Hi everybody,

A week or so ago I emailed Phil that I had just finished chapter one of a book that I am working on which centers around what the apostle Paul referred to as the mystery of Christ in you. I asked him if he would give it a read and he suggested that I post it and make it available to the group and invite your responses. I thought that was a great idea. So he has since uploaded it and you can find it by clicking on the following link: web page: shalomplace.com/res/MysteryofChrist.pdf

Chapter one is 14 pages and takes about 30 minutes to read. So it will definitely require more of a time commitment on your part than simply reading a post. Consequently, if this is a subject that interests you and you are able to make the time, I will most certainly be in your debt. In fact, I am keenly interested in all of your responses whether they be positive or not. So don't hesitate to be critical since it is your criticisms that I will be most interested in. Before you read it, however, I thought I would post an introduction which, I am pleased to report, is considerably shorter in length. So, here you go and thanks in advance for your time and thoughts.

Introduction

A few years ago I experienced an extraordinary mental and spiritual transformation through which I have discovered, in a very deep and meaningful way, what it means to be truly live one's life in Christ. Since that time, in retrospect, I have come to appreciate the huge difference between what Paul might refer to as the life in Christ and sporadic experiences of being in Christ. The first addresses a stage of mental and spiritual development in which one is in Christ in mind, heart, body, and soul on a day to day basis, while the second refers to fleeting experiences which, as deeply felt and profound as they may be, tend to occur on an irregular and often unpredictable basis. The reason I make this distinction is because, based on my own experience, when the natural mind functions in a day to day conscious unity with the Christ within us the intellect and faculty of reason soon become secondary to the guiding and informing influence of the Christ within us. What I mean by this is that when one is truly in Christ the rational powers of the intellect no longer serve as the primary source of one's knowledge, truth, and understanding.

To me, for example, although it wasn't literally an overnight sort of thing, it seems as though I simply awoke one morning in a new and higher mind, a mind in which I have found that knowledge of the hidden nature of things comes from within me in a very direct, distinct, and immediate way. This could be compared, for example, to the conventional step by step method of acquiring knowledge through a logical and rational thought process, arriving at conclusions based on premises, that is. In addition, rather than perceiving fragments of truth, or pieces of knowledge, in this higher mind I see the truth of things in a very broad, expansive, and holistic way.

The reason I am bringing this up is because a few years ago in Christ, as Paul would say, I came to what I can only describe as a knowledge and understanding of the mystery of the Christ within us which is unlike anything that has ever been taught in the history of the Christian church. However, as new as this understanding may be, it is deeply rooted in the bible and what the church believes about the nature of God. In contemporary thinking, though, this mystery of being would more likely be looked upon from the perspective of the nature of consciousness/being within us.

With these thoughts in mind the following is an attempt on my part to put into words what I perceive to be the nature of the Christ within us in relation to the nature of the human soul. I should warn you at the outset, however, that what you are about to explore is a model of the nature of being which will demand a radical conceptual shift on your part, a shift, that is, in your thinking concerning the nature of the divine within the human as well as your own innermost nature. I should also add that by the time you come to the end of chapter one you may feel that what you have just read conflicts with some basic doctrines and beliefs of the church. What you should keep in mind, however, is that ontology, not theology or church doctrines and dogmas, is the primary subject that we will be exploring. Hence, although there are certainly areas of commonality between these subjects, what is relevant to one is not necessarily relevant to the other. As you read the following, then, it will be critical to be open and receptive to a new concept and a new understanding of your own deepest nature. It is equally important, of course, to question everything that you read with a critical eye, but to hopefully do so in the light of the Spirit of Truth within you.


So, there you go everybody. This briefly introduces what lies ahead. Thanks in advance for your time and thoughts and I am looking forward to your comments and responses. I know that time is a precious commodity these days and I appreciate yours.

God bless,

Roger

Dear Roger,

Thank you for sharing your reflections with us. I would like to read your chapter. Give me a few days, and I will get back with you.

I admire that you are trying to put into words what is such a deep mystery.

much peace to you and your family,
in Christ,

shasha

I took a look at your chapter and like it already. Looking forward to reading the whole thing. I'll let you know what I think.

Katy

Thanks Shasha and Katy. Looking forward to your comments.

