Pope praises Teilhard de Chardin

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

The first Pope who was a Thomist theologian was Pope Urban IV:

• b.1195 - d.1264
• Son of a cobbler
• Not a cardinal pre-papacy
• Pope 1261 - 1264

One of the great books Pope Urban IV commissioned from St Thomas Aquinas was the *'Catena *Aurea’ - a book St Thomas always carried with him. Even when he wanted to burn his ‘Summa Theologica’, fortunately his ‘servant’ Rufus didn’t agree to this idea, and rescued the Summa. I say a servant, St Thomas needed help, he’d had a major CVA leaving him partially paralysed.
St Thomas wanted to burn his Summa when he saw the Glory of God and realised how inadequate his work appeared in comparison.

 

[JReducation]

I have heard that Popes John Paul II and Benedict are “Augustinians” instead of “Thomists.” Who was the last “Thomist” pope?

John XXIII was the last Thomist pope. Paul VI was a canon lawyer. John Paul II and Benedict XVI blend Augustinian and Franciscan theology and method. This often makes them very difficult for the average person to understand. Although Franciscan and Augustinian thinking are very ancient, they have not been used by popes since Pius X who was himself a Franciscan.

PossiblyTheology is not enough?“Spirituality” sounds New Age. Is not theology enough?

Spirituality is a very ancient branch of theology dating back to the Jews and passed down to the Christians by John the Evangelist. John explains to us how to worship God. This is spiritual theology, simply called Christian spirituality.

Theology, like medicine, has many branches and specializations that you can travel. Spirituality is the least traveled, because it is the most escoteric. It’s language is very ambiguous and at times very poetic. However, before dogma came into existence, there was first spirituality. The sould had to encounter revelation before the intellect could write about it.

I do not understand.Pope Benedict thinks the Catechism of Trent is the best catechism, though.That is for sure! When Pope Benedict was cardinal he said in The feast of faith:

That’s why he produced the CCC. The CCC is an expanded version of the Catechism of Trent. What Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II wanted to do was to explain the thinking behind the content in the Tridentine Catechism. But when you put two minds like them to work together, minds that are not Thomistic, but are more mystic or spiritual, you are going to get writing that requires that you read it in prayer so that you can see what they saw. If you read the CCC as you would read the original Tridentine Catechism, you miss the boat, because even though it is nothing more than an expansion of the Tridentine Catechism, it was meant to be read during prayer to allow the Holy Spirit to guide the person through the truths of faith.

“Today we might ask: Is there a Latin Rite anymore? Certainly there is no awareness of it. To most people the liturgy appears to be rather something for the individual congregation to arrange.” But this is for another thread…

As long as there is a Latin Church there is a Latin Rite. The Latin Rite does not depend on the Latin language. It is called the Latin Rite because it is the rite of the Latin Church, not because of the language.

The Extraordinary Form is the elevated form of the rite, though.I think he is aware that the Novus Ordo has produced bad fruits.

Be very careful here. To say this can lead you into heresy. The two forms of the Latin Rite are equal in dignity and holiness. Therefore, neither is a higher form than the other. To say so is to diminish the holiness of one form or the other. One can say that one form is more beautiful or more conduscive than the other. That’s OK, because you’re expressing an opinion. But we cannot express an opinion that is in conflict with the teaching of the Church.

There are quotes of him basically saying it was an experiment.

While he was Cardinal Ratzinger he was allowed to make this statement. As pope, he cannot. The reason is simple. The pope must speak as the Church teaches. The Church teaches that the Ordinary Form is holy and efficacious. Even as pope, he can say that it was created as an experiment, because that’s a historical fact. But once the experiment is made official, as he did in Summorum Pontificum, where he declares that it is now the Ordinary Fomr of the Latin Rite, then it is no longer an experiment. It becomes the established and ordinary way to celebrate mass in the Latin Church. Here is speaking with the Church, not as a private theologian.

The mass was never “originally the banal.”

The mass in any form, can never be banal. Banal were some of the experiments that were done with it.

I am confused. True, but mystics like St. Catherine (definitely my favorite; I’ve read some of her things in Italian) also questioned, out of love for God and His Church, the authorities in the Church, writing letters to the pope urging to avoid schism, etc.

