 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 852 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 29th, 2007 02:49 pm |
|
How am I to understand the call to ascetic practice for individuals in different states of life? Are there degrees of it? Might it be perfectly ok for one person to practice it less than another? Since we are an incarnational religion, can't it ever be good to truly enjoy created things and people? If all of us withdrew as much as certain spiritual fathers seem to suggest, how would those with certain gifts to be used in community or the ability to be hosptitable or counsel ever use their gifts? Can't it once in a while be good for one's spiritul life to enjoy something rather than renounce it? Otherwsie, how could the sacraments be good. Or incense. Or wine. Or why should anyone enjoy sex in marriage. Part of me thinks that while ascetic practice is good, that different people are called to different amounts of it, and that in some situations it is a very holy thing to enjoy arts, entertainment, food, or human affection, so long as we are seeking to tme our senses and keep Christ first. I just find that the more I read of certain ascetic writers the more I feel guilty for ever enjoying anything. I do want to become less and less in love with worldly things, but I do not want ot reject gifts that God is giving me to enjoy. How might I better understand this? I worry that extreme asceitc practice is too similar to gnosticism. I also read (seemingly in contradiciton to some of this) that we are an incarnational religion and that we are to offer all back to God in worship. I also want to make it clear before I ogo on, that those who have been and are called to these types of renunciation, I greatly admire and believe are choosing wisely and pleasing God. My question is how to take their writings if you do not think you are called to the same level, yet they seem to be suggesting tht you should be or are choosing less if you do not.
I question if I really should feel guilty for things like: using condiments on food, enjoying diferent types of music or entertainment (I am a musician), liking bright colors, eating more than one meal a day, taking a vacation, enjoying a romantic evening or affection with my girlfriend. It seems like all of these things would be written about as dangerous by the desert fathers.
I think that if we are not attached to created things, but seek to use them modestly and in thanksgiving that all we do will bring God glory and enhance our spiritual well being. I think renouncing everything for some people would be like taking back gifts that God is asking us to enjoy. It would be like me buying someone something and them simply saying that it is wrong for them to enjoy it. But this is the feeling I get that these monks would warn me against. It would be like admiring an artist, but claiming you know them better by ignoring the meanings and truths found in their paintings or songs. Granted, there is danger in loving their creations instead of them or above them or whatever, but I think that it would be hard to fully love them without some appropriate knowledge of what they have done or said or created.
What I do understand is that we are to live modestly, be attached to nothing, strive to be vigilant against sin at all times, live focused on Jesus and seeking ceaseless prayer. What I am trying to do, is read the book, and allow myself to implement what I can of it, and allow myself to disagree with parts that do not seem right for me personally. But being so much less mature than the writers I feel like I do not have the right to disagree. But it is not the Bible, though it seems so highly regarded that I feel like I simply am a bad person if I can not embrace what it is teaching. But the good thing, is that even if I am wrestling with it, I am trying to take it as a challenge to deny myself more often, and to love God above all things. So maybe it is good that I am reading it.
The other thing I wonder, (and I have only read very little so far) is where is any talk of God's mercy and love. It all seems to be about fear of God and striving for holiness. But where is the encouragement that God is merciful, and will forgive us when we fail? Where is the talk of how much love he has for us? Maybe we like that sort of thing too much nowadays and are afraid to face difficult teachings, but I think that it is a mistake to underemphasize God's kindness and grace as well.
Brian
in fact, if all of us followed these teachings on prayer and renunciation, I would doubyt any of us would have computers or sepnd time using them and this networks positive work would not be happening.
Last edited on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 02:53 pm by brian
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 282 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 29th, 2007 03:43 pm |
|
Brian,
the desert fathers were hermits. they had a vocation for that. these guys had a capacity for renunciation to which most of us are not called. I think you know that.
you are right that we are all called to the spirit of poverty and detachment no matter how we live.
its all about balance and context. God does want us to enjoy His creation. The seventh day is all about re-creation and relaxation. nothing wrong with that.
i was just reading that those who are tempted to scrupulosity frequently ignore the big sin that is the actual problem. its a form of denial to hyper-focus on the wrong things as a way to distract ourselves from dealing with the real issue. This reading also described this trait as over-philosophizing and rationalization. Its a great tool to avoid getting down to business.
