Fr. Z's Blog | Catholic commentary by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Pope Francis to UN delegation: “legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State”

Posted on 9 May 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Today Pope Francis addressed a delegation of the UN – which I remind you is a principle agent for promoting abortion world-wide.

Below please find the full text of Pope Francis’ address to the United Nations Agencies, Funds and Programmes on Friday, led by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

There is some blah blah at first, but keep reading. My emphases and comments.

NOTE: A lot of this is simply warmed up John Paul II and Benedict XVI. There isn’t much new here, apart from the terrible wording about the State and redistribution. But we can, for the most part, say “Ho hum! Next?”

Mr Secretary General,Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am pleased to welcome you, Mr Secretary-General and the leading executive officers of the Agencies, Funds and Programmes of the United Nations and specialized Organizations, as you gather in Rome for the biannual meeting for strategic coordination of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board.It is significant that today’s meeting takes place shortly after the solemn canonization of my predecessors, Popes John XXIII and John Paul II. The new saints inspire us by their passionate concern for integral human development and for understanding between peoples. This concern was concretely expressed by the numeous visits of John Paul II to the Organizations headquartered in Rome and by his travels to New York, Geneva, Vienna, Nairobi and The Hague.
I thank you, Mr Secretary-General, for your cordial words of introduction. I thank all of you, who are primarily responsible for the international system, for the great efforts being made to ensure world peace, respect for human dignity, the protection of persons, especially the poorest and most vulnerable, and harmonious economic and social development.The results of the Millennium Development Goals, especially in terms of education and the decrease in extreme poverty, confirm the value of the work of coordination carried out by this Chief Executives Board. At the same time, it must be kept in mind that the world’s peoples deserve and expect even greater results. [Do they?]
An essential principle of management is the refusal to be satisfied with current results and to press forward, in the conviction that those gains are only consolidated by working to achieve even more. In the case of global political and economic organization, much more needs to be achieved, since an important part of humanity does not share in the benefits of progress and is in fact relegated to the status of second-class citizens. [Perhaps the true culprits in that are local governments.] Future Sustainable Development Goals must therefore be formulated and carried out with generosity and courage, so that they can have a real impact on the structural causes of poverty and hunger, attain more substantial results in protecting the environment, ensure dignified and productive labor for all, and provide appropriate protection for the family, [Wasn’t it some UN thingie that suggested that the Holy See was responsible for torture by teaching against abortion?] which is an essential element in sustainable human and social development. Specifically, this involves challenging all forms of injustice and resisting the “economy of exclusion”, the “throwaway culture” and the “culture of death” which nowadays sadly risk becoming passively accepted.With this in mind, I would like to remind you, as representatives of the chief agencies of global cooperation, of an incident which took place two thousand years ago and is recounted in the Gospel of Saint Luke (19:1-10). It is the encounter between Jesus Christ and the rich tax collector Zacchaeus, as a result of which Zacchaeus made a radical decision of sharing and justice, because his conscience had been awakened by the gaze of Jesus. [Do I remember this correctly, or was Zacchaeus ready to give half of the wealth he was creating to the poor, and he did it voluntarily, on his own? The government wasn’t doing it for him. Right?] This same spirit should be at the beginning and end of all political and economic activity. The gaze, often silent, of that part of the human family which is cast off, left behind, ought to awaken the conscience of political and economic agents and lead them to generous and courageous decisions with immediate results, like the decision of Zacchaeus. Does this spirit of solidarity and sharing guide all our thoughts and actions?
Today, in concrete terms, an awareness of the dignity of each of our brothers and sisters whose life is sacred and inviolable from conception to natural death must lead us to share with complete freedom the goods which God’s providence has placed in our hands, material goods but also intellectual and spiritual ones, and to give back generously and lavishly whatever we may have earlier unjustly refused to others. [“Share with complete freedom”. NOT “share by government or other agency confiscation and redistribution.] The account of Jesus and Zacchaeus teaches us that above and beyond economic and social systems and theories, there will always be a need to promote generous, effective and practical openness to the needs of others. Jesus does not ask Zacchaeus to change jobs nor does he condemn his financial activity; he simply inspires him to put everything, freely yet immediately and indisputably, at the service of others. [Again, do I remember correctly? Was Zacchaeus already giving half his wealth to the poor before he stood face to face with the Lord? Authors are divided about what Zacchaeus is saying. As it turns out, the Greek of the dialogue in Luke 19 says in 19:8 “??????? ?? ???????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ????, ?? ????? ??? ?????????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???????????? ????????? ??????????” The verbs ?????? and ????????? are both “present”, though Greek present doesn’t necessarily mean that the action is exactly contemporaneous. It could be ongoing and even have futurity. The overall context helps us makes sense of the “present”. Furthermore, even in English a statment like “I’m giving…” can mean right now or in the future. It’s messy. More important is the fact that Zacchaeus was going to do what he did voluntarily.] Consequently, I do not hesitate to state, as did my predecessors (cf. JOHN PAUL II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 42-43; Centesimus Annus, 43; BENEDICT XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 6; 24-40), that equitable economic and social progress can only be attained by joining scientific and technical abilities with an unfailing commitment to solidarity accompanied by a generous and disinterested spirit of gratuitousness at every level. A contribution to this equitable development will also be made both by international activity aimed at the integral human development of all the world’s peoples and [Wait for it…] by the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society. [By the STATE? When has any “State” done this effectively? And what does “legitimate” mean? According to laws that are passed? And if the laws are bad laws? And who will administrate it?]
Consequently, while encouraging you in your continuing efforts to coordinate the activity of the international agencies, which represents a service to all humanity, I urge you to work together in promoting a true, worldwide ethical mobilization which, beyond all differences of religious or political convictions, will spread and put into practice a shared ideal of fraternity and solidarity, especially with regard to the poorest and those most excluded. Invoking divine guidance on the work of your Board, I also implore God’s special blessing for you, Mr Secretary-General, for the Presidents, Directors and Secretaries General present among us, and for all the personnel of the United Nations and the other international Agencies and Bodies, and their respective families.

