Today, there is a tendency to consider all schools of spirituality as more or less equivalent, as if each were simply a matter of temperament or personal preference. Yet this overlooks a fundamental reality: spiritualities never come “naked,” detached from a way of life. They arise within Orders that have their own rhythms, schedules, and commitments—vows, common life, and specific practices. When this context is ignored, what begins as legitimate diversity can drift toward division. What we lack today is a shared foundation, a common denominator for deep spiritual life, particularly one rooted in the celebration of the Mass.
The fourth part of the Catechism is a first step toward establishing this common ground for all, a foundation that should be laid before turning to the study of particular spiritual schools. This remarkable effort deserves to be extended: it calls for an entire Catechism of Spiritual Life, which would guide believers through the successive stages of growth, ultimately leading to holiness.
The following Q&A illustrates the current situation and highlights what is truly at stake.
– Hi, I’ve written on the crossovers between Ignatian and Carmelite spiritualities. My question: is Carmelite mental prayer the equivalent of the Ignatian colloquy? And can Ignatian (imaginative) ‘contemplation’ be equated with lectio divina? Isn’t it the case that Ignatian spirituality doesn’t have anything like Carmelite contemplative prayer?
– Is Carmelite mental prayer the equivalent of the Ignatian colloquy?
– The Carmelite “Mental Prayer” seen from St Teresa’s point of view and early Discalced Carmelite male order documents can be seen in its initial steps (only) as equivalent or similar to a colloquy. She seems to invite the reader to be spontaneous and talk to the Lord, gaze upon him and stay with him. This is what we can say if seen on the surface (see First form of watering the garden in her Autobiography) and chapter 26 in Way of Perfection).
But this picture of her teaching on Mental Prayer is caused by a wrong understanding of what St. Teresa of Avila wants to convey, of her personal experience and of course of the supernatural aspect of it, what she calls the “Particular Help of The Grace of God”, or “Contemplation”, or simply “the Supernatural”.
The entire key to understanding any comparison lies in grasping the difference between “the general help” and “the particular help of the grace of God”.
In short, the aim of the Spiritual Exercises and the aim of St. Teresa of Avila are very different (goals, contents and methods). Let us never forget that the Spiritual Exercises are meant for something called “Election” (to choose a direction in one’s life) and that they essentially deal with the Gospel. The conscious mind has to interact in the Exercises.
Important note: if you ask Jesuit experts in leading the Spiritual Exercises they will tell you that the use of imagination in the Spiritual Exercises (to set the Gospel scene, figure out where we are in the scene) is not essential.
From a Carmelite point of view: the use of the mind and the imagination in Contemplative Mental Prayer is only for beginners (see below). But again, the goal is completely different.
The Exercises are meant to help us listen to God, discern his voice and follow a process called “election”. “Milking” the Exercises, as is often done today, is a kind of extraction—taking something out of its proper context and applying it elsewhere. For example, Contemplative Prayer is meant to be practised daily; it is a form of prayer. The Exercises, as originally intended by St Ignatius, are to be undertaken only when needed.
I would rather and clearly categorise the Exercises along the lines of our modern Lectio Divina discovered only in recent decades! A phenomenon unheard of in the history of the Church! The excellent efforts of the Jesuit Cardinal Martini in developing Lectio from an Ignatian point of view are brilliant. But again, it is not the Exercises, it is Lectio Divina, nourished by the expertise of a very knowledgeable Jesuit biblical scholar.
The Liturgy of the Word is a manducation. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is also a manducation. The first is prepared for, lived, and followed by Lectio Divina; the second, by Contemplative Prayer. The kinds of nourishment are different, yet both are necessary. We do not divide Jesus, nor do we divide the Mass. These are two forms of contemplation, if one wishes to use the term—contemplation here understood as manducation, a process of ingesting, eating, digesting, and assimilating. (See the following article: Two Types of Contemplation : Lectio Divina and Prayer of the Heart and video: Two Types of Contemplation.)
These two forms of supernatural contemplation should never be confused. Yet today they often are, which causes much misunderstanding (see, for instance, the general advice commonly given about how to practise Lectio Divina: it gives the impression that the “contemplation” in Lectio is the same as the contemplation in Contemplative Prayer— while it is not!).
And conversely, look at the advice often given for Contemplative Prayer: read, meditate, talk to Jesus (colloquy), imagine, and so on. What is being described there is not Contemplative Prayer at all, but something closer to Lectio Divina or even the Ignatian method.
It pains me to express this so briefly, as proper formation over time is needed to grasp the distinctions. The essential point is this: we must return to the structure of the Mass and its two liturgies (Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist). The same one Jesus is present, but in two distinct forms—just as in the Gospel: first His preaching, then His Passion, Death, and Resurrection.
In my humble view, the bottom line is this: there is no direct equivalent to Contemplative Prayer in St Ignatius’ Exercises. Of course, he practised it, but he never theorised it or proposed it as a distinct, daily form of prayer. To “milk” it for that purpose is not fair.
If you look at the early history of the Jesuits, you find that there were, in fact, two “schools”: one spiritual, and another oriented towards the education of youth. The first produced remarkable spiritual figures—but that branch was eventually cut off. History remains a wise teacher.
This answers your first and last question: Isn’t it the case that Ignatian spirituality isn’t anything like Carmelite contemplative prayer?
– Can Ignatian (imaginative) ‘contemplation’ be equated with Lectio Divina?
– I don’t consider that I answered this question above. It deserves a special treatment of its own.
First, a general point which needs to be added to my first answer above. The practice of Lectio Divina and of Contemplative Prayer develop according to where we are on the spiritual journey of growth. Are we before the Second Conversion or after it? Much depends on this! Prior to the Second Conversion the practice of any form of prayer is rather “under the governance” of the “General Help of the Grace of God”. This means our personal effort of the mind, of the imagination, etc is decisive and is almost the sole factor (with the general help of the grace of God). The “supernatural” in contrast has to await the Second Conversion. A better understanding in fact would be to compare the Baptism of John the Baptist and the Baptism of Jesus! A huge difference. I know the comparison and the crossing line is a bit drastic, but it is clearly visible in St. Teresa’s works: the first three mansions are “under one governance” and the following four under a different one: the “Particular Help of the Grace of God” intervenes, or the “supernatural” as she calls it. A very important distinction. The same appears in the first way of watering the garden (Autobiography) and the following three ways. The crossover line is the same.
The functioning of the grace of God is different. The sad thing is that this distinction is not often underlined by commentators so we are all a bit lost. And comparing spiritualities and schools of spirituality becomes a non-rigorous exercise.
This distinction (you can read about it on the website of the School of Mary) applies to all forms of prayer, mainly, Lectio and Contemplative Prayer (the Prayer of the Heart).
Accordingly, if a person is pre-second conversion, then Lectio will be more a “meditation” using our capacities/faculties (mind, imagination etc) with the General Help of the Grace of God. While after it, you will have the “supernatural Lectio Divina” (see here).
The “crossovers between Ignatian and Carmelite spiritualities” require years of experience in both fields. You can see from what I said above how difficult it is for the persons who belong to each spirituality to even see clearly the contents of their teaching. The early generations of discalced Carmelites categorised the forms of prayer of St. Teresa of Avila in a way that can very easily mislead the reader. Let me give you one example:
St. Teresa speaks clearly of two forms of prayer: “Prayer of Recollection” and “Prayer of Quiet”. A non expert in the field will see them as two successive phases of growth. While in fact they are two “halves” so to speak of one prayer: one explains the part we play and the other God’s response. The image to the right gives a rough idea of this. (The Act of Oblation of St. Therese help us see the unity between them.)
If you use the theology involved in the diagram of the sea (see here: https://schoolofmary.org/prayer-of-the-heart-1-how-to-meditate/) you will see that both movements (in the water and in the air/space) are needed to reach the immersion in the Sun (Jesus’ Love). The “Prayer of Recollection” uses the “General Help of the Grace of God” to reach the meeting point (on the surface of the water) and the “Prayer of Quiet” is God’s response: “the Particular Help of the Grace of God” comes, takes us and immerses us in Jesus’ Love. Being immersed in Jesus’ love is “Contemplative Prayer” or “the Supernatural”.
Another series of distinctions which are fundamental: do we feel or not what happens?
In the Spiritual Exercises, like in Lectio, we need to perceive God’s message (in the conscious soul). In Contemplative Prayer, it happens in our spirit, beyond perception (in the supra-conscious). So technically we do not know if the person is or is not immersed! (more technical questions, I cannot present them here but you can follow the Solid Foundations Course or read the book on Prayer of the Heart and read plenty of articles on the website). This is why an early writing of St. Teresa can be misleading for the non-expert. For example in her Autobiography, when she speaks about the water, it is not always clear what she is talking about. Is it: 1- the grace itself (in our spirit, ie non perceived) or 2- the perception of the grace (which is another grace) or simply 3- the tears.
Note: Had some of these crucial elements of discernment in Spiritual Theology been taken into consideration during the heated debates of the 1930s–1940s over the nature of contemplation—primarily between the Dominicans/Carmelites and the Jesuits—the discussion might have borne fruit rather than killing the “babe in the egg.”
Note: The Carmelite Spirituality or Teaching is focused essentially on Contemplative Prayer (ie Mental Prayer or the Prayer of the Heart). The emergence of Lectio Divina in the recent decades poses a very important problem to the Carmelite spirituality. It shows also here what I was saying at the beginning of this article: to consider each spirituality as a complete School of Holiness is a distorted form of evaluation which doesn’t take into consideration the specific form of religious life and many implicit elements of a spirituality. Example: the practice of the virtues to perfection promoted and explained by St. Teresa of Avila in Way of Perfection as fundamental for a solid Contemplative Prayer has to be see as an equivalent of Lectio Divina (totally absent from the Teresian Reform). See this very important study here and videos. So taken alone and separately, each “school” of spirituality highlights one shining teaching aspect, moving it from the implicit to an explicit form. We need to collect all the explicit teachings in one body in one synthesis. The Catechism of the Spiritual Life that we wholeheartedly wish for the Church.
Note: It is undeniable that the three Carmelite Doctors offer a contribution that is unique and truly universal for the whole Church, far beyond the bounds of any particular “school” of spirituality. Within the Carmelite tradition, one encounters insights that are often absent or underdeveloped elsewhere, yet which carry a significance for all believers. Time and again, I have observed that whenever Benedictines, Cistercians, Dominicans, or Jesuits have sought to plumb the depths of the spiritual life, they have turned to St. Teresa of Avila—and even more profoundly to St. John of the Cross. These are Doctors of the universal Church, masters of the life of deep interior transformation and deep discernment. To confine them to a narrow spiritual lineage, denying their relevance to the Church as a whole, is a serious error. Experience and historical witness bear this out clearly. The profound stages of the spiritual journey they illuminate are scarcely matched elsewhere. In this light, the artificial division of spiritual “schools” seems not merely limiting, but actively detrimental.
I will stop here as it is taking us too far. Important but too far to be addressed in one reply/text.
JK
Read Also
The School of Mary and Religious Life (This article is quite close to the above one)
A Proven Doctrine Of Acquiring Perfection
Lectio Divina and Contemplative Prayer According to Carmelite Spirituality
The Spiritual Journey and Spiritual Formation
Is The School of Mary a Charism?