quote:

Originally posted by Derek:
...
That's an interesting distinction, and one I hadn't heard before. Is it related to the distinction between acquired contemplation and infused contemplation?

I don't think so Derek. I had to pause and look up acquired contemplation again, though I'm still puzzled as it seems like an oxymoron to me.

Let me think more on how to elaborate on my point of Created and Divine Orders, as two levels of reality. For starters, infused contemplation clearly parallels the Divine Order, the New Adam, Christ in us. We can see/experience this through the gift of infused contemplation and other mystical graces but also through the more slowly produced transformations of our character towards higher virtues and love. The Divine Order brings us into eternity.

The Created Order is more like the Ground of Being, the is-ness, being-ness of what God has already done. We're swimming in it all the time so we don't see it. The NOW of Tolle is, I gather, his seeing this reality, which will perish. w.c.'s reflections on this are better than I can do on the subject. (w.c.! Come back!)

quote:

Originally posted by Shasha:
I had to pause and look up acquired contemplation again, though I'm still puzzled as it seems like an oxymoron to me.

Well, you're not the only one! Jim Arraj wrote a whole book (From St. John of the Cross to Us) about the difficulties surrounding the notion of acquired contemplation. Briefly: St. John of the Cross had no such notion and by "contemplation" always meant what we would today call "infused contemplation"; later writers came up with the term "acquired contemplation" and in so doing introduced all kinds of confusion.

Pierre Pradervand

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WegAgepCYfo

pointed me at:

http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Now-...Saints/dp/157174584X

I guess it's along the same lines as Eckhart Tolle.

But where are Brother Lawrence, St. Juste, de Caussade, St. de la Colombière and so forth...?

Fred

Hi Fred, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you summarize your point in your own words, so that we don't have to follow links?

Derek,

As is already exposed on this thread, I feel that although Rohr and many others are very pro-Eckhart Tolle, I just wanted to say that what I learn from classical Christian writers (one great example stays de Caussade!)is something different from the teachings of Tolle and spiritual teachers on f.e. mindfulness a.o. practices these days.
Mindfulness/meditation is of course a part of the Christian heritage, but it is within human reach, while I always feel pressed to add that infused contemplation and even adoration of Christ and veneration of Mary are still something entirely different.I tend to believe more and more that the apparitions of Morther Mary are by no means by accident or superficial!And also not that she urges us to pray the rosary which is a most powerful weapon against the enemy.John Paul II and many others were fond of this prayer form. I still am trying to balance practices such as CP/Christian mediation/mindfulness/body scan/body work... with my devotional side however.
I also feel that in certain circles you don't find a word about reparation, vicarious suffering, victim souls and so forth, all teachings that are tmho essential to Christian faith.
So I have difficulties with all those syncretistic books these days about living in the now, expanding your consciousness and the like...
Moore's book which I mentioned is also along the same lines.
Am I because of saying this someone of teh more conservative camp? I don't really know...
Maybe I have a non-rational aversion against everything that sounds like syncretism or quasi sectarian as you put it elswhere:

I've pretty much given up on these modern psychological / vedantist / zen / nondual / gnostic / whatever books that purport to reveal the true meaning of the gospels.

Marcus Borg in his 'The Heart of Christianity' suggests that there are, increasingly, two types of Christians, and that the line dividing them crosses denominational lines. The first type of Christian “views the Bible as the unique revelation of God, emphasizes its literal meaning, and sees the Christian life as believing now for the sake of salvation later— believing in God, the Bible, and Jesus as the way to heaven. Typically it has also seen Christianity as the only true religion.” The other type of Christian “is the product of Christianity’s encounter with the modern and postmodern world, including science, historical scholarship, religious pluralism and cultural diversity. Less positively, it is the product of our awareness of how Christianity has contributed to racism, sexism, nationalism, exclusivism, and other harmful ideologies.”

