Great post and I am really glad to hear about your new job!
Thanks, Jeff! Hope you and yours had a blessed Thanksgiving.
Having read over Fr. Dreher's article, I come away rather confused. In rejecting centering prayer, he seems to reject some fundamental Catholic teachings.
I am completely opposed to eastern techniques and to centering prayer, given what I understand about it. But the things that Fr. Dreher rejects in his article are not those things I recognized as problematic.
For example, surely God is transcendant, but He truly does indwell within our souls. Fr. Dreher seemed to me to be saying that we ought onlyto understand God as transcendant in prayer, and yet the spiritual masters such as Theresa of Avila seem, unless I am badly misreading, to emphasize finding God indwelling within the soul. Fr. Dreher seems to be saying that the God's indwelling serves only to direct and enable us to relate to that God who is transcendant and beyond us, whereas these writers seem focused more on relating to God as He dwells within us.
When Fr. Dreher says things like, "the East seeks God in the self and seeks escape from the distractions of the outer world," and "in the religion of Christ, the Incarnate Lord, there is no disengagement from the external, but rather a dedication of one’s life and the world to God," I can't help but see a rejection of the cloistered life in the Church, where men and women dedicate themselves to God so completely that they leave the world and enter into religion to be with God alone, in some cases even to the eremitic life of total solitude and removal from others and from the world.
I am really just confused more than anything. I don't imagine Fr. Dreher would have intended to reject the Church's tradition of the cloister or the Interior Castle or any other such things, but I don't quite understand what he is trying to say. I think of even very simple things, like how I try to focus on Jesus Christ's interior presence after having received Him in Holy Commuion, and wonder how this is different from the sorts of things Fr. Dreher warns against.
I would appreciate it if somebody would be able to explain to me the differences between the things Fr. Dreher condemns and the idea of communing with the indwelling God in an authenritcally Christian way.
Nice work, Dave. I have long thought that if only people would study the great Doctors and Saints of the spiritual life (St. John of the Cross is my personal favorite, along with Fr. Garrigou-Langrange’s compendium of spiritual theology The Three Ages of the Interior Life: Prelude to Eternal Life), we would avoid so many errors and false visionaries. We don’t need to import false spiritualities from other religions – we just need to study and practice what God has so abundantly given us in the lives of the Saints.
Shane,
God does indwell in us, through grace, which comes into us from God through the sacraments. But it is a process where God gradually enters and dwells in the soul. He doesn't start out there, because we start out in a fallen state, spiritually dead, and need God to enter us in order to bring us back to life and cleanse us, so that He can begin dwelling in us. And the process is affective and relational, loving, not hypnotic.
The indwelling of God of which the saints speak is the end result of a growing prayer life, the "spiritual marriage" which is the stable indwelling of the Trinity who has come to dwell in the soul.
And yes, He dwells in us through the Eucharist - but we have received the Eucharist from outside ourselves.
Yes, God is entirely "other" and transcendent - and yet He is also personal and relational. And He has become human, and comes to dwell in us, more and more. And the more He dwells in us, the more we can contemplate Him in us.
You said, When Fr. Dreher says things like, "the East seeks God in the self and seeks escape from the distractions of the outer world," and "in the religion of Christ, the Incarnate Lord, there is no disengagement from the external, but rather a dedication of one’s life and the world to God," I can't help but see a rejection of the cloistered life in the Church.
I think he is trying to highlight the difference between the Eastern religion’s view of the world as illusion, maya, a source of meaningless suffering to be escaped through meditation and “enlightenment,” and the Christian’s view of the world as good, created by God, redeemed by Christ and destined to be recreated and glorified. The point of the cloister is not a negative judgment of God’s creation, but a detachment from world of the “flesh,” the fallen nature which can get too caught up the world, so as to focus wholly on God. But even in the cloister there is genuine love for God’s creation.
Hope that helps!
I should add: even in a fallen state God is present in a sense, holding us in being. But He does not dwell in us relationally in the way He does through the sacramental life.
I am also confused, even with the explanation, of the apparent rejection of the indwelling of the Trinity. Yes, we start in a fallen state, but baptism takes care of that. If we again lose santifying grace through mortal sin, a good confession heals that. So a person in the state of grace should be able to seek and find the indwelling of the Trinity in prayer.
I read John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila and Elizabeth of the Trinity regularly. Elizabeth especially speaks in most familiar terms of approaching the Trinity within. She advocates this approach for others, not nearly so advanced in the spiritual life. I have a hard time believing that drawing near to the Trinity within is reserved for souls in the mystical marriage.
I would be most grateful for additional clarification.
I agree with Sr. Mary. I don't see how I can possibly accept both The Interior Castle and Fr. Dreher's article; they come across as nearly explicitly contradictory.
Fr.'s article also seems to be utterly contradictory to the concept of deification/Theosis.
The explanation was a bit helpful, but there is still a tremendous disconnect in my mind.
Sorry, but I can't really comment further with any authority or additional knowledge, as I was mostly being an "investigative reporter", looking up information on this practice. I could only appeal back to the articles I found. If someone is confused about those, I would recommend trying to contact the authors (via Catholic Answers or EWTN, etc.).