God bless,

Roger

Roger,

I read your Chapter 1. Very interesting indeed. Though I think I will have to re read the parts about "man in you begets the son of man in you.." I agree with your "bottom line", that the heart of the gospel is that Christ lives in us. Years ago I knew a pastor who said it was a good idea to replay over and over in your mind "not I but Christ Who lives in me."

Now let me comment on something(from a woman's point of view). You write "...for two thousand years untold numbers of highly intelligent scholars, some of whom represent the most brilliant minds in the history of the church, have devoted themselves to the study of the bible and Christian theology. How could it have so completely eluded them all?"

Along with your "answer" to this, I would say, that is exactly the point. It is because almost all these "highly intelligent scholars" were men. And they were brilliant all right.. but not using their "whole" brain.. the feminine "right brain" to be more specific.

As the human race has evolved, that is not so much the case any longer.. people are becoming more intuitive. I think you get my drift?

I did enjoy your writing very much, as this is one of my favorite topics.

Katy

Hi Katy,

Thanks so much for your thoughtful response. Regarding the begetting principle of being which I refer to in the statement �man in you begets the son of man in you� it may help to re-read the following two principles of being of the model which I proposed and introduced beginning on page 4, keeping the imagery in mind, of course:

1. In their original state all of the trees in this orchard were one in essence and being in the life that was dormant in the first seed that you planted: a corporate and timeless mode of being in which the many are one and the one will become many. Hence, the orchard and every tree in it is the existent state, or the physical embodiment, of a life that was once dormant within a single seed.
2. When each seed that you planted germinated in the soil the corporate essence that would awaken within it would beget one of its kind: the essence of an individual and particular tree.

Needless, to say, of course, this model of the nature of consciousness and being is quintessentially abstract and unquestionably requires one to tap into the 'right brain', our capacity, that is, to see things holistically or develop a vision of wholeness. Hopefully, though, the imagery that I use will lighten the mental load.

Also, your comment �from a woman's point of view� has even broader implications than you suggested, though implications which I expect you are quite well aware of. For example, I was very involved in a congregation some years ago where the shift in leadership actually tilted towards women being in the primary decision making roles and the over all impact on the life of the congregation was something to behold. In fact, though this was not a Catholic denomination, I would say that the term 'holy mother the church� took on a whole new meaning in the sense that the shift resulted in a distinctly more caring, or care-giving, approach to the members at large.

Thanks again for your comments and for taking the time to read chapter one.

God bless,

Roger

Hey Roger,

Started reading chp1, looks good and really interesting...will let you know more once I am done

Roger:

I've read most of your first chapter, and admire what seems to be happening in you. It's hard to surmise from your writing what is unique with respect to Christian orthodox teaching on the Divine Indwelling. From your own subjective pov there are probably facets that seem, or perhaps are, unprecedented. But graced-embodied spiritual knowing transcending the faculty of reason, along with the apex of the soul having an infusion of this Presence from within the Trinity, is already the teaching of St. Julian of Norwich and St. John of the Cross, among many others.

Here are some links to consider:

http://www.martinisrael.u-net....hts/meditation4.html


http://www.ewtn.com/library/SPIRIT/FR91301.TXT

___________________________________

And here are Julian and John, who both require poetry in some measure to express this mystery within the soul:


"But I lay still awake, and then our Lord opened my spiritual eyes, and showed me my soul in the midst of my heart. I saw my soul as wide as if it were a kingdom, and from the state which I saw in it, it seemed to me as if it were a fine city. In the midst of this city sits our Lord Jesus, true God and true man, a handsome person and tall, honorable, the greatest Lord. And I saw him splendidly clad in honors. He sits erect there in the soul, in peace and rest, and he rules and he guards heaven and earth and everything that is. The humanity and the divinity sit at rest, and the divinity rules and guards, without instrument or effort. And my soul is blessedly occupied by the divinity, sovereign power, sovereign wisdom, sovereign goodness.

The place which Jesus takes in our soul he will nevermore vacate, for in us is his home of homes, and it is the greatest delight for him to dwell there. This was a delectable and a restful sight, for it is so in truth forevermore; and to contemplate this while we are here is most pleasing to God, and very great profit to us. And the soul who thus contemplates is made like to him who is contemplated, and united to him in rest and peace. And it was a singular joy and bliss to me that I saw him sit, for the contemplation of this sitting revealed to me the certainty that he will dwell in us forever; and I knew truly that it was he who had revealed everything to me before. And when I had contemplated this with great attention, our Lord very humbly revealed words to me, without voice and without opening of lips, as he had done before, and said very seriously: Know it well, it was no hallucination which you saw today, but accept and believe it and hold firmly to it, and you will not be overcome."


"Julian of Norwich: Showings," in Classics of Western Spirituality, 1978, pp. 163-164.

__________________________________________

And from St. John of the Cross:

"What more do you want, o soul! And what else do you search for outside, when within yourself you possess your riches, delights, satisfaction and kingdom -- your beloved whom you desire and seek? Desire him there, adore him there. Do not go in pursuit of him outside yourself. You will only become distracted and you won't find him, or enjoy him more than by seeking him within you."

http://www.onelittleangel.com/...tes/saint.asp?mc=201
_________________________________________

"There, their bare understanding is drenched through by the Eternal Brightness, even as the air is drenched through by the sunshine. And the bare, uplifted will is transformed and drenched through by abysmal love, even as iron is by fire. And the bare, uplifted memory feels itself enwrapped and established in an abysmal Absence of image. And thereby the created image is united above reason in a threefold way with its Eternal Image, which is the origin of its being and its life.

Yet the creature does not become God, for the union takes place in God through grace and our homeward-turning love: and therefore the creature in its inward contemplation feels a distinction and an otherness between itself and God. And though the union is without means, yet the manifold works that God works in heaven and on earth are nevertheless hidden from the spirit. For though God gives himself as he is, with clear discernment, he gives himself in the essence of the soul, where the powers of the soul are simplified above reason, and where, in simplicity, they suffer the transformation of God. There all is full and overflowing, for the spirit feels itself to be one truth and one richness and one unity with God. Yet even here there is an essential tending forward, and therein is an essential distinction between the being of the soul and the Being of God; and this is the highest and finest distinction that we are able to feel."


John Ruusbroec (1293-1381)

John Ruusbroec, adapted from the translation by Evelyn Underhill in Mysticism (London: Methuen, 1911).

W.C.

Thanks for the quotes and links. I will be following and exploring them later on this morning!

You wrote,

quote:

It's hard to surmise from your writing what is unique with respect to Christian orthodox teaching on the Divine Indwelling. From your own subjective pov there are probably facets that seem, or perhaps are, unprecedented. But grace-embodied spiritual knowing transcending the faculty of reason, along with the apex of the soul having an infusion of this Presence from within the Trinity, is already the teaching of St. Julian of Norwich and St. John of the Cross, among many others.

Actually, I couldn't agree with you more and, from the broader perspective of "grace-embodied spiritual knowing" and the reality of the Divine Indwelling, didn't intend to communicate any substantial uniqueness or anything unprecedented in that regard. However, the primary subject of chapter one is a model of the nature of consciousness\being within us which, rather than focusing solely on the Divine Indwelling, speaks to the nature of the soul as it exists in Christ. It is the model of the soul-in-Christ which is unique, though it is supported scripturally every step of the way and is deeply rooted in what the church believes about the trinitarian nature of God.

Thanks for your comments and especially the quotes and links you offered.

God bless,

Roger

W.C.

I followed the second link in your first post and read �St. John of the Cross and the Hidden God� by Fr. Donald Haggerty with great interest. I not only enjoyed reading it and appreciated it immensely, it helped to put into a much clearer perspective what you were wanting to communicate to me. Based on what Fr. Haggerty wrote concerning the teachings of John of Cross, I would say that we are in complete agreement on the following points:

a) The path to oneness and union with God is most certainly not by way of the intellect but, instead, is a journey of faith, love, and devotion. b) The "knowledge through love" of which John of the Cross speaks is an infinitely higher knowledge than is suggested by what Paul refers to as the "mystery of Christ in you", as well as everything and all that I have written. c) The intellect, in its natural mode of understanding, cannot understand the nature of God or the mystery of Christ. As John of the Cross himself said, �Everything that the intellect can understand, the will experience, and the imagination picture is most unlike and disproportioned to God.�

Having said that, however, what immediately comes to mind is what Paul himself wrote in Romans 1:20, "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead." What is intriguing about these words in relation to the above is that Paul is unequivocally speaking here of a clarity and understanding of the divine nature that can be mediated in and through the created order. So, how does one reconcile what John of the Cross and Fr Haggerty have stated so clearly with what Paul has stated with equal clarity? Is the intellect in its natural mode capable of such an understanding? Of course not! Which is precisely why I wrote,

quote:

