Hello,
As some persons on this site have shown an interest in the work of Bernadette Roberts, I wanted to let you know that Bernadette has just published a new book, The Real Christ. I regard its contribution to the literature of contemplative Christianity --and Christianity as a whole-- as historic and enduring.
You can find a description of the book on this site:
http://www.bernadettesfriends.blogspot.com/
Christ with you!
Joe

Bernadette's warning....


"This book permits no anthropomorphic view of God, the Trinity, or Christ. Reference to the man Jesus is always to a human being and never to God. “Jesus” is the particular man of the Gospels, the historical person no longer with us....Those who disagree with these definitions should read no further."

i pass 50.00 dollar to read a book that washes down the blood of Jesus Christ would never work for me..and no Bernadette.... i would not become 'confused or upset' as you suggest, by reading your book with such claims .. only saddened.. that one who claims enlightenment has this world view..

if this is where enlightenment leads to .. i would not want it.

Bernadette wrote:

"The purpose of the Incarnation was not to reveal the man Jesus – give us another god for the pantheon – but to reveal Man, God’s eternal plan for his eternal oneness with God."


True and untrue. Jesus , man and GOD came to reveal To man God's eternal plan for His eternal onenesss with God.. ( this is thoroughly Orthodox) and sadly, much of Christianity does not emphasis this good news... but to insinuate that Jesus was just a man is ... blasphemy.

as Bernedette wrote"

" the name “Jesus” is solely a reference to a particular human person."

This is the great lie ever so prevalent today in more new age thinking..

"I am God without any need for God...I am my own God."



The Spirit of Antichrist is subtle. Like a thief who steals a beautiful
painting and succeeds in peddling it on every street corner as his own.. and Jesus wept.

It sounds like she has separated the historical Jesus from the Christ of faith -- okay, that's old hat -- but then she has also invented a new Christology. I'd be interested in what she has to say, but not at $60!

You also gotta love:

quote:

Those who disagree with these definitions should read no further, it would only confuse and upset them. Also, it would be useless to argue any of this since I’ve done my homework, am aware of all opposing views, and regard them as misconceived or wrong. Given the same Christian background and history as those who object, I already know where they are coming from, it is they, however, who do not know where I am coming from, and therein lies the difference.

Dialogue, anyone?

But this is all nothing new with BR -- same stuff she's been spouting for decades now. Some of what she wrote on that web page is fine, other parts are convoluted reasoning and straw-man fallacies (e.g., the "persons" of the Trinity). There's nothing in hers or anyone's experience that qualifies one to so flippantly diss the carefully discerned doctrines of the Church regarding the incarnation, Trinity, salvation, etc.

Hello,
FYI: Regarding the price of the book, The Real Christ-- Bernadette self-publishes it. After photocopying and mailing costs, she makes less than $10 on each book. She spent four years meticulously researching the book. So the idea she is making money on the book (or that, in any way, she has been motivating by money to write this book!)is simply silly.
Christ with us all,
Joe

$10? Not bad. She should try a poet's wage .

What is your point, Samson? Are you saying that Bernadette has been motivated to spend for years writing this for the money? Are you saying that money she will earn on this book is some how substantial? Would you say that working on a book for four years she may be entitled to a earn something for the book?
Joe

Joe,

I'm only joking. No point intended. No need to be so defensive, sir.

Not defensive, Samson-- just replying to what what you identify as a "joke."
Christ with you,
Joe

