Thomas Keating has a lot of nerve!

[Shakuhachi]

And, by the way, St John of the Cross, a doctor of the Church says, “the Center of the soul is God.” Somewhere in Living Flame of Love .

I found that verse but, of course, it is more mysterious than informative.
1.12. The soul’s center is God. When it has reached God with all the capacity of its being and the strength of its operation and inclination, it will have attained its final and deepest center in God, it will know, love, and enjoy God with all its might. When it has not reached this point (as happens in this mortal life, in which the soul cannot reach God with all its strength, even though in its center – which is God through grace and his self-communication to it), it still has movement and strength for advancing further and is not satisfied. Although it is in its center, it is not yet in its deepest center, for it can go deeper in God.

So even in the center there are deeper centers and in this mortal life we cannot reach that deepest center.

The Living Flame of Love | EWTN

 

[Magnanimity]

How would you define “mantra”

I suppose a mantra would be any item that focuses attention, such as a repeated phrase or even a concentration on one’s breathing. I understand the utility of it. I have no problem at all with anyone using one—as you noted above, the “Jesus Prayer” can readily and easily become a mantra-like prayer (so can the rosary). But the central task of a CP sit is to have no particular anything focus or draw or retain one’s attention/awareness. No item, no object, no concept, no act, no itch, no thing to focus attention on.

 

[Shakuhachi]

And the “sacred word” shouldn’t be confused as one. The method truly attempts to be one of objectless awareness (akin, so I’ve read, to a certain type of Tibetan Buddhist meditation).

This is where I can see where many Christian might have a problem. Holding Christ in the heart is a thought, an object.

I think in my own method, which I liken to Bonaventure in his Itinararium, is using anything at all to point me in the direction where I can let go of everything, every image and thought, throwing my inner self into God.

 

[Shakuhachi]

OK, and yet attention is still present.

 

[Magnanimity]

This is where I can see where many Christian might have a problem. Holding Christ in the heart is a thought, an object.

It’s understandable. What gives me a sense of security is just how Thomistic both Thomas Merton and Thomas Keating were. If God is the ipsum esse of St Thomas, then all beings are held in existence from moment to moment to moment by Existence itself (God).

I don’t mind any prayer or meditative method that brings one’s own conception of God into it. But we must always be mindful that whatever idea we hold in our minds-heats of God is just that—an idea, a conception. We cannot fit God into our minds-hearts, so anything that we find in our minds will be less than Reality. Which is ok. We’re only finite. The CP method acknowledges the ineffability of God. And since God is ever present, the method attempts to place one in a state of maximal receptivity to Being (God).

 

[Magnanimity]

OK, and yet attention is still present.

Sure, as rational animals, there would be no way for us to “turn off” consciousness.

 

[Magnanimity]

I think in my own method, which I liken to Bonaventure in his Itinararium , is using anything at all to point me in the direction where I can let go of everything, every image and thought, throwing my inner self into God

I like this—any act of “letting go” in these contexts is probably on the right track.

 

[Shakuhachi]

I don’t mind any prayer or meditative method that brings one’s own conception of God into it. But we must always be mindful that whatever idea we hold in our minds-heats of God is just that—an idea, a conception. We cannot fit God into our minds-hearts, so anything that we find in our minds will be less than Reality. Which is ok. We’re only finite. The CP method acknowledges the ineffability of God. And since God is ever present, the method attempts to place one in a state of maximal receptivity to Being (God).

Yes, and yet this is resisted as some kind of new age heresy.

 

[Magnanimity]

Yes, and yet this is resisted as some kind of new age heresy.

Haha! Yes, my own parents were American hippies. Thank God for the hippies—they rose as a cultural counter-balance to the rigid and stale religiosity of the prior generation (was more complicated than that, but you get my point). With the rediscovery by Catholics of the Cloud of Unknowing (and even of the desert mothers and fathers of the East) it should be obvious by now that what was thought to be new (“new age”) is actually old. What’s old is new again! And I’m grateful to God for it. Not everyone needs meditation or contemplation, I guess, but I sure do!

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Dan Burke isn’t even close to being accurate in this article.

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON SOME ASPECTS OF CHRISTIAN MEDITATION

This doesn’t speak about Centering Prayer at all.

As it says in the artricle; … 16. The majority of the great religions which have sought union with God in prayer have also pointed out ways to achieve it. Just as “the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions,” neither should these ways be rejected out of hand simply because they are not Christian.

