The Chuch's manner of handling dissidents (e.g., mystics) wasWell it depends what you mean by the question.
It was a rhetorical question that was intended to inquire about the generalization that the mystics confirm church doctrine, which is a position you have taken more than once.
I suppose you could simply ignore the Papal Bull condemning Eckhart von Hochheim, which was issued on March 27th of 1329, which starts out by implying that he was "an enemy of truth." I'm sure some of the accusations in the Bull are just a matter of opinion, and I suppose you could argue that the fact that the accusations and characterizations appear in a Papal Bull is no reason for us to pay any attention. Anyway, see if you think this rises to the level of personal condemnation:Eckhart was accused of heresy and certain teachings were condemned, but he was never personally condemned. The Dominican Order to which he belongs has pushed for clarification on the matter, and announced with some delight that there was no need for a 'retraction' of the accusations against Eckhart because they were never formally pronounced;
If he was not wrong, why did the Pope issue a bull condemning him? The attempt to assert ideological dominion vis a vis Eckkart's writings was rather blatant:Eckhart was not wrong
And you would maintain this despite the aforementioned Papal Bull?as far as the Church is concerned, Eckhart is OK.
Path of One, I find your comments of visualization interesting. Visualization has become an integral part of sports training. Most Olympic athletes visualize a perfect performance before their race. There have been scientific studies that show the benefit to the nervous system, as the nerves actually become better trained at triggering muscles to move as they should through visualizing without actually moving.
I would explore and discover various approaches to meditating as I meditated. The main process was to become aware of what thoughts pop up and distract me, and quiet them. At other times I would focus on feeling love and clear away whatever distracts me from that feeling.
The quotes you mention are from the prologue offered by Pope John XXII, and are not part of the bull itself, which is visible in its entirely here.I suppose you could simply ignore the Papal Bull condemning Eckhart von Hochheim, which was issued on March 27th of 1329, which starts out by implying that he was "an enemy of truth."
The Bull condemns the ideas, and subsequently the man if he persists in them. As Eckhart himself announced his own unfailing faith in Christ and His Church, and withdrew those pronouncements made which conflict with the true doctrine, then the ideas stand as condemned, even by Eckhart himself.If he was not wrong, why did the Pope issue a bull condemning him?
From your polemic perspective. From mine, it's common sense — the assertion of true doctrine in the face of an error. If Eckhart (or anyone else) persists in them "in an obstinate manner", then of course he's a heretic, by the very definition of the term ... it can't be otherwise.The attempt to assert ideological dominion vis a vis Eckkart's writings was rather blatant:
Yep. Read the clarification hereAnd you would maintain this despite the aforementioned Papal Bull?
I would say Henry, the Archbishop of Cologne, who accused Eckhart and who advised the Pope, was far more personally determined to bring the Meister down.As an aside, Pope John XXII apparently went after Eckhart with a personal vengeance.
Are you sure you're not just covering your own that I've despatched one after the other? At least i put up a case, you simply jump to something else to have a go with.Thomas, you are free to defend and minimize all you want - although I'm not sure why you insist on making assertions that are so easy to refute.
There was an issue, and even his most ardent supporters agree there are still issues.The fact remains: if there was no issue, there would not have been any need for him to "revoke" the teachings the Church had a problem with, nor would there have been any need for a "confession" from him. And there wouldn't have been a Papal Bull condemning him.
Let's look at the articles condemned:
The first article. When someone once asked him why God had not created the world earlier, he answered then, as he does now, that God could not have created the world earlier, because a thing cannot act before it exists, and so as soon as God existed he created the world.
The ideas expressed here, that God comes into existence; that the world is eternally created (if God is indeed eternal, which the prior text suggests not) are both evidently erroneous.
Are you saying the meaning is any different on account of where the language appears??The quotes you mention are from the prologue offered by Pope John XXII, and are not part of the bull itself
Eckhart was not alive when the Papal Bull was issued. How would he have refrained from the conduct as a dead man?The Bull condemns the ideas, and subsequently the man if he persists in them.
Again, why the Papal Bull if there was nothing to condemn him for?As Eckhart himself announced his own unfailing faith in Christ and His Church, and withdrew those pronouncements made which conflict with the true doctrine, then the ideas stand as condemned, even by Eckhart himself.
But it was otherwise. How much deterrent value could the Bull have had as a warning to a dead man?From your polemic perspective. From mine, it's common sense — the assertion of true doctrine in the face of an error. If Eckhart (or anyone else) persists in them "in an obstinate manner", then of course he's a heretic, by the very definition of the term ... it can't be otherwise.
The vindication didn't happen before his death.According to the article, "For all practical purposes, the exoneration of Meister Eckhart has been achieved" Richard Wood OP.
Sorry, but I can't think of one refutation. When you quote scripture and provide no exegesis whatsoever, I'm under the impression you're merely sandbagging because you have no argument. Misrepresentations of history - including making up facts, ignoring essential details, minimizing, glossing over, "talking past" - and stating conclusions that are clearly incompatible with the facts have the same impact.Are you sure you're not just covering your own that I've despatched one after the other?
Of course this would explain why I quoted the Papal Bull at length at the top of the page.It's obvious you're not really interested in how the Church views Eckhart, only in asserting your own judgements on the matter.
Frankly, it concerns me that we can't seem to agree on anythingOn that we shall never agree.
Fine. It was time to get back on topic.So let's leave it there.
"this very life, created by God," when I heard that, oh! that's a very powerful concept! "This very life, created by God," that means a direct connection with God (ultimate reality), so that brings a tremendous feeling of closeness, of intimacy ... the more close this feeling, the more the willingness to listen ... so I think this is a very, very powerful method ... a different philosophy, yes, but each with its own beauty ...
But surely if one treats meditation as a learning tool, then it runs the risk of becoming a pragmatic exercise — it seems to me one is doing one thing with the same expectation one has of the usual run of things — you're doing something else, the same way you do everything else — to get something out of it. The danger then is you're not meditating, your intellectualising?Meditation helps you to figure out that you could be doing something else. It's a learning tool.
imo prayer is outgoig, meditation is incoming, prayer talking to G!d, meditation listening.I see no difference between meditation and prayer, but I regard neither as a tool for learning. I think it's more a 'right brain' thing, not a 'left brain' thing?
I'm thinking about a self regulation model of prayer. See the chapter on Emotions and Religion by Robert Emmons starting at p.235 Handbook of the psychology of ... - Google Book SearchI don't pray to learn, nor do I have any expectation of prayer.
It's not too invasive by laposcropy. But you'll want to plan on recovery time.Much better thank you. They still want to operate...
I found some good stuff searching the phrase "stubborn" here:now hmmm guess my knee is a metaphor for me not listening for the past 30 years!