of Pope Francis, it is important not to be taken in by any sensational 'pull out quotes'....but, rather for each of us to do our own research for the original source of the article and read the entire, complete text to determine exactly what he said.

Everyone needs to calm down. The rules of the Catholic Church have not changed. Abortion is still a sin (murder); living an active homosexual lifestyle is still a sin, etc.

As a Catholic, here is what shines through from the 'tone' of the recent words of Pope Francis. He has a burning desire to reach ALL souls. In other words, there are many people who may feel unworthy and separated from God. In living lives of quiet despair and spiritual isolation, they may erroneously feel that Christ's mercy is not for them. Pope Francis wants to remind them that Jesus Christ loves ALL of mankind....that, until we take our last dying breath, there is a chance for everyone to be redeemed and to enter Heaven.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 8:00 P.M.

BRAVO!!! Well said!

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Susanna.

I have read through all of your posts on this thread....and, as usual, your research work is brilliant!!!

Anonymous said...

Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer
You and Jones may share your baloney about the New Age "spirituality" movement, but only foolish, uneducated suckers will believe it. What you share is words, pretty sounding, intellectually sounding words, but only words none the less. The New Age movement didn't have its beginnings in the '60s, and even those with a little knowledge wouldn't be seduced if those of us who know what is going on really worked at getting the information out to others.

I'm not one of the Christians who will debate your system and how it differs from some branch or other of Christianity. There has been so much infiltration into the monotheistic establishments by now by slick promoters of New Age thought over the last 100 years that those who look at what is going on objectively realize what they see is the result a con job with a take the suckers for a verbal ride result. There can be no civil academic discussion between two sides when one side is deliberately lying or is too stupid to look at the history of New Age. Only the very naive would give enough equal weight to the two sides to even indulge in such a foolish discussion.

History shows both the governmental and "spiritual" sides of New Age came together over a 100 years ago when individuals from both camps came together to discuss what they had in common and to plan for the future.

Bottom line, as Adler said, you can't have one world government unless there is a common culture. The New Age leadership hopes to eliminate the "spiritual" differences by working the crowds to find what they have in common which can lead to a synthesis of religions. Aware Catholics and other Christians and Jews should have enough sense to say we aren't going to be suckered into a new system because academic language is used.

There can be good fight
discussion when monotheists can openly say to New Age promoters don't bother to do missionary work with us, your basic premises and history are so far different from ours that it isn't worth discussing. Given all of that background out in the open, now tell us why we should listen.

For whatever reasons Catholics and Protestants believe in doing missionary work, and in this case hoping that missionary ideas will lead those who like New Age ideas to rethink the direction.

There is a big difference between general followers and big guns in the New Age movement. Those going after the big guns rather than general followers need to incorporate what they know about the 100 plus year history of the New Age movement, bring it forward and deal with the seducers on an entirely different level.

Anonymous said...

A regular poster here found this link and shared it. Fits right in with the discussion and I thank her.

Good grief. Some fools will say they believe in the tooth fairy is it is presented in positive academic language. These people exist and they are worse than witches, wizards and other things that go bump in the night.

For some reason I can't believe this kind of overdose without getting a diabetic attack.

Anonymous said...

My guess is that he has property he wants to get rid of rather than that he thinks a place in Minnesota is the new Rome.

Thomas Dahlheimer (WahkonMN) on Twitter‎
I am an indigenous peoples' rights activist and I have a related New Age/Creation Spirituality globalization mission. Wahkon, Minnesota.

Constance Cumbey, Matthew Fox And The New Age Christ - COOL ...‎
May 9, 2012 - She still believes Fox is a leader of the New Age movement. ..... with his wife and I, traveled to Wahkon, Minnesota from California to potentially ...

My perspective -- What Constance thinks: The Fifth Seal ...‎
Nov 27, 2011 - One New Age / Occupy Movement activist, Thomas Dahlheimer ... This organization's headquarters are in Wahkon, Minnesota, located on the ...

Anonymous said...

Looking at the numbers claimed in the various links, I would say everyone reading here who values their religious and government freedoms should start to stick out their necks and speak out. A prayer a day is not taking care of the matter.

Craig said...

Anon 12:34,

The basic thrust of Peter Jones’ article and the fact that the New Age movement had its geopolitical beginnings roughly 100 years ago are not mutually exclusive. Jones is merely pointing out its more recent outworkings from a spiritual perspective, which in turn has affected the sociopolitical. In his two books on the subject, Jones recognizes the basic spiritual ideology as a revived Gnosticism (as does Constance Cumbey), which is panentheistic. Certainly, there is a huge political network making up the New Age Movement; however, to deny or downplay its spiritual roots is naïve.

Truly it goes back to the Garden of Eden. However one conceives of the serpent in the Garden, whether an actual talking snake or strictly a spiritual entity, the bottom line is that there is one spiritual adversary known alternatively as Satan, the devil, Lucifer, the Serpent, etc. Satan and his minions are the spiritual source behind the New Age / New Spirituality. Yet nothing escapes God’s notice, and His heavenly host of angels is always in our midst. God gives us the choice to serve Him, or, by the freewill He has granted us, to serve Satan. Though, certainly, there are many unwitting participants in Satan’s New Age plan.