Combox moderation queue is ON.

I wonder how many people are still listening to him seriously on this issue.

Also, I would like to know if anyone around him is telling him that there are alternative ways of dealing with poverty apart from merely redistributing the wealth that other people create? Is Pope Francis talking to anyone about ideas that actually work?

I suspect other people might have the same reaction that I have when hearing/reading this stuff. It comes across as naive, out of step with history. Has any nation successfully dealt with poverty through redistribution? I don’t think so. Moreover, who would supervise this process of global redistribution? Angels? EU bureaucrats? The UN? Card. Rodriguez Maradiaga? Card. Kasper?

Finally, and I don’t mean this to be snarky, though I realize it could come off that way, given Argentina’s track record, should anyone from Argentina tell anyone else anything about how to deal with economic issues? A map of Argentina is in the illustrated dictionary by the entry “self-imposed economic decline”. Bad economies don’t create wealth. You can take every dime from every person who has them and give them to the poor, and, at the end of the day you will have greater devastation. And the State solutions do no better.

How about talking about something other than what has be shown time and again to be disaster?

Posted in Francis, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged Argentina, redistribution of wealth, UN, United Nations
110 Comments

Day 17 – NYC: Finch and Cardinal and Borscht and Beer

Posted on 9 May 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Thus begins my last full day on the road.

Yesterday we were at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Here is a nice little Sienese Madonna and Child by a favorite of mine, Sano di Pietro (+1481). I’m thinking his workshop did this one.

It is unusual for its round, tondo format.

Note, however, the Christological Goldfinch!

The tulips are blooming along Park Avenue (on the way to Pastrami Queen on Lexington).

Tonight we are going to a gala/fundraiser for the Monks at Norcia. His Eminence Card. Burke will be there. I was told by Fr. Benedict the other day (we were on the same airplane together) that they have shipped in 15 cases of Norcia beer! What a treat.

Are Catholics now too dazzled by the Pope? Can Popes be criticized?

Posted on 9 May 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Do you remember the scene in Evelyn Waugh’s Brideshead Revisited when Rex Mottram is being given his catechism lessons before he can marry Julia? The priest and Rex have this exchange:

“Yesterday I asked [Mottram] whether Our Lord had more than one nature. He said: ‘Just as many as you say, Father.’ Then again I asked him: ‘Supposing the Pope looked up and saw a cloud and said ‘It’s going to rain’, would that be bound to happen?’ ‘Oh, yes, Father.’ ‘But supposing it didn’t?’ He thought a moment and said, “I suppose it would be sort of raining spiritually, only we were too sinful to see it.’”

