Leave a comment

Technically, it isn’t THAT late at night, but that’s beside the point.

Thoughts cross my mind concerning orthodoxy and heresy. Thoughts cross my mind on the place of the Bible in things.

The problem that happens with Catholic Christendom is that the notion that consensus makes reality. Well, no, it doesn’t…several people can vote on something and be entirely incorrect on it. The notion that Protestants just individually make up whatever they want to believe about the Bible is a gross misrepresentation of the notion of individual conscience on matters.

The biggest issue in my mind right now is that it’s difficult to come across a tradition of Christianity that is liturgical AND progressive. Some would cry, “The Episcopal Church!” (of which I am an official member), but so often, I’ve noticed the Church falls short of its actual banter about being so liturgiacally high.

I’ve been to several different Episcopal Churches in the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast, and I can tell you that none of them do the liturgy 100% “correctly,” if I may put it that way. Each parish, in some way, botches the liturgy or leaves out something that I see as integral to the process.

Some people seem to think that my concern over bad liturgy or liturgical deficiencies is outmoded and that we should just get on with the important things. The issue I take is that the liturgy represents something very powerful and important: our own relationship to God, and our own ego’s relationship to our higher selves.

THIS is why so many of us are so gung-ho about the ritual being carried out properly; the ritual is a statement about how we relate to our Higher Self. So, when the liturgy is carried about sloppily, it’s as though we don’t really take our Higher Self seriously; it’s a slap in the face to the Indwelling Christ.

No, I don’t think the Mass should have a single, uniform expression from which it never deviates. That is not the point. Even the Star Trek Mass of the Book of Common Prayer (Eucharistic Prayer C) can be effective if it’s done with due reverence, intention, and the correct liturgical gestures.

(As a matter of interest, my favorite Eucharistic Prayer is D. However, I have yet to hear a priest say Mass with it.)

But there are certain gestures, certain ritual actions that should not be left out. The Host should always be elevated; the Chalice should always be elevated; the Host and Chalice should always be elevated in the Lesser Elevation at the end.

Anyway, I shall address one more issue, and then be done here.

I take issue with the notion of Christian Unity. I’ve seen some who would say that we should not divide ourselves, that we should not call ourselves Baptist or Catholic or whatever but only refer to ourselves as merely “Christian.” 

This is an action taken out of ignorance, I think, as it attempts to deny the differences in theology and emphases given in various traditions. On one level, sure, I can understand the reasoning being this. On the other hand, it attempts to ignore why denominations rise in the first place- because someone, somewhere, disagrees strongly enough with the way things are being done that they see fit to attempt to change it and persuade other people to go along with them.

In my own pursuit of Nirvana, I think I’ve swallowed way too much Christian dogmatic bullshit, attempting to fit into the mainstream or orthodox churches in a way that no person actually does without a good dose of cognitive dissonance. My approach and emphasis in life is that of a hardcore mystic; I am not interested in squabbling about hypothetical conceptions of reality but want real practice that will cause real change in my life. 

I think it’s also funny that so many people will accuse others of making God in their own image when they themselves have done the same thing; it’s strange that the older churches seem to think their faith handed down is the “once and for all” faith, never stopping to question that they, too, may be serving a particular image of Christ that they’ve formed of their own hands.

Just because more people were involved in the shaping of the fault doesn’t mean that it’s more true; it only means it’s more complex because more people contributed to it!

Here Endeth the Rant


The Falling Away of the Christ Archetype and the Realm of False Gods: Reflections


For the third time in my life, Christianity has become this muddled, lost Void of confusion, and I don’t know what to do.

But the insight that I’ve had with it this time is incredibly interesting.

Among my group of mystics, we discuss how we pick up the energy of other people who are around us. This is a difficult point of the journey, where we’re strong enough to sense the energy and emotional states of others but not necessarily strong enough to keep ourselves from absorbing the energy.

The reason we absorb the energy seems to stem from a number of sources. Rarely is anything ever so linear, rarely is anything simply the consequence of one thing. The layers, here, will be considered.

First, it is possible that we take on the negativity of others as a matter of purging ourselves of karma as well as purging others of karma. Perhaps it is a method of purification.

