Chapter IV: Kinds of Prayer

The distinction between different kinds of prayer is based partly on their form and partly on their substance.¹

¹ 1 Tim. II, 1.

1. With regard to substance we distinguish prayers of adoration or praise, prayers of thanksgiving, and prayers of supplication or petition. However, this distinction is a purely abstract one; in reality each of these species of prayer presupposes or includes the others, because, on the one hand, all prayer per se serves to praise or glorify God, while, on the other, no prayer is offered to Him, at least here on earth, that does not somehow partake of the character of a petition.

a) The prayer of those who enjoy the beatific vision of God (the angels and saints) consists in adoration (adoratio, laudatio) and thanksgiving (gratiarum actio).² These two kinds of prayer are the most perfect and the sublimest of all. Through adoration, in particular, the Church Militant unites herself by anticipation with the Church Triumphant.

² Is. VI, 1 sqq.; Deut. VII, 10; Apoc. IV, 7 sqq.—St. Augustine, Serm., 159 (al. 17 de Verbis Apost.), n. 1: “In the [heavenly] fatherland there will be no place for praying, but only for praising. Why will there be no place for praying? Because nothing is lacking. What is believed here is seen there; what is hoped for here is possessed there; what is asked for here is received there.” (Migne, P. L., XXXVIII, 868).

The prayer of thanksgiving flows naturally from the heart of man as he perceives God’s favors and graces.³ Christ frequently gave thanks to His Heavenly Father.⁴ Prayers of thanksgiving were inculcated and practiced by the Apostles.⁵ The Church offers such prayers to God particularly through the Mass, which is essentially a sacrifice of thanksgiving.⁶

³ Rom. XI, 36; XVI, 25–27; Gal. I, 4 sq.; 1 Tim. I, 17; 2 Tim. IV, 18.

⁴ Matt. XV, 36; XXVI, 26; Mark VI, 41; VIII, 6; Luke IX, 16; XXII, 19; John XI, 41; 1 Cor. XI, 24.

⁵ Acts IV, 24–31; Eph. V, 20; Col. I, 12; II, 6 sq.; III, 15, 17; IV, 2; 1 Thess. V, 18.

⁶ “It is truly worthy and just, right and salutary, that we should always and everywhere give thanks to Thee. . . .” Cfr. 1 Thess. I, 3; II, 12.

b) Petition (precatio, postulatio, preces) is preëminently the prayer of those who believe and hope as wayfarers. It is an expression of bodily and spiritual indigence and may therefore be fitly termed “the prayer par excellence.”⁷ As long as man has not yet attained the object of his hope, his prayer is necessarily one of petition, and the more clearly he perceives his helplessness in this “vale of tears,” the more readily will he direct his eyes towards Heaven and beg God to deliver him from evil and bless him.⁸ Ps. XXX, 1, 2: “I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, from whence help shall come to me. My help is from the Lord, who made heaven and earth.”

⁷ Cfr. St. John Damascene, De Fide Orth., l. III, c. 24: “Prayer is . . . the asking from God of those things which it is fitting to ask.” (Migne, P. G., XCIV, 1089).

⁸ Matt. VII, 13; Jas. I, 17; cfr. Tillmann, Das Gebet, Vol. I, pp. 62 sqq.

c) Special kinds of petition are the prayer for forgiveness of sins (deprecatio) or propitiation, and the prayer of intercession (intercessio), in which man asks God’s grace for others.

The prayer of intercession is founded upon the divine economy of salvation. Man stands before God not as an isolated individual, but as part of an organism, viz.: humanity and the Church (communio sanctorum). To pray for our fellowmen is an important duty which we owe alike to those who are members of the mystical body of Christ, and to those who are destined and able to become such. Christ and His Apostles admonish us to pray for all men without exception,⁹ but especially for our superiors, our brethren in the faith, and our enemies.¹⁰

⁹ Matt. VI, 9 sqq.; Luke XXIII, 34; John XVII, 20 sq.; 1 Tim. II, 1–5; Jas. V, 16.

