Is Eastern mysticism as "sexual" as Western?

[Alfonsus]

He says in the article, “there [will] be sex in Heaven because of the resurrection of the body,” which is contrary to what Jesus says, when he says, “For when they shall rise again from the dead, they shall neither marry, nor be married, but are as the angels in heaven.” Unless you think that angels have sex… ?

Sure, we will keep our sexuality as male and female.
We won’t be like the angels which are pure spirit thus neither male nor female.

In heaven mother Mary will never be father Mary or Mary the genderless.

But there won’t be marital act in heaven.

 

[ClamDigger]

Sure, we will keep our sexuality as male and female.
We won’t be like the angels which are pure spirit thus neither male nor female.

In heaven mother Mary will never be father Mary or Mary the genderless.

But there won’t be marital act in heaven.

Oh, okay! I misunderstood what he was saying! I thought he was saying that the conjugal act would take place in heaven. Of course there will still be anatomical gender after the resurrection! My bad!

 

[AndyP2010]

He says in the article, “there [will] be sex in Heaven because of the resurrection of the body,” which is contrary to what Jesus says, when he says, “For when they shall rise again from the dead, they shall neither marry, nor be married, but are as the angels in heaven.” Unless you think that angels have sex… ?

If you had done more than skimming you might have noticed

Not marriage. Christ’s words to the Sadducees are quite clear about that. It is in regard to marriage that we are “like the angels”. (Note that it is not said that we are like the angels in any other ways, such as lacking physical bodies.)

Note Christ is only talking about marriage between human creatures and yet Christ repeatedly testifies about the Church being wedded to himself.

 

[ClamDigger]

If you had done more than skimming you might have noticed

Woops!

Note Christ is only talking about marriage between human creatures and yet Christ repeatedly testifies about the Church being wedded to himself.

Of course, but that Marriage is a spiritual mystery, not a physical reality. It is much different from our worldly marriages, though there are similarities.

 

[DL82]

Friends ,

Forgive me for the potentially-scandalous title, but it gets the point across.

Lately, I’ve been delving very far into the depths of post-Augustinian Western mysticism. The neo-platonic theology expounded by that man seems to lend itself to passionate eroticism when considering God. I have been led to some of his writings in Confessions and The City of God. He speaks of the “embrace” of God’s “sweetness”, and how he was “seduced” by our Lord. Being a man who is trying to overcome disordered desires, I don’t see how this particularly helps me form a masculine, yet servile and loving relationship with God.

Catherine of Siena, John of the Cross, Theresa of Avila, and Therese of Lisieux speak like Augustine. Siena was obsessed with her mystical marriage to Christ and John of the Cross poetically imagined slipping out through secret staircases to meet our Lord in the night for a passionate tryst. Therese of Lisieux actually speaks of the “kiss” of “sweet Jesus”, rendering all love impotent outside that carnal union. It makes me sick, to be perfectly honest. I entered God’s Holy Church on April 23, but I already feel like I should be Eastern, because the West has become so soft and effeminate and just plain weird since Augustine.

I don’t know how to describe my sense of revulsion at this treating of God like a naked lover. All I can really say to some of these quotes is “ew”. I’m just not moved to devotion by this. The blessed Virgin just becomes a wide-eyed caricature to be fawned over and embraced, rather than the glorious humble saint she is. The holy Lord becomes a prancing, meadow-dwelling, deer-petting mockery of His true majesty.

Is the East and its mysticism like this? Does it fall into the carnal trap of kissing, cuddling, and holding, like the West seems to have done?

Can I suggest you read a good Catholic commentary on the Song of Songs, this is the heart and source of much of this kind of imagery. You can see the same kind of imagery in the final 4 chapters of Revelation, the new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven as a bride adorned for her wedding day, etc.

It seems to me that you may have an excessive revulsion of all things of the material world. The body is good, God made the body, and He made it for Himself. St Paul made this clear in 1 Corinthians 6:13 “the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.” God Himself is a God of passionate love, not only disinterested love, that is why He reveals Himself as jealous for His people. The Holy Father’s first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, which contains the culmination of his predecessor Blessed John Paul II’s thought on this matter, is worth reading on this:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

While it is true that at times there may be too much sentimentality in the way some Catholics see Christ and His Blessed Mother, that is not to say that sentiment, sense-language, the language and perception of the body, is a bad thing in itself. We are not souls striving to escape our bodies, we are created as body and soul together, and Christ gave us His Body in the sacred Mystery of the Eucharist, to be received in our body.

