Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Ego and Vatican ll

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,796

    Ego and Vatican ll

    Man has imagined or been able to see god in all things, but his ego has been the main interloper in grasping at the vastness of "what IS".

    Plato would say eros or love is the pursuit of the greatest wisdom and in that regard if the Logos is part of the dimensional energy banks called Akashic and other names he also was like Heraclitus or following his lead. I, of course, think it is far earlier knowledge which the books and script on stone has not survived or in Verbal Tradition has degraded. But it is there in Bhakti and many sutras to be certain.

    http://www.psyking.net/id19.htm

    "Plato used storytelling {The Troubadours and Bards again. The teaching of Abaris the Druid for Pythagoras is evident here.}and literature to illustrate points about the psyche, as did Homer. In his story of the charioteer in Phaedrus, Plato likened the human being to a chariot team.

    "[As part of the team] there is a powerful, unrully horse intent on having its own way at all costs (appetite). The other horse is a thoroughbred, spirited but manageable (spirit). On catching sight of his beloved, the charioteer (reason) attempts with some difficulty to direct the two horses toward the goal, which he alone (not they) can comprehend." (Watson, p.62)

    This is an illustration of Plato's theory about conflict based on reason, emotion and drive.


    Plato also made early contributions to motivational psychology with his delineation of the drive characteristics of the psyche--that drives have a striving toward attainment of a goal and an affective coloring of pleasure and pain.


    In Plato's Symposium, he presents a dialogue on the meaning of Eros or love, in which each participant offers their interpretations. He discusses 2 kinds of love: profane and sacred. The first is concerned with the body and the second with the psyche, mind and character. Physical sexual desire is not merely concerned with sex, but a masked deisre for parenthood, an attempt to perpetuate oneself. Plato believed this passion for physical parenthood was the most rudimentary fruition of the good and the eternal. He also believed that only higher love could lead to happiness. For Plato, the love of wisdom is the highest form of love. Love can be equated with life force, as it is akin to the biological will to live and the life energy.

    Many scholars have used Plato's notions to draw conclusions about human nature. Freud's notions about the personality being dependent on the id, ego and superego are similar to Plato's 3 aspects of the psyche. Carl Jung's notions about the libido and its general nonspecialized drive character seem to stem from the early drive theories of Plato. Evolutionary psychologists discuss humans' need to reproduce copies of themselves and their gene pool. In the psychology of emotion and social psychology, psychologists have studied and outlined the different forms of love. Personality psychologists define the core form of energy residing in man, most frequently, as "psychic energy." The field of energy medicine discusses the relationship of energy centers in the body to the mental state and nature of humans."


    Teilhardism is more humanistic and spiritual than almost any other religious perspective (IMHO). I think he is right about his omega point having synchronicity with Yeshua's studies. The present Pope (Francis) has said he is open to Teilhard and change in the dogma.

    I like to re-energize myself with an occasional retrospective of the fight waged by Teilhard de Chardin. In the following we have a fool attacking a humanistic genius - and why does that happen?


    "By: Dr. J. P. Hubert

    Moral Relativism and Utilitarianism are the reigning (immoral) philosophies in the developed West. Most of our public policy dilemmas are either directly or indirectly related to the widespread acceptance of these post-Enlightenment constructs. Some of the blame for our current predicament can be laid at the feet of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit Priest who attempted to institute a “New Religion” by combining Darwinian evolution with his unorthodox view of Theism.

    As Wolfgang Smith has written, Teilhard de Chardin intended to start a New Religion.[1] He made it quite clear on several occasions. In a letter to Leontine Zanta he wrote: “As you already know, what dominates my interest and my preoccupations is the effort to establish in myself and to spread around a new religion (you may call it a better Christianity) in which the personal God ceases to be the great Neolithic proprietor of former times, in order to become the soul of the world; our religious and cultural stage calls for this.”[2] Dietrich von Hildebrand and Wolfgang Smith trace much of the heterodoxy of the second Vatican Conciliar process to the circulation of Teilhardian conceptions of science[3] (especially with respect to biological evolution) and derivatively, Teilhard’s view of religion. Teilhard seems to have made the transformism[4] of biological evolution palatable to certain Catholic Theologians who wished to embrace what they perceived as modern evolutionary science. Traditionally, the entire notion had been thought heretical particularly as concerned the biological evolution of human beings. Through his New Religion, Teilhard gave a patina of legitimacy to the entire concept of evolution by theorizing the existence of “point Omega” which ultimately he identified with Jesus Christ.