¹⁰ Matt. V, 44; Luke VI, 28; Eph. VI, 18 sq.; Col. IV, 2 sq.; 1 Tim. II, 2.—Cfr. St. Augustine, Epist., 231, n. 6 (Migne, P. L., XXXIII, 1026).—Gury, Compendium, Vol. I, n. 254: “It is asked, for whom must one pray? Answer: 1. For ourselves (according to the first rule of charity);—2. For all men who are wayfarers, even unbelievers;—3. For souls detained in Purgatory. This is inferred, first, from the general law of charity;—secondly, from the words of St. Paul (1 Tim. ii, 1–2). . . . Nor are enemies to be excepted, as is clear from the words of Christ, Mt. v, 44.”

To pray for others is a duty prescribed by the law of charity, which varies in proportion to the needs of our fellowmen and our individual relations to each.¹¹

¹¹ Cfr. St. Augustine, Epist., 130 (al. 121), c. 12, n. 23: “These things must be prayed for both for ourselves and for our own and for strangers and for enemies themselves, without any wavering of doubt, although for one person one affection and for another another affection may arise or excel in the heart of the one praying, according as relationships are near or remote.” (Migne, P. L., XXXIII, 503).

The “poor souls” in Purgatory have a special claim to our intercession because they need prayer most of all and are unable to help themselves.¹² After them come the impenitent sinners and those who are separated from the Church of Christ.

¹² 2 Tim. I, 16–18.

Our social relations oblige us to pray, first of all for parents, children, brothers and sisters; secondly, for more distant relatives, friends, and benefactors, and thirdly, for those in authority in Church and State.

To pray for our enemies is an act of heroic virtue and therefore specially meritorious. Generally speaking it is only a matter of counsel, but there are times when it becomes a strict duty.

The above enumeration shows that we are bound to pray for all men without exception, unless indeed God should manifest to us by a private revelation that some particular person was irretrievably lost.¹³

¹³ Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 83, art. 8: “To love enemies in general is under precept, but to love them in particular is not under precept, except according to the preparation of the mind, so that, namely, a man would be prepared even in particular to love an enemy and to help him in an occasion of necessity or if he were to ask pardon. But to love enemies absolutely in particular and to help them belongs to perfection. But similarly it is of necessity that we not exclude enemies in our common prayers which we make for others. But that we pray for them in particular belongs to perfection, not necessity, except in some particular case.” (Cfr. art. 7, ad 3).—A. Lehmkuhl, S. J., Casus Conscientiae, Vol. I, 3rd ed., n. 390 sqq.

The opinion that “the world,” or certain individuals, may be excluded from our intercessory prayers, is untenable. Yahweh’s command to Jeremias,¹⁴ which is sometimes quoted in support of this view, does not refer to eternal salvation, for which man may and should always pray, but to the prophet’s petition that God might avert the temporary punishments He was about to inflict upon the Israelites for their sins.

¹⁴ Jer. VII, 16.

When Our Lord said to His disciples: “I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me,”¹⁵ He merely meant to assure His disciples that they were the particular object of His solicitude. This interpretation is borne out by verse 20 of the same chapter of St. John’s Gospel, where Christ says: “And not for them [the disciples] only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me, that they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”¹⁶

¹⁵ John XVII, 9.

¹⁶ John XVII, 20 sq.; cfr. Matt. 5, 44; Luke XXIII, 34. See, however, J. McRory, The Gospel of St. John, 4th ed., Dublin 1914, p. 286; J. Knabenbauer, S.J., Commentarius in Evang. sec. Ioannem, 2nd ed., Paris 1906, pp. 505 sq.

