A Catholic Criticism of A Course In Miracles
Mark Jones
Hi Everyone,
padr...@aol.com posted the following two articles, by Edward R Hryczyk
and by Tracy Moran, on tnn.religion.catholic in December 1996. (I came
across them while browsing through the www.reference.com archives,
searching for 'A Course in Miracles'.)
Mark Jones
________________________________________________________________________
Subject: A Course in Miracles, New Age
From: padr...@aol.com
Date: 9 Dec 1996 18:46:35 GMT
Message-ID: <19961209184...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: tnn.religion.catholic
I have heard people, both privately, on Catholic chat channels, and
other locations, speak glowingly of this course. Problem is, the
course
has nothing to do with actual miracles, or even anything with God.
A COURSE IN MIRACLES
by Edward R Hryczyk
The text of the book "A Course in Miracles" is the product of seven
years of trance spirit channeling of a Mrs. Helen Schucman. The
spirit that channeled a "new gospel" to Mrs. Schucman claimed to be
Jesus Christ. The "spirit" made contact with her to correct errors
in Sacred Scripture, and the teachings of the Church. The "spirit"
that channeled through Mrs. Schucman wrote that Sacred Scripture was
in error in teaching us that sin separates us from God, and that
Jesus Christ did not die on the cross for our sins. The book "A
Course in Miracles" contains a Text (the dictation's of Mrs.
Schucman), a Student Workbook, and an Instructors Manual (1).
Mrs. Schucman, a Columbia University professor and psychologist, was
an acquaintance of Fr. Benedict J. Groeschel, C.F.R. (seen on EWTN).
Fr. Groeschel gave a eulogy at her funeral. Fr. Groeschel wrote (2),
"This woman who had written so eloquently that suffering really did
not exist spent the last two years of her life in the blackest
psychotic depression I have ever witnessed." Fr. Groeschel is a holy,
practical, wise, no nonsense priest, and psychologist. During an
October 1994 lecture on "Discernment" given at Holy Cross Church,
Rumson, N.J., Fr. Groeschel stated that he believed that Helen
Shucman's experience with the channeled "spirit" was possibly a true
diabolic manifestation. Fr. Groeschel's experience as a psychologist
and priest included being called upon by his Bishop to investigate
reported diabolic manifesta- tions in his New York City diocese. In
the lecture Fr. Groeschel de- scribed one experience - called as an
exorcist - where he witnessed objects unexplainably being thrown
about a room. At the end of a lengthy discussion he attributed that
particular experience to paranormal manifestations - but not diabolic
in nature (3).
Fr. Groeschel is not easily inclined to attribute any experience to
the diabolic. The possible diabolic origin in the spirit channeling
of Helen Schucman was one exception given by Fr. Groeschel. Fr.
Groeschel's suspicions find support in Sacred Scripture. Helen
Schucman's "chan- neled spirit" denies that our Lord Jesus Christ
came to the earth in the flesh. An abstract of "the Course" can be
written based solely on two lines of the "spirit" channeled writings.
Chapter 8, Section VII, para- graph 7, page 152 states:
"The Bible says, "The Word (or thought) was made flesh." Strictly
speaking this is impossible, since it seems to involve the
translation of one order or reality into another."
Contrast the "spirits" channeled words to the inspired words of St.
John (1 John 4:1-3):
" Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see
whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into
the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which
confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and
every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the
spirit of anti- christ, of which you heard that it was coming, and
now it is in the world already."
To further stress the assertion to a "student" of "the Course" that
Jesus Christ was but an illusion the accompanying Manual For
Teachers, page 87, Clarification of Terms, Section 5, "Jesus-Christ",
paragraph 2 states: " The name of Jesus is the name of one who was a
man but saw the face of Christ in all his brothers and remembered
God. So he became identified with Christ, a man no longer, but one
with God. The man was an illusion, for he seemed to be a separate
being, walking by himself, within a body that appeared to hold his
self from Self, as illusions do."
The "channeled spirit" was not from God.
On page 186 of the Text the "spirit" writes, "I do not bring God's
message with deception, and you will learn that you always receive as
much as you accept."
One does find truth in the writings of "the Course." The following
quote would be humorous if it were not for the sad ending of Mrs.
Schuc- man's life, and the influence "the Course" has had on
thousands of individuals. Chapter 9, Section IV, paragraph 8, of the
Text, page 170 states: "Anyone who elects a totally insane guide must
be totally insane himself." Chapter 25, Section VII, paragraph 8, of
the Text, page 533, again states: "It would be madness to entrust
salvation to the insane."
The writing style of "the Course" is very confusing - but at the same
time in some way intellectual and emotionally seductive. The
writings may start with a beautiful, seemingly inspired truth and
than will slowly drift to confusion - logically ending up with
conclu- sions that are contrary to Sacred Scripture and the teachings
of the Church.
The course is "Gnostic" in teaching and practice. The writings deny
the reality of physical creation (4). The course acknowledges the
need for a novice student to receive training in "the Course" by a
teacher that has already received some enlightenment by studying "the
Course." A separate teacher's guide forms part of "the Course." As
with all "New Age" teachings, seminars are provided - for a fee - to
help the individ- ual advance in spirituality.
Some of the beliefs, as written in "the Course" are:
a. REALITY: Reality is illusory.