    It appears that many Catholic Theologians were duped by failing to differentiate the actual facts of biological science from the prevailing naturalistic philosophy (metaphysical naturalism) which as a result of the assertions of leading biologists, was virtually inseparable from it.[5] This made them “ripe” for Teilhard’s proposed incorporation of Evolution into “Christianity.” Teilhard’s New Religion was therefore very much on the minds of some of the participants of the Council, some explicitly and some only implicitly. One might say that the “flavor” was in the air. Unfortunately, no systematic refutation of Teilhard’s theory was available in 1962 prior to the commencing of Vatican II. Wolfgang Smith’s work which accomplished same became available only in 1988.

    In a sense then, when Pope John XXIII called for “aggiornamento”, (whether recognized at the time or not), not only was he opening the windows of the Traditional Catholic Church to the world but to what Teilhard had been promulgating as the New Religion as well. It is the latter effect that has produced the post-Conciliar disaster’s with which most Catholics are all too familiar. Unfortunately, Teilhard’s heretical New Religion has been embraced either in part or in whole by several generations of post-conciliar Catholics given that Teilhard’s spurious notions have never been formally repudiated.[6] Teilhardism effectively destroyed the Creation tenet of orthodox Catholicism, the Fall from Grace and with it the concept of Original Sin, the atoning death of Christ on the Cross and thereby the entire Salvation/Redemption tenet based as it is on Christ’s crucifixion and literal bodily resurrection."


    http://amaiceducation.blog.com/2011/...xtraordinaire/
    Last edited by R_Baird; 02-03-2016 at 09:25 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,796
    This book of mine shows a real and true picture of a great man who had the support of a great woman. I hope you can download it for free.

    http://edufb.net/20778.pdf

    There is a modern day call for the Romans to allow women priests just as the Gnostic Cathari did. The historical Jesus (Yeshua bar Joseph - not born of a virgin or any other NONsense) was married as Mishnah says a Rabbi or teacher must be. His lifelong mate was Mary Magdalene (Magdala, also of Bethany, another place that her father owned a home in is Alexandria, where they both were schooled by Comarius). You can be sure that any wise man at any period of time drew inspiration and counsel from women if those women were educated or even if they simply were interested in learning. In fact the apostles are not particularly well-educated and all their writings are not by them - they were dead when the Gospels were written by and large (35 to 75 years after the death of Yeshua - who did not die on the cross).

    So when you read the following you should know that Mary was just one of many women in the time of Jesus and the century after him who Mary Rose D'Angelo says are as important as the apostles in the development of the Christian church. She details this in Vatican II. I liked John Paul II and understand the forces of heretical Roman usages which he decried in 1999 as a two thousand year history of "heinous acts". His words in the following are political, and there is no Papal Infallibility despite what the Catholic Encyclopedia says. The Pope never was at the center of the universe with all revolving around him on a Flat Earth (The Firmament). When this churchian behemoth has day care centers in the Vatican and women are made whole rather than treated as dirty (Yes, when he visited Toronto - per dogma and ritual - no woman was allowed to go near the ritual stations during or before his Mass.) I will believe in the possibility that serial rapists are capable of rehabilitation, when that happens.

    In some orthodox Jewish cults the Rabbi sets the date for a marriage and asks the woman when her period is so the "dirt" will not infect the proceedings.

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/WHYWOMEN.TXT

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,796
    So when priests allow kids who are in awe of god to play with their penis are they involved in playing god? Is this ego in any way connected with a moral teaching and if not why is history so full of the cover-ups and pederasts? Why were women not allowed to be taught or educated? Socrates asked this same question and it was part of why he was forced to take his life - there are other factors.

    Mary Rose D'Angelo teaches at Notre Dame and is a member of Common Sense (They should know about Thomas Paine therefore.). Her thoughts on Pedophiles and concubinage or celibacy are almost humorous if you enjoy sick perverse institutions getting their come-uppance as I do. Here is something from her on Angelfire. The other links take you to treatises of far more depth and controversy about Mary Magdalene. I cannot recommend anything about them but in the interest of fairness I give them to you.

    Mary Rose D'Angelo

    Each day’s New York Times brings a new installment in the never-ending saga of priests, pedophilia and diocesan cover-ups that is revealing to US Catholics that their church’s corporate ethic falls significantly below Enron’s. The issue in which my grade-school diocese (Bridgeport CT) made its appearance as sleaze pool du jour offered a particularly ironic juxtaposition with a story about the Vatican demand that the archbishop of Chiapas stop ordaining deacons for five years.