A difficulty might arise from 1 John V, 16, were it not evident from the context that the Apostle means to say, not that it is useless to intercede for those who commit mortal sin, but merely that prayers said for them are not easily heard.¹⁷

¹⁷ J. B. Wirthmüller, Die moralische Tugend der Religion, pp. 62 sqq.

d) As it is permissible to ask the saints in Heaven to intercede for us, provided, of course, that our confidence in their help does not become to us an occasion of sloth or false security,¹⁸ so it is entirely in accord with the dogma of the Communion of Saints to ask the living faithful for their intercession here below. St. Paul repeatedly requests his fellow-Christians to pray for him and assures them that he will pray for them.¹⁹

¹⁸ St. Jerome, Contra Vigilant., n. 6: “If the apostles and martyrs, while still constituted in the body, can pray for others, when they must still be solicitous for themselves, how much more after crowns, victories, and triumphs?” (Migne, P. L., XXIII, 344).—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 83, art. 11: “Since prayer made for others proceeds from charity, the more perfect in charity the saints who are in the fatherland are, the more they pray for wayfarers who can be helped by prayers; and the more closely they are joined to God, the more efficacious their prayers are. For the divine order has this, that the excellence of superiors should flow down into inferiors, as the air is illuminated by the brightness of the sun.”

¹⁹ Rom. XV, 30 sqq.; 2 Cor. I, 11; Eph. I, 15 sq.; VI, 18 sq.; Phil. I, 19; Col. IV, 2 sqq.; 1 Thess. I, 2; 2 Thess. I, 11; III, 1 sq.; cfr. Heb. XIII, 18 sq.

2. In regard to its form, prayer may be either vocal (oratio vocalis) or mental (oratio mentalis).²⁰

²⁰ G. Tillmann, Das Gebet nach der Lehre der Heiligen, Vol. I, pp. 73 sqq., 85 sqq.; Vol. II, pp. 6 sqq., 203 sqq. Cfr. Poulain, The Graces of Interior Prayer, pp. 7 sqq.

A man prays orally when he expresses his interior devotion by means of words or formularies. The essential thing, of course, is the interior devotion, for purely external or vocal prayer without a corresponding interior disposition would be no prayer at all.²¹

²¹ Is. XXIX, 13; Matt. XV, 7 sq.; Mark VII, 6.—St. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps., CXIX, s. 29, n. 1.

In vocal prayer at Mass, as prescribed by the Church, the words should be uttered so that the one who is praying can hear them, unless there be an obstacle.²² Each word must, moreover, be pronounced correctly and according to the manner prescribed (rite ac recte). If one syncopates or mutilates his words, or corrupts their meaning, he does not satisfy his obligation, unless there be a parvitas materiae.²³ It is not regarded as a corruption to swallow the final syllables.²⁴ Those who suffer from a defect of speech or who have unfortunately contracted a habit of inattention, are obliged to do the best they can and should try to correct their evil habit.²⁵ In saying the Divine Office or any other prescribed prayer in common with others, it is sufficient to listen with attention to those parts which are recited by others.²⁶

²² V. Croix, Theol. Mor., IV, 1294, who calls this opinion “communis.” (Cfr. Bonacina, De Hor. Can., P. I, qu. iii, P. 2, § 1, n. 24; Salmant., XVI, 3, 5).—St. Alphonsus seems to contradict this view when he says that one who is unable to hear himself can satisfy this obligation. But the contradiction is apparent only. The Saint does not mean one who cannot hear himself because the sound his vocal organs make is inaudible, but for some other reason, e. g., because of great noise or deafness. (St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., IV, 163; VI, 414).

²³ St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., IV, 165.

²⁴ Croix, Theol. Mor., IV, 1302.

²⁵ St. Alphonsus, op. cit., IV, 165.

²⁶ Laymann, De Hor. Can., c. V, 8; Salmant., XVI, 5, 6.

In order that vocal prayer be meritorious, it is necessary that it be recited in the state of grace, for if one is in the state of mortal sin, prayer can bring him only the graces absolutely necessary for conversion.²⁷ The theologians distinguish a threefold power of prayer: that of acquiring merit (meritoria), that of making satisfaction for sin (satisfactoria),²⁸ and that of procuring favors for others (impetratoria). In as far as it is meritorious, prayer is based upon justice; in as far as it is impetratory, it is based upon the divine mercy;²⁹ in as far as it is satisfactory, it is based upon justice in regard to the living and mercy in regard to the dead.³⁰ In as far as it is based upon justice, it produces its effects infallibly; in as far as it is based upon the divine mercy, it produces its effects conditionally, i. e., if and in as much as it pleases God. Prayer, in as far as it is meritorious, profits only the person who prays, whereas impetratory and sat- isfactory prayer may also profit others. Satisfactory prayer profits the living per modum solutionis, and therefore infallibly;³¹ the dead, per modum suffragii, i. e., by the power of impetration,³² if and to the extent in which it pleases God to grant the favor requested.³³

²⁷ Cfr. Jas. V, 16; St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 83, art. 16.

