The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 3 of 4: The Synthesis of Science, Religion, and PhilosophyBlavatsky, H. P. (Helena Petrovna)
Religion
The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 3 of 4: The Synthesis of Science, Religion, and Philosophy
Blavatsky, H. P. (Helena Petrovna)
Theosophy
The Church has known too well the suggestions of freethought
created by enquiry, as also all those doubts that provoke her
anger to‐day; and the “sacred truths” she would promulgate have
been in turn admitted and repudiated, transformed and altered,
amplified and curtailed, by the dignitaries of the Church
hierarchy, even as regards the most fundamental dogmas.
Where is that God or Hero whose origin, biography, and genealogy were more
hazy, or more difficult to define and finally agree upon than those of
Jesus? How was the now irrevocable dogma with regard to His true nature
settled at last? By His mother, according to the Evangelists, He was a
man—a simple mortal man; by His Father He is God! But how? Is He then man
or God, or is He both at the same time? asks the perplexed writer. Truly
the propositions offered on this point of the doctrine have caused floods
of ink and blood to be shed, in turn, on poor Humanity, and still the
doubts are not at rest. In this, as in everything else, the wise Church
Councils have contradicted themselves and changed their minds a number of
times. Let us recapitulate and throw a glance at the texts offered for our
inspection. This is History.
The Bishop Paul of Samosata denied the divinity of Christ at the first
Council of Antioch; at the very origin and birth of theological
Christianity, He was called “Son of God” merely on account of His holiness
and good deeds. His blood was corruptible in the Sacrament of the
Eucharist.
At the Council of Nicæa, held A.D. 325, Arius came out with his premisses,
which nearly broke asunder the Catholic Union.
Seventeen bishops defended the doctrines of Arius, who was exiled for
them. Nevertheless, thirty years after, A.D. 355, at the Council of Milan,
three hundred bishops signed a letter of adherence to the Arian views,
notwithstanding that ten years earlier, A.D. 345, at a new Council of
Antioch, the Eusebians had proclaimed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God
and One with His Father.
At the Council of Sirmium, A.D. 357, the “Son” had become no longer
consubstantial. The Anomæans, who denied that consubstantiality, and the
Arians were triumphant. A year later, at the second Council of Ancyra, it
was decreed that the “Son was not consubstantial but only similar to the
Father in his substance.” Pope Liberius ratified the decision.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account