(1.) From Manual, page 85, "The world you see is an illusion of a
world. God did not create it, for what He creates must be eternal as
Himself" (Manual, p85).
(2.) "And therefore all your sins have been forgiven because they
car- ried no effects at all. And so they were but dreams" (Manual,
p87).
(3.) "Forgiveness through the Holy Spirit lies in looking beyond
error from the beginning, and thus keeping it unreal for you" (Text,
p169).
b. CREATION/TRINITY: The writings teach that God and His creation are
one.
(1.) "There is no separation of God and His creation." (Text, p147)
(2.) "If you are part of one you must be part of the other, because
they are one. The Holy Trinity is holy because It is One. If you
exclude yourself from this union, you are perceiving the Holy Trinity
as sepa- rated" (Text, p146).
(3.) "Creation is your will because it is His" (Text, p196).
c. JESUS CHRIST'S ORIGIN: The writings state that Jesus Christ was
created (made not begotten).
"God would not have us be alone because He does not will to be alone.
That is why He created His Son, and gave him the power to create with
Him" (Text, p150).
d. SALVATION: We do not need a savior. Salvation is nothing more than
right mindedness. We are the source of our own salvation.
(1.) "Never forget that the Sonship is your salvation, for the
Sonship is your Self. As God's creation It is yours, and belonging
to you It is His. Your Self does not need salvation, but your mind
needs to learn what salvation is." (Text, p200).
(2.) "My holiness is my salvation." (Workbook, Lesson 58, p97)
(3.) "My salvation comes from me. It cannot come from anywhere else."
..."My salvation cannot come from any of these things. My salva-
tion comes from me and only me."....."My salvation comes from me.
Nothing outside of me can hold me back. Within me is the world's
salva- tion and my own." (Workbook, Lesson 70, p120)
(4.) "Whenever two Sons of God meet, they are given another chance at
salvation." (Text, P142)
(5.) "We cannot be separated. Whom God has joined cannot be
separated, and God has joined all His Sons with Himself." (Text,
p150)
(6.) "Yet all loss comes only from misunderstanding. Loss of any kind
is impossible." (Text, p152)
(7.) "He will teach you how to see yourself without condemnation, by
learning how to look on everything without it. Condemnation will
then not be real to you, and all your errors will be forgiven."
(Text, p168)
e. GOD: God is your identity, you will be like God.
(1.) " The recognition of God is the recognition of yourself. There
is no separation of God and his creation." (Text, p147)
(2.) "God's Name is holy, but no holier than yours. To call upon his
Name is but to call upon your own." (Workbook, p342)
(3.) "My decision cannot overcome yours, because yours is as powerful
as mine. If it were not so the Sons of God would be unequal." (Text,
p145)
(4.) "Our creations are as holy as we are, and we are the Sons of God
Himself, as holy as He is." (Text, p150)
(5.) "God Himself is incomplete without me." (Text, p177)
(6.) "God is not jealous of the gods you make, but you are."
(Text,p186)
f. SELF: We are sinless and are like God.
(1.) "My true Identity is so secure, so lofty, sinless, glorious, and
great, wholly beneficent and free from guilt, that Heaven looks to It
to give it light." (Workbook, Lesson 225, p403)
(2.) "You do not know yourself, because you do not know your Creator.
You do not know your creations because you do not know your brothers,
who created them with you.... He is the co-creator with God and you."
(Text, p137)
(3.) "Glory to God in the highest, and to you because He has so
willed it." (Text, p141)
(4.) "What God and His Sons create is eternal, and this only is their
joy." (Text, p148)
(5.) "God does not contradict Himself, and His Sons, who are like
Him, cannot contradict themselves or Him. Yet their thought is so
powerful that they can even imprison the mind of God's Son." (Text,
p149)
(6.) "God gave you the function to create in eternity." (Text, p168)
g. LAST JUDGMENT: Have no fear of God's Judgment
"Do not fear the Last Judgment, but welcome it and do not wait, for
the ego's time is "borrowed" from your eternity."..... "The Second
Coming is the awareness of reality, not its return." (Text, p170)
In dealing with individuals who teach and follow "the Course" one
must realize that they probably believe they are truly seeking God in
their studies of "the Course." Those trying to follow the teachings
would consciously reject all evil. Unfortunately, their beliefs are
"Gnostic" and they probably consider a Catholic's devotion to the
Faith , given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ, as unenlightened
medieval superstition to be rejected by all in this enlightened "new
age." The teaching's in "the Course" are particularly attractive to
individuals who have fallen away from the faith and find themselves
seeking some- thing to fill their spiritual void.
Reading Sacred Scripture is nourishment for the soul, since the words
have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. Taking the words of "the
Course" into one's heart will lead to a slow spiritual death. It is a
book to be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately celebrities such has
John Denver have been taken in by the book and have spread its
influence.
NOTES:
(1) The quotations are taken from "The Course in Miracles", published
by the Foundation for Inner Peace, P.O. Box 1104, Glen Ellen, CA
95442, second edition, second printing, August 1992.
(2) Page 79 of, "A Still, Small Voice, A Practical Guide On Reported
Revelations", by Fr. Benedict J. Groeschel, C.F.R., Ignatius Press
1993
(3) For an good discussion of the para normal see Fr. Groesch- el's
video series "Religious Experiences", distributed by the Daugh- ter's
of Saint Paul.
