quote:

Terri quoted Thomas Keating:

Apophatic (darksome) contemplation:
The exercise of pure faith; resting in God beyond concepts and particular acts, except to maintain a general loving attention to the divine presence.

Kataphatic (lightsome) contemplation:
The exercise of the rational faculties enlightened by faith: the affective response to symbols, reflection, and the use of reason, imagination, and memory in order to assimiliate the truths of faith.

And Terri continued:
Father Keating has this to say as well:
A proper preparation of the faculties (kataphatic practice) leads to apophatic contemplation, which in turn is sustained through appropriate kataphatic practices.

In some respects I believe there is a level of the contemplative in my life, but many times the contemplative life has been seen as reserved for the monastic individual. Things by Father Keating and others are instructive in bringing that contemplative life into reality in our every day lives and that's where my interest lies.

This will at least maybe start us off here.

Thanks, Terri. If there are takers out there, I thought it would be interesting to investigate a broad range of issues that are often related by a similar question: Is this meant for anyone or everyone or just a select or elect few?

This could refer to a certain spirituality, a charism, a prayer form, meditative or yogic practices, infused contemplation, the gift of tongues or any other spiritual exercise, discipline, evangelical counsel or you name it. It could include the distinctions drawn between active and passive contemplation or whether or not acquired contemplation even exists in our traditions.

Does what I am describing ring a bell as a phenomenon, that is, as a recurring issue or discussion topic you've encountered?

pax tibi,
johnboy

Good topic starter, JB, and one, as you know, that our friend Jim Arraj has written about at length.

I'll say for starters that my own preference is to use the term contemplation as it is used in the Catholic tradition--to refer to mystical states initiated and sustained by God to communicate God's Spirit directly to the human spirit.

That point made, I think there's a lot that can be said about the value of preparation, "contemplative practice," and even praying for contemplative graces. There are also good and holy states of silence which can ensue from contemplative practice which might not meet the criteria for "infused contemplation" as described by John of the Cross, but which nontheless enhance inner growth and a flowering of the gifts of the Spirit.

And, just to stir the pot a bit more, I'll go on record, here, as saying that spontaneous glossalia is a form of contemplative prayer. Perhaps others who have been granted this gift can speak to this as well.

re: I'll say for starters that my own preference is to use the term contemplation as it is used in the Catholic tradition--to refer to mystical states initiated and sustained by God to communicate God's Spirit directly to the human spirit.

How does one distinguish between such states vis a vis direct vs indirect or other modes of God's communication? in either sanjuanist or ignatian or other terms of discernment? and how do they correspond to Maritain's approach? What about Benedictine tradition, the Hesychast practice of our Desert Fathers and Mothers? You have addressed glossolalia, but what about Centering Prayer and the tradition of The Cloud of Unknowing?

I'm partially pulling Phil's leg. Before we launch into our esoteric non-topic-starter gibberish (me and PSR), I thought I'd invite and direct everyone to Phil's PRAYER IN THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION .

Please take this thread in any direction you feel led, friends.

in Him,
jb

Hello hello,

In reference to the "this", my thought is that it has to do with being the Body of Christ. Not everyone is a contemplative...not everyone is a counselor...not everyone is "active"...etc. It always brings to mind the scripture that says....can the hand say to the foot, I don't need you? Each function is needed, yet each function is not the same as the other.
God has created each person as unique and individual, yet with the ability to be a part of the whole. It seems to me that perhaps this, in and of itself, is a major part of "being". I also believe it's a topic that isn't given the proper due of instruction. Things change in a spiritual sense when it becomes a reality to each individual that this journey is not only about "me", but rather about "us", who is a part of the "He".
Thanks for getting it going JB, and Phil...I'm really looking forward to the posts that we'll read .

God bless,
Terri

I think that part of this discussion can center around the idea of spiritual gifts. Does everyone possess spiritual gifts? Of course, does everyone exercise them? Maybe.

Paul's discussion of spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians sheds some light. One point he makes, and I think this is critical to understanding, is that the greatest of all gifts is love.

Glossolalia, we are reminded, is the least of the gifst of the Spirit, and should be used for God's edification. I have always been in the position that I still do not think I have that perfect love that drives out fear, and desire this gift above others. I will investigate glossolalia once the greater gifts are achieved.