�to speak of one's mind being in Christ, for example, is to refer to a transcendent state in which the natural mind functions in a conscious unity with the indwelling Christ. As a result of this unity the former becomes unmistakably secondary to the latter so that, in actuality, the rational powers of the intellect no longer serve as the primary source of one's knowledge, truth, and understanding.�

In addition, the model of the nature of the Christ within us which I proposed not only follows from what Paul said in Romans 1:20, it emerged, of all places, from a tiny apple seed, a seed taken from the fruit of the tree of knowledge. I guess what I am saying here is that although it may appear that what I have written, based on what John of the Cross taught, shouldn't be possible at all, in Christ all things are possible.

Thanks again for your links and comments.

God bless,

Roger

Roger:

Yes, so you are differentiating, it seems ontologically, "the soul as it exists in Christ" from the Divine Indwelling. I'll look to Julian of Norwich and Ruusbroec for something like this, as they both seemed to have made a similar distinction somewhere.

Here's a beginning in Ruusbroec, from his "Spiritual Espousals" :

"The first and highest unity is in God; for all creatures hang in this unity with their being, life, and substance; and if they should be cut off in this way from God, they would fall into nothingness and be annihalated. This unity is in us essentially by nature, whether we are good or evil, and it renders us neither holy or blessed without our efforts. We possess this unity in ourselves, and in fact, above ourselves, as a principle and support of our being and of our life. A second union, or unity, is also in us by nature, that is, the unity of the higher faculties, where they take their natural origin as to their activity: in the unity of the spirit or of the mind. This is the same unity which is hanging in God, but in the latter instance we understand it as active, and in the former as essential. Nevertheless, the spirit is totally within each unity, according to the entirety of its substance. We posses this unity in ourselves, above sensory perception, and from it come memory and intellect and will and every faculty of spiritual activity. In this unity, we call the soul "spirit." The third unity which is in us by nature is the domain of the bodily faculties in unity of heart, the beginning and origin of the bodily life. The soul possesses this unity in the body and in the natural vigor of the heart; and from it flow all bodily activity and the five senses. Here the soul is therefore called "soul", since it is the form of the body, and it animates the body, that is, it makes it a living thing and keeps it living. These three unions exist in us naturally as one life and as one kingdom. On the lowest (level), we are sensitive and animal; on the middle (level), we are rational and spiritual; on the highest (level), we are upheld essentially. And this is natural in all mankind (p. 61)."


"The Spiritual Espousals: Jan van Ruusbroec," translated by Helen Rolfson, 1995.

And something more from Julian of Norwich:

"For all mankind which will be saved by the sweet Incarnation and the Passion of Christ, all is Christ's humanity, for he is the head, and we are his members, to which members the day and the time are unknown when every passing woe and sorrow wil have an end, and everlasting joy and bliss will be fulfilled, which day and time all the company of heaven longs and desires to see. And all who are under heaven and will come there, their way is shown in the servant standing before the lord, or otherwise, in the Son standing before the Father in Adam's tunic. For the longing and desire of all mankind which will be saved appeared in Jesus, for Jesus is in all who will be saved, and all who will be saved are in Jesus . . . (p. 276)."


"Julan of Norwich: Showings," The Classics of Western Spirituality, 1978.

W.C.

What wonderful phrases, �all is Christ's humanity, for he is the head, and we are his members� and �in Adam's tunic.� They radiate truths which are near and dear to my heart. But especially these words of Ruusbroec' which you quoted from his "Spiritual Espousals":

quote:

"The first and highest unity is in God; for all creatures hang in this unity with their being, life, and substance; and if they should be cut off in this way from God, they would fall into nothingness and be annihalated. This unity is in us essentially by nature, whether we are good or evil, and it renders us neither holy or blessed without our efforts. We possess this unity in ourselves, and in fact, above ourselves, as a principle and support of our being and of our life.

Thanks for the time you are taking in preparing these posts. I am finding the exchange among the members of the group, such as between you and I this morning, to be exciting. I don't know if you recall from previous posts of mine on other subjects, but I spent several hours a day for years praying and meditating on the bible. I love the scriptures with a passion that most people would reserve for another person. However, and this is a big 'however', the drawback in my particular experience is that I am not only seriously lacking in the kind of knowledge that you and Phil, for example, are so obviously strong in, I have had zero level contact with others whose spiritual path tends more towards the mystical. So when you respond with insights such as you have shared this morning, I find it quite thrilling and quickly see ways in which I can improve and build on chapter one.

