Posted on 07/14/2008 5:39:34 AM PDT by NYer
Good grief. One only gets to know who God really is through scrpture. Anything else can be misleading and false. Hopefully church fathers at least began with scripture in their writings. Anything else IS misleading and false.
We are probably in the minority here, but I agree with you that this website is about the most ridiculous thing I have seen.
UPDATE!!!
Freeping really works! After seeing the article you posted, I wrote an email to the pastor of this church voicing my concerns about the speaker. The pastor responded to my email swiftly and charitably. Here is his response to me:
“Dear (my real name),
Thank you for taking time to pass on your thoughts on the event planned here at St. Olaf this weekend. Until today, I was unaware that Ms Bourgeault was a public advocate for homosexual marriage. After consultation with the Centering Prayer group here at the parish, who, along with the Minnesota Contemplative Outreach, invited her to speak here, the decision has been made to move the event to another site and remove St. Olaf sponsorship.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Fr Mark Pavlik
Pastor”
- End -
Hope that’s encouraging for all of us. This priest should be commended for taking action when it was called to his attention.
BTW - feel free to ping this to whoever might care.
Eeeeeeeeeeeeewwwww!!!
Ya done good. ~And so did Fr. Pavlik.
No, I don’t agree with everything that Merton wrote; however, I don’t think he should be lumped in with some of the modern wingnuts.
True, but "centering prayer" isn't contemplation. The problem with "centering prayer" is that it centers on the self, rather than God. It's a dangerous form of self-hypnosis.
With what wingnuts should Merton be lumped in with? His views are certainly not Biblical. Is there an older bucket of wingnuts? But Merton is 20th century, so he’s really not far from the moderns in terms of time. Or beliefs.
You're a good Christian Mary, but... where's that in the Bible? Luther's Bible-alone thing is mystifying to us Catholics and Orthodox.
Matthew 18:17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
1 Timothy 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
Matthew 28:19-20
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
Okay, for the sake of argument, let’s remove Merton from the list. Aside from the fact that he was a staunch anti-Protestant, what is the problem with Loyola? What about John of the Cross or Brother Lawrence? Have you ever actually read the books these men wrote or do you simply have a list of quotes that you rely upon to criticize them?
Do you have any theory on why Thomas Aquinas and Thomas à Kempis were both omitted from the list of “dangerous” mystics?
I care not to take the time to try and pick off every mystic RC you care to name. I cannot, nor do I care to, explain why LightHouseTrails did not name Thomas Aquinas or Thomas à Kempis. As with all humans, one needs to be careful not to accept the person and defend all he says - one must “test all things, hold to the good”. All humans have error, if some have sound teaching, hold to that, not the person.
John of the Cross advocated the pursuit and use of “spirit guide” for spiritual enlightenment. Any alarms with that? Thomas Aquinas was a pantheist, believing God dwells in all creation.
Here’s an extract from LightHouse on Brother Lawrence, from this page: http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/brotherlawrence.htm
Brother Lawrence is often quoted by contemplative authors for his habit of what he called “practicing the presence of God.” But what was the actual nature of this presence? Was it something that would reflect the true character of God? I find the following account from a devout advocate of Brother Lawrence both questionable and disturbing:
It is said of Brother Lawrence that when something had taken his mind away from love’s presence he would receive “a reminder from God” that so moved his soul that he “cried out, singing and dancing violently like a mad man.” You will note that the reminders came from God and were not his own doing. (Gerald May, The Awakened Heart (New York, NY:HarperCollins, First HarperCollins Paperback Edition, 1993) p. 87, citing from The Practice of the Presence of God by Brother Lawrence, translated by John Delaney, Image Books, 1977, p. 34.)
Brother Lawrence says that secret conversations with God must be “repeat[ed] often in the day,” and “for the right practice of it, the heart must be empty of all other things.” He speaks of the trouble of wandering thoughts and says that the habit of practicing the presence of God is the “one remedy” and the “best and easiest method” he knows to dissolve distractions. (from A Time of Departing, 2nd ed., p. 146-147)
(Fr. Michael Pavlik) mpavlik@stolav.org
And hey, sandyeggo! Mrs. Muliebrity! What an inspiring Limerick. Got me thinking about the subtle complexities of heresy:
There was a creative Ms. Gnostic
Who "improved" on the Sign of the Cross-tic:
Her arms and legs got
In a terrible knot
T'would be simpler to be an agnostic.
Ruh-roh: that’s MARK Pavlik. Sorry!
Again, I will ask, have YOU ever actually read any of these books or do you simply rely upon what others say about them?
I might also point out that in your zeal to smear Catholics, you should also realize that Thomas à Kempis and certainly Thomas Aquinas have ALWAYS been held in extremely high esteem by Protestants.
well, Gnosticism has many heretical doctrines. If she teaches heretical doctrine then it hurts the church.
1.) I try to spend my reading time on solid material. I see no reason to read books by Merton, Aqiunas, Leonard Sweet, Brian McClaren, et. al. I wasted enough time reading Rick Warren’s “Purpose Driven” books and Bruce Wilkerson’s mystical “Jabez”.
You err in assuming I have a zeal to smear Catholics. Why are so quick to jump to conclusions and claim victim hood? Error is a smear unto itself. I have a zeal to expose false teaching and make known Truth.
I care not whom many Protestants hold may hold in high esteem - I do not answer to them and their opinions do not sway me. Many of them (Protestants) approve of Earth worship, occult spiritual practices, and myriad other heresies. This is why only the Scripture can be one’s guide - men are prone to error.
I am not advocating heresy or believing anything un-Christian. I do not support gnosticism. I do not support witchcraft or sorcery. I certainly do not support satanic practices, which I think are profoundly evil and altogether wrong.
I can see the concern with self-hypnosis and TM (transcendental meditation, which as the beatles found out 40 yrs ago was a complete scam).
I just thought the authors of the first article were painting all meditative practices and all Christian mystics with way too broad a brush.
So, you use NO BOOKS aside from the Bible? No concordance, no commentaries, nothing?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.