RE: "gay spirituality", I'm not sure what you are trying to say, other than Fr. Pennington is whacked out. I think you are being too kind to him, its a very simple call. The fact that an ordained priest, a man of letters, and knowledgeable about the faith, is this "confused" is very disturbing indeed. His quote "I think that someone who's really free knows that they can relate with others in whatever way is appropriate and that they're not bound by a particular orientation that would make it impossible to relate with others in one way or the other." is nothing more than saying its OK to practice homosexuality.
Dave, this is nothing new, and I don't think anything could be more deceving than this terrible attempt at making homosexuality acceptable than this. The notion that somehow or other gays are some kind of special unicorns or priestesses with some sort of "extra" spirtuality has been around forever (its a Pagan notion, by the way), as implied by the WIE interviewer, is just fantasy on their part. Please don't think that I am some sort of bigot, however note that in this entire discussion there is absolutely no reference to scripture or tradition, it's just peoples feelings. This kind of reminds me about the proverbial discussion at the frathouse about the legal drinking age. There is no reference to any authority. It's very clear from scripture that homosexuality is condemed, so that should be it, and if I'm not mistaken, that this the position of the Church as well. Its very clear to me that gays desparately want this behavior to be acceptable from the Church, from God, and from society. I say that they should be accepted, but that the SIN is not accepatable. That, it seems, is not good enough for the gays. Homosexual behavior is a SIN, plain and simple. "Just callen 'em like I see 'em!"
Secondly, the magazine "What Is Enlightnment?" is nothing more than Universalism?Pantheism/New Age uncrated. I suppose they are the ones who are "enlightened", eh! (and not us stuck up Christians) Bill
Yep, that interview was the "clincher" for me. It convinced me that Fr. Pennington regarded himself as one of the "progressives" / "enlightened" (if you catch my drift). Sometimes a few words are worth more than a thousand pictures.
For years now, I have been practicing comtemplative prayer every day. As a religion teacher in several Catholic schools I have taught a course on the Spanish Mystics: Sts. Ignatius of Loyola, John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila. I have worked with people who want to practice comtemplative prayer. And I will argue with anyone who feels the need to discredit this type of prayer. The fruits, of which, are far greater than any other type of prayer, with the exception of mass. With that, the temptations and trials are also stronger than what most people would probably undergo which is also a fruit, a blessing, a grace from God, because contemplative prayer brings the soul closer to God than all other forms of prayer, save the Mass. All of this is understood if one reads the writings of my Patron Saint, Saint Teresa of Avila, a Doctor of the Church.
Both of her masterpices, "The Interior Castle" and "The Way of Perfection" explain in great detail the life of the Contemplative. The "Interior Castle" specifically states that God dwells within the soul and that contact with Him is possible and highly encouraged. This falls in line with Catholic Theology as the soul belongs to God and only He has direct uninvited access into it. In both books, she talks at length about "distractions" and basically says don't worry about them because "One cannot control the thoughts that enter one's mind any more than they can control the wind." According to Teresan Philosophy, the distractions do not matter because the soul is centered on God and is in contact with God and God, of course, takes priority.
I see no difference between centering prayer and traditional comtemplative prayer. My experience has shown, along with my conversations with other practitioners , that those who do not practice it, regularly, fear it because they do not completely understand it. This connecting the dots to link centering prayer with pagan practices,most of all, tarot cards, is a really good exercise in creative writing. And by the way....Canon Law states that a person should only be practicing contemplative prayer no more than 30 minutes a day.
Scott, where does canon law say that?
And what was the reason for pointing that out? Just curious, since it might be a fun reason!
Hi Scott,
Speaking of "really good exercises", you didn't interact with a single argument presented in the critique. The reader is left with simply . . . your word.
As for "connecting the dots" of centering prayer and tarot cards, I didn't make that connection. Fr. Pennington did by enthusiastically recommending a book on that subject.
What do you make of Fr. Pennington's remarks on homosexuality and the female priesthood, by the way?
Scott, how can one set a time limit on "contemplative prayer" if, as St. Teresa, says, contemplation is infused prayer i.e. given by God, not by our own efforts. Are you confusing contemplative prayer with mental prayer in general?
First off, contemplative prayer is a form of mental prayer and all contemplative prayer, almost always, starts out as meditative prayer as God always calls man to prayer never vice versa, man never enters prayer without being called into prayer first by God .
As for the Canon Law Code, I would have to ask my spiritual advisor as he is the one who directed me not to go beyond thirty minutes as provided by the C.C.L. However, it does stem from the Ora et Labora Benedictine dictum. People are supposed to be active contemplatives; they still have to function in this society. God works with people through other people and the graces received through Contemplative prayer, unless otherwise directed, are to be shared with everyone. For this sharing to happen, the person needs personal reflective time to digest any spiritual fruits and consolations that may have come from the prayer. I merely mention the thirty minutes as a way to help others understand that Holy Mother Church does recognize, advocate and assist in this form of prayer.
