see http://www.saint-mike.org/Libr...CenteringPrayer.html

http://www.innerexplorations.com/chmystext/cm1.htm

http://www.innerexplorations.com/chmystext/ques2.htm

http://www.innerexplorations.c...atchspmys/from13.htm

-------

I don't think we've ever had an in-depth discussion on this topic, and, since it was requested of me via an email, I thought I'd go public with it.

For openers, I will say that there are many very fine people in the centering prayer movement whose practice has brought a flowering of spiritual fruit. So that says a lot and, hopefully, my acknowledgement of this can help the discussion to avoid collapsing into a personal or emotional issue, for some. I also think Fr. Thomas Keating is as fine a person as I've ever known.

So, that aside, onto the topic at hand . . .

- - -

From the first/top link:

Centering prayer differs from Christian prayer in that the intent of the technique is to bring the practitioner to the center of his own being. There he is, supposedly, to experience the presence of the God who indwells him. Christian prayer, on the contrary, centers upon God in a relational way, as someone apart from oneself. The Christian knows a God who is personal, yet who, as Creator, infinitely transcends his creature. God is wholly other than man. It is also crucial to Christian prayer that God engages man's whole being in response, not just his interior life. In the view of centering prayer, the immanence of God somehow makes the transcendence of God available to human techniques and experience.

This seems to be the crux of Fr. Dreher's criticism, and I can say with total assurance that he's dead-wrong in his assessment of what's being taught. The "sacred word" is not a focusing on one's being, but an expression of "consent to God's presence and action within." So the focus is on God (i.e. surrender to God), and the sacred word is a relational vehicle, albeit radically simplified. That the focus is on God's presence and action within doesn't deny that God is transcendent nor that there are other aspects of the Christian life that will need to come into the conversion process outside of the prayer time. In short, there are too many straw men in the criticism; that the author goes on to distinguish Eastern religions from Christianity (implying that CP is linked with the former) only worsens his case. This is the same kind of nonsense spouted by the EWTN series on the New Age a few years ago, wherein Fr. Keating and CP were strongly criticized.

The Arraj articles, however . . . Hmmm. What do you all think?

A first and major error I encountered among many who teach and write about centering prayer was that it was a form of contemplative prayer. In fact, on some retreat schedules, the times of quiet sitting were called, "contemplative prayer." Happily, this error has been cleared up through better teaching, and cp is no longer considered contemplative prayer--at least as the term has been used in the Christian mystical tradition.

Now for one of Arraj's questions, second link above:

quote:

1. Should people be introduced rather indiscriminately to Centering Prayer, as seems to happen, without an assessment of their experience of more discursive forms of meditation? Could they not benefit from exercising themselves in forms of meditation where they use their senses, imagination, intellect, memory and will in a more active fashion, and only later turn to Centering Prayer? If Centering Prayer is a preparation for contemplation, isn't meditation a valuable preparation, as well?

My own response to this is that the practice of "lectio divina" and its active engagement of the faculties is the best way to direct one's attention to God. If the grace of contemplation is given, one will know in that one's energy seems to have moved from the faculties to a deeper level, where one desires only to rest or "be" with God in silence. Then, continuing to read, reflect and respond will be pointless. Otherwise, however, lectio divina helps one to connect with God through the mediation of the sacred word via the use of the faculties. This is no trivial matter and its importance should not be minimized simply because one is not experiencing contmeplation.

The teachers of CP often speak of lectio divina as a preparation for contemplation, or a means by which the faculties are formed to enable a more contemplative encounter with God. That's all true, but it still seems to be insinuating that lectio is somehow second-best. If one really has a choice between lectio and contemplation, then indeed, that is the case. But for those who do not experience contemplative graces, I am convinced that lectio divina is the most worthy alternative.

So what of the value of CP, then?

Perhaps at the end of a period of lectio, it can serve to summarize the recollection that has developed. Outside of this context, however, it seems to be very difficult to practice, which is why so many don't stick to it.

Concerning CP as a kind of bridge to contemplation, I have my doubts, for I am convinced that contemplation is 100% grace. I even have my doubts that what some who practice CP call contemplation really is contemplation. Arraj's dialogues with Bonnie Shimuzu and Basil Pennington on link #2 above sheds some light on this issue.