To say that Bernadette's concern that the concept of "Persons" of the Trinity is simply a "straw man fallacy"-- St. Augustine thought differently. He was concerned that the view of Trinity as "Persons" could lead to wrong thinking toward the Trinity. He wrote: "When it is asked what the 'three' are, human utterance is weighed down by the deep poverty of speech. All the same, we say, three persons, not that we wish to say it, but that we may not be reduced to silence". In other words, Augustine realized that the word "persons" is significantly impoverished. In three chapters in The Real Christ, Bernadette points out how just how deeply impoverished and misleading the concept of God as “Three Persons” is, and describes the Fathers’ wonderfully sublime --and non-anthropomorphic-- view of the Trinity.
As a university instructor in religion, I know from talking to my Christian students for over two decades about the Trinity, just how impoverished and disastrous the concept of Trinity as "Persons" has been. Not a single Christian student in my teaching experience has been able to give a coherent, theologically significant, or experientially clear, view of the Trinity: the greatest Truth that God has revealed, in addition to the Truth of Christ! None of my Christian students have been acquainted with the rich view of the Trinity as found in the Church Fathers-- an utter failure of their pastors. Most of my Christian students think of the Trinity as three Super-Human Beings-- a definite effect of their exposure to banal teaching on the Trinity as “Persons”-- a view so different from the magnificent vision of the Trinity bequeath to us by the Church Fathers, whose mystical experience of the Trinity led to such great utterances, as this from St. Gregory Nazianzus:
“One is the might of my Trinity,
one is the knowledge,
one is the glory,
one is the power.
This unity cannot be dissolved.”
And from St. Irenaeus:
“God--
the glorious Transcendent,
the powerful, illuminating and transforming Holy Spirit;
the divine knowing and intelligent Wisdom of God and Logos;
each revelation being the fullness of God.”
Regarding the idea that Bernadette is “dissing”-- what of this statement from St. Gregory of Nazianzus, one of the greatest Fathers-- is he “dissing”? On resigning as head of a Church Council, he said: “To tell you plainly, I am determined to fly every convention of bishops; for I never yet saw a council that ended happily. Instead of lessening, they invaribly augment the mischief. The passion for victory and the lust of power (you will perhaps think my freedom intolerable) are not to be described in words. One present as judge will much more readily catch the infection from others than be able to restrain it in them. For this reason, I must conclude that the only security of one’s peace and virtue is in retirement. Epistle 130 - To Procopium.

Joe, my point is not that Bernadette is making excessive profits on the book. My point is that $60 is more than I'm willing to pay.

Hi Joe.

There is official Catholic teaching on the Trinity and you quote some good examples of it. Just because some of your students have the wrong idea about it doesn't mean that Church teaching on the topic is confused. My point about her positing a "straw man" here is that no halfway educated Christian understands the Trinity to be "three beings or three entities--three gods, in other words." Good for her to set the record straight about this, and that "God is neither mother, father, son or daughter, etc." but do you really think hyping this isn't straw-mannish?

Joe, as an instructor in religion, you know, then, that Bernadette is changing the semantics when she writes: The term, word, or title “Christ” is not the name of any human being, but refers solely to God’s eternal oneness with Man. OK, so it's not Jesus' surname, but it is an honorific recognition of Jesus the individual as the annointed one.

quote:

Christ is not the oneness of two persons, two individuals or two beings, nor is Christ a divine being or a human being, rather, Christ is the eternal oneness of two natures, divine and human. Thus the Incarnation was the revelation Man – “Universal Man” – God’s Plan for all mankind, and this Truth, this revelation, is everything we know and call “Christ”.

Yes and no, yes and no -- as usual, with BR.:
Yes, Christ is the union of human divine natures.
No, the Church does not teach that Christ is "a oneness of two persons, two individuals or two beings. . ." (more straw men!). The official teaching is that Jesus Christ is one being/person with two natures, human and divine.

No, too, to her point that the incarnation was not God uniting Itself to any [particular human being or person. She wants to be making some kind of point about Christ being "the eternal oneness of two natures, divine and human," but this is way too abstract in that we never find human nature apart from human individuals. The Christic oneness of human and divine was thus established in the individual, Jesus of Nazareth, the One whom Christians call the Christ, and through whom we, too, become adopted sons and daughters of God, sharing in the divine nature as He did.

quote:

The purpose of the Incarnation was not to reveal the man Jesus – give us another god for the pantheon – but to reveal Man, God’s eternal plan for his eternal oneness with God.