This scene figures in a piece written by Michael Brendon Dougherty for The Week: “Catholics must learn to resist their popes — even Pope Francis Too many are becoming party apparatchiks”.

The writer makes the point – in a nutshell – that since the advent of rapid communications and a far greater familiarity and presence of Popes in our lives, many people now venerate them too much. They go beyond respect for the office, and give adulation and hero-worship to the person. On the other hand, in ages past, before this “papalotry” (my word, the writer’s) developed, people felt far freer to criticize a Pope’s actions.

Is he one to something or is he off the rails? This is clearly something that many über-trads have bandied about in the last few decades of their defiance of authority.

I suggest that you read the article and then discuss. I repeat: read the article first. Don’t just jump in without thinking or looking.

Another quote:

Catholics were reminded at the Second Vatican Council of a doctrine with a foundation in the early church fathers, in St. Vincent Lerins, that the whole body of faithful Catholics in their cultivated sense of the faith, are one of the guarantors of the church’s teaching authority. Sometimes, the duty of a faithful Catholic is not just to rebuke and correct those in authority in the church like St. Catherine of Siena, but to throw rotting cabbage at them, or make them miserable, as we once did, with the connivance of worldly authorities, during the deadlocked papal election in Viterbo.

For now the members of the Catholic Party are cultivating a kind of denial, saying that Pope Francis cannot possibly endorse the line on divorce and remarriage suggested by Cardinal Kasper when very clearly this reform is being actively debated within the highest reaches of the church, and seems to have been implemented in one phone call. If adopted, it will be time for members of the Catholic Church to reach for the rotting produce and give our prelates a taste of the sensus fidelium.

That proposed, let’s us remember that the Pope has an office with a defined role. Not everything any Pope says or does is infallible or perfect.

Rich terrain for discussion here, if people will a) think before posting and b) think before posting. I don’t want to have to step in too much to remove comments that were just tossed out with little consideration. Treat the question with respect and thought.

Posted in Francis, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill | Tagged Michael Brendon Dougherty, papacy
56 Comments

ASK FATHER: Hands under a cloth during Communion

Posted on 8 May 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

I have attended Mass in the Extraordinary Form fairly often in several US and UK cities over the past decade, and I was surprised to observe something new. An Institute of Christ the King church near me has recently attached a long white cloth to the communion rail. Normally it hangs down on the sanctuary side; the server comes and flips it over the top to cover the rail before communion, and then flips it back afterwards.

I have noticed that many communicants clutch this cloth, or fold their hands underneath it. At first I thought it might be a fail-safe for the server’s paten, if a Host fell; but not everyone holds it as if to catch anything, and unceremoniously flipping the cloth back afterwards would seem to negate that, anyway. I am perplexed, because it looks like an act of piety by the communicants but for no apparent symbolic purpose.

This is not my regular parish, and I am not sure whether the pastor has explained the cloth’s significance or instructed his parishioners to clutch it. Can you shed any light? Am I expected to do this, too, and if so, why?

This seems to be a case of old rubrical habits dying slowly.

In early centuries, where Holy Communion was still administered to the hands of the recipients (which wasn’t as common as some claim), men sometimes received directly on their hands, while women put their hands underneath a white cloth called a domenical or houseling cloth.

Those who advocate a wholesale return to the practices of the early Church (the liturgical archeologizing against which Ven. Pius XII warned) are often selective in what practices they wish to revive. In some places, both men and women used the houseling cloth.

When Holy Communion began to universally be distributed on the tongue, the use of the paten, directly under the chin of the recipient, became the norm. The Communion cloth was still employed, but rather than being held by two servers, it was more often attached directly to the altar rail. It would be flipped over to the communicants side before Communion. No mention is made rubrically of the faithful having to put their hands underneath the houseling cloth, though in many places this appears to be the custom.

Unless a host actually falls on the houseling cloth, the likelihood of any bit of the Sacred Host touching it is pretty slim, especially if the servers are doing their job well with the paten.

And you servers and you who train them… use that paten properly! I have many times seen inattentive (poorly trained) servers fling the thing around. It is for catching a Host and Its particles! BE CAREFUL!

Okay… I’m back.

If it seems to you that the practice of the place you visit is to put one’s hands under the houseling cloth, feel free to comply with their custom. The communion cloth is both a symbolic and real means of emphasizing the tremendous value of the Sacrament. The care with which the Eucharist is distributed to and received by the faithful should be an obviously hallmark of all our Catholic churches.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem said in his Catechetical Lectures,

“Tell me, if anyone gave you gold-dust, would you not take hold of it with every possible care, ensuring that you did not mislay any of it or sustain any loss?”

