Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Global Core Curriculum -- Robert Muller is dead but his AAB inspired 'Global Core Curriculum' lives.

Dorothy Margraf has sent me word that there are substantial new developments on the New Age war front against orthodox religion aka "fundamentalism."  Robert Muller long ago claimed to have developed the "global core curriculum".  He then said that he couldn't take personal credit -- that he had to give credit where credit was due -- to the Tibetan Master Dhwhal Khul.  For the benefit of the 'uninitiated,' that was the 'presence' or more likely demon speaking through Alice Ann Bailey and her Lucifer Publishing Company renamed in 1923 as Lucis Publishing Company 'Tibetan telepathically dictated' writings.

Dorothy is doing heavy research on current developments on that front and has significant materials at her Facebook site.  Here is a link she supplied there for Foreign Affairs Journal of CFR, December 2010 issue.  The article is entitled "A Globalized God."

I was encouraged to see that the new Pope Francis upheld the rebuke of the LCWR that I also addressed in my article "Little Sisters of the New World Religion".   You may also read it at the NewswithViews site where it was co-published.  Pope Francis' upholding of the former Pope Benedict XVI's rebuke of the American nuns departure from religious orthodoxy was a definite set back to the New Age / New World Religion crowd.  BUT, they are busy on other fronts as well.

Dorothy is doing some valuable research on their attempts to proselytize their New World Religion through our educational systems.  I thank her for bringing my attention to the CFR inputs on the Global Core Curriculum.

Stay tuned!



1 – 200 of 305   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

I can't take credit for the link to the CFR article. This is the first time I'm seeing it. It is a Constance find. My information about Robert Muller's World Core Curriculum connection to Common Core which is spreading rapidly in schools in the US can be found on the previous thread. Links to the two articles covering the topic will be found there. Neither article mentions the New Age movement though anyone who knows of Robert Muller's New Age connections would spot the information as soon as they saw the name in the articles. If you are looking for solid conservative information, go to the two sites given.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"He then said that he couldn't take personal credit -- that he had to give credit where credit was due -- to the Tibetan Master Dhwhal Khul. "

well no wonder it is such a mess. Anything from that source is either pious seeming nonsense and incompetence or overt malice. In actuality, both.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

the link to the CFR article requires a subscription to read all of it. Can you post the entire article here (it will have to be in 4,000+ character segments).

Craig said...

Anything from that source [Tibetan Master Dhwhal Khul] is either pious seeming nonsense and incompetence or overt malice. In actuality, both.

Given your stance as a Christian, why not just called it what it is: demonic/occultic?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

I was taking it for granted that it is demonic, and this kind of poison disguised as pablum is what you get from them, when they are playing nice, the overt malice is when the mask slips or when dealing with people who like it.

So basically I was slamming the whole pack of them.

Randall Baer INSIDE THE NEW AGE NIGHTMARE (get full book at scribd or in audio interview at youtube) was a NAM leader in the pop scene which is less about politics, but meditation and so forth, and got an eyeopening horror experience and became a Christian.

In The Bible somewhere there is reference to YHWH giving good gifts without a curse attached. important point. gifts from other sources have a curse attached.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

well, well, look who had a hand in developing extreme modern laissez faire ideas - Rockefeller and Rothschild! Obviously these must be of use in a long term plan of making a mess to build a new world order out of.

"Hayek had started after World War I as a hack writer in the pay of rent-gouging Viennese landlords who wanted propaganda articles condemning the evils of rent control. He was considered a very marginal academic, almost a crackpot, until he attracted the attention of economic illiterate David Rockefeller, who hired Hayek to help him in cramming for exams at the London School of Economics.

Hayek, like his co-thinker Ludwig von Mises, was an exponent of the backward and primitive Austrian school of economic theory, which had been concocted by feudal-reactionary quackademics in the Habsburg empire to undercut the prestigious German-American school of dirigism and protectionism exemplified by figures like Friedrich List, one of the main inspirations for the recent economic success of places like Japan, Taiwan, and China.

For the Austrian school, any government intervention in or regulation of economic life is automatically classed as totalitarianism. The Austrian school relies on crude slogans of deregulation, privatization, and the free market. The Austrian school is sometimes called the psychological school, since it rejects as collectivist analyses which tried to grasp the broad objectivity of a national economy. The theoretical vantage point of the Austrian school is always the sociopathic urges and desires of the individual predatory speculator.

Austrianism is therefore much inferior to the deeply flawed neo-Keynesian synthesis, which tends to reproduce the outlook of central bankers. The Austrians are even more inferior in comparison to the American System, which has its central focus in the development of the modern labor force.

Before Thatcher, the strange beliefs of figures like von Mises and von Hayek - such as their demand that government must never lift a finger to prevent or mitigate a devastating economic depression - meant that they were not presentable in polite society.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"If an economist claimed that a pint of milk for school children was the leading edge of Bolshevism, most people concluded that such an economist needed to be committed to a mental institution....
Margaret Thatcher changed all that. The overall impact of her political career has been a radical degradation of the universe of economic discourse of the Western world in the direction of ideas seen in the 1950s and 60s as hopelessly reactionary, or even psychotic. In this sense, Thatcher can be classed as the unifying symbol of a retrograde cultural paradigm shift, not just in Europe and the United States, but worldwide - especially when the influence of her signature monetarist/neoliberal economics on the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and similar institutions is taken into account.

The austerity policies today ravaging Europe under the auspices of the IMF, the European Central Bank, and the European Commission would be simply unthinkable without the massive wave of economic ignorance and barbarism unleashed by Thatcher.

A Creature of Lord Victor Rothschild

The legend of Thatcher portrays her as a self-made woman, a greengrocer’s daughter from Grantham.

In reality, the emergence of Thatcher was the work of a formidable political syndicate. One of Thatcher’s most important handlers was by any measure Lord Victor Rothschild (1910-1990), the third Baron Rothschild. Lord Vic was nominally a Labour peer in the House of Lords, but much of his influence derived from his work between 1963 and 1970 as worldwide head of “research” - meaning intelligence - for Royal Dutch Shell, the policy flagship of the seven sisters oil cartel. During much of this time, Lord Vic was a key security adviser to Thatcher. For a number of years Lord Vic also ran the Central Policy Review Staff, the de facto think tank of the British government. Lord Vic was also closely associated with Sir Keith Joseph, a Tory government minister and Thatcher’s top political brain truster.

Thatcher was for many years elected to parliament from the safe Conservative seat of Finchley. However, intelligence reports from the 1980s sometimes noted that Thatcher’s hold on this rotten borough or pocket borough had been consolidated with decisive help from Lord Vic. "

Anonymous said...

Ezra Levant on Boston - more at

Four days after the bombing of the Boston Marathon, one suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was dead and the other, his brother Dzhokhar, was captured.

More than a million Bostonians were allowed to return to a semblance of normal life.

The governor of Massachusetts had put the city under a light form of martial law, called a "shelter in place" order.

Citizens were told to stay home, all public transit was cancelled, public workers were told not to come to work, schools were closed and some major streets, too.

Instead, the city was filled with police.

But they hardly looked like police - they looked like soldiers wearing military camouflage, in armoured vehicles. So now that the suspects are off the street, can we ask some questions?

The terrorist attack on the marathon was horrific.

But on the scale of terrorism, it wasn't massive.

Did a hunt for two people require the city and its suburbs to be shut down?

Isn't a governor desperately telling people to stay at home, and shutting down public institutions, a terrifying sight in itself and a cause of panic and economic loss?

And what about the message?

Two terrorists, with homemade pressure-cooker bombs, were able to shut down one of America's great cities.

Was it really necessary to deploy soldiers in military attire?

Why - to scare the terrorists?

It sure scared the rest of the city.

Is this the new normal? Are we being conditioned, as citizens, to a soft form of martial law?

No police force can prevent a terrorist bombing with certainty.

But how did the bombers escape the scene?

More importantly, what about when the brothers had a shootout with cops - presumably dozens, perhaps hundreds of police, probably a helicopter, surely with night-vision and other electronic technology?

That's when police captured Tamerlan, the older brother, and were handcuffing him, when, police claim, his younger brother Dzhokhar jumped in a car, and barreled right at the cops, who jumped out of the way, and Dzhokhar ran over his own brother and dragged him.

Let's assume it really happened that way, that one of the fugitives was in custody, and police flubbed it.


But how on earth did Dzhokhar just drive away?

Did the police not have other cars that could chase him?

Did they not have helicopters? Radios to call ahead?

Did they not observe the appearance of the car? Did they just "lose" him on a city street?

Dzhokhar was finally caught, but not by the largest dragnet in Massachusetts history.

Some guy, stepping out of his house where he had been ordered to stay put, saw something funny about his boat that was tied up in the back, went to look, and there he was. How did the Tsarnaevs slip through police fingers before?

The FBI acknowledges they interviewed Tamerlan, based on a tip from a foreign government - probably Russia. Last year, he visited Chechnya and Dagestan, hotbeds of Islamic terrorist networks. How did the FBI not take note? Or did they take note, but not take action? What good is a surveillance state, and our privacy violated, if when the police actually find something, they are too politically correct to do anything about it?

We need to watch out for terrorists. But we need to watch the watchmen, too.

Anonymous said...

Christine, I had not realised that you were a genius at economics as well as theology and physics.

The Austrian school would not recognise the parody of itself that you describe. You do not land any significant intellectual hit on its main thinker, von Mises. He was not the clearest of writers but a magisterial account of the Austrian school is given in Murray Rothbard's major book "Man, Economy and State". Please read it (it is a free download at the Mises Institute website
together with much else) before you join the long list of economically illiterate commentators.

The Austrian school warned that printing money generally does NOT pay for itself by stimulating economic activity. Sooner or later such actions are going to impoverish somebody - the questions are who, when and by how much? Although Keynes and Mises have their differences over whether a high-unemployment situation is stable, Keynes would actually have agreed with that statement - he argued for printing money that IN VERY PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, which the Left have conveniently forgotten.

Adam Smith showed how desire to make more money, provided that you are prepared to work, can be harnessed for mutual good provided that everybody plays by the rules. The shallow greed-is-good parody of that which you present is intellectually embarrassing.

Anonymous said...

Christine, now why would you be pushing an article by Webster Griffin Tarpley? Tarpley is a former LaRouchie who believes the US was behind 9/11. He is one the strange breed of conspiracy theorists who is all over the place with his information.

Anonymous said...

He is all over the place. One of many articles on Tarpley. Here someone is asking why he blames 9/11 on the CIA and in other places he comes across as antisemitic. Don't you ever check out your sources Christine? Do you just throw out things and then tell others that they need to figure out whether it's good information? Your material is never dependable.

Anonymous said...


This is Physicist. As you know I am British and I live in England. And I remember what it was like in the 1970s under the leftwing Labour party before she came to power: huge unemployment queues AND 20% annual inflation. Margaret Thatcher fixed that. She reduced government deficits so that taxpayer revenue did not have to be wasted on interest repayments, and she took some large British industries that had ceased to be competitive off State life support. That caused considerable unemployment, but too-large-to-fail is never a good argument. It means that tax revenue from competitive smaller businesses is subsidising uncompetitive larger businesses merely because of size, or cozying up to previous leftwing administrations. It can't go on indefinitely and Thatcher had the courage to pull the plug. Under her, people became free to learn new skills and get new jobs that actually contribute to the economy rather than draining it. As part of that process, Thatcher took on the most militant and powerful Trade Union in the country, run by an open communist, and won - a major blow for democracy against the forces of totalitarianism.

Like all of us she had her faults. But she left this country in a much better State than she found it. I can vouch for that - I saw it happen. It is possible to understand that without having seen it, of course, but you need to have some basic economically literacy and to read the UK's vital statistics.

Although I am not an economist, I do know that "X once had tea with lord Rothschild, so everything X did is wrong" is not a valid economic argument. You were choosing to quote from a particular website, but your choices obviously mean that you agree with this nonsense. In particular...

"Thatcher was for many years elected to parliament from the safe Conservative seat of Finchley. However, intelligence reports from the 1980s sometimes noted that Thatcher’s hold on this rotten borough or pocket borough had been consolidated with decisive help from Lord Vic"

Finchley is an unexceptional reasonably affluent outer London suburb, which Margaret Thatcher got to represent before she knew Lord Rothschild. Not a whiff of scandal attached to her party political roots there, and it is unthinkable that the Finchley Conservative Party would have ditched an obviously rising star. What on earth is your source ranting about?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

why do you brand as undependable information that comes from a source that have a few opinions you don't like? Tarpley is not antisemitic any more than the Jews who dislike Israeli excesses against Palestinians are.

Right now, nutcase Netanyahu wants a war with Iran, which the ex head of Mossad says would be a disaster. (Iran has Russia and China backing it.) If it were anyone other than Jews involved, such a statement I have made would not be questioned but I am sure someone will call me antisemitic. I am 1/4 Ashkenazic Jew by the way, with a strong appreciation for the Jewish basis of Christianity. the only reason we are not recognized as a sect of Judaism, is the jettisoning of circumcision, food laws, and Hebrew and Aramaic as official languages a long time ago.

dig up some information showing his statement here false.

If someone holds that the moon is made of green cheese, and publically burns all books that say otherwise, that has no bearing on his accuracy in describing current events or history on earth from documents.

take a look at his deep historical analysis Against Oligharchy you can read online free. Also, he was sounding the alarm against Obama, and against Romney, he digs up dirt on everyone, he is nonpartisan.

Anonymous said...

"Right now, nutcase Netanyahu wants a war with Iran"

Israel had no intentions of any sort toward Iran before President Ahmedinejad's statements that he wants to wipe Israel off the map and his development of nuclear weapons. We can debate what the appropriate response is, but don't you think that might have something to do with Netanyahu's change of attitude?

Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't deter when one side has the mentality of the suicide bomber. In case you doubt that he does, check Ahmedinejad's eschatological statements.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

I think physicist is out to lunch, if he thinks the US didn't have something to do with 9-11. As for so and so having lunch with someone, that is not comparable to the relationship described in the article.

Tarpley is indeed all over the place because he is a real renaissance man, a far ranging mind that can see the big picture
and connect dots.

Like myself, he is politically not classifiable. Neither by the way is The Bible when you read it carefully, like straight through in a few months time, and do this two or three times.

Truth is not to be found entirely in any one camp.

Craig said...

Anon 11:30,

My dumb question is this. Given that the Tsarnaev brothers had carjacked an SUV, their scent should have been in that vehicle; therefore, why weren't dogs just sent out in search of the younger Tsarnaev? Surely, they would have caught the teenage terrorist before some grandfather inadvertantly found him.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

yes muslim terrorists piloted the planes. no that is not all there is to the story. For one thing, there is an incredible amount of numerological significances throughout the whole thing, which can only mean that the planning and timing and selection of flight numbers and date itself, was done by occultists.

while pop type islam has its own brand of occultism and numerology, this is thelemic numerology. and that would connect back to the Skull and Bones and Bohemian Grove scene, especially the latter. someone with that kind of satanic agenda was directing this, and while different schools of thought might well turn up in both depraved contexts, you can be sure some of this is in Bohemian Grove. the mix of pagan ritual and homosexual stuff is altogether too compatible with both Crowleyite and Feri Anderson witchcraft, however the latter is usually lower class types.

Ever hear of JPL co founder and OTO member Jack Parsons? and he was brought into the OTO by another scientist named I think it was Wilson Smith.

now go google all that stuff. Might take a stiff drink or two to get you through all you will find, don't stop at a couple of google articles, read a lot and follow the links in the articles to more stuff.

Anonymous said...

Jack Parsons? He got a chapter to himself in the excellent biography of L Ron Hubbard "Bare Faced Messiah" by Russell Miller. Hubbard stole Parsons' girlfriend, who was herself the sister of Parsons' first wife.