I should also add that I am well aware that the ontological model that I have presented will inevitably generate a great deal of resistance, if for no other reason, simply because it is new. So resistance will be no surprise to me and will certainly not offend me. However, let me give you something to think about for a moment. Imagine someone approaching you with the notion that the mystery of Christ, the soul's beingness in Christ, is comprehensible, strictly in principle, of course, from the perspective of the nature of the life that is dormant within a tiny apple seed. How ridiculously absurd would that sound to you? And yet, based on the natural laws that are dormant within that very seed, metaphorically speaking, I have presented a model of the nature of consciousness and being in you which reflects harmony and wholeness, is logically consistent, does not propose anything to be so which is inherently illogical or unreasonable, and is supported at every step by what the authors of the New Testament wrote over two thousand years ago. How unlikely and illogical is that? I think you will get my point.

Thanks again for your insights.

God bless,

Roger

Roger:

As elegant a metaphor as you present, I'm still not sure it implies anything new in the history of Christian mystical theology. The idea that all souls inhere in the second person of the Trinity through which all things are created is already a part of orthodox thinking, both among Catholics and Eastern orthodox, as this ontology is the foundation of the Divine Indwelling via Christ's Incarnation, wherein the fullness of the Trinity can manifest through grace in the soul.

So perhaps I'm not clear where you're seeing the metaphor of the apple seed and its generation as revealing a novel paradigm. It would help if you could explain how that metaphor isn't being essentially captured by Ruusbroec and Julian of Norwich.

W.C.

I see now where what I have written needs more clarifying. As you have just said,

quote:

The idea that all souls inhere in the second person of the Trinity through which all things are created is already a part of orthodox thinking, both among Catholics and Eastern orthodox, as this ontology is the foundation of the Divine Indwelling via Christ's Incarnation, wherein the fullness of the Trinity can manifest through grace in the soul.

Firstly, I hope you know that it is not important to me that what I am saying is new and different. That is not the point at all. However, I can't help but think that since you raise the question, then I haven't made things as clear as I thought. Not that real clarity is an easy thing to achieve on a subject as abstract as the nature of consciousness and being.

Having said that, what you described in the above quote is essentially what I have referred to in chapter one as the �corporate nature of the soul� as it exists in Christ which, in my mind at least, means that all persons are one in the Christ who dwells within each and all of us. Which is to say, we are all one in the divine life in which we each exist: I am in you and you are in me in the Christ who dwells within us. I think that we are both on the same page here and we are both aware that we are referring to a very subtle level of one's consciousness and being. However, I would say that there is an important distinction that needs to be made that has not been made in anything that you have said thus far and it is this: the nature of the many who are one in the Christ within each of us is human and not divine.

Think about that for a moment. Although there is nothing intuitively startling about this distinction the ontological implications which follow from it are most certainly not reflected in orthodox teaching. You see, if we think of the fundamental reality of our being as the soul-in-Christ, the oneness which we have just referred to is a property of the soul, not the Divine Presence in us. This simply means that, while our oneness is most certainly in Christ, the oneness itself inheres in the nature of the soul. This is why I proposed that the human soul, in its most fundamental nature, is a corporate consciousness in which man, the whole of the human race, is one in being, or one being, in Christ. This, of course, sheds a whole new light on the statement that Paul made in 1 Corinthians 15:22, �For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. This is one area where the ontology that I have presented is not captured at all by Ruusbroec and Julian of Norwich.

Another emerges from an obvious question which arises from such an understanding of the soul and it is this: If the root nature of the human soul is a consciousness which is intrinsically corporate, from whence arises the uniqueness and individuality of the human person? The answer which I proposed to this question is that �man in you begets the son of man in you.� Which is to say, inherent in the nature of the soul is the power to beget the essence of one's individual self which, in more contemporary terms is referred to as one's ego or conscious self. The implications of this proposition, in turn, are outlined from the bottom of p.7 to the bottom of p.10 and are a little too lengthy to go into in a single post.

I hope that this gives you a clearer idea of where what I have written can be distinguished from the quotes and insights that you have provided.

Thanks again for the thoughtfulness and the time you have devoted to all of this.

