Knowing by Oneself, Knowing with the Other - Oddbjørn Leirvik on Al-damîr, Human Conscience and Christian-Muslim Relations

Knowing by oneself,
knowing with the other

Some reflections on the theme of "conscience"
in modern Egyptian Islam
and in Christian-Muslim dialogue

Oddbjørn Leirvik,

Faculty of Theology, University of Oslo

In the article on "conscience" in The Encyclopedia of Religion, Michel Despland writes:

On the interreligious scene today, it is to be wished that dialogue and encounter shall proceed from conscience. And the notion of conscience may well be – or become – part of the account that each will give to the other of his or her own humanity. Such meeting of consciences cannot occur without the labor of consciousness: each trying to communicate over a period of time what he is aware of.[1]

Could "conscience" have any role to fulfil in a dialogue between religions? The notion of conscience is moulded in Christian tradition and European philosophy – beginning with the Greek syneídêsis and the Latin conscientia. Attempts have been made to identify a notion of conscience in other traditions as well. In James Hasting's Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics from 1911, one will find articles on "conscience" in Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek-Roman, Jewish and Islamic religion. Such an approach, however, presupposes that some conceptual essence in the notion of conscience – like internalisation of morality or personal responsibility – is distilled in advance. Both in ancient Egyptian religion, in Jewish tradition and in Islam, the metaphor of the "heart" expresses the inner centre of man – capable of moral judgements and self-evaluation as well as of personal communication with God, and in need of purification.
However, the Greek-Roman, and later Christian notion of conscience, involves something more than moral and religious internalisation. What appears to be specific for the notion of conscience, is rather the tension between the turn inwards (towards the Self) and the orientation outwards (towards the Others) – between knowing by oneself and knowing with Others. The prefixes syn-, con- and sam- (in Norwegiansamvit) might indicate that etymologically, conscience is knowing with someone. It might be Oneself, but just as well the Other. And maybe the two cannot be separated.[2]

Some perspectives on the notion of conscience in European/Christian tradition

If one sets out to examine the rhetorical function of conscience-centred discourses in Christian tradition and in European philosophy, it becomes clear that conscience most often refers to intimate knowing by oneself, and with God as the transcendent other. The human other is not that visibly present. Having "a good conscience" for doing something, often implies an element of distancing from the others. One withdraws into oneself, in order to ascertain that one can stand for something from oneself, and if necessary, in contradiction to what the community might stand for. As expressed by the old Stoic Cicero: "there is no audience for virtue of higher authority than the approval of conscience".[3]
At the roots of the Christian tradition, however, Paul maintains the tension between knowing by oneself and knowing with others. When unfolding the notion of conscience in 1. Corinthians (ch. 8 and 10), he faces two groups in the Christian community. The one party know with themselves – from their gnôsis – that they may eat meat consecrated to the idols (in connection with Roman temple cult) with a good conscience. The others – those with a "weak conscience" – do not think they can do so, and get their conscience "polluted" when eating meat consecrated to idols. In this conflict, Paul argues that the gnôsis of the strong ones should give way to what could be known together in the community. What the strong (and rich?) know with themselves, must yield to that what Christians in Corinth may know together – in a practice of solidarity. In the influential (in terms of the history of ideas) passage in Romans (2.14-16), knowing together even transcends the Christian community. The conscience of the heathens testify to knowledge shared by Jews, Christians, Greeks and Romans, namely that the divine law is written in the heart of every human being.
In Early Modernity, parallel with the new emphasis on the moral autonomy of the individual, the inward direction of conscience acquires fresh importance. In Religion innerhalb der bloßen Vernunft (1793), Kant characterises "das Gewissen" as "die sich selbst richtende moralische Urteilskraft".[4] In Metaphysik der Sitten (1797), he writes that conscience is one of the moral faculties ("moralische Beschaffenheiten") that must be taken for granted in every human being, if the notion of moral obligation shall make any sense at all. Fichte gives Kant's rational-autonomous conscience a Romantic bend, and speaks of conscience as "das unmittelbare Bewußtsein unseres reinen ursrprunglichen Ich".[5]Hegel, on the other hand, returns to conscience its social character. He regards Kant's formal and individualised understanding of conscience as insufficient, and emphasises that conscience is first of all knowing with others:

Das Gewissen hat die reine Pflicht oder das abstrakte Ansich nicht aufgegeben, sondern sie ist das wesentliche Moment, als Allgemeinheit sich zu andern zu verhalten. Es ist das gemeinschaftliche Element des Selbstbewusstsein ... das Moment des Anerkanntwerdens von den anderen.[6]

With Feuerbach, the orientation of conscience towards others becomes a critical insight: "Das Gewissen is das alter ego, das Andere Ich im Ich".[7] Feuerbach sees conscience basically as "bad conscience", expressing the wounded other: "Mein Gewissen ist nichts anderes, als mein an die Stelle des verletzten Du sich setzendes Ich".[8] Feuerbach unambiguously returns conscience to its etymological origin, as an expression of something known with others:

Gewissen ist Mitwissen. So sehr ist das Bild der Anderen in mein Selbstbewusstsein, mein Selbstbild eingewoben, dass selbst der Ausdruck des Allereigensten und Allerinnerlichsten, das Gewissen, ein Ausdruck des Socialismus, der Gemeinschaftlichkeit ist.[9]

In French Enlightenment and Romanticism, partly in English Enlightenment philosophy as well, the basic tension between conscience as self-consciousness and conscience as shared knowledge can easily be traced. In French, there is no parallel to the English distinction between "consciousness" and "conscience". The French "conscience" often has a strong inward orientation, towards moral self-consciousness. Nevertheless, it is in French Enlightenment and Romanticism one can find the strongest expressions of conscience as a social and political right. In his Commentaire Philosophique ou Traité de la Tolérance Universelle (1686), Pierre Bayle contends that conscience is the voice of God in every human being, and correspondingly, that going against conscience is equal to disobeying the law of God. Hence he can also speak of the rights of conscience ("les Droits de la Conscience") as something directly related to God himself.[10] With Rousseau, the notion of conscience figures prominently in that part of Émile (1762) which is called "The Creed of a Savoyard Priest". Here, conscience is referred to as "an innate principle of justice and virtue", as "divine instinct", "sure guide" and "infallible judge of good and evil". According to Rousseau and his Savoyard priest, it is to conscience everyone owes "the excellence of man's nature and the morality of his acts".[11]
Rousseau's notion of conscience is often referred to as the classical modern expression of individual "authenticity". It should be noted, however, that authenticity with Rousseau is not solipsistic, but inextricably linked to the idea of a binding social contract into which humans freely enter (cf.Du Contrat Social, published in the same year as Émile). In his book The Ethics of Authenticity[12], Charles Taylor characterises the idea of authenticity as a child of the Romantic period, which was utterly critical of a disengaged rationality that neglected the bonds of community.[13]The idea of authenticity gives birth to a new vision of community. Nevertheless, its origin lies in the notion of an inner voice:

Morality has, in a sense, a voice within. ... This is part of the massive subjective turn of modern culture, a new form of inwardness, where we come to think of ourselves as beings with inner depths.[14]

Conscience in Islam?

Is the discourse of conscience a specifically Western/Christian discourse, then, or can parallel ideas of conscience be traced in other traditions – making an intercultural or interreligious dialogue on conscience meaningful (cf. Despland)?
Classical Islam lacks a proper word for conscience. In modern standard Arabic, damîr has become the central word for conscience. From old,damîr stands for "the inner, hidden". In classical Sufî psychology (like with al-Hallâj, d. 922, and with Ibn ‘Arabi, d. 1240), damîr signifies "the inner conscious"; different from sirr, "the inner unconscious". In classical Arabic grammar, damîr is the name of the personal pronoun. Only from the latter part of the 19th century, the word can be found in the sense of "moral self-consciousness" or "conscience". New Arabic Bible translations from 1860 onwards seem to have influenced the process, by translating syneídêsis as damîr instead of niyya ("intention"), which had prevailed in Bible translations from the 9th century until then. At the beginning of the 20th century, damîr is found in this sense also in Arabic translations and Egyptian reception of European philosophy, as can be seen from a book on Rousseau from 1923 of the well-known literate Muhammad Husayn Haykal.
In the following, I will present three Egyptian authors from this century who have all put the notion of damîr at the centre of their works on religion, philosophy and ethics. They may also have prepared the ground for a possible Muslim-Christian dialogue on conscience. The authors are ‘Abbâs Mahmûd al- ‘Aqqâd (1889-1964), Muhammad Kâmil Husayn (1901-1977) and Khâlid Muhammad Khâlid (1920-1996). All of them are regarded as outstanding men of letters in their generation. They are prolific writers covering a wide field of topics, most of them dealt with in an essayist and popularised manner. The works of al-‘Aqqâd and Khâlid are widely read in Arabic, whereas Husayn (through translations into English by Kenneth Cragg) is better known internationally.
Common for them all is that they wrote books on Christ in the 50s. These books have rightly been regarded as landmarks in Muslim-Christian dialogue. Different from prevailing tendencies in Muslim apologetics, they base their reflections on Christ on the Christian sources, relying for the most part on the Biblical gospels. They also highlight the universal features in the message of Christ, making it relevant and challenging for a Muslim reader. They are, as both Western and Coptic Christians have seen it, dialogical in their approach to Christ, not merely apologetic. A second uniting feature between these authors is their strong focus on the notion of conscience (damîr) – both in their books on Christ and Christian tradition, and in their exposition of the Islamic faith and philosophical heritage.
By the interrelation of the themes mentioned, Christ appears a forerunner of conscience-based religion and ethics. But their philosophy of conscience turns out to be quite central also to their vision of Islam, their general anthropological outlook, and their view on the relation between individual and community in modernity. From one side, their conscience-based ethics may be seen as just another version of an internalised ethics, bent towards virtue ethics and ideals of personal formation. As such, their ethics of conscience may be said render to the individual more ethical autonomy than what has been the rule in Islamic ethics. On the other side, their ethics of conscience is also an ethics with obvious political implications – with obvious anti-authoritarian features, social radicalism (especially in Khâlid) and elements of a philosophy of non-violence (in Khâlid and Husayn).

As for the context of their writings, all the authors are well within the tradition of reformist Islam, and their works are heavily marked by modern Islam's departure from rigorous traditionalism. But at mid-century, reformist Islam or "modern Islam" in Egypt is not at all a uniform phenomenon. The tension between liberal Islam, Islamic socialism and Islamism as competing programs of modernisation in Egypt is part of their immediate context. Their writings also reflect an Egyptian context marked by a distinct "dia-practice" [15] between Muslims and Christians, namely their co-operation in the modern Egyptian nation building, and joint efforts from Muslim and Christians to establish social justice.

