Dave wrote:
Originally Posted by BarbaraTherese
I am most curious now if anyone can state for sure whether there is a formal classification of mystic in The Church.
Somewhere I’ve read that the difference between a contemplative and a mystic is that the mystic has been given a special gift of understanding by which they are able to communicate something of the experience of God in prayer to others. By this criteria, St. Therese certainly qualifies as a mystic. There are contemplatives all around us . . . in our parishes, in our work environments, on these forums . . . but that doesn’t necessarily mean they can communicate.
Also, as others have noted, it’s a misnomer to equate mysticism with extraordinary phenomena like visions, locutions and so on as is so often the case. For the most part, the “extraordinary” was not the way of St. Therese. However, there’s no doubt she had abundant experience with the “ordinary” way of contemplation described so wonderfully by St. Teresa of Avila as the prayers of recollection, quiet and union.
Also, her “style” of contemplation was typically arid and dry in contrast to the joyful and consoling type we often (wrongly) associate with mysticism. All it takes is a quick glance at St. John of the Cross or St. Teresa of Avila to see that these style differenced aren’t what makes a mystic . . . for they are but opposite sides of the same coin.
How does the story go? Was it St Philip Neri (or some other saint) who encountered an old man in his church day after day spending hours sitting before the Blessed Sacrament, and who finally asked him what he was doing there day after day, to which the old man replied, “I look at Him; He looks at me.”
That, in a nutshell, is contemplation. Whether the old man was then able to explain further and in more detail his experience of this looking at and being looked at in return we are not told. Had he done so, in an understandable way, then as Dave says, he would have been a mystic as well.
St John of the Cross refers to his own writings as Mystical Theology and has the title, whether official or not, of the Mystical Doctor of the Church, though many people who have attempted to read him complain of not being able to understand him. But that cannot be blamed on St John. We understand only as we are able, according to our readiness to perceive. Which is exactly why our Lord spoke in parables, which is why Truth must often be conveyed by indirection, by symbol and imagery, because seeing and seeing we often do not perceive, and hearing and hearing do not understand when told things directly. Besides, everybody loves a story.
As a priest friend of mine, a former university professor, once put it, if he told his students that reality is not as it seems this would make no impact. However, if he were to say, “There was once an emperor who needed new clothes…” he would get their attention. And this story, this parable, would lead the students, hopefully, to the conclusion that “Hey, reality is not as it seems.”
A mystic is someone who sees reality as it is. And anyone who really wishes to “see” need only look to the One who said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free,” the One, that is, who also claimed to
be the Truth.
Perhaps someone will come into this thread with some good source reliable information to clarify the matter…I have no idea nor hence certainly any source to quote why I had arrived at a conclusion that The Church did so declare at times.
