Bede Griffith and the divine feminine

  • Thread starter Thread starter cmodrmac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SteveVH said:
Fr. Merton’s “Seven Story Mountain” was a life changing book for me and I was heart broken to see the direction in which he decided go. 😦
Click to expand...
Regardless he was deeply influenced by occult writers. Thats enough for me to avoid all his works.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
The CDF issued concerns about the writings of Fr.Anthony deMello after his death. Not so with Fr Bede or Merton.
Click to expand...
Well Fr.Merton wanted to be a Buddhist and Fr Griffith a Hindu,so I guess that is really not against the faith, Their wrings are allegedly inspired by “mystical” experiences(kundalini awakenings?) and a desire to integrate eastern and western spirituality which is impossible because eastern is very pantheistic while Christianity believes in Jesus Christ as Lord God and Savior,not some man that just became an ascended master".
 
My mom gave me a copy of The Man in the Sycamore Tree perhaps as a way of encouraging me to cope with my rocky spiritual journey, and I read it with great sympathy. I am in particular a fan of India and all things Hindu. Nevertheless I dislike it when my Christianity is adulterated with syncretism from the East. When I found out more about Merton, I quietly rid myself of the book and resolved to avoid him from here on out. There are so many other spiritual giants of Christianity who are thoroughly orthodox. I am particularly fond of C.S. Lewis.

Oh, and here’s another “interesting” bio to consider: Robert Kennedy
 
Elizium23 said:
My mom gave me a copy of The Man in the Sycamore Tree perhaps as a way of encouraging me to cope with my rocky spiritual journey, and I read it with great sympathy. I am in particular a fan of India and all things Hindu. Nevertheless I dislike it when my Christianity is adulterated with syncretism from the East. When I found out more about Merton, I quietly rid myself of the book and resolved to avoid him from here on out. There are so many other spiritual giants of Christianity who are thoroughly orthodox. I am particularly fond of C.S. Lewis.

Oh, and here’s another “interesting” bio to consider: Robert Kennedy
Click to expand...
I love C.S. Lewis also even though he was not Catholic.
 
Elizium23 said:
My mom gave me a copy of The Man in the Sycamore Tree perhaps as a way of encouraging me to cope with my rocky spiritual journey, and I read it with great sympathy. I am in particular a fan of India and all things Hindu. Nevertheless I dislike it when my Christianity is adulterated with syncretism from the East. When I found out more about Merton, I quietly rid myself of the book and resolved to avoid him from here on out. There are so many other spiritual giants of Christianity who are thoroughly orthodox. I am particularly fond of C.S. Lewis.

Oh, and here’s another “interesting” bio to consider: Robert Kennedy
Click to expand...
Interesting! I heard somewhere though that the best way to destroy an enemy is from within. like a virus you infect it with subtle heresies and it will become weakened and overcome. The only thing is that Jesus established the Catholic church and said the gates of hell would not prevail. He also said if we were lukewarm we would be spit out.
 
cjforJesus said:
Well Fr.Merton wanted to be a Buddhist and Fr Griffith a Hindu,so I guess that is really not against the faith, Their wrings are allegedly inspired by “mystical” experiences(kundalini awakenings?) and a desire to integrate eastern and western spirituality which is impossible because eastern is very pantheistic while Christianity believes in Jesus Christ as Lord God and Savior,not some man that just became an ascended master".
Click to expand...
Both Fr Bede and Thomas Merton remained Catholics. It is clear you do not appreciate the subtleties and complexities of their views. It is not your place to call them heretics.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Both Fr Bede and Thomas Merton remained Catholics. It is clear you do not appreciate the subtleties and complexities of their views. It is not your place to call them heretics.
Click to expand...
Fr Merton calling Catholics ridiculous is not very subtle in my humble opinion.He showed his true colors with that one statement.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Both Fr Bede and Thomas Merton remained Catholics. It is clear you do not appreciate the subtleties and complexities of their views. It is not your place to call them heretics.
Click to expand...
It is clear that you cannot recognize Gnosticism even when it slaps you in the face, but thankfully you also do not speak for the Church, who has roundly condemned this particular crop of heresies for millennia (probably even in Judaism before Christ.)
 
t before he left for Asia, Merton participated in a “dialogue session” at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, where he opened with the troubling statement: “What I want to do today is to give you some kind of account of the mischief I expect to get into in Asia” (Thomas Merton: Preview of the Asian Journey, 30). He then asserts that there is no danger in conflating Catholicism and Buddhism. Just after making this claim, Merton continues, “And it is perfectly possible to . . . [pause], and I think Catholics should. I think if Catholics had a little more Zen they’d be a lot less ridiculous than they are . . .” (Thomas Merton: Preview of the Asian Journey, (33). His writings, like this comment, leave a lot to be discerned.

