quote:

Originally posted by Derek:
[qb] What B then did that was different was to try to maintain this stillness in everyday life, no matter what was happening around her:

quote:

Then it occurred to me that patience, and perhaps all virtue, had a great deal to do with our nerves, and that the essence of virtue was to be completely unnerved--to have no nerves at all, that is. What could possibly try us if we had no nerves? Such a bodily condition would be near to a heavenly state; indeed, one could walk through fire, through death itself, unscathed and untouched.

...

I've never heard of anyone trying to dissociate themselves from their feelings like that. If practiced consistently for a decade or more ... isn't it possible that this by itself led to her loss of self? [/qb]

There is something disturbing about her determination above. It makes me wonder: was she led by God to desire such a detached posture or was it a willful act in an effort to defend against an onslaught of pain?

To want to walk through fire, through death, unscathed, untouched...reminds me of every child's primitive wish for omnipotence in the face of a hurtful world--a character style which remains in us always unless we do the work of healing/integrating.

Combine this with

--her denial of an individual self,
--that Jesus is not an individual soul,
--and that even God doesn't know who he is...

? I'm seeing a theme develop here...

And to suggest that the essense of virtue is to be unnerved? not really human, then...

Maybe Rebecca is on to something, that B may have gotton what she did ask for, in a sense, to be stubbornly defended against human vulnerabilities, she walked through death and rose again like Jesus, and she cannot be "touched" or known as an individual--even by herself.

Although, now I'm feeling uncomfortable because I don't want to pick on B or do anything disrespectful.

Phil--please delete my post if you feel this is inappropriate...

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12608c.htm [/qb]

Oh, now I see. That article points out that the term is used both sensu lato and sensu stricto, as we edumacated interlectuals put it. It distinguishes also a "semi-quietism." No wonder I was confused.

quote:

Originally posted by REBECCA:
[qb] nevermind! that was inapropriate! [/qb]

No problem. I was just joshing, too.

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:
[qb] Although, now I'm feeling uncomfortable because I don't want to pick on B or do anything disrespectful. [/qb]

I also feel a bit uncomfortable discussing someone we don't know like this. But B's central argument depends on her experiences. She makes it quite clear we won't find anything like this in the literature, because it's never been written down before. Given this dependence on her experiences, I think that to discuss her propositions at all we are inevitably led to examine those experiences.

HOWEVER or...WHATEVER! i was truly in a state of depression after reading her book. i cannot tell you what an EMMENCE and comfort it has been to know that i was not the only one confused and a bit put off by her book. and who knows, perhaps it is helping her in some way. i have already stated that i truly think it was an act of love on her part, to attempt such a book, but that doesn't mean she may want to re-think some things. or does the NO SELF mean that you have stopped growing. i don't think so.( we have already covered that!)

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:
[qb] ... and you have returned more dynamo, more down-to-earth, and clearer than ever ...

See, God does answer my prayers... [/qb]

When I am clear, I am tentative. When obscure, certain.

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:
[qb] And to suggest that the essense of virtue is to be unnerved? not really human, then...[/qb]

When I first came across that, it struck me as profoundly unincarnational. As Kung suggested in Eternal Life, roughly paraphrasing from a long ago reading, every beginning of a smile, every trace of human goodness ... will be eternalized.

quote:

Originally posted by Derek:
[qb]

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:
[qb] Although, now I'm feeling uncomfortable because I don't want to pick on B or do anything disrespectful. [/qb]

I also feel a bit uncomfortable discussing someone we don't know like this. But B's central argument depends on her experiences. She makes it quite clear we won't find anything like this in the literature, because it's never been written down before. Given this dependence on her experiences, I think that to discuss her propositions at all we are inevitably led to examine those experiences. [/qb]

Right, not to mention her books are a matter of public record. So long as we stay close to what she recounts there, all is well.

The "quietist" connection is especially relevant, especially the 17th C. movement connected with the writings of Molinos.

quote:

It was the Spaniards Michael de Molinos who developed Quietism in the strictest sense of the term. From his writings, especially from his "Dux spiritualis" (Rome, 1675), sixty-eight propositions were extracted and condemned by Innocent XI in 1687 (Denzinger-Bannwart, 1221 sqq.). The key-note of the system is contained in the first proposition: man must annihilate his powers and this is the inward way (via interna); in fact, the desire to do anything actively is offensive to God and hence one must abandon oneself entirely to God and thereafter remain as a lifeless body (prop. 2). By doing nothing the soul annihilates itself and returns to its source, the essence of God, in which it is transformed and divinized, and then God abides in it (5). In this inward way, the soul has not to think either of reward or of punishment, of heaven or hell, of death or eternity. It must not concern itself about its own state, its defects, or its progress in virtue; having once resigned its will to God it must let Him work out His will without any action of the soul itself (7-13).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12608c.htm

Interestingly, quietist practices seem to have led to enlightenment-like states and even pantheistic perspectives. Some aspects of B's writings and practices seem to have been quietistic, as Derek pointed out above. It seems that she wondered about this, at times, but clearly, she avoided the kinds of extreme errors that were eventually condemned by the Church.