Geez, does she really mean to be implying that Christians' exaltation of Jesus as Lord makes us polytheists? I thought she said she already knew the great doctrines. . . that she'd "done her homework." And note yet another straw man: that the Incarnation was to reveal the man, Jesus! Yes, though, it does open to us a new understanding of Man, but also God as well. We would know nothing of the Trinity, for example, if not for Jesus, nor of the depths of God's love, compassion and forgiveness.

quote:

Prior to the Incarnation, Christ did not exist, nor did the man Jesus exist, only the divine Logos, God, eternally existed. Thus neither as a human being or a human person was the man Jesus, divine, or even Christ. It is solely the oneness of the divine Logos with Its own human nature that is Christ, and it is this mystery of God’s indivisible oneness with the essence of mankind we call the “Real Christ”.

And this all has nothing to do with Jesus? Jesus is irrelevant to "the oneness of the divine Logos with Its own human nature"? That's just unbelievable (at least from a Christian standpoint) We're back, again, to this abstraction of human nature from human individuals. It all does kind of put Jesus in his place, though doesn't it? What's that all about?

quote:

Also, it would be useless to argue any of this since I’ve done my homework, am aware of all opposing views, and regard them as misconceived or wrong. Given the same Christian background and history as those who object, I already know where they are coming from, it is they, however, who do not know where I am coming from, and therein lies the difference.

That's a fallacy, too, Joe: "Appeal to Authority." She's also frequently guilty of "Begging the Question" by redefining terms to suit her own schema, then denouncing those who use the term in a more conventional/traditional manner (e.g., Christ, self, ego). I've also found her to use ad hominem reasoning to try to make her case -- quite unpleasantly so.

Lots of problems with BR's writings, at least from the standpoint of Christian doctrine, which I don't really think she understands very deeply (despite her claims to the contrary, her years as a Carmelite, her "research," etc.). Otherwise . . . sure, she can believe what she wants, and use her experiences as her basis of authority, and charge what she wants for her books. But don't expect orthodox Christians to be too eager to purchase them.

This is the first time I have heard of Bernadette Roberts. Reading the dialogue thus far, and her own comments on the link provided, I have decided to stay clear of her teaching, of which I am appalled. Thank you Phil for your clarification on some points. Joe, the word “persons” used with the Trinity never bothered me because I knew we are dealing with mystery. Who can fully explain mystery? One can experience it to some extent, as the Fathers of the Church were doing in your quotes.

God definitely took on flesh in the Incarnation. God is boundless in love, mercy, and surprises. For me, the Incarnation, Passion, Death, Resurrection is in the NOW. It’s all in the NOW.

Whenever false teaching presents itself via movements or persons, I think God allows it so we can catch one particle of distorted truth and realize we may have neglected expanding on the fullness of truth. For instance, Bernadette’s focus on “the real Christ”. So many of our people are totally focused on Jesus of Nazareth and cannot experience him as the Cosmic Christ for all people. If we could grasp that, we would be so much more open to all races and cultures.

Shirley Mclaine horrified us with her “I am God”. She went much too far, but finally the teachings opened us up to “the mystery within”, as St Paul says…. The Divine within humanity. The New Age started talking about “higher consciousness” and those who left the Catholic Church for that, really do believe they have a higher consciousness. Now I see Centering Prayer groups and contemplation spring up in New Orleans, Baton Rouge,and even halfway between in Gramercy. The Pastors are generously cooperating. The Contemplative Outreach site has a listing of all groups.

So, aside from totally false doctrine, I would question any distorted truth as possibly an area we need to expand into the fullness of truth.

Thanks for sharing, Claire. It may well be that sometimes a distorted truth can help to tease out deeper understandings, but sometimes it just leads in the wrong direction and needs to be rejected.

- - -

Joe, you mentioned all the trouble BR goes through to make and sell her books. Have you checked out http://lulu.com She could submit her manuscript, create her own cover, set her price, and they handle the rest, printing copies as needed. They can also make the work available in several eBook formats and even help to market it. You can do all this for no fee or you can pay a small fee for their assistance. I use them for several books and have enjoyed working with them.