(4) The Spiritual Counterfeits Project, SPC Journal, Vol 7, No 1,
1987 analyzes the teaching found in "the Course" in an article by
Dean C. Halverson, "A Course in Miracles, Seeing Yourself as
Sinless." The SPC claims to be a non-denominational evangelical
Christian organization; the organization has demonstrated an
anti-Catholic bias in its recent publications.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________
Subject: A Course in Miracles II
From: padr...@aol.com
Date: 11 Dec 1996 00:46:26 GMT
Message-ID: <19961211004...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: tnn.religion.catholic
In this second installement on the dangers, the forgeries, of "A
Course in Miracles" we see again that it directly opposes anything
Christian while claiming to 'purify' Christianity. I need to make a
few
observations. Angels are not mediums, are not 'familiars'. However,
in
order to make a New Age/Wiccan theology 'palatable' to
Catholics/Christians, they use angels in much the same way as witches
lok
to their familairs, or channelers to their 'spirit guides'. There is
nothing similiar between New Age 'angels' and the angels of
Christianity.
"If anyone brings you another Gospel, even an angel of light, let them
be
anathema."
A Course In Brainwashing
by Tracy Moran
Catholics across the country are alarmed at the increasing
popularity of a New Age phenomenon known as "A Course in
Miracles," a system of spirituality proponents claim is the "Third
Testament" of God to His people.
Even more alarming, critics say, is that the movement is gaining a
foothold among some Catholics.
"A Course in Miracles," a 1,249-page study manual, was authored by
the "inner voice" of research psychologist Helen Schucman between
1965 and 1972. Schucman, a professor at Columbia University and a
self-described atheist at the time, claims the "voice" was that of
Jesus Christ.
In 1977, New Age guru and best-selling author Marianne Williamson
discovered "A Course in Miracles" and helped spread its message
internationally, reeling in stars such as Oprah Winfrey and
Shirley MacLaine along the way.
Today, the course has sold more than 1 million copies, and more
than 2,000 groups in the United States meet to study the course,
which Williamson calls "a self-study program of spiritual
psychotherapy."
But a former disciple of "A Course in Miracles" who returned to
the Catholic Church calls it a course in brainwashing. Moira
Noonan, once a New Age minister and psychic, was introduced to the
course 20 years ago. Upon returning to the Church, she was shocked
to find that "A Course in Miracles" is sold in some Catholic
bookstores and that many fellow believers are studying it.
"They say in the course that the Holy Spirit wants us to have
these new thoughts, a new reality," Noonan explained. "It says
right in the beginning of the course to question everything....
The course is Satan's mockbible," she said, adding that its
disciples "want people to think it's a religion, but it's not."
The Foundation for a "A Course in Miracles," based in Roscoe,
N.Y., is not affiliated with any church or denomination. Dr.
Kenneth Wapnick, the foundation's director, was a Catholic
seminarian about to enter the monastery when he met Schucman and
read the manuscript for the course.
A clinical psychologist, Wapnick claims the course teaches that
the way to recover one's buried knowledge and memories of God is
by "undoing" guilt through forgiving others. It aims to remove
"the blocks to one's awareness of love's presence," which is every
person's natural state of mind.
Jesuit Father Mitch Pacwa, who has written on New Age religions,
sees how such language can resonate with Catholics, luring them to
study the course.
"The key problem is the [course's] pseudo - Christian vocabulary
and ideas," said Father Pacwa. "People don't know the Catechism,
they don't know their faith.... The course strongly rejects the
use of reason and thinking.... This is precisely what makes the
course feasible. Once you get rid of reason, you get rid of
discussion."
Noonan explained the course's attraction to Catholics by noting
that "in our culture, we want a quick fix. [The course] teaches
that you can claim a miracle. It's part of the individualistic
attitude we have in this society."
Noonan said some Catholics pick up the course thinking: "I never
really liked or understood the Bible anyway, so why don't I read
this? The language is easier for me to understand."
Led astray
Critics of "A Course in Miracles" warn that Catholics who try to
incorporate its principles into their faith will severely
compromise their beliefs because the two theologies are completely
incompatible.
Father Pacwa said the course repeatedly misquotes the Bible and
"presents a false Jesus." Even though Jesus supposedly dictated
the course to Schucman, the course's Jesus "does not like the
Crucifixion," Father Pacwa said. "One of the things said
repeatedly and forcefully in the course is that sacrifice has
nothing to do with love-they are incompatible."
The "Jesus" of "A Course in Miracles" is not really the Son of
God, never really had a physical body, and hence never really
suffered on the cross. He even rephrases the Lord's Prayer,
replacing "hallowed be thy name" with "Our holiness is Yours,"
Father Pacwa pointed out.
With such glaring differences between Christianity and the course,
it is no wonder Father Benedict Groeschel, C.F.R., another critic,
said the movement "has become something of a sophisticated cult."
And he should know, having studied at Columbia University under
Schucman.
In his book, "A Still, Small Voice," Father Groeschel recounts his
"utter astonishment" when he was told in 1969 about Schucman's
alleged encounter with "the Son of God." According to Father
Groeschel, the course that resulted from this encounter is
"centered on a Son of God who at times seems to be the Christ of
orthodox Christianity and sometimes an avatar of an Eastern
religion."