Perhaps the mistake you are making is in thinking these sexual images of the great mystics are holding up sex as the ideal and mystical communion as an analogy. That is not the case, for the Catholic, sex is the analogy (the ‘matter’ of the sacrament of Marriage, as bread and wine are to the Eucharist) while the ideal is mystical union with God. This is why in Ephesians 5:32, St Paul says this is a mystery, but it refers to Christ and the Church. It’s not that the mystics want to have sex with Christ, but rather that they recognise that the love of Christ is a higher thing even than sexual union.

 

[DL82]

The sad fact was I had become so corrupted that even words were occasions of sin and when I realized this I knew that it was me that needed changing not the writtings. I knew that if I just kept looking for writtings that were “safe” (honestly what isnt safe about the writtings of the saints) then one day I would have pushed myself into a corner where even the word “love” would be something I would see as an occasion to sin and everything about that just seemed ridiculous. So I decided to take a stand against my uncomfortableness and asked God for purity of mind so I could view and take these writtings of the Saints with the most innocent outlook. Like that of a child

I think this can be a problem for a lot of men, something called the ‘performative utterance’, where you see or hear something and act immediately without thinking. It’s a hunter-gatherer instinct - in the midst of hunting a fierce animal you don’t have time to think in between receiving a command and acting on it. Our sexuality is a gift from God, however, and as long as you let God lead you, healing is possible. Am glad you beat the temptation to scrupulosity as well as the temptation to lust

 

[Aramis]

Aren’t those angels fallen? Surely the resurrected Righteous will be as faithful angels, not as fallen angels?

The Grigori were not, as a class, fallen, but some of them were tempted and fell to lust, and begat the nephilim.

There are different views on the Grigori in popular media, too… by some accounts, the Grigori were assigned details to watch the people for God. In some others, they are the ones cast out but not into the pit, for refusing to take sides during the war in heaven, and await the end of days, when they shall be judged upon their time barred from heaven. Still others have them being both the watchers (Greek: egregori) and the banished angels.

 

[ClamDigger]

The Grigori were not, as a class, fallen, but some of them were tempted and fell to lust, and begat the nephilim.

There are different views on the Grigori in popular media, too… by some accounts, the Grigori were assigned details to watch the people for God. In some others, they are the ones cast out but not into the pit, for refusing to take sides during the war in heaven, and await the end of days, when they shall be judged upon their time barred from heaven. Still others have them being both the watchers (Greek: egregori) and the banished angels.

They still do not sound like angels of God, otherwise they would not be banished from Heaven. Which, once again, the resurrected Righteous will not be banished from Heaven. Also, you admit here that the angels that lusted after women are fallen.

 

[Monica4316]

Friends ,

Forgive me for the potentially-scandalous title, but it gets the point across.

Lately, I’ve been delving very far into the depths of post-Augustinian Western mysticism. The neo-platonic theology expounded by that man seems to lend itself to passionate eroticism when considering God. I have been led to some of his writings in Confessions and The City of God. He speaks of the “embrace” of God’s “sweetness”, and how he was “seduced” by our Lord. Being a man who is trying to overcome disordered desires, I don’t see how this particularly helps me form a masculine, yet servile and loving relationship with God.

Catherine of Siena, John of the Cross, Theresa of Avila, and Therese of Lisieux speak like Augustine. Siena was obsessed with her mystical marriage to Christ and John of the Cross poetically imagined slipping out through secret staircases to meet our Lord in the night for a passionate tryst. Therese of Lisieux actually speaks of the “kiss” of “sweet Jesus”, rendering all love impotent outside that carnal union. It makes me sick, to be perfectly honest. I entered God’s Holy Church on April 23, but I already feel like I should be Eastern, because the West has become so soft and effeminate and just plain weird since Augustine.

I don’t know how to describe my sense of revulsion at this treating of God like a naked lover. All I can really say to some of these quotes is “ew”. I’m just not moved to devotion by this. The blessed Virgin just becomes a wide-eyed caricature to be fawned over and embraced, rather than the glorious humble saint she is. The holy Lord becomes a prancing, meadow-dwelling, deer-petting mockery of His true majesty.

Is the East and its mysticism like this? Does it fall into the carnal trap of kissing, cuddling, and holding, like the West seems to have done?