Catherine enjoyed a very special place in Catholic history of her time. She was a personal friend of the pope. When she writes to him, she’s writing as a friend. She is not dictating to him or demanding anything of him. She is suggesting. We have to keep this in mind. Poor Catherine is often poorly used as an example of someone who challenged the pope. She did not. She challenged her friend. There is a big difference in her relationship with the pope and that of the rest of the Church. If you notice, other great doctors do not take the liberty with their pen that Catherine takes. They did not have that working relationship with the pope. The only other saint who comes to mind who had a similar relationship with the pope was St. Clare of Assisi and Gregory IX. Before he was pope, Gregory had been the Cardinal Protector of the Franciscan Order. Clare spoke and wrote to him quite candidly.

I hope all of this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

We must remember that at all times God leads us into relationship, away from the confined space between our ears. The devil knows God, he will not call Him Lord.
God leads into the Great Silence which is pregnant with the Image of God. Almost, away from cognitive thought which needs to be abandoned. In co-operation take off your shoes, you are on Holy Ground. At the Last Supper the Lord shall remove the shoes of the beloved disciple and He alone shall wash our feet.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

The Renewal of Baptismal Promises prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, I acknowledge you as King of the universe. All creation was made for you. Exercise all your sovereign rights over me. I renew my baptismal promises, renouncing Satan and all his works and empty promises, and I promise to lead a good Christian life. …” We were made by God, for God and this includes, seemingly, all of creation.

The problem with de Chardin is that he attributes to man’s evolution an inherent salvation devoid of his free will. This implies a combining of nature and the supernatural, and as Teilhard wrote of the “spiritual power of matter” (The Making of a Mind: Letters from a Soldier-Priest p. 292), this seems to make it explicit. As man is make in the image of God, not mankind, the individual human being is superior to the human species. This is lost on de Chardin and his evolutionary “Omega Point”. This process of evolving toward salvation is different than the pope’s comment of what the Church points to:

From John Paul II general audience

Faith teaches us that the work of creation is contained within the ambit of God’s plan which, according to his intention, goes well beyond the limits of creation itself. Creation ”particularly the human creature called into existence in the visible world” is open to an eternal destiny, which is fully revealed in Jesus Christ. Even in Christ the work of creation is completed by the work of salvation. Salvation means a new creation(cf. 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15), a creation according to the measure of the Creator’s original design. Salvation means a re-establishment of what God had made and which in human history had suffered the disorder and “corruption” following upon sin.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19880113en.html

The difference between this and de Chardin is huge and the pope was seemingly only using the reference to what the man did in his life, not the results of that life’s work.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

The Renewal of Baptismal Promises prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, I acknowledge you as King of the universe. All creation was made for you. Exercise all your sovereign rights over me. I renew my baptismal promises, renouncing Satan and all his works and empty promises, and I promise to lead a good Christian life. …” We were made by God, for God and this includes, seemingly, all of creation.
The problem with de Chardin is that he attributes to man’s evolution an inherent salvation devoid of his free will. This implies a combining of nature and the supernatural, and as Teilhard wrote of the “spiritual power of matter” (The Making of a Mind: Letters from a Soldier-Priest p. 292), this seems to make it explicit. As man is make in the image of God, not mankind, the individual human being is superior to the human species. This is lost on de Chardin and his evolutionary “Omega Point”. This process of evolving toward salvation is different than the pope’s comment of what the Church points to:

The difference between this and de Chardin is huge and the pope was seemingly only using the reference to what the man did in his life, not the results of that life’s work.

So in precis are you suggesting

1. 
   *]Fr de Chardin was wrong because his ‘theology’ negated man’s free will
   *]The Pope quoted Fr de Chardin because he praised his work ethic, not the content of that work ?

 

[JReducation]

So in precis are you suggesting

1. 
   *]Fr de Chardin was wrong because his ‘theology’ negated man’s free will
   *]The Pope quoted Fr de Chardin because he praised his work ethic, not the content of that work ?

1. 
   The pope is using Fr. de Chardin’s cosmic liturgy. This is the concept that he’s praising. Like this, there are some points in Fr. de Chardin’s writings that are praiseworthy and there are other parts that are unacceptable. What Pope Benedict seems to be doing is to be separating from the valuable and the unacceptable.
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, OSF

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

‘The devil, save in some exceptional cases permitted by God, does not show himself openly and his presence is not verifiable experientially. He escapes human observation…Therefore, we should not be astonished if the world does not know him, or denies his existence, or has a false conception of him’ (Fr Livio Fanzaga)

The problem with Fr de Chardin’s naturalistic theology?

When the Pope quotes/praises Fr de Chardin’s work it appears as a sanctification of Fr de Chardin’s entire work.

The problem with heresy - the devil does not declare himself openly; preferring to hide himself in the Garden of Eden (the Church).

 

[Tradycja]

’
When the Pope quotes/praises Fr de Chardin’s work it appears as a sanctification of Fr de Chardin’s entire work…

Exactly and it just confuses people. The Pope should above all be CLEAR. He is the pastor of the flock and most of is flock is not theologians but simple people.

 

[JReducation]

Exactly and it just confuses people. The Pope should above all be CLEAR. He is the pastor of the flock and most of is flock is not theologians but simple people.

It is true that the Holy Father is the pastor of a universal flock. However, we have to see things from his perspective. If we observe his actions and his language, his lifetime dedication to theology, as well as the content of his writings and talks, he is a big believer that Catholicism is an intellectual faith. Notice how every chance he gets he brings up the issue of faith and reason working together. This pope’s goal is to elevate the thinking of the Catholic to a higher level of sophistication. He is very involved in the higher forms of speech, writing, art, science and other intellectual approaches to expressing faith. Even the CCC, which he edited, he intended it to be a spiritual reflection of every idea that was behind the Catechism of Trent. He treated the Catechism of Trent as the conclusions. And in the CCC he and Pope John Paul II wanted to show the thinking and ideas behind those conclusions, as well the the thinking and ideas that came out of those conclusions in later years.

In addition, he is not a follower of Thomas Aquinas. For the longest time, most priests were trained in the thinking and writings of Thomas Aquinas. Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI chose not to be trained in that manner. They deliberately stayed away from Aquinas, because Aquinas reduces every explanation of faith to simple statement, this is this and that is that. These men majored in other branches of theology. Paul VI majored in law. John Paul II majored in philosophical theology and Benedict XVI in Franciscan and Augustinian theology.

Bonaventure, who is the most prolific of the Franciscan theologians and Augustine himself, were not simple writers. They were very complicated writers and very complicated speakers. They always started looking at God and man from the spiritual side, not the doctrinal side. They used a lot of imagery, symbolism, and very poetic language to explain how God works in the soul and how the soul reaches God. Bonaventure of course gets his inspiration from Francis of Assisi, who is a very difficult writer and speaker to understand. Augustine got his inspiration from the Gnostic philosophers of his time. Though he was not a Gnostic, he did use their style of thinking to see God at work. Both of these men used what is called contemplative prayer to learn about God. Aquinas used logic. Therefore, Aquinas is much more palatable. Aquinas contemplated and then analyzed. Bonaventure and Augustine contemplated and then wrote down what they saw, without analyzing it. They let the reader do the work.

In other words, Aquinas presents truth without any of the feelings that go with it. Pope Benedict seems to want Catholics to return to the heart, to experience God’s work in their soul and to feel and think about God’s work, not just spell out doctrine and dogma. Benedict is very aware that doctrine and dogma are best understood through experience, rather than words. Therefore, he tends to speak in language that gets his listeners to want to feel God, rather than understand God. This is a system of theology and spirituality that dates back to the Desert Fathers.

I would recommend that anyone who wants to understand Pope Benedict’s language read Augustine, Bonaventure, Francis of Assisi, the Desert Fathers (not the same as the Fathers of the Church). Some of the other great mystics may also help, such as John of the Cross, Julian of Norwich and Catherine of Siena.

Some good books are:

Writings of the Desert Fathers and Mothers
Disciple and the Master by Bonaventure
Writings of Francis of Assisi by Armstrong
Cloud of Unknowing by Julian of Norwich
Living Flame of Love by John of The Cross
Mystical Nuptuals by Catherine of Siena
Jesus of Nazareth by Benedict XVI
Crossing the Threshold of Hope by John Paul II
City of God by Augustine

After you’ve read these, you read and listen to Benedict XVI and he is crystal clear. His thinking and awesome. It’s very mystical and very much about the heart of faith, not just the rules of faith. I find him an incredible thinker.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Tradycja]

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

One of the benefits of reading St Thomas Aquinas as prima theologian - He uses scientific analytical definition (Scholastic, Q & A format)

One of the reasons of taking great care with reading mystical theologians (Bonaventure, et al.) - Obscurity.

Word of advice: If we have trouble working with something, it could be the tools we are using; look first to our own understanding (1 Cor 13:12)

‘looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled’ (Heb 12:15)

 

[JReducation]

One of the benefits of reading St Thomas Aquinas as prima theologian - He uses scientific analytical definition (Scholastic, Q & A format)

**One of the reasons of taking great care with reading mystical theologians (Bonaventure, et al.) - Obscurity. **

Maybe it’s me, because I’m a Franciscan. I’ve been trained in the mystics for many years. From my personal experience, I would not call it obscurity. I would call it abstractness. Even the topic of Pope Benedict’s dissertation is full of very abstract language. Bonaventure’s writings on scripture and tradition are very abstract, as were his writings on philosophy of history. Unless one understood Augustine, Bernard of Clerveaux, Francis of Assisi, Dominic and Anthony of Padua, understanding Bonaventure could be a nightmare. You have to start from the bottom up. In other words, you have to see what the writer is building on.

I do agree that Aquinas is easier, because he does use the Q & A method.

I once read that Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI all found Aquinas dry, because unlike the mystical theologians he does not present the experience, only the conclusions. There is a wonderful discussion in theological circles today and back then too about the importance of the experience of God, before understanding God. The discussion is whether the average person in the pew has been denied the exposure to the experiences of God through which doctrine and dogma are revealed, understood and felt by the soul. There are those, like Benedict XVI, who believe that the Catholic lay person wants this more than he wants Q & A… This is not an infallible debate. I just thought it was interesting when I read about it.

Personally, I cast my vote for the msytical theologians. But that’s just me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Maybe it’s me, because I’m a Franciscan. I’ve been trained in the mystics for many years. From my personal experience, I would not call it obscurity. I would call it abstractness. Even the topic of Pope Benedict’s dissertation is full of very abstract language. Bonaventure’s writings on scripture and tradition are very abstract, as were his writings on philosophy of history. Unless one understood Augustine, Bernard of Clerveaux, Francis of Assisi, Dominic and Anthony of Padua, understanding Bonaventure could be a nightmare. You have to start from the bottom up. In other words, you have to see what the writer is building on.
I do agree that Aquinas is easier, because he does use the Q & A method.
I once read that Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI all found Aquinas dry, because unlike the mystical theologians he does not present the experience, only the conclusions. There is a wonderful discussion in theological circles today and back then too about the importance of the experience of God, before understanding God. The discussion is whether the average person in the pew has been denied the exposure to the experiences of God through which doctrine and dogma are revealed, understood and felt by the soul. There are those, like Benedict XVI, who believe that the Catholic lay person wants this more than he wants Q & A… This is not an infallible debate. I just thought it was interesting when I read about it.

Personally, I cast my vote for the msytical theologians. But that’s just me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Dear Brother, ‘obscurity’ meaning it needs light brought to it (as in unilluminated). My view of ‘abstract’ is of something missing. Choice of word is possibly somewhat subjective.

You wrote earlier of the unfortunate situation of spiritual direction not being taught in diocesan seminary -
‘Although the foundation for guiding a soul to spirit is knowledge and discretion, the director will not succeed in leading the soul onward in it…if he has no experience of what true and pure spirit is’ (St John of the Cross)
I doubt it is something which can be adequately (intellectually) taught.

Consider St John Vianney (patron Saint of priests). If it were not for circumstances he would not have been accepted into Holy Orders - he was considered simple minded.

Mystical theology / scholastic theology? I find one feeding into the other.
“Personally, I cast my vote for the mystical theologians.” (It’s not just you:thumbsup

 

[JReducation]

Dear Brother, ‘obscurity’ meaning it needs light brought to it (as in unillunated). My view of ‘abstract’ is of something missing. Choice of word is possibly somewhat subjective.

You wrote earlier of the unfortunate situation of spiritual direction not being taught in diocesan seminary -
’Although the foundation for guiding a soul to spirit is knowledge and discretion, the director will not succeed in leading the soul onward in it…if he has no experience of what true and pure spirit is’ (St John of the Cross)
I doubt it is something which can be adequately (intellectually) taught.

Consider St John Vianney (patron Saint of priests). If it were not for circumstances he would not have been accepted into Holy Orders - he was considered simple minded.

Mystical theology / scholastic theology? I find one feeding into the other.
“Personally, I cast my vote for the mystical theologians.” (It’s not just you:thumbsup

What John of the Cross did not realize when he was writing this is that he was actually writing the curriculum for spiritual theology and spiritual direction. Most courses today are based on his work in this field. So, in fact, it can be intellectually taught.