I simply have no idea why Bernadette Roberts wants to write books about Christ. Or God, for that matter. I'd bet more than 60$ that she could admit that we could call the Lord "the Ultimate Reality" or "the Ground of Being" or "IS-ness", or whatever, and Jesus whose revealed divinity she openly rejects does not matter to her, since he lived and died so long,loooong time ago...

That's the point! Who would care about someone who lived 2000 years ago? And those philosophers and theologians - Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, Cyprian, Marius Victorinus, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas... since she HAS DONE HER HOMEWORK, their arguments, books, their arduous spiritual and intellectual work, their life devoted to God, based on total rejection of self...

---
[by the way, Joe, please do not suggest that apophatic statements of the Church Doctors are to be taken to mean that dogmatic definitions of the Councils are useless. You may think they are inadequate, wrong, useless, impoverished, but please do not attribute this to Augustine, Gregory of Nazianzus or others. Perhaps, you know how Thomas Aquinas defines via negationis and via eminentiae? If they could hear what you say about the Most Holy Trinity, they would be appalled. Augustine in book XI of the Confessions compares his theological adversaries to dogs barking against the Truth. And the subject was allegorical interpretation of the Bible, not denial of the Trinity dogma. I wonder how he would react to the Bernadette Roberts' nonsense!
St. Thomas writes "sacred doctrine makes use of metaphors as both necessary and useful" (Ia, 1,9). Not impoverished and misleading - necessary and useful. And this is about poetic metaphors, not about theological concepts and arguments, which are much more necessary and useful.]
---

But what is this long tradition of theological and philosophical effort when you compare it to Bernadette Roberts who had such a powerful experience and HAS DONE HER HOMEWORK... Take Thomas Aquinas, for example, he was simply wrong, poor guy, writing his unfinished "Summa", praying to God for enlightenment to express in concepts His mysteries... Perhaps he had not done HIS homework? (And I know that he compared his "Summa" to straw, but he had the right - he wrote every word of it)

But why should we bother with the Doctors? They were, after all, only intellectuals, with no EXPERIENCE, because experience is what matters most. So maybe the saints? But all those Augustines, Francises, Bonaventures, Bernards, Ignatiuses, Teresas and Johns were stuck at some lower level of insight, at some deluded dualistic stage, so what can they possibly say to us about God and Christ that would mean anything?

But wait... after 2000 years, after numerous saints, mystics, doctors, theologians, philosophers finally came Bernadette Roberts who had the Experience. And now we know, eventually, that the whole tradition of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Europe is just wrong... Now we know the REAL Christ. What a relief! Have anyone thought of sending a copy of this book to one Joseph Ratzinger? He is still convinced that those fallacies are true, those "Persons", "Incarnation", "the man Jesus" and all that outdated, impoverished stuff... He even wrote a book in several volumes about "the man Jesus", for the Ultimate Reality's sake! Someone should tell him to DO HIS HOMEWORK. Or wait - maybe he shouldn't read that book, because he will be confused, poor guy... after all, the Vatican, all those cardinals and bishops, all those millions of Christians who are deluded too... What will they do when they finally realize that the truth about God and Jesus has been revealed at last, thank That-Which-Is!

Now - seriously. I know that this whole thing can be spiritually dangerous as all heresies are, but it is also quite funny, from a certain point of view. But I still just cannot get why Bernadette Roberts still uses words like "God", "Christ", "Incarnation", "Trinity" etc. (changing their meaning as she pleases). Some hypotheses:

1. She is still emotionally attached to religious language and "climate" of Christianity.
2. She wants to "liberate" people by drawing them towards her teaching and instructing them how to get enlightened like she is - but Christians are strangely attached to their version of the truth, so....
3. She thinks that her experience is so profound that she has to share it with the world and she thinks it will be more understandable, when she uses Christian words.
4. She cannot look at over billion of Christians who are deluded, while she knows the truth.

