- Status
D
DBT
Guest
Look to what Osuna, The Cloud or a Brother Lawrence say . . . they are filled we things we “do.” And, yes, they used the term “contemplation” to describe their various methods and approaches to prayer . . . though their meaning of contemplation is quite different than the mystical definition.
St. John stresses these distinctions too. The active night of spirit from Book 3 of “The Ascent” is filled with things we “do” to habitually place ourselves in God’s presence through the mortification of thoughts, feelings and passions (our joys, hopes, sorrows and fears). In fact, Book 3 Chapter 15 of “The Ascent” provides a wonderful synopsis of all the theology behind Osuna, The Cloud etc. He sums it all up in just a page or so. And all this goes by the name contemplation.
All of this is quite different, though, from his presentation of contemplation in the context of the passive night of sense and spirit from “Dark Night.” Here we don’t “do” anything . . . as the prayer is what God “does in us.”
The active night (what we do) . . . the passive night (what God does). They go hand-in-hand.
Dave
L
Lifeisawesome
Guest
Agreed - though I don’t look to the Cloud as much as I would a doctor of the Church… The Cloud has been used and abused as teaching things that it often does not. That might be an interesting point of discussion for another post.Look to what Osuna, The Cloud or a Brother Lawrence say . . . they are filled we things we “do.” And, yes, they used the term “contemplation” to describe their various methods and approaches to prayer . . . though their meaning of contemplation is quite different than the mystical definition.
St. John stresses these distinctions too. The active night of spirit from Book 3 of “The Ascent” is filled with things we “do” to habitually place ourselves in God’s presence through the mortification of thoughts, feelings and passions (our joys, hopes, sorrows and fears). In fact, Book 3 Chapter 15 of “The Ascent” provides a wonderful synopsis of all the theology behind Osuna, The Cloud etc. He sums it all up in just a page or so. And all this goes by the name contemplation.
All of this is quite different, though, from his presentation of contemplation in the context of the passive night of sense and spirit from “Dark Night.” Here we don’t “do” anything . . . as the prayer is what God “does in us.”
The active night (what we do) . . . the passive night (what God does). They go hand-in-hand.
Dave
B
Bookcat
Guest
It is … as I noted above
Sure some can still argue about things…people still argue about all sorts of things that are long settled or at least commonly understood.Part of my Background:
I have a degree in Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville. Theology (including spiritual theology) is my ‘way of life’…one of my great loves.
B
Bookcat
Guest
B
Bookcat
Guest
Two new books that I have yet to get a hold of (they are on order) that can be of interest to readers here:
scepterpublishers.org/product/index.php?FULL=679
by a Carthusian
scepterpublishers.org/product/index.php?FULL=680
on Contemplative life in the world
scepterpublishers.org/product/index.php?FULL=679
by a Carthusian
scepterpublishers.org/product/index.php?FULL=680
on Contemplative life in the world
L
Lifeisawesome
Guest
Your interest and depth is obvious and appreciated.It is … as I noted above
Part of my Background:
I have a degree in Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville. Theology (including spiritual theology) is ‘way of life’…one of my great loves.
With great sincerity and respect and desire to understand - can you point me to any Church document that use the terms acquired and infused and provides distinct definitions? What is your basis of belief that it is commonly understood? BTW - I do understand that the Catechism allows for “contemplation” that is not infused. Any other sources?
L
Lifeisawesome
Guest
Very important document for anyone seeking to understand the Church’s views regarding Christian meditation and the errors rooted in syncretism
B
Bookcat
Guest
You will not find likely the specialized terms “infused contemplation” “Acquired contemplation” in documents from the Holy See.
Though as noted the CCC presumes both in the that chapter.
The other document off the top of my head is vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20021016_rosarium-virginis-mariae_en.html It is again presumed that there is contemplation that is not infused…
Also I would suggest staying tuned with Pope Benedict XVI’s current Weds Audiences on Prayer…perhaps he might get into such…maybe even use the theological distinctions we have been.
B
Bookcat
Guest
L
Lifeisawesome
Guest
Regarding your first note (acquired versus infused) - I have found the same to be true. So, then how do you then see it as resolved? Good point on the Wed Audiences…
B
Bookcat
Guest
I do not think you have found in recent documents from the Holy See that contemplation is presumed to be only infused…some theological or spiritual writers of course can use the term in that restricted sense…the term contemplation gets used in various ways by various writers. So yes one can say that current writers can come from the school of thought that that the term is used only for infused contemplation…but I would imagine that they would still admit of what St. Theresa called prayer of “recollection” or the other names such as prayer of simplicity etc. …but just not call it contemplation. But one can certainly see that the documents from the Church I mentioned presume the various kinds of contemplation…and not just infused…under that very term.
D
DBT
Guest
And this bolded part, Lifeisawesome, is what the term “acquired” is meant to address. It is a modern term that serves as a kind of umbrella over ways of prayer (recollection, simplicity etc) that mystical writers often called contemplation . . . though clearly not of the infused variety. This is the type of contemplation of which Osuna speaks as does the author of The Cloud and Brother Lawrence. Again, this type of prayer is presupposed by both Sts. Teresa and John as a necessary step toward the mystical. Many modern authors place this type of “acquired” contemplation (habitual recollection, prayer of simplicity) in the third dwelling place as presented in St. Teresa’s Interior Castle . . . the room just proceeding the infused contemplation of the 4th dwelling places and beyond.