²⁸ St. Thomas, Suppl., qu. 15, art. 3, ad 1.

²⁹ IDEM, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 83, art. 16, ad 2.

³⁰ Suarez, De Poenit., dist. 23, sect. 1; De Lugo, De Poenit., disp. 26, sect. 1; Cat. Rom., “De Sacr. Poenit.,” n. 51.

³¹ Suarez, l. c., and De Lugo, l. c.

³² Cfr. Leo X, Bull “Exsurge Domine.”

³³ S. R. C., July 28th, 1840.—Cfr. J. D’Annibale, Summula Theol. Mor., Vol. II, 5th ed., Rome 1908, pp. 17 sq.

Interior prayer is a devout communion of the soul with God effected without the aid of external words or formularies. Vocal and interior prayer do not exclude, but, on the contrary, include each other, as the former is the beginning and foundation of the latter and can never be entirely dispensed with even in the highest stages of the spiritual life.³⁴

³⁴ St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 83, art. 12: “The voice is joined to prayer for a threefold reason: first, indeed, to arouse interior devotion, by which the mind of the one praying is raised to God, because through exterior signs, whether of voices or even of certain deeds, the mind of man is moved according to apprehension and consequently according to affection. Hence Augustine says [Epist., 130 (al. 121), c. 9, n. 18], ‘that by words and other signs we arouse ourselves more keenly to increase holy desire.’ And therefore in private prayer voices and signs of this kind should be used only so far as they help to arouse the mind interiorly. But if the mind is distracted by this or hindered in any way, such things should be discontinued; this happens especially in those whose mind without signs of this kind is sufficiently prepared for devotion. . . . Secondly, vocal prayer is joined as though for the payment of a debt, so that, namely, man may serve God according to the whole of that which he has from God; that is, not only with the mind, but also with the body, which especially belongs to prayer insofar as it is satisfactory. . . . Thirdly, vocal prayer is joined from a certain overflow from the soul into the body arising from vehement affection, according to Ps. xv, 9.”

Interior prayer in its higher forms is called meditation and contemplation.

a) Meditation may be defined as the application of the three powers of the soul to prayer— the memory proposing a religious or moral truth, the understanding considering this truth in its application to the meditating individual, the will forming practical resolutions and asking for grace to keep them.³⁵

³⁵ Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, 9th ed., London 1917, p. 573.

Meditation differs from the theoretical consideration of religious truths or the study of theology in this, that it aims at the immediate application of the truths perceived by the understanding to one’s personal needs and strives to elicit the corresponding religious emotions.³⁶

³⁶ Pseudo-Augustine, Append. Serm., 302 (al. 112 de Temp.), n. 3: “Let there be no delay in doing what you understand inwardly by comprehending. And he is most blessed who turns the divine Scriptures into works.” (Migne, P. L., XXXIX, 2324).

The essential constituents of meditation are the preparatory prayer, realization of the divine presence, a lively consideration of the truths proposed, application of the same to one’s personal needs, the making of practical resolutions with regard to them (e. g., to apply them to-day, or in this or that concrete case, etc.), and the final prayer (colloquium), which should include thanksgiving, self-oblation, and a petition for the graces necessary to keep the good resolutions made.

Meditation is an important means of moral perfection, and though not strictly necessary for salvation, is indispensable to all who wish to lead a truly spiritual life, especially those who are called to a state of higher perfection.³⁷

³⁷ Cfr. Pius X’s Encyclical Letter to the Catholic Clergy.