God bless,

Roger

I don't know Roger . . . . being "one in being" and being "one being" are quite different. Catholic theology, as I understand it, wouldn't hold that all souls arise as a singular presence and then differentiate themselves by their own powers, but that the power of differentiation is rooted in the Trinity, with souls created/individuated through the second person. Inasmuch as our origin is in Him, any oneness would be understood as such. Likeness to each other, or shared beingness, both as creatures and in Him, yes. And this may be where the fruit tree analogy breaks down, as there are many kinds of fruit trees, yet all bear fruit, as in the "one body, many members" analogy. The different parts arise from the same creation, but are distinct from the very beginning, long before they exercise their innate powers of differentiation. So as Ruusbroec shows, there are different levels of unity, but oneness in both essence and form belongs to God alone.

As such, it may not be correct, from an orthodox Christian pov, to say "the root nature of the human soul is a consciousness which is intrinsically corporate, from whence arises the uniqueness and individuality of the human person." We would probably agree to the corporate nature of souls, but I wouldn't say the root of this is in human consciousness (not eternal, but a creature), but within the uncreated Trinity that it reflects, or models itself after.

W.C.

You are absolutely right in saying that being "one in being" and being "one being" are quite different, but that is not quite what I intended to say, though I can see how you would think that. Instead, I would say something more like, .....being "one in being" and being "one being" in Christ, which is the qualifier here, are not different at all.

Also, I think that it is important to differentiate between the two words person and soul in the sense that all that constitutes one's personhood should not, for my vote, at least, be equated with all that constitutes one's soul or the totality of one's being. Hence, it wouldn't occur to me to say, as you said above, that �all souls arise as a singular presence and then differentiate themselves by their own powers.� The Trinity, of course, is the archetypal example of this in that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three divine and distinct Persons who are, at the same time, one in Being. Hence, the distinction, admittedly a somewhat mysterious one, between personhood and being. In any event, this is precisely what I am referring to when I speak of the fundamental corporateness of the soul, implying that a plurality of individually distinct persons are, at the same time, one in being in Christ. So you could say that the Trinity is the template while the soul is the image: a Trinity of one and a plurality of one, so to speak. The end result, however, and this point certainly does not elude me, is that the pattern of thinking that I have followed is supported by orthodox thinking, but not the substance of the thought itself.

In the final analysis, though, all of this would amount to nothing more than pure conjecture and speculation if there were no evidence in the New Testament that the apostles themselves were aware of what I have called the corporate nature of the soul. But that is simply not the case, which is why I presented the demon named Legion, the whore named Babylon, the bride named Jerusalem, the patriarch named Israel, and the soul named man. The latter two, of course, are not strictly New Testament references, but since they broaden the picture to include the bible as a whole, including them is material to the point I am attempting to make.

You see, in biblical times names were frequently chosen to reflect something of the nature or characteristics of the one named. Hence, if you consider these names in light of that custom, what is to me an obvious conclusion becomes entirely plausible: the biblical authors who used them deliberately used this custom as a literary tool to veil, and thereby preserve, the mystery of being which I have described as the corporate nature of the soul. This would then suggest, though at a very subtle level, of course, that what was implied in these names is, .....the many who are one in the demon named Legion, the many who are one in the whore named Babylon, the many who are one in the bride named Jerusalem, the many who are one in the patriarch named Israel, and the soul named man.

This is especially evident in Mark 5:9. In that verse Jesus demanded of the demon, �What is thy name?� And the demon answered him, saying, �My name is Legion: for we are many.� Which is a hand in glove fit when it comes to the very point I am attempting to make here concerning the innermost nature of one's soul or the deepest nature of one's being. But Mark didn't just stop there and went even further. For example, when Jesus commanded the demon to come out of the man he begged to be sent, not into a single swine, but into the whole herd of swine which, though the subject is demons and not man, since demons owe the origin of their being to God no less than man, it precisely parallels what it means to say that man is the body of Christ in the world.

All of this, however, brings us to what could be construed as a very thorny issue since, when you put all that I have just said together, especially chapter one as a whole, it would seem that I am at odds with Catholic teaching, specifically the magisterium, or the teaching office of the church. And, yet, the difference itself between the ontology which I have presented and the church's teaching on the nature of the soul and the indwelling divine Presence does not, strictly speaking, reflect opposition. For example, if you confine your thinking at this point to an issue which, for convenience sake, we could term 'false beliefs' and you actually study what I have written, there simply is no intrinsic polarity between what I have proposed and what the church teaches. Now, although that may not seem to be the case at the surface level, it actually is at the deepest level. The same, of course, is similarly true for me in that I could never, in good conscience, say that what the church teaches is untrue or false. Ultimately, then, this is where we stand, a difference without opposition.

