Father Richard Rohr
- Thread starter wil
- Start date
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,191
- Reaction score
- 528
- Points
- 108
Contemplative prayer, contemplative tradition, and contemplative mind. Why is the word "contemplative" a keyword for "contemplative" Christians? These terms could have easily been called meditative prayer, meditative tradition, meditative mind, and meditative Christian?
Meditation already means something else in Christianity, a more cognitive activity.
Rule of thumb: What Christianity calls contemplation, most Westerners nowadays would recognize as meditation, and vice versa.
Rule of thumb: What Christianity calls contemplation, most Westerners nowadays would recognize as meditation, and vice versa.
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,191
- Reaction score
- 528
- Points
- 108
Yeah, I was wondering if there is a slight difference in meaning.
Well at first I was impressed, as Rohr has been influenced by the Perennial Tradition, as have I, but there we part company.
So, what do I know?
Rohr seems to be one of those people who's tapped into the zeitgeist and translates a quite profound doctrine into something rather light and fluffy, inoffensive and therefore universally acceptable. He also seems clued up on all the post-modern spiritualist buzzwords. He writes for a particular market (his popularity cannot be under-estimated, although I wonder if this is largely US-based?), and although he makes many theological and doctrinal claims, he avoids publishing 'scholarly' works and thus avoids the process of peer review that separates the wheat from the chaff, and challenges the claims and assumptions that populist books are want to make.
One reviewer notes:
"This careless compilation of Sunday-school errors and wishful thinking permeates Rohr’s use of Scripture as well... "
"The 'my Father’s house there are many mansions' is not, when read in context, a proof text for progressive agendas of diversity and inclusion as Rohr supposes it to be ... "
"And when Rohr mocks the image of God as an old man with a white beard on a throne (p 67) and heaven as a place where we sit on clouds with harps — he demonstrates a lack of symbolic sensibility and seems to be unaware that such images drawn from the Book of Revelation might actually have some important theological content — but this does not fit Rohr’s agenda."
The large theological ideas are a confused smorgasbord of mystical and fringe idealism, throw in some panentheism and universalism (which Rohr defends in a footnote as being found both in the fathers and in Scripture, which it ain't); mix a little, borrow a little ...
For someone who claims the value of the Sophia Perennis, he misses the key point entirely — find a path and walk it.
Rohr’s popularity points to the ‘post-truth’ age that we live in. He affirms the prejudices of his market share, and affirms their self-good self-opinions, and reinvents God as someone who, despite what those nasty old nuns and priests said in Sunday school, is fine with it. God is the ultimate laid-back dude, the 'yeah, whatever' who understands that I am like I am because that's who I am ...
Does it really matter, for most readers, if the illustrations he cites as certainties which prove his case simply are not true? No, not when I can feel better about myself? How can it be flawed if he cites all those famous spiritual maxims and aphorisms?
Is Richard Rohr a heretic? Doubtful. His thinking does not appear to be sufficiently formed or coherent to offer an actual alternative to orthodox faith.
What worries me more is that, because his reading of Scripture is so poor, and his use of other theologians so piecemeal, that to stay with his line of thinking, your only option is to read more Richard Rohr, or others who agree with him. In that regard, and contrary to his claims of liberation and freedom in discipleship, he is making his readers ever more dependent on his own work.
Those Jesuits...
As for Rohr's 'Perennial Philosophy', I think from looking further it's in the line of Aldous Huxley and Ken Wilber, so not really an expression of the Sophia Perennis as it is generally understood, but yet again a teaching that's repurposed for the western liberal spiritually-oriented individual ... more Boutique Religion as defined by David Bentley Hart.
Not the philosophy/metaphysics of the likes of Guénon, Schuon, Pallis, etc.
Not the philosophy/metaphysics of the likes of Guénon, Schuon, Pallis, etc.
Raises hand..
Lectio Divina – Divine Reading – traces back to the 3rd century.
A brief definiton might be:
Seek in reading and you will find in meditation; knock in prayer and it will be opened to you in contemplation
St John of the Cross
Basically it's an ascent though different ways of praying, although each stage is prayer. There are four steps: lectio, meditatio, oratio, and contemplatio.
The progression assumes Scripture reading (lectio), then to meditate upon the text (meditatio), or the meaning of the text, then to focussed prayer as dialogue (oratorio) and finally silent contemplation (contemplatio).