Also, look to Chapters 28-31 of St. Teresa’s Way of Perfection to see how easily she felt passive recollection and quiet flowed from active recollection . . . the third dwelling place giving way to the fourth if using the language of Interior Castle. What we can see here in her presentation is that contemplation is a very “fluid” experience . . . and reliance on terms just complicates things that are clearly known in one’s heart.
Dave
D
DBT
Guest
I think one can say that the it was used by the ancients in this way too…though they were not of the “reflexive” age…but prior to it and did not make all those distinctions
L
Lifeisawesome
Guest
Right - I didn’t make that claim. I was just asking if you had reference docs that resolved the issue. What you have confirmed is that they don’t exist. However, I recognize the what we do have allows for the distinctions. We have no disagreement on all other points.
L
Lifeisawesome
Guest
Thanks Dave - I understand and am very familiar with the references and terms you have provided though I doubt I could have said it as well as you. I appreciate your passion for truth in this area of our faith.and reliance on terms just complicates things that are clearly known in one’s heart.
Dave
With respect to the last point in quotes, I think I understand what you are getting but, this can be an excuse (not yours but I have seen others) to distort teachings from other faiths and call them “Catholic.” This is particularly true in the realm of the interior life.
Otherwise, we are on the same page.
D
DBT
Guest
Thank you for your comments too, Lifeisawesome
And I know well your concerns . . . for you hint at it in almost every post. I just hope it does not make you fearful to approach our Lord in the “acquired” way described in this thread . . . for we are all called to do so. And, God willing, it can lead to the infused. As St. Teresa says, recollection is the quickest and surest path to the prayer of quiet.To clarify (in case it’s needed), I was simply echoing Bookcat’s comments that some writers feel the need to make distinctions (ie, acquired vs infused) . . . others don’t. The experience of contemplation and the study of it are two very different things . . . and the words we use rarely do it justice as the Saints often lament. But the failure of words has never stopped writers from coming up with different ways of describing various aspects of the contemplative experience. “Acquired” might be a fairly modern term in the scheme of things . . . but it expresses very ancient concepts. For some people distinctions like this are helpful . . . for others not.
I’m a Carmelite so the great joy of my life is parsing things in the manner of the Saints of my order . . . recollection, quiet, union, active, passive, purgative, illuminative, unitive and what not. However, the experience of it is not so discrete, linear and step-by-step it might come across when looked at from a purely academic point of view. Distinctions fade . . . acquired or infused; it doesn’t matter for they are but seperate sides of the same coin.
The heart knows these things . . . and if the mind asserts itself to much then the love affair between Christ and the soul takes on an introspective and analytical approach that snuffs out the deep type of prayer these Saints describe. Thinking to much in prayer rather than simply loving (to paraphrase St. Teresa) leads one to believe it can manage things through process . . . and we risk approaching God like Joe Buck calling color commentary: the 30, the 20, the 10 . . . touchdown!
Study and actual prayer are two different things . . . the former often just a pale reflection of the latter. One relies on distinctions . . . the other doesn’t. This is the point I was trying to make.
Blessings and peace,
Dave
L
Lifeisawesome
Guest
Well - as usual you made your point in a profound and insightful way. I appreciated your personal concern about the “acquired” aspect. I don’t struggle with this. Part of my calling and work is to clarify these things and some of the work deals with the negative aspects of false teaching… thus the sensitivity to the topic.Thank you for your comments too, Lifeisawesome
To clarify (in case it’s needed), I was simply echoing Bookcat’s comments that some writers feel the need to make distinctions (ie, acquired vs infused) . . . others don’t. The experience of contemplation and the study of it are two very different things . . . and the words we use rarely do it justice as the Saints often lament. But the failure of words has never stopped writers from coming up with different ways of describing various aspects of the contemplative experience. “Acquired” might be a fairly modern term in the scheme of things . . . but it expresses very ancient concepts. For some people distinctions like this are helpful . . . for others not.
I’m a Carmelite so the great joy of my life is parsing things in the manner of the Saints of my order . . . recollection, quiet, union, active, passive, purgative, illuminative, unitive and what not. However, the experience of it is not so discrete, linear and step-by-step it might come across when looked at from a purely academic point of view. Distinctions fade . . . acquired or infused; it doesn’t matter for they are but seperate sides of the same coin.
The heart knows these things . . . and if the mind asserts itself to much then the love affair between Christ and the soul takes on an introspective and analytical approach that snuffs out the deep type of prayer these Saints describe. Thinking to much in prayer rather than simply loving (to paraphrase St. Teresa) leads one to believe it can manage things through process . . . and we risk approaching God like Joe Buck calling color commentary: the 30, the 20, the 10 . . . touchdown!
Study and actual prayer are two different things . . . the former often just a pale reflection of the latter. One relies on distinctions . . . the other doesn’t. This is the point I was trying to make.
Blessings and peace,
Dave
I can’t argue with a single point - not that I am the standard…
Thanks Dave
B
Bookcat
Guest
Not only “allows for the distinctions” but takes it as a simple reality that there is not just infused contemplation but acquired. The Church uses the word “contemplation” in such a way that it is also applied to that which is not infused.
- Status