- - -
If nothing else, B's writings help us to reflect more deeply on what the Church does teach about "the final things." I was drawn to much of what she wrote, but also found parts of it not resonating with my faith. Why was this, I wondered? What, precisely, did I agree and disagree with? So the encounter with her works and with her, personally, has been helpful unto growth.

quote:

Originally posted by Derek:
[qb] Given this dependence on her experiences, I think that to discuss her propositions at all we are inevitably led to examine those experiences. [/qb]

I think once we clarify what we think may be going on propositionally, then, we can set all that aside and focus more on what she reports experientially. She has given us a great gift with the generosity of her sharing of these profoundly personal experiences.

Apparently, her own interpretations of same have grown and changed through the years, as would be expected. Our interpretations of her experiences can change, too, through dialogue with other traditions and depthful consideration of our own, through feedback from her.

We needn't make more of this nor less of this than it really is: one pilgrim's story.

I think it would be a mistake to interpret it normatively, as if it could in any way be a map for anyone else. That is not how spiritual autobiographies work. They merely provide hints and clues and touchstones for the journey, letting us know, usually retrospectively, that, sometimes, we have been where others have trod, hence, have no fear. They really do not function to tell us, prospectively, where we are being led or which way to go in order to get there. We already have Scripture & Tradition and a Teaching Office to mediate that type of revelation to us.

For those called by temperament or vocation to a particular life of prayer, such depthful sharing as BR's, regarding some of the promises and pitfalls of experiences such as her own, can provide valuable insight, spiritually and psychologically. It doesn't provide metaphysical and theological revelations, at least not of universal import (vis a vis the norms for interpreting private revealtion).

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] If nothing else, B's writings help us to reflect more deeply on what the Church does teach about "the final things." I was drawn to much of what she wrote, but also found parts of it not resonating with my faith. Why was this, I wondered? What, precisely, did I agree and disagree with? So the encounter with her works and with her, personally, has been helpful unto growth. [/qb]

Yes, one wonders what she makes of such as Marian apparitions, or intercessory prayer through saints and the miracles associated with their canonization, and so on and so forth.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] clearly, she avoided the kinds of extreme errors that were eventually condemned by the Church.[/qb]

Yes. She is clearly NOT a quietist in the narrow sense. According to those 2006 retreatants, B made it quite clear she believes in the efficacy of going to Mass, confession, praying the rosary, and so on.

Many of her retreatants weren't even Christian and were surprised and put off by this. By the end of the first day, the original group of 30 was down to 20. One of those who stayed was left with the impression that, for B, the first step on the spiritual path is that "Jesus comes to you and makes you a Catholic."

http://www.tatfoundation.org/forum2006-08.htm#1

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] So long as we stay close to what she recounts there, all is well. [/qb]

Right, I think this is fair. I certainly do not want to employ such rhetoric as could wound anyone, or that would make my meeting of them in person awkward for either of us. How can we heal a divided Christendom and a broken world if the contemplative tradition does not practice compassion and solidarity within? I suppose I am extra sensitive to this dynamic because of the type of e-mail I have been responding to for several months: see this sample . I've made it a point not to get too defensive much less offensive with such people. In the first place, most suffer poor pedagogy of some type and, given that, one can expect them to see reality the way they do. I do wonder how many would say such stuff to my face? A few I guess. The point is, the Internet can not only be dehumanizing but depersonalizing. It is best, then, if we imagine the people with whom we correspond and about whom we correspond to be in our living room with us having tea and crumpets, or beer and pretzels, or wine and cheese, or Holy Communion.

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:

If such a loss of individuality is to be understood in terms of an ecstatic journeying to and from self-forgetfulness, analogous to ecstasy as it is ordinarily conceived and experienced, differing however in both quality and orders of magnitude, then I could accomodate what might be entailed by this spousal mysticism, which goes beyond, but not without, the unitive state. This would be an epistemic interpretation. And it begins to even put certain numinous experiences of my own in context, even if not perduring past a period of a few years, long ago now.

Thank you JB for your compassionate writings. What you are saying
here is helpful for me to start putting some of my experiences into context although i still have
to do some research to fully understand what you are saying.

I'm still a bit unclear what BR is meaning when she talks about no-self.
I know of a state where the mind can feel like it is dead. Yet it is not.
It is only quieted/transcended. But there is a higher functioning ego that takes over .