I've come across an ocean of trash written about 9/11 so a little more won't make much difference - feel free to get specific about the numerological coincidences regarding 9/11. I've published a math research paper as well as physics.


Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"I've published a math research paper as well as physics"

neither of which have any relevance to identifying occult numerology.

here's a good starter, which I picked and gave a brief glance at from a google search.

BTW anytime you run into 11 as meaning new beginnings, you are probably looking at someone with thelemic leanings or who learned this innocently from someone not so innocent. 8 is new beginnings, since it comes after 7. someone also pointed out, that since 10 is the kabbalistic number for God, to jump from 9 to 11 is to bypass God.

Anonymous said...

More Christine...more bull...more wasted space...more comments off the top of her little head. This blog is just wasted space.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

I really wonder about you sometimes. This subject of the occult connections about 9-11 is one of the most glaring pieces of evidence of occultists in high places running things, but you dismiss it. And no, no comments off the top of my head. I do know something about all this years before 9-11, so when the subject was broached, I recognized the issues. Maybe you should look more closely into the occult philosophy stuff and then you would understand what you are looking at.

ever hear of "hiding in plain sight"?

Anonymous said...

Constance, are you trying to support that we must know about occult numerology in order to fight the New Age movement? Wow. I never knew you thought that way. Now everytime I see the number 11 somewhere I'll know that you think it has something to do with the New Age movement. Thanks for letting Christine share your information here. Serious and important stuff that you can't speak out openly about so clever you, you let Christine do the talking for you.

Anonymous said...

No, Christine is not posting this, but it's absolutely a true story. Political correctness gone totally insane. A company has stopped selling pressure cookers in Massachusetts for the time being. This is not a gag report. I called a local store and yes, the story is true.

Anonymous said...

Constance, you must really believe that occultists are behind 9/11 and Christine is your cover for getting the information out. Thanks for letting us know. Anything that Christine posts now we will know that it comes through her from you.

Anonymous said...

Constance, thanks for letting us know this.
BTW anytime you run into 11 as meaning new beginnings, you are probably looking at someone with thelemic leanings or who learned this innocently from someone not so innocent. 8 is new beginnings, since it comes after 7. someone also pointed out, that since 10 is the kabbalistic number for God, to jump from 9 to 11 is to bypass God.

I'll have to look at my Bingo cards to see if there is a 10 on them. If not, I'll know God is not on my side.

Susanna said...


Re: As for being called out-to-lunch by you, I couldn't possibly comment.


Anonymous said...

Constance, fascinating that you think Tarpley, Christine and the Bible are all in the same category. You have continuously supported Christine and never criticize anything she posts, so I presume she is your alter ego. And didn't she say the two of you were so alike. Oh please don't say that anyone can post on your blog and that you don't support all who do. That is such a diversionary tactic.

About Tarpley Christine wrote,

"Like myself, he is politically not classifiable. Neither by the way is The Bible when you read it carefully, like straight through in a few months time, and do this two or three times.

"Truth is not to be found entirely in any one camp."

Susanna said...

Tarpley is a moonbat from Massachusetts and a Fulbright scholar to boot. He believes, along with other more radical moonbats like Van Jones that 9/11 was "an inside job."

For those who do not know who Senator J. William Fulbright was, his stand against past investigations of Communists and his excessive love for internationalism made him the darling of the left and, since 1943, the Grand Poobah of American socialists and internationalists.

Walter Lippmann - a prominent socialist and Soviet intelligence source as late as 1944 - was once Fulbright's tireless cheerleader.

Moreover, before Fulbright had completed his first year as a Senator, he established himself as one of that body's most fervent apologists for Soviet Dictator Stalin and his regime.

Said Fulbright, in one of his most apolgetic moments: "The Russian experiment in socialism is scarcely more radical for modern times than was the American Declaration of Independence in the days of George III."

Added to Fulbright's pro-Communist, pro-internationalist, anti-patriot rantings were his fulminations against the Constitution of the United States. Here Fulbright's Rhodes scholar heritage shone through as he stumped for a parliamentary system of government, to replace the American system. When both houses of Congress were held by Republican majorities in 1946, Fulbright went so far as to urge Democratic President Truman to resign since that is what a British Prime Minister would do in a similar situation.

Fulbright's contempt for the Constitution, which he had sworn "to support and defend," was never better demonstrated than in a speech he delivered to a Stanford University conference in 1961. Said Fulbright on that occasion:

"The President is hobbled in his task of leading the American people to consensus and concerted action by the restrictions of power imposed on him by a constitutional system designed for an 18th century agrarian society far removed from the centers of world power.

"It is imperative that we break out of the intellectual confines of cherished and traditional beliefs and open our minds to the possibility that basic changes in our system may be essential to meet the requirements of the 20th century....

"He [the President] alone, among elected officials can rise above parochialism and private pressures. He alone, in his role as teacher and moral leader, can hope to overcome the excesses and inadequacies of a public opinion that is all too often ignorant of the needs, the dangers, and the opportunities in our foreign relations....

"Public opinion must be educated and led if it is to bolster wise and effective national policies. Only the president can provide the guidance that is necessary, while legislators display a distressing tendency to adhere slavishly to the dictates of public opinion....

"I do not know if the American people can be aroused in time from their current apathy and indifference and educated to the necessity for challenging tasks and policies that break sharply with the traditions of our past."

Bill Clinton was one of Fulbright's protégés.

Obama echoes much of Fulbright's antipathy towards the U.S. Constitution.

So should we be surprised to learn that Fulbright scholar Tarpley is a hardcore socialist and LaRouchenik???

There is an old saying "If you lie down with dogs, you get their fleas."

Susanna said...

Theosophy, Robert Muller and his World Core Curriculum.

During a visit to Arlington, Texas, some years ago, a friend took me to see the original Robert Muller school. While she waited in the car, I walked past a little Buddha, climbed the steps to the front door, and rang the bell.

Gloria Crook, the Director opened the door and asked why I had come. I listed my credentials: I was interested in global education, was concerned about the environment, and was an immigrant from Norway -- a country well known for its global concerns and admiration for the United Nations.

I must have passed the test, because she invited me in and led me into a massive hallway. Looking to the left, I saw a room full of young mothers and pregnant women in yoga position. On a table next to the doorway, I noticed a stack of papers. The title startled me: "Occult Meditation."

To those who don't know God, the occult seems good, not bad, I thought to myself.

"Are you familiar with Alice Bailey?" she asked me as we entered a large cluttered office.

"Yes." I nodded, well aware of her links to Theosophy and the occult messages she channeled from her favorite spirit guide. "Didn't she write books full of messages she received from the Tibetan Master, Djwhal Khul?"

"Yes," answered Ms Crook. "Here, sit down and look at some of them." She pulled down several of Bailey's books from a shelf and put them in my lap. I silently thanked God for His spiritual protection as I flipped through the pages of the first one, Education in the New Age.

Then she handed me the Robert Muller World Core Curriculum Manual. I turned a few pages and read,

"The underlying philosophy upon which the Robert Muller School is based will be found in the teaching set forth in the books of Alice A. Bailey by the Tibetan teacher, Djwhal Khul ...."

The back of the manual contained two certificates. The first announced that The Robert Muller School "is a participating institution in the UNESCO Associated Schools Project in Education for International Co-operation and Peace." The other confirmed its accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. On behalf of the Southern Association's review team, Dr. Eileen Lynch wrote,

"The visiting team... was so impressed with the Robert Muller School that they thought the educational process and the general curriculum would be most valuable as a model for teacher education... Throughout this report the committee has recommended that information of the school's educational processes be shared with educators everywhere as much as possible." (Emphasis added)

Finally Ms Crook pulled two large golden frames from the wall and showed them to me. I shivered when I looked at the first. It pictured a beautiful calligraphied rendition of "The Great Invocation," an occult prayer used around the world to invoke a global outpouring of spiritual light and power.

The other frame displayed a letter from the White House. President Bush had sent his greetings and appreciation for the contributions made by the school. Did the former president know whom he had endorsed?


Susanna said...


Whether Bush knew Muller or not, the former U.N. leader is no stranger to the educational establishment. You saw that back in 1985, Muller's vision of a World Core Curriculum, as outlined in his book New Genesis: Shaping a Global Spirituality, was endorsed by the powerful ASCD and recommended to enthusiastic educators at an international curriculum symposium. Two years later, it was promoted by Andy LePage in his well-endorsed book on holistic learning, Transforming Education. In the nineties, it is spreading into local school districts.

For example, Eugene, Oregon, School District 4J developed and published its "Integrated Curriculum K-5" in 1989. Page eleven in this public school curriculum acknowledges that "The three curriculum strands are adapted from the World Core Curriculum by Robert Muller...." The three curriculum strands match those in Muller's book: "Oneness with the planet," "Unity with people," and "Harmony with self." Muller's fourth strand, which deals with evolution through time, is incorporated into the other three strands. In New Genesis: Muller pulls the strands together into one utopian vision:

"The ecumenical teachings of the Christ [not the Biblical Jesus] - peace, justice, love, compassion, kindness, human brotherhood... must also find their way in world-wide global education. We must give the newcomers into the ceaseless renewed stream of human life the right education about their planetary home, about their human family, about their past, present and future, about their place in the universe and in time, so that they can flower to their utmost beauty - physically, mentally and spiritually - and become joyful and grateful members of the universe or kingdom of God."

Muller's vision can be seen at a glance in two diagrams for "Defining World Class Education" designed by the Iowa Department of Education. The first diagram, called "The Old Story: Conventional Wisdom" shows an oval picture of the earth with its land and oceans. The globe is surrounded by arrows pointing toward the center and bombarding the planet with terrors like "Domination," "Biocide," "Ecocide," "Earth is Man's to Exploit," "WAR," "Intercultural Conflicts," and "Boundaries."


Susanna said...


The second diagram shows students "the right education about their planetary home." It pictures a rounder, more mystical planet. Titled "The New Story: Transformation," it shows arrows radiating out from the earth. Here the descriptions reflect the vision of a healthy harmonious planet: "Beyond War," "Humanity Evolving," "Reverence for all Life," "Interconnectedness; We are All One," and "Gaia"--a spiritualized Earth renamed after an ancient Greek goddess.

This mystical teaching tool was fabricated by tax-funded educators, not fringe fanaticals. The paradigm shift it promotes has gained enough acceptance to be established in local classrooms as well at global symposiums. Listen to the message in "The Peacemakers Planetary Anthem" sung to the melody of the Star Spangled Banner during an assembly at an elementary school in Sunnyvale, California. Encouraging children to imagine a peaceful planet with pristine forests and crystal-clear rivers, it begins with this millennial view:

O say can you see

by the one light in all,

A New Age to embrace

at the call of the nations.... more....

Anonymous said...

Physicist: "I've published a math research paper as well as physics"

Christine: "neither of which have any relevance to identifying occult numerology. here's a good starter, which I picked and gave a brief glance at from a google search."

My apologies Christine, you are absolutely right, expertise in mathematics is not required in this field. Sanity will do. The URL you gave is the maddest thing I have read for a long time.

The nub of such claims is that it can't possibly be coincidence! But to answer that question you need to know how many ways you can make 11 (or any other target 'occult' number) from a set of numbers chosen at random. Without knowing that, you can't say it isn't coincidental, can you? And it isn't an easy calculation. you might be surprised how easy it is to get from one number to another. Moreover the claims of what certain numbers supposedly represent are largely arbitrary.

I'm off to do some real research.


Anonymous said...

Physicist, you know that Christine only posts those things to amuse us. She is the blog jester, just as there used to be court jesters. She thinks we take New Age too seriously and wants to lighten it up by making fun of popular level occult ideas. Constance can't possibly be taking those things seriously. She just wants us to have some laughs too. Don't you think so?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for that information Susanna. I'll be passing it on to some places that are looking closely at Common Core. It certainly is wonderful that we have the internet where we can access that kind of information quickly. The information is there. The harder part is to know which questions need to be asked. Knowing what to look for is very important. One can't jump to three if one doesn't know the numbers one and two, in this case putting Robert Muller, World Core, New Age, Theosophy and Common Core in the search box.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 4:25 from pre trib thread comments,

Sure, sling scripture bombs, that's what self righteous people do. How many scriptures do we all bend, or shatter daily? I know i do. Your first response to me was not much less abusive. As in I "must be joking", thus playing the fool. So reread Matt 5:22 as well.

The problem here is that you remain hyper orthodox in regards "the things of this world". When a person receives salvation through Yahushua, IF the Spirit remains alive/active in the mind of a new convert, there is a continual enlightenment as to much of the true nature of this worlds systems. Obviously western medicine which is THE actual alternative form of medicine, is big on this list. It certainly can be understood by a child that a "healing profession" that has murdered over 50 million unborn children, is at its core, evil, and as iv stated, satanic. That not to mention trans humanism, which is deeply evil, as well the drugs, which nearly 100 percent of them have a net negative health affect on those using them. Plus the fact that doctor error is in the top 4 causes of death! The list goes on, and on. So do much praying, study, contemplate reality, ask YHVH for wisdom, and you will hopefully gain a better understanding.

It should have been obvious to you from what i said in my comment that for a life threatening condition as a ruptured appendix i would seek a surgeon. There is much that only western medicine, can do well. Its the other 80 percent that is not only ineffective, but in varying degrees evil. A competent non western practitioner works with the body's own system to bring wellness, it does not rely on cutting, burning, or poisoning! Before anyone seeks human help for a health issue, they should first pray for healing, then ask for direction from there if the problem does not go away. I do this, and it has been a great blessing. I give the glory, and gratitude to YHVH.

As for offering Christine any hopefully helpful advise, i should have known better should i have not?

Constance Cumbey said...

Interestingly, Hayek (referred to by Christina in one of her posts) founded the Mont Pelerin Society. I have friends and allies in my work against the New Age Movement who are followers of the "Austrian School of Economics." BUT, it might be an interesting "bridge" between conservative economic schools of thought such as those exemplified by Hillsdale College and many others. One of those involved on the ground floor of the Mont Pelerin Society was Salvador de Madariaga, Javier Solana's grandfather/uncle/cousin, whatever! DeMadariaga and his wife Constance were ardent Theosophists who also ran with the European Sufi crowd. Nieves Mathews, Solana's mother/cousin, whatever, depending on what revised genealogy one accepts, was introduced to Krishnamurti as a girl. Krishnamurti was the Theosophical/New Age original candidate to donate their body as a "vehicle" for Maitreya to be the new "Christ" for their long awaited "New Age" aka "Third Reich". After Krishnamurti backed out by saying "truth is a pathless land" according to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh's book, I AM THE GATE (he didn't say to where), Hitler was the Ashoka Nine's new candidate to incarnate Maitreya. Interestingly, Nieves Mathews took Rajneesh as her personal guru.


Anonymous said...

P.S. my 8:34 comment:

Less than ten percent of all born again Christians have a biblical worldview.

Constance Cumbey said...

To Anonymous 3:41?

Now I'm mystified? Where did the question about numerology come from. I don't recall ever advocating numerology of any type.


Constance Cumbey said...

to 4:42 p.m., NO, Christine is not my alter ego. She is a sensitive human being with her own life problems, just like the rest of us. The forum here is open. As I have said many times before, everybody knows, or should know, how to use the COLLAPSE COMMENTS section and when you spot Christine's comments, if you dislike them so intensely, PASS OVER. No pun intended. Christine does not post anonymously.

I had a busy day today and this is the first I have looked at things since posting last night. I hope everybody minds their manners.

Glad to see Susanna and Craig back!


Constance Cumbey said...

I was also glad to have the information from Dorothy. Maybe if Dorothy would not use the anonymous feature as anybody is free to do but some do and some don't, we could jump to her cogent comments much faster.


Constance Cumbey said...