    There was nothing new or startling in the story of about the Bridgeport diocese -- it was one more sordid tale of clumsy prevarication and legal stonewalling by ecclesiastical bureaucrats, their insurers and their lawyers. As elsewhere, their first concern was not to address criminal behavior but to conceal it -- in a series of secret settlements. The raptor settlements have proven to be as dumb as they were dishonest -- in the words of Yale Law school professor Peter Shuck : “In terms of avoiding the scandal and eliminating the liability, this is exactly the wrong to have done. It’s not simply a case of an organization whose agents have erred ...It’s an organization that knew about the improprieties and concealed them.” The article also analysed a larger pattern of diocesan lawyers fighting current accusations of pedophilia by using the statute of limitations (read -- “He did it, but you caught us too late”) and the separation of church and state (“He did it, but its none of your business”) and most recently, trying to bury the evidence under the Vatican’s diplomatic immunity ("Nyah, nyah, nyah"). The “legs” on this story were the suggestion of cross-diocesan collaboration on this pattern -- and the revelation of the past practices of Edward Egan, once bishop of Bridgeport, and now Archbishop of NY and another winner of the Arthur Andersen award for creative myopia.

    The second article reported a letter from Jorge Cardinal Medina Estévez (Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments) to the current bishop of San Cristobal de las Casas, Felipe Arizmendi. The deacons in question are married men, largely indigenous, who administer baptism and marriages, and conduct “non-eucharistic” liturgies in the remote and poor accessible villages that see a priest perhaps once a year. There are about four hundred of them, in a diocese that has ordained fewer than ten priests in the last forty years. They were recruited by the former bishop, Samuel Ruiz, who had sought to indigenize his diocese in an attempt to reclaim it from the missionizing of Protestant sects. Unlike the majority of the few priests, the deacons speak the Mayan dialects of the people they serve and among whom they live; they were trained in liberation theology. The deacons, with about 8,000 indigenous catechists are the bulwark of the “Native Church” he left behind on retirement. So effective was their work and his that Ruiz was a credible mediator between the Zapatistas and the government in the Chiapas uprising and his work to end violence in his diocese has made him a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.

    What is most striking about this narrative is that the Vatican explicitly identifies the moratorium on ordaining deacons as an attempt to undo Ruiz’ work. The letter warns that Samuel Ruiz, who retired two years ago after leading the diocese for nearly 50 years, offered a dangerous precedent : “If you continue augmenting the number of permanent deacons, the perceived danger is that the initiatives sustained by Monsignor Samuel Ruiz will be affirmed, impeding the normalization of ecclesiastic life in the diocese and sending an implicit message of support to the other ecclesiastical groups for an ‘alternative’ church model that could seem convenient for ‘cultural situations and particular ethnic groups.’” Shorn of ecclesiospeak, that seems to say : “Papa don’t ’low no mariachi playin’ here" -- no pre-Columbian symbolism, no liberation theology, no Zapatista sympathizers. In most villages that will also mean no ministry in their own language, and indeed, no regular communal worship at all. Arizmendi tried to explain the “cease and desist” order as pro-priesthood rather than anti-diaconate, arguing that the church “Jesus built” was not based on deacons , who are supposed to be collaborators.” This justification is fraught with historical problems. The career of Jesus was completely innocent of the structures of deacon, priest and bishop; these functions were still loosely defined throughout the second century. If anything, Ruiz’ “native church” seems to be not only one significant realization of the vision of Vatican II, but also a pretty good reflection of the (admittedly wildly variable ) churches of the first three centuries. But beyond the question of accuracy, does the curia really think that cutting down on deacons will increase the number of priests? What can this kind of “normalization” mean in a diocese that has ordained fewer than ten priests in 40 years? Hara-kiri?

    What is the dangerous “abnormality” of the Chiapas diaconate? It seems to be twofold : that the roles of deacons are not adequately distinguished from those of priests (given that most of the diocese rarely sees one) and the roles of the deacons’ wives and widows are not adequately distinguished from those of the deacons. In other words, when the Vatican destroys the pastoral work of Samuel Ruiz and promotes bishops who bury sex abuse cases (like Edward Egan) they are concerned with the same goal : the desire to maintain the closed circle of a male and celibate clergy.

