The Way of a Pilgrim

[Randy_Carson]

I first read The Way of a Pilgrim many years ago when I was a candidate at a Trappist monastery, and I was thinking a lot about contemplative prayer.

Recently, I began reading it again, and I can’t help noting that the pilgrim spends more time reading the Philokalia than he does scripture.

I have only skimmed the Philokalia, and while it seems like an amazing compilation of teachings, it simply isn’t the inspired Word of God.

So, for my Eastern friends who have more familiarity with these things, I have a question: Does The Way of a Pilgrim seem unbalanced toward the Philokalia, and shouldn’t Sacred Scripture have a higher priority in our reading?

Thanks.

 

[spina1953]

I first read The Way of a Pilgrim many years ago when I was a candidate at a Trappist monastery, and I was thinking a lot about contemplative prayer.

Recently, I began reading it again, and I can’t help noting that the pilgrim spends more time reading the Philokalia than he does scripture.

I have only skimmed the Philokalia, and while it seems like an amazing compilation of teachings, it simply isn’t the inspired Word of God.

So, for my Eastern friends who have more familiarity with these things, I have a question: Does The Way of a Pilgrim seem unbalanced toward the Philokalia, and shouldn’t Sacred Scripture have a higher priority in our reading?

Thanks.

Hi Randy Carson: I have to read The Way of the Pilgrim several times over the years. I agree that it seems that the pilgrim spends much time reading the Philokalia or it seems that way. However, I saw that in The Way of the Pilgrim that and it just seems to me that it is more about the Jesus prayer being said continuously as a way of contemplation. I tend to think that it is just one way or manor of active contemplation instead of infused contemplation.
I have also read the Philokalia several times and have three volumes. It is to be sure very heavy reading. I point out from rereading it several times over the years that there are many things spiritual but one does have need to be careful since there are things in it that are not in agreement wit Catholic teachings. That being said, also, there is much in the way that is extreme in its teachings that can be quite harmful to one’s mental state.

Being a Discalced Carmelite Secular, I find that St. Teresa of Avila’s Way of Perfection a prelude to her Interior Castle to be better in learning contemplation. St. John of the Cross is also very good but can be rather hard to understand his approach to contemplation, but some find it easier than St. Teresa’s works.

It is my thinking or opinion that one reads the Philokalia with caution.

 

[wynd]

It’s a story, not a catechism. In any case, I haven’t read it in a while but I remember the pilgrim reading the Bible being mentioned many times in the book.

 

[catholicscot]

I seem to recall the pilgrim asking the person who introduced him to the Philokalia if it was more important than the Bible and being told in no uncertain terms that it wasn’t. I also recall the episodes of a man reading a chapter from the Gospels every time he felt like drinking alcohol until the temptation passed. And an army officer who read one of the Gospels every night. And the whole pilgrimage was inspired by an instruction to pray found in St Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians. So it is pretty clear that scripture is important.

It is also worth remembering that whenever possible the pilgrim attended the liturgies of the Church and these are suffused with Scripture.

Incidentally, if you are interested in contemplative prayer I have just done a 5 part mini series about it on my blog CatholicScot.blogspot.co.uk

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

It has been several years since I’ve read “Way of a Pilgrim,” so I could be wrong on this, but doesn’t the pilgrim mention that the “Philokalia” is like a magnifying glass onto the Scriptures? In other words, it is an intense interpretation of the kind of life that the Scriptures call us to lead.

While it may seem that the author gives an excessive focus to the “Philokalia,” remember that his work was written within the context of Russian/Byzantine spirituality. Anyone who is familiar with Russian/Byzantine spirituality knows that it relies heavily on daily reading of the Scriptures. Also, if memory serves me correctly, the author was writing at a time where the “Philokalia” was a relative new-comer to Russia and the Russian approach to Byzantine spirituality. So on the one hand he presupposes that the reader is already immersed in the Scriptures, and on the other hand he is excited to introduce this “new” text that acts as a magnifying glass onto life in Christ.

Again, I could be wrong in my conclusions, but that’s just what it seems to me.