Bill Donohue has an important piece today about the 700 Club miscasting Hitler as a good Catholic, which he clearly was not:

“700 Club” Errs on Church and Hitler

April 23, 2013
Bill Donohue comments on the April 19 episode of “The 700 Club”:

In a segment titled “God and Hitler,” Gordon Robertson (son of Rev. Pat Robertson), hosted a discussion on the Catholic Church’s response to Hitler. Several errors of fact were made.

1) It is wrong to paint Hitler as a Catholic. Though he was baptized, he excommunicated himself, latae sententiae, when he sought, in his words, to “crush [the Catholic Church] like a toad.” He made good on his pledge by persecuting 8,000 priests, over 500 of whom were killed in concentration camps. He also sought to assassinate the pope.

2) The 1933 Nazi-Vatican Concordat was not a show of solidarity. As Rabbi David Dalin has shown, it was a protective measure designed to protect German Catholics from persecution. In fact, at least 34 letters of protest were sent from the Vatican to the Nazis between 1933 and 1937, culminating in a 1937 encyclical that condemned Nazi violations of the Concordat and its racial ideology. It was smuggled out of Italy and distributed on Palm Sunday to Catholics in Germany. Nothing like this happened in Protestant churches in Germany.

3) It is not true that Hitler met resistance from Protestants alone. There are 800,000 trees planted in Israel that represent the 800,000 Jews saved by the Catholic Church. None have been planted as a tribute to Protestants. During the war, the New York Times twice said the Church was “a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent”; Albert Einstein also singled out the Church during the war. After the war, Golda Meir praised the work of the Church, as did the ADL, the World Jewish Congress, and scores of other Jewish organizations.

4) It is factually wrong to say the Vatican archives have “never been seen.” Many scholars have had access. As for Pope Pius XII being “Hitler’s Pope,” it should be noted that John Cornwell, the ex-seminarian who originated this term, retracted it years ago. So why does “The 700 Club” continue to cite it?

I don't know if Bill Donohue has a website or not. This was emailed to one of my accounts. Susanna may know if Donohue has a website and can give us the link.


Constance Cumbey said...

This is the resolution I drafted for those opposing what was taking place at the 1985 NCEA Convention in St. Louis, MO:

WHEREAS, the NCEA furnished Robert Muller, the Assistant Secretary
General of the United Nations with a platform for the dissemination of his
ideals, and
WHEREAS, we feel that the NCEA failed to properly investigate Robert
Mueller's background, affiliations, ideology, and theology, which he admits
is t hat of his "Five Teilhardian Enlightenments," and
WHEREAS, Robert Muller has been an open participant in an organization
named after Lucifer himself for many years, to wit, the Lucis Trust, and
its component organizations, the Lucis Publishing Company (originally incorporated
as LUCIFER PUBLISHING COMPANY), the Arcane School, and World Goodwill,
WHEREAS, the express purpose of Lucis Trnst is to disseminate the teachings
of "The Tibetan" an amorphous entity who allegedly dictated lengthy teachings
by "telepathic" communication to Alice Ann Bailey, and
WHEREAS, Robert Muller is an open disciple and proponent of those
same teachings, and
WHEREAS, those teachings call for the USE of the Catholic and other
Christian churches as potential vehicles for the spread of a New World Religion
that deifies Lucifer himself and for the destruction of the "old forms" long
enough for "the new teachings on peace and goodwill to take effect", and
WHEREAS, Robert Muller has met with and encouraged the work of
Benjamin Creme, the spokesman for Tara Center, a group which ca.used
Christian consternation nearly three years ago by placing international full-page
advertisements in the leading papers of the world proclaiming that "THE
WHEREAS, Robert Muller is on the Board of Directors of Planetary Citizens
and Planetary Initiative for the World We Choose, organizations and federations
directly connected with the "Reappearance" of a "Christ" who they admit
is not Jesus, and
WHEREAS, these same Alice Bailey teachings call for the destruction
of the Roman Catholic Church and even nuclear intimidation of the Church
Bailey) and its temporary use to "swing the masses into step" by "pouring
light on familiar ground" (pages 502-503 EOH by Alice Ann Bailey), and
WHEREAS, these same teachings spell out hatred of Jews, prevailing
of an "Aryan Race", destruction of "lower-grade races" and thus have a
strangely unpleasant ring, and
WHEREAS, a now-deceased personal friend of Robert Muller, FOSTER
BAILEY, husband of Alice Bailey and of close Muller friend, MARY BAILEY
wrote in his book RUNNING GOD'S PLAN that one of the goals of their
hierarchy was to have a unified Europe and that they tried it before working
through a disciple, but that attempt had been unsuccessful, and
(continued next comment)

Constance Cumbey said...

WHEREAS, one doesn't need "a hundred monkeys" to tell them who that
disciple was or what the "New Age Movement" Muller is such a proud part
of is really all about, and

WHEREAS, the resources of Catholic educators should be directed against
the dissemination of this type of subversive and apostate heresies rather
than their promulgation,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the undersigned petition
the NCEA to take the following steps:
1. Recant and disavow their praise and encouragement of Robert Muller,
2. Undertake an investigation of the extent of his influence into the
Catholic educational networks,
3. Disavow his espousement of "MY FIVE TEILHARDIAN ENLIGHTENMENTS"
as set forth in his praised book "NEW GENESIS: SHAPING A GLOBAL SPIRITUALITY",
4. Disavow his chapter "THE REAPPEARANCE OF THE CHRIST" which •
the footnote in NEW GENESIS explains is a transcript of a talk he delivered
to an Arcane School Conference in New York City, an actity of the Lucis
(Lucifer) Trust!
5. Renew our dedication to the One for whom we originally dedicated
ourselves, Jesus Christ, the only Christ, and our only Lord,
6. Call for a repentance and rededication to sound Christian principles,
rejecting all forms of pantheism, animism, apostasy, syncretism, idolatry,
and other ills which cause grief to the Sacred Heart of our Lord Jesus and
all the true Saints.
1127 West 41st Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64111
(816) 931-1629

Constance Cumbey said...

And proving Muller was with Lucis Trust, we attached the following to that resolution which was hot off Lucis Trust's own presses from December 1984:

Friday, December 28, 1984, 7:30 P.M. to 9:00 P.M.
"The New Group of World Servers: A Look Into the Future" - Robert Muller, Assistant Secretary-General, United Nations.
All meetings will be held at 345 East 46th St. (corner 1st Ave.),
second floor.
For further information call: LUCIS TRUST (212) 421-1577

Anonymous said...

More on Common Core and World Core
What you find in the World Core Curriculum will appear in Common Core. You will
have no control over what your children are taught.

"The World Core Curriculum Manual says:

"The underlying philosophy upon which the Robert Muller School is based will
be found in the teachings set forth in the books of Alice A. Bailey, by the
Tibetan teacher, Djwhal Khul (published by Lucis Publishing Company, 113
University Place, 11th floor, New York, NY 10083) and the teachings of M. Morya
as given in the Agni Yoga Series books (published by Agni Yoga Society, Inc,.
319 West 107th Street, New Your, NY 10025)."

"Alice Bailey established the Lucifer Publishing Company, which was renamed
Lucis Press in 1924, expressly to publish and distribute her own writings and
those of Djwhal Khul, which consisted of some 20 books written by Bailey as the
"channeling" agent for the disembodied Tibetan she called Djwhal Khul. Until
recently, the Lucis Trust, parent organization of the Lucis Press, was
headquartered at the United Nations Plaza in New York. Bailey assumed the
leadership of the Theosophical Society upon the death of Helena Petrovna
Blavatsky. The Society's 6,000 members include Robert McNamara, Donald Regan,
Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Paul Volker, George Shultz, and the names
that also appear on the membership roster of the CFR....."

There are many more links where you can learn what is going on. Just put the
right words into that websearch. And oh yes, home schools and private schools
will be affected by this new curriculum. " First, let’s look at the Common Core
textbooks. Virtually every textbook company in America is aligning now with
Common Core. (So even the states who rejected Common Core, and even private
schools and home schools are in trouble; how will they find new textbooks that
reflect Massachusetts-high standards?)"

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

the numerology issue is that the numbers at least one class of occultists use as important symbols to them, crop up in some events that are also the ones with some reason to think a "false flag" is involved.

A false flag is where you get yourself up to look like people you want a war with, blow up some of your own people, and then beat the war drums.

The Maine used to start the Spanish American War is a case in point. A variant would be letting an attack to occur so you can get people off their ass and into WW2, FDR and Pearl Harbor.

I the Northwoods is the name of a plan to do this sort of thing. The bombings in Bologna a long time ago blamed on the left were done by the right to stir the pot.

Anonymous said...

There is a Facebook thread called Parents and Educators Against Common Core Standards. It has over 3,000 followers. You have to ask to join. It's worth it. With the Robert Muller World Core Curriculum connection, followers of New Age might be able to post something there to help fight it.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Tarpley is not a socialist, he is a dirigist.

and he is not a laRouchie since a falling out with laRouche many years ago.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

physicist, my apologies for ascribing the 9-11 remark to you, my eye jumped a few lines.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

bad math behind austerity doctrine, spotted by a sociology student.

(please spare me whining about what else is on that site, an article stands on its own merits. I don't buy everything just about anyone says, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day and this looks like an example.)

Anonymous said...

Constance, for the sake of my reputation I can't post here under my own name. Other than you there are almost no other posters here of substance, other than occasionally Susanna (who remains anonymous as no one knows her name) and Craig. Almost everything in the comments section is posted by Christine. I cannot be associated with such strange, convoluted posts. It reflects very badly on anyone who seriously researches the New Age movement. Almost anyone new who comes here has no idea or reason to close off what they don't want to take the time to see.


Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

the NAM is nothing if not convoluted.

Anonymous said...

While I agree that Hitler was a zillion miles from being a PRACTISING Catholic, the fact of his baptism as a baby into that church is what was used by Rome in medieval times to call people Catholics and justify the exertion of church discipline against them (and we all know about medieval church discipline). You can't have it both ways. This is one reason why I am against pedobaptism, which I guess is the deeper issue here.

I gladly acknowledge the many Catholics who sheltered Jews and stood against Nazism in other ways. And Pius XII was indeed NOT "Hitler's Pope", although I go with the Yad Vashem view that his public silence, as Europe's premier moral authority, was regrettable.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

with respect to your arguments, any branding of Hitler as Catholic ergo Catholicism to blame, is angled at his being supposedly the product of Catholic upbringing and doctrine. Whatever went on as a child in his life in this regard, if any, he clearly reoriented himself to volkish paganism, occultism, etc. and was the product of THAT, not of Catholicism.

(pop Catholicism which may contain elements of the foregoing, on the part of ethnocentric and culture centric nominals, incl. Carnival etc. excesses, doesn't go near the level or consistency of proto nazi paganism and occultism. And I don't recall the Vatican trying to reign him in or threaten excommunication, something he hardly would have cared about, rather, to cautiously establish a concordat to protect Catholics against problems they could see coming.)

Anonymous said...

"Tarpley is not a socialist, he is a dirigist... and he is not a laRouchie since a falling out with laRouche"

Whatever he is, he talks nonsense.

"bad math behind austerity doctrine, spotted by a sociology student"

That's one mistake in one paper, trumpeted by the Left as the downfall of 'austerity' (which might more neutrally be called national self-restraint, ie not spending more than you have). The doctrine has far deeper and older roots, from decades before that paper. Most highly mathematical economics papers are technically correct but useless - the real debate is about the axioms they employ before writing and manipulating the formulae.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Anonymous said...

Constance, you wrote: "Christine does not post anonymously." How do you know? Her word, or have you checked the IP addresses of posts on your blog?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

dynamic IP is given by many ISPs, and for example, mine in the past has tracked to AOL's servers in Virginia and ends there, though I was then and now in California.

and go read the Ayn Rand information in several links on the right side of the blog. (I used to buy her economics and political theories, but that was a long time ago. Repented of it.)

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

To make everyone happy, I will call up Constance and she will recognize my voice and she can then tell you I acknowledge all the posts with my name on them.

Anonymous said...

Dear 8.34pm,

From Matt 5:22: "anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell." Here, now, are your words to me: "80 percent of all pharmaceuticals are synthesized from herb discoveries you moron". My own words to you (not about that specific point) were "Surely you're joking". I agree that it is up to me to check whether I am going into the red zone and I am grateful for reminders about that. Without Christ I have no righteousness, and if I go outside the red zone he defines then I lose the righteousness I gain from him. These words of his from the Sermon on the Mount are about having an angry soul, as the immediately preceding phrases make clear. In that context I'm not worried about my "you must be joking". The only sharp words I wrote were to criticise the content of your posts, not your personality. I believe the difference is important.

Yes many Western medics do abortions (although some refuse), but I do not agree that this can be held against "Western medicine", no more than I would blame TCM if a practitioner in China sold a woman a herbal brew intended to induce abortion (which surely went on). In both cases the deepest moral culpability is with the mother. How do you think China enforced its recent "one child per marriage" policy, by the way? By your logic I could blame that on "Chinese medicine" rather than Chinese medics.

The real killers for thousands of years have been bacteria and viruses; TCM was helpless against them and it is Western techniques that have beaten those, by antiseptics, antibiotics and inoculation. TCM might be good at making the survivors feel a little better, but let's keep perspective. You can't grumble about your chi being impure if you are dead.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

actually a lot of herbs in concetration DO work against bacteria and viruses, and the majority of really good herbs against infections are antiviral, while western medicine has few and expensive antivirals.

Anonymous said...

Christine the way the West beat killer viruses is inoculation - prevention rather than cure.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

yes, but when these fail massive quantities of antiviral herbs have some mitigating potential. some herbs are being investigated now because of antiviral agents in them. Meanwhile, there is growing evidence of problems with some vaccines.

Craig said...

GE Capital to stop financing gun purchases

GE Capital's new policy affects only retailers that sell firearms exclusively and not general merchandise stores, such as Wal-Mart, that sell guns and other products...

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said... Daniel Estulin on the Bilderberg Group and EU and the intended one world corporation ltd.
(viewed by many as one world govt. and would certainly look like this and act like this).

Anonymous said...

"there is growing evidence of problems with some vaccines"

Yes Christine, but nothing is 100% risk-free. Do you want a society where typhoid, yellow fever, polio etc are liable to carry off 30% of people before their biblical 70 years or a society in which vaccination causes problems for 0.0001% of people? Anti-vaccinators and TCM advocates living in the West are coasting on what Western medicine has done for them and their immediate ancestors, most of whom would have died young anywhere else in the world. Those who have not the imagination to grasp this would do well to live in rural China or elsewhere in the Third World and see what pestilence can do.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

did I say anything about stopping use of vaccines? Just that antiviral action exists in some herbs. And there are some problems with vaccines which are beyond the level of acceptable risk. Part of the problem is the thimerosol adjuvant which has mercury in it, and there is increasing recognition this can contribute to autism, seizures, etc.

the vaccines need overhaul, not elimination.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

recognizing when you are being railroaded by the Delphi Technique

Defeating the Delphi Technique

Resisting the Delphi Technique of Community Manipulation

Craig said...

What will become of Cypress?

Here's a somewhat humorous look at how banks handle depositor's money (no mature content, even though it's South Park):


Craig said...

Umm... That's Cyprus, not Cypress (he says redfaced...).

Anonymous said...

With any luck for Cypriots rather than their politicians, Cyprus will guarantee deposits and default on all else, quit the disastrous Euro, and after 2-3 years of suffering be back on its feet again like Iceland is now.

Susanna said...

Constance at 9:10P.M.

Bill Donohue's article can be found at the website for THE CATHOLIC LEAGUE FOR RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL RIGHTS.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 4:35 A.M.