The monistic thought of the New Age / New Spirituality is a direct acknowledgement of its true spiritual source – Satan / Lucifer / the devil. It’s a deliberate perversion of both Jewish and Christian ideology. Just like Isaac Luria’s Kabbalah is a distortion of YHVH, with its belief in the Ein Sof who had diffused a part of himself in all of creation leaving a “divine spark”, a panentheistic belief system, with the same basic end-goal as both Gnosticism and Theosophy – a reintegration of all the “divine sparks” as matter is simultaneously destroyed (or no longer in view, as in Maya) such that these “sparks” can reunite and become whole with the Ein Sof, “god”, “Absolute Reality”, or whatever one wants to call it.

New Agers do not hate monotheism per se. They hate God. This is why Judeo-Christian views are attacked, while Islamisation continues unabated. Islam not only hates God, Islam is a particularly effective tool with which the New Age elites allow to destroy both Jewish and Christian ideals.

But in the fullness of time, God will make His enemies – those who’ve followed Satan’s schemes and Satan himself – a footstool.

Susanna said...

The only reason why you refuse to get into a sound rational debate with knowledgable Christians - and Orthodox Jews - ( we have some who post here ) - who reject the totalitarian encroachments of the New Age Movement is because you are intellectually incapable of doing so as long as you insist on adhering to the erroneous metaphysical principles of the so-called "New Spirituality" which as you have rightly implied ( but not explicitly stated ) is simply a collection of old errors wearing new labels.

For example, you seem to be very fond of using the word "deconstruct" while singing the praises of your "New Spirituality." It is apparent that you either don't completely understand the full implications of the word "deconstruction" yourself - or you are hoping that we don't.

One of the most prominent proponents of "deconstruction" was Jacques Derrida. I first learned about Derrida and his theory vis a vis a discussion about how some of Derrida's disciples were attempting to use Derrida's theories to "deconstruct" the Bible.

Derrida's theory applied to textual criticism includes the idea that words have no objective meaning.

If you begin with a (Hindu/Idealistic) denial that all knowledge is rooted in sense experience, then Derrida's erroneous theory will follow logically from that denial.

Because once you deny that all knowledge is rooted in sense experience, you weaken the mind's ability to produce ideas which, ACCORDING TO ADLER AFTER HIS CONVERSION are defined as the formal signs produced by the mind of things presented to the mind by the senses. Adler goes on to describe words as the informal signs representing the ideas produced by the mind. ( See TEN PHILOSOPHICAL MISTAKES by Mortimer J. Adler and its companion book THE ANGELS AND US which describes the "angelistic fallacies" that came out of the "Enlightenemnt.")

Contrary to the erroneous view of certain "enlightenment" philosophers," - the "New Agers" of the 16th century - we do not directly perceive our own ideas. I will repeat....We do not directly perceive our own ideas." What we directly perceive by means of our five senses are sensible objects from which the mind is able to produce the formal signs we know as "ideas."


Susanna said...


The reason why the view that we directly perceive our own ideas is erroneous is because if we are only capable of perceiving our own ideas, this creates a disconnect between the internal world of the mind and the external world communicated to the senses.

Locked up in the subjectivist/ solipsistic world of "our own ideas," we have no way of objectively knowing that there is such a thing as an "external world." We have no way of knowing that there is even such a thing as "other people."

When all is said and done, Derrida contradicts himself. If, as "deconstruction" attempts to show, words have no objective meaning, then "deconstruction," insofar as it is a word, also has no objective meaning and is capable of being deconstructed.......ergo, it - and Derrida - can be safely ignored.

Derrida's "deconstruction" theory is an echo of Rene Descartes' system of radical and universal doubt found in his treatise Discours de la method ( Discourse on the Method )

Descartes, too, contradicted himself insofar as he was incapable of "doubting" as radically and universally as he needed to do in order to prove that his system was valid.

Because if he had actually been capable of making full use of his method of radical and universal doubt he would have also been required to doubt his own method....and anyone who reads the "Discourse on the Method" ( as I have ) will find that before beginning his journey down the philosophical rabbit hole, he devised a "provisional reality" for himself in order to avoid the abyss.

In the wake of the "method," Descartes has been half-jokingly described by more traditional philosophers as having "reversed his ontological predicates" by way of his "I think, therefore I am." ( Cogito ergo sum." ) contradiction of one of the axiomatic first principles of philosophy.

This axiomatic first principle of philosophy (which requires no proof because it is self-evident) is that "Before anything else can be predicated of a thing, BEING must be predicated of it."

Before Decartes could think, he first necessarily had to BE.

In the beginning was the Word John 1:1

Susanna said...