I personally and spiritually do not back a female priesthood. In the interview excerpt your provided, Fr. Pennington never advocates a female priesthood. He is merely saying that Pope John Paul II never spoke infallibly on the issue. In fact, Pope John Paul II stated that he did not have the authority at this time to sanction women priest and that is what Fr. Pennington was stating. At no point in that interview did he support a female priesthood; in fact he supported the Holy Father. I will say that Fr. Pennington should have left the conversation at it could change but who knows maybe he is speaking prophetically.
As for his stance on whether we are bisexual, that is nothing new; or rather it is nothing new in terms of spirituality, that theory has been around for quite a while and in fact goes back centuries as it has its roots in Greek philosophy, which all priests are taught in the seminaries. Let me clarify, they are taught Greek Philosophy just what they are taught I do not know, but as a deacon in formation we are exposed to Aristotle. How far beyond that point a person takes his studies of Greek Philosophy is up to that person. Let’s keep in mind that there are things in the seminary and the diaconate formations that, as students, we are told we are not to pass along to the people in the pews unless they are going above and beyond the call in terms of a deeper spiritual calling or for pastoral purposes. There are some things that the average person just can’t handle and to lay that information on his or her doorstep would, and quite possibly could, break their faith.
As for the tarot cards, I read the death card thing and I see nothing wrong with it. It is based on scripture and good theology. Its… just…. in the form of a tarot card. I will admit that is a little bit problematic. But the reflection is good. AND no where in the reflection does the word reincarnation ever appear. You or whomever, took t
Continued...
As for the tarot cards, I read the death card thing and I see nothing wrong with it. It is based on scripture and good theology. Its… just…. in the form of a tarot card. I will admit that is a little bit problematic. But the reflection is good. AND no where in the reflection does the word reincarnation ever appear. You or whomever took that one and just ran with it.
The words excarnation, a new one to me, which seems to imply physical death is used; as well as, the word incarnation which implies physical conception. And of course the word incarnation appears in one of our Eucharistic prayers - - which one I don’t know at the minute- - in terms of Our Lord’s taking on the form of mortal man.
Secondly, I think you reporting is like all other forms of journalism, extremely one sided. You went to one side of the argument and never ventured to the other side or at least you never gave the other side equal time. And I accept the persecution of the Contemplative life as Sts. John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila and Igantius of Loyola were actively persecuted by their contemporaries and actively sought out by the Inquisition. Its just now we have 500 years of hind sight and the benefit of them and others being canonized. Times have changed but the fear of Contemplatives, the lifestyle and the prayer are still in vogue.
Dave et al,
Very interesting and fair investigation of the subject of centering prayer. I'm not strongly for or against centering prayer, but I do have some personal experience with it. In fact, the practice of centering prayer was instrumental in my conversion to Christianity (I'm currently 48 and in RCIA).
I had been interested in religion - especially Eastern religions - for most of my life, but only in an abstract, bookish kind of way. For quite some time I had been looking for some kind of actual spiritual practice - I had done Zen meditation for a while, but didn't stick with it, etc. When I stumbled onto centering prayer, it seemed to be exactly what I was looking for. I was strongly attracted by the idea of simply sitting in God's presence and offering myself to Him, as it were. Note that while I've always believed in God, I was certainly not a Christian believer - although baptized, I was never really attracted to the specific Christian story. And I was certainly not looking to become a Christian - it wasn't even on my radar screen. One of the things that attracted me to centering prayer was the fact that it was not a specifically Christian practice (although presented by a Catholic monk). Imagine my shock and consternation when, after a couple months of daily centering prayer, I began to realize that I was coming to believe in Jesus Christ in a very real and personal way! This belief was simply implanted in me, it seems. It bypassed my intellect completely - I did not intellectually accept Christian beliefs, yet I was "stuck" with this new and troublesome faith that I had not (consciously) asked for.
Well, the belief - I would rather say "knowledge" - did not go away. It seemed I had no choice but to convert my intellect as well! So I undertook a course of reading for about a year, and very gradually, I brought my mind into line with my heart. I also became convinced that I had been called into the Catholic Church, and so here I am.
I can't speak for other people, but in my case, centering prayer was the tool the Holy Spirit used to grab and hold me. It was not hypnosis (sorry, Fr. Dreher), and it was not a mantra or any other Eastern practice. As I said, I have practiced a couple of kinds of Eastern meditation, and this was superficially similar but fundamentally different. It was simply, silently asking for God to do with me whatever He willed - and boy, did He ever surprise me! After my conversion experience, by the way, the practice of centering prayer just sort of dropped away from me - I began a more traditional Christian prayer life, and have had no desire (so far) to take up centering prayer up again.
I do understand, and to some extent agree with, the concerns that have been expressed here about flaky Fathers, etc (although Fr. Keating's books and tapes helped me immensely). And I have read the book "Meditations on the Tarot". It was written by a man who spent most of his life involved with occult s
I see my long post got truncated. Here's the rest of it:
It was written by a man who spent most of his life involved with occult schools of one kind or another, and who became a Catholic late in life. It is true that he was not quite a fully formed Catholic when he wrote the book, at least intellectually, yet his faith in and love for Christ appeared very genuine to me (and apparently to Cardinal Balthasar as well). As regards centering prayer, if I were to take up the practice again, I think I would want to begin and end it with traditional devotions and/or Bible reading to put it into a Christian context. But with some safeguards like that in place, I can't see that there is anything in the practice for even the most orthodox Catholic to fear.