Damir in al-‘Aqqâd: a key term in apologetics as well as dialogue

In a book from 1961, on "Thinking – an Islamic duty" (Al-tafkîr – farîda islâmiyya), ‘Abbâs Mahmûd al-‘ Aqqâd maintains that Islam is the only religion that fully authorises a free and independent relation between the creatures and their Creator, so that humans may approach God by means of their conscience – their damîr.[16] Already in his book from 1947 on "The Qur’ânic philosophy" (Al-falsafa al-qur’âniyya), he claims that the philosophy of the Qur’ân contains the only doctrine that can really vitalise conscience, and disperse the clouds that otherwise stand in the light of reason.[17]
Much of what al-‘Aqqâd writes on conscience, is flavoured by an outspoken apologetic interest. But also in his books on Christ and Christian tradition, the notion of conscience is strikingly central. His biography of Christ from 1953 ("The Genius of Christ") appeared in the wake of corresponding biographies on Muhammad and Islamic heroes, most of them under the heading 'Abqariyyat, "the genius".
In a book from 1947 on the development of the notion of God ("Allâh"), al-‘Aqqâd presents Christianity as the first religion to base the service of God on human conscience.[18] In his Christ-biography from 1953, al-‘Aqqâd focuses on the universalism, the law of love and the pre-eminence of conscience in Christ's message. When summarising Christ message in one expression, he speaks of "the law of love and conscience" (shari‘at al-hubb aw/wa-sharî‘at al-damîr).[19]
Another central motive in al-‘Aqqâd is the Sufî-based distinction between the outer and the inner. The law of love and conscience is contrasted by what al-‘Aqqâd terms "the law of outward forms and appearances" (sharî‘at al-ashkâl wa-l-zawâhir). Conscience is the warrant that actions are based on right intentions (niyyât) and ideals. The important thing is the reform of souls, and the change of motives and incentives (islâh al-nafsi, taghyîr al-bawâ’ith).[20]
One sometimes gets the expression that al-‘Aqqâd should primarily be read in the Romantic tradition of equalising religion with innermost emotion – cf. expressions like "in the secrets of conscience"[21] an "the innermost thoughts of his conscience"[22], and his frequent paralleling of "conscience" with "soul" and "heart".[23] Still, it is obvious that his use of damîr is related to some kind of social vision. "Freedom of conscience" is a central term for al-‘Aqqâd. Although he gives it a peculiar Romantic or Mystical flavour in expressions like "the freedom of conscience is the secret of all secrets in the life of man"[24], the concept of freedom of conscience has – of course – obvious ethical and political implications.
The project of Christ – apparently identical with that of al-‘Aqqâd – is aimed at refinement of the human character (tahdhîb al-âdâb al-insâniyya). Al-‘Aqqâd's virtue ethics approach to moral questions rests upon a long tradition of philosophical ethics in Islam.[25] According to al-‘Aqqâd, it is only through character formation that the conscience of the individual, and the conscience of the community (damîr al-umma), can be safeguarded. As al-‘Aqqâd sees it, such formation can only happen through a reform of consciences (bi-islâh al-damâ’ir). He has far less confidence in reform or reinterpretation of outward laws and regulations. His focal point is ethics (akhlâq) and the formation of a moral character.

Al-‘Aqqâd's interest in Christ is apparently not restricted to a historical presentation of Christ as a law reformer in Judaism, neither to a sympathetic exposition of basic Christian tenets. There are many indications that his writings about Christ should also be read as a critique of rigorous attitudes and outwardness in parts of contemporary Islam – cf. his employment of traditional Islamic offices like fuqahâ’[26], ‘ulamâ’and huffâz[27] when denoting the adversaries of Christ.

Damir in Kâmil Husayn: at the heart of a universal, human drama

Kâmil Husayn is known in the West for two books translated by Kenneth Cragg. His most famous book is Qarya zâlima from 1954 (in English:City of Wrong), that was awarded with the Egyptian State Prize of Literature in 1957, and has attracted much attention in the international dialogue between Muslims and Christians. Kenneth Cragg has also translated a meditative work on philosophy (or psychology) of religion from 1968, entitled Al-wâdi al-muqaddas (in English: The Hallowed Valley).[28]
In The Hallowed Valley, Husayn speaks of the voice of conscience as the very voice of God, with rather strong Sûfî connotations:

The hallowed valley is the place on earth, the point in time, the state of mind, where you reach upward beyond the form of external things, beyond your own nature and the necessities of life, and even beyond the bounds of your intellect ... In the hallowed valley you hear the voice of conscience, clear and plain, enjoining upon you unconfusedly the obligations of the good, and leading you undeviatingly towards the truth – conscience as the very voice of God.[29]

As a prerequisite of abiding in the hallowed valley, Husayn speaks of the necessity of to fight against evil of all kinds, and its seductive power. This can only be done through exercise of "the hidden and passive virtues of resistance".[30] Correspondingly, in an appendix to his novel of conscience, he emphasises that the main function of conscience is that of curbing and warning (râdi‘an wa-nadhîran):

Although it is possible to be positively guided by conscience, the main power for conscience being inhibitive and prohibitive, it is mainly a guide to us in avoiding wrong.[31]

Husayn relates his concept of damîr to general insights derived from psychology and the natural sciences. But he unfolds it in a literary fiction, in a drama of conscience based on the events of Good Friday as recorded in the New Testament Gospels. The book presents itself as a moral philosophical dramatisation of the events of Good Friday, which is indeed a controversial issue to approach for Muslim author. Instead of directly challenging the classical Islamic claim that Christ was in fact not crucified, Husayn enters the drama of crucifixion from the perspective of the intentions of those involved. As the Qur’ân confirms, the adversaries of Christ intended to crucify him (although, according to a conventional Muslim interpretation, their plans were thwarted). The intention of Husayn is to expose the universal importance of the drama of Good Friday, the central themes of which is the crucifixion of human conscience:

When they resolved to crucify him it was a decision to crucify the human conscience and extinguish its light. They considered that reason and religion alike laid upon them obligations that transcended the dictates of conscience.[32]

In his book, Husayn dramatises the inner conflicts that can be traced or surmised among Jewish leaders and the representatives of the Roman occupation force. Out of different motives, they all denied their voice within, when they resolved to have Christ crucified. Husayn also unfolds the moral drama of the disciples. For the disciples, being true to conscience was a question of being faithful towards the obligation of non-violence, as expressed by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount.
According to Husayn, the drama of Good Friday has a universal relevance. In Husayn – as in al-‘Aqqâd – conscience is clearly interrelated with personal virtue. Even more than al-‘Aqqâd, he stresses that religion (anchored in conscience) can only influence society indirectly. In Husayn, there is also more emphasis on the right of resistance than in al-‘Aqqâd's more romantically flavoured project of renewal. It is all about the will and ability of the individual to obey his inner voice, and on this foundation, to venture non-violent resistance to the religious and political collective when necessary.

What would have been the contemporary impetus for making the crucifixion of conscience his crucial theme? According to Harold Vogelaar,City of Wrong should first of all be read in the light of the shattering experience of World War II, as "an emotional, literary reaction to that catastrophic event", movingly depicting "the utter failure of traditional religion to prevent it".[33] Kenneth Cragg, on the other hand[34], focuses on the fact that Husayn relates his concept of conscience to central teachings of the Qur’ân, and to a contemporary context which is just as much Muslim as Christian. In City of Wrong, he names the head of lawyers among the Jews – the one responsible for issuing religious fatwas – amuftî. He alludes to controversial issues related to the interpretation of sharî‘a; like imposing lashes for drunkenness[35] and the question of death penalty for adultery or alleged blasphemy/apostasy.[36] Likewise, he displays the ambiguity of the concept ijmâ‘ (consensus of the religio-political community) when it comes to the question of the individual being true to conscience.[37] He frequently alludes to Qur’ânic expressions (like the concept of zulm – "wrong, iniquity" – underlying the title of the book). Sometimes his allusions are made in astonishing ways, displaying a profound will of self-criticism as to how Qur’ânic concepts may be misused for suppression in the name of religion or society.[38]

Damir in Khâlid Muhammad Khâlid:
conscience unites the history of religions, but is best safeguarded by Islam

In a contextual perspective, the personal development of Khâlid Muhammad Khâlid is of special interest, particularly with regard to the tension between liberal Islam and Islamism. In his book Min hunâ nabda’ (in English: From here we start) from 1950, he advocated the separation of religion and state, vehemently attacking the political ambitions of the Islamic "priesthood" (traditional ‘ulamâ’ as well as secretly organised Muslims Brothers). During the 50s, Khâlid produced a whole series of books propounding democratic values combined with a vision of Islamic socialism, and simultaneously, a commitment to Christian-Muslim dialogue. From the 60s, however, he turns more and more to the Islamic heritage, publishing several books on Muhammad and the men around him. At the end of the 70s, he seemed to have "converted" to a moderate Islamism. In contrast to his positions from the 50s, he now emphasises the Islamic foundation of the state. His book from 1981 on "The State in Islam" (Al-dawla fî-l-islâm) sets out with a critical reassessment of the secularist ideas he had been voicing in the 50s. Nevertheless, the book testifies to the fact that also in the latter part of his authorship, he strongly maintains his advocacy of the democratic rights of freedom – as a "good Islamic democrat".
In this way, Khâlid embodies a general trend among several Egyptian intellectuals: From a social democratic commitment in the 50s, he becomes an advocate of "Islamic democracy" in the 70s and 80s. In a parallel development, he also moves from a general discourse of values (like social justice and democracy) towards a more specifically Islamic discourse – which deals with Islamic authenticity more than the authentic human being in general.
Khâlid's best known contribution to inter-religious dialogue would be his book from 1958 entitled "Together on the road – Muhammad and Christ" (Ma‘an ‘alâ-l-tariq – Muhammad wa-l-Masîh).[39] In this books, he searches for what might be termed common ethical values between Christ and Muhammad. Both Christ and Muhammad are presented at human beings with an honest conscience (mustaqîm /istiqâmat al-damîr). Although they are merely humans, both of them embody very special "energies" (tâqât), and their spiritual nobility is linked with a shared commitment for "ordinary people" (al-rajul al-‘âdî). Both defend the fundamental human rights of subsistence, as well as the right to freedom of conscience. Christ liberated human conscience from its captivity of outwards laws and oppressing regulations. The same did Muhammad: By preaching social responsibility and challenging suppressive power, by spiritually subverting all institutions of religious mediation and defending the integrity of the individual person, he set human conscience free.
As Khâlid sees it, this prophetic mission rooted in the inner authority of Muhammad's conscience. On the first page of his book on the human qualities of Muhammad (Insâniyyât Muhammad, from 1960), Khâlid claims that

If Muhammad had not been a messenger of God he would surely have been a human being on the same level as a messenger of God! And if he had not received the command from his Lord: 'Oh messenger, proclaim what is revealed to you' he would surely have received it from his very nature (min dhât nafsihi): 'Oh human being, proclaim what is at work in your conscience.'[40]

Khâlid is utterly critical of all religiosity marked by blind compliance with tradition, and of a religious ethics based on formalistic rules "devoid of spirit". As brothers in prophethood, Christ and Muhammad both focus on the inner meaning of the laws, and both of them are anchoring religion as well as ethics in human conscience.
In Khâlid, the notion of conscience apparently refers to something more than morality and ethics. In "Together on the road", he defines conscience as "the human being in its true existence" (al-insân fî wujûdihi al-haqîqî).[41] By this repeated expression, he seems to link his ethics of conscience to the more general question of human authenticity: it is all about – as he puts it – opening up for the energies and potentials of the human being. Concretely, this can be expressed both through resistance to everything than binds conscience, and in creative, constructive work for a world of freedom. His aim is always the agreement between out outward conduct and our hidden inner (bayna zâhirinâ wa-bâtininâ) – a classical Sufî distinction that Khâlid links up with, but also transcends.
Five years after his book on Muhammad and Christ, Khâlid publishes a book that is entirely dedicated to the theme of human conscience – "on its journey towards its destiny" (Ma‘a l-damîr al-insânî fî masîrihi wa-masîrihi). In this book, he presents the history of religion and philosophy from the perspective of "development of human conscience". He traces human conscience, on its journey from old Egypt via Chinese religion, the Old Testament scriptures, Christ, Muhammad and the Islamic revelation, all the way up to Mahatma Gandhi as the most prominent spokesman of conscience in our time. Khâlid highlights the interaction between conscience and reflective reason (‘aql), but also underlines that conscience cannot dispense of divine guidance through the prophets.
His reading of the history of philosophy reveals (among other things) interest in Rousseau's coupling of a Romantic ethics of authenticity with the idea of a social contract based on the common will. By his endorsement of wide-ranging human rights of freedom, Khâlid draws a demarcation line against authoritarian version of the idea of a social contract. Among the rights of freedom, the right of "enlightened doubt" (al-shakk al-mustanîr) appears to be the most central of them all.[42] Khâlid presents the right of doubt as an integral part of the legacy of European philosophy, but also endeavours to link the idea of doubt as a positive human faculty to words of Muhammad.
As for the relation between individual and society, Khâlid claims that Muhammad's ethics of conscience is more political than that of Christ. Whereas Christ persistently focused on intention (niyya), Muhammad recognised the need to reinforce intentions with social laws. Intentions must be implanted "in the depths of human nature and in the nature of society likewise".[43] Christ focused on individual conduct, and according to Khâlid, he gave no directions for the social order (nizâm) that can never be dispensed of if human rights shall be effectively safeguarded.

