I was reading an article yesterday and came across a reference to the definition of metanoia that surprised me. And I would value your input on same: "Remember, presence does not happen in the mind. All the mind can handle is before and after; it does not know how to be present in the now. That is the mind’s great limitation. This is why all teachers of prayer give us methods for literally moving “beyond the mind” (meta-noia), which so many Bibles since St. Jerome’s unfortunate Latin (poenitentia) translate as 'repent.'" — D.P.
Meta means with (when it takes the genitive), otherwise after (or beyond) (when it takes the accusative). It corresponds roughly with the Latin preposition trans. I think he’s probably reading too much into it.
Paenitentia = penance — not repentance. Even Luther rendered the Greek word repent metanoēsate (Acts 2:38) as “tut Böße”, as I recall — “do penance.” Teshuvah is Hebrew for repentance (turning), corresponding to the Greek metánoia. Another thought: If the mind could not handle presence, then it’s hard to see how there could be any free will. This seems to be a variety of Augustinian thinking.
Perhaps equally misguided, the encouragement to move beyond the mind contradicts Paul in 1 Cor 14. We are to pray with our spirit and with our mind. When the mind is bypassed, we may open ourselves to the dark world.
I like your response. I wish my knowledge of Greek was better. In time. Although I agree with your arguments, does Rohr misinterpret μετά? It seems to me that he is using an English equivalent for meta which doesn’t match up with the real definition of μετά. — D.P.
I am finding that some Catholics read into the text their perspective—as do we all. With a different church culture, they tend to see many things through the lens of Catholic dogma. Some of their views have certainly made me ponder; others, like this one, seem to be a stretch.