Thomas merton not only implied his own faith was ridiculous but that if Catholics had more “zen” they would be less ridiculous implying they would still be ridiculousbut with zen less so.
 
cjforJesus said:
t before he left for Asia, Merton participated in a “dialogue session” at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, where he opened with the troubling statement: “What I want to do today is to give you some kind of account of the mischief I expect to get into in Asia” (Thomas Merton: Preview of the Asian Journey, 30). He then asserts that there is no danger in conflating Catholicism and Buddhism. Just after making this claim, Merton continues, “And it is perfectly possible to . . . [pause], and I think Catholics should. I think if Catholics had a little more Zen they’d be a lot less ridiculous than they are . . .” (Thomas Merton: Preview of the Asian Journey, (33). His writings, like this comment, leave a lot to be discerned.

Thomas merton not only implied his own faith was ridiculous but that if Catholics had more “zen” they would be less ridiculous implying they would still be ridiculousbut with zen less so.
Click to expand...
You seem to have dug that up at: catholic.com/magazine/articles/can-you-trust-thomas-merton
You should give credit to that site with the link.

It would be nice to see the full context and what he thought was ridiculous and how Zen would improve it.
 
Elizium23 said:
It is clear that you cannot recognize Gnosticism even when it slaps you in the face, but thankfully you also do not speak for the Church, who has roundly condemned this particular crop of heresies for millennia (probably even in Judaism before Christ.)
Click to expand...
As I said, it is not your call, If you can’t appreciate him don’t read him. I will wait for the Church to express concern as it did with deMello and many others before I burn his books.
 
from writings of John Malloy referencing letters from Christopher Dawson and Bede Griffiths:

In addition, the philosophic religion of the Brahmins, to whom Griffiths wished to make his special appeal, saw God as an impersonal Absolute, which is certainly at the opposite pole from the living and personal God of Scripture, both in the Old Testament and in the New. And the idea of pantheism in which God and the universe became one, so that there was no idea of creation, and all of human existence was an illusion, was an idea quite widespread in the religion of the Brahmins. Dom Bede, therefore, leaves no room for Catholic evangelization. For the Catholic offers a conception of God and His Son, Jesus Christ, which Dom Bede’s undiscriminating defense of Hinduism renders quite meaningless.

In Hindu philosophy it appears the “savior” is the mystical self or “higher self” whereas in Christianity our Savior is Jesus Christ,the only begotten Son of God.

I am not sure how Fr Griffith viewed Eucharistic adoration either as I have found some sources stating worshiping Jesus under this form would be idolatry by his theories…
 
cmodrmac said:
I have read some of his works and seen a few you tube clips pf him-he seems to have no problem in commenting on the divine feminine-what do our Roman Catholic fellow Christians feel about this

Bede Griffiths’ fourth step towards a recovery of wisdom is his recognition of the divine dimension of the feminine. Repeatedly he identifies the Holy Spirit with the ‘feminine side’ of God. This is a very important point. This ‘feminine’ Spirit is the divine energy which is the mother of creation, which brings forth all life, which moves the process of evolution. It also is"that divine life latent in the universe from the beginning, latent in nature, and becoming conscious in us…The Spirit is this energy of love in us, the power of the divine. It is the Source of our real being, by which we become conscious of the divine life in us and know ourselves as sons [and - See more at: The Gifts from the East by Bede Griffiths
Click to expand...
It is apparent from some of the posts here that Bede Griffiths is a polarizing figure for Catholics - for those of us who are even aware of him, that is. I have read a few of his books, and find some of what he says to be quite agreeable, and other ideas to be rather challenging. But I do not consider “challenging” to always be a bad thing! Concerning his relationship as a Catholic monk among Hindus, I’m not yet sure whether he was ahead of his time or an anomaly - time will tell.