Thanks for hearing me.
Hi Scott,
You wrote:
AND no where in the reflection does the word reincarnation ever appear. You or whomever took that one and just ran with it.
Is that so? Again, I didn't "run" with anything. I documented in the post how Hans Urs von Balthasar, who wrote the Foreword of this very book, stated :
"[The author] may from time to time make a step from the middle too far to the left (in presenting, for example, the teaching of reincarnation), . . ."
But alas, these words were omitted from the English version of the Foreword. So much for again needlessly blaming me for a theme I didn't introduce. I must say that you have not been reading very carefully.
I think you reporting is like all other forms of journalism, extremely one sided. You went to one side of the argument and never ventured to the other side or at least you never gave the other side equal time.
Right. You don't know the background of the controversy, and so you draw unwarranted conclusions.
The person who wrote to me in the first place, asking questions, condemned the version of centering prayer taught by Fr. Keating, but insisted that Fr. Pennington was orthodox. She recommended that I contact a friend of Fr. Pennington's:
"I would refer you to retired Trappist Abbot Dom John Eudes Bamberger, MD, OCSO, psychiatrist, and one of the most orthodox writers on contemplative prayer and orthodox experiences of the ways God is speaking to souls, that I know of today. He's a hermit at Trappist Abbey of the Genesee in NY. He was also a close friend of the late Abbot Basil Pennington, and would be able to sort out accurately what Centering prayer is, and is not to a degree exponentially beyond what I could write."
But alas, when she forwarded some of our correspondence to him, he declined to interact with the material I have presented. So, one can only try to "get the other side" from one who advocates it, but if the other person is not willing, what can you do?
And I accept the persecution of the Contemplative life as Sts. John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila and Ignatius of Loyola were actively persecuted by their contemporaries and actively sought out by the Inquisition.
This is asinine. My article made it very clear that no one is persecuting the contemplative life. We are critiquing one innovative form of prayer that veers too far into eastern religious concepts. Pope Benedict XVI did the same. So you will go after him now, too?
Fr. Dreher, for example, wrote, in his reply to criticisms of his article:
" 'At the end of the prayer period, remain in silence with eyes closed for a couple of minutes.' " I am not aware of such an instruction in the Catholic contemplative tradition. It is, however, a common place for emerging from a hypnotic state. The examples of St. Teresa, St. Bernadette, the children of Fatima, Padre Pio, and many others who have experienced states of 'trance' are not the same, for these are not 'acquired contemplation' (accomplished by human effort) but 'infused contemplation' in which God has taken the full initiative."
In his full article that I linked to, he wrote:
"The book often claimed as a precedent for centering prayer is The Cloud of Unknowing, by an unknown fourteenth-century English author. But the claim is in vain, for The Cloud of Unknowing clearly repudiates the emphasis given in centering prayer to techniques: 'I am trying to make clear with words what experience teaches more convincingly, that techniques and methods are ultimately useless for awakening contemplative love.' "
Margaret Feaster, in her article for Homiletic & Pastoral Review, stated:
"this type of prayer is not recommended by Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, or St. Teresa of Avila."
She quotes Cardinal Ratzinger citing the words of Pope John Paul II:
"Pope John Paul II has pointed out to the whole Church the example and doctrine of St. Teresa of Avila who in her life had to reject the temptation of certain methods which proposed a leaving aside of the humanity of Christ in favor of a vague self-immersion in the abyss of divinity."
She writes again:
"Christian prayer always involves the mind and the heart. Even in preparation for contemplation, St. Teresa of Avila advises people to meditate or 'think about' the Sorrowful mysteries."
Another critic whom I cited, Dan DeCelles, also mentioned St. Teresa:
"In the 16th century, Teresa of Avila noticed that as some Christians prayed they tried to stop thinking pre-mature, before God had given the grace of contemplation. In Interior Castle she said, 'be careful not to check the movement of the mind ... and to remain there like a dolt.' A century later, the church was confronted with a still more passive form of prayer in the teachings of Miguel de Molinos. It did not take long for 'quietism' to be condemned."
No one is going after legitimate forms of contemplative prayer, as taught by the great mystics, doctors, and saints of the Church, least of all, myself. You're barking up an entirely irrelevant tree here.
In my own library, I have four major works by St. John of the Cross, two translations and a commentary book on The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola. My mentor, Fr. John A. Hardon, being a Jesuit, was a great advocate of the Exercises, and I studied in training classes for Ignatian Catechists for months under Fr. Hardon in 1990-1992.
I have St. Teresa of Avila's two major works, as well as her autobiography and a huge biography by William Thomas Walsh. I have The Cloud of Unknowing in my collection.
I have five biographies of St. Therese of Lisieux, and. of course, The Story of a Soul. She is my favorite saint, along with St. Francis of Assisi.