I don't agree fully with this division. I only feel inclined to prefer the older Catholic mystics and writers who were aware of the many dimensions (not only literally) of Scripture. I appreciate people like Panikkar, Griffiths, Steindl-Rast, ... but as Michael casey once wrote me: 'I don't envy their job'!
I have an old book by the Protestant missionary
http://www.olivetreelibrary.co...tle=Johan_H._Bavinck
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Herman_Bavinck
Christ and eastern Mysticism and I challenge everyone to read it.

PAX
Fred

So I totally agree with what this Guido says here:

http://anamchara.com/2010/02/2...tions/#comment-17461

I've read De Caussade's Abandonment to Divine Providence and I liked it a lot. But I hadn't heard of it until a few years ago. I think if these old books were better known, there would be less need for the modern ones.

Marcus Borg is an Episcopalian. That denomination is breaking up and was in decline anyway. When a denomination becomes simply a reflection of secular culture, people slowly drift away.

I totally agree with you.
Read f.e. this Burl Hall on the mentioned exchange. I know this kind of language: an esoteric mixture of Christianity, Buddhism, Jung and Eastern ideas. Not that everything is non-sense but what does it matter?
It's indeed a pity that classic writers are not known anymore.
Some people like B. Mc Ginn, A. Louth, B. Groeschel, our own B. Standaert all advice me to keep reading the Bible and the great mystics.
What is all this fuss about anyway?

Fred

quote:

Marcus Borg in his 'The Heart of Christianity' suggests that there are, increasingly, two types of Christians, and that the line dividing them crosses denominational lines. The first type of Christian “views the Bible as the unique revelation of God, emphasizes its literal meaning, and sees the Christian life as believing now for the sake of salvation later— believing in God, the Bible, and Jesus as the way to heaven. Typically it has also seen Christianity as the only true religion.” The other type of Christian “is the product of Christianity’s encounter with the modern and postmodern world, including science, historical scholarship, religious pluralism and cultural diversity. Less positively, it is the product of our awareness of how Christianity has contributed to racism, sexism, nationalism, exclusivism, and other harmful ideologies.”

That's much too general, in my opinion, pitting a kind of fundamentalist Christianity against a modern/postmodern variety. To me, the growing division is between orthodox and neo-gnostic Christianity. The former isn't opposed to making use of psychology, science, and what's good and helpful in other religions; the latter sees as these as somehow contradicting or diminishing the traditional perspectives about God and creation, the fall, incarnation, salvation, etc.

I've been meaning for some time to start a thread on what I'm calling, here, the new, neo-gnostic Christianity. Stay tuned!

In the meantime, I once again recommend Jim Arraj's very fine work, "Can Christians Still Believe?"
- see http://innerexplorations.com/chtheomortext/chmys.htm

Also, Jim's "Christianity in the Crucible of East-West Dialogue."
- http://innerexplorations.com/catew/christia.htm

Jim, to me, was a very fine example of an orthodox Christian who was open to making use of what was good, true, and helpful from a variety of disciplines without losing his perspective on the essentials.

I read Eckart Tolle's A New Earth, Awakening to Your Life's Purpose, last year.

It was an interesting read but as far as spirituality, it was more pyschology 101.

In fact years ago, Archbishop Fulten Sheen wrote much of the same things concerning the ego and the defense mechanisms that we develope over our early days of growing and how we must come to know our true self, the ID, in order to grow.

However, unlike Tolle, Sheen as well as other Catholic Spiritual writers show, it is through the transforming grace given to us by God in Jesus Christ, that we are able to shed the false masks that cover our true identity. The ego is weakened through humilty.

That being said, I do like Tolle's teaching that when we live in the present, we weaken the ego's influence, for the ego can only live in the past or the future.

Jim

Hi Jim,

Welcome to the forum, and "Amen" to the points you make. It would do this generation lots of good to read Bishop Sheen, or, better, to listen to him preach.

Peace, Phil