Father Groeschel said that among clergy and Religious, "There's a
lot of suspicion about the course right now."
And suspicion seems warranted, considering that the course denies
the existence of suffering and sin, claims the Holy Spirit's main
purpose is to heal people's unconscious thoughts, and reinterprets
the word "miracle" into psychological terms.
According to a recent book promoting the course, the "purpose of
this system . . . is to draw our minds into a completely different
way of thinking.... Education on this level is clearly re-
education, which demands, first of all, unlearning."
Moreover, "A Course in Miracles" purports to be a "purifier of
Christianity," as explained in the book: "Echoing the Bible, [the
course] thus presents the image of a contemporary revealed
scripture, a modern-day message from God to mankind."
Yet, ironically, perhaps the strongest argument against wedding
Christianity with the course comes from Wapnick himself. In the
book "A Course in Miracles and Christianity: A Dialogue,"
published by his foundation, Wapnick and Jesuit Father W. Norris
Clarke map out the sharp differences of the two theologies,
defining them as "mutually exclusive."
Wapnick writes that "to attempt reconciliation between [the two]
must inevitably lead to frustration at best and severe distortion
at worst.... 'A Course in Miracles' directly refutes the very
basis of the Christian faith, leaving nothing on which Christians
can base their beliefs."
Whatever the course's true intention, however, Father Pacwa warns
that the course "presents a false Jesus, false Spirit and false
Gospel, and therefore it deserves simple rejection."
And even if the course <does> attempt to "purify" the Gospel, its
effort is fruitless, as Father Clarke points out in the
"Dialogue":
"Traditional Christianity maintains that human beings have really
sinned and turned away from God, hence [they] have the burden of a
genuine (not merely neurotic) guilt.... Then Jesus took on the
burden of our own sins and truly suffered and died on the cross to
make reparation for them. He then truly rose from the dead, with a
real, though transformed or glorified body, and is forever united
with His Father now in glory."
Moran writes from San Diego, Calif. For more information on "A
Course in Miracles," contact Moira Noonan at: P.O. Box 232716,
Encinitas, CA 92023
schu...@aol.com
How sad. What I hear are truely threatened, frightened people.
maan...@aol.com
I'll be darned. All these years I've been studying a "religion" and didn't know it.
Somebody had better alert the FACIM and FIP.
bska...@aol.com
I still think ACIM has more to offer modern man than traditional
religion even if it is accepted as just "philosophy". It does have
its "religious" elements. Some of the catholics
objections appear to be where the course contradicts some of their
more arcane (read "indefensible") and ritual beliefs. A Christian
could live their life doing what ACIM suggests and never be
challenged for acts of heresy or labeled a non-christian.
How could they tell?
Except ACIM does not REQUIRE going to church once a week or
giving money to an institution more interested in financial self-
preservation than soul-preservation. And I won't even bring up that
children have been sexually and mentally abused by trusted
religious leaders in said institution...
Up the Sonship!
BS
Richard Mallett
On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:54:07 -0500, Mark Jones <m...@world.std.com>
wrote:
>Hi Everyone,
>
>padr...@aol.com posted the following two articles, by Edward R Hryczyk
>and by Tracy Moran, on tnn.religion.catholic in December 1996. (I came
>across them while browsing through the www.reference.com archives,
>searching for 'A Course in Miracles'.)
Thanks for sending this Mark. It does two things:
1. Explains Ted Grabowski's contributions to the Latrobe list
2. Shows that some folks will say almost anything in trying to
discredit the Course.
Course critics always amaze me. If there is a theological difference,
that's fine. I can accept that someone else may choose to believe
differently than me.
Why do they (as often as not) have to distort the message of the
Course in order to attack it? It would seem that if the Course thought
system is as flawed as they insist, why not damn it with it's truths
rather than their lies? If you have to lie about something to prove it
"wrong", what must that say about whatever you're defending
What I found to be extremely distasteful is the characterization of
Helen. The weakness of the argument may be conceded in the decision to
"attack the messenger". If you have the facts on your side, pound on
the facts. If you don't have the facts on your side, pound on the
table.
Richard
Richard Mallett
On 17 Feb 1997 01:59:33 GMT, bska...@aol.com wrote:
>... And I won't even bring up that
>children have been sexually and mentally abused by trusted
>religious leaders in said institution...
Sounds to me like you did.
Richard
Richard Mallett
Mary wrote:
>I'll be darned. All these years I've been studying a "religion" and didn't know it.
I don't have a problem with ACIM being a (my) religion; in fact I
label it as such. The Latin root of the word means a reuniting with
God. What can be wrong with that?
Richard
RiBaker
defensiveness = exclusion = separation
One of the most comforting truths from the course for me is that my
function is not to convince, but to forgive.
David Thomson
Mark,
Thanks for posting the writings of Edward R. Hryczyk to the newsgroup. I
was impressed by his genuine devotion to his own religion and his ability
to critique the Course in an honest way.
I was a little disappointed with Tracy Moran's critique as it appeared to
have fear as its motivation.
In either case, I think such evaluations of the Course are beneficial to
students and give a balanced view of ACIM according to non-students.