Re:It’s ( monistic thought) a deliberate perversion of both Jewish and Christian ideology. Just like Isaac Luria’s Kabbalah is a distortion of YHVH, with its belief in the Ein Sof who had diffused a part of himself in all of creation leaving a “divine spark”, a panentheistic belief system, with the same basic end-goal as both Gnosticism and Theosophy – a reintegration of all the “divine sparks” as matter is simultaneously destroyed (or no longer in view, as in Maya) such that these “sparks” can reunite and become whole with the Ein Sof, “god”, “Absolute Reality”, or whatever one wants to call it.

Spot on!

Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer said...


I understood, and still understand that you adhere to the historical, orthodox view of Christianity.

The New Age/New Spirituality views God as being within every human being. And it views each individual as being essentially God-in the same way that Jesus is God, infinite, extending indefinitely, even beyond the boundries of the universe, being both immanent (in the universe) and transcendent (beyond the universe), and ultimately, totally transcendent, believing the universe will not last forever, but that God will last forever. Hinduism, likewise, believes that "what we know as our own self goes all the way to the point of absolute identity with the supreme Being."

Anonymous wrongly said...

Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer..."The New Age movement didn't have its beginnings in the '60s,.."

Here are the words I posted: The New Age [began to change] when the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who died February 4, introduced notions such as tran-scendental meditation, 'mantra,' and 'karma' into the mainstream through converts like the Beatles,...

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"Jones recognizes the basic spiritual ideology as a revived Gnosticism (as does Constance Cumbey), which is panentheistic."

Actually it is not panentheistic, is PANTHEISTIC, which has two forms, both present in New Age thinking. One is that the physical universe is itself God, the other that it is an emanation from God, consubstantial (of same substance) with Him.

Actually, classical gnosticism considered the physical universe to be at best irrelevant (the soul not influenced by what the body does, so some gnostic groups were immoral and sexually promiscuous) at worst evil (so some gnostic groups were ascetic) and in general "blamed" its existence not on the most high of their pantheon, but on some illegitimate action of a female emanation of his who fell, or on "Iadalbaoth" a lesser emanation who decided to create matter, their name for YHWH, Who they also called "saklas" "the stupid one" for claiming to be the only God, and in either case Jesus in their system was not YHWH The Son of YHWH but someone sent from the gnostics' "most high" to free the divine spark from being trapped in matter.

Panentheism can easily be confused with pantheism, and misapplied can lead to it. But it makes a clear distinction between Creator and creature, and it IS biblical.

Jeremiah 23:24
King James Version (KJV)
24 "Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. DO I NOT FILL HEAVEN AND EARTH? SAITH THE LORD"

and St. Paul said "in Him we live and move and have our being." Act. 17:28, quoting Epimenides when talking to the Greeks on the Areopagus. (While it is dangerous for the average Christian to wallow in pagan literature incl. I would add popular fiction of the past 200 years in Europe and America, there are things in it extractable by Christians steeped in The Bible for use in teaching the mostly semi healthen public. St. Basil the Great said that the Christian should treat pagan literature like a bee goes from flower to flower, taking the good and leaving the rest. It was however a big mistake for medievals to keep this "classical" literature or revive it as part of education, as it laid the groundwork for the revival of paganism first as metaphor then in reality.)

The fish swims in water but is not the same as the water, which permeates it. God however must be understood as distinct from the less visible and less obvious electrical and so forth stuff that permeates matter and is itself a form of matter. This confusion is a typical error of New Agers, some early scientists who often had theosophical backgrounds, and other people.

God remains totally distinct from creation, even viewed panentheistically, but the confusion potential, given human sloppy thinking, is great, which is probably why you hear very little of it in The Bible. God emphasized His transcendence, and only hints at His multiplicity fully revealed in the New Testament under theological conditions and led by teachers who can defend Trinitarianism from being warped into polytheism.

The New Age and gnosticism takes all kinds of things like transcendence and immanence and warps them. Here is a phrase with some Christian relevance, then they claim to be doing exegesis (reading out of something) when they are really doing eisegesis (reading into something) and twisting it altogether.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Thomas - why don't you go 'deconstruct' yourself?

Susanna said...

God creates nothing equal to or greater than His Word.

To say that "what we know as our own self goes all the way to the point of absolute identity with the supreme Being" is blasphemy from the orthodox Christian perspective which embraces the creeds of Chalcedon an/or Nicaea. It also echoes the erroneous "Omega Point" theory and teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

On June 30, 1962, the Vatican issued a monitum, or warning, on his writings. They reiterated it in 1981 because some folks thought it was no longer in effect. Rome banned publication of most of his books and said they could not be retained in libraries (including those of religious institutes) or sold by Catholic bookstores, etc. And, he was kept from writing or teaching on philosophical studies.

Here is the text of that monitum:

"Several works of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, some of which were posthumously published, are being edited and are gaining a good deal of success.

"Prescinding from a judgement about those points that concern the positive sciences, it is sufficiently clear that the above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine.

"For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers.