On the uses of meditation St. Bernard of Clairvaux says: “It purifies the source from which it flows, namely, the mind. It directs the affections,³⁸ guides a man’s acts³⁹ and omissions, corrects his mistakes, regulates his habits, and makes life honorable. In fine, it introduces a man to the science of divine and human things. It clears up confusion, unites the things that are separated, collects those that are scattered, brings to light that which is hidden, and follows the footsteps of truth.⁴⁰ It examines probabilities and uncovers semblance and error. It provides due consideration of that which is to be done, does not lose sight of that which is completed, and tolerates nothing in the mind which is unregulated or in need of correction.⁴¹ In prosperity it reckons beforehand with misfortune and in adversity scarcely feels that which is contrary, thus performing the task of courage together with that of prudence.”⁴²

³⁸ “Affectus.”

³⁹ “Actus.”

⁴⁰ “Vera vestigat.”

⁴¹ “He reviews deeds, so that nothing may remain in the mind either uncorrected or in need of correction.”

⁴² De Consideratione, l. I, c. 7 (Migne, P. L., CLXXXII, 737).

b) Contemplation⁴³ or effective prayer is the final act (actus completivus) of meditation, by which the soul flies straightway into the presence of God and beholds Him directly,⁴⁴—not by intuition, as the pure spirits behold Him in Heaven, but discursively, i. e., by means of the truths and principles suggested by the preceding meditation. Hence the three stages of cogitation, meditation, and contemplation.⁴⁵

⁴³ St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 179 sq.—For the literature of the subject see Readings, infra, p. 54 sq.

⁴⁴ Rom. I, 20; cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 179, art. 1, ad 3.

⁴⁵ Op. cit., qu. 180, art. 3.

Contemplation is called ordinary or acquired (ordinaria sive acquisita) if it is the result of one’s own endeavor, aided by divine grace; infused, passive or extraordinary (infusa sive passiva) when directly infused by God. Extraordinary (passive or infused) contemplation is a charism which God usually gives as a reward to those who cultivate the interior life. It is identical with the mystic state. In its higher forms it is sometimes accompanied by extraordinary manifestations of divine grace, such as ecstasies, visions, and revelations,⁴⁶ and culminates in the mystic union of the soul with God (also called mystic betrothal, spiritual marriage, mystic death or annihilation). These form the subject matter of Mystical Theology.⁴⁷ They represent a higher stage, being more perfect than the ordinary prayer, either mental or vocal, first, because they proceed from a higher principle i. e., a mind directly enlightened by God; secondly, because acts of prayer performed in these states are more intensive, and, thirdly, because they result in a more intimate union with God.

⁴⁶ Matt. V, 8.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 180, art. 2: “Something can pertain to the contemplative life in two ways: in one way essentially, in another way dispositively. Indeed, the moral virtues do not pertain essentially to the contemplative life, because the end of the contemplative life is the consideration of truth. . . . But the moral virtues pertain dispositively to the contemplative life. For the act of contemplation, in which the contemplative life essentially consists, is impeded both by the vehemence of the passions, by which the intention of the soul is drawn away from intelligible things to sensible things, and by exterior disturbances. But the moral virtues impede the vehemence of the passions and calm the disturbances of exterior occupations. And therefore the moral virtues pertain dispositively to the contemplative life.”—IDEM, ibid., art. 3: “The virtue of chastity especially renders man fit for contemplation, insofar as venereal pleasures most greatly depress the mind toward sensible things.”—IDEM, ibid., art. 5: “The highest degree of contemplation in the present life is that which Paul had in rapture, according to which he was in an intermediate condition between the state of the present life and the future life.”—Cfr. ibid., qu. 173, art. 3 (visio prophetica); qu. 175 (raptus).—Tillmann, Das Gebet, II, 423 sqq.—For other literature on the extraordinary phenomena of the higher spiritual life see Readings, infra.

⁴⁷ Gal. II, 20.—Poulain, The Graces of Interior Prayer, pp. 59 sqq., 200 sqq. On the literature of mystical theology see Readings, infra.

Visions and revelations are not without danger and unless accompanied by suffering and humiliation are apt to lead not to God but to self-exaltation. St. Paul, one of the greatest masters of the spiritual life, has expressed this truth in clear terms. Compelled to defend himself against attacks upon His Apostolic dignity, he calls attention to the ecstasies and visions accorded to him, but immediately adds: “Lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me.” After he had thrice besought the Lord to take this burden from him, he was told: “My grace is sufficient for thee, for power is made perfect in infirmity,” whereupon he exclaimed: “Gladly will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. For which cause I please myself in my infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ. For when I am weak, then I am powerful.”⁴⁸ The ways of salvation have not changed since the days of St. Paul, no more than human nature has changed, or the destiny of the soul.