These formulations from the early 60s could perhaps be taken as an indication of Khâlid's later attraction to a moderate Islamism. In his book "The State in Islam" (1981), he maintains his advocacy of democracy and freedom rights, but unfolds his commitment within a purely Islamic discourse, and with no references to conscience or shared ethical values between Muslims and Christians. Has he moved from calling on the authentic human being, towards the proclamation of a specifically Islamic authenticity?

Conscience in the dialogue between religions:
knowing by oneself and with others

The turn to the other

In the formation of an integral human personality, self-consciousness and "knowing with others" must clearly be regarded as two sides of the same coin.[44] Also in a communal perspective, knowing by oneself (one's own religious community) is always interrelated with knowing together with (or against) distinctive others. Those who belong to a different religious community, might either be regarded as adversaries, as companions on the road, as members of an extended spiritual family, or simply neighbours with whom you will have to cope in one way or another. How can the interrelation of self-consciousness and other-directedness be conceived of in a dialogue between religions? Perhaps even more important: How can the twin experiences on the communal level, of a possibly shared commitment and the still ineradicable pain of difference, be conceptualised and lived with?
In recent philosophies of dialogue, "the turn towards the Other" has emerged as a central topic among prominent representatives of the Abrahamic family. Much of the inspiration has come from the Jewish philosophers Martin Buber ("I and Thou") and Emmanuel Lévinas, who bases his ethics of proximity on the notion of "the Other's face".[45]
The recognition of the constitutive role of "the Other" in the formation of a religious self-consciousness is a most central theme with thinkers like Paul Ricoeur and David Tracy on the Christian side[46], and with Muslim writers like Hasan Askari (India) and Farid Esack (South Africa).[47]
The background of the new discourse on the inviolability of the Other is dramatic: the entire philosophy of Lévinas may be read as a reflection on the extinction of the Other in holocaust – resulting in an entirely ethical philosophy centred around the human face's silent call for respected difference. For Lévinas, the Other can never be simply more of the same, from the point of view of the Self. The Other is essentially difference. The encounter with the Other's face subverts subjectivity, as subjectivity has been conceived of in idealist or existentialist philosophy: It places the subject in the accusative, "by substituting me for the Other as a hostage".[48]
Similarly, when David Tracy reflects upon the "the Divine Other of Liberation" as "the Hidden God", he focuses on the disturbing difference of the marginalised Other:

Rather history will now be seen as the focus of God's self-disclosure in the survival, struggle, conflict of oppressed and forgotten people, living and dead: in otherness, difference, marginality.[49]

Others (like Ricoeur) treat the question of selfhood and otherness in a more general perspective, investigating the conditions of moral character formation. Traumas as well as ordinary everyday experience give impetus to reflections on the how we define self and other, sameness and difference – at the personal as well as at the communal level.

Selfhood and otherness in conscience:
Ricoeur, Heidegger and Lévinas

Is the notion of conscience capable of containing selfhood as well as otherness, analogical likeness as well as radical difference? Paul Ricoeur concludes his reflections on Oneself as Another with a discussion of the notion of conscience.[50] He is critical of purely existentialist notions of conscience, that tend to blur the constitutive role of others in the formation of human conscience. The same point is repeatedly made by Charles Taylor in the exposure of his "ethics of authenticity", when he underlines the fundamentally dialogical character of human life, and the "inescapable horizons" of significant others in any search for human authenticity.[51]
As for Ricoeur, he takes Martin Heidegger's notion of conscience to task. Heidegger's philosophy may be read as a search for "eigentliches Selbstsein" – a human existence that is truly authentic. In this search, conscience ("Gewissen") has a role to fulfil: "An authentic potentiality-for-Being is attested by conscience".[52] Heidegger sees conscience essentially as a call to the individual from the depths of human existence ("Dasein"); a call to realise "its ownmost potentiality for Being-its-Self".[53] For Heidegger, inauthentic being is loosing one's Self in the multitude of "they" ("das Man"). Although becoming authentic includes the possibility of seeing others with new eyes, as individual beings with potentials for authentic existence, the other has no constitutive role to play in the formation of conscience . According to Heidegger, listening to conscience implies an element of radical distancing from others: too much identification with others leads to the danger of loosing oneself.
Against Heidegger, Ricoeur recalls the insight of Hegel "that conscience is the voice of the Other in the sense of others ...".[54] Ricoeur agrees with the contention forcefully put forward by Lévinas, that the call of Other is constitutive of the formation of self-consciousness and conscience.[55] But he is discontent with Lévinas' insistence on the pure externality of the Other. Ricoeur looks for a notion of the Self and the Other that integrates Selfhood and Otherness. By use of the notion of conscience, Ricoeur sets out to reconcile Selfhood and Otherness in one final move.

To these alternatives – either Heidegger's strange(r)ness or Lévinas' externality – I shall stubbornly oppose the original and originary character of what appears to me to constitute the third modality of otherness, namely being enjoined as the structure of selfhood ... if the injunction coming from the other is not part and parcel of self-attestation, it loses its character of injunction ... If one eliminates this dimension of auto-affection, one ultimately renders the metacategory of conscience superfluous; the category of the other suffices.[56]

Existentialism and visions of community:
Muslim perspectives on sameness and otherness

In the perspective of Ricoeur, self-affection implies the ability of being touched and obliged by others, and results in a sensitive conscience. With our Egyptian authors, both being touched and being obliged appears to be central for their notion of conscience. In al-‘Aqqâd, the affective notion of love (hubb) and the moral notion of divine injunction (taklîf) both appear to be firmly within the conceptual field of conscience(damîr).[57]
What about the question of our Egyptian authors and the possible shortcomings of an existentialist notion of conscience? Should their notion of conscience be regarded as predominantly existentialist, in the sense of individual self-injunction and personal authenticity? Or is it rather sociable, in the sense of recognising and welcoming others as integral to the constitution of authentic selfhood? A consecutive question is just as crucial: if conscience is recognised as sociable, how should the others included in conscience be conceived of? Only as more of the same, like me and my community? Or as others with a potentially painful difference? Could it be that an existentialist quest for individual authenticity, coupled with a predominantly idealist and univeralist interpretation of Islam, obscures differences that will anyhow return with a revenge at some stage or other?
Khâlid comes close to existentialist notions of conscience when defining damîr as "the human being in its true existence", and he combines his quest for authenticity with a universalist reading of Islamic fundamentals. Al-‘Aqqâd addresses existentialism in his book "Thinking – an Islamic duty".[58] He apparently admires existentialism (which he calls madhâhib al-wujûdiyya, without specifying his references) for its emphasis on the irreducible responsibility of the individual, and its stress on the unlimited authority of conscience. Nevertheless, he is wary of what he sees as its potential anti-social consequences. He seems to equate modern Western existentialism with the monasticism of ancient times:

In old times, the man with a vigilant conscience (al-damîr al-yaqzân) used to become tired with his society, and emigrated from it to the hermitage of religion. In present times, in the West, likewise tired with his societies, man clings to the ideologies of existentialism to which the individual resorts whenever the yoke of social convention (‘urf) becomes unbearable for him. He is released of his shackles – sometimes to licentiousness, and sometimes [taking resort in] the privacy of his emotional perception (al-wijdân).[59]

According to al-‘Aqqâd, Islam does offer a hermitage to which the conscience of the individual may resort – in the depth of his soul. But al-‘Aqqâd is emphatic that Islam does not allow any seclusion of conscience from its communal duties: "individual consciences must not separate their work from participation in social life".[60]
However, in the constitution of the moral Self, man clearly sits in the hermitage of his soul, being enjoined only by God. Coming out of his hermitage, he seeks another kind of religious community, beyond that of blind adherence to traditions. In al-‘Aqqâd, this is clearly conceived of as a reformed society imbued with the essential (and universally valid) Islamic values. For all his interest in Christ and Christian tradition, one may ask whether Christians at any point are allowed to play the role as distinctive or even disturbing others, or whether Christ (with his appeal to individual consciences) is only brought to the front as an ally in al-‘Aqqâd's project of establishing Islamic values in the depth of human conscience. Is Christ ever allowed to be distinctively "Christian", or is he only seen as "more of the same" in al-‘Aqqâd's reformed vision of Islam?
In Husayn, the encounter with the traditions of the Other is apparently a more shattering experience. The Christian gospels reveal the depths of human folly, and man's ineradicable tendency to crucify his conscience. The drama of Good Friday leave Christians and Muslims alike naked and bare.
In Khâlid, like in al-‘Aqqâd, the discourse of conscience strikes a more optimistic note. The phenomenon of human conscience as seen by Khâlid clearly points to experiences and values shared by Christians and Muslims. He recognises Christian tradition as a religious resource in its own right, just as much capable of inspiring Muslims as the contemporary witness of love and non-violent resistance to evil offered by Gandhi. Like Husayn, he may use the symbolism of the crucifixion of Christ to express the repeated crucifixion of love and peace in this world. He may even speak of the return of Christ as the final victory of peace, love, truth, goodness and beauty.[61] But his outlook is unitary: he wants to present Christians and Muslims (and other people guided by conscience) as brothers "together on the road". His meditations on "Muhammad and Christ – together on the road" could probably be read as a celebration of a shared practice between Muslims in Christians in modernity: their co-operation in the struggle for national independence and social justice in modern Egypt. He does not really address the wounded experiences in Christian-Muslim coexistence. When differences are addressed, also Khâlid turns out to be apologetic on behalf of his own Islamic faith – of which he can hardly be blamed. But to what extent does his outlook allow for differences with a permanent challenge?

Two Muslim voices with a difference

Similar to Khâlid, the South African Muslim Farid Esack (1997) reflects theologically on the shared experience between Christians and Muslims in confronting apartheid. But he adds two important dimensions: first, the recognition that confronting apartheid not only united Muslims and Christians. Muslims and Christians were also divided, within their own camps – between those who benefited from apartheid or silently complied with it (like the majority of white Christians, and many "coloured" Muslims), and those who decided to fight it. Secondly, and even more important: Esack realises that the experience that the real dividing lines did not coincide with those of the religious communities, but rather cut painfully across them, necessitates a critical reassessment of the Qur’ânic notion of the Other. What was true of some Jewish and Christian groups then (on the Arabic peninsula of the 7th century), in a historical conflict with specific social and political characteristics, is not necessarily true in a different context. Instead, one should look for the deeper content of the Qur’ânic message, which calls for faithful confrontation of any injustice and oppression. According to Esack, faith (imân) and islâm in the Qur’ânic sense, can never be entrenched within the confines of a specific religious community carrying its name. It cuts deeper.[62]
It might be argued that only when the encounter with the Other is recognised as a painful experience that shatters one's own identity, otherness can make a real difference in the (re)formation of the religious Self. With the Indian-British Shi‘ite Muslim Hassan Askari, pain is clearly a part of "the dialogical relationship between Christianity and Islam".[63] Askari displays considerable optimism on behalf of what he sees as a divinely intended dialogical relationship between the two religions, and he even speaks of Christ as a common sign for Christians and Muslims. Nevertheless, he concludes his meditations with the recognition that if differences are taken seriously, true dialogue will always be painful:

The discovery of the other, of our own being, is both soothing and painful, more the latter. The other is pain, a sting, a bite, but a pain in our very being, of it. It is right in the middle of this pain that a Divine sign is known.[64]

Knowing together is vulnerable experience

Knowing with others is a vulnerable experience. What has been positively known and lived as shared values and commitments, cannot easily be maintained in a changed context. In Egypt, the 50s and early 60s were still marked by the shared Egyptian identity felt by Muslims and Christians alike. From then, the event have taken a different turn. Muslim as well as Christian revivalism has shifted the emphasis from knowing together towards knowing by oneself – as Christians and Muslims, without being inspired or disturbed by foreign voices.[65] In Arabic, the modern term for authenticity – asâla – is not oriented towards any shared humanness, but rather towards the specific features of the Arab-Islamic heritage.[66]
Those who still endeavour to know something obliging together with others, and who are ready to share the pain of the distinctive other, are on the defensive in many places, not only in Egypt. Because of this rather disturbing fact, the voices who testify to a close past of more inclusive discourses, are worthy of listening to.
In late modernity, however, particularism and distinctive identities seem to have come to stay, and there might be no return to the universalistic discourses of the typically modern projects of reform. If dialogue shall be able to carry the weight of difference, knowing together must imply the readiness to live well with potentially painful otherness at close hand.