I have von Balthasar's book Prayer. I have seven books of Thomas Merton, and two biographies, including one by Fr. Pennington himself. Merton played a role in my own conversion in 1990, since I read his books Seeds of Contemplation and Contemplative Prayer in that year, and was greatly edified spiritually by them.
I think we can safely say, then, that neither myself, nor anyone I cited, has a "problem" with contemplative prayer per se. You can spin it that way if you like, but it won't fly. You have to deal with the actual critique made, and not engage in broad brush tactics of obscurantism and obfuscation, and accusing us of points of view that are the exact opposite of the truth.
If centering prayer can be defended at all, it cannot be by these unsavory means.
Dear Dave,
I said you or whomever because I was unsure who cited the Catechism :
~The Catechism of the Catholic Church flatly rejects reincarnation:
1013 Death is the end of man's earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny. When "the single course of our earthly life" is completed, we shall not return to other earthly lives: "It is appointed for men to die once." There is no "reincarnation" after death. ~
My point being, why bring up reincarnation when its not even mentioned in the section of text you cited.
I think you reporting is like all other forms of journalism, extremely one sided. You went to one side of the argument and never ventured to the other side or at least you never gave the other side equal time.
Right. You don't know the background of the controversy, and so you draw unwarranted conclusions.
The person who wrote to me in the first place, asking questions, condemned the version of centering prayer taught by Fr. Keating, but insisted that Fr. Pennington was orthodox. She recommended that I contact a friend of Fr. Pennington's:
"I would refer you to retired Trappist Abbot Dom John Eudes Bamberger, MD, OCSO, psychiatrist, and one of the most orthodox writers on contemplative prayer and orthodox experiences of the ways God is speaking to souls, that I know of today. He's a hermit at Trappist Abbey of the Genesee in NY. He was also a close friend of the late Abbot Basil Pennington, and would be able to sort out accurately what Centering prayer is, and is not to a degree exponentially beyond what I could write."
But alas, when she forwarded some of our correspondence to him, he declined to interact with the material I have presented. So, one can only try to "get the other side" from one who advocates it, but if the other person is not willing, what can you do?
What do you do? You find someone else. There are other people who could offer you insights, I live here in the Atlanta area and the Monastery of the Holy Spirit is right up the road from me. The Cistercian Monks there practice Centering Prayer. There are several books on the method, which is nothing more than bringing one into the Contemplative mind set, because, as I stated, all Contemplative Prayer starts, more or less, with meditative prayer. My favorite form of which is reciting my favorite Scripture passage,
~Be still and know that I am God~ Ps 46/10.
I recite this until I am at rest and finally ready to enter God’s presence. Which He so graciously allows me to do and I am ever so humbled at the mere fact that our God would be so great a God to allow me into His magnificent presence. That is all centering prayer is, the making oneself ready to enter God’s presence.
And I accept the persecution of the Contemplative life as Sts. John of the Cross, Teresa o
Continued:
This is asinine. My article made it very clear that no one is persecuting the contemplative life. We are critiquing one innovative form of prayer that veers too far into eastern religious concepts. Pope Benedict XVI did the same. So you will go after him now, too?
Asinine to you, to me… but anytime anyone comes out and says that what I am doing is not Catholic, or as Protestant and Non-Catholics and even some Catholics say, that I am practicing some sort of black magic, conjuring or opening myself to the devil, yeah I take that as persecution. And I say let it roll because, Fr. Dheher is dead wrong, this is not hypnotism, the person may appear to be in a trance but I assure you he or she is not, this is a higher level of prayer, and as St. Teresa of Avila says, it is the highest level of prayer (with the exception of the Mass) and the level of prayer that brings one the closest to God. As for the Pope, he is not speaking infallibly on the matter and he is just cautioning people not to stray to far from home, which is right.
The only thing I do not agree with Fr. Pennington on, and this is just me, is the way he says to control distractions, which is something a lot of people try and do. I say just let it go, it means nothing. One has to remember that when close to God your soul can and/or will begin purging it self and past sins may pass before your eyes, but take comfort in knowing that even if you have gone to confession and you have been forgiven, we all, in some form or another will accumulate venial sin and are in some form scrupulous and may not have forgiven ourselves for our sins and this is God’s redemptive love burning off the ties that keep us bound to the earth, for we serve our purgatory here on earth or we serve it in the afterlife.
And by the way there is no such thing as Orthodox Catholic anything, there is just Catholic. Orthodox relates to the Greek Orthodox Church.
You wrote: Fr. Dreher, for example, wrote, in his reply to criticisms of his article:
" 'At the end of the prayer period, remain in silence with eyes closed for a couple of minutes.' " I am not aware of such an instruction in the Catholic contemplative tradition. It is, however, a common place for emerging from a hypnotic state. The examples of St. Teresa, St. Bernadette, the children of Fatima, Padre Pio, and many others who have experienced states of 'trance' are not the same, for these are not 'acquired contemplation' (accomplished by human effort) but 'infused contemplation' in which God has taken the full initiative."