Phil,

Great-full that you are reviewing CP. I am a big fan
of Thomas Keating. CP has taken alot of heat from traditional Catholics and evangelicals. Some of this is healthy and normal, some of it is the age-old difference in values between contemplative Mary's and pragmatic Marthas. Mary and Martha continue to learn from each other, and the conversation continues.

I see Contemplative Outreach as evangelical and ecumenical in the finest sense of the word. This is offered to anyone who is interested, which seems to follow the New Testament model. Whenever
Kingdom teaching is carried as an "outreach" there
are bound to be all manner of growing pains and problems.

There is no neat and orderly way to shape a conflict of Kingdoms of this magnitude. It's warfare and there are bound to be some casualties.
Somewhere in the process, the Spirit is working to bring order out of chaos.

CP is one of many bridges to contemplation. So is a walk in nature, or spending time with loved ones
or curling up with a book.

I am amazed at how well the movement grapples with
a multitude of complexities of modern life. It could be a great simplifier for a complicated world. There is a high level of intention and motivation there, and this is the main reason
that the "other" Kingdom has not been able to completely derail it, but I'm sure It would like to.

There is a great body of experience and teaching arising from the movement, and I am confident that
God can use this to great benefit. I hope I don't become some kind of apologist for CP, as it's not for everyone, but there is an underlying Truth somewhere in there which indeed could be.

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

Is it effective and is it growing? I noticed alot of books in the bookstores for some years, but it has dwindled in the last year or so. Still, interest in spiritual growth in a general way remains high. Contemplative Outreach is busier now than it has ever been, at least in Colorado. Sometimes things happen here first and spread to the rest of the country. Baby boomers begin to turn 60 this year, and they revolutionize every life stage they go through. Older people are usually more spiritually inclined. People living longer means more people making progress along the path to divine union and may share this with their children and grandchildren. All positive signs.

Is there anything we can do to guarantee mystical graces? I don't know, but a spiritual awakening is
available to those who seek and knock long enough.
If the Lord wills and I live long enough, I believe I have a shot at divine union in this lifetime, if I have been chosen to arrive there, then Grace will carry me home.

luvUphil peace <*))))><

All good points, Michael. And I agree that there's good fruit with CP; some of the questions raised by Arraj have more to do with its relation to contemplation as understood in classical Christian mystical theology, especially John of the Cross.

Arraj asks:

quote:

2. What kind of prayer is Centering Prayer? St. John of the Cross describes two fundamental kinds of prayer: meditation, which is the use of our natural faculties of sense, imagination, intellect, memory and will, and contemplation, by which he means infused contemplation, which is a gift of God and which we cannot do at will. According to this distinction, Centering Prayer is a simplified form of meditation, and not contemplative prayer according to St. John of the Cross. It is also, therefore, an active form of prayer rather than a passive reception, and it makes use of our natural faculties in what St. John of the Cross would call a discursive fashion. But would Centering Prayer practitioners agree with this description?

Bonnie Shimuzu (with Fr. Keating's blessing) replies:

quote:

Centering Prayer goes beyond words, thoughts, and feelings and in that sense is not what John of the Cross calls "meditation." Infused contemplation as I understand it, even if defined strictly as gift, goes beyond words, thoughts, and feelings. Centering Prayer aids in this movement beyond the faculties and fosters the disposition of openness and surrender to God. It also could be noted that the gift of contemplation is one which is already given (the divine indwelling) and Centering Prayer simply cultivates our receptivity to the gift and helps to remove the obstacles to our awareness of it. It is basically similar to acquired contemplation.

- see http://www.innerexplorations.com/chmystext/cm1.htm

Notice the logical fallacy, here. Because infused contemplation goes beyond thoughts and words, then any going beyond thoughts and words must somehow be contemplation. That's quite a leap of logic.