Mr. Hryczyk's post helped me to see the Course from the eyes of someone who
is deeply invested in a particular religious belief. He is obviously a
gentle, honest and caring person who is not consumed by ignorance. These
are the very attributes I aspire for myself while studying ACIM.
Although Mr. Hryczyk's teachings vary considerably from the Course in form,
they are very similar in terms of content. He teaches gentleness, patience,
peace, and love. He is genuinely concerned for living things. It doesn't
bother me that he thinks we have sinned. The words we choose to understand
and practice gentleness, patience, peace and love (and all the other
attributes of spirituality) are nothing compared to actual understanding
and practice.
I hope these and other genuine critiques of the Course find their way into
the archives of ACIM.
Dave
Scott Perry
I once heard a saying somewhat like, "There are no great men in the
world without great enemies".
I feel "honored" that our humble book has aroused such a "wail" from the
Catholic establishment. Along the lines of Richard's thinking, "Facts
can be most disconcerting things to the person who suspects they are out
to get him!"
If this were the middle ages, we would all be burnt at the stake along
with our ACIM book, I have no doubt!
maan...@aol.com
>I don't have a problem with ACIM being a (my) religion; in fact I
>label it as such. The Latin root of the word means a reuniting with
>God. What can be wrong with that?
>
>
I get your point, Richard, but the author of the course said, "To be a teacher of God, it is not necessary to be religious or even to believe in God to any recognizable extent. It is necessary, however, to teach forgiveness rather than condemnation." I hardly think that's what the author of the article had in mind.
namaste,
MA
Scott Perry
Dear Dave,
While almost all of Mr. Hryczyk's claims about the incompatablity of
Christianity and ACIM seem to be correct. The three claims that I have
difficulty with are his contentions that ACIM presents a Jesus that was
not a man, 'in the flesh', like the rest of us, was never crucified, and
that the resurrection never occured.
It seems to me that in an effort to discredit the Course, Mr. Hryczyk
is intentionally stretching the truth beyond its breaking point in these
three claims, (these three beliefs also happen to be the most basic and
fundamental beliefs of all Christians).
I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of his comparison, but on these
three key things, I think that it would seem to me to be important that
his 'mistakes' be clearly pointed out.
What are some of the similarities between ACIM and traditional
Christianity?
1.) ACIM firmly establishes Jesus as our spiritual guide and teacher
and as a sort of 'conduit' or mediator back to God.
2.) ACIM teaches that the message of the resurrection is, as it is for
traditional Christians, that 'Death has lost it's sting'.
3.) ACIM reaffirms the teachings of Jesus about the importance of
forgiveness and the 'love of thy neighbor.'
4.) And most importantly, the cirriculum of ACIM aspires to aid us
towards the same goal as the goal of traditional Christians, namely
reunion with God's will, and harmony with all of creation.
To me it seems that the similarities might outweigh the differences.
Am I wrong here?
Sincerely,
Scott
Laurie Immekus
Mark Jones wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> padr...@aol.com posted the following two articles, by Edward R Hryczyk
> and by Tracy Moran, on tnn.religion.catholic in December 1996. (I came
> across them while browsing through the www.reference.com archives,
> searching for 'A Course in Miracles'.)
Thanks Mark. The articles were interesting.
Actually, these articles seem hopeful to me. In them,
I learned that many Catholics are discovering ACIM.
I take this to mean that people of many faiths may be
discovering ACIM also, and using it.
> I have heard people, both privately, on Catholic chat channels, and
> other locations, speak glowingly of this course. Problem is, the
> course
> has nothing to do with actual miracles, or even anything with God.
I can see why this person would write this.
After all, ACIM uses its own definition of
a miracle (or its own 50 definitions) rather
than a traditional Christian definition.
>
> A COURSE IN MIRACLES
>
> by Edward R Hryczyk
>
(snip)
> Helen Schucman's "chan- neled spirit" denies that our Lord Jesus Christ
> came to the earth in the flesh. An abstract of "the Course" can be
> written based solely on two lines of the "spirit" channeled writings.
> Chapter 8, Section VII, para- graph 7, page 152 states:
>
> "The Bible says, "The Word (or thought) was made flesh." Strictly
> speaking this is impossible, since it seems to involve the
> translation of one order or reality into another."
As someone who has studied the entire Course for
several years, I have to say this idea is taken
out of context, or misunderstood here. The denial that
Jesus came to earth in the flesh is correct. However,
what is missing is the understanding that no one has
come to earth in the flesh; earth is an illusion.
An illusion means basically anything that can die.
Jesus cannot die, nor can we, because we are
actually spiritual beings rather than physical beings.
So Jesus is not being made into an exception here.
(snip)
> To further stress the assertion to a "student" of "the Course" that
> Jesus Christ was but an illusion the accompanying Manual For
> Teachers, page 87, Clarification of Terms, Section 5, "Jesus-Christ",
> paragraph 2 states: " The name of Jesus is the name of one who was a
> man but saw the face of Christ in all his brothers and remembered
> God. So he became identified with Christ, a man no longer, but one
> with God. The man was an illusion, for he seemed to be a separate
> being, walking by himself, within a body that appeared to hold his
> self from Self, as illusions do."
Earth is an illusion and bodies are a part of
that illusion. An illusion is something that
can die or be destroyed. Bodies can be destroyed
but spirit and mind cannot.