Actually, while there were indeed abuses in the Catholic Church of Medieval times - just as there have been in every Christian denomination - more often than not, the Catholic Church protected people from the brutal excesses of the civil authority which was the entity that actually meted out whatever punishment there was to be meted out.

The Catholic Church and other Christian denominations define a Sacrament as "an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace." Baptism is a Sacrament according to most Christian communions - including many that do not recognize the other six Catholic Sacraments.

The Sacrament of Baptism with water - whether Catholic or Protestant - leaves an indelible mark on the soul. This is why it can only be received once.

Moreover, the effectiveness and validity of the Sacrament of Baptism does not depend on men. It depends on Christ. This is why the Catholic Church teaches that "anyone with the use of reason may baptize" - including someone who is not even a Christian. As long as the matter ( water) and form (the words ) of the Sacrament are present, the Sacrament is regarded as having been validly administered.

Again, Baptism may only be validly received once. If a Protestant wishes to enter the Catholic Church and there is any doubt as to whether or not he has ever been Baptised, he will be baptized conditionally with the words "if you are capable of being baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" while pouring water over the person's head.

When all is said and done, there is one Church. Despite the many denominational differences among the various Christian communions, this one Church includes those Catholic and non-Catholic Christians whose Christology squares with the Creeds of Chalcedon and/or Nicaea.

While it is possible for a person to excommunicate himself from the one Church by doing great evil, the indelible mark of Baptism still remains. If the person dies unrepentant, the indelible mark will mean that his punishment will be greater than a non-Christian by virtue of his having been baptized and sinned against Christ.

A good example would be Simon Magus who received Baptism and then apostatized.

This would hold true for Hitler who intended to murder every Catholic he could get his hands on after he finished murdering the Jews..


Anonymous said...

New Age in action. Where else would the hostility toward Christians and Jews be coming from.

"The United States Army has blocked the website of the Southern Baptist Convention from government computers, saying the Christian site contains "hostile content."

"An Army officer assigned to a U.S. base said he tried to access from his government computer, but instead, he got a message that said the site was being blocked by "Team CONUS": Team CONUS protects the computer network of the Department of Defense."

Susanna said...


Again, the Catholic Church recognizes Protestant water Baptism as valid Baptism.....whether it is administered to children or adults.

Baptism is a person's initiation into the Christian community - whether Catholic or Protestant.

Whether or not one is in favor of pedobaptism, Catholics, among many other Christians, believe that the Sacrament of Baptism replaces circumcision which was done when an infant was eight days old and signified his initiation into the Jewish community.

In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. Colossians 2:11-12

True only males were circumcised, but once the
Redemption occurred, as St. Paul tells us, there is neither Jew nor Greek , male or female. All are equally eligible for Baptism.

28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.Galatians 3:28

Infant baptism also is seen as showing very clearly that salvation is an unmerited favour from God, not the fruit of human effort.

One more thing.... for Catholics the Sacrament of confirmation is closely associated with baptism. This is when we take our "nom du guerre" (Battle name)and ratify the choice our parents made for us when we were incapable of choosing for ourselves.


Infant baptism[1][2] is the practice of baptising infants or young children. In theological discussions, the practice is sometimes referred to as paedobaptism or pedobaptism from the Greek pais meaning "child". The practice is sometimes contrasted with what is called "believer's baptism", or credobaptism, from the Latin word credo meaning "I believe", which is the religious practice of baptising only individuals who personally confess faith in Jesus, therefore excluding underage children. Infant baptism is also called christening by some faith traditions.

Most Christians belong to denominations that practise infant baptism. Denominational families that practise infant baptism include Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, some Nazarenes, the United Church of Christ (UCC), and the Reformed churches.


Anonymous said...


We can fully agree that Hitler was not a practising Catholic and was indeed hostile to those who lived Christ's message, and agree also that baptism is a sacrament. I don't think this is the place to air our theological differences about whether babies should be baptised. I do have some reservations about your statement that, in the mediaeval era, "more often than not, the Catholic Church protected people from the brutal excesses of the civil authority which was the entity that actually meted out whatever punishment there was to be meted out."

Following the re-introduction of Roman Law but without some of its subtleties, torture was being used increasingly in medieval secular trials, aiming to convert suspicion into certainty via confession. To the papacy fell the task of ruling whether to permit torture in heresy trials. Here was an opportunity for the church to uphold the standards of the gospel. But Innocent IV in Ad Extirpanda (1252) gave clearance for torture, merely saying that limbs must not be broken, torture should not cause death, and it should be used ‘once.’ Inquisitors might take this to refer to each charge against someone, or regard a single session as open-ended.

I know that the Church technically executed nobody, but it did find plenty of people guilty of heresy in a far from impartial judicial procedure, following which it handed them over to the civil authorities for sentencing and punishment, having earlier arranged the death penalty for the greater of such heresies. The English bill De Heretico Comburendo instituting this in England was, in its opening phrase, “on the advice of the prelates and clergy of… England”.

Ignorance said...

According to Share International, Maitreya has given interviews in the U.S., Japan, Brazil(?), and most recently Russia. I'm skeptical whether or not this false prophet or whatever he is actually exists as they claim. It's like finding Waldo only to find that Waldo wasn't even there. Perhaps there is a Maitreya as they claim. Who knows?

Still, I think anyone can get an idea as to the current direction of the New Age...and how eerily close to how the current geo-political climate of the U.S. and the world matches what they preach.

I so agree with Dorothy that most who leave comments here are so clueless about the New Age Movement. I think most are well-meaning (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt), but show how seriously unprepared (out of sheer ignorance) they are in dealing with the New Age. I suppose if people our fully anchored in the Word, I shouldn't be too worried.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"Still, I think anyone can get an idea as to the current direction of the New Age...and how eerily close to how the current geo-political climate of the U.S. and the world matches what they preach. "

yes, and to get that they had to work for decades, even generations, on the public mind.

get a load of this. Serious connections between Rothschild and Zechariah Sitchin and the whole ancient aliens things.

Note that Sitchin is one of those whose ideas (which by the way totally mistranslate Sumerian) undermine The Bible supernaturalism and reinterpret everything as alien technology, or lays the groundwork for this.

the two videos, one shows Sitchin engaged in a masonic handshake and another shows him at a masonic ritual. Masonry's lectures to members in initiations their alleged "wisdom" equate all gods, give a favorable nod to ancient paganism and claim a continuity with ancient mystery schools and rituals, and also praises practical occultism here and there. While no solid instruction in any of this is given THE INFORMATION GIVEN MAKES IT ALL LOOK ACCEPTABLE, and anyone who gets curious and pursues such studies on their own are of course doing so with the blessing of the lodges.

Craig said...

According to Share International, Maitreya has given interviews in the U.S., Japan, Brazil(?), and most recently Russia. I'm skeptical whether or not this false prophet or whatever he is actually exists as they claim. It's like finding Waldo only to find that Waldo wasn't even there. Perhaps there is a Maitreya as they claim. Who knows?

The following may help in understanding this elusive Maitreya:

The Christ, when He comes into incarnation, will most likely project himself into many parts and be where he wants to be. This is called the Law of Divisibility, a term used in Agni Yoga that means a highly developed spirit—one who is able to contact, simultaneously, various people in various locations. For example, a Master can be seen in various groups at the same time. He can even be in different planes serving and teaching on different levels to meet various needs of the people. He can do different jobs in different places at one time. He impresses the space with his images, and so forth.

From here:

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

given that this guy is backed by big money, he can be private jetting all over the place and therefore appearing in different places. Randall Baer I think it was met him and was rather underimpressed.

C said...


You missed the point.

Craig said...

The last comment by "C" was me, Craig (don't know how I got only "C").

Christine, do you understand that Benjamin Crème sometimes manifests Maitreya, the Christ? Do you understand that perhaps OTHERS could manifest Maitreya? Do you understand that this could possibly happen SIMULTANEOUSLY (as per the link referenced above)?

From wiki:

Creme asserts that the energies of the Anti-Christ worked through Adolf Hitler, and that Hitler's defeat in World War II made possible the return of Maitreya.[14] According to Creme, the Age of Aquarius will be the "Age in which the love nature of God, [originally] revealed by Christ in Jesus, becomes manifest on a world scale".[15]

Creme states that Maitreya manifests in visions to various people—an average of 26 different people per day.[16] Maitreya, claims Creme, miraculously appears physically before gatherings of between a few dozen and several hundred people of various religious groups an average of about three times a month.[17][18] Sometimes when Benjamin Creme is lecturing, he says he allows Maitreya to briefly overshadow him, and when this happens, some of Creme's followers report seeing Creme surrounded by a golden aura.

Like the hyper-charismatic false prophet/New Ager Bob Jones said As you begin to grow into the likeness of Christ you’re gonna begin to partake of the divine nature. And, once you begin to grow up in that-away you’ll continue to mature until you look like Christ all over the world. Jesus was one person. Now get ready for Jesuses [sic; plural of “Jesus”] all over the world.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

okay so you are talking about possession here - or fraud.

Susanna said...


I have already acknowledged that there were abuses of power back then. But not as many as some would have everyone think.

But then you made specific mention of Hitler's baptism as an infant.

What was the point?

Were you implying that Hitler's or anyone else's baptism into the Catholic Church as an infant means that they will be more likely to become evildoers and/or apostatize than someone baptized as a "believing" adult?

I am sure that you did not mean to imply any such thing, but that is how it came across to me.

And that is why I felt justified in explaining the Catholic position on infant Baptism here - something I wouldn't ordinarily do.

Susanna said...


I was addressing Anonymous 12:27 P.M.


Susanna said...


The Papal bull AD EXTIRPANDA was issued in the wake of the murder of the papal inquisitor of Lombardy, St. Peter of Verona, who was killed by a conspiracy of Cathar sympathizers on 6 April 1252.

Anonymous said...


Constance raised the subject of Bill Donohue's piece "about the 700 Club miscasting Hitler as a good Catholic". Had Hitler not been baptised as a baby, then, since he showed no interest in Catholicism, the question would never have arisen. On that basis I believe his baptism was worth mentioning. My main target was pedobaptism. Without it, not only this question would never even have been asked, but the medieval abuses I also mentioned would not have happened. Pedobaptism is practised by many other churches as well as Rome, and I regret it in all of them.

"Were you implying that Hitler's or anyone else's baptism into the Catholic Church as an infant means that they will be more likely to become evildoers and/or apostatize than someone baptized as a "believing" adult?"

That question never entered my head. But I do believe - in response - that a smaller proportion of people baptised by their own choice will end up as unbelievers than of people who underwent baptism as babies (and all that implies).

Anonymous said...

Fraud or possession? Probably fraud. Creme and other New Age leaders keep pushing the communism is ideal message.

People who believe information is given from supernatural realms are more likely to believe they do not have control over what is to be and what is the TRUTH. They feel honored to have received such important and secret information that the rest of the population doesn't have.

Who believes New Age posturings? Intellectuals, liberals, people who think they live in the world of possibilities, not people with street smarts. Try going up to an inner city kid and telling him that he is going to receive messages from an ascended master and see where it gets you.

Restudy the piece OCCULT ROOTS OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION and remember who were the people who bought into the occult that preceded the Nazi movement.

Craig said...

Alice Bailey:

Emphasis should be laid on the evolution of humanity with peculiar attention to its goal, perfection…man in incarnation, by the indwelling and over-shadowing soul…The relation of the individual soul to all souls should be taught, and with it the long-awaited kingdom of God is simply the appearance of soul-controlled men on earth in everyday life and at all stages of that control…The fact will appear that the Kingdom has always been present but has remained unrecognized, owing to the relatively few people who express, as yet, its quality….

Scripture: Jesus speaking, as recorded by Matthew:

23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.

26 “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it. 27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be [cf: Daniel 7:13]. 28 For wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together.

Anonymous said...

By the way, that doesn't mean New Age leaders aren't engaging in occult practices. It only means the two groups, communists and occultists, working together have a long history. It's pretty clear that Karl Marx was engaged in Satanic rituals. See Wurmbrand's book, Marx and Satan. Now Marx didn't come up with the idea of Satanism on his own. He must have been in contact with Satanists who taught him the rituals. Whether he actually was a believer or went along because they were supplying him with recognition, money and power connections I don't know just as I don't know for sure where every powerful New Age leader stands.

Craig you are on target about the Bob Jones message. That's the New Age message alright, that those who are believers will develop on this earth into little Christs.

Bill Cooper is disinformation. Take some truth, mix it in with propaganda and the suckers will believe all of it.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"They feel honored to have received such important and secret information that the rest of the population doesn't have. "

appeals to the sin of pride. Any experience that puffs you up is probably not from God. Though many would not buy into fake info, they might buy into some experience that wasn't info including to speak of, that was satanic, and get oriented to that spirit to some extent while deceived.

The little Christs thing is a feature of some charismatic teaching.

on communism and satanism, this cooperation or identity even would be at the top of the founders, and the globalist big money and power and pride crew that Anthony Sutton documents were financing both communism and nazism. The average commie is an atheist materialist, which leaves no room for any kind of spirit.

Some satanists of course don't want most people in on power and whatnot, two examples. somewhere online years ago, when I was studying this more, there was a page where some satanist was advising that it is good to have the average person involved in passivity inducing states, because they can be more easily affected, but the satanist should focus on the more active type of occultic states of mind that are not passive. This is for the elite.

Michael Aquino (ret. Army brass) wrote a piece denouncing psychic attack research by the military as a waste of time and money - while he and later his temple of set pursued such studied diligently. Obviously he wanted to hog any such power for himself.

Craig said...


To answer your question of 6:08:


Apply your own logical faculties, as well as theological and eschatological beliefs to what I've recently stated. As we say on another forum of which I'm a member (having nothing to do with religion): YMMV (your mileage may vary).

I'll add this Alice Bailey statement [original transmission: 1919]:

[T]he church movement, like all else, is but a temporary expedient and serves but as a transient resting place for the evolving life. Eventually, there will appear the Church Universal, and its definite outlines will appear towards the close of this [20th] century…This Church will be nurtured into activity by the Christ [ED: Satan/antichrist] and His disciples when the outpouring of the Christ principle, the true second Coming, has been accomplished. No date for the advent do I set, but the time will not be long.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

rabid ecumenism of the religious indifferentism sort, even to the point of accepting non Christian belief as equal to Christian, and aberrant pentecostal and modern charismatic trends and infiltration of occultic thinking like documents, would fit that plan.

In the RC scene, the Fatima events were preceded by two newspaper ad announcements from occult organizations predicting something important for that date. One of them was channeling some peace light and brotherhood type entity.

Fatima was also characterized by a buzzing sound (like bees, also like reported with some UFOs), and the little lady was not considered to be the Blessed Virgin Mary by the kids until much later, and before that some entity that pretended to be an angel was hanging around, first at a distance then closer and more visible, over several days, like it had to get stronger. No angel of God needs to get stronger.

Francisco who was farther from all this attitude and somewhat physically, saw the lady hovering in the tree as headless. Lucia who took "communion" from the "angel" got the most input.

Fatima's fruit includes really rabid political rightism and uber traditionalism in RC and the light to be seen mysteriously at night heralding a world war that the vision predicted, was taken by Hitler as his sign to go on the warpath.

Celestial Secrets details all this.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

here's another one

Anonymous said...

The old Christine resurfaces. Time to leave.

Anonymous said...

"That question never entered my head. But I do believe - in response - that a smaller proportion of people baptised by their own choice will end up as unbelievers than of people who underwent baptism as babies (and all that implies)."

Correlation does not signify cause. Conversion is a life-long process. I was baptized as an infant, went away and then came back.

