Freddy
-
Total Posts
:
150
- Joined: 11/3/2008
-
Status: offline
|
Re:GREAT THEOLOGY
-
6/12/2009 5:17 AM
( #6 )
Yes, dear Jude, it is strange I am still so perplexed by this issue of modern versus traditional. I think it is as a Christian important to see very clearly the implications of Vatican II. I wish to be faithful to Christ and faithful to His mystical body the Church. I can testify that the fullness is to be found here! There are really great and profound writers within the 20th century Catholic movement of ' La nouvelle théologie': H.U. von Balthasar, Y. Congar, H. de Lubac, J. Daniélou, J. Ratzinger (now pope), R. Guardini... The point is however that there is a big confusion in our time about several things.I don't like fundamentalism, but neither do I like syncretism! I said I had received T. Ryan's book and then I read this review. It seems to be so difficult in our time to keep things in proper balance. As I said before, I don't wish to extinguish the unique figure and redemption work of Christ! So, maybe what follows here is just rubbish by some conservative fundamentalist who wants to be 'holier than the pope'? I was also reading on Beatrice Bruteau, who says here [link=http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j21/bruteau.asp]http://www.enlightennex...magazine/j21/bruteau.asp[/link] : ...And do you know what they told me in my classes at the Mission? They told me Catholicism was Vedanta in European dress."
Big question mark: ??? 10 of 17 people found the following review helpful:  Not really Christian meditation, January 9, 2007 By [title=http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/al2y3setnaexk/ref=cm_cr_pr_pdp][title=http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/al2y3setnaexk/ref=cm_cr_pr_pdp]C. Norman (California, USA) - [title=http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/al2y3setnaexk/ref=cm_cr_pr_auth_rev?ie=utf8&sort_by=mostrecentreview]See all my reviews [title=http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=cm_rn_bdg_help?ie=utf8&nodeid=14279681&pop-up=1#rn] I'm not sure what Thomas Ryan, in Prayer of Heart and Body, is saying about whether the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus Christ are necessary for our salvation. The internal logic of his statements seems to contradict a Christian theology:
1) On page 22, apparently from his own voice and his own conviction, he states, "Most of us don't realize this Spirit within because we are living in a fallen, illusory (? FD) state of sin."
2) Later, on page 33, he says, also apparently in his own voice, "There is no getting around the fact that Christianity is a religion for those who are aware that there is a deep wound, a fissure of sin that strikes down to the very heart of our being. It is a spiritual path for those who have tasted the sickness that is present in the inmost human heart estranged from God by guilt, suspicion and self-seeking. If that sickness is an illusion, then there is no need for the cross, the church, and the sacraments." (But Ryan doesn't seem to say this, quite on the contrary! FD)
3) On page 113, in his conclusion for Part I of the book, he seems to take the position that the Cross is not necessary when he states, "There are many different ways of meditating taught in the religions of the world. But if one wishes to go deep, it is important to choose one's path and be faithful to it. Many Christians have found it necessary until recently to seek life-giving disciplines for their journey from teachers in other faiths because they did not find them in their life in the church. As I have tried to expose in these pages, Christian faith offers its own [here non-Christian readers might infer "superfluous and unnecessary"] deep well of contemplative experience and counsel. We are blessed to live in an age where the full richness of it is being recovered and widely shared [but just what richness that may be is impossible to say, since Ryan implies there is apparently no life in the church without the meditation styles of Eastern non-Christian religions]."
Another problem I see with Ryan's teaching is his obvious emphasis on technique in this book. The Catholic Church warns against the reliance on techniques, per se, in Christian meditation:
From Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of Christian Meditation, by Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, October 15, 1989:
"23. Without doubt, a Christian needs certain periods of retreat into solitude to be recollected and, in God's presence, rediscover his path. Nevertheless, given his character as a creature, and as a creature who knows that only in grace is he secure, his method of getting closer to God is not based on any technique in the strict sense of the word. That would contradict the spirit of childhood called for by the Gospel. Genuine Christian mysticism has nothing to do with technique: it is always a gift of God, and the one who benefits from it know himself to be unworthy."
One last note of caution from the same document just quoted above:
"28. Some physical exercises automatically produce a feeling of quiet and relaxation, pleasing sensations, perhaps even phenomena of light and of warmth, which resemble spiritual well-being. To take such feelings for the authentic consolations of the Holy Spirit would be a totally erroneous way of conceiving the spiritual life. Giving them a symbolic significance typical of the mystical experience, when the moral condition of the person concerned does not correspond to such an experience, would represent a kind of mental schizophrenia which could also lead to psychic disturbance and, at times, to moral deviations." My own and my family's indescribably painful experience bears out the truth of this warning. Nonetheless nowadays there is more emphasis on 'the light is there within' (MONISM?) than 'we are walking in darkness and need salvation' (???) For somone like St. Bernard of Clairvaux grace or the Holy Spirit came and went and he didn't know how...It is never a possession of our own! I was confronted by a similar negative review on H. de Lubac's 'The Splendour of th Chruch'! By [title=http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/a3iqqyd9z3mo1t/ref=cm_cr_dp_pdp]Thomas J. Fortino "TJ" (Roswell, Georgia) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME) After reading The Splendor of the Church I can not understand why Henri De Lubac was rehabilitated by Pope John Paul when his ideas had been condemned by the Infallible Magisterium of the Church prior to the Vatican II council. The previous reviewer is right in that this theologian, being a Modernist (Modernist Heresy), had a great influence on the council and its results....and the resulting loss of Catholic identity and confusion that prevaled after the council due to the "reforms." If you do read this book, be sure to read what the Popes taught on the nature of the Church prior to Vatican II. They are in direct contradiction to what De Lubac teaches. My own advice is to stay away from this theologian...lest you pick up heretical ideas. Stick with the Thomists and the Scholastic Theologians, otherwise you may be in danger of losing the faith. Its your choice. But why slum around when there are such orthodox treasures to to mine in the Church. Stratford Caldecott (Oxford) (see last post!) http://www.secondspring.co.uk/ [title=http://www.sophiainstitute.com/]http://www.sophiainstitute.com/ [title=http://www.secondspring.co.uk/articles/annex.htm]http://www.secondspring.co.uk/articles/annex.htm wrote me: Yes, that comment is just stupid. He can't tell the difference between Modernism (a cluster of heretical ideas) and Nouvelle Theologie/Ressourcement - a common mistake among Catholic fundamentalists.
Sometimes the internet can be dangerous if one doesn't have a solid grounding in some field that enables one to distinguish the quality of what one finds - it can often look very impressive but be based on false assumptions. The 'discernment of spirits' also applies to the internet - if a site makes you feel depressed and angry, or other negative emotions, it may well be inspired by a bad spirit. This one I think is good: http://ressourcement.blogspot.com/ Greetings, Fred PS Love/faith/hope and knowledge/reason go hand in hand, which seems to be forgotten sometimes. Thomas Aquino was very clear at this point!
|