"Given at Rome, from the palace of the Holy Office, on the thirtieth day of June, 1962.

Sebastianus Masala, Notarius"

A complete refutation of Teilhard de Chardin’s thought can be found in the appendix of “Trojan Horse in the City of God” by Dietrich von Hildebrand, (an outstanding philosopher, theologian and author.)

Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer said...

Actually both Jones and Cumbey veiw the New Age/New Spirituality ideology as Pantheistic.

Jones quoted James Herrick in an article of his. In the article Jones wrote "James Herrick calls this movement the "New Religious Synthesis,..."

James Herrick wrote that the New Age ideology is "Pantheistic."

The New Age/New Spirituality is both panentheistic and pantheistic...or, in other words, the New Ager's believe in Theopanism.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theopanism (Greek: Theos = God, pan = all) was first used as a technical term by the Jesuits in elucidating Hinduism[citation needed]. "[O]ne may distinguish pantheism, which imagines the world as an absolute being ("everything is God"), from theopanism, which conceives of God as the true spiritual reality from which everything emanates: "God becomes everything", necessarily, incessantly, without beginning and without end. Theopanism is the most common way in which Hindu philosophy conceives God and the world."

Theopanism has also been more broadly stated as inclusive of any theological theory by which God is held equivalent to the Universe. As one author puts it: "In theopanism the meaning given the word God is of an entity that is not separate from the universe. Theopanism includes among its major concepts pantheism and panentheism."

Craig said...


While I vehemently disagree with your views, I at least want to understand them, presenting them factually; and, I want to be sure you understand mine, which I'm glad you do.

I'm aware that many view New Age / New Spirituality (and Hinduism) as both panentheistic and pantheistic, I don't think this is accurate. I understand I'm in the minority on this. There's always been a dichotomy between spirit and matter, with matter merely a necessary vehicle to utilize in 'perfecting' the inner self, which in turn unites to the transcendent 'god'. This is the only way, to my understanding, one can make sense of the views of Theosophy, Lurianic Kabbalah, and Gnostic thought with respect to the goal of ridding oneself of the material (outer shells, kellipots, etc.) in order to unite onself with the spiritual. Blavatsky and Bailey (referring to Blavatsky) both state that THE ONE ABOUT WHOM NAUGHT MAY BE SAID will destroy all matter (using the name "Apollyon" to describe him in this regard.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

which would make theopanism effectivly a form of pantheism. And compatible with the heretical notion of one's self being at some point identifiable with God, however He is conceived, because if the universe is an emanation of God (not a manifestation of His will) then it is consubstantial (of same substance) with Him and all is divine to some extent. (That is not the same thing as seeing something of the artist in his work, with that analogy you keep the artist ever distinct from and not of same substance with his work, since the typical artist is not made of canvas, clay or stone.)

To help those who are curious about Dietrich von Hildebrand here are some links (I was very impressed with his widow's interviews some years ago probably on EWTN.) two of his works are at this link in PDF format has some links to institutions that focus on his work and/or continue it. (in disparaging receiving the Eucharist standing instead of kneeling, he points out that kneeling in our culture is the utmost sign of reverence. In the culture Orthodoxy developed in, standing was the sign of respect, even now when the judge comes into court we stand up until told to sit down or until he sits down. Court customs in the west derive from the same Greco Roman culture as was maintained in the East.

Craig said...


I'm not going to get into any sort of debate with you on this. I understand the EO adheres to a view of panentheism. I do not.

You are mostly correct in your views on Gnosticism, but a few very important things are missing in your analysis. First is the Dualism inherent in the philosopy - a false dichotomy of spirit vs. matter. It is precisely this dualism which informs their entire ideology. The end goal is to actualize the 'god within', while ridding oneself of the material outer shell.

You also fail to understand that the Demiurge, the inferior creator 'god' of Gnosticism is, in fact, not recognized as god, per se, but rather, an inferior 'copy' (emanation), a lesser god. This is the reason why Gnostics wish to rid themselves of the matter (made by the Demiurge) they'd been entrapped in because of Adam (there are many different versions of how this actually occurred). Just because some had chosen either asceticism, or its extreme opposite licentiousness, does not negate the basic ideology of the presumed need to escape the material body through gnosis.

Anonymous said...

Thomas, I don't play word games. Things in basic New Age plans don't change. It is operating on the same old crappy basis, one of which involves doing away with monotheism. The plans very early on involved organizational promotion of certain "spiritual" ideas, and they weren't chosen early on because they were superior spiritually or logically. They were chosen as a way to move the culture away from Christianity and Judaism.

Things don't just happen. Planning by human beings goes on behind all of the New Age operations. Exposing New Age involves exposing the plans, the concrete things happening, the people behind the drive, the organizations behind the drive. Anyone who seriously studies New Age realizes that long term planning has been going on. Followers are involved on many levels, most of them full of pride on how brilliant they are, how superior they feel compared to the mobs who they believe think like sheep. Little do they stop and think how much like that mob they are. Thomas, you are not a culture warrior. You are just one of the flock of New Age sheep.