But the idea of the divine feminine, while usually kept to the periphery, is nothing new. Lady Julian of Norwich, a favorite of mine, wrote of God as Mother back in the 14th century. Consider this commentary from Fr. John-Julian, OJN, from The Complete Julian of Norwich (I chose him specifically, since he is one of Lady Julian’s more conservative scholars):

**"Julian’s unapologetic treatment of Christ as Mother is, without a doubt, the finest and most sophisticated treatment of that subject in all of Christian literature. It is only our contemporary ignorance of the classic Christian mystics and theologians that leads us to think of this as a “new idea” for Julian. It is a venerable tradition supported by Adam of Persigne, Aelred, Albert the Great, Anselm, Aquinas, Augustine, Bernard of Cluny, Bonaventure, Bridget of Sweden, Catherine of Siena, Clement of Alexandria, Dante, William Flete, Gilbert of Hoyland, Guerric of Igny, Guigo II the Carthusian, Helinand of Froidmont, Isaac of Stella, Margery Kempe, Peter Lombard, Ludolph of Saxony, Margurite of Oingt, Mechtild of Magdeburg, Richard Rolle, William of St. Thierry, the Acrene Wisse, the Stimulus Amoris, and Holy Scripture itself.

It is not surprising that Julian should present this idea as unexceptional. But we do a great injustice to Mother Julian if we assign to her any modern “feminist” motivations in the declaration of Christ’s motherhood. Julian’s tradition comes from her identification of the Second Person of the Trinity with the traditional character of Wisdom - interpreted in all the Judeo-Christian tradition as the Divine Feminine - and her understanding of the identity between “Mother Church” and the Mystical Body of Christ. For Julian, Christ is the Church, and the Church is the Mother. Christ is Wisdom, and Wisdom is the feminine."**

The Holy Spirit has also been associated with Wisdom, and so could be considered feminine. So it sounds to me like Fr. Bede was in good company here. I think it can be helpful to use the distinction, “the personification of an attribute of God” when considering the divine feminine.
 
christofirst said:
It is apparent from some of the posts here that Bede Griffiths is a polarizing figure for Catholics - for those of us who are even aware of him, that is. I have read a few of his books, and find some of what he says to be quite agreeable, and other ideas to be rather challenging. But I do not consider “challenging” to always be a bad thing! Concerning his relationship as a Catholic monk among Hindus, I’m not yet sure whether he was ahead of his time or an anomaly - time will tell.

But the idea of the divine feminine, while usually kept to the periphery, is nothing new. Lady Julian of Norwich, a favorite of mine, wrote of God as Mother back in the 14th century. Consider this commentary from Fr. John-Julian, OJN, from The Complete Julian of Norwich (I chose him specifically, since he is one of Lady Julian’s more conservative scholars):

"Julian’s unapologetic treatment of Christ as Mother is, without a doubt, the finest and most sophisticated treatment of that subject in all of Christian literature. It is only our contemporary ignorance of the classic Christian mystics and theologians that leads us to think of this as a “new idea” for Julian. It is a venerable tradition supported by Adam of Persigne, Aelred, Albert the Great, Anselm, Aquinas, Augustine, Bernard of Cluny, Bonaventure, Bridget of Sweden, Catherine of Siena, Clement of Alexandria, Dante, William Flete, Gilbert of Hoyland, Guerric of Igny, Guigo II the Carthusian, Helinand of Froidmont, Isaac of Stella, Margery Kempe, Peter Lombard, Ludolph of Saxony, Margurite of Oingt, Mechtild of Magdeburg, Richard Rolle, William of St. Thierry, the Acrene Wisse, the Stimulus Amoris, and Holy Scripture itself.

It is not surprising that Julian should present this idea as unexceptional. But we do a great injustice to Mother Julian if we assign to her any modern “feminist” motivations in the declaration of Christ’s motherhood. Julian’s tradition comes from her identification of the Second Person of the Trinity with the traditional character of Wisdom - interpreted in all the Judeo-Christian tradition as the Divine Feminine - and her understanding of the identity between “Mother Church” and the Mystical Body of Christ. For Julian, Christ is the Church, and the Church is the Mother. Christ is Wisdom, and Wisdom is the feminine."