Arraj disagrees with the whole idea of acquired contemplation, and I am inclined to agree especially with his main point to the effect that John of the Cross did not teach this. He responds to Bonnie as follows:

quote:

The gift of contemplation should not be identified without qualification with the indwelling of the Trinity. Infused contemplation is, indeed, intimately connected to this indwelling, but it is an actual experience of it that takes place through the activation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Everyone in the state of grace has the Trinity dwelling in his or her heart, for that is the central reality of sanctifying grace. But not everyone has a proximate call to infused contemplation, and thus has the gifts activated in the manner necessary for contemplation, and can therefore take up an attitude of passivity in relationship to this indwelling. Further, infused contemplation, when it grows past its delicate beginnings, is a state that is often discernable to the one who receives it.

I agree with Arraj, here, and I do think there are some things taught in Contemplative Outreach about contemplation that go against the classical understanding. In fact, I even wonder if the experience of silence that CP aims for can even be called contemplation. It is a resting, for sure, but inasmuch as it strives for pure contentlessness as the essence of contemplation, I think they miss the point, which is to rest in God's loving presence. Listen to Thomas Keating, here:

quote:

"Let go of sensible and spiritual consolation. When you feel the love of God flowing into you, it is a kind of union, but it is a union of which you are aware. Therefore, it is not pure union, not full union." . . . "There is no greater way in which God can communicate with us than on the level of pure faith. This level does not register directly on our psychic faculties because it is too deep."(from link 4, above)

Man alive! Do you see the problem here? What is being recommended is that one view even the experience of God's love flowing into you as a kind of distraction simply because it has "content" or because you "experience" it. I suppose, then, you are to return to the sacred word and treat that as just another type of distraction? That's not John of the Cross any more. Small wonder the term quietism has been thrown around at times.

And so Michael asks: Is there anything we can do to guarantee mystical graces?

No, there is not, not even going through the whole divine therapy process. You might be more genuine, authentic, whole, etc., but it won't guarantee mystical graces.

OTOH, what we can do is guarantee something far more important -- that we live in a state of grace. This is what Christian spiritual practice is about, and I'm assuming that all who read this know what that means. I would recommend my course on Basics of Christian spirituality to anyone who thinks they might benefit from a refresher.

Now here's the real doozie of a point, and it's that mystical graces often have nothing to do with where one is in the divine therapy. God can communicate them to us at the most random of times and long before all the inner blocks and imperfections have been resolved. The only real obstacle to them is mortal sin, and even then I'm not so sure that God can't break through (e.g., Paul on the road to Damascus). What Arraj wrote about about gifts of the Spirit is very important. The impression given by CP teachers is that divine union a la contemplation already exists; we just have to go way deep down and live there. This makes contemplation something we "acquire," and if we don't know it, then perhaps we're not trying hard enough, or we have more work to do, more divine therapy to allow, etc. I know that's not exactly what's being said, here, but it's kind of implied, no?

I share some of these reservations about CP. I think Keating underestimates the importance of sacramentality in spiritual advancement, including the sacramentality of his own holy presence, communicated in his books and lectures, to say nothing of God's self-communication in the Eucharist and other Sacraments. This may be owing to Keating's having overly appropriated concepts from folks like Ken Wilbur, who is operating out of an Atman/Brahman anthropology. Yet Keating does emphasize that centering prayer is above all an expression of relationship to God, so he seems aware of the difference between Christianity and eastern philosophies on these points. He draws explicit distinctions between the two at various points, and it may be that the criticisms he's received have led him to do so (it would be interesting to contrast his earlier and later writings and teachings, or to ask him about this). I agree that his notion of "pure faith" could problematic, if it means that faith must be unaccompanied by images, symbols, etc. I think that his main point in speaking about "pure faith" may be Christomorphic, ultimately, in the sense that he seems to be speaking about finding God in moments or experiences of darkness or desolation.

I make the distinction in matters like this between the spiritual and the mystical, the former being a movement by God toward the individual, the latter, where human volition is involved, as a movement of man toward God.

The spiritual in this respect is an infusion by God into the human spirit (and causally, on to apprehension by the created intellect) of His pure, true Information into one's admixture of true and false essence. (I see all reality as information, existing in a state of either true or false...the former a measure of a thing's perfection and the latter, as it would follow, that which denies a thing its perfection.)