This is kind of a crude response, but I also think that we need to consider issues of timing. Life experiences have convinved me that lifting up the right response at the wrong time really causes more damage than help. I literally watched a deacon tell a grieving widow who had just lost her husband to suicide that there were "other fish in the sea". This was an attempt to help her, but at the wrong time (there also could have been a better way to say it, but you should get the point)

There are times in which these forms are important, but the real issue for me is, how do you know when? I think that we can rely upon the Spirit's edification to some extent, but are there tell-tale signs, etc...?

Dear Questor--

My answer to the questions at the end of your post would be: meditate/listen/discern... whatever practice you use to keep your heart open. Spiritual things have a way of surprising us if we are open to possibilities.

I'm not saying that we are all going have the same "surprises" but we will have fewer if we decide ahead of time how the Spirit "should" act in our lives. My humble opinion only.

From my own experience: I don't fit any definition of Christian that I have ever heard and don't consider myself to be one, but at some point, I began to feel an urge to investigate the ministry of Jesus, finding things there I admired. Then I became confused and anxiously wanted an immediate answer to the question "Am I a Christian or not?" Then another urge in my heart to stop worrying about it. So I have tried.

And feel now that I am preparing myself for whatever comes next and have been spending mroe time in Christian contexts, whereas previously, by demanding an answer, I was obstructing any kind of spiritual flow.

I don't know all the gifts of the Spirit. I think there are some specific ones mentioned in the bible, but I'm wondering if there aren't many more. As JB mentioned, some groups have a special affinity for certain things that aren't shared by others, and at the same time, certain states of mind/being are shared by spiritual people in common.

If one can live with the question unanswered (as your mentor--a closet Buddhist perhaps? --pointed out to you) this practice will keep one's heart open. How can a gift be delivered through a closed door?

One other point from my perspective--I think a person might miss a big opportunity if apprehension causes him/her to refuse to accept a gift once it manifests itself.

shanti

Well, I'm not sure which way to go with this, especially given the very big questions JB asked in his follow-up to my post above.

First, I will say that as with so many other things, asking for and receiving a gift like glossalalia is not an either-or proposition with respect to other spiritual gifts. We don't have to become super charitable before receiving this gift, or any other. Glossalalia in particular, while considered "least" in terms of its value to the community, is a very great gift in the life of prayer, which is why Paul also states in 1 Cor. 14 that he wishes that all had this gift. It is a good gift--even an important one. Not indispensable, of course, but its value in terms of deepening prayer and enabling an ongoing flow of the Holy Spirit within is undeniable in my experience. All of which enables a deeper realization of some of the other gifts.

I think I'll stop here before going on and diluting the subject covered in this post, which still does resonate with the thread topic.

For me, the first Scripture that comes to mind in such a consideration, even one as broad as this one vis a vis the manner in which I framed it, is 1 Corinthians 12. So, in that regard, I agree with Questor that some light can be shed by St. Paul. Further, I agree with Questor that a very central concern is the gift of love, following the 13th Chapter.

I likely moreso agree with Phil's analysis of glossolalia but, without speaking directly to the points either he or Questor were making there, I do feel like in speaking to that issue Questor framed up some very important considerations.

One of those is timing, whether in the more narrow sense of the right time and the right place for the exercise of gifts or in the broader sense within the context of developmental psychology and formative spirituality. Another consideration is assigning weights, greater and lesser, to the gifts. Although we could quickly go far afield of our present consideration in looking at the gifts in relation to one another, I think Questor's introduction of the idea of greater vs lesser is important, especially insofar as discernment processes will invariably raise questions of ordinacy, in a lot of different ways, for any human activity or spiritual exercise.

On the question of timing, the great Carmelite mystics and Church Doctors, John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila, set forth guidelines for discerning what prayer forms are suitable for this person or that on this or that part of the journey. On the question of there being manifold pathways, even within a chosen spirituality, Therese of Lisieux, another Carmelite, has been a favorite of the masses because of her Little Way . Yet another Carmelite, Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection, gives another example of the virutes of simplicity.

Clearly, if nothing else, the existence of manifold and multiform religious orders in the Church, all with distinct spiritualities, and the existence of different vocations, all affirm the notion of E Pluribus Unum, the diversity of ministry in a unity of mission . As such, these approaches would, de facto, not be universal norms.

Also, I'd like to set aside indifferentism , up front, that is to say that it doesn't matter which path one follows. At the same time, I'd like to set forth the Ignatian motto, AMDG, ad majorem Dei glorium , for the greater glory of God, because it's not always a matter of discerning what is THE way to salvation that we are about, hopefully, but is quite often a matter of discerning how one can see Him more clearly, love Him more dearly and follow Him more nearly, day by day.

So, two norms that I introduce for ALL are Questor's reference to Love (cf 1 Corinthians) and the Society of Jesus motto AMDG. Is that a fair statement? Are there other ways of saying this or additional criteria anyone would like to add? Also, once we accept these as normative, as applying to all, and returning more directly to our consideration of prayer forms, are there any that are truly meant for all? that this or that tradition, including nonChristian traditions, would prescribe as necessary for one to advance in holiness? (So, yes, I have bifurcated out justification and sanctification issues to keep things from getting too complicated).

Just brainstorming here.

love,
jb

I'm not sure if this is in exactly the same train of thought as some of the posts here about timing and love, but it is scripture that came to mind. In 1 Co.8, Paul is warning against causing a "weaker" brother/sister to stumble by the practices that the "stronger" ones engage in. Weak and strong being "less mature in faith" and "more mature in faith". Should this also be applicable to what we determine is a type of prayer or receiving of a gift? I'm sure we've probably all seen or know of instances where much damage was done by the attitude that "if your faith was strong enough" you would experience so and so...or you would engage in "this type" of prayer, etc. So, I'm wondering, doesn't this speak to us of the appropriate timing?

I'm also wondering if this is where mentoring is so needed. It seems that in days gone by, it was just a given that someone more mature in faith would take someone less mature under their wing and, if nothing else, be a sounding board for questions. Is this, too, a part of the timing and love?

As I said, I'm not sure if this is exactly along the lines of what we're discussing here, but I guess it's one of those things I ponder a lot because of my own experiences. Any comments?

God bless,
Terri

Thanks Shanti for your direct response. I think you are on to something important and might add that we also must be willing to accept that our timing sometimes will be a little off. How many times did Ben Franklin have to discover the wrong way to make a lighbulb before he found the right one?

It also reminds us that we have much to learn from our mistakes, sometimes more than from our successes.

I am not sure how to respond to the end of JB's last post, especially to the reference to non Christian traditions. Specifically because I think that the discipline of prayer takes on different goals for different religions. The goal of prayer can even be different for people within the same tradition, be this Christian or not, based upon their own personal need or place in their own development.

While I think it is helpful to have a suggested order similar to what you mention from the John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila, at the same time I think any program of prayer has to be based upon individual needs and understandings. I personally, would enjoy a model as a starting point, but know my own self well enough to know how I would also be willing to take the program s a guideline and would experiment with it myself, as would others.

I would also like to address an issue Terry raised about mature Christians mentoring the less mature in prayer, or actually in any other form of religious thought. The danger, at least as I see it, is to fall into a hierarchical pattern that ascribes greater value to one person than another. Can we really say that this person is more "spiritual" than another? Does the development of spiritual disciplines or spiritual gifts make one person "more spiritual" than someone who does not? My feeling is no.

I met with an 8 year old boy yesterday to talk about his upcoming decision to make a public profession of faith. I asked him why he felt like this was the time to make this public, and he told, "Because I want people to know that Jesus has asked me into his heart." The beauty of that statement just overwhelmed me, and continues to do so. That conversation had nothing to do with maturity, but had a lot to do with insight, and I am grateful for this young Christian.

I reserve some trepidation about heirarchy and would welcome insight, no matter how mature or immature...

Let me respond to these two paragraphs from Questor's last post as taken together:

While I think it is helpful to have a suggested order similar to what you mention from the John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila, at the same time I think any program of prayer has to be based upon individual needs and understandings. I personally, would enjoy a model as a starting point, but know my own self well enough to know how I would also be willing to take the program s a guideline and would experiment with it myself, as would others.