⁴⁸ 2 Cor. XII, 7 sqq.—Cfr. V. Weber, Der Galaterbrief, Ravensburg 1901, pp. 255 sqq.—The Vulgate rendition “stimulus carnis” for σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί is obscure and inexact, and, in the words of Father F. Prat, S.J., “a fini par accréditer une opinion sans grande probabilité intrinsèque, inconnue à toute l’anti- quité et peu conciliable avec le texte original. Le σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί, ‘l’épine dans la chair’ ou ‘l’aiguillon pour la chair’ désignerait un penchant aux voluptés charnelles, source de pénibles et humiliants combats. Ni la vieillesse dont il approchait, ni le don de continence qu’il dit avoir reçu ne le mettaient absolument à l’abri de la tentation, et il est impossible de prouver qu’il ait été exempt de cette épreuve. Mais on peut affirmer sans crainte que rien dans ses paroles n’autorise cette explication. Supposé même que σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί pût avoir ce sens, Paul ne ferait-il pas le jeu de ses adversaires en leur révélant l’existence d’une pareille lutte connue de lui seul et de Dieu? Comment pourrait-il s’y complaire et la mettre au nombre des infirmités dont il se fait gloire? Laissant de côté les tentations charnelles, nous nous trouvons en présence de deux interprétations qui partagent les commentateurs anciens: les persécutions et les maladies. Mais il est difficile de comprendre que les persécutions extérieures puissent s’appeler une épine dans la chair, et on conçoit moins encore que l’Apôtre s’en trouve humilié. Ces persécutions sont tellement le lot du chrétien, elles sont si expressément annoncées à quiconque veut vivre pieusement dans le Christ Jésus, qu’on ne voit pas à quel titre il les regarderait comme un préservatif personnel, surtout contre les tentations d’orgueil. Et arrivera-t-on à se persuader que Paul en ait demandé trois fois la délivrance? Reste la maladie: ‘On dit qu’une douleur physique le faisait cruellement souffrir; les douleurs du corps sont très souvent dues aux anges de Satan, mais non pas sans la permission divine.’ Ainsi parle saint Augustin, et presque tous les modernes sont de son avis. De quelle maladie s’agit-il? On a nommé la migraine, la podagre, l’ophtalmie, le haut mal, diverses espèces de fièvre. Cette variété d’opinions prouve qu’un diagnostic sûr est impossible. Supposé que, dans l’Épître aux Galates, Paul fasse allusion à la même infirmité [Gal. IV, 13 Paul appelle la maladie qui l’oblige à rester parmi les Galates contre son dessein ἀσθένεια τῆς σαρκός, πειρασμὸς ἐν τῇ σαρκί. Il félicite les Galates de ne l’avoir pas repoussé (non sprevistis, neque respuistis, οὐδὲ ἐξεπτύσατε): de là certains critiques ont conclu qu’il était attaqué du haut mal, la coutume étant de cracher sur les épileptiques par dégoût ou par superstition. Il les remercie de s’être intéressés à sa guérison au point d’être prêts à lui donner jusqu’à leurs yeux: d’où la conclusion tirée par d’autres critiques encore plus subtils qu’il souffrait d’une ophtalmie] nous obtenons les symptômes suivants: 1. Le mal dont souffrait l’Apôtre devait être aigu et cuisant puisqu’il le désigne métaphoriquement par une épine ou un aiguillon enfoncé dans la chair. 2. Il devait avoir quelque chose de répugnant, car il remercie les Galates de ne pas s’être détournés de lui avec horreur. 3. Il devait être humiliant, car il le considère comme un antidote à la vaine gloire et comme un soufflet de Satan. 4. Enfin, il devait sembler faire obstacle à son apostolat puisque à trois reprises il supplia Dieu de l’en délivrer et ne cessa pas que sur cette assurance: ‘Ma grâce te suffit.’ Ulcère des yeux, malaria ou attaques nerveuses, le terme pathologique nous importe assez peu. Cf. Menzies Alexander, St. Paul’s Infirmity dans The Expository Times, juillet et sept. 1904. Après avoir critiqué les hypothèses de ses prédécesseurs: 1. Ophtalmie aiguë (Howson, Lewin, Farrar, Plumptre, etc.); 2. épilepsie (Holsten, Ewald, Klöpper, Lightfoot, Schmiedel, etc.); 3. malaria (Ramsay), l’auteur propose la sienne. Il s’agirait de la fièvre de Malte, connue à Gibraltar, à Naples, à Constantinople et répandue un peu partout sur le littoral méditerranéen. Les preuves ne sont pas très fortes, mais la critique des diverses opinions est intéressante.” (La Théologie de Saint Paul, Vol. I, Paris 1908, pp. 216 sqq.).