Much of this first article deals with a comparison
of ACIM to a traditional Christian viewpoint, one
that can be found in many of the Christian sects.
It doesn't surprise me that a glance at the tenets
of ACIM would create fear in some persons who have a belief
in something so different. I don't mean to imply that
everyone who believe ideas different to ACIM will
have fear. Many people who are secure in their belief
and have faith in God won't be afraid of other
religions and beliefs.
> Unfortunately, their beliefs are
> "Gnostic" and they probably consider a Catholic's devotion to the
> Faith , given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ, as unenlightened
> medieval superstition to be rejected by all in this enlightened "new
> age."
I have to admit, that when I first started studying
ACIM, I did feel this way...not just about Catholics
but about almost everyone. Something wonderful happened
during my study and practice of ACIM: this superior attitude
went away. The Holy Spirit healed it. Now I see a "Catholic's devotion
to the Faith, given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ," as a
beautiful and holy thing. I admire anyone who has
faith in God and a belief...whether I agree with their
beliefs or not.
I think I am not at all unusual in this.
> The teaching's in "the Course" are particularly attractive to
> individuals who have fallen away from the faith and find themselves
> seeking some- thing to fill their spiritual void.
This may be true. I have been in ACIM study groups,
especially those held in public places in which
a lot of people checked it out. Almost every week we saw
faces there we never saw again. Sometimes we would have
a member who was very disgruntled with their religion and
attempted to complain about that religion to the group,
thinking perhaps, that we were just waiting to throw stones at
another religion or belief.
The neat thing was that most serious students
of the course didn't pick up those stones and throw them.
Often the incident was a learning and growing
experience for many people. Learning to be
tolerant of others, as it teaches us in ACIM, especially
the Teacher's Manual. And growing in understanding
of how ACIM applies to our everyday life.
__________________________________________________
>
> Subject: A Course in Miracles II
>
> From: padr...@aol.com
>
> Date: 11 Dec 1996 00:46:26 GMT
>
> Message-ID: <19961211004...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>
> Newsgroups: tnn.religion.catholic
>
> A Course In Brainwashing
>
> by Tracy Moran
>
ACIM is a "course in mind-training." If someone
wanted to, they could call any mind-training the
same as brainwashing.
> Even more alarming, critics say, is that the movement is gaining a
> foothold among some Catholics.
See...now I didn't know that. This is news to me.
> But a former disciple of "A Course in Miracles" who returned to
> the Catholic Church calls it a course in brainwashing. Moira
> Noonan, once a New Age minister and psychic, was introduced to the
> course 20 years ago. Upon returning to the Church, she was shocked
> to find that "A Course in Miracles" is sold in some Catholic
> bookstores and that many fellow believers are studying it.
It sounds like someone who studied the Course
finally decided it wasn't true and went back
to her religion, Catholicism. This isn't too
much of a surprise.
There was a woman in one of the groups who was
Catholic and came to the ACIM group for quite a while.
She always appeared to be in great agony, trying to
make the Course and Catholic teachings as she understood
them work together for her. She talked a lot about
her mental anguish. As far as I know, she left ACIM.
But this isn't unusual. Many people leave ACIM.
They might want it to be "just like" whatever else
they believed in. But ACIM challenges our beliefs
and thoughts and fears...when applied to your life,
it makes you question everything. And of course, the
ego is in there, bashing all your beliefs over the
head and creating quite a stir. So for a while,
sometimes a long while, the student can be in turmoil.
No matter what their former belief.
> Noonan explained the course's attraction to Catholics by noting
> that "in our culture, we want a quick fix. [The course] teaches
> that you can claim a miracle. It's part of the individualistic
> attitude we have in this society."
Actually, miracles are never "individualistic"
according to ACIM. Miracles always unite you with
your brother.
> Father Groeschel said that among clergy and Religious, "There's a
> lot of suspicion about the course right now."
I wouldn't doubt it.
Well, it was a pleasure to read these articles
without fear. There was a time I would have been
angry. Right now I am feeling happy.
It's great!
Love ya,
Laurie
Alan Braswell
> To me it seems that the similarities might outweigh the differences.
>Am I wrong here?
The following is a section from the unofficial ACIM FAQ.
While it is unofficial (a group from the La Trobe email list,
cooridinated by Mark Jones, compiled the FAQ) and not supporrted in
any way by the FIP, I personally find this section to be a reasonably
accurate summation of the differences between ACIM and Christianity
(as traditionally and officially understood).
It seems that in form, ACIM and Christianity represent two
distinctly different thought systems. Although, of course, the
underlying content and goal remains the same - the remembrance of God
(in Course terms).
____________________________________________________________________
Q: How does the Course differ from traditional Christianity?
ACIM departs from accepted Christian doctrine in the following
respects:
1. God did not create the world. The physical world is the result of
the ego's projection of the idea of separation and is illusory. All
Christians believe that the world is real, and that God created the
world. The Christian Creed begins with the words "I believe in one
God,
Father Almighty, Maker of heaven *AND EARTH*."