Whatever the reasons are, I do not intend to read that book, since it seems to me preposterous to be so condescending towards the greatest religious, spiritual and intellectual tradition of this world. The Catholic concept of God as Trinity is "impoverished and misleading"! Well, I think that what Bernadette Roberts writes and Joe repeats here is impoverished and misleading. I can read "the Experience of No-Self" out of curiosity about an interesting personal experience that is described there. But this absurd play with theology and philosophy written by someone who has no knowledge or understanding of the subject? No, thanks.

After all, I think that Roberts' books will have, fortunately, no impact in the Christian community. She is discussed here mostly because some people had similar experience and integrated it succesfully into their Christian life, while she rejected Christ.

All good points, Mt. Thanks for taking the time to share your perspective. Some of what BR is sharing now on her site (and in her new book, I'd guess) was taking shape a couple of decades ago, and I was objecting then, especially since Fr. Thomas Keating was so affirming of her writings.

The discussion of her work is important in that it helps to clarify a few issues that are floating around in nondual spirituality circles today. The more one goes into it, however, the more it seems to be just another way to minimize the significance of Jesus, which ought to make any Christian take pause.

Quote
All good points, Mt. Thanks for taking the time to share your perspective. Some of what BR is sharing now on her site (and in her new book, I'd guess) was taking shape a couple of decades ago, and I was objecting then, especially since Fr. Thomas Keating was so affirming of her writings.

Phil, please tell me where I can find old posts with reference to BR and Fr. Thomas Keating.

Claire, we had a long, rather convoluted discussion of BR's work and related topics sometime back.
- see https://shalomplace.org/eve/for...10625/m/86510506/p/1

Some of the links no longer work as she has pulled the essays from her web site, so you'll just have to see what was quoted in the posts.

For those who may not have found this quote, which was in our other discussion.
"I never liked the man Jesus or had a special devotion to him. To me the big mystery was Christ."
- http://tatfoundation.org/forum2006-10.htm

Lots of the other quotes are OK, but there is always this bizarre split between Jesus and Christ with her, and she's not talking about the pre-existing Word! Go figure!

Can anyone imagine a Christian saying "I never liked the man Jesus or had a special devotion to him?"

Yes, I remember that quote from our discussion back then.

Very disturbing...Seems some unexamined, unconscious problems may be operating in her promotion of the 'real Christ'--at the expense of the real Jesus.

(Bernadette: You "never liked the man Jesus"?! You never "had a special devotion to him?" Seriously? What's not to like about the man, Jesus?! except whatever unconscious baggage you're apparently pinning on Him?)

------------

Joe, I can see why you'd want to help your Christian students of religion to know and understand the significance of the Trinity. I can see you are one of Bernadette's friends promoting her teachings, and you are protective of the good you feel she has brought to your spiritual journey. As an educator, you have a serious responsibility to not mislead your students. Maybe consider separating the wheat from the chaff in what you share of Bernadette's teachings with your students. Maybe humbly consider that the Holy Spirit led you here not so much to teach as to learn.

I base my comments on the objections raised by posters on this thread. Can you see them as valid? As you know, Jesus (Who is God) said, "My sheep hear My voice." And it seems this group of sheep at Shalom Place is NOT hearing God's voice in Roberts' WARNING about "The Real Christ."

I mean, does it make sense to you that Love, God Who is Love and Wisdom, would require the sort of blistering condescension that introduces this book?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Shasha,

You will not ever find one instance in scripture or in the teachings of the early Fathers where there is this split between "Jesus" and "Christ."

In John 1, we read that the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us, "Flesh" (the Greek, "sarx") here being literally the stuff that, in the end, rots in the grave. We also learn in John 1 that the one who was the Word become Flesh was Jesus.

Paul speaks many times of "Christ Jesus." The one who encounters him on the road to Damascus was the risen, ascended Christ: "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" (Acts 9: 5). Bernadette says what's important about that statement is "I am," not the "Jesus" part. But Paul would beg to disagree, I'm sure.