Only a conscience capable of containing pain and respecting difference, can furnish Christians and Muslims with a hope of becoming oneself as another – without violating either of the two.

Postscript:
What about conscience and "the reproaching soul"?

In Christian discourses of human conscience, the capability of self-reproach (and its emotional equivalent: remorse) is much focused upon – cf. Paul's classical formulation in Romans 2.15:

Their conscience is called as witness, and their own thoughts argue the case on either side, against them or even for them, on the day that God judges the secrets of human hearts through Christ Jesus.

Also with Paul's contemporary Jewish-Stoic philosopher Philo, who influenced later Christian developments as well, conscience is defined by its reproaching (elenchos) function:

there are some who ... proved to be guilty of highly reprehensible conduct, convicted, if not by any other judge, at any rate by their conscience.[67]

Commenting on Romans 2, Martin Luther radicalises this judging aspect of conscience, and makes it the foundation of his speech of a conscience truly liberated by grace:

For conscience is not the power to do works, but to judge them. The proper work of conscience (as Paul says in Romans 2), is to accuse or excuse, to make guilty or guiltless, uncertain or certain. Its purpose is not to do, but to pass judgment on what has been done and what should be done, and this judgment makes us stand accused or saved in God's sight. Christ has freed this conscience from works through the gospel and teaches this conscience not to trust in works, but to rely on his mercy.[68]

As we have noted, also Kant focused on the judging aspect of conscience, defining Gewissen primarily as man's inner court in which the actions of man are either acquitted or convicted. In Protestant theology as well as in Idealist philosophy, the reproaching function of conscience might appear as a solitary affair of each and one individual – surveyed by God according to classical positions, expressing human autonomy according to modern reinterpretations. In his critique of theology as well as of Idealist philosophy, Feuerbach returns to judging conscience its inescapable social dimensions. As we have seen, he insists that the phenomenon of "good" or "bad" conscience gives no sense without the recognition of "oneself as another": bad conscience is essentially the internalised pain of the wounded Other.
In Christian tradition, the judging function of conscience is conceptually linked with the exercise of self-reproach and the emotion of remorse. Among our Egyptian authors, the reproaching function of conscience is apparently not at the centre of their interest when employing the termdamîr. Their deliberations on conscience do not reflect common usage in the modern Arabic (Standard and Egyptian colloquial) lexicon liketabkît al-damîr ("remorse") or ta’nîb al-damîr ("pangs of conscience"). When Khâlid defines conscience as "the human being in his true existence", he makes it clear that his definition of conscience is different from definitions that see in conscience primarily "the spiritual function which makes the human being regret the evil he has committed".[69]
As for al-‘Aqqâd, he touches upon the faculty of self-reproach when exposing the Qur’ânic psychology of the soul in his book "The human being in Islam" (Al-insân fî-l-Qur’ân, 1961). He cites notions of the soul that can be found in the Qur’ân, and especially the triadic image of the soul to which Sufism has paid so much attention: the soul that commands evil, the soul that reproaches itself, and the soul that has eventually achieved peace and confidence.[70] Al-‘Aqqâd does in fact relate the image of the self-reproaching soul (an-nafs al-lawwâma, Qur’ân 75.2) to the power of conscience. But only in passing, and his main point is that conscience reflects the human condition of being enjoined and accountable.[71]
In general, it might be argued that both in Khâlid and al-‘Aqqâd, conscience is primarily conceived of in terms of its creative potentials – as the seat of human responsibility; as the anchoring ground of moral judgements; as the faculty of formulating new moral insights in the light of divine revelation; and as the warrant of human authenticity. Their discourse of conscience aims at freeing humans from the shackles of tradition and releasing human potentials.
In Husayn, there is clearly more negativity and pain in his discourse of conscience. Conscience is not only subject to suppression by external tyrants, but often enough liable to crucifixion and extinction by its own bearer. Also Husayn, however, finds the typical Christian sense of self-reproach a little obsessive, as shown by his ironic remark in the annexes to his novel of conscience: "The best Christian in his or her most sublime moments is a sad person".[72]
In a dialogical perspective, the question arises whether conscience can only be the anchor of some shared ideals positively known together by Christians and Muslims, or whether it may also integrate negativity and pain. Is it possible that a Christian-Muslim discourse of conscience might even integrate a sense of remorse – resulting from the recognition that the integrity and anxiety of the Other has been neglected?

Bibliography:

al-‘Aqqâd, ‘Abbâs M.: Al-falsafa al-qur’âniyya, Cairo: Dâr Nahdat Misr n.d. [1947].
al-‘Aqqâd, ‘Abbâs M.: Allâh, Cairo: Dâr Nahdat Misr 1994 [1947].
al-‘Aqqâd, ‘Abbâs M.: Al-tafkîr – farîda islâmiyya, Cairo: Dâr Nahdat Misr n.d. [1961].
al-‘Aqqâd, ‘Abbâs M.: Al-insân fî-l-Qur’ân, Cairo: Dâr Nahdat Misr n.d. [1961b].
al-‘Aqqâd, ‘Abbâs M.: ‘Abqariyyat al-Masîh, Cairo: Dâr Nahdat Misr n.d. [1953].
Askari, Hasan: "The Dialogical Relationship between Christianity and Islam", in Journal of Ecumenical Studies 1972, p. 477-487.
al-Azmeh, Aziz: "The Discourse of Cultural Authenticity: Islamist Revivalism and Enlightenment Universalism"; in Islams and Modernities,London & New York: Verso 1993.
Pierre Bayle: Pierre Bayle. Choix des textes et Introduction par Marcel Raymond, Paris: Egloff 1948.
Despland, Michel: "Conscience", in The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol 4, New York: Macmillan 1987.
van Doorn-Harder, Nelly and Vogt, Kari: Between Desert and City: The Coptic Orthodox Church Today, Oslo: Novus forlag 1997.
Esack, Farid: Qur’ân, Liberation & Pluralism. An Islamic Perspective of Interreligious Solidarity against Oppression, Oxford: Oneworld 1997.
Ferrara, Allesandro: Modernity and Authenticity. A study of the Social and Ethical Thought of Jean Jaques Rousseau, Albany: State University of New York Press 1993.
Feuerbach, Ludwig: Sämtliche Werke, Stuttgart: Fromann Verlag 1960.
Fichte, J. G: Das System der Sittenlehre, Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag 1963.
Hegel, G. W. F.: Sämtliche Werke, Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag 1952.
Haykal, Muhammad Husayn: Jean Jacques Rousseau, Cairo: Maktabat al-Nahdat al-Misriyya 1965 [1923].
Heiddegger, Martin: Being and Time (transl. J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson), Oxford: Basil Blackwell 1973.
Hussein, M. Kamel: City of Wrong. A Friday in Jerusalem (transl. Kenneth Cragg), Oxford: Oneworld 1994.
In Arabic: Qarya zâlima, Cairo: Maktabat al-Nahdat al-Misriyya n.d. [1954].
Husain, Mohamed Kamil: The Hallowed Valley. A Muslim Philosophy of Religion, Cairo: The American University of Cairo Press 1977.
In Arabic: Al-wâdi al-muqaddas, Cairo: Dâr al-Ma‘ârif 1968.
Kant, Immanuel: Werke in zehn Bänden, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1983.
Khâlid, Khâlid Muhammad: Min hunâ nabda’, Cairo: Dâr al-Nîl 1950.
In English: From here we start, Washingtion D.C.: American Council of Learned Societies 1953.
Khâlid, Khâlid Muhammad: Ma‘an ‘alâ-l-tarîq – Muhammad wa-l-Masîh, Cairo: Dâr Thâbit n.d. [1958].
Khâlid, Khâlid Muhammad: Ma‘a l-damîr al-insânî fî masîrihi wa-masîrihi, Cairo: Maktabat al-Anjilû al-Misrî 1971 [1963].
Khâlid, Khâlid Muhammad: Insâniyyât Muhammad, Cairo: Dâr al-Ma‘ârif 1994 [1960].
Khâlid, Khâlid Muhammad: Al-dawla fî-l-islâm, Cairo: Dâr Thâbit 1989 [1981].
Lévinas, Emmanuel: Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority, Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991.
Lévinas, Emmanuel: Otherwise than Being (transl. A. Lingis), The Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1981.
Ricoeur, Paul: Oneself as Another, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press1992.
Rasmussen, Lissi: Diapraksis og dialog mellem kristne og muslimer, Århus: Århus Universitetsforlag 1997.
Rousseau, Jean Jaques: Émile (transl. B. Foxley), New York: Dutton 1974.
Taylor, Charles: Sources of the Self, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1989.
Taylor, Charles: The Ethics of Authenticity, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press 1991.
Tracy, David: Dialogue with the Other. The Inter-religious Dialogue, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans 1990.
Tracy, David: "The Hidden God: The Divine Other of Liberation", CrossCurrents 1996, p. 5- 16.
Vogelaar, Harold: "Religious Pluralism in the Thought of Muhammad Kâmil Hussein", in Yvonne Y. Haddad and Wadi Z. Haddad: Christian-Muslim Encounters, University Press of Florida 1995, pp. 411-424.

Notes:

[1] Despland 1987, p. 51.
[2] Cf. Ricoeur 1992: Oneself as Another.
[3] "Nullum theatrum virtuti conscientia maius est"; Tusculan Disputations II, 26.64.
[4] Kant: Werke, band 7, p. 860.
[5] fichte: System der Sittenlehre (1798), 1963, p. 170.
[6] Hegel: Phänomenologie des Geistes (1807), cited from Sämtliche Werke band 5, p. 450.
[7] Feuerbach: Theogonie (1851-57), cited from Sämliche Werke, band IX, p. 135.
[8] Feuerbach: Der Eudämonismus, cited from Sämtliche Werke, band X, p. 279f.
[9] Feuerbach: Theogonie, cited from Sämtliche Werke, band IX, p. 282.
[10] Bayle 1948, p. 138. Cf. Theologische Realenzyclopädie, band 13 (1984), p. 203.
[11] Cited from Rousseau 1974, p. 252 and 254.
[12] Taylor 1991. Cf. the references to Rousseau in Taylor 1989.
[13] Taylor 1991, p. 25.
[14] Ibid., p. 26. Cf. Allesandro Ferrara 1993.
[15] As for the notion of "dia-practice", see Rasmussen 1997.
[16] al-‘Aqqâd n.d. [1961], p. 111.
[17] al-‘Aqqâd n.d. [1947], p. 167.
[18] al-‘Aqqâd 1994 [1947], p. 109.
[18] al-‘Aqqâd n.d. [1953], p. 101, 102, 105, 106, 107.
[20] Ibid., p. 95.
[21] Ibid., p. 122: fî sarâ’ir al-damîr.
[22] Ibid., p. 159: fî tawiyat damîrihi.
[23] Nafs (ibid,. p. 78), sudûr (p. 98), qalb (p. 106).
[24] al-damîr hiyya sirr al-asrâr, ibid. p. 171.
[25] Cf. the classical book of Miskawayh (d. 1030) Tahdhîb al-akhlâq ("Refinement of the character").
[26] al-‘Aqqâd n.d. [1953], p. 142.
[27] ibid., p. 113-114.
[28] al-wâdi al-muqaddas is a qur’ânic metaphor for the place where Moses encountered the burning bush, cf. Qur’ân 20.10-16.
[29] Husain 1977, p. 12.
[30] Husain 1977, p. 89.
[31] Hussein 1994, p. 231.
[32] Hussein 1994, p. 21f.
[33] Vogelaar 1995, p. 414.
[34] In his Introduction to City of Wrong (Hussein 1994).
[35] Ibid., p. 150.
[36] Ibid., p. 107 and 125.
[37] Ibid., p. 186 and 227.
[38] See ibid., p. 226f., and Kenneth Cragg's "Introduction", p. 17-19.
[39] Khâlid n.d. [1958].
[40] Khâlid 1994, p. 9 (my translation).
[41] Khâlid n.d. [1958], p. 96, 98 and 99.
[42] Khâlid 1971, p. 170-172.
[43] Ibid., p. 123, cf. pp. 135 and 137.
[44] Cf. Ricoeur 1992.
[45] Lévinas 1991 (Totality and Infinity, especially the chapter "Ethics and the face").
[46] Ricoeur 1992, and Tracy 1990 and 1996.
[47] Askari 1972 and Esack 1997.
[48] Lévinas 1981, p. 111.
[49] Tracy 1996, p. 14.
[50] Ricoeur 1992, p. 341-356.
[51] Cf. Taylor 1991, pp. 31-42.
[52] Ibid., p. 277.
[53] Heidegger 1973, p. 314.
[54] Ricoeur 1992, p. 353.
[55] Cf. Lévinas 1981 (Otherwise than Being), that may be read as a critique of Heidegger's notion of selfhood and being.
[56] Ibid., p. 354f.
[57] For the interrelation of conscience and love, see especially al-‘Aqqâd n.d. [1953]. For conscience and taklif, see al-‘Aqqâd n.d. [1961b].
[58] al-‘Aqqâd n.d. [1961], pp. 119-120 and 138-139.
Ibid., pp. 119-120 (my translation).
[60] Ibid., p. 130.
[61] Khâlid n.d. [1958], pp. 187-189.
[62] See the chapters "Redefining Self and Other", and "The Qur’ân and the Other" (in Esack 1997).
[63] Askari 1972.
[64] Ibid., p. 486.
[65] For Coptic developments, see van Doors-Harder and Kari Vogt (eds.) 1997.
[66] Jf. al-Azmeh 1993.
[67] On the virtues 206 (cited from Loeb Classical Library).
[68] De votis monasticis, WA 8,60630-39. Cited from Luther's works vol. 44, p. 298.
[69] Khâlid n.d. [1958], p. 96.
[70] al-nafs la-ammâra bi-s-sû’ (Qur’ân 12.53), al-nafs al-lawwâma (Qur’ân 75.2) and al-nafs al-mutma’inna (Qur’ân 89.27).
[71] al-‘Aqqâd n.d. [1961 b], p. 30.