How much more care ought we to show when we are being given is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Son of God!

And let’s get rid of Communion in the hand.

AND…

GO TO CONFESSION!

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, GO TO CONFESSION, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Patristiblogging | Tagged communion cloths, Communion in the hand, Houseling Cloth, St. Cyril of Jerusalem
26 Comments

Day 16 – NYC: food and Farraday – POLL

Posted on 8 May 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Last night we enjoyed a meal at The Palm.

I am an Old Fashioned sort of guy.

Best crab thingie in the world!

Today we went to the Morgan Library. I’ll tell you about a silly exhibit later, but I got to see a letter of the scientist Farrady to Lewis Carroll, talking about electrical effects of fire from the sun! ominous.

Now around the corner to a favorite Chinese place.

More later.

UPDATE

Drinks at the Algonquin before supper.

I may post a poll later.

UPDATE:

It’s later.

POLL…

All three are Bombay Sapphire Martinis.

Left – lemon twist
Center – two olives
Right – two olives with blue cheese

Loading ...

In the letter that I saw from Farraday to Carroll, on the possible effect of the Sun, Farraday wrote:

“It has not yet been clearly proved that the Sun does put a fire out – but such a power has been supposed to exist in actinic rays which the luminary sends forth.”

Posted in On the road, What Fr. Z is up to |
15 Comments

Ed Peters on Card. Kasper on Pope saying half of marriages are not valid

Posted on 8 May 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

The distinguished canonist Ed Peters writes about the reckless comments made by Card. Walter Kasper the other day at Fordham University. My emphases and comments.

Even if the pope said it, it was reckless to repeat it

Cardinal Kasper, in a lengthy interview that shows no let-up in his push to change Church discipline on marriage said, among other things, “I’ve spoken to the pope himself about this, and he said he believes that 50 percent of marriages are not valid.” [?!?]

I am stunned at the pastoral recklessness of such an assertion. Simply stunned. [As we all should be!]

Suppose the cardinal had claimed that “50 percent of ordinations are not valid”. [!] Would not such a claim, coming from an internationally-renowned prelate and attributed to a pope, have a shattering effect on the morale of deacons, priests, and bishops around the world? Would not especially those clergy laboring under vocational difficulties immediately conclude that their difficulties were the consequence of having been invalidly ordained, whereupon most of them would just give up? And would not those preparing for holy orders be paralyzed with fear over proceeding to ordination until whatever is behind such a massive invalidity rate were discovered and remedied? Of course they would.

Well, if tossing out a comment to clergy alleging rampant invalidity of holy orders would be pastorally unthinkable, by what right does the cardinal casually tell laity that 50% of their marriages are invalid—even if the pope did say it? Does turmoil among married persons in the wake of such a remark not matter to any except those who suffer it? As I said, I am stunned that such a remark was made, [IN PUBLIC! Sometimes priests will kick ideas around in private as they discuss problems today, but that doesn’t mean they a) think everything they kick around and b) would be so abysmally dumb as to repeat the conversation from their pulpits on Sunday.] even if it was a mere repetition of another’s views.

But, no matter who said it—and I have no patience left for this string of ‘guess-what-the-pope-supposedly-told-me’ disclosures—let me outline several reasons why the claim that ‘half of all marriages are null’ is not just reckless, it’s also wrong.

I preface my remarks thus: I worked in diocesan tribunals for more than 10 years and concluded that hundreds of the marriage cases I saw therein were canonically null; I have been married for nearly 30 years; and I have seen, in my own family and among my closest friends, dozens of successful and failed marriages, some of those latter being canonically null, others just ruined. In short, my perspectives here are at least as professionally credentialed and as personally experienced as anyone else’s. [Haudquaquam dubitandum’st.]

1. Marriage is, before anything else, a natural contract. Any claim, therefore, about “marriage”—including the shocking claim that half of all marriages are invalid—must be true about marriage as entered into by the great majority of the world’s population; that, or it must be abandoned. So, does Cdl. Kasper really think that half of the marriages around the world are invalid? If not, he should never have expressed himself so.