The spiritual encounter is necessarily always of God, as Arraj appears to note in St. John of the Cross' work in the link supplied: "St. John of the Cross describes two fundamental kinds of prayer: meditation, which is the use of our natural faculties of sense, imagination, intellect, memory and will, and contemplation, by which he means infused contemplation, which is a gift of God and which we cannot do at will."

To my thinking, the natural tension and resistance that exists between true and false presscriptive information (spiritual essence) denies the possibility of man achieving a truly or purely "spiritual" experience, because such experience always results in the death of some measure of one's false data. We are loathe to die.

On the other hand, those areas of spirit already cleansed and made alive in the new birth are those areas we commune with God, and to me, this is most likely where centering prayer takes place.

So it seems to me, at least.

Thank you, PG and Bernie, for your contributions to this discussion.

from PG: I agree that his notion of "pure faith" could problematic, if it means that faith must be unaccompanied by images, symbols, etc.

It seems to be another fallacy in thinking -- i.e., that since mystical graces operate in a realm beyond our experience of the faculties, we cannot then be at a very deep level of grace if we are experiencing God through the mediation of the faculties. Two objections:

1. When we experience God's presence through the faculties, it doesn't follow that God is not also working in depths beyond their operations concomitantly. To turn away from an experience of God's love in favor of cultivating a deeper level of faith -- pure faith! -- makes no sense, for the turning away process itself makes use of the mind and will, placing one back in discursive meditation. IOW, contemplative grace is being rejected in favor of discursive meditation (which centering prayer is, albeit radically simplified) -- with a goal of deeper union in mind, no doubt. Nevertheless, I don't think this kind of practice is what the mystical doctors recommend; quite the opposite, in the case of John of the Cross.

2. For John of the Cross, there is no question of seeking anything like the kind of contemplative practice that CP presents itself to be when/if one is experiencing God through the faculties. As long as meditation (as understood in the West) is fruitful, why go looking for God elsewhere? There is, then, an affirmation of the efficacy of discursive meditation/kataphatic prayer, and not simply because it provides a conceptual foundation/preparation for contemplative prayer. It is a good in its own right, and for many people, it will be their primary means of contact with God through their entire lives.

There is a sense in which CP, if practiced rigorously and as taught in contemplative outreach, rejects kataphatic graces during the prayer time. The example above about viewing even the experience of God's love as somehow less than the best is a case in point. Viewing other nudgings of grace presenting through imagination, thought, feeling, etc. during the prayer time as "distractions" is also problemmatic, imo. I cannot imagine relating to another person that way -- not even in the interest of developing a deep relationship.

Again, I don't mean to be suggesting, here, that CP leads one down the wrong path. I'm just pointing out some of the problems I see. What we have here is a relatively new teaching, references to The Cloud of Unknowing and John of the Cross notwithstanding.

from Bernie: On the other hand, those areas of spirit already cleansed and made alive in the new birth are those areas we commune with God, and to me, this is most likely where centering prayer takes place.

I'm wondering if you mean, here, the practice of centering prayer, or the rest that sometimes comes from the practice? I can see that to be the case in the latter situation. The practice is essentially an exercising of the will unto God.

What is your experience with CP, Bernie, if you don't mind sharing?

In my case there was a great deal of concrete and black and white thinking from an evangelical and fundamentalist mindset, so apophatic "unknowing" was extremely helpful in my situation, although the letting go was quite painful and difficult at the time. At the same time, I knew the God of scripture
quite well, and believed that I could trust him.

Many others, who lack biblical training might get quite lost without such a frame of reference.

Something like CP could be an answer for a hurting post-
Christian world!

mysticalM, I've seen you around on other boards, if I'm not mistaken you and I share an admiration for Aquinas...are you that one and the same mysticalmichael?

Actually, Phil, I'm abysmally ignorant of concepts like centering prayer and contemplative prayer. My own experience of Christ over a three year period, from '92-'94 seems to have much more closely resembled that of certain encounters I've read where God totally controls the experience, like Calvin's I think. Like him and Luther (if I recall), my strongest sense was that of God's sovereignty, which heavily flavors my theology today. (My background is 18 years as RC, the remaining 34 as moderate-to-conservative Protestant) The small snatches I've caught from various sites, mostly Catholic, I think, place CP in the volitional category of spiritual experience.