    Numerous apologists have argued that celibacy isn’t the source of this problem--and it’s undoubtedly true that celibacy doesn’t create pedophiles -- the plane loads of married westerners who invade Thailand for sex tourism make that clear, as do the many men and women with or without religious commitments, who live celibate lives and show no need to prey upon either children or adolescents. But pedophilia is not the real problem in this scandal -- the real problem lies in the longterm policy of addressing ecclesiastical wrongdoing with lies, secrecy and silences. A married clergy and the ordination of women would incorporate permanent outsiders into the system. It is worth noting that in so far as there were whistleblowers in the Enron scandal, they were women.


    Mary Rose D'Angelo teaches Theology at Notre Dame and is a member of Common Sense.

    http://www.ctsa-online.org/Conventio.../0067-0090.pdf

    https://books.google.ca/books?id=ZMA...0II%22&f=false

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,796
    In recent books by Popes and other dogma spin doctors we have changes in a "new evangelism" but they also say the opposite which I say is a reaction to Teilhardism as well as the Dag Hammadi finds which they say they want to incorporate - in a 'history'. It is more defense of Gospel propaganda and contrary to any true teaching of any adepthood studied by any family member of the House of David (Merovingians). And though they admit they encouraged and accepted illiterate Bible deviates they continue trying to say their interpretation of Salvation is rooted in the Old Testament - but it is based on the Resurrection and makes them a pile of money from every and all source as we have proven - many times. In the YHVH and other mystical insights it is in the Bible but it is not what they are saying it is.

    Pay close attention and you will see they are in fact not changing anything and just telling the faithful more lies. Maintaining the very illiteracy they say they wish will change.

    "Witherup observes, “The Old Testament holds the mystery of salvation, albeit in a hidden fashion that need to be unraveled in order to be fully understood. Yet the Old Testament is here valued for its own sake as well as for its role in illuminating the New Testament.” Similarly, he highlights the important role of a 1964 document by the Pontifical Biblical Commission in articulating “the three levels of ancient tradition [which] are embedded in the gospels: 1) the level of Jesus’ own teaching; 2) the level of the apostles’ preaching and oral proclamation; 3) the level of the collecting, sorting, editing, organizing the oral traditions about Jesus.” And, Witherup gives proper attention to one of the most important, really seminal, statements of the entire constitution, in Paragraph 22, which begins, “Access to the sacred scripture ought to be widely available to the Christian faithful.” Here was a clear break from the previous practice of the Church and one that has already born much good fruit and will continue to do so. The average Catholic is no longer encouraged to be a biblical illiterate.

    One item warrants special attention. In Paragraph 25, Dei Verbum urges all entrusted with preaching in the Church to “immerse themselves in the scriptures by constant spiritual reading and diligent study.” Here the two great reform Councils kiss and meet: Trent established seminaries to confront the scandal caused by uninformed clergy and Vatican II urges those aspiring to, or already practicing, ministry in the Church to constant prayerful reading of the scriptures and “diligent study.” We should expect our clergy to be learned in the scriptures and to demonstrate in their preaching all the nuance that Dei Verbum brings to the subject. Not every priest needs to be a biblical scholar but every priest should be familiar, and remain familiar, with biblical scholarship.

    Witherup goes on to examine the most important examples of Church teaching on revelation since Vatican II, from the documents of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, to the Catechism of the Church, to Pope Benedict’s {The Pope who covered up the pedophilia even before becoming Pope - who was recently replaced.} apostolic exhortation Verbum Domini in 2010 and, most recently, Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium. He includes an important discussion of the importance of using the historical critical method – which roots our study of the Bible in the texts – even while cautioning against seeing that method of interpretation as the only or exhaustive approach to biblical interpretation. Here, Witherup tracks closely with Pope Benedict’s teaching and approach, not only in the above cited exhortation, which was an exercise of the papal magisterium, but likewise in his own three volume series on Jesus of Nazareth.

    The “new evangelization,” whatever else it is, must be rooted in the Gospels. Certainly Dei Verbum recognizes and advances the primary place of the Gospels in the life of the Church."

    http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctl...an-ii-part-iii

    Of course "the life of the Church" requires acceptance of the Gospel lies which generate all the funds from Special Dispensations, sins and demons (exorcisms), confessions, control over charity or alms, celibacy to prevent the priesthood from passing the money to their offspring, charnel houses with bastards and scarlet women to entertain themselves or the Divine Kings they sell them to, and estates or wills from those threatened in their senile old age by visions of Heaven and Hell. Not long ago they also ex-communicated people like my Grandfather for marrying twice even though his first wife died. How do we still allow their intrusions into politics and abortion planning as well as the avoidance of social responsibility at all levels of society - including taxation?
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-25-2016 at 03:50 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •