How are Catholics supposed to approach meditation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheMike0012
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
friardchips said:
I disagree that the Church took anything from anywhere else.
Click to expand...
Your disagreeing with Church history, then. No one denies this. Boethius and Aquinas both adapted Aristotelianism for Catholic theology.

Sorry, but what you are saying is some form of pseudo-Catholic superstition, not founded at all on Church teachings.
 
That was up to St. Thomas Aquinas. He put it like that in order to credit people with their thoughts. But if certain people thought things which came to be of use, does not mean it came from them, initially, but were true and so were of God, because only God is Good, and therefore, were always to find their place within the Catholic Church. Scripture is Truth.
 
Last edited:
friardchips said:
Scripture is Truth.
Click to expand...
Yes, I saw you editing that last part. You were about to plunge in Protestant Fundamentalism. As for the rest, it is perfectly reasonable to say that God is the ultimate source of the useful meditation techniques found in other religions, in accordance with Nostra aetate.
 
Scripture is Truth. Understanding Scripture requires interpretation (of God’s Word). So, we interpret the truth in Scripture, which is not the same as thinking that the Truth is…interpretation of Truth! Protestant understanding is different. They don’t think there is any need for recognised interpretation. Which we know there is. But we are not in reverance of interpretation, we are in reverance of what the interpretation reveals, which is Truth.

There is an ultimate source. But the point being, that to untie every knot and reason that came with the invention of said-meditation of an outside-Christian source, is a theory which in practice, is better replaced by practicing those things we already know to be spiritually healthy.
 
Last edited:
friardchips said:
But the point being, that to untie every knot and reason that came with the invention of said-meditation of outside-Christian source, is a theory which in practice, is better replaced by practicing those things we already know to be spiritually healthy.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that is some kind of Catholic purism that I don’t buy into. But if it works for you, fine.
 
Yes, purity is good, because God is perfect. Different, however, to Puritanism. We are told not to worship ‘false gods’, and not to put them before us, which, when people do, is part of an exercise, by which they are doing it.

Neither is relativism a good thing, for Catholics - it suggests a lack of stability.
 
Last edited:
friardchips said:
With something has simple as breathing in the Holy Spirit, or better put, inviting the Spirit from within, cannot be claimed as a contemporary technique, due to its simplicity. Unless, people are claiming that in ancient Christianity or in our Hebrew heritage, there was never present, people praying silently, or contemplating. What is that, if not a kind of meditation? If someone wants to place a label on it, for the sake of others being able to recognise and furthermore practice it, then I can see why they have done so.

What you are talking about, is the danger of New Age practices. I will have a look at the documents and links provided in order to remind myself of them.
Click to expand...
Did you just say it is impossible to invent a simple technique, because no matter what you come up with, someone in the ancient Church must have tried it? The mere possibility that someone in the distant past must have tried something does not make it an ancient technique. Techniques that were never typical of an era, never written down and never handed down are not “ancient techniques.” In order to claim antiquity, there has to be some actual provenance beyond “well, it is so simple, someone back then must have done it.”

So, if something is proposed with no connection to anyone in the past ever proposing it as a preferred way of doing things, then of course it can be claimed to be a contemporary technique. If someone starts teaching something that no one they can point to ever taught and that people are obviously not born knowing how to do, what else is it?

Even if you are proposing a new use for an old technique, it becomes a contemporary technique to use the old method for the new purpose.

But yes, we split hairs. A way of doing things is not better or worse because it was or was not used in the past. That has nothing to do with anything. If an expert on prayer recommends it, that makes a difference. Otherwise, things have to be judged on their merits…using, as you say, the teachings of the Church concerning what standards of judgment are prudent.
 
With regards to wariness concerning techniques that are particular to our time, keep in mind that it is unlikely that any Christians of any other era were subjected to the level of distraction and psychological and physical noise to which we are regularly subjected now. It is not out of the question that a contemporary prayer life might have aspects to it that would have been superfluous in periods of history that kept a more human pace and a more natural level of light and sound.

That is not to say new techniques are necessary. It is just saying that techniques that were never widely used because they were generally unnecessary might have greater use now than at an earlier time when these things might have been tried and discarded.
 
Last edited:
This is just complicated wording. Convoluting a simple subject. Nothing wrong with resting in God. If people want to call being quiet, ‘centring’, then up to them. I find it peculiar that quiet prayer is deemed as dangerous, by some, while other forms of worship in contemporary times have been so readily accepted.

Anything New Age ought to ring bells. But sitting quietly with God, is not the same as thinking we can force God, to act. It is knocking. God tells us to knock. And to be insistent in our knocking. This is Scriptural.

As long as one remains aware that it is God in the darkness, as much as the light, then no problem.

I don’t call it ‘centring prayer’. We can expect God to act, but we cannot demand it. Expecting or desiring God to act, is called ‘FAITH’. This is not aggression, it is supplication. It is not presumptious, it is hopeful. It is not ungrateful, it is loving.

If ‘centring prayer’ is simply:

Making the Sign of the Cross.
Possibly saying a prayer or two.
Becoming calm despite distractions.
Closing eyes and resting in God.
Invoking the name of God. Once, or a few times, now and then.
Staying present with Him, for however long.
Leaving prayer, when one feels called to do so.
Maybe ending with a prayer.
Making the Sign of the Cross.

…then, that has probably been a prayer-practice for centures before it was named as being and is nothing to do with New Age, and will refresh you because it is by grace that God is doing so.