2. Jesus is not the unique Son of God; in the Course the term "Son of
God" includes all created beings. Jesus is not a deity to be
worshipped, but an elder brother, differing from the rest of us only
in time, in that he was the first to remember his true Identity as
the Christ, an Identity shared by us all. In traditional
Christianity, Jesus was "God's only begotten son", and the rest of us
are "adopted sons." (Paul, Ga 4:5)
3. The Course's thought system is monistic and not dualistic. That
is, there is only one power, God, unopposed by any evil force such as
a devil.
4. In the Course there is no hell except that which is created by our
own thoughts of self-punishment. The Course teaches that everyone will
eventually remember God and return to Him, and that, in fact, no one
has ever left Him except in their own imagination.
5. The Course directly refutes the idea of substitutionary atonement
or "vicarious salvation"; that is, the concept that when Jesus died
upon the cross, God was punishing him for the sins of all mankind, so
that he suffered death in our place in order for us to receive life.
Christianity makes sin real, and sees Jesus as having paid the very
real price of our sins. The Course sees sin as unreal, a mistake to
be corrected rather than punished, and asserts that salvation has no
cost. Atonement is not the price paid for sin, but simply the
correction of our error in believing separation from God to be real.
6. For fundamentalists, the Course is heretical in that it
contradicts and corrects the Bible, which they view as inerrant.
_______________________________________________________
Further reading on the subject:
All by Kenneth Wapnick:
_ACIM and Christianity: A Dialogue_ (with W. Norris Clarke)
_Forgiveness and Jesus, the Meeting Place of ACIM and Christianity_
_Love Does Not Condemn_, The World, the Flesh, and the Devil,
According to Platonism, Christianity, Gnosticism, and ACIM.
And, by Robert Perry,
_The Elder Brother, Jesus in ACIM_
Hope this helps.
Peace,
Alan
abra...@worldnet.att.net
Alan Braswell
Houston, Texas
VINCENTB
I posted a response via AOL at least two days ago, and it still hasn't
posted yet. I made a comment from my memory of the Course about it
"using sense in light of reason," so the claim that the Course doesn't
use reason seems awkward at best.
Vincent
vinc...@aol.com
Hello all:
A message I just posted went to talk.religion.buddism rather than talk.religion.course-miracle, so I post here again about AOL taking more than two days to have messages be displayed. I consider not using it any more.
Vincent H. Bartning
Vinc...@aol.com * Vinc...@prodigy.net
Daniel S. Schroeder
>[a lot of stuff about Catholicism and ACIM]
The course teaches that we begin to change our minds starting with a
single conscious decision wherein we choose to not see our own
interests as separate from those of another. Once this happens, our
direction is sure and the outcome is certain. A light has entered the
darkness but it is a light that cannot be limited. Transfer of
learning continues as we begin to apply our newfound view to other
places, people, and situations. From the outside it seems as though
we are gradually growing in knowledge and experience although we are
only but applying what we know to new situations.
After a time it can be difficult to remember what it was like for us
back at the beginning of the end. Personally, I remember a specific
time and place where I put my trust in something outside myself. I
did not know how to do this at the time. I had never done it before.
I needed help to tell me how to do it and help me through the process.
There are those that are still at that place where the experience is
new. They require guidlines to help them remember who and what they
are. They need rules and regulations, dogma and belief to help them
accomodate accepting something beyond themselves. It is not for us to
criticize this, such criticism is not helpful. Instead we should
remember that salvation is available to all, Catholic and
non-Catholic, Christian and non-Christian, Teacher and Student. We
are free to choose whatever theology we wish and see as most helpful.
We are also free to abandon theology when it is no longer helpful.
For my own part, I look at the movement that has grown up around the
course and I see another theology, another church, another metaphysic,
another belief system. When I see this I feel very old and very
tired. I have seen all of this before. The world is filled with
religion, theology, and metaphysical and philosophical speculation. I
do not accept that the course came to us so that we could found a new
religion with a new theology, new saints, new teachers, a new set of
nomenclature, and a new set of rules to follow. I think that the
course came to show us the way past such things.
The only difference between the fundamentalist and the mystic is time.
Since transfer of learning is assured, the fundamentalist must, in
time, grow to discover the mystery. The most helpful thing that can
be said of time is that it doesn't matter. Fundamentalist and mystic
are one. We must not let the seeming conflicts between these
disparate perspectives stop us or get in our way.
"For what is inside of you is what is outside of you,
and the one who fashions you on the outside
is the one who shaped the inside of you.
And what you see outside of you,
you see inside of you."
----- The Thunder, Perfect Mind
David Thomson
Scott,
In my opinion, you're not wrong. I fully agree with your observations.
I think Mr. Hryczyk's analysis was honest, not necessarily correct. He
reported to other Catholics what he thought ACIM was saying.
I've been involved with discussions about ACIM compared to most all
religions. I haven't found any value in comparisons. I think the inherent
conflict of having two different points of views too easily gives rise to
debate and meaningless analysis.
I have lived a couple of years in a Buddhist community and monastery. I
never found any conflict between ACIM and Buddhism because I didn't look
for it. I was looking for affirmations of absolute Truth and found them.
Mr. Hryczyk might feel possessive about his theology, and that is OK. I
think we all have faults. But it also appears that Mr. Hryczyk has a deep
love for God and a commitment to find absolute Truth. What should I look
for when I meet Mr. Hryczyk, his difference of theology or his love for God
and commitment to find absolute Truth?