The Holy Spirit has also been associated with Wisdom, and so could be considered feminine. So it sounds to me like Fr. Bede was in good company here. I think it can be helpful to use the distinction, “the personification of an attribute of God” when considering the divine feminine.
Click to expand...
So I want to see free lay communities coming up with a bond with a monastery or a monastic tradition so they get a guidance, but have the freedom to develop in their own way, and of course at this stage we can only live in a contemplative life today if we integrate aspects of Hindu and Buddhist and Sufi mysticism into our Christian life. So I see them as centers for Christian life open to the world as a whole and different religious traditions.- Bede Griffiths

WRONG.We do not have to integrate Hindu mysticism to lead a good Christian life. That is faulty logic.

Fr Griffiths went to India to integrate Catholic teachings into Hinduism yet instead tried to integrate Hindu theology into Catholicism. I am not sure how closely Hindus align with Buddhist yet according to the Dalai Lama who is considered a great spiritual teacher the paths can only run together until a certain realization is made and then you must make a choice.

I choose to keep my baptismal promise and follow Jesus and not become immersed in some indefinable abyss of nothingness.

as far as Julian of Norwhich I have read some of her odd ideas, and her visions of the Virgin Mary wearing priestly vestments is weird and disturbing. Just because a person has alleged mystical visions does not make all they write true.

There is symbolism regarding the Church as bride and Jesus as Bridegroom.Jesus as the head and the body symbolizing the members is another view. Regardless the Church is referred to as our mother because she nurtures us through the sacramental graces and helps us grow in Christian perfection.
 
cjforJesus said:
So I want to see free lay communities coming up with a bond with a monastery or a monastic tradition so they get a guidance, but have the freedom to develop in their own way, and of course at this stage we can only live in a contemplative life today if we integrate aspects of Hindu and Buddhist and Sufi mysticism into our Christian life. So I see them as centers for Christian life open to the world as a whole and different religious traditions.- Bede Griffiths

WRONG.We do not have to integrate Hindu mysticism to lead a good Christian life. That is faulty logic.

Fr. Griffiths went to India to integrate Catholic teachings into Hinduism yet instead tried to integrate Hindu theology into Catholicism. I am not sure how closely Hindus align with Buddhist yet according to the Dalai Lama who is considered a great spiritual teacher the paths can only run together until a certain realization is made and then you must make a choice.

I choose to keep my baptismal promise and follow Jesus and not become immersed in some indefinable abyss of nothingness.
Click to expand...
True, we do not have to integrate Hindu mysticism to lead a good Christian life, and I think Bede Griffiths would have been the first to agree. Fr. Bede, it seems to me, was seeking to interact with the people in a predominately Hindu land, respecting the truth and goodness of their faith and practices without rejecting his own Catholic faith. It was a difficult balancing act, the way he chose to go about it, and you, of course, are free to reject his methods and ideas. From what I can tell, you are not particularly interested in interreligious dialogue (unless your idea of dialogue is telling others what to do) , and so I’m rather certain that Fr. Bede would happily encourage you to live out your life as a Catholic as you see fit.

How do you understand the divine feminine?
 
If you are going to evangelize in a different culture you need to learn the language and view of life. Then find way to express the Christian Gospel in that context. The early Church did it with Greek philosophy. That is what Bede Griffiths also tried to do, find the universal truths of Christian faith disguised in other cultural names and concepts. That is not syncretism and he was not a pantheist. He used a phrase “Unity in distinction” to describe not only the Trinity but the fundamental nature of reality.

It is easy to fear and throw stones at what seems foreign to us. But I have read a great deal of both Merton and Fr Griffiths. Their starting point is the common human condition and search for the Divine. The Divine the is both transcendent and immanent…beyond description yet also describable in some ways. Both Merton and Griffiths found deeper meaning and truth in their Catholic Christian faith by exploring other religions.

I think it might come down to James Fowler’s 6 Stages of Faith, later simplified by M. Scott Peck to 4:

STAGE I: Chaotic, Antisocial.
STAGE II: Formal, Institutional, Fundamental.
STAGE III: Skeptic, Individual, questioner,
STAGE IV: Mystic, communal.

Merton and Griffiths at Stage IV, those who do not appreciate them, at Stage II.

whale.to/b/peck1.html

exploring-spiritual-development.com/JamesFowlersStages.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top