[72] Hussein 1994, p. 233.

Have mercy on me-Psalm 50-in arabic

Baptismal Prayers - Catechesis and Vows

THE TWELVE PROPHECIES
The deacon now lays aside his festival robes and, with the subdeacon, attends the officiating priest who reads he following twelve prophecies in a low voice: while they are chanted by others of the clergy:
The First Prophesy: Genesis 1: 1-31; 2: 1-2
The creation of the world. – The man created after the Image of God and His likeness had dominion over all living creatures.

In princípio creávit Deus cælum, et terram. Terra autem erat inánis, et vácua, et ténebræ erant super fáciem abyssi: et Spíritus Dei ferebátur super aquas. Dixítque Deus: Fiat lux. Et facta est lux. Et vidit Deus lucem quod esset bona: et divísit lucem a ténebris. Appellavítque lucem Diem, et ténebras Noctem: factúmque est véspere, et mane, dies unus, Dixit quoque Deus: Fiat firmaméntum in médio aquárum: et dívidat aquas ab aquis. Et fecit Deus firmaméntum, divisítque aquas, qua erant sub firmaménto, ab his quæ erant super firmaméntum. Et factum est ita. Vocavítque Deus firmaméntum Cælum: et factum est véspere, et mane, dies secúndus. Dixit vero Deus: Congregéntur aqua, qua sub cælo sunt, in locum unum: et appáreat árida. Et factum est ita. Et vocávit Deus áridam, Terram: congregation-ésque aquárum appellávit Mária. Et vidit Deus quod esset bonum. Et ait: Gérminet terra herbam viréntem, et faciéntem semen, et lignum pomíferum fáciens fructum juxta genus suum, cujus semen in semetípso sit super terram. Et factum est ita. Et prótulit terra herbam viréntem, et faciéntem semen juxta genus suum, lignúmque fáciens fructum, et habens unumquódque seméntem secúndum spéciem suam. Et vidit Deus quod esset bonum. Et factum est véspere et mane, dies tértius. Dixit autem Deus: Fiant lumináris in firmaménto cæli, et dívidant diem ac noctem, et sint in signa et témpora, et dies et annos: ut lúceant in firmaménto cæli et llúminent terram. Et factum est ita. Fecítque Deus duo luminária magna: lumináre majus, ut præésset diéi: et lumináre minus, ut præésset nocti: et stellas. Et pósuit eas in firmaménto cæli, ut lucérent super terram, et præéssent diéi ac nocti, et divíderent lucem, ac ténebras. Et vidit Deus quod esset bonus. Et factum est véspere et mane, dies quartus. Dixit étiam Deus: Prodúcant aquæ réptileá nimæ vivéntis, et volátile super terram sub firmaménto Cæli. Creavítque Deus cete grándia, et omnem ánimam vivéntem atque motábilem, quam prodúxerant aquæ in spécies suas, et omne volátile secúndum genus suum. Et vidit Deus quod esset bonum. Benedixítque eis, dicens: Créscite, et multiplicámini, et repléte aquas maris: avésque multiplicéntur super terram. Et factum est véspere, et mane, dies quintus. Dixit quoque Deus: Prodúcat terraá nimam vivéntum in génere silo: juménta, et reptília, et béstias terræ secúndum spécies suas. Factúmque est ita. Et fecit Deus béstias terra? juxta spécies suas, et juménta, et omne réptile terror in génere silo. Et vidit Deus quod esset bonum, et ait: Faciámus hóminem ad imáginem, et similitúdinem nostram: et præsit píscibus maris, et volatílibus cæli, et béstiis, universæque terra, omníque réptili, quod movétur in terra. Et creávit Deus hóminem ad imáginemi, et suam: ad imáginem Dei creávit illum, másculum et féminam creávit eos. Benedixítque illis Deus, et ait: Créscite, et multiplicámini, et repléte terram, et subjícite eum, et dominámini píscibus maris, et volatílibus cæli, et univérsis animántibus, quæ movéntur super terram. Dixítque Deus: Ecce dedi vobis omnem herbam afferéntem semen super terram, et univérsa ligna qua habent in semetípsis seméntem géneris sui, ut sint vobis in escam: et cunctis animántibus terra, omnique vólucri cæli et univérsis, qua movéntur in terra, et in quibus est ánima vivens, ut habeant ad vescéndum. Et factum est ita. Vidítque Deus cuncta, quæ fécerat: et erant valde bona. Et factum est véspere, et mane, dies sextus. Igitur perfécti sunt cæli, et terra, et ómnia ornátus eórum. Complevítque Deus die séptimo opus suum quod fécerat: et requiévit die séptimo ab univérso ópere quod patrárat.

In the beginning God created Heaven and earth: and the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said, Be light made; and light was made. And God saw the light that it was good: and He divided the light from the darkness; and He called the light day and the darkness night: and there was evening and morning, one day. And God said, Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament from those that were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day. God also said, Let the waters that are under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so done. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas: and God saw that it was good. And He said, Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth; and it was so done. And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yielded seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind: and God saw that it was good; and the evening and the morning were the third day. And God said, Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years; to shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth: and it was so done. And God made two great lights, a greater light to rule the day, and a lesser light to rule the night; and the stars; and He set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth, and to rule the day and the night, and to divide the light and the darkness; and God saw that it was good; and the evening and the morning were the fourth day. God also said, Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of Heaven. And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind: and God saw that it was good. And He blessed them, saying, Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea, and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth: and the evening and morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds: and it was so done. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind: and God saw that it was good. And He said, Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to His own image; to the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. And God blessed them, saying, increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat; and to all the beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon: and it was so done. And God saw all the things that He had made, and they were very good: and the evening and morning were the sixth day. So the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the furniture of them. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

COLLECT

P. Oremus.
D. Flectamus genua.
S. Levate.
Deus qui mirabíliter creásti hóminem, et mirabílius redemísti: da nobis, quæsumus, contra oblectaménta peccáti, mentis ratióne persístere; ut mereámur ad ætérna gáudia perveníre. Per Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum Fílium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti, Deus, per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. S. Amen.

P. Let us pray.
D. Let us kneel.
S. Arise.
O God, Who hast wonderfully created man and more wonderfully redeemed him, grant us, we beseech Thee, to withstand by strength of spirit the allurements of sin, that we may be worthy to reach everlasting joys. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. S. Amen.

Click title above for all twelve.

Faithful baptized Christians are to receive the -

Eucharist

Go here:

Traditional Catholic Prayers: The Eucharist

In support of the True Theotokos, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God

Go to:

PRAYER AGAINST EVIL - 'HAWK WHICH IS NOT ISLAM' - NACHASH - KASHAPH - ALL INFIDELITY TO ALLAH (SWT) GOD AND 'ISA AL-MASEEH - ALL OF THAT IS DAMNED

FALSE GODDESS APPARITIONS which is the spirit of Apostasy (and the Satanic patroness of Ecumenism and the New World Order) bringing back the false gods of the ancient world

See these links also:

Illuminati

Terrorism and the Illuminati - A Three Thousand Year History

The Mark of the Beast

Msgr. Ottaviani BAN

What most people don't know about all the Marian and other connected apparitions is that up to and including the time of Cardinal Msgr. Ottaviani's holding the reigns of the Holy Office is that there was a ban on all of them. That ban was removed (illicitly and without any doctrinal basis) by the Antipope Paul VI in 1969. In 1952 Cardinal Msgr. Ottaviani (same as in the Ottaviani Intervention against Antipope Paul VI's Novus Ordo, which Antipope Paul VI made the final promulgation of in 1969, same year as he lifted the ban) as prelate in charge of the Holy Office even issued another warning about them. The original beginning of the modern apparitions was in Rue du Bac in Paris, France in 1830. Catherine Laboure, a nun with heavy Masonic influences in her life, had the first of the modern apparitions and included in the setting she was in was a pyramid painted over the chapel altar. This is extreme Freemasonry symbolism and purposeful idolatry. All of this is part of the Judeo-Mason Zionist assault on the Church.

Have you noticed that in the apparitions Mary is always telling girls secrets? Girls like to tell one another secrets. There is just no doctrinal basis for any of it. St. Anthony of the desert (St. Athanasius' teacher in the Catholic faith) said that demonic apparitions are never to be heeded because, although there may be some or appear to be some factual truth in them, because of their origin they will always be false and heeding them or turning aside after them in any way will only help the Devil to carry out whatever scheme that the evil one is attempting.

Also, St. Anthony said that true apparitions given by the true God will always bring peace and joy and never terror. He said terror in an apparition means the apparition is always from the evil one. Also, he said that God brings healing and not disease and death. Remember Portugal and many other of the “apparitions” – disease and death. St. Anthony also said when there is any doubt at all, ask “who and whence” of the apparition with firm faith and if it is false it will not be able to claim that it is God. Some of the seers tried this and instead of an immediate and straightforward affirmation that it was truly from God they got evasive answers. Remember the devil in the garden of Eden, evasive. There is no doubt that God walked with St. Anthony for many miracles of healing and deliverance from demonic oppression were given him to do by God. St. Anthony also was the founding stone by which the coenobitic monastic movement had its beginning (prior to St. Pachomius) and from that movement spread the Gospel in the 4th century and continued on through the centuries, including such notables as St. Benedict of Nursia/Umbria and St. Patrick and St. Columban of Ireland etc. Also, St. Irenaeus’ (180 A.D.) teaching on visions given by God is the same as St. Anthony’s. The council of Trent taught that nothing can be declared doctrine unless it has the full consensus of the Church Fathers (last of the Fathers in the west is St. Isadore of Seville, 636 A.D. and last in the East is St. John Damascene, mid 8th century) to support it. Neither the Novus Ordo nor the apparitions have that. In fact they both have the utter condemnation of the full consensus of the Church Fathers.