Folks, you are doing missionary work trying to influence how Thomas thinks. Big deal. Changing him might be intellectual fun, but he's not important enough in the whole New Age movement to affect what is going on on a worldwide basis.

Susanna does it really matter that Adler wrote another book which suggested he has changed his thinking. He did a huge amount of damage that he can never undo while he was the beard at Aspen. His ugly control attempts while he was with Great Books of the Western World should be exposed. Let God worry about his soul. What should be done is a book about his connections on this earth, his connection to the University of Chicago and on what ideological basis it started and developed. If brilliant thinking alone leads people to right ideas, he never would have become involved in New Age.

Constance's book Hidden Danger made such an impact because it contained factual information about the movement. There never has been an end to the huge number of religious books and they don't stop people from becoming involved in the New Age movement. Thinking about thinking doesn't seem to stop the New Age movement from growing. While people sit around thinking about thinking, the people labeled movers and shakers plan and bring about.

Anonymous said...

(Thanks R)
"Indigenous societies the world over share a common past and are now establishing, with the help of the United Nations, a plan for a decolonized future. This plan, influenced by the UN and counter-cultural activists, will promote a set of values and assumptions which will radically change the entire global system and usher in a new age and new world order.

Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer

OK Thomas, here's your chance to get specific on how you see this coming about. I also think you consider yourself important. If you didn't take this space in the organizational plan, New Age leadership would have found another sucker.

Anonymous said...

To Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer:

Since this is an ANTI-New Age website and blog, I would like to challenge you to tell us the real reason why you came to this blog; because, so far, your comments are just insulting our intelligence.

Anonymous said...

I tried pulling up some of the links I posted earlier, and had a problem. These should work as they worked for me just now.

Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer said...

Cumbey has a blog post about me and my "close affiliation" with Rev. Matthew Fox.

I came to this blog because Cumbey put me in it. And, also, because, Cumbey does not know what the New Age is about and niether do her followers.

Panentheists, and theopanists do not worship nature. Pantheists worship nature. Cumbey and Jones believe and teach that New Agers worship nature.

New Agers are theopanists, NOT Pantheists.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Craig, I would think all your points are inherent to the information I gave.

the Bible quote I gave "DO I NOT FILL HEAVEN AND EARTH? says the Lord" shows there is some validity to panentheism, but NOT in any sense that opens the door to any category of pantheism, all of which posit that the universe (or multiverse or whatever, assuming there is such a thing as a multiverse) is consubstantial with God. It isn't. It was created out of nothing.

St. Paul, personally instructed in the desert by the Risen Jesus Christ, saw fit to cite Epimenides twice, once to say about God that He is not very far from any of us who choose to seek after Him, because "in Him we live and move and have our being," and regarding Cretans that they are all liars and lazy, etc. in The Epistle to Titus.

Granted Epimenides may have been referring to some etheric substrate he thought was God, but Paul saw the statement as relevant to God Who created all things, incl. any etheric substrate.

I joined EO because of two things, it is most loyal to ALL the Scripture of all the categories of Christianity, and because its Holy Water is stronger and takes more dilution before it becomes nearly useless, than Roman Catholic Holy Water does.

EO doesn't spend a lot of time on panentheism. It is not a major focus. And it is the branch (rather trunk) of Christianity who in its Ecumenical Councils in the early church days, and which it still stands by (in theory, regardless of what some individual priests might be doing) fought all the heresies we fight today.

Nowdays these same heresies are described and refuted by protestants using the authority of Scripture, without even mentioning the Ecumenical Councils. But the bishops at those Councils were themselves steeped in Scripture, often cited it, and put together the Creed which appeals to Scripture as authority for believing in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The rest of the illiterate and badly catechized believers of today in EO at least have the authority of the Councils to fall back on to reject some stuff, even if they don't know Scripture (despite the encouragement of reading Scripture, on the part of many holy Fathers, and the curiosity about it that The Holy Liturgy should excite, since it is composed primarily of quotes from Scripture).

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Right now there are some who are, like those in RC and Protestantism, trying to undermine the doctrine of The Substitutionary Atonement in EO, but this is not based on the authorities they wrongly cite, and is recognized by many bishops when it started as being heretical.

Granted original sin isn't personal guilt for Adam's sin, it is a resultant warp or disease, but insofar as one begins to manifest the fallen nature, one is somewhat agreeing with Adam's sin and that is personal guilt.

It is wrongly stated in wikipedia that EO doesn't teach atonement but theosis as per St. John Cassian, but St. John Cassian in explaining why prayers are offered at a particular hour states substitutionary atonement, and all theosis (which is equivalent to protestant/evangelical sanctification and regeneration) is based on The Atonement which alone makes it possible. EO had taken The Atonement doctrine for granted as so obvious that its writers often spent more time focussing on the outworking of this in the believer's life, if the believer is indeed "working out his salvation with fear and trembling" as Paul said, and not just shrugging and going on with daily life and effectively godless mindset and even overt sins, especially those couched in the culture.