Fr Keating address the Letter and wrote:

Cardinal Ratzinger’s “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of Christian Meditation”, written in 1989, was not directed to Centering Prayer, which is the traditional form of Christian prayer, but rather at those forms of meditative practices that actually incorporate the methods of Eastern meditations such as Zen and the use of the Hindu mantras. The letter is chiefly concerned with the integration of such techniques into the Christian faith. It does not forbid their use and indeed, states, “that does not mean that genuine practices of meditation which come from the Christian East and from the great non-Christian religions… cannot constitute a suitable means of helping the person who prays to come before God with an interior peace even in the midst of external pressures” (#28).

Having noted this affirmation of the value of the Eastern practices when rightly integrated into Christian faith, may I point out that Centering Prayer is the one contemporary form of contemplative practice that does not make use of any of these techniques. The quotation from the Letter that the gift of contemplative prayer can only be granted through the Holy Spirit is precisely what we teach. Nor does Centering Prayer encourage a privatized spiritual journey or the seeking of spiritual experiences, but rather fosters the complete surrender of self in faith and love that leads to divine union. There is much greater danger in concentrating on oneself in discursive meditation and in intercessory and affective prayer, especially if one is preoccupied with one’s self feeling and reflections. In Centering Prayer one is not reflecting on one’s self or one’s psychological states at all.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I learned Centering Prayer as taught by Fr Keating, over 40 years ago.

The critics are usually referring to New Age Centering, which is not the same as Centering Prayer taught by Fr Keating.

Anyway, it’s election season and I’m usually banned from CAF this time of year. So I’ve posted all I’ll say about this subject.

 

[Shakuhachi]

I learned Centering Prayer as taught by Fr Keating, over 40 years ag

Hey, another old timer! Weren’t the 70’s an amazing time?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

 

[HarryStotle]

Magnanimity:

I don’t mind any prayer or meditative method that brings one’s own conception of God into it. But we must always be mindful that whatever idea we hold in our minds-heats of God is just that—an idea, a conception. We cannot fit God into our minds-hearts, so anything that we find in our minds will be less than Reality. Which is ok. We’re only finite. The CP method acknowledges the ineffability of God. And since God is ever present, the method attempts to place one in a state of maximal receptivity to Being (God).

Yes, and yet this is resisted as some kind of new age heresy.

The issue with the “ineffability” of God is that it leads to the notion that God cannot be known, and that notion to a kind of “anything goes” spirituality BECAUSE we cannot have certainty about God.

Jesus responded to the request to “Show us the Father,” with “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? (John 14:8-9)

Ergo, God is not “ineffable” in the sense that we have no idea at all regarding God or God’s will, because there is crystal clarity about God in many respects.

Many heresies arise from the notion that God cannot be known so there is an inroad for any idea to gain traction because God and his will are “ineffable.”

 

[Magnanimity]

The issue with the “ineffability” of God is that it leads to the notion that God cannot be known, and that notion to a kind of “anything goes” spirituality BECAUSE we cannot have certainty about God.

Sure, but that’s a sword that cuts both ways. The problem with denying or downplaying ineffability is that God becomes a big guy in the sky. Your buddy. Just like a way more powerful and knowledgeable Person than you. Another being in the universe who (like all beings) needs an explanation for its existence.

There is perhaps a danger in overemphasizing either attribute of God, his ineffability or his personhood (my spiritual buddy). I think that most of our greatest minds of the church have erred as Aquinas did—much of our knowledge of God comes thru a via negativa. We more accurately say what God is not, than what he is. Iow God is much more mysterious than simply-knowable. The Son himself is rather mysterious.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The issue with the “ineffability” of God is that it leads to the notion that God cannot be known, and that notion to a kind of “anything goes” spirituality BECAUSE we cannot have certainty about God.

Sure, but that’s a sword that cuts both ways. The problem with denying or downplaying ineffability is that God becomes a big guy in the sky. Your buddy. Just like a way more powerful and knowledgeable Person than you. Another being in the universe who (like all beings) needs an explanation for its existence.

There is perhaps a danger in overemphasizing either attribute of God, his ineffability or his personhood (my spiritual buddy). I think that most of our greatest minds of the church have erred as Aquinas did—much of our knowledge of God comes thru a via negativa. We more accurately say what God is not, than what he is. Iow God is much more mysterious than simply knowable. The Son himself is rather mysterious.

Not quite the either/or you are making it out to be.

The “effability” of God, at least in our path to knowing Him is one of a kind of triangulation.

What we have are Scripture, Tradition, the teaching Magisterium, the guidance of the Holy Spirit and reason. Where all of these align, there is certainty of direction in our path to God.

He is much more knowable to us in our current state than he is unknowable precisely because God positively wills us to be directed to him. He has not left us bereft in a sea of unknowing. There is a bright beacon of light pointing directly to him.