MARIAN AND CHARISMATIC CONGRESSES and The Pagan-Gnostic tree of ecumenism

Also, in 1975 the Marian and the Charismatic Congresses were held in Rome and as part of the Vatican II false council game plan to destroy the Church the implementation of Mary as the Holy Spirit was being promoted. This ancient gnostic heresy of Mary as Sophia wisdom personified as all mother goddesses was based at Vatican II on the formally condemned heretic Sergei Bulgakov's idea of Mary as essence of the Trinity and the person of the Holy Spirit, by adoption no less. Bulgakov was formally condemned by the Russian Orthodox Church (his Church) decades before in the strictest anathema for this. Bulgakov was a Communist and Pantheist Communist philosopher before his pretended conversion to the Russian Orthodox Church; classic Gramscian type infiltration. This is nothing more than the old pagan triple goddess, such as Isis, lunar Artemis, Bastet-Artemis or Selene, Mene, Hecate. The pagan triple as Isis was a virgin and the one the Valentinian gnostics tried to pattern Mary after and then make Jesus into Horus.

No ukase by any Caesar including and especially the current pretenders to the papacy can change this doctrine of the faith: 'that to be a Christian one will and must and shall at all times reject all other gods and worship and serve the True God alone - The Father and the Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.' The first major transgression of this in Rome, in the recent centuries, was by a Pope who started out as an orthodox proponent of the Faith. When Pius XII (who wrote faithfully and brilliantly to defend the faith on many occasions) forced the acceptance of the assumption of Mary body and soul, based on the never declared doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, into heaven at the end of her earthly life (which would have been in the first century A.D.), he forced absolute heresy on the Church. The Masonic provoked apparitions of Mary were all banned until, unlawfully, Antipope Paul VI lifted the ban in 1969. The apparitions were the main force behind the push to approve the heretical doctrines of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary. The apparition at Fatima of the Sun being turned around was prophesied by St. Hippolytus (martyred 236 A.D.) as Diabolic and of the Antichrist. When those two false doctrines of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary were combined, at Vatican II and after, with the arch heretic and Communist Sergei Bulgakov’s heresies concerning Mary being a fourth hypostasis of God - then this false Mary was transformed into the Antitheotokos which is the consort of the Antichrist, who will come to oppose the Church. The faithful of the Church must not and will not accept any of this. Christ alone is the Immaculate Conception by the Holy Spirit and the blessed virgin Mary and Christ alone is the first born from the dead in the flesh. Any early resurrection of Mary would make her a goddess which God will never do and she is not nor would she ever agree with or want such an abomination in her name. In Divine response to Pius XII’s immense and unacceptable blunder in eight years he was dead and the conclave in that year, 1958, saw the election of the first of several Antipopes, John XXIII, which ushered in the Great Apostasy of Vatican II; Cardinal Siri was rightfully elected at the 1958 conclave and was Pope Gregory XVII, but reigned in exile in silence due to the death threat against his family by the partisans of Antipope John XXIII and those Antipopes after John XXIII. Now that Siri has died in 1988, truly the throne is vacant. The Antipopes were and are John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

The Church Fathers, especially as referred to here, are by definition an exact group ending with and not later than St. John Damascene in the East in the eighth century A.D. and in the West in the seventh century A.D. St. Isadore of Seville and Pope St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome (who said that any bishop who declared himself in charge of the whole Church, instead of all bishops, including the Pope of Rome, having no more than equal authority, with Rome among other Patriarchal sees and none of them coercing others, was in fact, the precursor of the Antichrist).

The Arch Evil Council of Vatican II proposed a meaningless cosmic Adam and non-literal creation by a nonexistent pantheistic non-God ruled over by a cosmic Jesus Christ (Gnostic false Christ - actually Satan) and the Antitheotokos (Mary as premature resurrected and ascended goddess - Christ alone is resurrected and ascended until His return - John 3:13 And no one [nemo in Latin, oudeis in Greek - literally 'no one'] hath ascended into heaven, but He that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.). All of this was based on their ultimate Antichrist Judeo Mason document of Nostra Aetate which put the eternal enemies of Christ, the apostate perfidious nation of Jews guilty of Deicide, as gods above all infidel pagan religions. They put that abomination in place of the Gospel of Christ and all of this as the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place of Our Lord Jesus Christ's Church, His Body, which He died for.

The Antipopes, in addition to pretending to authority over the entire Church - which they could never have, spew forth the Satanic nonsense of Nostra Aetate. They and all who follow them will go into hell at the return of Christ.

The Mother Devil Goddess

This is Isis (above left) who in the ancient world was the head goddess of the most evil of the developed forms of the triple goddess. The triple goddess was the absolute center and power of sorcery and black magic in the ancient world. That looped object in her hand is the intaglio. The Romans subsumed Isis along with many other goddesses into Tyche.

The virgin goddess of black magic : The ancient image of the beast was in fact the Harlot's representation in Rome, i. e. the images of Tyche (Fortuna) the goddess of fortune meaning fate or destiny. It was from Alexandria, Egypt (later on in the early third century, home of the neo-gnostic/christian school the Didascalia) in the early 2nd century A.D. that Valentinus brought the pseudo-christian gnostic gospel of Mary to Rome which St. Irenaeus (180 A.D.) so ably refuted in his “Against Heresies”. This so-called gospel of Mary (found in the Egyptian Nag Hammadi gnostic library in the 1940s) was nothing more than Isis and Horus the Egyptian false goddess/god child usurping the place of the true Jesus Christ Who by the Holy Spirit of the Father was truly born of (Incarnate and given birth to by) the virgin Mary.

The Mother Goddess, who is the patroness of the Ecumenical Movement, is also the patroness of the World Order. The Ecumenical movement endeavors to form the blessed virgin Mary into the Mother Goddess. The blessed virgin Mary, herself, of course has absolutely nothing to do with the Mother Goddess.

Tyche was the goddess which was the summation, in the Graeco-Egyptian religion of the Graeco-Roman world, of all goddesses and therefore the beginning and end of all the poytheistic gods and goddesses of the ancient mediterranean world. The Cumaean, Tiburtine and Delphic sibyls were the principal fortune tellers of the Roman empire which would convince the citizens of the empire of the will of Rome (the beast from the sea). The beast from the earth was the false prophet i.e. sorcerers and magicians and Caesar himself as pontifex maximus of the Roman religion. The three spirits out of the mouth of the dragon and the beast and the false prophet are the three sibyls above.

The precursor in Egypt, of Tyche as mother goddess summation of all the gods/goddesses, is the triple goddess Isis represented and invocated as Selene-Mene-Hecate. This is the absolute worst of the virgin goddess of black magic/sorcery in the history of the world. The representation is Isis as sorceress in her lunar and chthonic form united to the sky above and ruler of earth in between standing on the globe of the world around which a serpent is coiled. One statue still extant today of Isis as this sorceress is the Farnese Isis (Naples Museum). She holds the Intaglio (magic ring of the serpent uroboros, the serpent that eats it own tail). The formula of consecration is invoked by the power of the serpent with the crescent moon with two stars one on each end of the horns of the crescent moon forming the tang of the sorcerer/sorceress with the sun of Abraxas, the ancient god of all sorcery and black magic surmounted above that. Any resemblance to the false representation of Mary as the Immaculate Conception especially as shown on the so-called "Miraculous Medal" standing on the globe of the earth is NOT ACCIDENTAL.

In the fifth/sixth century A.D. the Syrian writings of Pseudo-Dionysios first appeared and were later added to. In this the ancient pagan idea of synthesizing, that is combining all the ancient gods/goddesses, an idea going back to the Graeco-Egyptian Hermes Trimegistus (Apollyon appearing as Hermes thrice blessed - a pagan false trinity), was put forth in gnostic psuedo christian dress. Included was Mary as the summation of all that is divine, i. e. the mother triple goddess. Sergei Bulgakov was condemned by his own church, the Russian Orthodox Church, as a heretic, in the first part of the 20th century for this same thing, in which Bulgakov attempted to make Mary the Hupostasis of God and the divinity by which each of the Three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity of the True God is approached and in no other way. In short, it is a sophism to make her the triple goddess and replace the worship of the True Trinity with polytheistic/pantheism. This worship of Satan in place of the True God, the Most Holy Trinity will only bring utter destruction upon the earth.
In the summation of all Heresies and Apostasies and Blaspheming of the Holy Spirit known as Vatican II, Bulgakov's blasphemous system was inculcated by name and in this same false teaching of Bulgakov to make the Antitheotokos the virgin goddess of black magic to support all of the false apparitions (heretofor condemned), supposedly of Mary, and make these apparitions accepted and thereby bring in KNOWINGLY the Gnostic evolutionary Monism - Pantheism of this "ecumenical council of thieves".

For instance the Gnostics, according to the Church Fathers, basing themselves on the Naasseni (the apostate Jewish serpent worshipping Satanist priesthood cult which is the base for all Kabalah and the Zohar) copied much of their doctrine from Platonism, Graeco-Egyptian paganism and far eastern religiosity and claimed, totally falsely, that this is what Jesus taught. It is not at all what Jesus taught nor at all what Moses taught. The Gnostic doctrines are obvious in this plagiarizing of paganism and denial of the true Jesus Christ. In the East the Buddhist teaching of how Sakyamuni (Gotama), the Buddha, obtained his “enlightenment” is obviously diabolic and has a great deal in common with Graeco-Egyptian mysticism in the west; especially this is extremely similar to Simon Magus’ portrayal of himself entwined with snakes in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil as a man-god to be sought after as the ultimate teacher of true knowledge. The prime example: The Dragon Flower Tree (the banyan or pipal [fig] tree) from which the great white serpent from the abyss (the devil) granted Gotama (the Buddha) his “enlightenment” which consisted of his denying the I AM and being his own saviour. Otherwise known as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil which in classical and traditional Catholic teaching is the first type of the devil. Gn:2:17: 17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death. (DRV)

During the time of Photius (a Khazar) and the dating of all subsequent Ecumenical Orthodox Church theology, at about the same time as Photius, from the 'victory' of the "theology of the icon", the actual theology of that so-called church has disintegrated into complete paganism. Photius' teaching on Christ is simply an old heresy trying to divide Christ into two persons. The teaching on the hypostasis of the icon as the real presence of Christ the same as in the Eucharist is nothing other than sophist idolatry. The teaching on created energy divinising men is nothing other than polytheism. The idea, present in the Orthodox and the Oriental Churches, that the gods and goddesses of Egypt and Greece are types of the true God and His revelation of Himself is a lie from Satan and complete apostasy from the true God. It was this ‘Orthodox’ Church that originally proposed Ecumenism in the last few centuries, despite a few in their ranks claiming it was the Protestants. This ‘Orthodox’ Church has been the leader of Ecumenism including Demetrios I and his nonsense, on the island of Patmos of all places, provoking the Antipope John Paul II to the kind of nonsense that later with Bartholomew I, John Paul II perpetrated at Assisi. It is the Ecumenical Orthodox Church that claims the ecological Patriarch Bartholomew I (Gaia mother goddess of earth is the patroness of the ecologists). It was the Antipope John Paul II and the Heresiarch Bartholomew I that assembled in Assisi with about forty other Patriarchs and Metropolitans etc. of the Eastern 'Church' and a whole host of Catholic Cardinals and Bishops on January 24, 2002 for the totally apostate synchretist prayer meeting with leaders of every imaginable form of paganism including voodoo witchdoctors. It was Bartholomew I, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, who dared to call the apostasy of the Assisi offence against God, "blessed are the peacemakers". It is the Ecumenical Orthodox 'Church' that is the self willed source of the energy of diabolic delusion that is marking men with the image of the beast.

In opposition to the traditional Catholic and Orthodox Churches, this folks, is Ecumenism, an invention of Judeo-Freemasonry and Byzantine/Phanariot/Venetian/Swiss banking and with the full apostate complicity of the Novus Ordo pseudo church of the Antipope Benediktos.

