Skip to content

Mother Within (Part Two)

June 22, 2013

100_0685

A friend sent me numerous excerpts from a few books he was reading, but I can only address the first few. I have work apart from essaying on SPIR, and I really need to get back to it. The following is Christopher Pramuk on Sergei Bulgakov’s expressions in Sophiology ( a continuation from Part One).

 

Sophia is the lilac fairy because by interjecting testimony from nature, history and human experience, sophiology refuses to regard dogma as a finished thing; at the same time, it challenges the secular disciplines to take seriously not just humanity but God-filled humanity.

L: First, allow me to dip into the mind of Pramuk here. The following is an article from September 2010.
The question: What would Cardinal Newman say to the 21st century Church? (the Roman Catholic Church)

Professor Pramuk: First of all, I find it encouraging to remember that Newman lived in a time of polarization not unlike our own, and that he despised any form of what he called “bigotry,” “dogmatism,” or “partisanship” that would divide the Christian community into camps, each convinced of its own fidelity to truth. Against any such “narrow-mindedness,” Newman urged his fellow Christians—most beautifully and brilliantly in the Oxford University Sermons—to nurture in themselves not only confidence in the doctrines of faith but also an intellectual humility that always expects to learn something new from others (including non-Christians). This combination of faith and humility he called “wisdom.” For Newman, wisdom was the fruit of a vibrantly “catholic” imagination that always seeks after the whole of things, which strives prayerfully to see, and love, the world as God does.

What most concerns me today is not any single issue facing the Church so much as a kind of poverty of imagination that seems to be stunting our communal life and intellectual vitality at every turn. It is the same sort of cognitive dis-ease or malaise, I think, that dismayed Newman in the increasingly reactionary climate of the Church in the mid to late 19th century. But whether it comes from the “conservative” right or the “liberal” left, whether from hubris or from fear—and the longing for certainty in a sea of relativism—for Newman, the temptation to seize upon and elevate a fixed theological position or intractable vision of the Church at the expense of an ever more dynamic, tensive, and holistic vision of things is, in a word, fatal to the truly religious and Catholic imagination. Such a temptation not only risks foreclosing the necessary, if painful, dynamic of discernment and trust in the Spirit—a dynamism and, one might say, boldness of theological imagination that Newman cherished in the patristic Church. Even more, it risks foreclosing the possibility of conversion, that God might be calling us, in and through the labor pangs of discernment, toward ever more authentic and holy expressions of Christian belief and practice.

In short, Newman might gently (or not so gently) remind us that holiness in the life of the Church has never been simply about what we believe; it is also about how we discern and articulate those beliefs and, above all, strive to live them as a community bound together by faith. As he put it with disarming simplicity, hearkening to Jesus, our consummate Teacher and shepherd in faith, “We believe because we love.” If we do not love, we give the lie to our professed beliefs.

http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/q-christopher-pramuk

L: re: Such a temptation not only risks foreclosing the necessary, if painful, dynamic of discernment and trust in the Spirit—a dynamism and, one might say, boldness of theological imagination that Newman cherished in the patristic Church … 

Newman urged his fellow Christians—most beautifully and brilliantly in the Oxford University Sermons—to nurture in themselves not only confidence in the doctrines of faith but also an intellectual humility that always expects to learn something new from others (including non-Christians). This combination of faith and humility he called “wisdom.” For Newman, wisdom was the fruit of a vibrantly “catholic” imagination that always seeks after the whole of things, which strives prayerfully to see, and love, the world as God does.

I’m going to get a little rowdy here, but I remind the reader that we are essaying on MOTHER WITHIN in the sanctity and preservation of the Parenthood God,  and I would like to add, found guilty and betrayed through a slew of fatalistic specimens. These words by both Newman and Pramuk sound pretty, and there is a richness in some of what is said, but do they err in aligning presence -their presence – with me as orthodox spiritual of feminine origin. Where is WHOLENESS and SANCTITY of God, given their doctrines of the RC faith within their PATRISTIC Church? Is this the Catholic imagination? Somehow I feel very strongly that this has been betrayed by fancy words, all the while denying the whimsical and delightful – the poetic and the sensuous – the Just and the Wise – of the imagination they hail. Then, forcibly jail?  How does one unify within  – that ascension of heart to mind – understood as a marriage of the Feminine Sophia to the mind of God? How does one equate night and day? Until there is an equality of the feminine and the masculine in the doctrines and teachings of this church, can it be called a Church in the sanctity of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? And I repeat, JESUS CHRIST (note: two part name).

And Jesus took the bread …

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Luke 22.19

Jesus said …

And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many. Mark 24.14

He was calling these disciples in the Upper Room to a marriage with Sophia, which required a transforming of the mind, in, I AM. For He also says: I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE … NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT THROUGH ME. In order to go through what is necessary to come to the Father, one must go through the Way of Wisdom, our Mother Within. Now, does this align with much of the practices and beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church, and other denominations claiming Christ as their way? A very adequate question that needs to be asked is WHOSE BODY and WHOSE BLOOD? And what is the Spiritual Essence instrumental in the transformation therein? 

Now, what about this bigotry, prejudice and partisanship? 

And why do I even bother to essay on any of this? Answer: You don’t get the Spiritual Art until you find Mother Within. One can paint these works for twenty-five years, or even thirty-five, but will it be up against the sentiments of a clergy that says: In twenty years we may have female priests (one did tell me a priest said this).

Honestly, I believe my Spiritual Art may have more traction with the Atheists and nonreligious. Why? Because it demonstrates not partisanship, but partnership.

100_0626

Peace and Love

Advertisements
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: