The Cloud of Unknowing & Contemplative Prayer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mystical_Seeker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This seems to imply the modern form of contemplation was adopted very recently in history.I cannot find any mention of it in the old Baltimore Catechism.
The Baltimore Catechism came out around 1885, 80 years befor the Vatican invitation to return to some of the more neglected roots of early Christianity and the wealth of Church spirituality. It is not surprising that there is no mention in it. It is a good example of why renewal was needed. It is good for the basics but it sort of reduces the faith and spiritual life to quiz answers and recited prayer.
 
BTW: When engaged in Contemplative Prayer, I think I can feel Satan flee from me in that I become calm and peaceful and do not have discourse with my thoughts.
I do engage in Contemplative Prayer (C______prayer) and I find it very comforting. But I also see the need for a good foundation and I regularly challenge myself to adapt to the teachings of The Imitation of Christ, which is the tough part… Contemplative Prayer is quite easy once a solid foundation is built. -Robert Sock
 
In the 1970s, answering the call of Vatican II, three Trappist monks at St. Joseph’s Abbey in Spencer, Massachusetts, Fathers William Meninger, Basil Pennington and Thomas Keating, looked to these ancient sources to develop a simple method of silent prayer for contemporary people. The prayer came to be known as contemplative Prayer in reference to Thomas Merton’s description of contemplative prayer as prayer that is “centered entirely on the presence of God.” The monks offered Contemplative Prayer workshops and retreats to both clergy members and laypeople. Interest in the prayer spread, and shortly after the first intensive Contemplative Prayer retreat in 1983, the organization Contemplative Outreach was formed to support the growing network of Contemplative Prayer practitioners.

Today Contemplative Prayer is practiced by people all around the world, creating local and global networks of Christians in communion with Christ and each other and contributing to the renewal of the contemplative dimension of Christianity.

This seems to imply the modern form of contemplation was adopted very recently in history.I cannot find any mention of it in the old Baltimore Catechism.
The specific form of prayer the three you mention invented, is itself a banned topic. This particular form, and Keating himself, have been a subject of much controversy. But that form, compared to the classification of “contemplative prayer” as the Church describes it, has gotten a lot of bad press and unfortunately many writers started generalizing it. And yes, that is “new” compared to Church history.

Even the most traditional, self-described “orthodox” Catholic, will tell you that Lectio Divina is an ancient and respected Catholic monastic practice, and one of its parts is a “contemplative” section. In fact, if somebody says, “contemplative prayer is bad because I heard X’s form of it was bad” that is false generalization. It would be like saying all restaurants are bad because I don’t like or have heard Bad Things, about Burger King.

So it’s OK to embrace “contemplative prayer” and at the same time, steer clear of Keating, and the banned thing. That’s a completely different argument we can’t have here, which is why I was careful that Meninger did not mentioned anything about it in the video, before I posted the OP.
 
The specific form of prayer the three you mention invented, is itself a banned topic. This particular form, and Keating himself, have been a subject of much controversy. But that form, compared to the classification of “contemplative prayer” as the Church describes it, has gotten a lot of bad press and unfortunately many writers started generalizing it. And yes, that is “new” compared to Church history.

Even the most traditional, self-described “orthodox” Catholic, will tell you that Lectio Divina is an ancient and respected Catholic monastic practice, and one of its parts is a “contemplative” section. In fact, if somebody says, “contemplative prayer is bad because I heard X’s form of it was bad” that is false generalization. It would be like saying all restaurants are bad because I don’t like or have heard Bad Things, about Burger King.

So it’s OK to embrace “contemplative prayer” and at the same time, steer clear of Keating, and the banned thing. That’s a completely different argument we can’t have here, which is why I was careful that Meninger did not mentioned anything about it in the video, before I posted the OP.
And the fact is, the form of prayer that is banned in this forum, was not invented by the three monks, but was part of Catholic tradition going back to the 4th Century.

They knew it and began to teach it, and it wasn’t called the name which this forum banned.

At any rate, the three monks have been highly misrepresented in this forum and other traditionalists websites.

Myself, I have been to St Joseph’s Abbey in Spencer, MA, many times. I have spoken with the monks there and have the information that took place when Fr Keating was the Abbot.

PM me if you want more information.

Jim
 
Please do not make such assertions.

It is as you note a banned topic and thus we cannot get into discussing the assertion.
Not an assertion, but fact back with documentation, but it can’t be presented because it’s a banned topic.

Jim
 
And with that, I’m unsubscribing.

These threads never go well in CAF. :rolleyes:

Jim
 
Not an assertion… but it can’t be presented because it’s a banned topic.

Jim
Yes an assertion

But it is a banned topic. So we *cannot *get into that.

One is not to make even such assertions…is not to discuss the subject. It is banned…not a subject to bring up. Let alone make assertions about it that it is “this or that”.
 
Yes an assertion

But it is a banned topic. So we *cannot *get into that.

One is not to make even such assertions…is not to discuss the subject. It is banned…not a subject to bring up. Let alone make assertions about it that it is “this or that”.
I think it’s “that”. 😉
 
Yes an assertion

But it is a banned topic. So we *cannot *get into that.

One is not to make even such assertions…is not to discuss the subject. It is banned…not a subject to bring up. Let alone make assertions about it that it is “this or that”.
But you never fail to take negative shots at the “banned,” topic. :rolleyes:

Jim
 
But you never fail to take negative shots at the “banned,” topic. :rolleyes:

Jim
No I would not put it that way.

If someone does a drive by claim - an assertion - I note that such is not to be done for others cannot then come in any say “it is not so”. They cannot discuss it and dispute the claim.

It would also be not correct- fair- for someone who was “contra” the subject to make an assertion of negative nature (or post say some anti- website or something). And then mention -oh it is banned…I will leave it there (they can indeed have all the good intentions in the world but then the effect is that the assertion will just have to stand without discussion…for it is indeed banned).

Neither those in favor or those not in favor or those who do not care either way - ought to bring the matter up. And that includes short references or assertions either pro or con.
 
We should have an entire thread on whether the thread is hinting at a banned topic enough to constitute “having discussed” it. 😉

Those kinds of arguments are symptoms. :rolleyes:

I know the tricks. So far so good! Jim I hope you don’t leave, but in case you do, thanks for coming in and playing with us! 👍

Meanwhile … 🍿
 
We should have an entire thread on whether the thread is hinting at a banned topic enough to constitute “having discussed” it. 😉

Those kinds of arguments are symptoms. :rolleyes:

I know the tricks. So far so good! Jim I hope you don’t leave, but in case you do, thanks for coming in and playing with us! 👍

Meanwhile … 🍿
I wonder why other “disruptive” topics are not banned.
 
I wonder why other “disruptive” topics are not banned.
This particular topic is sensitive because it calls into question some of the tired old cliches that have been pretty much the status quo, ever since the Reformation when “religion” essentially became about head games and divisive intellectual separations in the Body of Christ. The intellectual elite don’t respond with verbal kindness to challenges that being “transformed” is much more than being “informed” and/or playing cheap behavior contests. Contests we lost by design before Jesus, and that Jesus would save us from except those who cling to them. Like how Paul told to Galatians he may have wasted his time on them for such clinging.

Plus, the monk in question would send mailings to parish priests asking for donations so that annoyed some of them too. So really Keating, being associated with the banned term, is the channel they use for most of their attempt to project evil onto him. Father Keating is one of several people whose work directly and substantially contributed to my healing. So people like me get tired of having to do through eight tons of mud slinging every time we want to say something about some of what we may see as those spiritual teachers who are calling us to more than just obedience to an institutional system, but an actual personal encounter with Christ. So I am glad it is banned; it’s hard enough to have a reasonable discussion on just about any topic – but with this one there are obvious strong political factions operating in the Church (I’m thinking of the famous Hillary “vast right wing conspiracy” – haha) which are insanely opposed to these people, and have used objectively false reporting and fear to peddle their intellectual wares.

Gal 3 excerpt:

Gal 3:
O stupid Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? I want to learn only this from you: did you receive the Spirit from works of the law, or from faith in what you heard? Are you so stupid? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? Did you experience so many things in vain?—if indeed it was in vain. Does, then, the one who supplies the Spirit to you and works mighty deeds among you do so from works of the law or from faith in what you heard? Thus Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Realize then that it is those who have faith who are children of Abraham. Scripture, which saw in advance that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, foretold the good news to Abraham, saying, “Through you shall all the nations be blessed.” Consequently, those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham who had faith. For all who depend on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not persevere in doing all the things written in the book of the law.” And that no one is justified before God by the law is clear, for “the one who is righteous by faith will live.” But the law does not depend on faith; rather, “the one who does these things will live by them.” Christ ransomed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree,” that the blessing of Abraham might be extended to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Brothers, in human terms I say that no one can annul or amend even a human will once ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his descendant. It does not say, “And to descendants,” as referring to many, but as referring to one, “And to your descendant,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to cancel the promise. For if the inheritance comes from the law, it is no longer from a promise; but God bestowed it on Abraham through a promise.

Why, then, the law? It was added for transgressions, until the descendant[n] came to whom the promise had been made; it was promulgated by angels at the hand of a mediator. Now there is no mediator when only one party is involved, and God is one. Is the law then opposed to the promises [of God]? Of course not! For if a law had been given that could bring life, then righteousness would in reality come from the law. But scripture confined all things under the power of sin, that through faith in Jesus Christ the promise might be given to those who believe.

Before faith came, we were held in custody under law, confined for the faith that was to be revealed. Consequently, the law was our disciplinarian for Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a disciplinarian. For through faith you are all children of God in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendant, heirs according to the promise.
 
This particular topic is sensitive because it calls into question some of the tired old cliches that have been pretty much the status quo, ever since the Reformation when “religion” essentially became about head games and divisive intellectual separations in the Body of Christ. The intellectual elite don’t respond with verbal kindness to challenges that being “transformed” is much more than being “informed” and/or playing cheap behavior contests. Contests we lost by design before Jesus, and that Jesus would save us from except those who cling to them. Like how Paul told to Galatians he may have wasted his time on them for such clinging.

Plus, the monk in question would send mailings to parish priests asking for donations so that annoyed some of them too. So really Keating, being associated with the banned term, is the channel they use for most of their attempt to project evil onto him. Father Keating is one of several people whose work directly and substantially contributed to my healing. So people like me get tired of having to do through eight tons of mud slinging every time we want to say something about some of what we may see as those spiritual teachers who are calling us to more than just obedience to an institutional system, but an actual personal encounter with Christ. So I am glad it is banned; it’s hard enough to have a reasonable discussion on just about any topic – but with this one there are obvious strong political factions operating in the Church (I’m thinking of the famous Hillary “vast right wing conspiracy” – haha) which are insanely opposed to these people, and have used objectively false reporting and fear to peddle their intellectual wares.

Gal 3 excerpt:

Gal 3:
O stupid Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? I want to learn only this from you: did you receive the Spirit from works of the law, or from faith in what you heard? Are you so stupid? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? Did you experience so many things in vain?—if indeed it was in vain. Does, then, the one who supplies the Spirit to you and works mighty deeds among you do so from works of the law or from faith in what you heard? Thus Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Realize then that it is those who have faith who are children of Abraham. Scripture, which saw in advance that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, foretold the good news to Abraham, saying, “Through you shall all the nations be blessed.” Consequently, those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham who had faith. For all who depend on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not persevere in doing all the things written in the book of the law.” And that no one is justified before God by the law is clear, for “the one who is righteous by faith will live.” But the law does not depend on faith; rather, “the one who does these things will live by them.” Christ ransomed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree,” that the blessing of Abraham might be extended to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Brothers, in human terms I say that no one can annul or amend even a human will once ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his descendant. It does not say, “And to descendants,” as referring to many, but as referring to one, “And to your descendant,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to cancel the promise. For if the inheritance comes from the law, it is no longer from a promise; but God bestowed it on Abraham through a promise.

Why, then, the law? It was added for transgressions, until the descendant[n] came to whom the promise had been made; it was promulgated by angels at the hand of a mediator. Now there is no mediator when only one party is involved, and God is one. Is the law then opposed to the promises [of God]? Of course not! For if a law had been given that could bring life, then righteousness would in reality come from the law. But scripture confined all things under the power of sin, that through faith in Jesus Christ the promise might be given to those who believe.

Before faith came, we were held in custody under law, confined for the faith that was to be revealed. Consequently, the law was our disciplinarian for Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a disciplinarian. For through faith you are all children of God in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendant, heirs according to the promise.
Or I could be totally wrong … :eek:
 
+JMJ+

I propose that the way to resolve the controversy here is answering a series of questions. I would appreciate it that everyone who has participated here will answer.
  1. If I add acquired contemplation or even the “banned topic” to a robust traditional spirituality (from here on defined as following the Precepts of the Catholic Church with regular Sacraments, private Christian meditation, pious readings, and/or traditional devotions with Church approved mortification for laity like the liturgical fasts), is that alright?
I doubt anyone will object to this. Personally, I can find no problems with this.
  1. If I find that I am finding more satisfaction with acquired contemplation and/or the “banned topic” can I cut down on the traditional spiritual practices? And if so, which?
I think here is where there will be problems with many of the “traditional” posters here. However, it will be an inevitable question that will pop up since all of us have only so much time per day.

Personally, even the “banned topic” can be done as long as there is still the liturgical mortifications as well as meditations and/or pious readings. Books such as The Cloud of Unknowing recommend as much. If one has a spiritual advisor so much the better.
  1. Is it OK to just do acquired contemplation or the “banned topic” on top of the Precepts of the Catholic Church?
Now this is where I think everybody will be up for arms for both sides.

Personally, no, unless the spiritual advisor says so. There is a reason why the traditional devotions are “traditional”: they work. Besides, even the old books from which modern proponents of acquired contemplation and the “banned topic” draw support from also discourage this.
  1. Is it OK to start my spiritual journey with acquired contemplation and/or the “banned topic”?
I think again most will say here (including me) as: no.

Now why these questions? It seems to me that threads like this one degenerate to fighting between two main camps: “the banned topic is harmful” and “the banned topic, like acquired contemplation, is not harmful, but rather an advanced method”. There would be further positions somewhere in between, like “the banned topic is not harmful and can even be done by spiritual beginners.” I, personally, think of it as an incomplete technique. I say this because the “banned topic” to me looks like The Cloud of Unknowing with the preparatory and cautionary warning chapters removed.

Anyways, it seems to me that the way to solve the controversy is the compromise between where those of the “harmful camp” would feel comfortable that the supposed harm of the “banned topic” will be offset by traditional spirituality, and where the “advanced method” camp would say one is advanced enough spiritually to practice it.

Of course there will be some who will object with this kind of thinking, in that if the “banned topic” is “harmful” then any practice of it is imprudent. This kind of thinking I strongly disagree: this is akin to saying the the practice of the banned topic is a sin, which as far as I know nobody as of yet has considered it as such.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top