Here’s an honest question… why do you feel that this imagery was meant to be sexual? what if the reason you saw it as sexual is because of how we were brainwashed by society to see everything loving or affectionate as sexual???

for example… if you read St Teresa of Avila, at times her descriptions might sound that way. But then when you read her works in total (such as the Interior Castle), it’s evident that is very much against emotionalism, she had a strong spirituality with no delusions… I think that the reason she chose that language to describe her ecstasies etc is because she couldnd’t find other words that are strong enough. They are metaphorical

same with St Therese… her language was very metaphorical, full of imagery - even about other things. That’s how she wrote. The “kiss” she describes from Jesus was not a real “kiss”, she was describing Communion and what it was like for her. Again, they are just trying to find the words to describe something that is spiritual, NOT carnal.

To prove the point further, I would mention St John of the Cross. In one part of his book, I think it’s the Dark Night of the Soul though I’m not sure, he talks about how some people at the beginning of their spiritual life, have carnal thoughts/feelings about Our Lord. But then, they overcome it. Then, he talks about how with time, our spirituality becomes more and more spiritual, and even the experience of it becomes more spiritual and LESS emotional and involvinv the senses. His poetry which you are referring to should be interpreted in light of this… he was spiritually advanced, he is a Saint, so clearly his approach WAS spiritual. So the language he chose was again metaphorical, meant to portray a spiritual reality.

What about the Song of Songs? Many theologians believe that is referring to Christ and His Bride. Or the language in the New Testament. It’s all metaphorical, because it’s hard to find words or concepts strong enough to describe such spiritual realities and God’s love.

My mind isn’t “in the gutter”. I know what such sentences as “'Oh Lord: act, awaken us, and call us! Come set us on fire and ravish us, fill us with sweetness” (Confessions - 1:15:24) mean. To be “ravished” in A.D. 400 meant what it means to be ravished today. What is this vaunted sweetness that Augustine brings up over and over? Since when is Jesus Christ our Lord so sweet, so ‘precious’, so soft? The words themselves speak for a very sensual attitude.

Why do you think that sentence is somehow sexual, or even sensual?? I don’t see it as such… he is talking about spiritual sweetness, as people find in prayer, ie: consolation. God’s consolation can and does feel that way - but it’s not sexual and doesn’t cause carnal feelings unless the person is in the beginning of their spiritual life and maybe needs to be purified more.

 

[Monica4316]

I fully realise that the Song of Songs is very heavy in such language. I don’t discount it, but it’s “just” one book out of many. It seems that everywhere I look in Augustine and those based on Augustine (i.e. the West), I get sentences like: “I did not remain stable in my enjoyment of my God. I was taken to You by your beauty”. He uses descriptive words that are so carnal. I don’t get it. The spiritual mystical authority and “judgmental mercy” of the holy Gospels just don’t seem to be reflected, generally-speaking, in Western ideas.

enjoyment of God and His beauty has NOTHING to do with sex. Is not God beautiful? Would we not enjoy Him in Heaven? what is so wrong with what St Augustine said here?

Our blessed Saviour indeed refers to the Church as His Bride, but never in carnal terms. He speaks of those not invested with the wedding garment being “cast out” into the outer regions of fire and gnashing of teeth. Where is the kissing and embracing and hugging and sweetness there? Do you see what I mean? It’s the emphasis, not necessarily the verity or falsity of the statement, that bugs me about Western mysticism.

You know there’s an idea that to the saved, God is Mercy… to the unsaved, He is Justice. The reason He spoke harshly to those who are put into hell, “cast out”, - is because they have not accepted His mercy so there is only one thing left - Judgement. But He speaks differently to those in Heaven, and to His Saints! why would He talk harshly with them? He allows trials, chastizes, purifies, sure, - that is all Catholic theology, - but He also gives consolations or encouragements… please don’t tell me you would want Jesus to speak harshly to you because I know you would not. So to the saved, He is very loving, but again none of it is sexual. Is the Eucharist not something intimate as well, again NOT in a sexual way? We receive His Body and Blood into ourselves - how much closer can we be to Him? does this not come from His love? God is not “cold” to us… He is not distant.

If all this imagery doesn’t help you, that’s fine, but - remember God’s love. And - please try to not see it as anything sexual because it wasn’t meant to be that way, by the authors.