Unfortunately this made The Atonement less specific and less time spent on it, so that it was possible to cherry pick The Fathers and make it look like they didn't support it.

An excellent refutation of this is Vladimir Moss' HOCNA ON THE DOGMA OF REDEMPTION aka THE MYSTERY OF REDEMPTION, and I dug more and found still more supports for it from The Fathers, which are in my egroup http0://

I notice that the most aggressive fighter against Atonement who got onto my egroup, priestmonk Ambrose, is a big fan of "st." (some problems in how he got glorified) nikolaj Velimirovic, whose works I think he was translating and I think he also said that he had spent some time in the late serbian (trust nothing out of serbia) bishop's rooms, and felt his presence.

Well, that character referred in one of his books to "fairies in the hills" who help serbs fight for their rights, etc., and while he admitted serbs have a characteristic sin of pride, then spent most of his writing glorifying attitudes and actions and priorities which are little else but the sin of pride, with an occasional nod to Jesus Christ. Serbia is part of the Balkans, a hotbed of paranormal activity. Not a good thing.

And a woman I suspect he got to join to back him up, said that Orthodox do not say that Jesus Christ is a part of The Holy Trinity, when in fact in The Holy Liturgy He IS described as "being part of The Holy Trinity" and priestmonk (technical term is heiromonk) Ambrose didn't call her to account for it. I wonder how much these people really LISTEN to what is said in The Holy Liturgy, assuming they are hearing it in their language, but if not a translation is available, if not in church then online.

Anonymous said...

There is enough information to work against the encroachment of the New Age movement on a secular level. It need not be just a faith system vs faith system though some will use support of their faith system as a reason for doing something. It's a very big battle going on with people on each side.

Craig said...


I'm not going to debate you on the EO panentheistic viewpoint. This is not the forum for such a thing.

As to your contention that my points on Gnosticism (the Demiurge being a 'lesser god' and the spirit vs. matter dichotomy) are somehow congruent with pantheism (in conjunction with panentheism) illustrates either your lack of comprehension, or your ability to hold to two contradictory views at the same time without cognitive dissonance.

Given that Gnostics wish to escape the matter that encumbers them, wouldn't they be escaping 'god' (the Demiurge)? Why would Gnostics wish to 'escape god' (the Demiurge) in pursuit of finding 'god'? You do realize that some Gnostics posit that the Demiurge is the "God of the Old Testament", as compared to the "the Father God of the New Testament", don't you? Yet another false dichotomy, of course.

Anonymous said...

Reply to Thomas Ivan Dahlheimer at 12:33 PM:

Re: "I came to this blog because Cumbey put me in it. And, also, because, Cumbey does not know what the New Age is about and neither do her followers."


Mr. Dahlheimer:

First of all, Constance Cumbey has answered a calling to devote the past 3 DECADES of her life doing research and connecting the dots (by exposing New Age individuals and organizations - wherever that may lead). It is laughable to think that any one single, disgruntled New Age advocate could come along and actually believe that he or she could quietly dismiss her and her well documented life's work.

Second, we are not HER 'followers'....we are followers of the TRUTH, and that means exposing the LIES.

Third, where are YOUR best selling books? In 1983, the brilliant Constance Cumbey wrote her first major critical work: "THE HIDDEN DANGERS OF THE RAINBOW; The New Age Movement and our Coming Age of Barbarism"....and in 1986, "A PLANNED DECEPTION: The Staging of a New Age Messiah."

Susanna said...


Regarding the Pantheism/Panentheism debate, there is another ancient error that needs to be addressed.......the gnostic doctrine of "emanationism."

Traditional authentic Christianity teaches that God created "ex nihilo." ( "from nothing") Creatures do not "emanate" from the Creator. If they did, they would not be creatures.

Panentheism is little more an upgraded version of pantheism with both pantheists and panentheists claim that God is to be equated with everything that is. Panentheism holds that not only is the world dependent on God, but God is also dependent on the world. It was popular among the Tubengen crowd - notably Hans Kung - possibly because it opposes the Thomistic view of God as pure act......meaning that God does not "become." God is! Creatures become. Creatures are a blend of potentiality and actuality. Pure potentiality is what we understand as "nothing."

Emanationism, which was foreshadowed in Plato and fleshed out by Plotinus is a monist theory which also blurs the distinction between creature and Creator just as panentheism does but with the additional feature being that movement is metaphysically added to the brew to produce what has been called "evolutionary pantheism"......the notion that everything is "evolving"/"becoming" God.

Samael Aun Weor had taught emanationism from his studies with the Kabbalah and Gnosticism. He mapped out a complex esoteric cosmology with matter flowing from different planes of existence all existing in the absolute.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Craig, you raised the issue of Gnostic rejection of the true Most High God in context of saying I didn't get it all. I had already made the point about Iadalbaoth aka the demiurge, yes, he is identified by them with YHWH and their rejection of the created universe puts them in the position of rejecting the God Who created it and declared it "very good" in Genesis.