It's true that those who are raised in a faith tradition, take it for granted, in ways that converts do not, but I do not see how this relates to infant baptism.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 6:28

Constance raised the subject of Bill Donohue's piece "about the 700 Club miscasting Hitler as a good Catholic". Had Hitler not been baptised as a baby, then, since he showed no interest in Catholicism, the question would never have arisen. On that basis I believe his baptism was worth mentioning. My main target was pedobaptism. Without it, not only this question would never even have been asked, but the medieval abuses I also mentioned would not have happened. Pedobaptism is practised by many other churches as well as Rome, and I regret it in all of them.

And you are entitled to your opinion.

Nevertheless, I refer to the Parable in the Bible about the sower.

Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow: And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the birds of the air came and devoured it up. And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth: But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. And some fell among thorns, the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. And other fell on good ground, did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, some an hundred. He said unto them, He that has ears to hear, let him hear. Mark 4:3-9

Susanna said...

I am reminded by the following pro-Muller article of the Biblical exhortation "Peace, peace and there is no peace."

Dr. Robert Muller - RIP to One of the Greatest Peacemakers of the 20th Century

His (Muller's) is said to have been the one who legitimized the so-called "New Age Movement" as a multi-level vehicle of ideas and workers toward a better world. He was awarded more honors than can be listed here, and is truly an example of someone who worked tirelessly behind the scenes to further the cause of peace globally.

Susanna said...


Jeremiah 6:13-15

13 For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.

14 They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.

15 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the Lord.

Anonymous said...

Susanna - I think that neither you nor I wishes to discuss here whether babies should be baptised. I take the parable of the sower to refer to preaching.

Anon@8.56pm - I said that I expected a greater proportion of people baptised by their own choice to be committed Christians in their mature years than of people baptised as babies. Until or unless someone (Barna?) does a survey and gives the figures then I've little more to add. Blessings to all Christians here.

Anonymous said...

"The Papal bull AD EXTIRPANDA was issued in the wake of the murder of the papal inquisitor of Lombardy, St. Peter of Verona, who was killed by a conspiracy of Cathar sympathizers on 6 April 1252."

It was, but is the licensing of torture a Christian response?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Anonymous said...

"Conversion is a life-long process."

Too simplistic! Justification is instant (and is not a side effect of pedobaptism), whereas sanctification is a lifelong process.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 6:01 A.M.

Re: "It was, but is the licensing of torture a Christian response?"

If were strictly to obtain intelligence concerning plans to commit more mayhem and murder against innocent law-abiding people, then it probably would be.

It was St. Paul after all who said :

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute His wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience (Romans 13:3-5).

Anonymous said...

"If were strictly to obtain intelligence concerning plans to commit more mayhem and murder against innocent law-abiding people, then it probably would be."

Great description of the Albigensian Crusade!

Anonymous said...

Rome, AD1252

Dear St Paul,

When you wrote to the Roman Church that the ruler does not bear the sword in vain, for he is the servant of God to execute His wrath on the wrongdoer, did you mean that the sword was to cut off his head, or to heat and then slowly push up his ass in order to elicit information? Aristotle (whom I find a lot clearer than your letters, if you don't mind me saying so) suggests in his Rhetoric that you get unreliable information that way, but I am not convinced. I would welcome some clarification of this difficult question as I am currently experiencing a little local difficulty among my flock.

Yours in Christ
Innocent IV

Susanna said...

The following is by Protestant historians:

According to Prof. McGoldrick and many other historians, Catharism was not only a threat to Western Christendom, but also to Western Civilization:

“Documentary evidence shows that the Cathars viewed marriage and procreation as capital sins for which pardon could be obtained only when one forsook such carnal relationships and received the consolation. Reinerius Saccho reported that all Cathar churches taught ‘that carnal marriage is always a mortal sin, and that the future punishment of adultery and incest will not be greater than that of lawful matrimony, nor would anyone among them be more severely punished.’ The same source indicates that the Cathars considered the eating of meat, cheese, or eggs as deadly sins…

“The Cathar-Albigense Church was organized around a core of clergymen known as the perfecti, and admission to that circle was through the consolamentum. Those who accepted Cathar teaching but were not yet ready to adopt the rigorous asceticism of the ‘perfected ones’ were called credentes—‘believers.’ The latter attended services conducted by the clergy and professed to be seeking perfection for themselves, but they lived by ordinary standards until they were ready for the consolation…

“Cathars considered the consolamentum a ‘spiritual baptism’ and a ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit,’ and they taught that no one could be saved without it… Because of their aversion to water as a material element, the Cathars practiced baptism by laying on of hands by the perfecti while the book of the Gospels was held over the candidates’ head and prayer was offered for him. This sacrament was said to accomplish cleansing from original sin and from all personal transgressions…

“There were, of course, occasions when a person who was consoled on his ‘deathbed’ showed signs of recovering. Would he be able to discharge the duties of one who had been perfected? One way to resolve this dilemma was to subject him to the endura, which was the practice of allowing the sick person to starve to death, thereby assuring him of immediate salvation. Often the endura was accepted by the sick person and so became a voluntary death, a suicide. There are records, however, of the perfecti practically imposing it upon people whom they suspected would lapse from the faith at a later time. Apparently, it was sometimes imposed upon children…

“When the papacy decided to take vigorous measures against the Albigenses, Innocent III sent Dominic Guzman, founder of the Order of the Preachers, to seek their conversion by persuasion. Dominic advised Roman Catholic clerics to avoid ostentatious displays, which might give credence to the criticisms of heretics. He also realized the Cathars had great appeal to the religious sensibilities of women, so he established a religious foundation for females and directed his disciples to work for the education of girls. These endeavors, although accompanied by extensive preaching missions, did not achieve the desired results. The powerful Albigense nobles opposed Dominic and thwarted his efforts. When the papal legate Peter of Castelnau was murdered by nobles who supported the heretics, Innocent III called for a crusade to destroy the French Cathars.”
(Baptist Successionism, pp. 63-66)


Susanna said...


Protestant and other historians besides McGoldrick have documented the radical dualist beliefs of the Cathari – a belief system which not only endangered the doctrinal foundation of Christianity, but threatened the survival of the human race. James Webb, author of The Occult Underground, described Catharism as worse than a heresy; it was altogether another religion masquerading as Christianity:

“The word ‘Cathar’ probably comes from the Greek ‘pure,’ and the Cathar doctrines show the sect to have been Gnostic of the ascetic type. They believed that the world had been created by an evil being—that there were a series of spheres of being between God and the material world-that procreation was evil because it introduced another spark of the divine into matter. These are familiar tenets. In the Languedoc the Cathars flourished, until in 1207 Pope Innocent III solicited help from the magnates of the North to crush the dangerous heresy. Strictly speaking it was not a heresy, but a rival religion; and as such it was ruthlessly wiped out.” (439:207)

In his Medieval Heresy, Malcolm Lambert wrote that Catharism was not a Christian religion by any measure:

“Cathar belief, just like Bogomilism, to which it was heir, upset the structure of sacramental life in favour of one rite of supreme importance, the consolamentum; replaced a Christian morality by a compulsory asceticism, which made faults consist rather in a soiling by matter than an act of will, eliminated redemption by refusing to admit the saving power of the crucifixion; and rejected the Trinity in favour of a subordination of two persons to the Father. Cathars could not admit that Christ was God - an angel, perhaps, or a son of God, but still not equal with the Father. Nor could they logically admit that he was man, with a body like that of other men. So the hinge of Christian belief, the Incarnation, was destroyed. Radical dualism went still further in its destruction of the pillars of Christian belief, and can hardly be regarded even as an extreme Christian heresy. With its belief in two gods and two creations, it might almost be described as another religion altogether.” (Malcolm Lambert, Medieval Heresy, pp. 125-26)

According to Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, the Bogomils, precursors of the Cathars in Bulgaria, believed that Jesus and Satan were brothers:

“Bogomils. Member of an heretical sect, which sprang up in Bulgaria in the 10th century, their name probably coming from Slavic Bog, ‘God’. One of their main tenets was that God the Father had two sons, Satan and Christ.” (Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, “Bogomils”) (843:136)

Joseph Strayer, author of The Albigensian Crusades, wrote that Catharism, had it continued to flourish, would have destroyed the human race.

“The contrary charge, that Catharism would have extinguished the human race by its denunciation of sexual intercourse is more logical…” (Joseph R. Strayer, The Albigensian Crusades, 1971, p. 35)

Likewise, Inquisition historian H.C. Lea, who can hardly be accused of bias toward the Roman Catholic Church, wrote of the threat which the Cathars posed, not only to Christianity, but to Western Civilization:

“However much we may deprecate the means used for its suppression and commiserate those who suffered for conscience’ sake, we cannot but admit that the cause of orthodoxy was in this case the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to prove disastrous.”
(Henry Charles Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, Vol. I. p 106 I) more....

Anonymous said...

Nobody here has ever claimed that the Cathars were Christians (although they do deserve to be quoted in their own words rather than summarised by their enemies). Bernard of Clairvaux said that, in discussion, the ‘heretics’ in that part of France led moral lives (in his Sermon no. 65, although he criticised them elsewhere for rejecting Catholic traditions). St Dominic wandered Cathar lands openly at no personal risk debating theology against them. I don't think that the human race had too much to fear from people who believe in not reproducing. But more to the point, if you believe that they should have been subject to mass slaughter for their beliefs, you must presumably believe that of atheists, Hindus and Muslims today?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

hmmmm....imagine these people in charge with the view that procreation was evil, the endura okay to impose, now with modern firepower and bioweapons, would not extermination of most of humanity be the goal?

Sounds like exactly the goal of the globalist elites, strongly rumored to be in some kind of satanism, and those who aren't with a worldview shaped by those who are.

Anonymous said...

Was just checking out the links on the LCWR site and came across this one:

Obvious NewAge terminology here. And attitude. Catholic religious- my foot!!

from OZ

Susanna said...

Anonymous 10:47A.M.

Re: But more to the point, if you believe that they should have been subject to mass slaughter for their beliefs, you must presumably believe that of atheists, Hindus and Muslims today?

That is an interesting question coming from someone who has criticized Pope Pius XII on this very thread at 4:35 A.M. saying:

And Pius XII was indeed NOT "Hitler's Pope", although I go with the Yad Vashem view that his public silence, as Europe's premier moral authority, was regrettable.

Anonymous said...


I don't see why my criticism of Pius XII's silence makes me some kind of hypocrite for asking what would be the moral difference between advocating genocide against the medieval Cathars, and genocide against modern-day Hindus, atheists and Muslims. Clarification is welcome - as is an answer to the question.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

I would suggest, that the threat Cathars provided, in combining burgeoning death cultism with a plausible counterfeit of Christianity, put them in a category unlike the rest.

It is not only beliefs, but beliefs that dictate actions. And Hinduism had to be partly suppressed in its worst feature by the British, and an overhaul forced wherein they threw their attention more on Vedanta and got more respectable.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 12:36

You are the one asking me if I approve of genocide (presumably of the Cathars) on the same thread on which you have criticized Pope Pius XII for his "silence."

I do not approve of genocide under any circumstances.

But unfortunately, people get killed in wars.

And in case you missed this portion of my previous post which quotes a Protestant who is not exactly in love with the Catholic Church:

Likewise, Inquisition historian H.C. Lea, who can hardly be accused of bias toward the Roman Catholic Church, wrote of the threat which the Cathars posed, not only to Christianity, but to Western Civilization:

“However much we may deprecate the means used for its suppression and commiserate those who suffered for conscience’ sake, we cannot but admit that the cause of orthodoxy was in this case the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to prove disastrous.”
(Henry Charles Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, Vol. I. p 106 I) more....

I am in agreement with this assessment.

By the way, as of 2012, even Yad Vashem has moderated its text regarding Pope Pius XII's actions with the Nazis. And I am sure that as the Vatican opens more of its archives that text will be moderated further still in its ongoing display.

The Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, added that the new caption also states, “Until all relevant material is available to scholars, this topic will remain open to further inquiry.”

Anonymous said...


Catharism was probably not much different from Zoroastrianism - both dualist - and the Persians were lauded in the Old Testament for their religious tolerance. If you wish to make the case that they were uniquely degenerate then you are arguing against the testimony of St Dominic and Bernard of Clairvaux; moreover Count Raymond of Toulouse (himself Catholic) regarded them as good subjects.

I'm glad that you do not countenance genocide in any circumstance. You regard the clash between the Cathars and the Catholics as a "war". What happened is that one papal legate was murdered in Cathar territory, although most likely by knights of Raymond (these would have been Catholic), following which Innocent III instructed other legates to preach a crusade against the Cathars. He offered their land to Catholics who took part and he appealed to the king of France to join in. War or genocide?

And, whatever their behavior, the threat from a cult that is against not only non-marital sex but also marital sex is not very great.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

their claim to fame among the people was that their clergy were not corrupt and dissolute. However, of course there were going to be people who would see anything like this as an opportunity to gain lands.

However, these people were gaining a lot of ground among people who had lands and power. If Languedoc had become finally a military nexus for the Cathars, you can count on it they would have been enforcing their ways and that included as much prohibition of reproduction as possible (abortion and homosexuality being an option, bogomilism is the origin of the word buggary a Frenchification of bogomil) and they would have been enforcing the endura all over the place. People that eager for such elimination of physical life, would not hesitate once they had arms and money behind them to take this act on the road.

Anonymous said...

Anon@2:51 p.m.

The Cathars rejected marriage, but fornication was permitted because it was temporary, secret, and was not generally approved of; while marriage was permanent, open, and publicly sanctioned.

In addition, ritualistic suicide was encouraged (those who would not take their own lives were frequently "helped" along), and Catharists refused to take oaths, which, in a feudal society, meant they opposed all governmental authority. Thus, Catharism was both a moral and a political danger.

Morally, their views were shocking to midevial minds, and they were at odds with the govt too.

There was ALREADY war going on in Southern France, where lynch mobs of Catholics would pick on them and vice versa

A papal delegate was sent to access the situation and was killed.

The Pope consulted the King who acted.

So you can call it a war. It was not picking on peaceful people for their beliefs, but a cult promoted suicide and that opposed all govt laws.

Anonymous said...

"A papal delegate was sent to access the situation and was killed."

Most likely by Catholic knights (of Count Raymond).

"The Pope consulted the King who acted."

Actually the King of France declined to join in, to Pope Innocent's disappointment. He merely gave permission to his own knights to join in if they wished.

So not only does Catharism not countenance marriage but it also countenances suicide? Aint gonna last too long - even without suffering genocide.

Catholics who reported well of the Cathars included St Dominic and Bernard of Clairvaux, and their own ruler Count Raymond. Let's add to the list of people who thought they were wronged Pope John Paul II, in his apology of 12 March 2000 for historic Catholic violations of "the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and [for showing] contempt for their cultures and religious traditions".

Anonymous said...

Ah Susanna, if you'd asked here I could have saved you the time and given you those Cathar references. Nothing therein is remotely as unpleasant as parts of the Quran. We have nukes and could wipe out the Islamic world if we wished; should we, therefore?

Susanna said...

The revival of the Albigensian Church in the nineteenth century by Jules Doinel involved the recreation of at least two rituals that have correspondences with the aforementioned Cathar document Rituel de Lyons which was discovered in 1852.