Watch out for the big elephant in the room that nobody acknowledges.
Now maybe I should get up from this computer and get back to my boring chores. :X
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2276 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 29th, 2007 06:39 pm |
|
brian wrote:How am I to understand the call to ascetic practice for individuals in different states of life? Are there degrees of it? Might it be perfectly ok for one person to practice it less than another? Since we are an incarnational religion, can't it ever be good to truly enjoy created things and people?
We’ve discussed this on other occasions. What it comes down to, Brian, is one’s own interior conflict. Attachments are attachments, and the conflict will be there until the attachments are removed.
The practice of asceticism is expedient for all. How we should practice asceticism is a question of our own personal need. Some need one thing, others need something else. But there is no one who claims to be Christian that does not need some kind of ascetical practice.
The person who desires to enjoy the fruit of his marriage must first learn how to be faithful to his spouse. The person who wants to enjoy the fruits of money must first learn how to live within the limits the money he earns and not desire his neighbor’s fortune as well. Et cetera.
I recall having recommending that you will find ascetical writers in the west who will appeal to you more. (I’ve read significant portions of the Philokalia, so I understand what you are talking about here.) This is not to disparage the eastern way. It is to say that, on this point at least, you personally probably need a different vehicle than the Philokalia. Regardless; we are speaking of radical renunciation here, and this is what you are having trouble with.
I just find that the more I read of certain ascetic writers the more I feel guilty for ever enjoying anything. I do want to become less and less in love with worldly things, but I do not want ot reject gifts that God is giving me to enjoy.
This puts the question squarely on the table.
The short answer is that until a person gets a grip on his attachments and mortifies them, there is no possibility of truly enjoying the gifts of creation. People who try to do so without mortification doom themselves to possessivism and addiction. Then what they thought was good (and often it is truly good, but now vitiated by these illicit desires) turns against them. It takes more and more to give the same “high” as previously. Eventually there is overdose and danger of death. This is the life of an addict.
The detached person, on the other hand, sips where the other gulps. Because he is not held bound by attachment and possessivism, he does not seek a “high” and therefore does not need to increase the dosage each time.
By the way, in case you have encountered it, the word “apathy” in the Philokalia means “detachment,” not “boredom.”
I question if I really should feel guilty for things like: using condiments on food, enjoying different types of music or entertainment…, liking bright colors, eating more than one meal a day, taking a vacation, enjoying a romantic evening or affection with my girlfriend.
Not “guilty.” That’s the wrong approach. You need to see where you are addicted and restrict those specific things. You need to be “detoxed.” In this way you will be liberated to enjoy them in their proper place, as God intended.
I think that if we are not attached to created things, but seek to use them modestly and in thanksgiving that all we do will bring God glory and enhance our spiritual well being. I think renouncing everything for some people would be like taking back gifts that God is asking us to enjoy. It would be like me buying someone something and them simply saying that it is wrong for them to enjoy it.
True. But this does not negate what was said above. One still has to start with detachment. That “if” clause you begin with is very important.
But this is the feeling I get that these monks would warn me against. It would be like admiring an artist, but claiming you know them better by ignoring the meanings and truths found in their paintings or songs.
You are right in seeing this as the wrong approach. But it is not the same as the one spelled out above. So to equate the two is itself wrong.
What I do understand is that we are to live modestly, be attached to nothing, strive to be vigilant against sin at all times, live focused on Jesus and seeking ceaseless prayer. What I am trying to do, is read the book, and allow myself to implement what I can of it, and allow myself to disagree with parts that do not seem right for me personally. But being so much less mature than the writers I feel like I do not have the right to disagree. But it is not the Bible, though it seems so highly regarded that I feel like I simply am a bad person if I can not embrace what it is teaching. But the good thing, is that even if I am wrestling with it, I am trying to take it as a challenge to deny myself more often, and to love God above all things.