In Romans 10:9, Paul says, "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Bernadette Roberts apparently cannot make this confession about Jesus. For her, he is just a man, and not a particularly interesting one. He is not the Word Incarnate, risen Lord, and Savior. Her "experiences" have clarified all this, and the Tradition that begs to differ is wrong. Such denial and arrogance has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit! It saddens me to see where things have ended up with her.

quote:

Can anyone imagine a Christian saying "I never liked the man Jesus or had a special devotion to him?"

No. i have said in the past and until my dying day will say... who would want enlightenment and have this world view? ie... enlightenment with no JESUS Christ in it?

this is where dogma and doctrine have there place... as it is the foundation of all we believe...

i have always seen in Bernadette's writing a certain arrogance.. as if she had experiences even the greatest saints did not have .. if i remember correctly she even said that in her writing. i found her sharing if her understanding difficult to even follow i would go away from reading her books and think, " what is she talking about?" the whole thing was so abstract.

. yet i have heard it tell that union with God, enlightenment is for the simple and pure in heart... reading her books made no sense to me.. after reading them, the basic message i got was it was all about her experience that were way, way beyond anything any of us could obtain.. just pages and pages of stuff... it did not lead me to deeper love for God and a desire to live for Him... it was just.. stuff....

I hear you, Christine, and think your sense of the faith is most trustworthy.

- - -

quote:

The Incarnation was the Logos creating Its own human nature, creating man’s one common human nature eternally one with Itself, and this oneness of God’s divine nature and man’s human nature we know and call “Christ”.

This quote from the link posted by Joe seems a pivotal point for BR, and it sounds very good, but is wrong on several counts, some of which I have already noted.

The most serious error is that the Incarnation is not "the Logos creating a human nature for itself," but creating a human soul that would become the means of its expression as a human being. As you do not find human nature apart from a human soul, and a human soul cannot become incarnate without a body, the Incarnation is about the logos creating a human soul that would become embodied as a human individual, that one being Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.

But wait . . . it is not so simple. God can surely do anything -- even create a body for the human soul of Jesus out of nothing! But that is not how God works. God almost always works through the mediation of creation and its various levels of freedom, and this case was no different. The embodiment of the human soul of Jesus was contingent on the consent of a young Jewish woman, whose "Yes" provided the means by which the Word assumed not merely a human nature as an individual soul, but the fullness of human nature that is manifest in embodiment. A spiritual soul cannot actualize its powers without a body, and Mary provided the means for the soul's conception, embryonic development, then (with Joseph and the community) its development in a family and culture.

The Logos, then, did NOT "create its own human nature" with the Incarnation; the Logos created its own human soul (that of the individual, Jesus) to become embodied in the womb of Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit acting on one of her ovums. This was not a different kind of human nature possessed by Jesus, but a soul and even body just like ours.

Bernadette wants to extract the human nature of the Christ from the individuality of the soul and from the human Jesus, but this goes against the teaching of the Church on the Incarnation. What we are left with in her schema is some kind of vague, abstract tendency of the Logos to assume a human nature, and while we can affirm the intent of the Logos to do so from all eternity, this is not yet the Incarnation, where the Logos actually becomes a human individual with a body.

Finally . . .

quote:

Reference to the man Jesus is always to a human being and never to God. “Jesus” is the particular man of the Gospels, the historical person no longer with us. With his resurrection and ascension his human nature was totally changed, transfigured and glorified, thus he is no longer the historical figure of the past, but remains the example (or icon) of everyman’s journey and eternal oneness with God.

That might be how she puts things in her book, but the Church has never considered Jesus to be just a human being . . . "the particular man of the Gospels" who embodies this abstract notion of the union of divinity and human nature that she calls Christ. I have addressed this above, but need to say now that his life is more than just a paradigm, "example (or icon) of everyman's journey and eternal oneness with God." Rather, our heavenly oneness with God is made possible "through him, with him and in him" as we say in the Mass. Jesus IS the Christ who reconnects humanity and divinity, elevating our status from human creatures to adopted sons and daughter of God, sharing in his own divinity. That's Christianity, Ma'am.