Doinel started to consecrate a number of Bishops and Sophias, among the first to be consecrated were Gérard Encausse ( Papus, 1865-1916), as Tau Vincent (Sept. 14, 1892), Bishop of Toulouse ; Paul Sédir (Yvon Le Loup, 1871-1926), as Tau Paulas, coadjutor (second) of Toulouse ; Lucien Chamuel (Lucien Mauchel), as Tau Bardesanes, Bishop of La Rochelle and Saintes. These three men ( all of them being leaders and dignitaries of Arcane Orders in France, OKR+C, O*M*, HB of L ) would form the "Sacred Synod of the Gnostic Ecclesia". In the year 1892 Doinel consecrated other "celebrities" of the Parisienne society, such as Louis-Sophrone Fugairon (born 1848, Tau Sophronius), Bishop of Béziers ; Albert Jounet (1863-1929, Tau Théodotus ), Bishop of Avignon ; Marie Chauvel de Chauvignie (1842-1927, Esclarmonde), as Sophia of Varsovie, the first "Sophia" to be consecrated ; Léonce-Eugène Joseph Fabre des Essarts ( Tau Synésius ), Bishop of Bordeaux. It is said that a close associate of HP Blavatsky, the Countess d'Adhemer, was designated as Tau Valentin's "Helen" ( "Il Retorno dello Gnosticismo", M.Introvigne, 1993 ). Francois-Charles Barlet and Jules Lejay , both members of the Martinist Supreme Council, were also consecrated. The mystic name was prefaced by the Greek Letter Tau, which represents the Greek Tau Cross or Egyptian Ankh. At the end of 1890 Doinel joined the Martinist Order of Papus and according to T.Apiryon (in "History of the Gnostic Church") Doinel also became a member of its Supreme Council ( Doinel does not appear on the listing of the members of the First Supreme Council of Papus' Martinist Order of 1891, so I suspect that his membership of the Supreme Council was of a later date, probably between 1893 and 1895, the year of Doinel's conversion) . Doinel was also a member of a small occult circle, ‘L’Institut d’études Cabalistiques’. Other members of this Kabbalistic circle were Firmin Boissin, Louis Lechartier, and Leo Taxil ( see chapter " 1908 FRATERNITE DES POLAIRES " ).

The theological doctrine of Doinel's Gnostic Church was a mixture of the doctrines of Simon Magus, Valentinus and the Valentinian Marcus ( the Valentinians, "who claim not only lineage from Paul, but also that he has imparted to them certain esoteric knowledge that is the foundation of their theology. The Valentinians claim succession from Paul's disciple Theudas sometimes referred to as (Theodotus) to the sect's founder Valentinus"-source: 'Anoki" ).


Anonymous said...

Anon@3:39 p.m.

You have not provided any documentation for your claims that the Carthars were not violent.

This is an article from the New Yorker on this aspect of history.

"Raymond VI repeatedly seized Church property. Raymond Roger of Foix, a fearless man, actually installed a house for Cathar perfects, directed by his mother, on one of the estates of the local abbey.

When the canons of the abbey tried to expel the Cathars, one of them was hacked to death on the altar.

In other words, a guerrilla war between the southern lords and the Church was already under way.

Any creed that condemned the Church—forget the rest—was O.K. by the southern nobility."


JP2 did the Christian thing and apologized for a war started by the other side.

But, you claim that it was picking on peaceful people is not true according to even secular sources.

Susanna said...


The sacraments were derived from the Cathar Church (i.a. the "Consolamentum" , the sacrament of becoming a "parfait", perfect one). Doinel considered the Gnostic Cathar Church to be the "depository of the esoteric knowledge of the Bible". In Doinel's publication "Premiere Homélie" from 1890 on the "Sacred Gnosis" he refers to an article of Lady Marie Caithness published in a Theosophical review, in which is written "the Gnosis is the essence of Christianity". But to Jules Doinel it is much more than that, in Doinel 's conception the Gnosis is the "complete and definitive synthesis of all beliefs and concepts of humanity with regard to it's origin, past, present and future, it's aim and goal, its nature and "survival". The "Premiere Homélie" is dated August 18th 1890,"the ninth year of our Lady of the Holy Spirit". Doinel apparently referred to a "Deuxième Homélie" which would be published to "complete the pending doctrinal aspects", but this document was never published because of Doinel's defection. Doinel's "Consolamentum" and the "Appareilamentum" are, besides the Cathar symbolism, having correspondences with the so-called "Rituel de Lyons" which was discovered in 1852 at the National Library Medieval Archives. The Gnostic Mass which was composed was known as the "Fraction du Pain" (Breaking of the Bread). Doinel emphasized the fallen state of matter in the rituals of the Church, its opposite state being the higher perfect order of the Pleroma. Doinel also proclaimed that the Gnostic Church was intended to present a system of mystical Masonry. In April 1890, Jules Stany Doinel published "La Gnose de Valentin" in which he praised and thanked Papus for the attention given to the Gnostic Church in the monthly review "l'Initiation". The 'Gnosis of Valentinus' contained i.a. Valentine's doctrine of the threefold classification of mankind ; more...

Anonymous said...

The article states that Pope Innocent was a lawyer who tired to reason with Southern nobility at first.

This failed, and then the Crusade was launched.

Susanna said...

Papus ( Dr. Gerard Encausse ) initiated Theodor Reuss into the gnostic church founded by Jules Doinel.

Rene Guenon of the Traditionalist School was consecrated a 'bishop' of a branch of Doinel's church in Alexandria in Egypt taking the name of "Tau Palingenius."

It was Theodor Reuss who initiated Aleister Crowley into the Ordo Templi Orientis.

Eventually Jules Doinel's gnostic church in Lyons morphed into an umbrella group along with other gnostic groups ( i.e. the Vintrasian and the Johannites ) and was led by Jean Bricaud.

Eventually this umbrella group morphed into the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica which is currently the Ecclesiastical arm of the Ordo Templi Orientis. (O.T.O.)



Note well that Lady Caithness - who held the séances attended by Jules Doinel - was a friend of H.P. Blavatsky.

For a while, Papus was a member of Blavatsky's Theosophical Society but left it because he did not approve of the emphasis on Eastern esotericism. he founded his own organization which emphasized Western esotericism.

Anonymous said...

So little is known about Cathar ritual that the 19th century eccentrics who tried to recreate it had to base it mainly on their own occult systems. Nothing reliable can be learned about real Cathars from that mix of sentimentalism and occultism. They are an interesting study in folly in their own right though, exposed with Susanna's notable expertise about that era.

To 4.12pm: Raymond VI was a Catholic not a Cathar! If he repeatedly seized church property, that is simply part of the well documented power struggle that went on throughout medieval Europe between rulers and clerics. He did have a large number of Cathar subjects, and was reluctant to persecute them merely because they were Cathars. Good!

Documentation for my claims that Cathars were not violent? Comments by St Dominic, who wandered freely throughout Cathar territory debating against them, and Bernard of Clairvaux in his sermon no.65 (as I said above more than once).

How do you reach the conclusion that a guerilla war was already under way from the murder of a papal legate by (it is generally presumed) Catholic knights, and a single incident in which people who were being forcibly evicted from their lodgings turned violent?

Cathar violence in context reminds me of the poster at the zoo: "This animal is dangerous. If you attack it, it will defend itself."

I believe that Innocent III simply refused to countenance any rival spirituality on what he regarded as his own turf, and if genocide is what it took to remove it then so be it. The end justifies the means - the oldest argument of the tyrant.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Sts Dominic and Bernard were acting on their own. A papal legate however, was a more serious matter.

The mentality of the Cathars and their growing power meant someday they could enforce their ways on everyone. They were also a standing menace to souls, in their false doctrines and in their abominable practices or at least countenancing such.

They were a danger like a dangerous cult now, nipped in the bud sort of.

Their notion that satan and Jesus were brothers would open the door to satanism on the part of some.

This is not just rival spirituality, which you might argue say about RC vs. Orthodox and Protestant, which got plenty violent at times. This is a whole other ball of wax, operating like a Trojan horse inside Christendom.

The Doinel recreation was based in part on the discovered "ritual de lyons"

and considering everything about the Cathars, which name means pure, and of course was used by various groups incl. the Novatians who were not heretics just schismatics unwilling to accept back people who had rejected Christ when under persecution, the Cathars officially accepted various sexual evils as okay because not public, precisely the NONofficial attitude of the corrupt within RC. Even the doctrine of scandal as interpreted by one priest recently found to be corrupt, plays to this.

So with Cathar victory you would have had a far more serious moral problem than the actual small percentage of RC priests. (the numbers of victims are huge, typical of predatory perverts, but the number of perpetrators is actually small.)

I say good riddance. The Cathars once they had the ability to do so would have persecuted the Catholics. Might even have cozied up to the aggressive moslems on some superficial similarities.

Anonymous said...


Good riddance to CatharISM. Unfortunately many people died, women and children too, and you come across as callous, as a victor writing the history. The Muslims who overran Constantinople in 1453 said Good Riddance too.

Your knowledge of how history would have turned out had the Cathars survived is remarkable. Real historians understand just how contingent history is, and decline to get involved in speculation.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

and there were Christians in Constantinople praying for a muslim victory because of the evil that had filled the city's nominal Christians and general decadence.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

I might add, the only way to stamp out CatharISM was to stamp out the Cathars, who were the purveyors of Catharism and its practicers. Women getting killed, well, I am a woman but I know women can be very evil. Often they are the driving forces behind a lot of bad stuff and the keepers and enforcers of traditions, so I am not that appalled. Children, that's another matter, below a certain age. (the modern view of teenagers as "children" is ridiculous. Something capable of beating you up, something sexually more or less mature and functional, something packing a knife or a gun, is by definition not a "child.")

Anonymous said...

"the only way to stamp out CatharISM was to stamp out the Cathars" - Christine

""the only way to stamp out ***ISM is to stamp out the ***s" - Guess Who

Anonymous said...

Anon@5:03 p.m.

"How do you reach the conclusion that a guerilla war was already under way from the murder of a papal legate by (it is generally presumed) Catholic knights, and a single incident in which people who were being forcibly evicted from their lodgings turned violent?"

I said, a war was underway as you brought up between Southern Lords and the church, before the Papal delegate went there. It's why he was sent in the first place.

They were not being forcefully evicted, when Raymond V1 took these things away from the church by force, to being with.

"I believe that Innocent III simply refused to countenance any rival spirituality on what he regarded as his own turf, and if genocide is what it took to remove it then so be it. The end justifies the means - the oldest argument of the tyrant."

This is your belief. I believe that the Southern nobility were simply using the Carthars to expand their territory.

Anonymous said...


Based on the evidence I now have, I am willing to accept that the Cartars were not the main culprits, but Catholic nobility who had an axe to grind, and saw the Carthars as something they could used against the church to expand their own ambitions.

Anonymous said...


The papal legate went to Raymond to try to persuade him to persecute the Cathars in his lands, but they were good citizens and Count Raymond would have none of it. It is believed (although not certain) that the legate threatened Raymond with excommunication and that the legate was then killed by a knight of Raymond. So far all individuals mentioned are Catholics.

There was strife between the local southern aristocracy and the "King of France", but this was at a time when the kingdom had not definitely been extended to the south. There was also strife between aristocracy (in both south and north) and the church over who should appoint bishops and the right to tax churchmen. Again, an entirely Catholic affair.

If Raymond took church property and gave it to Cathars, its history is nothing to those Cathars is it? You said above that they were subsequently evicted, in which case I'm not surprised that they fought their evictors. But I'm going on your word here which seems to be rather confused; as you are making that claim, let's have some documentation please.

Innocent III's activities and pronouncements all show that heresy was his greatest concern and that he did not hesitate to resort to violence wherever he had the means and peaceful persuasion had failed. The end justifies the means - the usual argument of the tyrant.

Anonymous said...


The Cathars did have dangerous views and Southern nobility saw them as a way to expand their own territory.

Anonymous said...

Anon@6:18 p.m.

It's obvious that the Pope's concern was with heresy that was now being espoused by his own church members who were waging war on the church.

The Pope did not start the war in Southern France.

The Crusade he sent did not just kill Cathars, but also Catholics, as the historians in the New Yorker article pointed out.

Anonymous said...

Self-defence is not genocide. Perhaps he should have just waited until the nobility finished all the clergy in the area.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

There were a lot of crypto cathars among the Catholics, that is why it was hard to sort them out, especially when for religious or localist loyalty issues they fought the crusaders.

Anonymous said...

"There were a lot of crypto cathars among the Catholics, that is why it was hard to sort them out"

Now that is certainly true, as is clear from the historian Ladurie's study of the village of Montaillou set a century later, in the mountainous region where the surviving Cathars had fled. The local bishop arrested on suspicion of heresy, and personally interrogated, the entire village. Verbatim transcripts still exist - a goldmine for social historians, and one of the facts to emerge is exactly what you say here Christine.

Anonymous said...


The canonical, definition of heresy is the post-baptismal denial of officially defined doctrine that must be held. Hence, heretic can only apply to a Catholic who had fallen away from the faith.

It's the Pope's job as protector and defender of the faith, to bring them back.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

a heresy is also some cult that is relatable to Christianity by claiming Christ to some extent, but preaching blasphemous errors about Him. you can argue that those grown up in it are not heretics in that sense you give.
Islam has been analyzed as a Christian heresy.

Most of the Cathars would have been in the category you describe.

nitpicking on terminology doesn't change anything about them, and the pope as defender of the faith, also has a duty to protect the potential victims of these liars against them.

Anonymous said...


Which brings us back to the issue of pedobaptism, by which the Catholic church exerted authority on people who had never shown any interest in any form of the Christian faith merely because they had undergone the baptism ritual as babies...

Anonymous said...

Hey Christine, if you could get hold of a time machine would you go back with a machine gun and mow down a few Cathars?

Anonymous said...

Anon@7:03 p.m.

This was not the case here, since these people were Catholics who went mixed up the faith with other things.

It's like Catholics for choice, who appointed an infanticide lobbyist to be on the board of directors of Catholic charities.

She was only fired after pro-life groups outed her.

The enemies within are sometimes a lot more dangerous.

The church today is way too tolerant of Catholic heretics. I sometimes wish they had a Crusade to deal with the snakes within.

Craig said...

From the research I've done (following Constance from her second book), I'm convinced that modern hyper-charismatics - as I call them - are New Agers, destroying the Church from within. Yet, while I will shout from the rooftops to expose these heretics, I would never condone their torture and/or genocide.

Matthew records Jesus as saying that the enemy has 'planted' these within the Church; and, Jesus states we are to let them stay, and HE will separate at the harvest:

24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

Anonymous said...


I would not condone torture or genocide either. I got carried away there.

In the Carthar case, there was a war already taking place.

Craig said...

Anon 8:36,

My comment was not specifically directed at you; it was an overall statement about the recent commenting on this thread.

My overarching point, however, is that it was Jesus Himself who instructed how we are to handle heretics within the Church. I had intended on bolding more of the Parable of the Weeds/Tares, so I'll use this opportunity to accentuate the other verses within this parable I had initially intended on highlighting:

...28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, 'No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.

Anonymous said...


Jesus does not say let them stay. A person cannot repent unless they are called out on it.

Matthew 18:15-18. Jesus is talking to his disciples and this is what he says,

"If your brother sins, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that "every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses" [Dt 19:15]. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the Church. If he refuses to listen even to the Church, then treat him as you would a Gentile o r a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Mt 18:15-18)

Paul expands on this

"It is widely reported that there is immorality among you and immorality of a kind not found even among the pagans. The one who did this should be expelled from your midst. I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus: When you have gathered together and I am with you in spirit with the power of the Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. . . Do you not know that a little yeast leavens all the dough? Clear out the old yeast, so that you may become a fresh batch of dough. . . . Purge the evil person from your midst. (1 Cor 5:1-7, 13)

Craig said...

Anon 8:52,

You are describing the process of either winning over your your brother/sister who has or is sinning. Should they refuse, excommunication is the result. This does not imply, nor can anyone infer from these texts, torture or death as a consequence of these offenses.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

once Christianity has come to include the entire population in theory, though purging from your midst would first relate to church going types, logically it would involve some more extensive social overhaul as well.

Anonymous said...


In the parable of the wheat and tares, Jesus is referring to the final judgment. The reapers are the angels that will separate good and evil.

This does not refer handling heresy in the church.

Anonymous said...


I was referring to excommunication, not torture or death.

I was under the mistaken impression that you thought that nothing should be done, since Jesus will do it anyway.