There is another state where one
really does die to the old way, a clean slate. The story i read mentioned
the person needing to be cared for and retaught everything as they were as a new born.
Does anyone know if BR has ever mentioned this anywhere in her writings.

Also it sounded to me as though BR experienced Kundalini. I seem
to remember hearing that she experienced severe headaches for a long time till her psychic center opened up. At that point she closed it seeing no need for it. Can anyone verify this for me?


BR wrote:
quote:

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

"If anyone wonders why John of the Cross and other mystics never talked about No-Self ,,,,cut"
________


Wasn't the majority of St. John of The Cross's writings destroyed/burned?
That only a small portion of his writings survived.
Thanks again for your compassionate writings.

Ajoy

I believe that what Bernadette is saying with the No/Self is: "Not I, but Christ lives in me. It is as simple as that.

She states that she died to self, resurrected and ascended as Christ in her living body.

Christ tells us that we will see Him as he is because we shall be like him. "Come and share the throne and the inheritance with me, are Christ's words. She states a union with this very same Christ, who now is embodied within her, like Christ waz embodied in Jesus of Nazareth before he became the Christ, a title given to him.

I believe this is the truth that Bernadette believes about her present spiritual state, and that she longs to convey this to all. Of course it is her truth, and one can either accept or reject same.

I believe that her sharing this gift of love by writing about her experiences is a testimony to all who seek the mystery of Christ, which she has found within her Mother Church and The Christian Mysteries. She is one of you, and is not against you.

Welcome back, Freebird. I'm wondering if you've read the thread and some of the difficulties we've addressed with B's writings?

You write: I believe this is the truth that Bernadette believes about her present spiritual state, and that she longs to convey this to all. Of course it is her truth, and one can either accept or reject same.

Fair enough, if that's all that was going on. She's speaking on more than her experiences, however, going further to comment on issues of doctrine and other world religions.

She states a union with this very same Christ, who now is embodied within her, like Christ waz embodied in Jesus of Nazareth before he became the Christ, a title given to him.

That's a good description of the unitive state, Freebird. What she's saying is that she's gone beyond that -- that there's no *her* within which the Christ lives. That's what disturbs and saddens some who read her -- the notion that, in the end, individuals don't even exist, and so what's the point of anything if that's the case?

Technical matter, here, too. There was never a time when Jesus wasn't the Christ, as your wording suggests. He didn't become the Christ; it's who he was from conception.

She is one of you, and is not against you.

No one has said she shouldn't be considered a Christian or Catholic, that her books should be burned, etc. We've been discussing her writings and some of its implications. That's all.

- - -

Ajoy, we have John of the Cross' and Teresa's writings. They were translated and circulated shortly after they lived.

- - -

JB et al -- no ad hominems toward BR that I've noted on this thread. I'm sensitive to that stuff, too, and would consider, for example, attempting a psychological profile of her inappropriate, even though she's dropped a few intriguing hints. Her remarks about quietism are highly relevant, especially since it seemed to concern her, to some extent, along the way. As Derek noted above, she's nowhere near a 17th C. quietist. There are degrees of quietism, as the term "semi-quietism" suggests. I don't know how much that fits, either. Some of her writings struck me as quietistic; then there are the consequences which ensued from her practice . . .

Yes, Hi Phil, happy to express. It is a most awesome sharing on this topic.

Quote: Phil on Bernadette.
What she's saying is that she's gone byond that --the notion that in the end, individuals don't even exist, and so what's the point of anything, if that's the case?.

Yes, this notion is absolutely heart breaking, yet, I am inclined to think that same may be true.
Bernadette has also stated that this state of her being no more and that only Christ lives in her without the self is really not something that God wishes for us here on earth right now. My heart truly goes out to her with great love.

Our life to come with God is to be exactly like Christ, you, I and everyone else on this earth. The whole kingdom of God will be sons and daughters who will be identical to Christ. Picture a giant mystical body of Christ, and each one of us, cells of his body, being identical in appearance to every other cell within this body, all Christs.

Presently we can gaze upon a photograph of a hundred people and each one of us can pick out of the photograph their individual being. A photograph from the kingdom of God of a hundred Christs, would leave us without any personal identification nor individulity whatsoever.

This very same self identification of our present appearances, loves, smiles, tears, tenderness, kindness, etc. and etc., would be totally embraced as one in Christ shared by us all. I have cried and cried coming to this realization, that our individual existence may be no more. Again, I will state Christ's words: "You will se me as I am, because you will be like me". I wish this would not be as such, but these words certainly testify to same.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] JB et al -- no ad hominems toward BR that I've noted on this thread. I'm sensitive to that stuff, too . . . [/qb]

Right, I'm merely reinforcing the direction and not, rather, sensing a need to redefine it

In some sense, I suppose I'm anticipating some extra cybertraffic hereabouts ...