One can also use Scripture and meditate on it.

All is good.
 
Last edited:
friardchips said:
We can expect God to act, but we cannot demand it. Expecting or desiring God to act, is called ‘FAITH’.
Click to expand...
I heard a great quote passed on by Elizabeth Vargas, who has battled with alcoholism.

She says God answers prayers three different ways:
  1. yes 2 wait and 3) I have something better for you
Any “technique” that promises the answer will always be “yes” is, I have to say it, from the evil one. It leaves the soul vulnerable to the one who “masquerades as an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14) at the very best.
friardchips said:
But sitting quietly with God, is not the same as thinking we can force God, to act. It is knocking. God tells us to knock. And to be insistent in our knocking. This is Scriptural.
Click to expand...
Yes…realizing that it is waiting on God because although God is always present, the presence of God is not always discernible during meditation, even to those most totally devoted to praying at all times. The Doctors of the Church have spoken about this many times.

Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world. (1 John 4:1-3)

When I have read Elisabeth Kübler-Ross talking in her book about her “spirit guides,” and it made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. The man she was associated with was exposed as an utter charlatan, but I fear she really did have contact with spirits, and not ones that were in any way acknowledging Jesus as the Christ. She was not left in a good state in the end, partly because work on death and dying was finding her seminal contributions to be in serious need of renovation but also because the spirituality she had anchored herself to had collapsed. By her own accounts, the end of her life was not spiritually fruitful, but left her bitter and angry because she was not accepting “wait” as an answer: “My only regret is that for 40 years I spoke of a good God who helps people, who knows what you need and how all you have to do is ask for it. Well, that’s baloney. I want to tell the world that it’s a bunch of bull. Don’t believe a word of it.”


Still, she was still having conversations with God, so there is reason to hope that her prayer life was in a state of greater reality and serenity by the time she finally died.
 
Last edited:
friardchips said:
But sitting quietly with God, is not the same as thinking we can force God, to act. It is knocking.
Click to expand...
If anyone thinks they can force God to act they will certainly be disappointed no matter what method is used. All we can do is be available and welcoming and that takes practice.
 
A Christian seeks a new mind, the mind of Christ. He cannot simply empty first, then fill. The mind rages against that, and will seek to occupy the mind again with something from it’s reservoir of memories or imaginations. The journey of a Christian, seeking to grow in prayer, is to seek to gradually replace the mind filled with this futile world, with the holy truths and hopes and concerns of Christ. The best sources to go to, to begin this, are Holy Scripture and the Catechism, and/or the trustworthy prayers and writings of the saints of the Church, and/or the doctrines and teachings of the Church – in effect, the Truths of God, as passed on to the Church.

Lectio Divina presents a way to meditate upon Holy Scripture in this way (at least, the reference I suggested does this. Some interpretations of Lectio Divina focus far too much, imho, on the self and not enough on divine revelation as it is in Scripture.).

After some period of time in this practice of Christian meditation, the person will, or may, find himself meditating upon smaller and smaller portions of Scripture, or simpler and simpler expressions of holy Truth. This is a good sign, and indicates growth in prayer, with increasing attention and devotion - mind and will - on the truths of God. If the person continues in this way, the time may come when the next phase of prayer comes upon the person: infused contemplation. Infused contemplation is not something that the person does, or can do. It is a gift, an act of God. Many “teachers” of prayer may try to “teach” “contemplation.” If they do, and if the student thinks he is “doing” infused contemplation, he probably is not. If a man can do it, it is not a gift. If a man can teach it, it is not a gift infused by God.

Some teachers can lead a person through vocal prayer, into Christian meditation, and on into greatly simplified meditation called “the prayer of simplicity.” This is close - in some senses - to the “mindlessness” that you may be speaking of. This prayer can also be called “acquired contemplation.” Again, this is NOT the same as “infused contemplation”, nor is it the “meditation” of Eastern religions. It is meditation - mental prayer - upon simple and beautiful truths of God.

The best teachers of prayer for Christians are Christians, following the great masters of prayer - John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, and (maybe surprisingly) Thomas Aquinas. Nearly contemporary excellent teachers are Fr. R. Garrigou-Lagrange, OP and Fr. Jordan Aumann, OP. Their books are free and on-line, in many cases. If you want to learn about prayer, those are the men to read.

I hope this helps.
 
Shakuhachi said:
St. John says the center of our soul IS God.
Click to expand...
Where did you read this? Which “St. John”?
Are you saying that God is the center of something He created? God cannot be identical to His own creation.
 
Last edited:
Discernment of Spirits is always required.

Scripture tell us that if we keep knocking, the door will be opened.
 
Last edited:
Shakuhachi said:
But then what is the “empty mind” you spoke of?
Click to expand...
There’s a part of the Byzantine Liturgy called the “Cherubic hymn”. The words are:

“We who mystically represent the Cherubim,
and who sing to the Life-Giving Trinity the thrice-holy hymn,
let us now lay aside all earthly cares
that we may receive the King of all,
escorted invisibly by the angelic orders.”

Laying aside all worldly cares so that we can receive the king of all is the best definition of “empty mind” that I have seen. If there’s any improvement I would make, it would be “all self-centered cares”.
 
The mistake is thinking that we decide when to pray. Actually, God called us first (as has been said). And it is God who prays in us. And if it were not for God’s grace, we would not wish to or be able to.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top