Anonymous said...


What extensive social overhaul do you have in mind?

Craig said...

In the parable of the wheat and tares, Jesus is referring to the final judgment. The reapers are the angels that will separate good and evil.

Yes, absolutely. So, given that Jesus is referring to the final judgment, how does one infer that the Church can remove the 'enemy plants' before the final judgment if this to be left till the eschaton?

This does not refer handling heresy in the church.

Jesus also states there will be wolves in sheep's clothing - obviously heretics within the church:

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ [Matthew 7:15-23, NKJV]

Same basic scenario: Jesus does not give instruction to remove these 'wolves'; He is the one to judge them at the eschaton.

Paul instructs us to mark these false teachers:

17 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. 18 For those who are such do not serve our Lord [Jesus] Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple. 19 For your obedience has become known to all. Therefore I am glad on your behalf; but I want you to be wise in what is good, and simple concerning evil. [Romans 16:17-19, NKJV]

We are to "avoid them" - not torture or kill them.

Peter [2 Peter 2] also states that heretics will be judged - by God. He doesn't advocate their destruction by men, but he does state they "bring swift destruction upon themselves" [v 1; NIV].

One of the differences between my views and others on here is my belief that true Christians make up the Church, not any sort of church structure, physical or hierarchical. By true Christians, I mean those who have truly had a conversion experience; and, this may or may not be exactly self evident to others as there are undoubtedly those who look like the real deal, yet aren't.

Therefore, in my view 'excommunication' means having no fellowship. As Paul says, "do not even eat" [NIV] with such a person as the one described in 1 Corinthians 5. How much more would I refuse fellowship of one who distorts core Christian doctrines, especially Christology?

Anonymous said...


Excommunication would mean to have no fellowship in churches where the excommunicated person, cannot partake in communion and other sacraments.

The person however is not banned from entering the church.

There's no way to do this the latter. So perhaps we are just saying the same thing, but in different ways.

Anonymous said...


The situation we were discussing was on two fronts. One the persons being in heresy and the persons in heresy being in charge of military/govt, power, like the nobility in France in this case.

This is a case of a heretic who could cause real harm to others.

Craig said...

Anon 9:59,

Perhaps we are saying the same basic thing.

As regards communion, I think it's up to the individual, as long as the individual understands the ramifications:

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

While I concede that the larger context is about the hungry eating the bread for food and drunkard drinking for his own pleasure, I submit that the principle holds for those in sin and heretics as well.

Craig said...

The situation we were discussing was on two fronts. One the persons being in heresy and the persons in heresy being in charge of military/govt, power, like the nobility in France in this case.

This is a case of a heretic who could cause real harm to others.

I still see no justification for torture and/or genocide.

The Book of Revelation speaks specifically of the endurance of the saints from extreme persecution. It never calls for a revolt of any sort.

Someone may well do harm to my body; but, they have no access to my soul, my salvation. I contend that God is much more interested in salvation than keeping us from physical harm. Witness all the first century Apostles and their martyrdom - save perhaps John, though he was certainly tortured.

Anonymous said...

"once Christianity has come to include the entire population in theory"

Which will not happen - many are called butt few are chosen, the narrow but the one to hell is broad, etc etc.

Christine, your "Good riddance" to the Cathars - not just Catharism - was horribly cold. They too are in the image of God; their women and children were massacred in Occitan/Provence despite being non-combatants even in a defensive war. Based on a large number of Anon comments, people might say Good Riddance if you quit posting on this blog. If that thought hurts, reconsider your attitude to flesh and blood. Your words can't hurt the Cathars becaue they are dead, but your attitude can hurt others.

Anonymous said...

Re the argument that it's fine to exterminate heretics because they might drag others to hell:

1. In that case let's kill all Hindus, Muslims, pagans etc right now.

2. God (and Jesus in NT) regards every man as responsible for his own soul.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Nominal at least Christianity had indeed come to include in theory the entire population except for Jews. you are confusing the issues.

despite being noncombatants - that is not the issue when looking to stamp out something. you go for every possible carrier. now, this could be accomplished by a roundup and deportation, and besides you do not know what in such a desperate situation women and children might be doing anyway. total war engages the total population.

and as I have said, women are often the transmitters and enforcers of stuff. and can be incredibly evil.

my own reason for not wanting women to be ordained is precisely that the worst can seem the most sympathetic, when young their appeal can be a disguised fleshly one, and when older they can shelter behind age and mother image. it is easier to get rid of or at least openly oppose a bad man than a bad woman.

that of course has little to do with the issue of "noncombatants," but this was not a normal war for mere turf.

Anonymous said...

"despite being noncombatants - that is not the issue when looking to stamp out something. you go for every possible carrier."

Spoken like a true Nazi.

You think their belief system is wrong. Well they thought yours was, and there is no earthly judge to settle it, is there? Might is right?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 9:15 P.M.

It seems Christine's "extensive social overhaul" would be a machine gun.
In fact, it will be our Lord , Savior, and Kings "rod of iron".

Craig 9:50 P.M.

In your view then, in general, are true Catholics "true Christians"?

Anonymous said...


I do agree that torture/genocide is not justified. But, people get killed in wars. Perhaps the situation would not be so complex if there was no war involved to begin with.

People are responsible for their own soul, but I doubt any of us would not do anything to save people under our care from harm.

Anonymous said...


It is still wrong to kill non-combatants in a war. As I said, it's a complex situation, where a war was already killing people on the other side.

I am opposed to women's ordination, because I do not find the arguments convincing. They are too political in nature.

Anonymous said...

"Someone may well do harm to my body; but, they have no access to my soul, my salvation. I contend that God is much more interested in salvation than keeping us from physical harm."

This is true, that you can make this decision for yourself.

But, if people who were under your care were being killed, would you just do nothing, not ask for any intervention to save them?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

I can make a biblical and historical case for women's ordination, even from an Orthodox perspective (note the priest does not refer to himself as representing Christ but as representing, along with the people there, the Cherubim who worship at the Throne of God)

BUT....I have yet to see any women seeking this (with one exception in a Presbyterian church who was a pastor there) who seem to be worthy of this job.

the arguments given appeal to fleshly issues of power and representing the female sex and things like that. These are not good reasons, male or female version, to seek ordination.

there is enough trouble with men ordained who are in the job for the wrong reasons, or including the wrong reasons, in their motives, we don't need a hellslew of women almost entirely in the job for the wrong reasons as well.

Craig said...

But, if people who were under your care were being killed, would you just do nothing, not ask for any intervention to save them?

It truly depends on the situation (defining those “under my care” and who would be responsible for the intervening), and I’m not much interested in getting into ‘what-if’ scenarios.

In your view then, in general, are true Catholics "true Christians"?

Not being omniscient, I cannot know for certain who is and who isn’t a true Christian. I feel pretty sure that many professing Christians (of any ‘flavor’) are not really Christians at all, in view of the narrow vs. wide gates of Matthew 7:13-14, the wolves in sheep’s clothing [Matthew 7:15-23 – “many will say to Me on that day…”], and the Parable of the Weeds/Tares [Matthew 13:24-30].

The RCC system is, in my view, not just faulty, but fatally flawed. Yet, from my perspective, this does not in and of itself preclude professing Catholics from being true Christians. From my studies of what I term hyper-charismaticism, within what I generally consider part of Protestantism, I’m not convinced that all those caught up in that ‘system’ are non-Christians, even though I find hyper-charismaticism to be anti-Christian, in fact, New Age.

I’m not at all interested in defending Protestantism (there’s not a single denomination, of which I’m aware, of which I agree on all tenets, and the non-denominationals are generally too lax with respect to doctrine), or explaining why I think RCC-ism is fatally flawed. Therefore, I will not answer any comments in this vein. So, please don’t ask.

I’ll add this. In studying the Council of Chalcedon, I’m convinced that Pope Leo I’s Tome formed the backbone of the Chalcedonian Definition/Creed – a document recognized by RCC, EO, and Protestantism as 100% Biblically accurate in its definition of Christology, the Person of Jesus Christ. To be at odds with the Chalcedonian Creed is to be outside of Christendom. I’m convinced that hyper-charismaticism is well outside of Chalcedon with its Christology.

Anonymous said...


I am not interested in scoring points on who can be a better sinner or martyr in a what-if senario either. Some attempting to do this here have failed miserably.

Anonymous said...


You are right, that nobody should seek ordination for the wrong reasons, but you are not representing the Orthodox view accurately. The priest representing the company of heaven does not mean that the priest does not represent Christ.

The Orthodox Priest: An Icon of Christ

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

yes there is an aspect of this icon of Christ but to the extent the priest (actually the BISHOP is supposed to be the icon of Christ, there is a kind of status creep here I noticed a long time ago in struggling over choice of "denomination")

but the Holy Liturgy at no point mentions this and would only hold during the actual consecration of the elements of the Eucharist, and a female could as easily say "He took bread in His hands and broke it" and The Holy Spirit is then called on to make the actual transformation of the bread and wine into The Body and Blood of Christ, the priest is not depended on for this unlike RC.

This in fact was a critical point in my choice, because the excellent case made in (as distinct from /malachimartinetc ) by sedevacantists and uber traditionalists about potential problems in Apostolic Succession and ordination of priests there,
raised questions about the validity of sacraments.

The Orthodox (original I might add) method, the epiklesis or invocation of The Holy Spirit to do the miracle, which is done in all sacraments and what RC calls sacramentals, is what is depended on. A problem in Apostolic Succession or validity of consecration of a bishop or of ordination of a priest would therefore not be a problem in validity of sacraments.

(I have what I call my Resident Seer and Significant Other but I can hardly drag him to every event to check on things. I do run Holy Water past him to make sure it is visibly to him strong. Orthodox Holy Water I found was usually stronger and tolerated more dilution by adding water than RC does.)

in RC a vague epiklesis is present generally BEFORE the priest states the words of institution, and on EWTN at least only consists of asking for the elements to be sanctified that they may become The Body and Blood of Christ, rather than asking The Holy Spirit to come make them The Body and Blood of Christ.

The laity is a kind of minimal priesthood, the priests that make the offering of praise and worship as distinct from the other sacraments, and can do some blessing with the sign of the cross like at meals.

Anonymous said...

According the the New Testament all Christians are priests and Christ is our High Priest who represents us to God. (I am not trying to start a discussion here about ordination and whether there are other categories of priests, but I must stand up for what the Bible says.)

Anonymous said...


I have largely come to my own assessment of Catholicism on first hand observation. With of course a good Christ centered belief/scripture understanding. Im a second generation american, and my grandparents were hard core European Catholics. I never learned Salvation from them, but from the liberal protestant church my parents attended. I was five years old when i first knew Christ. My grandmother was very superstitious, and there was always the rosary beads in her hand. She was very stern, and i was always basically afraid of her. In working with the public my whole adult life, i often have engaged my customers, and coworkers in the gospel. When discussing the Savior with Catholics, it was always them correcting the difference in my Christ centered salvation beliefs, with their differing catholic religious beliefs. It was very rare i received any Holy Spirit witness to a saved person in the catholic organization. I have of course met several believers who had left the Catholic system upon coming to know the Lord. I would agree there are some believers in that institution, and of course we do not know the hearts of all those humble folks in that institution.

As far as hyper charismatic religion, im not sure of your definition? All 'full gospel' denominations? I was caught up in that charismatic movement from about 1985 to 2005. It was the hard core health wealth doctrine back then, and then after several years of that, i went to other churches that preached a much softer version of this. My wife, now ex, forced me out of our house, then divorced me, on what she claimed were Gods orders. There was a specific day i had to be out of the house 'if' i had not found a higher paying job, that she claimed the Lord, by revelation, had given her. The exact dollar amount the job was to pay, with full benefits. I was only making approximately half that 'God directed' amount at the time 'prophet wife' gave me that ultimatum. After i had my things packed, and was gone she told everyone that i had abandoned her. I forgive her, and hope she gets delivered from that crazy belief system she has been so bound up by.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

" There was a specific day i had to be out of the house 'if' i had not found a higher paying job, that she claimed the Lord, by revelation, had given her. The exact dollar amount the job was to pay, with full benefits. I was only making approximately half that 'God directed' amount at the time 'prophet wife' gave me that ultimatum. After i had my things packed, and was gone she told everyone that i had abandoned her. "

GOOD GOD! That is not even remotely a Biblical basis for divorce. Even deduced principles beyond tecnical adultery don't match this.

Clearly an example of The Bible as touchstone of truth against which to judge all experiences and prophetic statements. Which obviously she didn't do. Assuming she even heard from "god" and didn't just make it all up as an excuse.

Anonymous said...


Yes, the Holy Spirit, is the one that transforms the bread and wine. The priest is just the instrument.

"A problem in Apostolic Succession or validity of consecration of a bishop or of ordination of a priest would therefore not be a problem in validity of sacraments."

Your views at at odds with your church.

"The issue of reception of ordination is sometimes an issue within Orthodoxy when the ordination has taken place in a schismatic context."

Anonymous said...

Anon@1:16 p.m.

Its seems like you are using your own emotional criteria to determine who is saved and who is not. Only God can determine this.

Anonymous said...


Emotional highs are a big part of those who get involved in hyper charismatic movements. They often use the same high or zeal as indication to determine if someone else has it.

Craig said...

Anon 1:16,

I make a distinction between charismatic and hyper-charismatic. In the HC camp are Bob Jones, Paul Cain, Bill Johnson, Mike Bickle, Heidi Baker, Chuck D. Pierce, C. Peter Wagner, Todd Bentley, Rick Joyner, Che Ahn, etc. The ‘health and wealth’ “gospel” comes from Word of Faith, whose recognized ‘father’ is Kenneth E. Hagin and whose ‘disciples’ include Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, and others. Hagin plagiarized the work of E.W. Kenyon, who is the REAL ‘father’ of the WoF. Kenyon appropriated methods from New Thought, Christian Science, Theosophy, etc. for his esoteric Christianity.

All the above fit in my definition of HC. You may not have been aware, but their basic Christology is deficient, as they essentially make Jesus into a man who (re)earned divinity, thereby providing the model for the rest of us in the attainment of our own. This is stressed in varying degrees, dependent upon just who is teaching. Most followers aren’t really aware that this is the basic theological underpinning, but it’s there nonetheless. It’s essentially New Age teaching.

Sorry to hear about your experience with your ex. I’ve heard similar stories. Sad, very sad. It’s sad not just for the victims of the various abuses, it’s sad for the folks who are obliviously serving ‘another Jesus’, ‘another gospel’, by ‘another spirit’ [2 Cor 11:4, 13-15].

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"A problem in Apostolic Succession or validity of consecration of a bishop or of ordination of a priest would therefore not be a problem in validity of sacraments."

Your views at at odds with your church.

"The issue of reception of ordination is sometimes an issue within Orthodoxy when the ordination has taken place in a schismatic context."

I was talking about the kind of Apostolic Succession break issues that RC uber trads are concerned about that are in RC.

the Orthodox schismatic problem is interesting. the schismatics generally consider that the rest of "world Orthodoxy" is in schism or apostasy and they are the true remnant, then excommunicate each other on various trivial grounds.

The main issues are the New Calendar which they claim is under the anathema issued against the Gregorian Calendar when it first came out. Problem with that is, that the NC is not Gregorian but Revised Julian. This keeps Pascha on old Julian Calendar, and the rest, while functionally the same as Gregorian is so calculated that it is more accurate, and will go off sync later than the Gregorian will. So it is different.

secondly, there is the ecumenism issue. and thirdly, the issue of some church being in communion with a church that is unacceptable by the schismatic standards.

The really serious problems in Apostolic Succession would be with the vagante crew which is another matter, but incl. some lineages that may be legitimate. however, the usual take is that The Holy Spirit will fill any void that is present in someone's succession or form of ordination or that of the consecration of a bishop in the background, as long as these people are in the body of the Church. RC is more mechanistic in its thinking.