But more seriously, I have noticed that this Marcionistic tendency of contrasting the God of the OT with the God of the NT has been around a long time in pop Christianity and preaching, even back to the 1800s and in a supposedly orthodox (small o) context.

The attitude promulgated is that the God of the OT is a God of Wrath and the God of the NT is a God of Love, which is totally false, since God frequently speaks of His love and speaks of and displays His longsufferingness and willingness to forgive in the OT.

Yes they are trying to escape the True God as well as the matter that encumbers them. I don't see how you could miss that point in my posts, it is the inherent problem, but you posit it as a logical conclusion regarding those who are confused enough not to see the logical direction of their matter rejecting tendencies.

I pointed out that the rejection of the Creator is OFFICIAL in most of the ancient gnostic systems, they either blame creation on an illicit act by an emanation of God, or they claim that God aka Iadalbaoth the name they gave the demiurge (sorry I wasn't specific enough to mention "demiurge") Who made everything is a lesser emanation of their "most high" and called Him "saklas" meaning "the stupid one" for claiming to be The Most High and only True God.

panentheism in the pure form of it, does not reject the physical creation, but says that God is actively involved with it (as Paul says in I think it is Romans, maybe Colossians) that He upholds the universe by The Word of His Power.

Panentheism is dangerous to focus on, because so easily misunderstood, and I don't like the term because too close sounding to pantheism, which it is totally different from and opposed to. It is also possible to confuse because of misunderstanding or misapplying it, the doctrines of God teaching people and leading them to Jesus Christ eventually, though they began in a pagan or atheist context, but following such light as God gave them ended up accepting Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of God living in the believer, not as a controlling, possessing force, automonization is alien to His whole style, but in a relationship to the believer a special relationship through Jesus Christ, and in the collective body of believers the Church, more actively so in some churches than others I suspect.

Panentheism is a term open to such twisting that it is best left out altogether. Just say, God loves and interacts with His creation, and contains it, sustains it, fills all heaven and earth.

This is the opposite of the gnostic position, but like any other doctrine of Christianity can be twisted to gnostic positions.

Right now I have been debating a fellow on another forum, who thinks that Jesus talked about us all being God or having God in us in the same way as He is God, and the current New Age talk of "ascension" is an obvious steal (by "spiritualizing" Christ's ascension to The Father after His Resurrection then applying it to everyone who is "enlightened") from the Christian doctrine of the Ascension of Christ to Heaven.

Yes, there is a locus shall we say of God's presence aka "the heaven of the heavens," but He is not limited. Panentheism is about His not being limited.

Or do you deny that God is infinite and unknowable by the finite created minds?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

two points. panentheism DOES NOT SAY GOD IS DEPENDENT ON THE UNIVERSE. God is dependent on nothing and no one but Himself. In Buddhist terms, He does not take His arising from anyone or anything else. (Buddha couldn't find a claimant to godhood that had this quality, so sidestepped the issue to focus on right thinking and acting to stop generating karma. Theravada Buddhism therefore has no gods, but venerates Buddha. The kind of Buddhism we are used to is the various mahayana or "greater vehicle" sects, which claim to have secret documents and teachings from Buddha that theravada or hinayana, "the lesser vehicle" lacks. These are of course forgeries, just like the gnostic gospels etc. are forgeries.

2. Samael Aun Weor is mentioned, which is interesting. That first name is a name for the devil. Tells you something about this fellow's orientation so to speak.

"After March 19, 1952, Aun Weor and some disciples build and live near the Summum Supremum Sanctuarium, an "underground temple" in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta in Columbia. On October 27, 1954, Aun Weor received what is referred to as the "Initiation of Tiphereth", which, according to his doctrine, is the beginning of the incarnation of the Logos or "Glorian" within the soul. He states that in his case the name of his Glorian has always been called "Samael" through the ages. From then on, he would sign his name Samael Aun Weor.[18] Thus he states that this union of Samael (the Logos) with Aun Weor (the human soul) is the Maitreya Buddha Kalki Avatar of the New Age of Aquarius. " In other words, yet another closet satanist/luciferian, since he identified samael with the logos, and yet another claimant to being the antichrist, though of course he didn't call it that.

The article also discusses his focus on sex magic. discusses the FRA as an OTO spinoff which he was part of. discusses what Koenig calls spermo gnosticism and what we might call sex cultism. Koenig is part of this himself, but the historical material is written very objectively.

I hate this discussion, and the one with the fellow on the other forum, it is requiring me to dig into stuff I would rather forget.

Craig said...


Your first 3 paragraphs are mostly fine, but then you come to this:

Yes they are trying to escape the True God as well as the matter that encumbers them. I don't see how you could miss that point in my posts, it is the inherent problem, but you posit it as a logical conclusion regarding those who are confused enough not to see the logical direction of their matter rejecting tendencies.