I would also like to address an issue Terry raised about mature Christians mentoring the less mature in prayer, or actually in any other form of religious thought. The danger, at least as I see it, is to fall into a hierarchical pattern that ascribes greater value to one person than another. Can we really say that this person is more "spiritual" than another? Does the development of spiritual disciplines or spiritual gifts make one person "more spiritual" than someone who does not? My feeling is no.
+++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++

I pretty much agree overall. As far as the Big Carmelites are concerned, I think John of the Cross' discernment process for whether or not one's aridity in prayer means, for instance, backsliding, acedia or the beginnings of contemplation are useful, pretty much in the same manner that Ignatius' discernment guidelines for desolation and consolation are useful. While there has been some very good work done by folks like Piaget, Kohlberg, Erikson and others on stages of cognitive, moral, personality development and such, in general, and Fowler on faith development, in particular, when it comes to "stages in spiritual development" in the study of formative spirituality, most spiritual directors would discourage directees from focusing on where they are on the path or how far along they or anyone else might be on the journey. Like Questor said, our journeys are highly individualistic. I think that the great mystics and spiritual writers of our various Christian traditions, though they do seem to speak in terms of a progression of sanctity, mostly provide us with touchstones for the journey rather than stepping stones. That is to say that when we experience certain phenomena or even epiphenomena in prayer or have this or that experience of consolation or desolation, of aridity and dryness or of sweetness and delight, for varying durations of and/or periods in time, they help us to avoid getting disoriented or feeling alone or unique; they help us to discern that we are on THE way but not so much WHERE we are, necessarily, along the way. Such writings as concerning Juan's Ascent or Teresa's journey through Interior Mansions have much to teach and can inspire us but there are just far too many caveats that could be listed here about how one could go astray by focusing on position, progress, etc

Spiritual gifts, by the way, are not a measure of sanctity. They are given freely. One can dispose oneself toward them or prepare for their reception, but one cannot coerce the hand of God. One can, however, close the umbrella and stand in the falling rain and thereby get wet that way (Questor, you used the word "achieved" in relation to the "greater" gifts and I assumed you meant that in a highly nuanced manner.) It has often been said that we have experienced, in our times, a New Pentecost, partly in response to John XXIII's invocation, and that a new outpouring of gifts vis a vis I Cor 12 ensued. I have often wondered if we are being readied in this "new age" for a new Ascension, a period wherein some sensible consolations and visible manifestations are withdrawn to yield a new outpouring of the fruits vis a vis Gal 5:22. Whatever the case, we will always be given enough sufficient to the needs of the day; but truly, haven't we been given an overabundance by our prodigal God? Should we not strive in love all the more?

Terri, as far as mentoring is concerned, many of us have been blessed with such a relationship. Even when not formal in setting, sometimes just the right mentor comes along, an elder in some regards (not necessarily age) or someone proficient in this or that spiritual discipline. There is also a model of spiritual direction that could be considered less hierarchical per se and moreso a companioning as fellow pilgrims . This is sometimes an indispensable supplement to other forms of community support, especially in times of transition and upheaval. I say indispensable but many go without it. It's like the old saying that some people come into our lives for a reason, others for a season, still others for ... ...

I'll leave the treatment of nonChristian norms to others. I just wanted that door open for dialogue.

pax,
jb

Hello all ,

First I wanted to respond to this:

I would also like to address an issue Terry raised about mature Christians mentoring the less mature in prayer, or actually in any other form of religious thought. The danger, at least as I see it, is to fall into a hierarchical pattern that ascribes greater value to one person than another. Can we really say that this person is more "spiritual" than another? Does the development of spiritual disciplines or spiritual gifts make one person "more spiritual" than someone who does not? My feeling is no.

I'd like to clarify that what I meant by mentoring is that all of us along this journey come to places where we need someone to bounce things off of...or at least that's been my experience. Many times, just the example set forth by someone who is more mature in their faith than I am has helped me to grow. I apologize if it sounded like I was saying "more spiritual" versus "less spirtual" or that gifts make one "more spiritual". That wasn't my intention.

JB's comment more clearly states what I was getting at:

There is also a model of spiritual direction that could be considered less hierarchical per se and moreso a companioning as fellow pilgrims . This is sometimes an indispensable supplement to other forms of community support, especially in times of transition and upheaval.

There have been many folks in my life that were able to help me through some questions and trials. I'm really thankful for them. There was a certain comfort I had when Brother Anthony would call me his "daughter in the faith". His wisdom and spiritual experiences were of tremendous help to me. Something like that, I guess, was more what I had in mind as mentoring.

As for gifts...I figure it's whatever God wishes . He's so merciful in His activity in our lives.

God bless,
Terri

Questor's experience with the eight-year-old boy reinforces my belief that teachers can come to us in ways we might never expect.