You’re correct, TrueLight. I am very pusillanimous and worried about not having done what’s right. I am firmly convinced that I rushed into Catholicism without having fully understood the nature of its atmosphere/mood/emphasis. The weight of sin fully pressed on my conscience, and I badly desired baptism, so I was baptised on that holy night and washed by Christ. Perhaps I should have waited, because now I see that the nature of Western theology and its mystical expression overwhelm us with sweet scents of flowers, not the mighty sound of battle against Satan (to be Romantic).

the thing is, there’s a time for everything. The same Saints who spoke in this way, also spoke about God’s judgement, heresy, etc. For an example… look up the sermons of St John Vianney. But why always talk about the devil? Of course the Saints talked about Heaven, and God’s love too. Yes we are in a battle but the best way to fight is to firstly understand God’s love and to love Him in return. It so happens that the Saints could find no words to describe their experience of this except in those ways that you object - but again it was never meant to be sexual.

I really don’t want to change churches. I want to worship Jesus Christ in spirit and truth, but in order to be truthful I have to be a member of His true Church. If you’re a member of a communion which has strayed from the very core, the very spirit of Christ’s intent as God, then you need to go to a place that has preserved Christ’s intent. His Spirit is glorious, and we are overwhelmed by the majesty of God’s kingdom and His angelic armies. This sense of the immensity of spiritual warfare seems to have passed out of the West, at least in Siena, Lisieux, Augustine, Avila, and John of the Cross. It’s all about embraces and touching His “face”, and having His blood “drown us”, and His “heart” touched to our hearts, as if God has components and can be taken apart.

It’s very confusing… why do you think I’m here, on this sub-forum?

Can I ask you again, what is so inappropriate or sexual about touching Jesus’ face, or devotion to the Sacred Heart, or to His Precious Blood? this is not even about feelings… it’s about devotion, often to the Passion and to the Eucharist… the same Saints who spoke in this way did not fear pain or death or any sacrifice for God.

Spiritual warfare is best done simply by loving God, not focusing on the enemy.

If you want more preaching about sin, etc, you can find that in many Western Saints, just look up someone like St John Vianney.

Ewwwwwww… I am not about to have sex with Jesus. Sorry, no way!

NO ONE is talking about that.

 

[Monica4316]

@OP: Being a Lust Addict myself I have found it to be at times very difficult to read certain mystics without either being uncomfortable or triggered by the words they used. When this would happen I would feel horrible for even letting my mind be easily carried away by these words but then again this is the nature and severity of my cross. With that said there have been times where I have wished maybe some of the writtings were not as touchy-feely as they were but as time went on I began to focus on the fact that the problem is not in the style of writtings but in my own perception.

The sad fact was I had become so corrupted that even words were occasions of sin and when I realized this I knew that it was me that needed changing not the writtings. I knew that if I just kept looking for writtings that were “safe” (honestly what isnt safe about the writtings of the saints) then one day I would have pushed myself into a corner where even the word “love” would be something I would see as an occasion to sin and everything about that just seemed ridiculous. So I decided to take a stand against my uncomfortableness and asked God for purity of mind so I could view and take these writtings of the Saints with the most innocent outlook. Like that of a child

Anyway I’m happy to say that with Gods grace I can now read the writtings of Saint John of the Cross, Saint Augustine, and etc without feeling uncomfortable. I view their choice of words as them doing the best with what little they had to even somewhat describe their intimate relationships with our Lord. Frankly I dont think even they would say that the words they used could accuratly describe what they experienced. This kind of made me put myself in their shoes and think how exactly would I be able to convey my experiences with God to others using only words? Such a task in itself seems impossible to me as I’m sure it felt that way to them.

thank you for your post that is exactly what I was trying to say but you said it much better. Yes if we see it as something sexual, the problem is in us, not in the Saints. Why? Because the Saints did live such pure lives. Their hearts were pure… they wouldn’t imagine anything impure about Our Lord or Mary. Especially St Augustine, who struggled with impurity before his conversion, I believe.

Some Eastern Fathers (e.g. St. John Climacus) use Eros in describing the love between God and man. My priest several times has mentioned a liturgical prayer (I can’t remember at which service exactly) where God is described as pursuing his beloved (the Church) to the bedchamber and being satisfied. Overall though, when Eastern Christians use sexual language in discussion of the spiritual life, it is not overtly sensual, but rather suggests the intensity of God’s love of mankind.

I have seen this too… one time when I went to an Eastern Divine Liturgy, the priest there talked about how God’s love is sometimes described as “eros” too, - but that is figurative and it’s meant to show the intensity of His lvoe, as you said, - nothing actually sexual.

 

[WoundedIcon]

I think GloriousOrder just feels out of place in our popular piety. I must admit, we’ve largely ignored masculine spirituality for a while now. I’m more of a “St. Michael” person myself, but when I go to church it’s very “Mother Mary”. And then there’s the polite=holy ideal, etc.