If anyone thinks that God is merely either “their big buddy” or “the vast unknown” they aren’t paying attention. There is just as much danger in presuming God CANNOT be known as there is in presuming He is my “self” writ large.

Reflect just a moment on your statement that… “I think that most of our greatest minds of the church have erred as Aquinas did.” Doesn’t that presume that you, yourself, are in a better position to determine errancy, on the whole, than Aquinas or “most of our greatest minds?” That is quite an audacious claim, no?

 

[Inbonum]

I think that most of our greatest minds of the church have erred as Aquinas did—much of our knowledge of God comes thru a via negativa . We more accurately say what God is not, than what he is.

“Letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church on some aspects of Christian meditation” points against that claim of knowing God via negativa

Still others do not hesitate to place that absolute without image or concepts, which is proper to Buddhist theory,14 on the same level as the majesty of God revealed in Christ, which towers above finite reality. To this end, they make use of a “negative theology,” which transcends every affirmation seeking to express what God is and denies that the things of this world can offer traces of the infinity of God. Thus they propose abandoning not only meditation on the salvific works accomplished in history by the God of the Old and New Covenant, but also the very idea of the One and Triune God, who is Love, in favor of an immersion "in the indeterminate abyss of the divinity."15
Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on some aspects of Christian Meditation – Orationis formas

 

[Magnanimity]

Doesn’t that presume that you, yourself, are in a better position to determine errancy, on the whole, than Aquinas or “most of our greatest minds?” That is quite an audacious claim, no?

I meant it like “erred on the side of caution.” As in, I agree with our best and brightest. There must be very good reasons for affirming the ineffable nature of God and believing that much of our knowledge of Him consists in what is not true of him. He’s not finite, not material, not spatial, not temporal, not contingent, etc.

Not quite the either/or you are making it out to be.

Either/or?

The “effability” of God, at least in our path to knowing Him is one of a kind of triangulation.

What we have are Scripture, Tradition, the teaching Magisterium, the guidance of the Holy Spirit and reason. Where all of these align, there is certainty of direction in our path to God.

Sort of. As Aquinas knew well, knowing that something exists does not entail that you know its nature with much precision at all. So knowing-that would not be the same as knowing-what. To say that something exists is to make a judgment.

And I don’t know what you mean by certainty. We can have absolute certainty about very little (actually undeniable certainty). These would be things like, “thinking is occurring” or “something exists.” Those two propositions are actually undeniable. But what else is? Not much that I can see. The existence of God? Aquinas notes that His existence is self-evident in itself but not self-evident to us. So, that puts it out of the realm of actual undeniability. If you can’t know with absolute certainty that He exists, it follows that whatever you think you know of His essence is also open to some degree of uncertainty. This also goes for the church, sacred writings, consciousness, the conscience, etc.

He is much more knowable to us in our current state than he is unknowable precisely because God positively wills us to be directed to him.

That could be true without you knowing it to be true (as in the case of atheists).

There is just as much danger in presuming God CANNOT be known as there is in presuming He is my “self” writ large.

Right, which was precisely my point in the prior post here.

 

[Shakuhachi]

This is where I see someone Like Bonaventure on the right track. Tracking the vestiges of God in nature, in ourselves, and above us and finally letting go of it all.

Back to Keating I give him credit. Our culture is far too extroverted and action oriented, to the point of being alienated with our “inmost” self. God may be beyond our understanding but also revealed to us all around us…God and not God. How many seek recollection. Maybe here there are more of us. But out in the world it has to have secular appeal like MBSR or the latest youtube video. Even TM used to be a big deal.

He and guys like Merton tried to show us the contemplative root in our Catholic tradition. This stuff is difficult to talk about and describe. I think we can cut him a break.

 

[HarryStotle]

That could be true without you knowing it to be true (as in the case of atheists).

Any person’s level of real knowledge is not determined by the judgement of others regarding that knowledge.

I think there is a good argument to be had about Jesus’ credibility. I have no problem admitting Jesus clearly knew more about God and existence in general than anyone ever.

I also have no problem admitting he is God purely because he made the claim to be. His words demonstrate that he had a far more credible capacity to make statements regarding God than any human ever. Ergo, his standing to make a claim far outstrips any other human being to make a claim to the countrary.

His words speak for themselves regardless of whether they were written down historically or not. The fact they were, though, in the context of OT and historical events generally, simply amplifies the truth value of his claims.

Abstract spiritual musings from mystics lack the grounding in reality that his teachings do. Ergo, while there could be personal spiritual value in the insights of mystics, the real profound value in the words of Jesus far outweigh any negative or positive spiritual wisdom from the mystics.