That being said, the spiritual director must also be a spiritual man. Someone like John Vianney, Padre Pio, Mother Teresa, Catherine of Siena, Francis of Assisi, Clare of Assisi, and Catherine de Hueck Doherty were all great spiritual directors because they had what John called infused knowledge in addition to deep spiritual lives. The former was a gift of grace that most of us do not have, but we have ot acquire through training, knowledge that is. The latter is something that we have to cultivate through discipline.

I do formation work for two religious communities, my own and a new one that we’re starting. Formation of religious involves a great deal of spiritual direction. I find myself drawing from the writings and experiences of John of the Cross, Catherine of Siena, Francis and other great spiritual directors. But that alone is not enough. I have to work on my own spiritual discipline. The good part of what I do is that I have found that the more others look to you for example, the better examples we become. You learn from the students.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[anon5216]

Kevin,

A reason for taking great care with limiting yourself to black and white scientific analytical definition is this:

Let’s use Hawaii as a metaphor for heavenly paradise.
The scientific analytical definition could be represented by the CIA factbook detailed description of the island chain.

Memorizing these descriptions could be useful to a lawyer (say, apologist) arguing a case that requires certain details to prove a point (or perhaps give strategies to an invading army).
Somehow, I can’t imagine too many people being inspired to actually want to go to this “Hawaii” place based on such data.

No lets look at the abstract mystical descriptions as represented perhaps by a song with very vivid emotional poetry that actually captures the experience of being in Hawaii.
I can easily imagine such “obscure” vagueness lacking any scientific analytical detail actually inspiring droves of people to not only want to go to Hawaii themselves, but actively go about making it happen.

Now, I would agree that knowing some of the basic analytical facts will come in handy in that process,
but how to get from black and white facts to inspiration, without being exposed to the abstract mystical, is a real mystery.

In almost any field of study, beginners are given black & white facts to digest in early training.
Then, more advanced levels introduce more and more abstraction, complexity, subtlety and nuance.

To insist that all those more advanced levels be avoided for fear of confusing a beginner is nonsense.
Even 1st graders in the ordinary school system know there is such a thing as high school and college.

While you don’t require them to study and understand those things, you do require that they are prepared, step by step and level by level and grade by grade, until they are ready for high school and college.
You don’t tell them that every concept beyond first grade is evil and to be avoided even thinking about.

Pope Benedict appears to being doing precisely the kind of awareness introduction to the wider Catholic population that could lead to a dramatic acceleration in their spiritual development.

 

[JReducation]

Kevin,

A reason for taking great care with limiting yourself to black and white scientific analytical definition is this:

Let’s use Hawaii as a metaphor for heavenly paradise.
The scientific analytical definition could be represented by the CIA factbook detailed description of the island chain.

Memorizing these descriptions could be useful to a lawyer (say, apologist) arguing a case that requires certain details to prove a point (or perhaps give strategies to an invading army).
Somehow, I can’t imagine too many people being inspired to actually want to go to this “Hawaii” place based on such data.

No lets look at the abstract mystical descriptions as represented perhaps by a song with very vivid emotional poetry that actually captures the experience of being in Hawaii.
I can easily imagine such “obscure” vagueness lacking any scientific analytical detail actually inspiring droves of people to not only want to go to Hawaii themselves, but actively go about making it happen.

Now, I would agree that knowing some of the basic analytical facts will come in handy in that process,
but how to get from black and white facts to inspiration, without being exposed to the abstract mystical, is a real mystery.

In almost any field of study, beginners are given black & white facts to digest in early training.
Then, more advanced levels introduce more and more abstraction, complexity, subtlety and nuance.

To insist that all those more advanced levels be avoided for fear of confusing a beginner is nonsense.
Even 1st graders in the ordinary school system know there is such a thing as high school and college.

While you don’t require them to study and understand those things, you do require that they are prepared, step by step and level by level and grade by grade, until they are ready for high school and college.
You don’t tell them that every concept beyond first grade is evil and to be avoided even thinking about.

Pope Benedict appears to being doing precisely the kind of awareness introduction to the wider Catholic population that could lead to a dramatic acceleration in their spiritual development.

The analogy of education is an interesting one. If we remember, most of the facts that we give to the beginner in many disciplines are nothing more than the results of a previous person’s experience. What I’m trying to say is that those black and white facts are there, because someone did some hand-on learning, trial and error, etc and the conclusions were discovered or arrived at.