2. But perhaps the prelate only had in mind sacramental marriages (marriages entered into by two baptized persons) when he asserted that half of all marriages are null. But, if sacramental marriage perfects natural marriage and if grace builds on nature, what would make Christian marriage less stable than natural marriage?

Actually, a few things come to mind.

Some Catholic marriages are invalid for reasons having nothing to do with natural law, because they were, say, entered into by boys under age 16 contrary to Canon 1084 or by renegade priests contrary to Canon 1087. But those invalid marriages represent a proverbial drop in the bucket of invalid unions; their presence hardly allows one to claim that half of all marriages among the baptized, or even among Catholics, are invalid.

Admittedly one source of canonical nullity has no foundation whatsoever in natural law, yet accounts for thousands of invalid marriages among Catholics: what I have described as the outdated requirement of canonical form. But, while this requirement allows tens of thousands of Catholics to walk away from ‘marriages’ that we would require Protestants (and indeed all non-Catholics) to honor, violation of form does not occur in numbers that would make half of all marriages, even among Catholics, let alone among Protestants, to say nothing of non-Christians, invalid. Not even close.

Or perhaps Cdl. Kasper wants to take on the “automatic sacramentality” point of Church teaching on marriage (see 1983 CIC 1055), and from there tease out a contractual invalidity argument for any sacramentum fidei attentatum sine fide, but I’ve seen nothing so complex offered yet.

Well, there is much more to say, but keeping in mind that this is only a blog post, let me conclude by reminding all that a long, long, tradition of Church teaching recognizes humans’ natural capacity for marriage, reminds Christians that the grace of matrimony adds to the stability of marriage, and presumes the validity of all marriages unless and until it is proven otherwise.

In short, the validity of marriage far exceeds the odds one enjoys in a coin toss.

Posted in HONORED GUESTS, Liberals, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill | Tagged canon law, Card. Kasper, Ed Peters, marriage, validity of sacraments
73 Comments

ASK FATHER: Sister started Mass without the priest

Posted on 8 May 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

From a reader…

QUAERITUR:

On Friday, my family and I arrived at Mass (NO) a few minutes early and took our usual places. When Mass was about to begin, a Sister (non-identifiable) came out to announce that the priest was running a few minutes behind, but that he told her to begin without him. She said we would begin with the First Reading. Then she asked us all to stand and she began the Penitential Rite. I looked at my family, told them to follow me, and we walked out. I don’t know how long it took the priest to arrive but I was stunned to say the least, and angry. What, if anything, can or should be done? We attend this Mass during the week and, thankfully, an FSSP Mass on Sundays about 45 min away. Thank you, Father, for any advice you can offer.

Ahhh! Beginning Mass without the priest….

That’s sort of like beginning a baseball game without a pitcher.

Sure, the umpire can squat down behind home plate, the base coaches and the officiating crew can take their places, the vendors can start hawking beer and popcorn up and down the stadium, and the fans can hurl invectives or cheers down upon the field of play. The announcer can even pretend to describe a few plays, while making banal comments about the weather and the state of the fans.

No one would mistake that for a baseball game. They’d walk out. They’d demand their money back. The League would probably get involved and discipline the one responsible for allowing it to happen.

How much better – if Father was delayed – would it have been for Sister to lead the faithful in a decade of the rosary, or a litany, or a prayer for vocations, rather than pretend to “begin Mass” without the priest.

I think a politely worded letter of inquiry (“Is it an accepted custom here, when the priest is late, for someone else to start saying Mass until the priest shows up?”) sent to the pastor and the chancery office might be called for.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Crackit Gaberlunzie, Liberals, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 | Tagged liturgical abuse, Mass without priest
23 Comments

What is Card. Baldissieri up to?

Posted on 8 May 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Edward Pentin, of the National Catholic Register, quoted an antipasto of an article in De Standaard (and HERE) about an interview with a Belgian publication, Tertio, given by Pope Francis’ head of the Synod of Bishops, Lorenzo Card. Balidissieri.

Reportage gives the impression that St. John Paul’s Magisterium, particularly in Familiaris consortio, is outdated.

What did Baldissieri say?

“Familiaris consortio van paus Johannes Paulus II van 1981 vormt het laatste grote document van de afgelopen dertig jaar over deze thematiek. De kerk is niet tijdloos; ze leeft te midden van de wederwaardigheden van de geschiedenis en het evangelie moet gekend en beleefd worden door mensen van vandaag.” ….