In his full article that I linked to, he wrote:
"The book often claimed as a precedent for centering prayer is The Cloud of Unknowing, by an unknown fourteenth-century English author. But the claim is in vain, for The Cloud of Unknowing clearly repudiates the emphasis given in centering prayer to techniques: 'I am trying to make clear with words what experience teaches more convinci
At the end of the prayer, one should always remain in silence for a couple of minutes to give thanks to God for allowing you into His sacred presence. This all falls perfectly in line with the Two Fountains as described by St. Teresa of Avila, the two ways in which people receive consolation from Contemplative prayer. In one case, the person does all of the work, consolation from God is given but it comes from much work on the part of the person in prayer. In the other case God takes the person into the state without any effort on the part of the person in prayer, this is the infused contemplation. Both forms of contemplation are Comtemplative Prayer, however; the consolations received from the latter are sweeter than the first because they come directly from God without all the work on our part to get there. And, both forms are received from the full initiative of God, not just the latter, because St. Teresa, St. John of the Cross and St. Ignatius of Loyola as well as the catechism of the Catholic Church all state that ALL PRAYER IS INITIATED BY GOD.
As I said, she gives specific instructions how to handle distractions, you don’t try to control them for they mean nothing as the soul is in connection with God. Again, I say, no, centering prayer is nothing more than a way of entering Contemplative prayer.
Your library is great and I’ve been trained in the Spiritual Exercises as well by several Jesuits and even assist on the Ignatian Retreats and I have an extensive library as well that includes The Ascent of Mount Carmel; The Dark Night; The Spiritual Canticle; and The Living Flame of Love, The Interior Castle, The Way of Perfection, The Life of St Teresa of Avila, by Herself, The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, The Letters of St. Ignatius, and Ignatian Humanism as well as other books by other authors on all three saints. And a dump truck load of books on Spirituality.
You wrote: If centering prayer can be defended at all, it cannot be by these unsavory means.
Oh, it can be defended, you just have to be open to it. As I said it is nothing more than a way of entering Contemplation. And it is nothing that St. Teresa and the other great contemplatives have not done. Once in the door, contemplation is contemplation and faith takes over, in fact, faith takes over way before going into the door of the first castle as Contemplative Prayer, as a whole, is all about faith. It is standing before God naked, as St. Paul states in 2 Cor. 5/6, and placing all your faith in His most capable hands, it is knowing that the soul, which longs to be reconnected to God, because it comes from God, knows God more than your temporal self could ever know Him.
And by the way there is no such thing as Orthodox Catholic anything, there is just Catholic. Orthodox relates to the Greek Orthodox Church.
That's not true, because it is two different usages of "orthodox": capitalized (proper name, as in also Orthodox Judaism) and formal, and non-capitalized or informal. My use is in the sense of "a Catholic who believes all that the Church teaches" (i.e., the literal meaning of "correct doctrine"). See, e.g., Dictionary.com:
or·tho·dox /ˈɔrθəˌdɒks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[awr-thuh-doks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc.
2. of, pertaining to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved.
3. customary or conventional, as a means or method; established.
4. sound or correct in opinion or doctrine, esp. theological or religious doctrine.
5. conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early church.
6. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or designating the Eastern Church, esp. the Greek Orthodox Church.
7. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Orthodox Jews or Orthodox Judaism.
[Origin: 1575–85; < LL orthodoxus right in religion < LGk orthódoxos, equiv. to ortho- ortho- + dóx(a) belief, opinion + -os adj. suffix]
http://dictionary.reference.com/...browse/orthodox
One uses this, of course, because there are so many Catholics today who are unorthodox: dissenters, modernists. liberals, self-described "progressives", dissidents, partial heretics, heterodox (pick your name).
They don't believe all that the Church teaches, yet St. Thomas Aquinas and Cardinal Newman taught that if one doesn't accept all that the Church teaches, one has even lost the supernatural virtue of faith. That would explain a lot of the nonsense that passes for Catholic teaching today, wouldn't it?
That's fine, but there is no such thing as Orthodox Catholic. Orthodox Catholic refers to the Greek Orthodox Church.
Thanks for this article Dave. My misgivings have generally stemmed from the appeal to subjective/relativism. The appeal that "I intend to worship Christ and don't intend to invoke Eastern mysticism, the result is that I am spiritually edified or experiencing growth, therefore, it is good." is inadequet. There must be a full analysis of what is objectively going on.
+J.M.J+
It seems to me there are two issues here: the question of whether centering prayer is a valid Christian prayer form and the whole tarot red herring. Some people, such as Fr. Dreher, have evidently used Pennington and Keating's endorsement of _Meditations on the Tarot_ as evidence against centering prayer, since these advocates of the practices must be obvious heretics in order to endorse a book about tarot, which as we all know is evil.
Well, do we all know for sure that tarot is evil? Granted, divination is sinful and condemned by the Church, so using a tarot deck as a fortunetelling device is obviously wong. However, _Meditations on the Tarot_ apparently doesn't do that; tarot-users who review it inevitably say, "This book is not about divination, so if you want to learn how to use tarot for that purpose, this is not the book for you." So, whatever we may think of centering prayer or Pennington and Keating, we can't exactly accuse them of promoting divination by endorsing this book.