Yes, the RC are increasingly teaching that The Holy Spirit performs the miracles and sacraments, but the actual liturgical teaching by content and example is that the priest does it by virtue of his ordination, and no or a minimal epiklesis is involved.

This means of course, that if a pope was not legitimate or some bishop not legitimate then the downline ordinations are not legitimate or rather valid (a different issue) either.

legitimate is like, you are driving with a license. valid is like, you may not have a license so should not drive, but the car works and you driving it moves. Something can therefore be valid but not legitimate.

RC figures a priest is forever, the powers conferred with ordination last forever, so if he performs a sacrament after laicization (i.e., defrocking) it is still valid, but not legitimate or lawful and is sin.

This is why defrocked priests were sometimes sought after by satanists, but sometimes they didn't trust them and preferred to have someone of theirs take communion and steal the Host to profane later. It would also be a motive for some of them infiltrating RC and becoming priests.

Anonymous said...


I am simply disputing the claim that in Orthodoxy it does not count if the priest is male or female.

This is not the official Orthodox position.

Just because Orthodoxy does not hold to an indelible seal at the time of ordination, this does mean they think a female priest would not be invalid or that sacramental signs do not signify something.

If this were the case, then the Orthodox churches would not be warning the C of E that ordaining women Bishops would be make unity impossible.

Anonymous said...

"I make a distinction between charismatic and hyper-charismatic."

That's wise. I regret the setting off of charismatic versus evangelical, because a genuine evangelical WILL be charismatic, as the Bible says so. Hypercharismatics do things that are pretty unscriptural.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

this sounds like the RC arguments, and RC through Jesuit educators have had a lot of influence through Russia over the centuries.

however, there are more serious reasons for Christ to be born male. For one thing, He was coming into a male run context, and no point adding yet another problem to things by being female.

More importantly, something only moderns would know of, is that when parthenogenesis occurs naturally in animals, if it is a mammal female who gives such birth, the result is FEMALE, while if reptile or bird the result is MALE.

Christ's maleness is a testimony to the miraculous nature of His conception and birth. Also, it was a disobedient woman and her man who fell, and now through a woman's obedience to God, her Son restores us. A woman led the way wrong in taking the fruit, here a woman cooperates with God in starting the process that gives us Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, Who cleans up the mess man made, and that mankind cannot clean up because mankind is defiled while Christ is not, and mankind is finite while Christ in His divinity is infinite.

In earlier times, when enough worthy men were not available, women were being ordained priests in Anatolia and Sicily, according to complaints of Pope Gelasius in the forth century AD. Obviously the line of thought given in that article was not part of the Orthodox tradition at the time. Gelasius was not complaining in these terms either as I recall, just thought it unseemly for women to have such a role or any other role.

There seems to be some frieze (painting on a wall or plaster) from those times of what look like women making liturgical hands raised gesture over a table.

shows that some Councils considered deaconnesses not ordained, and others did refer to them as ordained.

Canon 7 of the Laodicean Council forbids continuing the practice of having female presidents or presbytides of churches. Canon 44 prohibits women from going to the altar, one translation is they can't serve in the altar.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

interesting historical info

This particular bit of information is important, but the rest of the page is a bit sloppy.

"A priest named Ambrose came to Atto to ask how the terms presbytera and diacona of the ancient canon ought to be understood. His response leaves no room for doubt. He begins by underlining that since in the ancient Church “Many were the crops and few the laborers” (Mt 9,37; Lc 10,2), women too received the Sacred Orders for the helping of men, as is attested in Rom 16,1: Commendo vobis Phaebem sororem meam, quae est in ministerio Ecclesiae, quae est Cenchris [‘I commend to you my sister Phoebe, who is in the ministry of the Church which is in Cenchrae’]. For Atto, it was the Council of Laodicea (2nd half of the 4th c.) that prohibited the presbyteral ordination of women: Quod Laodicense postmodum prohibet concilium cap.11, cum dicitur: quod non oportet eas quae dicuntur presbyterae vel praesidentes in Ecclesiis ordinari. Much has been written on Canon XI of the Council of Laodicea: ‘It is not allowed for those called presbyterae to be appointed to preside in the church’. Much has been written as well on the significance of the term presbyterae, which has been diversely explained, and it has been systematically argued that it cannot mean true and proper presbyterae. But this argument reflects a viewpoint that has strongly conditioned many scholars.

Atto, after having expanded on the status of the deaconesses, stresses that in the ancient Christian church not only men, but also women were ordained (ordinabantur) and were the leaders of communities (praeerant ecclesiis); they were called presbyterae and they assumed the duty of preaching, directing, and teaching (Hae quae presbyterae dicebantur, praedicandi, iubendi, vel edocendi...officium sumpserant); these three duties define the role of the sacrament of priesthood.

Steeped in the knowledge of the canons and of ecclesiastical institutions, Bishop Atto of Vercelli explains further that the term presbytera could also mean in the ancient world the wife of the presbyter. Of the two meanings, Atto declares that he prefers the first, or ‘priest’."

however, I repeat, I do not like the idea of ordaining women as priests. but it is pragmatic rather than sacramental ideology in nature.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"I am simply disputing the claim that in Orthodoxy it does not count if the priest is male or female.

This is not the official Orthodox position."

I NEVER SAID THAT. I said that there are things retained in the liturgy that fail to support a sacramental reason for refusing ordination to women that logically either sex could quote Jesus' words
saying "HE took bread in His hands and HE said etc."


"You think their belief system is wrong. Well they thought yours was, and there is no earthly judge to settle it, is there? "

No but there is a heavenly judge, and He has spoken in His Holy Scriptures.

And if the purpose of govt. is to suppress evil as St. Paul says, then it is reasonable for it to suppress serious spiritual evil, but with economia or mildness preferably and flexibility depending on how bad it is and circumstances, with a view to not inhibiting the conversion of these people to truth, by excessive sternness on the part of the civil arm, and because God has said, I think it is in Ezekiel, that He does not desire the death of the wicked but that the wicked repent and live, though of course He has decreed (and brought about) the death of the wicked who persist.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

re early church councils and women, the overall line of talk in council and other writings, was about women being inferior and of lower rank anyway, there is no hint of a sacerdotal argument about priest represents Christ ergo must be male. That line of argument is much much later.

St. Paul bases the typical subordination of women on their gulliblity and being like Eve who fell and led us all into trouble, but had no problem with Priscilla and Junia the former he often names BEFORE her husband and spoke of the church in THEIR house.

So by exegesis, if a woman leaves the so called feminine weaknesses and has more of a so called manly mind, she is not a problem. Practice showed this is less likely in younger women, so later church councils said deaconnesses could not be less than 40 or 60 years old. There were some canons that used wording showing they were ordained, another that said they were not ordained like a deacon.

My point was NOT that ORthodoxy as it is now has any place for ordination of women. My point is that you can use Orthodox lines of thought and Church history to support a change in this, HOWEVER it is not desirable for practical reasons.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

keeping people out of the church is only impossible with the modern open public style. In the early days there were doorkeepers, who kept all out who were forbidden to enter, and who sent out and kept out the catechumens after the first part of The Holy Liturgy and only the baptized and chrismated who were not under penance could attend The Holy Eucharist.

This has long ago fallen into disuse.

Anonymous said...

As Jesus was fully human and male then He had a Y chromosome. But O, in view of the miracle of His conception to a virgin, to know what it looked like!

Anonymous said...


The women priests movement is downright heretical.

The fact is NO church in union with the five centres of Christianity ordained women. This was always done in heretical sects.

A deaconess did not function as a priest, but worked with women alone.

The issue is not practical, but one of theology.

Paul was referring to order in the church, since in the early days, people did not have a church building, but met in houses, so there were times when things when people would act like this was a house party. He would not have made these statements if these women were not talking to begin with.

This has nothing do with women being inferior.

Nobody felt the need to question if Jesus was male or not, because this was already obvious, and they did not hold to a sexless humanity.

This view is now being push by LGBT politics.

"I said that there are things retained in the liturgy that fail to support a sacramental reason for refusing ordination to women that logically either sex could quote Jesus' words
saying "HE took bread in His hands and HE said etc.""

The Orthodox priest Fr David Bissias Refutes Valerie A. Karras on Women's Ordination.

I personally know a women who was ordained in the Episcopal church and is now Orthodox. She agrees this is a theological issue, and not just a practical one.

Anonymous said...

"this sounds like the RC arguments, and RC through Jesuit educators have had a lot of influence through Russia over the centuries."

Nope, this is something the church has to now confront, because there are people crazy enough to claim Jesus was not male or that it makes no difference.

It was obvious to the early Christians that the one who stood at the altar was male, because Christ was male.

They did not have to spell the obvious out.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"The fact is NO church in union with the five centres of Christianity ordained women. This was always done in heretical sects.

A deaconess did not function as a priest, but worked with women alone.

The issue is not practical, but one of theology."

The canons that oppose this showed it DID happen before their time, and in Orthodox churches. The historical quotes I gave also show this. It happened, but was disliked by too many, and had pragmatic inconveniences.

(the hatred of married clergy got its start in North Africa, which successfully got prohibition of married bishops accepted, but as a concession to the North Africans alone, and explicitly only applicable there. recognition of the fact that this is not really absolutely canonical only an economia that has become common practice is probably back of the Orthodox practice of either taking bishops only from among already celibate monks, or making a single man a monk just before consecrating him, which renders the dispute moot.)

deacons do not perform the role of priests either. But frankly, ANY liturgical or ceremonial role for them is not Biblical, because Acts showed their purpose was one of managing the practical and charitable parts of church life, and perhaps secretarial.

the issue has BECOME theological, but it was never phrased in such terms in the first millennium. Maybe some individual writers did
but not the big formal pronouncements.

Christ's Y chromosome probably looked like a normal Y chromosome, since He is fully normal human as well as fully divine.

Anonymous said...

I'm against the ordination of women... and against the ordination of men. But an episkopos, who was in some position of spiritual authority, should be a "one woman man" according to St Paul's first letter to Timothy (chapter 3), in which it is also stated that he should run his own family well as a sign that he is capable of running a church well. That would seem to rule against celibacy (Catholics) and women bishops (liberal Anglicans).

Anonymous said...

"The canons that oppose this showed it DID happen before their time, and in Orthodox churches. The historical quotes I gave also show this. It happened, but was disliked by too many, and had pragmatic inconveniences."

Council of Laodicea (J. Harduin, "Acta Conciliorum," Paris 1715 AD, I. 783-
84. Greek text. He dates the Council at c. 372 AD):

"Those who are called presbyteresses or presidentesses, should
not be established - [the word used is "kathistemi" - could also
be translated as ordained] in the church."

It was considered heresy. This is why the cannons opposed it.

"but not the big formal pronouncements."

Council of Nicaea I, and Apostolic Constitutions and many others?

I hope you will do some real study instead of relying on feminist revisionism.

Pope Gelasius read in context, said, these women took the work of the altar that was divinely reserved for men.

Anonymous said...


The difference is that celibacy is a discipline. Male-ordination is a dogma. There are not even close. And Orthodox Bishops are also celibate.

Marriage is recommended, but it's not made mandatory, or Paul himself would be in trouble.

Anonymous said...

Paul wasn't an episkopos, a congregational overseer whom Paul says shold be a family man. Paul was an apostolos - in modern language a church planter.

Anonymous said...


They were the same thing. Since the meaning was interchangeable.

"the husband of one wife." A careful read of these passages points to Paul's concern about remarried priests. It is aimed at removing those who are on their second marriages.

This is reflected by the Eastern Orthodox who do not allow remarriage of widowed priests.

Anonymous said...

More information relating to New Age. The feminist movement also claimed that God is both male and female which is why witchcraft is acceptable. In their view it's just women linking with the female side of God. Following that line of thinking, Jesus is part of the God description so he is both male and female. Straight New Age.

Sorry for the New Age intrusion into this ongoing discussion.

Craig said...

I took a leisurely lunch as I do on some Saturdays (to read), and my waitress was a student at the local Catholic (private) University of the Incarnate Word. (There’s also an affiliated High School here with a similar moniker.) She is a Psychology major, and she told me she was taking a somewhat easy load this semester to include a course in Yoga (and Tennis).

I looked up their Core Curriculum; it’s one of the choices of the required “Developmental Activities” course (which also includes Tai Chi):

Anonymous said...

Anon@7:26 p.m.

This is correct. In feminist paganism, Authority/Leadership is confused with superiority. So therefore masculine imagery would mean that the male is superior to the female, so they need a female God too.

Christianity is a paradox where the first shall be last, and the last first. Jesus is exalted, because he humbled himself.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

It was considered heresy. This is why the cannons opposed it.

"but not the big formal pronouncements."

Council of Nicaea I, and Apostolic Constitutions and many others?

ANSWER the big formal pronouncements opposed it BUT NOT ON THEOLOGICAL GROUNDS. That was
what I said.

and it is spelled canons not cannons.
canon one n is a rule, cannon two n's is a very large bore super gun.

the celibacy of bishops AS I POINTED OUT, was canonical ONLY for North Africa as an explicit concession to their excessive delicacy, and has been SIDESTEPPED later on by simply taking bishops from among monks, or tonsuring already celibate men as monks just before consecration.

This renders the argument moot, but every so often it is brought up again, that married bishops should be allowed. This has never been settled as an absolute for all locations outside North Africa by an ecumenical council it is merely assumed to be so because now universally customary. But the issue is still occasionally raised.

The androgyny of God thing, I noticed years ago, that an Episcopal church in Palo Alto where I used to live, had a notice up hosting a goddess event.

Also, The Unitarian Universalist Church has apparently had a habit of hosting wicca groups for many many years where ever they are, at least in CA. Or that is the way it looks.

The idea of Jesus as both male and female is historically insane and untenable.

The idea of God as BOTH male and female misses the point severely. Being non human and non reproducing He is NEITHER male nor female, not BOTH and has no body (except for that segment of Him The Holy Trinity Who is Jesus Christ the Logos or Second Person of The Holy Trinity Incarnate that is enfleshed) so this is not androgyny.

God is beyond all description other than vague semi analogic. He is unknowable in His essence.

It has always struck me, that the 20th century feminism totally sold out original feminism, the focus on feminine and masculine is a sellout to patriarchal sexism. Original feminism for the most part held to a single moral standard and that monogamous for both sexes, and considered that much called feminine was just what you have when a human is raised in a deliberately crippled state. Much hogged for men is just the proper heritage of all humans of both sexes. homosexuality and abortion were nonstarters, abortion being viewed as a horror that was forced on women by circumstances often dictated by men who opposed birth control. In those days, childbirth was far more dangerous than now.

The typical woman seeking an abortion was married with children and already damaged by childbirths before, poor, and unable to support a child with a drunken abusive husband or no husband or not enough income from him to feed any more.

The transsexual scene is a total sellout. The very premise, that there is a gender of soul distinct from that of body, and that you can be born into the wrong body, so need an operation to correct this, is pure patriarchal sexism with a dash of romanticism and occult philosophy.

In the latter category, some have taught that the sex of the astral body is the reverse of the physical body, which is also false, none of the usual reports of astral projection or of near death bilocation, involve having astral bodies that are any different than the physical body. But you can see how it plays to validating homosexual desires.

Some elements of the heresies the New Age is encouraging in Christianity, have existed before in early church days, but usually as separate issues one or two per group opposed, not the whole bag of worms in one group like the Jehovah's Witnesses on the one hand, or New Age infested pseudo Christian groups on the other.

Anonymous said...


There are non religious aspects to Yoga and Tai Chi. The University of the Incarnate Word is under the leadership of the LCWR. The same group that Constance brought up in her previous posts.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 305   Newer› Newest»