RCIA instructor led us in centering prayer!

[josephback]

It caught my attention because I remember somewhere on here (prayer intentions or spirituality?) that centering prayer is forbidden. I did a quick Internet search and read some of the dangers. I also had a similar invitation/experience in Ecuador (which I didn't participate in)but it was very clearly new age and there was no Christian pretense to it. I'm gonna bring this up with the teacher.

Has anyone else experienced this sort of thing?

[Julia Mae]

Originally Posted by josephback

It caught my attention because I remember somewhere on here (prayer intentions or spirituality?) that centering prayer is forbidden. I did a quick Internet search and read some of the dangers. I also had a similar invitation/experience in Ecuador (which I didn't participate in)but it was very clearly new age and there was no Christian pretense to it. I'm gonna bring this up with the teacher.

Has anyone else experienced this sort of thing?

Yes. I have no problem with it. Few people are versed in any sort of contemplative techniques so I assume they were just looking to introduce the concept. I think the controversy is blown way out of proportion, but it does raise hackles and so I believe actual discussion of the technique is not allowed here. There are other sources for meditation and contemplation. I know of no official Church ban.

[JM3]

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...stiana_en.html

12. With the present diffusion of eastern methods of meditation in the Christian world and in ecclesial communities, we find ourselves faced with a pointed renewal of an attempt, which is not free from dangers and errors, to fuse Christian meditation with that which is non-Christian. Proposals in this direction are numerous and radical to a greater or lesser extent. Some use eastern methods solely as a psycho-physical preparation for a truly Christian contemplation; others go further and, using different techniques, try to generate spiritual experiences similar to those described in the writings of certain Catholic mystics.13 Still others do not hesitate to place that absolute without image or concepts, which is proper to Buddhist theory,14 on the same level as the majesty of God revealed in Christ, which towers above finite reality. To this end, they make use of a "negative theology," which transcends every affirmation seeking to express what God is and denies that the things of this world can offer traces of the infinity of God. Thus they propose abandoning not only meditation on the salvific works accomplished in history by the God of the Old and New Covenant, but also the very idea of the One and Triune God, who is Love, in favor of an immersion "in the indeterminate abyss of the divinity."15 These and similar proposals to harmonize Christian meditation with eastern techniques need to have their contents and methods ever subjected to a thorough-going examination so as to avoid the danger of falling into syncretism.

16. The majority of the great religions which have sought union with God in prayer have also pointed out ways to achieve it. Just as "the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions,"18 neither should these ways be rejected out of hand simply because they are not Christian. On the contrary, one can take from them what is useful so long as the Christian conception of prayer, its logic and requirements are never obscured.

[Khalid]

It seems to me to be heterodox at the least (and I believe the Catechism condemns it, although don't quote me on that) to try to synergize/syncretize the Most Holy Faith handed down by our Lord and his Apostles with what is widely considered a "New Age" practice (although I believe it was aped from, and is a bastardized form of, certain kinds of Buddhist and Hindu meditation/prayer: that is, if I am interpreting "centering prayer" correctly, as the Wikipedia article seems to put an entirely Christian spin on it, although Wikipedia often isn't a paragon of accuracy, especially on controversial issues - I generally don't trust articles I haven't written).

If the entire "centering" exercise can't be done away with completely, and if a similar Christian practice is desired: although I am not a fan of the practice (at least at advanced levels where visions are evoked and a not-quite-right division in the Trinity - the essence-energies distinction of Palamas - is introduced), it seems to be that basic hesychasm (prayer of the lips) could be used to much better effect - being Christian instead of heathen, and immeasurably more effective as it invokes the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and causes us to reflect on our miserable estate as sinners.

Edit: the above poster seems to have found the relevant Catechistic sections, and I am not sure whether my interpretation is correct or in line with the mind of the Church; it further seems that some intermixing is permissible, and it falls to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

From my limited experience, I have seen far too much heterodoxy preached in the name of the Church by various individuals and organizations, to the point of one church I know of still using the inclusive and rejected Grail Psalter (during Mass) and hosting a feminist speaker on "removing 'exclusive' [i.e. not feminist or 'inclusive'] language wherever it may be, whether in personal discourse or the Bible or the Mass" (from how certain think, one would be convinced that Gregorian Chant or the Latin language - likely any language with a grammatical gender - is the ultimate heresy). It seems as if orthodoxy is not always easy to come by, and not always in the places one would expect, and one must be always discerning for the snares of heterodoxy and worse (that's one thing I liked about the Orthodox Church - whatever else can be said of it, it can never be accused of being anything but unflinchingly orthodox).

