Ask a Gnostic Anything

[Lucretius]

It is clear that you have an understanding of John of the Cross (probably moreso than me) and I thank you for that beautiful passage.

You’re welcome. The passage is straight out of Ascent to Mount Carmel, which can be found online here: ewtn.com/library/SOURCES/ASCENT-J.TXT

It is well understood by me that there are differences in St. John’s contemplation, Jewish Kaballah, and Sufi ecstasy-I am not trying to propagate some Ramakrishna “many paths to the same summit” brand of pluralism. To that end we probably agree.

I’m on board with you, Captain

My point is that you must see how one who has never read St. John might interpret phrases like “become God by participation” or “participate in the divine nature” might see this as ‘Hindu-esque’ because the gap between God and man is reduced.

When I first read some parts of St. Thomas Aquinas’s writings, I actually thought that he had panentheistic tendencies, so I agree that people who dive right in without some background knowledge might get confused.

Similarly, you related my experience of Gnosis with Hindu moksha when I am experiencing something quite different even if it does not appear that way to you on the surface.

Moksha is liberation from samsahra, correct? If I am misunderstanding, then what is the difference between moksha and gnosis? Is gnosis temporary liberation from the material world? What analogies or the like can you give to help me better understand your experiences? :bounce:

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Denise1957]

It is clear that you have an understanding of John of the Cross (probably moreso than me) and I thank you for that beautiful passage. It is well understood by me that there are differences in St. John’s contemplation, Jewish Kaballah, and Sufi ecstasy-I am not trying to propagate some Ramakrishna “many paths to the same summit” brand of pluralism. To that end we probably agree.

My point is that you must see how one who has never read St. John might interpret phrases like “become God by participation” or “participate in the divine nature” might see this as ‘Hindu-esque’ because the gap between God and man is reduced. Similarly, you related my experience of Gnosis with Hindu moksha when I am experiencing something quite different even if it does not appear that way to you on the surface.

There isn’t anything even remotely gnostic in anything that St. John of the Cross wrote. He was a devout Catholic, and if his writings contained anything other than sound Catholic principles, he would not have been canonized.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

Sophia Christ, what is your opinion of Psychologist Carl Jung? He has a tendency to follow this sort of thinking process.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Very good! You caught me; I see Jung as the most important Western thinker of the 20th century!

Haha all joking aside though, I believe I mentioned him in another post.

But I disagree on one level with most of Jung’s followers. They minimize religious experience to this psychological explanation whereas I believe they are saying the same thing in different terms. It is a subtle difference but one I believe to be true.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

Yes, like the Sun, and the “rays of the sun” right?

.

Exactly!!!

 

[Lucretius]

You are talking about dogma and I am talking about direct experience. The experience of God may differ based on culture or time period but it is still God

We Catholics don’t believe that one is saved by merely assenting to some Dogmas. We also (and more importantly) teach that one needs Grace to experience God. Although Contemplative prayer is a good way to ask for this Grace, it is most obviously given in the Sacraments. In other words, the Sacraments are direct experiences with God: Grace incarnated into matter, just as the Deity was incarnated into a human.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Sophia_Christ]

When we die is it your belief that humans will live eternally with what you call the true God, as well as the “imperfect” God we call the Trinity?

There are many different Gnostic interpretations of the afterlife. The Valentinian view is that the afterlife is a kind of eternal alternate reality of the life we are experiencing now without the pain and suffering, etc.

 

[Denise1957]

We Catholics don’t believe that one is saved by merely assenting to some Dogmas. We also (and more importantly) teach that one needs Grace to experience God. Although Contemplative prayer is a good way to ask for this Grace, it is most obviously given in the Sacraments. In other words, the Sacraments are direct experiences with God: Grace incarnated into matter, just as the Deity was incarnated into a human.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

The Sacraments (especially the Eucharist) are direct experiences of God, but not necessarily on an emotional or intuitive level (which seems important to gnostics). One usually not have any sort of “feeling” or experience at all when receiving Holy Eucharist. Yet we know that we are a close to God as we can possibly be - when we receive His very body into ours, which trumps any supposed gnostic “experience”, IMO.

 

[Servant19]

Exactly!!!

Well then, EVERYTHING You say is true

But please be aware that EVERYTHING the Catholic friends say here also, are true .

God bless you
(I sent you a PM)



.

 

[Lucretius]

There isn’t anything even remotely gnostic in anything that St. John of the Cross wrote. He was a devout Catholic, and if his writings contained anything other than sound Catholic principles, he would not have been canonized.

Of course not! St John is completely orthodox. He (she?) isn’t saying anything like that. What he’s saying is that for someone with no basic theological understanding (never read the appropriate section in the Catechism, for example), might think that phrases like “God became man so man could become god” sound a lot like the Lie the serpent tempted Eve with (eat this and be like God ).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Sophia_Christ]

…

Dear friend, would you mind elaborating if you see any difference between Sophia, and the Logos, or Primal Will or First Emanation of the true God?

Thankyou

.

Of course! May I ask first how you define the Logos?

 

[Denise1957]

Of course not! St John is completely orthodox. He (she?) isn’t saying anything like that. What he’s saying is that for someone with no basic theological understanding (never read the appropriate section in the Catechism, for example), might think that phrases like “God became man so man could become god” sound a lot like the Lie the serpent tempted Eve with (eat this and be like God ).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

It seemed to me that an attempt was being made to somehow equate St. John’s writings with gnostic views. There isn’t anything in common between Catholicism and gnosticism.

What Sophia Christ has not been willing to discuss (and I keep asking anyway) is the subjective aspect of gnostic “experiences.”

 

[Servant19]

Of course! May I ask first how you define the Logos?