I also have feelings about religious hierarchy. I benefit from being in the presence of and listening to those I consider incarnated, enlightened, holy, or righteous--or all of the above. Sometimes they are people in leadership roles, sometimes they are not. I've always felt that a person's spiritual authority is earned rather than conferred. My concern is the degree to which a spiritual hierarchy seeks to define/interpret "truth" and the degree to which some people accept the interpretations without spiritual discernment of their own.

My belief in this matter has not only caused me moments of singularity in my spiritual journey so far (I feel I'm better off for that), but could very well keep me from membership in some groups.

RE: "spiritual immaturity." While I know that phrases like this are sometimes used in elitist ways, I also know they can be used more generically to describe a student/teacher or fellow-sojourner relationship of mutual agreement. I have never seen an elitist post by Terri (the most recent person to use the spiritual im-word), so I'm inclined to believe that her use of the concept is benign.

shanti

Terri--You posted while I was composing my post.

Discussion boards don't always let us have the same flow in dialogue we could have if we were all sitting together.

The idea of how people use the concept of spiritual maturity might well be relevant to this thread or be one that people are eager to discuss.

So if your comments trigger a different discussion than the one you had in mind, I'd say you've given a few people the chance to talk about something in their hearts.

Don't worry about it. Discussion board threads aren't always the straight line from point A to point B

shanti

re: The idea of how people use the concept of spiritual maturity might well be relevant to this thread or be one that people are eager to discuss.

Terri and Shanti, I think very much so ... and holistically, too. Drawing those distinctions between cognitive, affective, moral, spiritual, personality and other developments is useful, just as we often distinguish spirit, soul and body, but ... ... well, you already know ... there's a unity there, an integrated whole that suggests, to me, that we can't really totally reify parts of human beings as separate realities even if those parts are useful concepts in our studies and research.

One reason we don't judge is because Jesus issued an injunction. Another is that it is darned near impossible to plumb another human being's depths (part of our Imago Dei). Was it Shanti who brought up fidelity in our other thread? To me, fidelity is born of our awareness of another's depth dimension and is an explicit affirmation of same: I'm going to hang around you because there are ever new and ever more compelling reasons to hang around you that I know I will continue to discover! (in God, spouse, dialogue partner, people, community, etc) That's just one aspect but it is one that powerfully motivates me . Now where did I get that? Heck, I don't know. It was 30 years ago and probably John Powell or Erich Fromm or one of those types with a little johnboysian twist (I say that so as not to leave them on the hook for any of my misconstructions). I've also viewed fidelity as the path to transformation in all relationships, specifically transformation from functional to personal relationships, not with everybody but with those who come into our life for a reason or season or whom we discern we should go deeper with ---respecting boundaries and limits of our and their resourcefulness (insofar as we aren't God).

I read somewhere, recently, I think one of those old Wm. Most essays, that even the fruits of the Spirit operating in a person's life is not an infallible guage of their sanctity over the short term , that this must be discerned carefully over the long term. This seems consistent with the beatification process, which can take years even when accelerated. It is also interesting to note that, while the Church will decalre someone blessed or even a saint , having led a life of heroic virtue and who is most assuredly in heaven, the Church would never declare anyone to have been damned (because there are too many escape clauses by which exculpability could be imputed and we don't believe anyone but God could know such matters). I may have extrapolated crudely vis a vis the real theology of all of this, but my overall thrust is probably close enough to the mark

So, where are we re: universal norms thus far?
All are called to holiness. All are called to give the greatest possible glory to God (AMDG). All are called to love (1 Cor 13). There are many gifts but one Spirit (1 Cor 12), so, presumably, all are called to some gifts such as are conferred in our Sacrament of Confirmation, for instance?

quote:

"The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude,
knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord." (CCC 1831)

"The fruits of the Spirit are perfections that the Holy Spirit forms in us as the first fruits of eternal glory. The tradition of the Church lists twelve of them: charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity." (CCC 1832)

In this regard, we may have enlarged our concept of prayer beyond lectio, meditatio, contemplatio, oratio and collatio to include operatio . This is where the beauty of the little Carmelites comes in, in a kind of "chop wood, carry water" mindfulness sort of way. We can follow the Little Way(s) of Therese and of Brother Lawrence who did little things with much love as a form of prayer, a more or less continuous raising of mind and heart to God. So, in some respect, I'd say the Little Way is normative (and crosses traditions even), even as all forms of meditatio or contemplatio may not be, for instance.

peace, my friends
jb