In the spiritual life or the life of faith, even what Aquinas wrote was a product of his contemplation. What he did not write, is probably more interesting and more moving than what he wrote. When we read his biography we find that he had a profound mystical life and was in reality a very simple man. In fact, his good friend Bonaventure used to tease him by telling him that he would have made a good Franciscan. In many ways, Aquinas was a child. He reveled in the experience of God. Given the circumstances of his time and the fact that his spiritual father, Dominic, wanted his friars to be preachers and teachers, Aquinas limited himself to writing his conclusions and not sharing his experience of God that inspired those conclusions.

His biographers cannot properly expound on those experiences, because Thomas did not always share them. We know a great deal, but there is much more about him that we do not know. I would love reading a spiritual journal by him, such as the one kept by St. Therese.

Going back to Pope Benedict, from what he has said about faith and reason, it seems very clear that his mission is to elevate the mind and heart of today’s Catholic. God knows that this needs to be done.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Kevin,

To insist that all those more advanced levels be avoided for fear of confusing a beginner is nonsense.
You don’t tell them that every concept beyond first grade is evil and to be avoided even thinking about.

Sorry I mislead you - I caution people to be careful when reading either mystical or speculative theology.
This is not the same as saying that everything outside the scholastic approach is evil, but one needs to take a very different approach.

Crudely - a cookbook full of only pictures needs a text for a fuller appreciation of how things are done.

As you say, step by step building on a firm foundation on one’s capability.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

St Thomas Aquinas - known to his co-friars as “The dumb ox” because of his size, and because they thought he was stupid.

 

[anon5216]

Knowing that short posts here can only be the tip of the iceberg relative to the background of the person writing - my apologies (past, present and future) for when I misinterpret someone’s intent.

It’s definitely a misfortune that Aquinas did not write about the experiences he based his conclusions on.
Perhaps he felt he couldn’t express his mystical experiences in a satisfactory way that wouldn’t be misinterpreted.

I wonder, did Aquinas believe his inner spiritual life existed for the sake of his ‘final’ conclusions?
Or did he attempt to express his conclusions as a means to point back to his inner spiritual life?
My vote would be the latter - at least I certainly hope that was the case.

Personally, I’ve always been more drawn to a saint’s (of various religions and spiritual traditions) journals of their inner lives, than any conclusions they came to.
The conclusions have a habit of being colored by their belief systems that were established prior to their inner spiritual experiences - whatever that background belief system may be.
This can be seen when the same person left a record of both their later conclusions and something of a spiritual diary or journal written as their inner lives unfolded.
Then finding several such people of varying traditions, but with similar inner lives - and then comparing the conclusions they came to to express those inner lives.

Regarding cookbooks.
I think they’re great for keeping a precise memory of the details - pictures and text.
But if you really want to learn how to cook, I’d say find a great chef, watch them in the process and eat the food they prepare

• use the cookbook to keep up with what’s going on as you watch, and so you don’t forget the mechanical details later
• the inspiration part you need to embody yourself.

I think emphasizing building one’s spiritual foundation in order to go ever further into the spiritual life is now much more appropriate than cautions about going too deep too fast.

It’s quite possible we have Aquinas’ co-friars to thank for the manner in which he expressed himself in writing.
If he was frequently having inner experiences and then constantly dwelling on their meaning and ramifications,
he would also be ‘not quite there’ with regards to everyday interactions on the more mundane level (as lived by the friars of course).
Even just being always lost in deep intellectual thought at times when others are expecting you to be present on a more socially interactive level causes problems.

Non-responsiveness - from the same intellectual/emotional level - is often interpreted by others as being ‘dumb as an ox’.
So would expressing mystical experiences in poetic, abstract language seem to those hearing it - if they themselves had no personal intimations of such experiences.

I find it very encouraging that Pope Benedict has a clear mission to elevate the mind & heart of today’s Catholic, instead of just breast feeding conclusion quotes.
I don’t believe it’s even possible to truly understand a spiritual conclusion without having, at least to some degree, had the inner spiritual experience that leads to a given conclusion.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

If you’re a Buddhist you might have visions of Buddhist iconography, a Hindu, Hindu iconography. And as a Christian, Christian.

Gen 32:22-32. That’s the situation of most of us. So it’s very important to work under the guidance of a competent spiritual director; and as with cooking it’s very important we don’t lose our own identity in the work. God did not create a community of robots…He created us human, and He calls us into relationship.

Fr de Chardin could only speak from the level of his own understanding. Authenticity is a great gift, and a great challenge. I don’t always agree with Fr de Chardin, but I respect his struggle.

Pope Benedict challenges us to use our talent of reason: God has created us reasonable human beings.