Logos is the First Emanation from the true Hidden Essence we call God (or you call "true God)

Since the Essence of God cannot “manifest” Itself within creation, then creation is manifested through the Logos/First Emanation.

.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

The Sacraments (especially the Eucharist) are direct experiences of God, but not necessarily on an emotional or intuitive level (which seems important to gnostics). One usually not have any sort of “feeling” or experience at all when receiving Holy Eucharist. Yet we know that we are a close to God as we can possibly be - when we receive His very body into ours, which trumps any supposed gnostic “experience”, IMO.

There are two words in your post which are very important. The first is intuition which is the foundation of Gnostic experience.

The second is IMO-I find the experience of intuitive Gnosis to be far more profound than that of the Eucharist (and I was raised in the Catholic Church btw) but if you experience more directly via the Host, then who am I to say you are wrong?

 

[Denise1957]

There are two words in your post which are very important. The first is intuition which is the foundation of Gnostic experience.

The second is IMO-I find the experience of intuitive Gnosis to be far more profound than that of the Eucharist (and I was raised in the Catholic Church btw) but if you experience more directly via the Host, then who am I to say you are wrong?

Perhaps you need to have “experiences” to validate what you perceive as truth (which in reality is not truth, as it contradicts revealed truths).

I believe without having to have “experiences.” It’s called having faith. Perhaps you will have faith too, one day. Being caught up in having to have “experiences” will only put off your having true faith in our Lord.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

Why couldn’t she understand him if she is Wisdom? When I think of “perpetual harmony” I don’t think great pains and anxiety. I think quite the opposite.

She could not understand Him in full because He is incomprehensible even to the wisest creature.

And the anxiety came from her yearning to understand God and that is paradoxically beautiful. An analogy would be Catholics meditating on the sorrowful mysteries while praying the rosary which is a very harmonious experience, no?

 

[Sophia_Christ]

Moksha is liberation from samsahra, correct? If I am misunderstanding, then what is the difference between moksha and gnosis? Is gnosis temporary liberation from the material world? What analogies or the like can you give to help me better understand your experiences? :bounce:

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Upon experience of Gnosis, there is absorption in the godhead yet there is still a subconscious cognitive awareness that there is an external world (though we are detached from it).

Hindu Moksha (your definition was correct), the external world is seen to be an illusion, and thereby crumbles, placing the practitioner in a trance-like state called samadhi.

 

[Sophia_Christ]

There isn’t anything even remotely gnostic in anything that St. John of the Cross wrote. He was a devout Catholic, and if his writings contained anything other than sound Catholic principles, he would not have been canonized.

???

I agree. In my post, I’m acknowledging the difference between John of the Cross and Gnosticism

 

[Lucretius]

The Sacraments (especially the Eucharist) are direct experiences of God, but not necessarily on an emotional or intuitive level (which seems important to gnostics). One usually not have any sort of “feeling” or experience at all when receiving Holy Eucharist. Yet we know that we are a close to God as we can possibly be - when we receive His very body into ours, which trumps any supposed gnostic “experience”, IMO.

Actually, I think experiences on the emotional level are also important to some Christians (charismatic, Pentecostals, etc.).

I know that when I receive, I “know” that I’m being as intimate with Christ as possible: He is closer to me then I am to myself, if that makes sense. Sometimes, I have tears in my eyes :crying: ; sometimes I am so filled with joy that I want to go and share this joy with everyone around me :extrahappy: , showing them how much Christ loves them! But other times, I’m terrified (especially if I recently confessed a mortal sin). And sometimes, I don’t feel anything: I simple understand the humility of the God who takes on the form of bread and wine, instead of something big and showy, like a juicy steak or something. :bowdown2:

I have always thought that emotions can come with the experience: but they are not necessary to them. Many people become unhappy because they think they should be seeing angels or something. The Saints teach that we shouldn’t focus on emotions though: they flux. Focus on them, and they will leave, and you will find you have no Faith; Focus on following the Lord, and they might come. St. John of the Cross, St. Therese of Lisieux, and Blessed Mother Teresa all experienced a (perceived) mental, emotional, and spiritual distance from God called by St John as “the Dark Night of the Soul.” But as St. John points out, even though you don’t see or feel God anyway, this is actually a closer, more direct experience, since emotions and intellectual knowledge often serve as idols. God, who is utterly transcendent, is nothing like what we see with either the senses or the mind, so if we are to know Him “as He is” with no distractions, a Dark Night might be something closer to what we should expect.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Sophia_Christ]

We Catholics don’t believe that one is saved by merely assenting to some Dogmas. We also (and more importantly) teach that one needs Grace to experience God. Although Contemplative prayer is a good way to ask for this Grace, it is most obviously given in the Sacraments. In other words, the Sacraments are direct experiences with God: Grace incarnated into matter, just as the Deity was incarnated into a human.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Fair enough but who is to say that your contemplative experience with the Eucharist is more authentic than the God-intoxicated Sufi mystic? No doubt it is different in nature, but is it more authentic?

I feel you must call upon dogma in order to answer this question whilst not betraying the teachings of the church

 

[Sophia_Christ]

Logos is the First Emanation from the true Hidden Essence we call God (or you call "true God)

Since the Essence of God cannot “manifest” Itself within creation, then creation is manifested through the Logos/First Emanation.

.

I’m afraid I cannot adequately answer this question

I am not too educated on the various emanations according to Gnosticism. These are advanced teachings which I have not been able to wrap my head around at this point in my spiritual journey.The lineage differs across traditions, there are overlaps, and it gives me a headache!

I also do not find it particularly fruitive to my spiritual experience-perhaps if it was not so confusing!