All four are present in each — as ever, all these 'stages' are somewhat constructs, whereas the reality is quite more organic and not so formal. And the same four repeat themselves in a kind of spiral of deepening meaning.
Christian meditation should not really be equated with Buddhist meditation for example, as the aim of the two disciplines are quite different and distinct, any more than Buddhist meditation should be treated as a form of prayer, it's not.
A brief definiton might be:
Seek in reading and you will find in meditation; knock in prayer and it will be opened to you in contemplation
St John of the Cross
Basically it's an ascent though different ways of praying, although each stage is prayer. There are four steps: lectio, meditatio, oratio, and contemplatio.
The progression assumes Scripture reading (lectio), then to meditate upon the text (meditatio), or the meaning of the text, then to focussed prayer as dialogue (oratorio) and finally silent contemplation (contemplatio).
All four are present in each — as ever, all these 'stages' are somewhat constructs, whereas the reality is quite more organic and not so formal. And the same four repeat themselves in a kind of spiral of deepening meaning.
Christian meditation should not really be equated with Buddhist meditation for example, as the aim of the two disciplines are quite different and distinct, any more than Buddhist meditation should be treated as a form of prayer, it's not.
Taken from the article in Wil's link.
'Unless Christians rediscover the "bigger heart" and "bigger mind" of the mystical and contemplative tradition, the church will be unable to make positive change in the world — or reform itself, said spiritual author and teacher Franciscan Fr. Richard Rohr.'
All very easy to say, and all very appealing, but somewhat lacking in substance. I can't think of any organisation, or institution, at any time, that would not nod its head at such sage advice, the words being couched in whatever terms applicable to the organisation. It's puff.
'And the "master of the mystical life" is Thomas Merton, the Trappist monk and spiritual writer who died 50 years ago today, Rohr said in a keynote address at a conference marking the half-century anniversary of Merton's death.'
Is he? I don't think he is. Not a master, not really. he had something to say, certainly, and he was a contemplative, certainly, but because he is popular, that does not make him a master.
"Merton gave us the tools to develop a deeper sense of consciousness and therefore conscience," said Rohr, criticizing the kind of "kindergarten Christianity" that makes an idol of a political party or country.
You mean those tools were not there in the Tradition?
This is what happens when someone preaches to his marketplace. I wonder how many of those who buy his books or attend his lectures are orthodox Catholic, and how many of those have taken the trouble to educate themselves in the Church's deeper doctrines.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for 'a deeper sense of consciousness' — it's a process that's as old as the Church and we have a name for it, mystagogia, basically ongoing spiritual formation beyond the catechetics we received at school. I wrote my thesis on it. The Church — especially Benedict XVI — called for it. The problem is, I don't think those like Rohr who have steeped themselves in the contemporary mindset, have the fluidity and insight into symbolic language both of Scripture and patristic commentary to begin to approach it ... In all his neo-panentheism, his inclusivity, his whoo-hoo spiritual aphorisms, I have yet to read anything in Rohr (and to be fair, I've hardly dipped, and to be honest, I doubt I'll bother) that comes anywhere close to the insights of St Augustine in one line of one sermon ...
"That's heresy," said Rohr ... '
Oh, the self-aggrandisers do like that word...
"God loves people on the other side of the border as much as on this side. A lot of Christians don't know that."
That's your fault, then. You're a teacher ...
And then the rest devolves into American politics ...
...
"But many clergy did not embrace contemplation, Rohr said, because it threatened their "job security."
Or perhaps it's because they know that if they did, the pews would be empty ... I think Rohr speaks from the little ivory tower of his Franciscan monastery.
"If you teach contemplative prayer, then the need for mediators is much lessened," he said. "You don't need Father."
That's the popular consumer version. The truth is, if you're going deep, you need mediator/supervisor/director more than ever.
For Rohr, "the mystical mind, the contemplative mind, is the pearl of great price," which can address almost every pastoral, political and relationship issue, he said. "It doesn't teach you what to see; it teaches you how to see."
All well and good ... but the mystical mind is not the goal of Christianity, nor even the desire of most Christians, nor even — here's a biggie — the goal of Christ ... He never mentions it, does He? His religion is far more practical.
"Instead, people must discover the "true self" — the imago dei in oneself and others, Rohr said, citing Merton: "What we must become is what we already are."
See, he doesn't even fecking know who Merton was citing ...
"God is just another word for everything," Rohr said. "Don't say you love God if you don't love everything."
In the word of the philosopher: Bollocks.