[Margie9]

There's a reason for the joke that RCIA stands for "Really Creative Ignorant Apostasy."

I am amazed that anyone becomes Catholic after going through one of these programs, and that includes those taught by priests. Centering Prayer, the "Spirit of Vatican II", divorce is now OK with the Church, genuflecting to the Blessed Sacrament is not done, contraception is a personal choice, the Resurrection may just be symbolic, Mary may not have been a virgin, Jesus did not work miracles (the loaves and fishes was just a bunch of folks sharing their lunch pails), Sunday Mass is optional, Universal Salvation is now doctrinally accepted, there's no such thing as hell, or maybe there is but only people like Hitler and Saddam go there.

These are some of the enlightening ideas you may learn in RCIA. Buy an inexpensive paperback Catechism, or if that's too wordy, get "Catholicism for Dummies" or other introductory book, but you may have to come back to CAF before you buy it so we can tell you if it's solid! Rely on these.

Then sit back and listen and do trust the teacher, but think with a bit of a critical mind. Be suspicious of the workbooks they probably give you. Sure, be open but also don't be afraid to question. Hey, maybe you will have a good, accurate class. But you will get much more out of it with some reference tools to measure against the class.

Centering Prayer, if it continues, say nicely, "I don't feel completely comfortable with that; I'll just wait over here until you're done." No, it is not banned by the Church! I could give you the pros and cons and history of the controversy, but it is really nothing but a side issue for now. Forget it. If you're just starting to learn, focus on the fundamental truths of the Faith, the Sacraments, Church history, Scripture, etc.

Pay close attention at Mass and maybe get (if the parish has not provided) one of these little explanatory books, such as by Magnificat or Ignatius, that gives the reason and explanation of the new translation. Just ask questions, but if you get lame answers, drop it and look up on your own or come here.

[Khalid]

Originally Posted by Margie9

There's a reason for the joke that RCIA stands for "Really Creative Ignorant Apostasy."

I am amazed that anyone becomes Catholic after going through one of these programs, and that includes those taught by priests. Centering Prayer, the "Spirit of Vatican II", divorce is now OK with the Church, genuflecting to the Blessed Sacrament is not done, contraception is a personal choice, the Resurrection may just be symbolic, Mary may not have been a virgin, Jesus did not work miracles (the loaves and fishes was just a bunch of folks sharing their lunch pails), Sunday Mass is optional, Universal Salvation is now doctrinally accepted, there's no such thing as hell, or maybe there is but only people like Hitler and Saddam go there.

I've heard of some of that (not bending the knee to the body of our Lord, Jesus didn't work miracles), but I've never heard of such damnable apostasy as "divorce is okay", "contraception is a personal choice", "the Resurrection may be symbolic", or "Mary wasn't a virgin" and "universal salvation" (excepting that "anonymous Christian" stuff, which I personally disagree with) preached in the name of the Catholic Church. That's not to say certain Catholic scholars (Ray Brown) haven't expressed some of those views about the historicity of the New Testament as hypotheses, but haven't taught them as dogmatic fact to the masses, but are published in small runs on university presses for the college student, seminarian, and religious intelligentsia that can handle it, or are interested in the Bible as a formative document of Western culture, not inspired Scripture. Not preached to the standard, high-school-educated, folk-pietistic, John Public Catholic layman (that's also the root of a lot of my problems with the NAB annotation: that's it's marketed to the average Catholic, and if an average individual reads the annotation, I can't see how they'd keep the faith, unless they said, "the people who wrote this Bible are idiots" - I guess that's what an overweening fideism does). Maybe I should be happy that I didn't go through RCIA and should count myself lucky that I live near a traditional Catholic church (with the "church-like", i.e. reverent, classical architecture and all, instead of some of the sterile white rooms with a cross hung over one end that I've seen) that celebrates the Tridentine mass and is relatively conservative - maybe I live in a conservative microcosm of Catholicism.

As an Orthodox, I was considered extremely liberal; as a Catholic, I'm considered quite conservative - holding the same views in both places.