After all, the tarot deck began as a simple deck of playing cards back in the fourteenth century. We have no evidence of it being used for divination until the eighteenth century. It is still apparently used for card games in parts of Europe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Tar...arot_card_games
Surely, that would not be an evil use of the tarot deck, right? Granted, many tarot decks today are made specifically for occult divination purposes and have immodest or pagan designs on them, so those would best be avoided by Christians anyway. But a more neutral deck used solely for card games and such would not be innately sinful.
Moreover, the traditional 52 card deck of playing cards with which most of us are familiar is also sometimes used for divination. This, too, is wrong and sinful - not the deck itself, but the misuse of the deck to violate God's law.
I guess I'm just trying to put things in perspective here. Endorsement of a book about a non-divinatory use of tarot cards in and of itself is not bad. Of course, if the book *does* indeed teach reincarnation and other heresies, that would pose a problem, since they could be accused of endorsing heresy if not divination. Of course, if we are going to condemn Pennington and Keating for that, then must we not be consistent and condemn von Baltasar as well for writing the Forward to the same book?
At any rate, I tried centering prayer many years ago but it wasn't really for me. I am slightly wary of it because of its similarities to TM (which is actually a potentially dangerous practice, BTW - I know someone who suffered psychological damage while doing TM years ago) and I think it is safer to practice Teresian or Ignatian forms of mental prayer, or lectio divina.
In Jesu et Maria,
Whether the tarot has much bearing on centering prayer is an acceptable question.
However, picking up a tarot deck over a regular deck requires alot of ignoring of cognitive dissonance and shutting out the question, "What am I pretending not to know?"
I once had a Catholic tell me he had a Tarot deck and defended it by saying he does not use it for divination, he just liked the pretty pictures. I told him to try this test: put a bunch of pictures of ex-girlfriends on his wife's dresser and tell her it's ok because he doesn't intend to do anything with those girls, he just liked the pretty pictures. I told him to get back to me and tell me how that response worked out assuming he survived. The point being adultery and idolatry are very similar, and they generally start with supposedly innocent flirtations. Which brings me back to the need to avoid hitting the subjectivist/relativist nuclear option which only ends up destroying the function of reason and the ability to render right judgement.
Having a deck of tarot cards is not a problem. Its how you use them. To say that having them in your posession is a ticket to eternal damination when they are not used for diviniation is as irrespnosible as saying if you own a gun then you are a murderer.
Clearly, if you are a person with certain proclivities and you can't control yourself, then, no, you shouldn't have the cards, the gun, the bottle of wine etc...
Having a deck of tarot cards is not a problem. Its how you use them. To say that having them in your posession is a ticket to eternal damination when they are not used for diviniation is as irrespnosible as saying if you own a gun then you are a murderer.
You a precisely proving my point about excercising the subjectivist/relativist nuclear option and not interacting with my point at all. The reality is that Tarot decks have a clear, widely-known, and undeniable association with the occult no matter how much one breaks it down to the molecular level in order to give it a free pass and for Catholic to be running around with them as if this association only exists on the subjective plane is a sad self-delusion and giving bad example to boot. The gun/murder analogy doesn't work because there is such thing as legitimate use of lethal force. There is no such thing as legitimate idolatry.
Trust me, I'm interacting with your point and no, its the same. Just as the tarot has a widly known association with the occult, so does the gun have a wildly known association as a means of murder, unless it's a B-B gun, its designed to kill.
My point is.. a person cannot generalize. Just because a person owns a deck of tarot cards does not mean they are using them for diviniation or idolizing anything. I am a practicing magician and I own a deck of tarot cards which I use in my act. I don't idolize anything... I just turn them into a deck of baseball trading cards.
Trust me, I'm interacting with your point and no, its the same. Just as the tarot has a widly known association with the occult, so does the gun have a wildly known association as a means of murder, unless it's a B-B gun, its designed to kill.
My point is.. a person cannot generalize. Just because a person owns a deck of tarot cards does not mean they are using them for diviniation or idolizing anything. I am a practicing magician and I own a deck of tarot cards which I use in my act. I don't idolize anything... I just turn them into a deck of baseball trading cards.
Sorry but you can't change the objective reality of Tarot cards by intent any more than those who worshipped the golden calf can say, "Yes, I was dancing around the calf, but I was thinking of you God the whole time!" or that one can look at pornography because they don't intend to masturbate with it. There is simply no justification for using the things.
Sacred Scripture tells us that particular golden calf was constructed for one purpose and pne purpose only. So, from your standpoint any person from that point on, found in possession of a golden calf is now idolizing it, no ifs, ands or buts about it.
Pornography is a powerful visual image. One would have to be extremely strong in faith not to be compelled to be moved by it in terms of self gratification. It is created for only thing and that is the self sexual gratification of a person at the expense of another. However, that does not mean that Bernini's "Ecstacy of St. Teresa of Avila" or Michaelangelo's "David" or his images from the Sistine Chapel are pornographic, even though Bernini shows a woman inthe throes of what appears to be an orgasm and Michaelangelo shows nude bodies, their intent is not to arouse a person to sexual gratification.