Or, put another way, yes, that's true. And God is, first and foremost, so utterly different that the distance between the two — God and anything you care to mention — is unfathomable, immeasurable, etc., etc.
Something to chew on ...
'Unless Christians rediscover the "bigger heart" and "bigger mind" of the mystical and contemplative tradition, the church will be unable to make positive change in the world — or reform itself, said spiritual author and teacher Franciscan Fr. Richard Rohr.'
All very easy to say, and all very appealing, but somewhat lacking in substance. I can't think of any organisation, or institution, at any time, that would not nod its head at such sage advice, the words being couched in whatever terms applicable to the organisation. It's puff.
'And the "master of the mystical life" is Thomas Merton, the Trappist monk and spiritual writer who died 50 years ago today, Rohr said in a keynote address at a conference marking the half-century anniversary of Merton's death.'
Is he? I don't think he is. Not a master, not really. he had something to say, certainly, and he was a contemplative, certainly, but because he is popular, that does not make him a master.
"Merton gave us the tools to develop a deeper sense of consciousness and therefore conscience," said Rohr, criticizing the kind of "kindergarten Christianity" that makes an idol of a political party or country.
You mean those tools were not there in the Tradition?
This is what happens when someone preaches to his marketplace. I wonder how many of those who buy his books or attend his lectures are orthodox Catholic, and how many of those have taken the trouble to educate themselves in the Church's deeper doctrines.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for 'a deeper sense of consciousness' — it's a process that's as old as the Church and we have a name for it, mystagogia, basically ongoing spiritual formation beyond the catechetics we received at school. I wrote my thesis on it. The Church — especially Benedict XVI — called for it. The problem is, I don't think those like Rohr who have steeped themselves in the contemporary mindset, have the fluidity and insight into symbolic language both of Scripture and patristic commentary to begin to approach it ... In all his neo-panentheism, his inclusivity, his whoo-hoo spiritual aphorisms, I have yet to read anything in Rohr (and to be fair, I've hardly dipped, and to be honest, I doubt I'll bother) that comes anywhere close to the insights of St Augustine in one line of one sermon ...
"That's heresy," said Rohr ... '
Oh, the self-aggrandisers do like that word...
"God loves people on the other side of the border as much as on this side. A lot of Christians don't know that."
That's your fault, then. You're a teacher ...
And then the rest devolves into American politics ...
...
"But many clergy did not embrace contemplation, Rohr said, because it threatened their "job security."
Or perhaps it's because they know that if they did, the pews would be empty ... I think Rohr speaks from the little ivory tower of his Franciscan monastery.
"If you teach contemplative prayer, then the need for mediators is much lessened," he said. "You don't need Father."
That's the popular consumer version. The truth is, if you're going deep, you need mediator/supervisor/director more than ever.
For Rohr, "the mystical mind, the contemplative mind, is the pearl of great price," which can address almost every pastoral, political and relationship issue, he said. "It doesn't teach you what to see; it teaches you how to see."
All well and good ... but the mystical mind is not the goal of Christianity, nor even the desire of most Christians, nor even — here's a biggie — the goal of Christ ... He never mentions it, does He? His religion is far more practical.
"Instead, people must discover the "true self" — the imago dei in oneself and others, Rohr said, citing Merton: "What we must become is what we already are."
See, he doesn't even fecking know who Merton was citing ...
"God is just another word for everything," Rohr said. "Don't say you love God if you don't love everything."
In the word of the philosopher: Bollocks.
Or, put another way, yes, that's true. And God is, first and foremost, so utterly different that the distance between the two — God and anything you care to mention — is unfathomable, immeasurable, etc., etc.
Something to chew on ...
Yes, the primary concern of the Church is not to make a better world. Of course, when the Church can contribute towards making a better world it does, and always has done in countless ways, for centuries.
But the first job of the Church is to provide for the soul, not essentially to change the world. Nature is nature. Some things never change. The first commandment trumps all the others. It's a point lost on the humanists.
Lol.
I binged on this one too. Diamonds and clay are essentially equal. Diamonds have no special intrinsic value. Dung is everything in life to a dung beetle. But all things are not the same: there is such a value as discrimination, and it is more about personal values than social ones?
Last edited:
Thomas, the depth of your understanding of the Catholic church history, doctrine, issues and solutions exceeds 99% of lay.catholic stateside, 90% of those in serious study, and a good many of our priests, IMO.