Familiaris Consortio by Pope John Paul II in 1981 is the last major document of the past thirty years on this topic. The church is not timeless; she lives amidst the vicissitudes of history and the gospel must be known and experienced by people today.

Baldissieri doesn’t exactly say directly that St. JPII’s Magisterium on the family is outdated. But he does, as I read it carefully, insinuate it. It is, after all, 33 whole years old!

I am not sure what Card. Baldissieri, is up to. He plays a key role in the selection of experts and theologians who will be allowed to address the bishops during the synod. From that position, Card. Baldissieri could, for example, arrange the slate of experts and theologians so that one side of the debate is greatly favored and the other is, effectively, suppressed.

That said, no one in their right mind would so bluntly call into question St. John Paul II’s Magisterium.

Posted in Francis, Liberals, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged Card. Baldissieri, divorce and remarriage, Edward Pentin, Familiaris consortio, magisterium, St. John Paul II, Synod of Bishops
38 Comments

Rome/NYC – Day 15: My view for awhile

Posted on 7 May 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

It is almost always a nice day when I leave a city I like.

So, back to the USA and some appointments in NYC.

Yes, Bergoglio class, in case you were wondering.

I have my noise blocking earbuds ready and my fully loaded Kindle. My sweater is at hand and I have a bottle if water. I suppose I could now write my name on all my limbs.

There is a priest monk from Norcia on board, too! Nice to see him. They are great. I had some of their beer when I visited the Domus Australia. See that post. Incredible beer.

Posted in On the road, What Fr. Z is up to |
9 Comments

Back to the Future: LCWR nuns and “Conscious Evolution” and gnosticism

Posted on 7 May 2014 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Card. Müller, when addressing the LCWR nuns, spoke about problems with their Faith. He was not being political. He was not picking on them as “women”.

Card. Müller was effectively asking them: Do you want to be Catholic?

What the nuns are into is, basically, warmed-up gnosticism. Because we really want to be living in the 2nd century rather than the 21st. We need a new Irenaeus!

Card. Müller spoke to them about how they have gotten into “conscious evolution”. Let’s call it CE. This is pure crap, of course, and spiritually dangerous and some of these nuns are in it up to their necks.

Do you want to do a little reading around the issue?

HERE

An evolutionary spirituality is emerging, experienced as the impulse of evolution, the process of creation, the implicate order, a patterning process coming through our own hearts. It is felt as the sacred core of the evolutionary spiral, the evolving godhead arising, or even incarnating within each of us as our own impulse to co-create. It is the “creator-within” expressing itself uniquely through each person as a new form of “social cosmogenesis.” The generating power of universal evolution is guiding us toward a more synergistic, cooperative democracy.

HERE – Wow…..

At the heart of Gnostic Christianity, as taught in the Sophian Tradition, is the view of Yeshua (Aramaic for Jesus) as a human being who embarked upon a spiritual or mystical journey and became Self-realized or Enlightened; hence attained Supernal or Messianic Consciousness. According to the Sophian Gospel he was not born Christ, but became Christed by the reception of teachings and initiations from his Spiritual Teachers and engaging in spiritual practice and spiritual living. It is said that Yeshua was, indeed, the incarnation of a Great Soul and that he had accomplished the divine labor of Self-realization or Enlightenment in previous lives. Nevertheless, incarnate in the world as a Light-bearer, he had to sojourn the Path to Enlightenment as any other human being. In so doing he became a living example of the Path to Self-realization or Enlightenment and was empowered to teach others how to attain Supernal or Messianic Consciousness.

HERE

This emerging human has been called by many names. Teilhard de Chardin called it the Ultra Human, or Homo progressivus, in whom the “flame of expectation burns, attracted toward the future as an organism progressing toward the unknown.” Sri Aurobindo, the great Indian evolutionary sage, called this the Gnostic Human, the individual in whom the Consciousness Force itself, the supramental power of universal creativity, incarnates and begins to transform the body/mind into the very cells that evolve beyond the human phase.

Others have called this Homo noeticus, a being of gnosis or deep knowing of the Field out of which we are co-arising. Or Homo divina, as Sister Judy Cauley puts it. Or the universal human, connected through the heart to the whole of life, awakening from within by the core of the spiral of evolution. The implicate order is becoming explicate in us, turning into the essential self, animated by a passionate life-purpose to express our creativity.