Having said that, however, I respect that this website is not mine and I would never use it, so to speak, to propound anything resembling anti-Catholic thinking. That is not the way I think or the way that I feel. And it is most certainly not the way I would behave as a member of this group. In fact, when Phil invited me to post chapter one for the group to comment on, I cautioned him in two separate emails to have someone like yourself give it a read for this very reason. Consequently I will leave it up to you where we go from here. In any case, I would like you to know that I have personally experienced our exchanges here as a most stimulating meeting of the minds.

Thanks again for all of the time and thought that you have invested in these posts.

God bless,

Roger

Roger:

Unfortunately, the differences from, and similarities to, Catholic theology in your paradigm are not at all clear to me, and since you say you're not well-educated in this tradition of scholarship, we should probably ask Phil for his comments.

I don't think I'm taking any strong exception to your notion of the soul's corporate nature, but am not sure it is a novel metaphor with respect to Catholic mystical theology; it may well be, but so far our exchanges haven't clarified, for me, where those essential differences are.


Phil . . . any thoughts?

W.C.

That sounds like a plan to me. Thanks again.

God bless,

Roger

I've been following the exchanges via email notifications I receive, but am, unfortunately, unable to take the time to read Roger's essay first-hand and then reflect and write about it. Very busy days, here, and I have to "triage" my mental energy or else I become fatigued and worthless to anyone. Maybe if you could succinctly phrase some of the questions or issues you'd like my feedback about . . . that would be easier to respond to.

Re. the corporate nature of the soul, I've already written much about that in God, Self and Ego, which is based on St. Thomas' metaphysics. For Thomas, human nature is one (species) consisting of individual beings who all possess this nature in such manner that we are all fully and completely human, but each in our own way. This uniqueness derives (we would now say) from our genetic profile and our conditioning; it also seems that God makes individual souls differently, but we don't fully understand how that works. The Catholic Church teaches this idea of the fundamental unity of the human race, so it's not heterodox -- at least, not in the way I've just presented it. What's implied, here, is that while there are individual souls/beings, the nature of our being is such that it is shared with and by all other humans -- in a manner analogous to how the Persons of the Trinity share in the Godhead. Deep down inside, there is a connection to the whole race -- indeed the cosmos. This understanding helps to clarify how the Word, in becoming human, introduces the divine life directly into human nature in a new way through the medium of Christ. Etc. etc. Nothing new in any of this, but, as I say, I haven't read Roger's essay, so I'm not sure where the points of agreement/disagreement might be.

Phil,

It is funny how the mind works. I was concerned with the perception of others relative to what I was saying, including yours and W.C.'s, when all along it was my own perception of Catholic teaching that got in my way. I read the article on "Individuality" in the Catholic Encyclopedia and assumed from what St. Thomas was quoted as saying that the church teaches that the human soul is a fundamentally individual, separate, and distinct thing. I guess this is where my lack of academic scholarship comes to the fore.

Now that I have gotten my own mind out of my own way in that regard I am gratified to know that we are all working from the same page, even though we may not necessarily phrase what is on that page in the very same way. As a result, I can see that chapter one will need some re-writing. Also, I will be reading your paper on "God, Self, and Ego the first chance I get and will be doing some serious exploring of mystical theology which W.C. has referred to a number of times in his posts.

Thanks and appreciation to both of you for your help.

God bless,

Roger

Dear Roger,

I just finished reading your chapter. Thank you for sharing your reflections with me. It is really beautiful to see, at least a glimpse, of somebody whose life has been so deeply transformed by Christ. I was touched by your statement:...I have come to know the true meaning and blessings of a state of grace...� Thank you, Father!! We thank you!!

I don't have any education in theology and have only read a smattering of the Christian mystics, so I can't comment on w.c.'s comment that your main thesis is not unique. The apple orchard metaphor was really great, I thought, to depict the unity of all souls.

In reading your chapter, I'd say it sounds like you're describing what Eastern mysticism would call the Self, the Absolute, Brahman, etc. Just replace the word �Christ� for their language and it sounds like you have come into this state of a direct perception of the unity of all souls. Is it possible? With your new spiritual eyes, you are seeing "corporate consciousness," which sounds like unity consciousness.