Jesus WARNED us of false prophets like Benedict XVI who promise peace but mean apostasy.
BEWARE. BENEDICT WOULD HAVE US RECEIVE THE MARK AND HAVE THE IMAGE OF THE BEAST STAMPED UPON US.

The virgin goddess of black magic

In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

The Traditional Catholic and Orthodox Churches are correct and Roman Catholicism is wrong about the blessed virgin Mary who is the Theotokos and the mother of Jesus Christ Who is God in the flesh. The virgin Mary is not the immaculate conception, she immaculately conceived by the Holy Spirit the only true God in the flesh Who is Jesus Christ and is therefore the mother of God (not of His divine nature but His human nature which is divinized by His divine nature in the enhypostasia of the communion of idioms or hypostatic union of His two natures of God and of man, in theological terms) for He is One Person – of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity One God. Mary is of course totally loyal to Jesus Christ and has nothing to do with the virgin goddess (Isis and others) of black magic, which was used by the ancient Gnostic apostates as a substitute for the real virgin Mary mother of the God-Man Jesus Christ. He, Jesus Christ is the second Person of the Holy Trinity and therefore is God. Mary is therefore in this sense the mother of God. It is in this sense that she always has been confessed by the Church to be the mother of God. She is not a goddess.

Meet the virgin goddess of black magic -- she is the “immaculate one” (A LIE) who is Satan and false god and temptress and the rehashed pagan mother goddess that the early Gnostics (who claimed they were the knowers of the unknown god) worshipped.See this short excerpt, to illustrate, from:

"Thunder, Perfect Mind" from the Nag Hammadi Library

ftp://d.armory.com/pub/user/leavitt/gnosis/thunder.html

I am ... within.I am ...of the natures.

I am the creation of the spirits.

I am control and the uncontrollable.

I am the union and the dissolution.

I am the abiding and I am the dissolving.

I am the one below, and they come up to me.

I am the judgement and the acquittal.

I, I am sinless, and the root of sin derives from me.

I am the hearing which is attainable to everyone and the speech which cannot be grasped.

I am a mute who does not speak, and great is my multitude of words. ( this is Sarasvati)

The Mother Goddess was the beginning (the mother) of all the gods and goddesses and all sorcery /magic in connection with them.

In India the mother goddess is Durga and takes the form of Kali.

The yogis, ajivika or sramana or sadhu, of India, worshipped the fire god Agni (the god called “The Knower” whose tongue is the goddess Kali the goddess of destruction, a hermaphrodite god-goddess) imported from ancient Assyria/Persia, and engaged in the practice of the magical incantations of the kashshaph (sorcery) and nachash (serpent black magic) practices, amongst others, of ancient Mesopotamia, which made their way there through ancient Assyria/Persia as well. This strange fire (Hebrew: esh) with the sorcery and magic and rest of the occult practices listed together therein are condemned by God in Deuteronomy 18:10, 11. The final abomination of this is listed first in Dt:18:10: Neither let there be found among you any one that shall expiate his son or daughter, making them to pass through the fire…. (DRV) That final abomination is human sacrifice by fire sacrifice (as in Agni) to false gods/goddesses in the hope of gaining preternatural power from fallen spirits; the apostate angel, Satan - the devil, is the chief fallen spirit of the rest and who Jesus Christ said was a murderer and a liar from the beginning. Jn:8:44: You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, andthe father thereof. (DRV)

Sorcery/magic and astrology began, in the post flood world, in Chaldaea Sumeria Assyro-Babylonian Mesopotamia.

For the Astral (known as Omina) connection to sorcery/magic (Hebrew Ashshaph/Kashshaph) see this excerpt from:

Astrology and Judaism in Late Antiquity

The doctoral dissertation of Lester Ness, Accepted by MiamiUniversity, 1990

http://www.smoe.org/arcana/diss1.html

Chapter One
Astrology In Mesopotamia…

The Cult Of The Planet-Gods

Having introduced the chief gods, we shall now examine literary evidence demonstrating the cult of the planet-gods. We shall look at the Creation Epic (Enuma Elish) and at a variety of prayers and magical texts. I shall use simple and common definitions for prayer and magic here. In prayer, one makes a request of a god. The magician tries to coerce or even command a god. In practice, however, the distinction may break down. For example, knowing the habits of a god, his likes and dislikes, one might make a request in such a way that it would be unlikely, even impossible to reject. Certainly, there was no clear distinction between prayer and magic in Mesopotamia./35/ It is the modern scholars who have drawn it, and in many cases they have been force to "fudge," coining the term "Gebetsbeschwrungen," or"Prayer-spells"….

Magical ceremonies in Mesopotamia were private, small-scale,versions of the rituals performed publicly in the temples. Magical practitioners of different sorts were usually priests. References to the astral aspects of the various gods are common, although they do not crowd out other aspects./38/

[end of excerpt]

This commanding of gods even extended to making them speak (the statues and other images) by occult means. The magicians who engaged in such things generally did it for money. In Jesus Christ's time on earth before His Ascension into heaven (from whence He will come again to judge the quick and the dead), He warned about these fakirs.

From Jesus Christ:

Mk:13:22:

22 For there will rise upfalse Christs and false prophets: and they shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce (if it were possible) even the elect. (DRV)

Mt:7:15:

15 ¶ Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (DRV)

From St. Paul:

Gal:1:8:

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. (DRV)

From St. Peter:

2Pt:1:20

20 Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. (DRV)

From St. John:

Rv:13:15, 16:

15 And it was given him (the Antichrist) to give life to the image of the beast: and that the image of the beast should speak: and should cause that whosoever will not adore the image of the beast should be slain.

16 And he shall make all, both little and great, rich and poor, freemen and bondmen, to have a character in their right hand or on their foreheads: (DRV)

Rather than take the Mark then, the early saints were martyred for their faith. Something that we must not hesitate to do when confronted with that choice. One of the early martyrs was St. Irenaeus of Lyons author of Against Heresies. For the creed of the early church which he recorded for posterity (which is also the original Apostles creed) see:

For the true Christian confession of faith see:

Eternal Faith and Beliefs Page 3

http://bellesheures.wordpress.com/eternal-faith-beliefs/

ALL PLACES OF IDOLATROUS WORSHIP OF FALSE GODS/GODDESSES AND ALL OF THE FALSE WORSHIP INVOLVED BLACK MAGIC AND SORCERY WHICH IS THE HALLMARK OF ALL PAGAN WORSHIP AND DIRECTLY VIOLATES DEUTERONOMY 18:10,11 AND IS DAMNED. FOR INSTANCE, ROME HAD ZEUS AND THE VIRGIN GODDESS OF BLACK MAGIC, FORTUNA OR TYCHE INCLUDING BY SYNCHRETISM HECATE, ISIS, MENE ETC., WORSHIPPED BY SORCERY, MAGICAL ENGRAVING, ENCHANTING TYING MAGIC SPELLS/KNOTS/CHARMS JOINED TO IDOLS OFFERING UNLAWFUL HUMAN AND ANIMAL SACRIFICES TO IDOLS AND THE FALSE GODS BEHIND THEM, ESPECIALLY FALSE PROPHECY: THE SIX ELEMENT DRAGON OUT OF THE MOUTH OF IT AN UNCLEAN SPIRIT, ‘O DIABOLOS HERMAPHRODITE BEAST OUT OF THE MOUTH OF IT AN UNCLEAN SPIRIT, THE FALSE PROPHET OF THE SATA-NAS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF IT AN UNCLEAN SPIRIT

Sata apostate in Hebrew
Nas serpent in Hebrew
Sata+Nas = Satan, the Devil, Known in Rome, for instance, as the Dragon

ALL OF THIS IS, IN THE UNIVERSAL RECAPITULATION OF INIQUITY, SUMMED UP THE ANTICHRIST WHO SEEKS TO IMPRESS HIS MARK AND NAME AND NUMBER ON ALL MEN. THOSE MEN WHO TAKE THE MARK, NAME, NUMBER OF THE ANTICHRIST ARE DAMNED FOREVER. ECUMENISM IS THE MEANS BY WHICH THIS IS BROUGHT IN TO MEN. REJECT THE HERESY OF HERESIES WHICH IS ECUMENISM FOR IT IS ONLY THE ROAD TO ETERNAL DAMNATION.

Practices forbidden by God:

DT. 18:10,11 STRONGS BDB

VERSE 10
ESH 784 77b, 1083b
QECEM 7081 890c
ANAN 6049778a, 1107c
NACHASH 5172 638c
KASHAPH 3784 506c
(CHARTOM FROM EXODUS 7:22) 2748 355a
VERSE 11
CHABAR CHEBER 2266; 2267 251c, 287d, 1092a; 288c
SHA’AL 7592 981b, 1114a; (SHA’AL, DARASH) OWB 178 15a
(SHA’AL, DARASH) YIDDE’ONIY 3049 396b
DARASH; MUWTH 1875; 4191 201d, 205a; 559b, 607a,
1099d

BDB = BROWN DRIVER BRIGGS HEBREW ENGLISH LEXICON PAGE NUMBER REFERENCES

See these links:

False Gods

The coming of the Antichrist, ad-Dajjal

Look up, your redemption is at hand: THE TRINITY

Look up, your redemption is at hand: The Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ - Isa al-Maseeh, Nuzul i Isa - Parousia of Jesus Christ the Messiah

This page and the use of all others linked to it — All copyrighted sources are quoted and used for comment and education in accord with the nonprofit provisions of: Title 17 U.S.C., Section 107. These sites are in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., Section 107 and are protected under: The First Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ….

Holy Word, Wisdom, Power and Son and Salvation of God

Say this prayer of repentance, daily:

Against you, you alone, Jesus Christ, have we sinned and done evil in your sight, forgive us our sins, purge us with hyssop and we shall be cleansed, wash us and we shall be made whiter than snow, make the bones you have numbered to rejoice.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son and Word of the living God in the unity and power of your Holy Spirit, through the intercessions of your all-pure mother and of all your saints and elect angels, have mercy and deliver us.