Furthermore, whatever else might have happened to Jesus' human nature through his death, resurrection and ascension, it is incorrect to say of the historical person that he "is no longer with us." Nor is it a faithful reading of the Scriptures and Tradition to say that he is "no longer the historical figure of the past." Bernadette might believe that she has lost her self and individuality, but that is not the point of the resurrection stories, where the risen Christ converses with Mary at the tomb, reveals himself to his Apostles, has Thomas place his hand in his side, eats grilled fish with them, teaches and even reproves them, then meets Paul on the road to Damascus. He is radically transformed -- not merely resuscitated -- but he is still Jesus. There is metaphysical continuity between the historical Person and the risen One. The doctrine of the communion of Saints also affirms a survival of individuality in the afterlife.

It seems to me that the whole point of this book (and perhaps Bernadette's body of writings, by extension) is to minimize the importance of Jesus and his Lordship over the Church. As such, these books cannot be affirmed as works on Christian spirituality and theology. The taunting, arrogant tone of her writings also attests to a very different spirit than one would expect to find in such a supposedly advanced mystic.

hello everyone---

please forgive me for dropping my agnst about this new book here.
i just discovered bernadette roberts, and have been reading her three published books since last june.
i went ahead and bought this book "the real christ"--- after spending two weeks with it, i am truly disturbed.

the book is mainly bernadette preaching her doctrine, which now is not even mainstream catholicism.

my head is still spinning, but some of her concepts that stick out-

bernadette's ferocious attack on the man Jesus, page after page of it. bernadette brings up the recent revelation of mother teresa's years of emptiness and no connection with Christ during her years of caring for the poor as PROOF that mother teresa was WRONG to be praying to or have a relationship with the man Jesus, when she should have been concentrating on Christ/LOGOS. bernadette says this error was taught to mother teresa early on by the jesuits.

she gives the example of some people who have converted to Islam because -they say- Christians worship Jesus, a man, and no man can be GOD. bernadette of course says this is true, no man can be GOD and all mainstream Christians have been taught incorrectly.

the thing is-- i know of no one who worships Jesus the man ONLY-- it is Jesus Christ, fully God and fully human, whom we worship. He is not either/or, he is BOTH. so i don't get what bernadette is getting so worked up about.

bernadette says this book is written specifically for Catholics, Protestants are too far gone to be helped (my take on what she wrote- i can get her exact wording, but it was similarly harsh)

bernadette says st.paul was WRONG in passages where he says GOD will be "all in all", using her own semantics to explain why this is impossible.

bernadette says st. paul was WRONG to say Christ "emptied himself" to become man (that wonderful kenosis doctrine), once again using her own vocabulary to explain why this is impossible.

there is much, much more. in this book bernadette has written a lot about church history, early church fathers, and who was right and who was wrong in their teachings on Christ-- most are WRONG. bernadette writes her doctrines as 100% fact.

i'm finding that bernadette is so rigid in her explanations that even her wording(!!) is more important than anyone else's interpretation of a topic. EVERYTHING she recounts to us is a fact. the reader will in time have to choose at one point whom to believe, because bernadette has discounted so MANY respected spiritual writers to make her points-- and in such a harsh manner.

and to cap it off, bernadette ends the book with a chapter on the Blessed Virgin Mary. starting with the doctrine of Mary as "God Bearer", she moves to Mary's suffering being so great that she is "co-redemptrix"-equal to Christ in the redemption of mankind, to --yes she goes there!!!-- Mary being a deity!!

bernadette says that Mary (whom i personally love and cherish in my spiritual life) is the LOGOS in feminine form-- in fact this is the same LOGOS that was in the man Jesus.

she goes so far to say that the trinity could be seen as FATHER, SON, and MARY.

for me personally-- who was so thrilled to discover bernadette roberts six months ago-this book is really a horror.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: marcco,