Will read up on the links and try to educate myself better. My comments reference what I call the fragmented spirit, which stands against orthodox thinking about the new birth or regeneration in that I see the human spirit as in simultaneous possession of both true (life) and false (evil) information or essence. The notion of fragmented spirit suggests a multiplicity of properties, which I think accounts for the fragmented state of good and evil in each indiviudal. The orthodox notion of human spirit "born again" in a single, instant event simply doesn't ring true with experience, nor does it provide a proper epistemic foundation for evil yet existent in the intellect, as I see it.

My comment was only intended to mean that I suspect that CP, being volitional in nature, is subject to the same corruption any movement by man toward God must necessarily possess, this by virtue of the false informational structure of the spirit interferring with one's "light". Mysticism, to me, falls in this sphere, and is subjet to error for reasons mentioned above. Not sure if this makes sense to you...just ignore me if it doesn't.

Important distinctions in your last post, Phil. I'm following this dicussion. Thanks.

BTW, I attended a CP group, but not for long. It felt too much like Vipassana meditation, and not at all like simplified prayer, or prayer of simple consent, where relationship with Christ is the focus.

Ha, Bernie. I think you're onto something, but am struggling a bit with differences in how we phrase things. Please do hang with it, as I will. And maybe tell us something about your experience in the Transformative Experiences forum, if you'd like.

Great lover of St. Thomas here. See my thread on God, Self and Ego in the Christian Morality and Theology forum.

Something like CP could be an answer for a hurting post-Christian world!

Sure, Michael, and you're living proof of its efficacy, as are many others. When I get a few more brain cells to recover from this busy day, I'll write some more about what I see going on in CP, and what I think it's value is quite apart from any experiences of grace and contemplation that might arise during the time. I'll also identify some of the risks. What I've done so far is to explore some of the objections raised by Arraj while denouncing some of the erroneous ones raised by some of its critics. That CP presents itself as a means to renew the Christian contemplative tradition makes it fair game for this kind of critique.

Thanks for your response to my message, Phil. I agree with your criticisms. I know that Keating knows St Thomas pretty well, but perhaps he hasn't paid sufficient attention to Thomas' teaching that we do are not able to know God in his essence until the beatific vision, which can't be experienced in this life. Keating himself seems to speak from an experience of ongoing divine union. But most hermeneutical philosophers would likely argue that even if this union accompanies him through daily life, it is in some way mediated, if only because he remains embodied. For St Thomas, too, we remain embodied even in the beatific vision, and even this has a kind of mediation via the lumen gloriae, though Thomas insists that it is really God whom we apprehend (without of course, comprehending him). Again, I think that Keating can veer toward an excessive appropriation of atman/brahman anthropology, which emphasizes, "I am not my body, my mind, etc. etc.," for the sake of getting to the "true self," which is seen to be without any qualification. This is not, in my opinion, Christian. However I think Keating's notion of pure faith is more than this, and has some valid elements, though these would come through more clearly if they weren't conflated with the atman/brahman bias. It's a relief to me to hear others express these reservations. I wish he would correct or clarify these problems before he dies, because I think his movement would have a stronger legacy as a result, at least within the church. As I see it now, the distortions in his thought may only become more magnified in his followers, many of whom do not have the level of theological training he has, and as a result may not be able to maintain the balance he has achieved (despite the flaws in some of his concepts). This was my sense, at least, from some of those I met at a CO retreat, though they were very good and well-intentioned people whose lives have as much value as anyone with theological training. I don't mean to criticize their faith -- I'm thinking more long term, as to what will become of the movement. I do think that Keating's books have many wonderful insights that will remain valid, even if some of his teachings need to be critiqued.

bernie,

I know very little of Aquinas, and would like to learn more about Thomism.

A prayer of simple consent is what I'm looking for. There is no greater among women than Mary. What was her secret? She said, "yes."

Abraham offered his beloved son and all of his hopes and dreams for the future. He said, "yes."

It's a very lopsided covenant transaction in which God offers everything and we have nothing to offer, but the "yes." God is the bridegroom and seeks to love us and give us everything, but we have a difficult time getting to "yes."

This is why C.S. Lewis says that before God we are all women, but the resulting power makes the rest of the world women relative to us.