The following is a theological explanation of how God is ubiquitously present (totally present everywhere at all times); since God created everything (except himself, always having existed, which quality is called aseity), the willful misuse of anything or anybody including oneself, is sin against God himself, who is present in all of his creation. God’s creation is composed of elements (the basic biblical elements are: fire, spirit, water, earth, called in Greek, ‘stoichea’). There are also four basic realms which are all part of God’s created cosmos: the realm of those who are created with a beginning and an eternal life, i.e. angels and men, the realm of creatures with a sentient soul but no eternal life, i.e. animals, the realm of those things created with life but not a thinking or an aware mind, i.e. plants, the realm of things created and therefore having an existence sustained by God but with no self, no consciousness, nor life, i.e. the realm of the inanimate. In all of this all misuse of any of this is sin, the misuse of the elements is sorcery and magic, the misuse of the creatures of God is idolatry and when the two misuses are combined it is the sin of witchcraft – all of these sins are instigated by Satan whom Jesus told us in St. John’s Gospel is a murderer and liar from the beginning (Gospel of St. John chapter 8 verse 44). In this verse, in which Jesus condemns those who held a superficial profession of faith in God, is the absolute definition of sin from the sin of Satan and the other fallen angels and then the fall of Adam and Eve and every other sin there ever has been or will be: “the Father from whom you are is the devil, and the desires of the Father of you it is your will to do. That one was a murderer from the beginning and has not stood in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie he speaks from his very nature, because he is a liar and the Father of lies.” in this extremely important verse is the definition of what Jesus also informs us of in his rebuke to the devil in St. Matthew’s Gospel chapter 4 verse 10: then Jesus said to him, "begone, Satan! for it is written, the Lord your God shall you worship and him only shall you serve.” angels are created noetic spirits (spirits, each with a self identity and an individual mind) and their nature at the moment of their creation is good; they are endowed with a free will. Satan and the rest of the fallen angels chose to deny God and all worship and service of God, i.e. to apostasize from God, and be their own gods (they are the false gods behind all of the pagan religions, Buddhism, Hinduism, false - Hawk which is not Islam etc., and idols and are the instigating spirits of sorcery and magic and all sin). This decision on their part immediately and irrevocably separated them from the Holy Spirit of God and therefore, at that moment their natures became evil forevermore. Men are a different case; their souls are where their self exists. Men possess free will to make the decision whether or not to worship and serve the true God; however, unlike the angels, men’s existence is in the flesh. Therefore a man’s decision is made in the flesh. God fixed the nature of man’s flesh to remain incorrupt and not know death ever, as long as man did not transgress God’s commandment not to stray from the worship and service of God who is the only Creator of all and source of life (which commandment is given universally to all angels and men). The nature of man’s flesh, as created by God, parted from perfect obedience of man and therefore indwelling of God by his spirit with incorruption, has a limited life span by God’s command. Therefore, unlike the angels who cannot die as men die in the flesh, man has a time here on earth in his flesh to make his decision whether or not to worship and serve the living God and inherit life eternal, i.e. incorruption. Adam was created in the flesh and sinned in the flesh and therefore men inherit, not sin, but death in the flesh because of Adam’s sin. Men’s decision is irrevocably fixed at the moment of their death. Beginning with Adam (the first formed man and there are none of any sort before him) all men’s souls are formed to their bodies; their souls are where their self exists eternally. Man at his creation (Adam) and each man thereafter at his soul’s creation by God at the moment of conception in the man’s body is a person. Each person is a threefold existence of spirit from God, soul created by God and body made of the elements created by God. Unrepentant sinners who go to hell upon their death and the lake of fire at the final judgement are devoid of any spirit of God forevermore. Their same souls and bodies alone (no spirit) are resurrected reunited by Christ forevermore at the resurrection of all men in the future and then condemned at that time to the lake of fire (at the bottom of the abyss beneath the universe). The saints (all of the saved from the first adam on) will be resurrected with their same spirits souls and bodies reunited (all diseases of the former life healed) and inherit life eternal with Christ incorrupt as he is uncorrupt, in this universe (God’s creation) recreated at that time unto the endless ages of ages to come. The reason for our resurrection is that Christ, by virtue of his being God, in taking the flesh of the blessed virgin Mary (who was descended from Adam 70 generations before, as well as all men – recounted in the Gospel of St. Luke chapter 3 verses 23-38) therefore took the flesh of all men, Adam and all men ever descended from Adam, and thereby took the punishment of death (upon his cross) that had been decreed by him upon men for Adam’s sin, upon himself.

Note: in the passage from St. John’s Gospel that “…the desires of the Father of you (the devil) it is your will to do. That one was a murderer from the beginning and has not stood in the truth…”. Men (who are old enough to form the requisite intention and never before that does any man sin) sin by their willing to do it. It is true, of course, that the devil tempted Adam and Eve with his own self temptation, i.e. to be their own gods, in order to draw them to the worship of himself. Adam and Eve could have said no. They chose to sin as do all men who sin. The devil was by virtue of his angelic nature (noetic), therefore having an immediate knowledge of right and wrong upon his creation, to be held immediately and irrevocably bound by his apostasy from the moment of his sin (see book of the holy prophet of God, Ezechiel, chapter 28 verses 12b through 19.)

The following describes God’s holy presence throughout his creation. Therefore, as said above, any and all apostasy from he who created all of creation and any and all misuse of his creation (that is: in transgressing his commandments in any of these cases) by any of his creatures is sin. All angels, and all men who have reached the age of reason, are responsible to God for their thoughts, intentions, words, deeds and in both commission and omission in all of this and will answer to him who is the just judge. We men absolutely need our redeemer Saviour Jesus Christ. The elect angels worship and serve him but do not stand in need of salvation since they have never sinned. The devil and the rest of the fallen angels are damned forever.

You Holy Holy Holy Lord God Pantocrator Ahiyah asher Ahiyah eth

Omniscient ubiquitous above all uncontained yet containing all through all

Baruch Adonai Yahweh El Olam Olam eth Our Father Holy through, with, in your only Immortal Son

only begotten Holy Jesus Christ our Only Lord and Saviour the only Lamb of God who alone takes away the sin of the whole world of those who are saved

are with - by your Uncreated Eternal Holy Spirit,

the only Immortal one hupostasis, co-equal three hupostasies, the absolute essential, substance, mind, wisdom, nature, energy, dominion

above and behind all, underpinning all, creating, framing, making, creation ex nihilo, underlying all, immanent within all, yet uncontained by any and all

living reigning ruler above, over all and always and forevermore

sustaining in existence all that has been created by your sovereign power. Absolutely untouched by evil, who by a special act of creation created the souls of all men at the moment of conception, quickening them with our spirits by your spirit, implanting our voice of conscience, your voice therein, permanently uniting our souls in the form of with our bodies by your energy, as first the Immortal soul of your Son Jesus Christ our only Lord and Saviour is united, beloved, in your bosom to you God our Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning, in your image and likeness in the unity of your Holy Spirit, life quickening breath of life energy

self existent, one essence, substance, threefold light of one undivided glory

Abba Our Father and the Son Jesus Christ our only Lord and Saviour and the Holy Spirit our Paraclete

worshipped and served by all your elect angels and saints at all times,
only author of creation, redemption, salvation, sanctification

creating each of us our self and endowing each of us with our capacity of memory

Lord have mercy on us
Lord have mercy on us
Lord have mercy on us
God our Father deliver us
Lord have mercy on us
Lord have mercy on us
Lord have mercy on us
God the Son Christ Jesus our only Lord and Saviour deliver us
Lord have mercy on us
Lord have mercy on us
Lord have mercy on us
God the Holy Spirit our Paraclete deliver us
Lord have mercy on us
Lord have mercy on us
Lord have mercy on us
Holy Trinity have mercy on us
Lord have mercy on us
Lord have mercy on us
Lord have mercy on us
Adorable Unity have mercy on us
Lord have mercy on us
Lord have mercy on us
Lord have mercy on us
Holy Holy Holy Lord God Pantocrator have mercy on us
Lord have mercy on us
Lord have mercy on us
Lord have mercy on us
Baruch Adonai Yahweh Eloheinu Yahweh echad Emeth Huy Eloah Chay Melek Olam Olam eth deliver us into your kingdom inheriting life eternal unto the endless ages of ages to come

Jesus Christ our only Lord and Saviour in your true Gospel alone Holy God, the only author of covenant of salvation, of:

Adam’s covenant shown forth by the face seen by Ezechiel of a lion prefiguring the Gospel of John showing forth the royal power and authority of Christ the Immortal Son Word Wisdom and Power of God through whom God the Father by the Holy Spirit created all of creation Who became Incarnate for our redemption in the flesh as Adam had sinned in the flesh

Noah’s covenant shown forth by the face seen by Ezechiel of a calf prefiguring the Gospel of Luke showing forth the sacrifice of Christ who is our Holy Only Priest Victim Sacrifice Altar Temple Tabernacle Redeemer Salvation Immortal Immaculate Golden Ark of the covenant showing himself forth as the only begotten Redeemer in his Epiphany of fiery glory at his baptism in the Jordan

Abraham’s covenant shown forth by an Epiphany of the Lord and two angels prefiguring the Transfiguration of Christ with: Moses, a type of the faithful departed at the future resurrection, and Elijah, a type of the faithful living at the future resurrection, Christ condemning for all time the darkness of idolatry which has no communion with light - the grace of the Gospel of Christ

Moses’ covenant shown forth by the face seen by Ezechiel of a man prefiguring the Gospel of Matthew showing forth the God - man prophet, the Christ, who Moses and David and Isaiah and Habakkuk and Ezra foretold Israel would either heed or be destroyed by rejecting, he who is our only Lord and Saviour by his most Holy Cross by which he tread down Satan and cast him out of creation

David’s covenant shown forth by the gift of prophecy, especially of the resurrection of Christ

Daniel’s covenant shown forth by his vision of the ancient of days prefiguring the Gospel of Christ especially his Ascension

Christ Jesus Immortal Son most Holy Angel of Almighty Counsel, Captain of the hosts of the Lord, the giver of all covenants with God shown forth by his promise of the keys of Himself the Messiah to Peter and to all who believe in Him - Christ Jesus our only Lord and Saviour, the final covenant shown forth by the face seen by Ezechiel of an eagle and through him to the Father does all glory redound in the unity and power of the Holy Spirit, he given at Pentecost, especially proclaimed by the Gospel of Mark of the preaching of the salvation of Christ Jesus throughout the world, Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour who descended from the third heaven from the Father's right hand and became flesh by the Holy Spirit, the immaculate conception and was truly born of the blessed virgin Mary on earth, 70 generations from Adam and your creation of all of creation, thus subsuming flesh of Adam and of all men to yourself to restore your Image and Likeness to all the saints from the first Adam to the last saint, by you Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour, the only Immaculate Lamb of God who alone takes away the sin of the whole world of those who are saved, by your most Holy Cross and Holy Blood, Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour and Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour, covering the whole earth and cleansing the whole universe, Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour, the only first born from the dead in the flesh, the only one resurrected, ascended, assumed bodily in the flesh, seated at the right hand of God, Baruch Adonai Yahweh El Olam eth Abba Our Father in the third heaven in the unity and power of the Holy Spirit our Paraclete

Holy Holy Holy Lord God Pantocrator

and Who, Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour, shall return from the Father’s right hand in the same flesh with all the elect angels and raise, first, the saints in the flesh, our same spirits souls and bodies reunited and then all other men in the flesh, their same souls and bodies reunited, from throughout the whole world and all of time from the beginning of your creation until that time - known to you alone Holy Immortal undivided trinity, in the future at your Parousia Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour, your saints to inherit paradise recreated then with all the elect angels worshipping you face to face in the glory of the Father and the union of the Holy Spirit unto the endless ages of ages - and the rest to be cast into the lake of fire forevermore unto the same endless ages of ages to come.

Baruch Adonai Yahweh Elohim eth He Creator and Artificer of all our only Teacher
He Spirit absolute intelligence Holy unique
manifold subtle agile
clear unstained certain
not baneful loving the good keen
unhampered beneficent kindly
firm secure tranquil
all-powerful all-seeing and pervading all spirits though they be intelligent pure and very subtle seven holy elect blessed orders
of mighty Doxas holy Seraphim, Cherubim, Kuriotetes, Arches especially Saint Michael and Saint Gabriel holy Archangelos
Exousias, Dunameis, Angelos
uncreated Wisdom mobile beyond all motion He penetrates and pervades all things by reason of His purity for He is an aura of the might of God and a pure effusion of the Glory of the Almighty therefore nought that is sullied enters into Him for
He is the refulgence of eternal light the
spotless mirror of the energy of God the image of his goodness he who is one can do all things and renews everything while Himself perduing by His breath passing into holy souls from
age to age he produces friends of God and prophets for there is not God loves be it not one who dwells with wisdom for he is fairer than the sun and surpasses every constellation of the stars compared to light he takes precedence for that indeed night might supplant but wickedness prevails not over wisdom
indeed he reaches from end to end mightily and governs all
things well.

Prayer to obtain forgiveness

Pardon, Lord; pardon your people
whom you have redeemed with your blood, O Christ; may your anger not weigh upon us.

We pray you for your infinite clemency; turn away your wrath from this city and turn from this holy house.

We have sinned against you
and you have been angry with us
and no one can flee from your punishments.

We have sinned against you, O Lord, we have sinned.
Be merciful to us, set us free from ills which every day fall upon us.

Pardon, O Lord, the sins of your people, according to your infinite generosity.

You once showed kindness to our fathers: be merciful to us and your glory
will shine out in our lives.

Pardon, O Lord, those who have sinned; give your grace to those who repent; have pity on us who pray to you,
O Christ, Saviour of the world.

Jesus, look upon us and have pity. Amen.

Hibernian-Celtic hymnody

Trisagion (Mélodie Serbe)

Trisagion (Mélodie Serbe)

Te Deum - 5th Century Monastic Chant (Solemn)

Veni Sancte Spiritus

Veni Sancte Spiritus




Hymne au Saint-Esprit

Litaniae Sanctorum - Litany of the Saints

Litaniae Sanctorum - Litany of the Saints