My happiness depends on the happiness I see in others. My actions will
reflect what I see as the actions of others. I see only what I project.
There is a path to awakening which I am working on. On this path I allow
myself to be honest. Anger is no more a block to awakening than special
love. But whatever I feel, I express as though I wasn't on a spiritual path
at all. Then I let go, enter a holy instant, and go on. The process has led
me to not get into the situation of having to become angry or express
special love as often as I previously had.
It is pointless to focus on Mr. Hryczyk's features which could lead us into
anger. It is beneficial to Mr. Hryczyk, ourself, and everyone around us to
stay focussed on the message which leads the way home to God.
Dave
> Dear Dave,
> While almost all of Mr. Hryczyk's claims about the incompatablity of
> Christianity and ACIM seem to be correct. The three claims that I have
> difficulty with are his contentions that ACIM presents a Jesus that was
> not a man, 'in the flesh', like the rest of us, was never crucified, and
> that the resurrection never occured.
> It seems to me that in an effort to discredit the Course, Mr. Hryczyk
> is intentionally stretching the truth beyond its breaking point in these
> three claims, (these three beliefs also happen to be the most basic and
> fundamental beliefs of all Christians).
> What are some of the similarities between ACIM and traditional
> Christianity?
>
> 1.) ACIM firmly establishes Jesus as our spiritual guide and teacher
> and as a sort of 'conduit' or mediator back to God.
> 2.) ACIM teaches that the message of the resurrection is, as it is for
> traditional Christians, that 'Death has lost it's sting'.
> 3.) ACIM reaffirms the teachings of Jesus about the importance of
> forgiveness and the 'love of thy neighbor.'
> 4.) And most importantly, the cirriculum of ACIM aspires to aid us
> towards the same goal as the goal of traditional Christians, namely
> reunion with God's will, and harmony with all of creation.
>
KIPIJ
I liked your comments about never finding conflict between ACIM &
Buddhism. I have found this to be true for me also as I attend a
Presbyterian Church occasionally. I see where we agree & don't seem
to notice or pay attention to differences in theology & I hope to do this
with everything I come in contact with.
You spoke of a path to awakening that you are working on. Can you
explain this further?
in Gratitude, Kip
David Thomson
Kip,
> You spoke of a path to awakening that you are working on. Can you
> explain this further?
The path is simple. If anyone is ever going to get anywhere on a spiritual
path they need to develop some very basic skills. Perhaps the most
important is trust, trust in a spiritual guide. But very close is honesty.
I have found that by repressing my honest and genuine feelings, I am doing
nothing less than lying.
If I cry when I feel the urge to cry, give my honest opinion in matters
which I make important to me, or in general do what feels right at the
moment, then I see myself as I have made myself - right now. I won't
always be "right" even though it is my intention, but I will be able to
deal with my blocks to awakening immediately. Every aspect of our ego is a
block to love's awareness. By hiding those aspects of our ego we don't want
to deal with or do want to keep, we are being dishonest and holding back
our spiritual progress.
I found that my spiritual awakening is not a matter of catching the Holy
Spirit in His free moments. My spiritual awakening is a matter of catching
myself repeating the error of building blocks to love's awareness. The
spiritual path opens wide quickly when we honestly see our ego as we made
it and question whether it was such a good idea to make it that way.
Letting go comes very easy once we see what we have made to replace God in
our awareness. The holy instant is a series of letting go episodes. The
holy instant is what we choose in place of making or rebuilding our ego.
The discussion in the Teachers Manual on the ten characteristics of a
teacher of God is very helpful. Trust and honesty are dealt with in detail
as are other important characteristics. These ten characteristics are both
goals for behavior and effects of practicing the holy instant. You can
start with either practicing honesty, for example, or you can enter the
holy instant and learn what it means to be honest. Either way, honesty and
the holy instant build upon the success of each other and become the path
to awakening.
Dave
Richard A. Thayer
In article <01bc25df$9db12be0$a112...@volantis.sover.net>,
vola...@sover.net says...
>
>Kip,
>
>> You spoke of a path to awakening that you are working on. Can you
>> explain this further?
>
>The path is simple. If anyone is ever going to get anywhere on a spiritual
>path they need to develop some very basic skills. Perhaps the most
>important is trust, trust in a spiritual guide. But very close is honesty.
>I have found that by repressing my honest and genuine feelings, I am doing
>nothing less than lying.
>
>Dave
Well spoken, Dave. If you wish to include miracles in that awakening extend
trust to everyone you meet. TRUTH IS UNION. You can trust everyone because no
one is separate from their Source or You. There is no separation except in
dream land. When your brother asks for healing you are asking for healing.
When your light fills his mind and helps him choose healing you are healed.
You cannot trust your brother to do what you want, that is an ego trip. But,
you can always trust him to make the decision he and his Father have chosen
as right at that juncture of his journey home. He is no more separate from
God than you are. This trust allows you to wait and watch and listen, to do
nothing except trust in and enjoy your brother until your spiritual advisor
says, "Offer this (specific) miracle now." when the Course says spirit and
mind can join this is not a figurative expression. You are already one with
all, and you can literally experience that union (truth). I call that
experience "joining" which isn't correct because we are joined, but is what
it feels like. A good day to you. I am peace.