On those last three, if they're true... why is there any need for the Church, or for Jesus, or even religion? If we did not have first parents who sinned, we did not inherit original sin, and thus don't need salvation. If Jesus wasn't resurrected in the body, Paul himself tells us that his preaching (the New Testament) and our faith (Christianity) is a falsehood and vanity. If the Blessed Virgin Mother of God wasn't a virgin - forgive the utterance - how could she have borne a savior, since the entire line would have been conceived in sin? Even Protestants believe that Mary was a virgin when she birthed Jesus, even if they impugn her honor by accusing her of carnal knowledge afterward. If everyone is going to be saved, why do we even need to seek God or try to walk the path of moral integrity? It seems those views would devolve into practical atheism in short order.

The whole divorce and contraception things are mortal sins and contraventions of the natural law, but don't have to do with the truth and necessity of Christianity. The "Spirit of Vatican II" has been abused, but our current Holy Father seems to be doing his best to put a stop to the most egregious modernist interpretations that break with or even denounce received Sacred Tradition. The documents themselves are not nearly as liberal as the liberals make them out to be, but, like the Bible, people who are intellectually dishonest or capable of dealing with a good deal of cognitive dissonance (like those who deny first parents, the virgin birth, and the Resurrection, but still say they're Christians) can interpret anything in any way to conform to their views, just like pro-homosexual, pro-birth-control interpretations of the Bible that I've heard - arguments which often drop to the Richard Dawkinsian level of argumentation, e.g. "the Hubble telescope hasn't found Heaven, and our drilling platforms haven't found Hell, therefore God doesn't exist and the universe created itself, and everything in it is random".

If your post wasn't hyperbole (I often have a hard time detecting hyperbole and sarcasm, especially on the internet), I can't imagine how far some of the "Church" has fallen - as far as Christianity goes, let alone Catholicism, people who hold those views are apostate. One can't believe that man evolved from ape, didn't have first parents, that Jesus was conceived by natural means in a sinful mother, and wasn't resurrected and didn't work miracles, and still be a Christian.

Even though it doesn't work very well for general reasons, I would challenge those who hold to those views to a nice game of CS Lewis - that is, Lunatic, Liar, or Lord.

[josephback]

Originally Posted by Margie9

There's a reason for the joke that RCIA stands for "Really Creative Ignorant Apostasy."

I am amazed that anyone becomes Catholic after going through one of these programs, and that includes those taught by priests. Centering Prayer, the "Spirit of Vatican II", divorce is now OK with the Church, genuflecting to the Blessed Sacrament is not done, contraception is a personal choice, the Resurrection may just be symbolic, Mary may not have been a virgin, Jesus did not work miracles (the loaves and fishes was just a bunch of folks sharing their lunch pails), Sunday Mass is optional, Universal Salvation is now doctrinally accepted, there's no such thing as hell, or maybe there is but only people like Hitler and Saddam go there.

These are some of the enlightening ideas you may learn in RCIA.

So far we haven't learned any of this. I hope not too.

Thanks for your coments everybody

[Julia Mae]

16. The majority of the great religions which have sought union with God in prayer have also pointed out ways to achieve it. Just as "the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions,"18 neither should these ways be rejected out of hand simply because they are not Christian. On the contrary, one can take from them what is useful so long as the Christian conception of prayer, its logic and requirements are never obscured.

I don't recall Archbishop Chaput having an issue with it.

[quiet52]

Originally Posted by Margie9

There's a reason for the joke that RCIA stands for "Really Creative Ignorant Apostasy."

This is like saying if one priest is "bad" all priests are bad.
Please do not unmercifully indicate an entire group of people (RCIA leaders) because of what some of them do.

[iloveangels]

Originally Posted by josephback

It caught my attention because I remember somewhere on here (prayer intentions or spirituality?) that centering prayer is forbidden. I did a quick Internet search and read some of the dangers. I also had a similar invitation/experience in Ecuador (which I didn't participate in)but it was very clearly new age and there was no Christian pretense to it. I'm gonna bring this up with the teacher.

Has anyone else experienced this sort of thing?

Yes, it's dangerous and can lead you into trouble over time. On the other hand, if you are in RCIA, all you have to do is get through the program and then you don't have to do centering prayer anymore [or anything else weird and wacky]. Once you're in, you're in.

PS. I'm a convert myself and saw some strange things in RCIA too. But hey, in is in. I've been Catholic more than 25 years now, and I've never looked back. Welcome home!

[iloveangels]

Originally Posted by Margie9

There's a reason for the joke that RCIA stands for "Really Creative Ignorant Apostasy."

LOL. Sometimes, yeah.

Depends on the parish. From parish to parish, this program can diverge a lot.