There is little to disagree with if you understand the purpose of asceticism. Because each person is different, not all kinds of ascetical practices are right for all people. But all people still have need of a significant amount of asceticism.
Recall last Sunday’s gospel reading concerning the narrow door. That narrow door is the ascetical way, which opens into the world of the illuminative way and, subsequently, the unitive way. Unless you pass through the narrow door, you cannot see the rest. The wide door, leading to perdition, does not connect.
If all of us followed these teachings on prayer and renunciation, I would doubt any of us would have computers or spend time using them and this network’s positive work would not be happening.
You mean like Fr. Groeschel’s renunciation? How does it inhibit his apostolate? Is it not rather that very renunciation that makes possible his effectiveness as a Catholic spokesman?
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5457 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 29th, 2007 11:49 pm |
|
brian wrote: I question if I really should feel guilty for things like: using condiments on food,
"You are the salt of the earth" (Matt 5:13)
enjoying diferent types of music or entertainment (I am a musician),
"David also commanded the chiefs of the Levites to appoint their brethren as the singers who should play loudly on musical instruments, on harps and lyres and cymbals, to raise sounds of joy" (2 Sam 16:15)
liking bright colors,
"Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these." (Matt 6:28-29)
eating more than one meal a day,
"And the LORD said to Moses, "I have heard the murmurings of the people of Israel; say to them, `At twilight you shall eat flesh, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread; then you shall know that I am the LORD your God.'" In the evening quails came up and covered the camp; and in the morning dew lay round about the camp. And when the dew had gone up, there was on the face of the wilderness a fine, flake-like thing, fine as hoarfrost on the ground. When the people of Israel saw it, they said to one another, "What is it?" For they did not know what it was. And Moses said to them, "It is the bread which the LORD has given you to eat. This is what the LORD has commanded: `Gather of it, every man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer apiece, according to the number of the persons whom each of you has in his tent.'" And the people of Israel did so; they gathered, some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat." (Ex 16:11-18)
taking a vacation,
"So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation." (Gen 2:3)
enjoying a romantic evening or affection with my girlfriend. It seems like all of these things would be written about as dangerous by the desert fathers.
"He who does not love does not know God; for God is love." (1 John 4:8)
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 852 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30th, 2007 02:23 am |
|
Thanks guys. I have no prblem with belieiving in ascetic practice. I just want to know that there is a time and place for everything. That the goal is not to never have any fun, but rather to not be addicted to anything or misuse anything. I am not denying the importance of ascetical praactice, just wondering if some people's approach or teachings are not necessarily the best for everyone. They write so authrotiatively while speaking about some difficult things to accept. But I am going to try to read it and feel more free to apply what I think I can in principle.
Here is something I have been thinking in my mind that makes it easier. Detachment is the path to perfection. But maybe I have been misreading what detachment really is. I almost have seen it as a hatred of all things or a lack of love for anything that is not God. Denying all pleasurable things. But maybe the better way to define detachment is simply 'not being attached' Meaning it is ok to value and appreciate things and people, so long as not in an addicted or attached way. Perhaps detachment allows us to actually see the full beauty in anything becasue it is not something we are relying on, therfore we are actually more free to enjoy it.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2276 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30th, 2007 09:46 pm |
|
brian wrote:Maybe the better way to define detachment is simply 'not being attached.' Meaning it is ok to value and appreciate things and people, so long as not in an addicted or attached way. Perhaps detachment allows us to actually see the full beauty in anything because it is not something we are relying on, therefore we are actually more free to enjoy it.
Yes, Brian, that’s what I’ve been saying.
It works the same way as humility. One can see it as self-centered self-deprecation. Or one can see it as being so other-oriented that one forgets about himself.
David
|
|
|
Current time is 01:01 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