I'll agree with w.c. that CP seems to be taught like Insight Meditation, but the goal of Buddhism
is to manifest Ultimate Reality and the goal of Christian meditation is to manifest Spirit.(Keating) Some people say that is the same thing, but I don't see it that way.

The question I have is what have the Cistercians been practicing for 850 years, and where does CP depart from that?

Another question I have is why does anything that does not advance us or put ground under our feet in a finacial, edicational, or spiritually materialistic sense is seen as a threat. Why is meditation or having "a heavy date with God" (Keating) seen as a threat to the established order?

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

I can see some of the similarities between CP, vipassana/insight meditation, but a key difference is in CP's orientation of the will toward God. In this sense, it truly is receptive prayer rather than a concentrative practice. It makes use of some of the dynamics of Eastern meditation -- most notably, disidentification, as you all have noted, but it does so with a view of giving oneself more fully to God in the surrender implied by picking up the sacred word, or resting when we sense we are in God's presence. Nevertheless, one can predict that the dynamics of disidentification will lead to experiences similar to what Buddhism and Advaita report. More on this a little later, although PG has made a good start on it by noting how strongly Fr. Keating relied on Wilber and other Eastern-leaning sources in some of his early books.

I'd like to touch briefly on the issue of "pure faith," which PG mentioned above, as well, and which seems to be the real goal of CP practice. Recall the quote above, where even the experience of an inflow of God's love is to be gently laid aside in favor of this pure faith.

See this page, which is a chapter from Intimacy With God, by Thomas Keating.

quote:

Pure faith does not seek rewards of any kind, especially sensible consolation, which might be called "spiritual junk food." The solid food of the spiritual journey is pure faith. It is the "narrow way that leads to life" and is exercised by waiting upon God in loving attentiveness without any specific psychological content.

Here again we note the mention of "pure faith" as the deepest we can go on our own--something to be preferred even over the "junk food" of consolations! Inasmuch as these consolations are often openings to a deeper rest infused by grace, that's an incredible thing to say. Even the phrase, "junk food," has a harshness to it that takes one aback. I'm not saying we should be attached to these, but what's wrong with welcoming them when they come?

Another point: if pure faith is rooted in a realm beyond psychological experience, it would seem that we could be growing in this pure faith whether we have thoughts or not and even all through the day. Why? Because what what goes on in that realm is obviously outside of the domain of our control. Perhaps the unconscious plays a role, here, but, so must the Holy Spirit, if it is really to be about faith. I'm reminded of Paul's teaching that our lives are hidden in Christ; in that sense, even the depths of our faith are hidden from us.

I'm trying to understand the relationship between pure faith and CP. Given the understanding of pure faith expressed here, it would seem that CP could have really nothing to do with its deepening or growth. At best, it would enable us to wake up to ourselves at that level without the static of psychological life obscuring our sense of it. That seems to be the real point, isn't it? There are the teachings on letting oneself rest, but so long as one is having thoughts (even if one is not identified with them), consolations, and even infusions of divine love, the rest is somehow impure, or marred by psychological content.

Whew! I'll stop here, but continue later. Let's hear what you all think about this.

I should add that I have lots of experience with CP and Contemplative Outreach; Thomas Keating is also a friend. So this is "nothing personal." Having given CP a long try years ago, I found it stirred up kundalini energy too much in me to be of much value. Lectio leading to glossalalia and rest are the usual course in my prayer.

I've shared some of these questions with C.O. teachers before, but it didn't go so well. Fr. Keating is fine with these discussions, and I think has tweaked his teaching through the years because of the ongoing dialogues with many. There are C.P. fundamentalists, however, who have little knowledge of spiritual matters and who tend to regard questioning and reflecting like this to be an instance of the false self wanting to control things. At a week-long workshop in Snowmass one time, one of the C.O. leaders told me I was mired in mythic membership thinking because I was concerned about some of the doctrinal implications of CP teaching. "God is beyond thoughts and images," I was told. Blah blah blah . . .

Menninger and Pennington are much more conservative
than Keating. Pennington is a good writer and the type who studies Cannon Law. Keating leans to the theological left, and seems to ride along the edge of orthodoxy.

He was meeting alot of people coming back from India
and wanted to offer the traditional teaching to them. That's a good reason, IMHO.

Thanks to Merton's popularity and Keating leaving the monastery, Christian mysticism is returning from a long Babalonian captivity. I'm great-full
that the Trappists were persecuted in France and
wound up here. France's loss is our gain.

The difference between Cistercian spirituality and
many CP practitioners is indicated by the need and neglect of Lectio. Trappists are praying and doing lectio and going to church several times a day.
Their whole context and mindset is Christian.The average person today is a biblical illiterate.

They are like the Green Berets of Christian mysticism and laypeople in a post Christian culture are more like the weekend warrior reservists. So, agreed, we need more Lectio and Christian education.

I still think that we are very lucky to have the use of his gifts, until other leaders and teachers are prepared by the Spirit and come forward.

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

Elements of the last few posts have resounded with me. In a way Keating's Christian roots are such a part of his way of life as a monk that perhaps he takes certain things for granted that his lay followers do not.

I wonder if his equation of spiritual consolations with junk food is a way of reassuring the practitioners of CP who *don't* experience consolations that they are not barking up the wrong tree. Which may prove some of the criticism that some of you have been offering, which is that CP, contrary to what Keating says, may *not* be for everyone. Not that consolations are the ultimate test, but if a person finds the prayer odious, perhaps they should try something else.

I also think in his equation of consolations with spiritual junk food he may be speaking primarily to a person whose spiritual life *began* with consolations, but then tapered into aridity. He's saying that the aridity is not a sign that you should give up.

Apparently this is a question he dealt with at some point, for in one of his books he writes of a religious who for years prayed without consolation, and one day found herself in union with God. He said that her story changed his view of contemplative prayer (before, as I remember, he really did wonder if those who did not experience consolations were barking up the wrong tree).

At another point he speaks positively of consolations, saying that, if a person has a lot of consolations, it may be because they really need it b/c of emotional privation or wounds from childhood.

Some of his diatribe against consolations is aimed, I think, at forestalling spiritual pride in those who have them.

In many ways, I would say that Keating's teaching tends toward the contextual and practical, rather than the systematic. He's giving advice in reference to particular situations, which may account for some of the inconsistencies. One person may need to be told, "don't give up b/c of aridity." Another, "don't take pride in consolation." Another, "consolation is what you need." I find all three elements in his writings.

As to the characterization of K. as a liberal (I try to stay away from these words, but they have a limited utility, I suppose), I would say, yes and no. Yes, with regard to some of the tendencies we've already written about. No, for these reasons: His meditations on the gospels are very traditional, he seems to embrace the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness, of Christ as Logos Incarnate, and of the Paschal mystery as the source of salvation. I have found him speaking of these things frequently on his tapes at least, with a real sincerity, depth, and devotion. He also speaks of the infusion of the theological virtues and gifts of the Spirit in Baptism as the basis for divine union. Hmmmm...

I do think him to be a lovely person, and I think his presence has been an occasion for conversion to and increase in charity for many folks.

All good points, w.c., MM and PG. I think it might help to note that the over-arching context for the development of a formal teaching on CP was to respond to the growing number of Christians who were turning East for inner experiences, believing there to be just nothing similar in Christianity. Keating, Pennington and Menninger came up with this method, or, actually, systemmatized a teaching about it and began offering retreats. Even the structure of the retreats is modeled on zen, however -- dinging the bell, sitting for 20 min., ding the bell, stand up and do a meditative walk, sit quietly, ding the bell, etc. Lectio is given only perfunctory attention -- a short psalm or other reading at the beginning of a sit. That's been my experience, at least.

It also might help to note that, in the classical tradition, what's being called centering prayer was the prayer of simplicity or simple regard. St. Teresa of Avila writes about this at length. It's a radically simplified prayer, usually coming at the end of a period of lectio or another kataphatic prayer form. The pray-er is recollected -- i.e., the mind and will are oriented toward God, but there is no evidence of the prayer of quiet, which is the first taste of contemplative grace. A simple word or phrase helps to maintain the state of recollection, and generally this comes from the Scriptures just read or prayers prayed.

It also happens that mature Christians who take time regularly for prayer and who lead virtuous lives are in a state of perpetual or habitual recollection. For these people, the prayer of simplicity/CP can help to sustain and deepen recollection.

But for those who are not in a state of recollection, I think CP is tough going. They experience what, in another thread, w.c. described at length as the "internal dialogue." When moving into prayerful silence, this flow of verbiage can seem to be a tumultuous rapids against which the sacred word is virtually powerless. It would be far better for people in this state to do lectio divina and postpone CP until such time as they are recollected. My opinion, here, but it's one I've not heard taught in C.O. There, the thinking seems to be that most anyone can benefit from CP even from the start. I have my doubts about this.

- - -

What do you all think are the positive benefits of CP apart from the contemplative graces that come to some who practice it? Your personal experience, here, or observations of others' would be helpful.

Yes, Phil, I see the potential for some difficulties in terminology. I suspect most here are practicing Catholics...??...and I'm way out of the pack in current jargon. Haven't done the Catholic thing for many years. (Give you a hint...when I studied to be an altar boy in 3rd or4th grade, the Mass was still said in Latin...yikes.)

For starters, what is "pure faith"? "Pure" as distinct from....non-pure faith?

I read Dreher's article more closely, and do not share his dread of monism...my own theology is that the underlying essence of reality is a monistic information, from which meaning arises somewhat as attribute from thing. As such, I see no harm in contemplating a pantheism of sorts. As long as we use the Holy Scriptures as the standard of prescriptive truth by which such ideas are judged, they pose no spiritual threat that I can see.

This being said, I empathize with Dreher's concerns, too. I concur with him in part because much of what is brought under consideration in Christianity from eastern religions appears to be done so without using Scripture as a yardstick to keep the anti-Christian stuff at bay. I don't see how your comment that he is "dead wrong" in his understanding of what is being taught can be applied in blanket form over the entire range of CP. Being new to the discussion (and concept of CP), I have no idea how big it is, but my question is, how can you be sure that literally every participant makes the same critical distinction between participating IN God and participating WITH him?

Mysticalmichael, I know I've seen you on other boards, must have you confused with another as far as the Aquinas thing goes.

(Still wanting to hear comments about positive benefits of CP)

Bernie, how do you reconcile Scripture's teaching about creation with pantheism? I just don't see it anywhere in Scripture; quite the contrary.

..my own theology is that the underlying essence of reality is a monistic information, from which meaning arises somewhat as attribute from thing.

I can see your point about underlying monistic information, which could be construed as God's intelligence, will, creative power, etc. But how do you conceive this in relation to creatures? As you mention being OK with pantheism, it would seem that you're not drawing ontological distinctions between creatures and Creator.

(Maybe we can go more into this on your thread about your book? Feel free to copy/paste from my comments to that one, if you'd like.)

My comments about Dreher's judgment of CP being wrong were based on what CP teachers teach moreso than on what participants are doing. CP isn't focused on the self, as Dreher alleges, and that's a big mistake on his part. Once one rejects that assumption, the rest of his criticisms are irrelevant, imo.

- - -

Edit: I don't think the majority of the "regulars" here are Catholic. Some are not even professing Christians. I would guess that about half are Catholic, at most.

Good discussion . . . I can easily identify with the need for recollection as the ripening leading us to receptivity of infused contemplation. Recollection doesn't disparage, or exclude, any aspect of the human imagination, and so there is probably tremendous effort, as Phil points out, for those coming to CP without a visceral sense of recollection, as it partly unifies the senses with the will and intellect, generating a quieter mind that is still relationally intent. Excellent point, and quite pratical for spiritual direction, I'd think.

Hi all, am new to this site writing from Australia.(thanks for the reply email Phil, its been helpful).
I started practicing cp about 8months ago. I recently had a intense energy experience with CP and have stopped practicing except briefly after lect. It feels lect leads well into cp. I have been thinking a lot about where centering prayer fits into the other dimensions of christian prayer and am really grateful that cp is being addressed on this discussion board.

Solsta:

Welcome, and here is a link to Lectio Divina, one of my favorite on-line resources for the practice:

http://www.valyermo.com/ld-art.html


This Benedictine group also provides retreats devoted to the topic.