Freebird quoted:
"Our life to come with God is to be exactly like Christ, you, I and everyone else on this earth. The whole kingdom of God will be sons and daughters who will be identical to Christ. Picture a giant mystical body of Christ, and each one of us, cells of his body, being identical in appearance to every other cell within this body, all Christs".

I see "All Christ".

Thank you all for this interesting discussion.

Freebird, unless I'm misunderstanding the resurrection and ascension, the individual "Jesus" is still very much there.

quote:

Presently we can gaze upon a photograph of a hundred people and each one of us can pick out of the photograph their individual being. A photograph from the kingdom of God of a hundred Christs, would leave us without any personal identification nor individulity whatsoever.

How do you know? To say that our individual souls will be completely animated by the Christ life -- that we will know and love with his knowing -- does not entail the loss of our individuality. The individual soul is immortal; it lives forever.

quote:

Picture a giant mystical body of Christ, and each one of us, cells of his body, being identical in appearance to every other cell within this body, all Christs.

Yes, cells living by the life of the body, but not identical in appearance nor even identity. Where do you get that? Paul speaks of many parts in the body. That's the biblical metaphor.

A love that destroys individuality and reduces all to "sameness" isn't worth pursuing -- isn't even worthy of being called "love." If, in the end, the individual is lost, then life is pointless and God turns out to be some kind of Ogre who devours creation to build Himself up.

Quote: Freebird, unless I'm misunderstanding the resurrection and ascension, the individual "Jesus" is still very much there.
___________________________________
My understanding of Bernadette's experience is that she believes that first in her Unitive State with God (other half) she fully merged her soul with God (other half) followed by the merger with Christ, and now all that remains is Christ who has resurrected and ascended in her. She states: "not I, but Christ lives in me". I do not think that she continues to speak of an individual soul remaining in her experience. The individual soul of Bernadette (according to her) is no more, and all that remains is Christ. She does not speak of "Jesus". As she has said: "I never cared for the human Jesus, nor had any devotion to him, but cared about the mystery of Christ.

quote:

Originally posted by johnboy:
[qb]. . . Yes, one wonders what she makes of such as Marian apparitions, or intercessory prayer through saints and the miracles associated with their canonization, and so on and so forth. [/qb]

Right. The doctrine of the assumption of Mary declares that she lives in heaven as Jesus does, body and soul. The doctrine of the Communion of Saints also affirms a continuance of individual human persons in the afterlife. Apparitions of Mary and the Saints approved by the Church lend further credence to this.

Additionally, there are countless people who've had near-death experiences and have encountered deceased loved ones on the other side.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience
Just what, precisely, is going on here is unknown, but it's a rich source of metaphysical data to reflection upon.

Trumping all, however, is the revelation disclosed by Jesus Christ. I'll stake my hopes there rather than on the private revlations of a few whose spiritual practices might well account for the kind of consciousness (or lack thereof) they experience.

quote:

Originally posted by Freebird:
[qb]. . .I do not think that she continues to speak of an individual soul remaining in her experience. The individual soul of Bernadette (according to her) is no more, and all that remains is Christ. [/qb]

Freebird, she never, ever speaks of the soul in the sense that the Church understands it -- a created immortal spirit. You're reading things into her writings that just aren't there.

shasha and all, i have always been fascinated with the words of Christ Jesus, who often "knew more than He told";(JB). when He said"...IN MY FATHERS HOUSE THERE ARE MANY MANSIONS",(SHASHA and FREEBIRD) i believe that to possibly be an indication that we KEEP our individuality in our Spirit and are placed in a place by God, in order that we may learn, teach, commune, ect. i believe that God would not take away out FREE WILL, EVER, but we become more adept at using it after this life. if LIFE after death is something we believe ,and God knows how we define LIFE,( in human terms on this earth) then why would He take that away unless it is to replace it with something more GLORIOUS? i do not believe that we serve a God who stoops to 'playing games ' with our head. just some thoughts,FREEBIRD, and if i am dabbling in heresy,...PLEASE,...someone STOP ME! LOVE IN HIM, rebecca

quote:

Originally posted by Ajoy:
[qb]Wasn't the majority of St. John of The Cross's writings destroyed/burned? That only a small portion of his writings survived.[/qb]

Salablanca made dozens and dozens of changes to St. John of the Cross's writings when he prepared the first published edition of 1618. This was to prevent John's being classified as an alumbrado, or early form of quietist. However, only the Spiritual Canticle was left out in its entirety, and all omissions and changes are restored in twentieth century editions.

has anyone heard of the website,"TWITTER"?this website is SO MUCH a better use of energy.( really, what are people THINKING?) oops! sorry, i thought i was healed from my ADD.( ad gremlin)rebecca