But more likely than that, it is that we take the energy into ourselves because we become of aware of it and are without a means of defending ourselves, at least in the psychological sense.

The reason for this happening is simple. In our culture, the predominant image of the Self, the archetype that resonates most profoundly with us, is Jesus Christ. The whole process of taking the energy of others into ourselves and thus suffering in their place is synonymous with the vicarious atonement of Christ, who takes on the “sins of mankind” and then serves as the sacrifice for them.

To realize that I had been encountering this archetype for so long and that I was doing just that blew my mind. I realized I had been taking into myself the karmas and energies of others for such a long time, in the process of my concern with other people, their problems, their thoughts and opinions, and so on and so forth. This, coupled with my realization of having forsaken myself, all fit together- I had been unconsciously living a quintessentially Christian life, as to die for the sins of others makes one quite Christ-like.

However, the real problem lies in that there was never a true death. My ego has not died, nor my Higher Self. Thus what was happening was the equivalent of being nailed to the cross and suffering endlessly, with never a moment of completing the sacrifice and the overall purgation of the karmas/sin.

This means that some vital information about Christianity was left out as this particular image of Christ had formed inside of me, and that I was never given the strength, energy, information, or what have you to finish the sacrifice and push onwards.

So the Christ archetype, or image or what have you, had to go, or has to go.

Upon reflection, I wondered if maybe this was not the archetype of Christ that was going, but rather that I was rebelling against an image of Christ, a falsely created image that had been impressed upon me through Christian theology early on.

I cannot say that I am completely out of the control of the image or know at this point if it’s even possible for me to be free from its control.

Mostly, the problems lately and especially those dealing with Christ have focused on the Svadisthana chakra, which is the sacral or second chakra up from the bottom of the human body. This chakra roughly corresponds to the second seven years of one’s own life, from ages 7 to 14, and it is, in fact, in those years that I was most conditioned with fundamentalist Christianity and blinded by the darkness thereof.

So the question of what’s going on is still in my mind. I do know that things have to change, and that I cannot take on the responsibility of other people’s problems and negative energies at this point- I am not capable of doing that, I am not strong enough to do that, I cannot solve it and always be the strong one, for it seems too often that I’m in need of the savior but am forced to be not only my own savior but that of other people.

That doesn’t mean compassion is tossed to the wayside or completely neglected. Rather, it means that my default mode of interacting with the world cannot be one in which people’s energy hits me without my consent. Instead, I must be able to stand my ground, have my energy be as powerful and good as possible, and help them in that way.

I’m not Jesus. And I don’t want to be Christ-like at this point if it means that my entire world is constantly destroyed. If I have no sanity, if I have no energy of my own, then how can I possibly help anyone else? This is a very difficult thing to admit to myself and to anyone else, and no doubt it would upset any number of Christian friends of mine to hear me make these statements.

But perhaps the reality of the situation is much different. Bernadette Roberts insists that Christ was born enlightened, into the unitive state, and thus his sacrifice was actually the entry into the No-Self state and not into the No-Ego state. By that token, my understanding of Christ, as far as the one that’s been affecting me, has been completely and utterly incorrect this whole time, and now is the time to expel the image.

Maybe this is what is meant by “false gods” and “idols” in the Ten Commandments. I’m not sure, though.

The other day, I read an article that was criticizing Anne Rice about her leaving the Catholic Church. The writer, a rather nasty Catholic, insisted that Anne was now “free to do what Protestants have been doing for 500 years- create Jesus in her own image.”

Excuse me, but let’s be quite frank here: the Catholic Church, too, has created “Jesus in their own image,” so how dare he make any such statement about Anne and Protestants? The Catholic Jesus only exists because the heretics were killed off or went into hiding, and indeed, the Church has a problem with spewing its ideas about Holiness and confusing Holiness with Authoritarianism.

However, I am highly sympathetic to Catholics in general, but I have huge problems with the Priesthood and the theologians who actually don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.

But what would Christ mean, then, on His own terms? The whole theological matter seems to be rather wide open at this point, and I think if it is important, it will be revealed later on to me.

That’s enough for now.