Currently,I am writing about this topic (of unity consciousness and Christ) also, but from the point of view of differentiating a 'growing in Christ' from unity consciousness. So, yes, I agree with you that "He lives within us all." and "Nothing could be except in Christ." However, I think I understand things differently than you do.

To me this kingdom of God that is within us is a spiritual dimension, the originally created order. It is the backdrop, or stage, for a grander mystery of Christ--which is about preparing a new humanity with the intention of taking us some place.

Does Christ Jesus add anything new to the mystical state of unity that appears to be available to people of various religions and can even come about from traumatic experiences or can be drug-induced?

I had this same kind of awakening a number of years ago in an Indian ashram following initiation by a guru. But I didn�t begin growing in Christ until I was baptized by the Holy Spirit. From then on, I could still �see� the unity of all things, but another reality began to grow more apparent, that Christ, through the Holy Spirit, was working to bring us into His Body. His Body is the foundation for the New Earth. Waking up to unity consciousness is seeing the *spiritual* dimension of reality. But I reserve *growing in Christ* or the mind of Christ to describe the formation of a Divine Order, which slices through the created order.

You say, � In this corporate consciousness the fundamental reality is one, which suggests that consciousness and being in you is an essential union of two radically different natures, the human and the divine�..�

I'm not sure, but what you are calling �divine� above is what I�d term �spiritual.� I reserve divine to refer to the creation of a new Adam or a new humanity, which can only come about through the baptism of the Holy Spirit. You seem to be �seeing� with new spiritual eyes this �corporate consciousness� or unity consciousness.

To me, Christ is beyond unity consciousness the way a cube is more than a square. Take four dots floating in space. These represent individuals who appear like separate beings, seeing the vast multiplicity of form all around them. Now connect those four dots with four lines and you have a square. This square is unity consciousness, what I think you are calling the mind of Christ in your paper. In this square, one sees with their spiritual eyes that all of humanity is intimately connected to the source of their being, the One. This is the celebrated and highly sought-after state of enlightenment that is considered the pinnacle of human-God evolution by Easterners.

Now take that square, draw four more dots and four more lines, and you have a cube. To me, this cube represents growing in Christ or the mind of Christ. The cube is the expansion of humanity into union with the Father, taking what is human and spiritual and raising in to the Divine.

So, crudely speaking, one�s consciousness can be the single dot, the square, or the cube.

The cube is the renewing of our mind as we become more like Christ. Short of coming into Christ, any dot can only grow as far as seeing the square. Not seeing the square, the unity of all souls, does not mean one does not have the mind of Christ.

If I�m understanding you correctly, you are ascribing the mind of Christ to the awareness of the corporate soul or the unity of all souls. In my analogy, I�d call this the square, or the direct perception of the deep, spiritual connection we all have by virtue of our having the same Creator. To me, having the mind of Christ is growing in Christ (being transformed by the renewing of our mind. Romans 12:2), which is process, not a end-state of unity consciousness.

When Paul made all those references to our having the mind of Christ and living in Christ, etc. he was not speaking of everyone, was he? Maybe I�m missing something? He was speaking only of those who had been baptized by the Holy Spirit.

While the square is in the cube, just as we are all in Christ born of one Maker, the cube is not in the square. So, I guess I would sum up by saying that having the mind of Christ happens as an outgrowth of our being in Christ, which is inherent as children of God. So you say, �He lives within us all� and I agree, but having His Mind can only happen upon our receiving Him through baptism. It doesn�t require the mind of Christ to see the unity of all souls.

I�m sorry if I have misunderstood any part of your discussion, Roger. Please forgive me if I have, and please correct me too.

with blessings to you and your family,
in Him,
shasha

Hi Shasha,

I have just read your post and you have a lot to say that is clearly very meaningful to us both. Unfortunately, I have to go to work now, but will read your post much more thoroughly and comment tomorrow morning. I say tomorrow morning because I won't be getting home until about midnite tonight.

Btw, don't be concerned at all about misunderstanding anything you have read. The subject we are exploring is so abstract that real clarity may be beyond us all.

Thanks for your thoughts.

God bless,

Roger

Hi Roger,

I don't know what abstract means anymore. When what was simply 'mental' becomes real over and over again, I have to throw my hands up and remove all limits that I've placed on God's Power to reveal truth to our minds.

peace,
s