I think you're missing the point that there is one 'god' the Gnostics are trying to become 'at one' with, while simultaneously escaping the 'lesser god', which in essence makes the 'lesser god' NOT CONGRUENT with the other 'god'. Hence, this is not pantheism such that all matter is part of the 'god' with which Gnostics are attempting to become 'at one' with. This Demiurge, in essence, in the Gnostic schema is NOT GOD at all, but rather, an entrapment to escape from.

Therefore, this is not pantheism, in that the 'god' they wish to become 'at one' with is obviously superior to the other, the Demiurge. Hence, the Demiurge is NOT GOD to the Gnostic.

Anyway, I've wasted enough time and bandwidth addressing you, and I'm finished. Though I'm sure you'll have something else to say.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

yes it is pantheism, because they posit everything as either an emanation of his, therefore consubstantial with him, or the rogue emanation of some rogue emanation of his, therefore still consubstantial directly or indirectly with him.

But even if it is not pantheism, if a system posited him as never having anything to do with the universe, and not only separate from it in substance and nature, but opposed to it, then you have a form of monotheism anyway. Back to the issue of WHO exactly is the true God? YHWH or someone else?

panentheism is opposed to gnosticism (however it may be twisted to support it), because the gnostic god not only didn't create the universe, but loathes it and has nothing to do with maintaining it. panentheism is simply a fancy word for God being infinite, and interactive with and supportive of His creation.

I still ask, do you deny that God is infinite?

(I agree it is safer to say that all things are in God than that God is in all things, given human mental sloppiness, but if He is in all things, it is only like the water is in the fish and the fish swims in water, but water is not the fish and the fish is not water, but depends on it, while the water does not depend on the fish.)

Craig said...


Briefly, I understand two different "emanations": (1) is the Gnostic idea that the Demiurge is a copy of a copy of a copy, etc. of the "true god" (to them), making the Demiurge a 'lesser god', or, in reality, not god at all; and (2) the "evolutionary pantheism" of which you write. Bailey references this doctrine, though not by name, of course, in A Treatise on Cosmic Fire. However, later in the same book is the specific notion that all will matter will be destroyed.

Matter, in the Bailey book, 'evolves' as the inner being is working towards perfection; however, the outer shell, which is the body of the human e.g., will eventually be destroyed rather than becoming "one" with the transcendent - the ONE ABOUT WHOM NAUGHT MAY BE SAID.

This does not negate the possibility or reality of a true "evolutionary pantheism" in some other religious systems, of course.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

any form of pantheism, evolutionary or otherwise, whether it is raising its head in a Christian or Jewish context or not, must answer the question, IS IT TRUE?

Jesus Christ Who rose from the dead has assured us that God will eventually resurrect all and judge them, and that the universe will never be destroyed outright, but there will be a new heaven and a new earth, an overhaul not a destruction. (Given that the New Jerusalem will be somewhere around 1500 mile wide, high and long, I would suspect that the laws of physics will be different in this new heavens and new earth also.)

Anonymous said...

You write Constance and her followers don't understand what the New Age is about. Most of the suckers who listen to New Age peddlers don't know what is going on. That's why they follow junky thinking. They have very little knowledge of the people and organizations connected to the NA movement.

Checking out what's selling on the spiritual side, I've read many of their books, met them and checked out their websites. For them, it is spirituality without morality. They go into hyperdrive feeling high over imagined connections with whatever the latest spirit doctor tells them is special. It's all emotional manipulation.

Finding out what's happening to push people toward a One World Order is so simple. On this side the audience is composed of people who believe that utopia is possible. For them this New Age utopia is going to work because it is better than all of the utopias that have failed in history.

The target audiences for the New Age push are composed of generally intelligent people who don't have street smarts.

paul said...

Where did you get the idea that the new Jerusalem will be 1500 by 1500 miles ???

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Rev. 21:14-17 figure out the length of a cubit or a furlong (not the same thing, and modern furlong is 1/8 of a mile, and there are two possible cubit measurements) add it all up, calculate how many miles it adds up to, and you get the picture.

Anonymous said...

Readers you have to see this. A long time ago Constance learned and shared that New Age promoters said they have something for everybody. You have to see this. I never would have believed it.

Thomas promotes on his site promotes a New Age big event to take place at the end of October.

Of course I had to look around. I assume they will be having a huge number of speakers, some impressive big New Age names based on the list from a previous meeting.

Go down to
Past event SAND 2012, October 24th-28th THE NATURE OF THE SELF
What is the Self? - SAND latest video

On this video you will see a speaker that one would expect would be giving talks at any Christian church.

The video is titled:
Tortured in hell. Lived to tell. A very compelling talk promoting belief in Jesus by a burly guy in a red baseball cap. In the corner of the video in a picture leading to a site saying Proof Jesus is real. You will watch it to the end.

I have my own analysis of why this fits into the New Age pattern, but I'll not give a spoiler.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 325   Newer› Newest»