My point remains, tarot cards are not evil and their possession of them is not evil, it is the intent of the person holding them that becomes evil. They are just cards. Under your guidelines, a person in possession of a regular deck of playing cards has a gambling problem. And, as I have said, if a person has certain proclivities then they should not be in possession of them, just as a person has certain proclivities, they should not be gazing at the afore mentioned statues of David and St. Teresa.
I think you're right that there is probably also a harmless use of tarot cards, going back to their original usage. The Wikipedia article "Tarot" bears this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarot
However, the same article states:
"In English-speaking countries, where the games are largely unknown, Tarot cards came to be utilized primarily for divinatory purposes . . ."
Following the two footnotes at this point, we come to an article on Tarot expert Michael Dummett, a Catholic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Mic...Michael_Dummett
The article states:
"Sir Michael is also a leading historian in the research of the Tarot with various publications to his credit including "The Game of Tarot: From Ferrara to Salt Lake city", 1980, which left its mark on the field of literature about the venerable deck of cards. Dummett championed the use of the tarot cards for trick taking card games and expressed some disdain for the later occult practices to which the cards were often put. It should be noted that as a converted Catholic, and a critical one at that, Dummett presumably follows the commands of the Scriptures who [sic] are quite explicit about the consequences suffered by believers in divination and the like. He argues that the Renaissance use of the Tarot was as a set of playing cards and that it only acquired its association with the occult in the 18th century."
The other reference was to Paul Huson. See his Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Huson
He is apparently some sort of theosophist or suchlike, and wrote the book, Mystical Origins of the Tarot:
http://www.innertraditions.com/P...g=huson&y=7&
x=7
The book description reads:
"Paul Huson has expertly tracked each symbol of the Minor Arcana to roots in ancient Persia and the Major Arcana Trump card images to the medieval world of mystery, miracle, and morality plays. A number of tarot historians have questioned the use of the tarot as a divination tool prior to the 18th century. But the author demonstrates that the symbolic meanings of the Major Arcana were evident from the time they were first employed in the mid-15th century in the popular divination practice of sortilege. He also reveals how the identities of the court cards in the Minor Arcana were derived from a blend of pagan and medieval sources that strongly influenced their interpretation in tarot divination.
"Mystical Origins of the Tarot provides a thorough examination of the original historical source for each card and how the cards’ divinatory meanings evolved from these symbols. Huson also provides concise and practical card-reading methods designed by the cartomancers of the 18th and 19th centuries and reveals the origins of the card interpretations promoted by the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and A. E. Waite.
. . . Paul Huson has been a student of the tarot for over 40 years. He received initial esoteric training from the Society of the Inner Light in London and he later studied the methods of the Order of the Golden Dawn. He is the author of a number of books, including Mastering Witchcraft, in print for more than 30 years, and The Devil’s Picturebook: The Compleat Guide to Tarot Cards. He lives in Los Angeles."
The Wikipedia article "Tarot reading" delves into the occultic connections:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar...i/
Tarot_reading
It states:
"Tarot was not widely adopted by mystics, occultists and secret societies until the 18th and 19th century."
So, whatever. I don't plan on getting into Tarot cards myself . . .
+J.M.J+
>>>But the author demonstrates that the symbolic meanings of the Major Arcana were evident from the time they were first employed in the mid-15th century in the popular divination practice of sortilege.
I wonder from where Huson gets his information, since most experts agree that we have no evidence of the cards being used for divination before the 18th century.
I suppose the practice could have begun earlier, since people have used innumerable things (constellations, dice, tea leaves, animal entrails, etc.) for "divination" from time immemorial. So it's not too hard to imagine the tarot playing deck being used for that purpose, even as the 52 card deck we all know is so used by some people today.
The fact remains, however, that it was originally just a deck of playing cards. Yes it featured religious images such as a pope,a hermit and the personifications of the Cardinal Virtues of Justice, Fortitude and Temperance (drawn from Catholic iconography). Not surprising for a deck invented in the very Catholic Middle Ages. Yet that doesn't mean that they were intended as mystical, symbolic archetypes veiling some arcane knowledge or other oogie-boogie stuff. That interpretation became popular much later on, when occultists latched onto the tarot deck and started making overblown claims that it "originated in ancient Egypt" and other such rubbish.
As far as the deck being idolatrous, that would hold true for many decks today which "reinterpret" tarot in neo-pagan or occultic terms, substituting pagan or satanic images for the traditional images. It would definitely be true if one used the deck to divine the future. However, if someone bough a deck which is not pagan/occultic/satanic, and never used it for fortunetelling, that might not be wrong at all. Of course, it would probably depend on the situation: Why does the person want to own a deck? Is he a collector? Does he just like the pictures on this particular deck? (there are literally hundreds of tarot decks out there) Or does he consider it a "good-luck charm"? It's a matter needing discernment.
In Jesu et Maria,
Sorry to be necromantic be posting to this old subject, but I just made similar comments on Dawn Eden's blog and recalled this. At the end of the day one can no more think of Tarot cards and not think of the occult anymore than one can think of a black & white striped horse and not think of a zebra. Ditch the rationalizations, ditch the cards.
Commenting by HaloScan