“Whoever tries to reach the summit of perfection,” says St. Gregory the Great, “and wishes to stand upon the peak of contemplation, must first prove his mettle by practicing good works.”⁴⁹

⁴⁹ Moral., l. VI, c. 37, n. 59: “Those who strive to apprehend the summit of perfection, when they desire to hold the citadel of contemplation, must first prove themselves in the field of works through exercise.”—IDEM, ibid., n. 60: “For the time of action is first, the time of contemplation last. Hence it is necessary that every perfect man first exercise his mind in virtues and afterward store it in the granary of rest.” (Migne, P. L., LXXV, 763).

Richard of St. Victor says that good works, meditation, and prayer are the three means by which man may attain to contemplation.⁵⁰

⁵⁰ De Praeparatione Animi ad Contemplationem, c. 79 (Migne, P. L., CXCVI, 56).

Seneca⁵¹ writes: “We are wont to say that the highest good is to live according to nature. Nature has adapted us to both meditation and action. . . . Nature desires that I should do both—be active⁵² and devote myself to contemplation.⁵³ I do both, because even meditation is not without action.”

⁵¹ De Otio, V, 1, 8.—Cfr. St. Gregory the Great, Moral., l. VI, c. 37, n. 61: “What is expressed by Mary, who sat hearing the words of the Lord, if not the contemplative life? What is signified by Martha occupied with exterior services, if not the active life? But Martha’s care is not rebuked, while Mary is even praised, because the merits of the active life are great, but those of the contemplative life more excellent.” (Migne, P. L., LXXV, 764).

⁵² Agere.

⁵³ Contemplationi vacare.

Father Poulain summarizes the teaching of the most prudent ascetics by laying down seven rules for spiritual directors in regard to revelations and visions, and six rules for those who believe that they have received such extraordinary favors. The rules for the spiritual director are briefly:

(1) To resign himself to slow progress and be on his guard against his own precipitation and that of his penitent in judging of extraordinary occurrences.

(2) Not to display admiration for visions and revelations, even if they appear to him to be real.

(3) To be gentle in his treatment of the person. If the visions appear to him suspicious, not to show his distrust harshly, but strive with prudence to enlighten the supposed visionary.

(4) To bear in mind the end to which the visions, and especially the revelations, tend, exhibiting a proportionately stronger mistrust if it is a matter having consequences of greater magnitude.

(5) To strive after supernatural aims, always coming back to the question: What spiritual profit have you derived from the words you think you have heard or the things you imagine you have seen?

(6) To avoid the danger of allowing himself to be dominated by some one else or being carried away by sentimentality.

(7) To pray much and to make the person directed pray, in order to obtain the necessary illumination.

The rules for those who believe that they have received or are receiving revelations and visions are the following:

(1) Submit everything to a prudent spiritual director and be guided by his advice.

(2) Mistrust revelations, in general, and remember that this way is subject to illusions of the imagination or the devil. Even if a vision appears to be divine, mistrust the interpretation that is given.

(3) Do not ask or desire this kind of grace because it is very conducive to illusions.

(4) In the beginning, at any rate, gently do your utmost to repel the revelations and turn your thoughts away from them.

(5) If you believe a corporeal apparition of Our Lord or of the saints to be the work of the devil, do not go to the length of insulting or treating it with contempt, any more than you would a sacred picture that had been painted by a scoundrel.

(6) If, in spite of yourself, you have visions, be chiefly concerned in making them serve your progress in virtue; for if they come of God, you will thus have attained the sole end that is desired, whereas in the contrary case they cannot harm you.⁵⁴

⁵⁴ Poulain, The Graces of Interior Prayer, pp. 380 sqq.

READINGS.—K. Martin, Lehrbuch der kath. Moral, 5th ed., pp. 447 sqq., 453 sqq.—G. Tillmann, Das Gebet nach der Lehre der Heiligen, Vol. I, pp. 46 sqq., pp. 88 sqq.; Vol. II, pp. 21 sqq.; Freiburg 1874.—J. B. Wirthmüller, Die moralische Tugend der Religion, Freiburg 1881, pp. 84 sqq.

J. Roothan, S. J., De Ratione Meditandi, Rome 1871.—F. Hettinger, Die Idee der geistlichen Uebungen, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1908.—F. De Hummelauer, S.J., Medit. et Contempl. S. Ignatii de Loyola, 2nd ed., Freiburg 1909.—G. Bucceroni, S.J., S. Ignacio de Loiola, Rome 1901.—P. Watrigant, La Genèse des Exercices de S. Ignace de Loyola, Amiens 1897.—K. Holl, Die geistlichen Uebungen des Ignatius von Loyola, Tübingen 1905.—R. de Maumigny, Pratique de l’Oraison Mentale, Paris 1905.—M. Meschler, S.J., Das Leben unsres Herrn Jesu Christi, 7th ed., Freiburg 1910 (English tr. by Sister Mary Margaret, O. S. B., The Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 vols., London).—Hettinger-Stepka, Timothy, or Letters to a Young Theologian, St. Louis 1902, pp. 283 sqq.—F. Chatel, De l’Oraison Mentale, Louvain 1909, pp. 24 sqq.—Jos. Zahn, Einführung in die christliche Mystik, Paderborn 1908, pp. 163 sqq.—F. X. Mutz, Christliche Aszetik, Paderborn, 2nd ed., pp. 151 sqq.

A. Saudreau, Les Faits Extraordinaires de la Vie Spirituelle, Angers and Paris 1908.—Stöhr-Kannamüller, Handbuch der Pastoralmedizin, 5th ed., Freiburg 1909, pp. 555 sqq.—I. Familler, Pastoral-Psychiatrie, Freiburg 1898, pp. 66, 69.

Philip a SS. Trinitate, Summa Theol. Mysticae, Freiburg 1875.—F. Hettinger, De Theologiae Speculativae et Mysticae Connubio in Dantis praesertim Trilogia, Würzburg 1882.—G. Tillmann, Das Gebet, Vol. II, pp. 427 sqq.—J. B. Scaramelli, Discernimento de’ Spiriti per il Retto Regolamente delle Azione Proprie ed Altrui, Venice 1753; 7th ed., Rome 1866 (Spanish tr., Madrid 1804; German tr., Mayence 1861, 3rd ed., Ratisbon 1904).

St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 179–180.—D. Schram, O.S.B., Instit. Theol. Myst., 2nd ed., Paris 1868.—Aug. Poulain, S.J., Des Grâces d’Oraison, 5th ed., Paris 1906 (English tr. by Leonora L. Yorke Smith, The Graces of Interior Prayer, 2nd ed., London, s. a.).—J. Ries, Das geistliche Leben, pp. 275 sqq.—G. Tillmann, Das Gebet, Vol. II, pp. 410 sqq.—Jos. Zahn, Einführung in die christliche Mystik, pp. 186 sqq.—F. Chatel, De l’Oraison Mentale, pp. 399 sqq.—G. Byrne, “Right and Wrong Notions of Prayer,” in The Month, No. 682 (April, 1921), pp. 309–316.

For a full list of Catholic writers on mystic theology see Aug. Poulain, S.J., The Graces of Interior Prayer (English ed.), pp. 591–620.