Is Eastern mysticism as "sexual" as Western?

[Bluegoat]

I guess I’m trying to say that the soft, blurry Western depictions of the blessed Virgin and our Lord just tend to be childish. This is after a certain point of course, since we can hardly call Medieval and Renaissance images childish, being so rigid and mysterious as they often are. Perhaps it would be better to confine myself to Western art from the last 300 years, as styles became softer in religious art.

I also find this kind of art a bit creepy and overly feminine, and I don’t get why people like it. I `agree that it seems like something men would have a lot of trouble relating to.

I did read an explanation once of why it looks that way, however, it was from a character in a novel who was a somewhat disreputable priest. But I rather thought it might have some truth to it.

What he said was that these rosy, clean, and curly-haired depictions of saints are meant to peasant women. So the saint looks absolutly nothing like the woman’s husband, who works in the field all day and comes home and puts his cold feet on her bum in bed to warm them up. And he said that the woman would not, probably, really want the saint to replace her husband, but that the clean pretty saint is a kind of otherworldly figure for her.

Anyway, that is by far the best explanation I have found, even if it comes from a pretend person.

 

[TrueLight]

The way you take it (I believe to be Western) is rather passive: 1. God hears the prayers of the just first, and 2. the saints are just, so 3. we should ask them to pray for our more important stuff, because 4. we are unjust.

The more active (and I believe the more Eastern) approach is aggressive: 1. God hears the prayers of the just first, and 2. I am unjust, so 3. I should become just in the eyes of God by prayer, work, faith, hope, charity, love, and perfection, because 4. God will hear me and collect me at the end of days.

I’m not saying the West is more about passive mercy and the Easter is more about aggressive justice, but that the emphasis is slightly skewed…

Interesting comparison.

I guess I struggle with that.

I do believe in the Communion of Saints and intercession, but I also feel I can go straight to Jesus with my petitions. So in the case of your comparison, I would say I am more aggressive.

When I pray to the father, I approach him as s someone who is not worthy, but I ask him to hear me for his son’s sake – In Jesus’ name.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well you have to understand, honor must be given to those who deserve honor. Similarly, teachings must be taught no matter how controversial the teaching is. Teachings like the Eucharist may be controversial and unexplainable fully but yet it is taught and believed.

Therefore, the fact that many may not understand cannot really be the basis for changing our approach to the blessed Virgin Mary. If it is, it is how it must be.

God Bless

I understand that. The problem I see is that some people do really take their devotion beyond just honor. I’m pretty there are people out there who have really crossed the line between honor and worship.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Okay. I’m going to hazard some comments here just because the mystics, both East and West, are very near and dear to my heart.

First, yes this so-called “sexual” language does exist among the mystics of the East, just as the “battle” language exists among the mystics of the West. Eastern and Oriental mysticism abounds with language of “sweetness,” love for mankind," “compassion,” “tender mercy,” “gentleness,” etc. Browse through some of the homilies of St. John Chrysostom, or the writings of St. Symeon the New Theologian and you should find some pretty good examples.

The thing is, the mystics are simply using faultering language to describe the infinite Mystery that they have experienced. The closest analogy in human experience that one can find to describe God’s relation to our souls is the marital relationship (not just the sexual aspect of it [which is the high-point of the marital relationship in the same way as reception of Communion is the high-point of the Mass/Liturgy; it doesn’t make the rest of the relationship or Mass/Liturgy irrelevant or unimportant]).

In the Western tradition, if you want to read books that are more about what is known as the “active life” (i.e. ascetic practice to overcome one’s faults, practice of the virtues, etc.), perhaps you would more enjoy Thomas a Kempis’ “Imitation of Christ,” or Scupoli’s “Spiritual Warfare” (which was also edited and revised into an Eastern version by St. Nikodimus of the Holy Mountain). Also, check out St. Francis de Sales’ “Introduction to the Devout Life” along with the “Spiritual Exercises” of St. Ignatius of Loyola. All of these books are wonderful examples of spiritual warfare along the lines of what you seem to be seeking.

 

[WoundedIcon]

GloriousOrder, I should probably mention this. I’m glad you know about the Scriptures condemning effeminacy, although it could actually be a reference to catamites (boy prostitutes who sold themselves to pederasts). But assuming it isn’t, the condemnation in those times would have been aimed towards… well, the best description I have is gay long haired fat guys who loved to just roll around in soft sheets and have sex and gorge themselves on delicacies. Men too given to pleasure and self-seeking, slaves to their own disordered passions. It wouldn’t necessarily mean they’re sensitive and cry and like to cuddle and stuff. Even Jesus bawled his eyes out on occasion and got rather sweet. Although he also knew how to kick butt and argue LOL. I mean, the dude was so bad-arse and loved us so much he let himself be tortured and executed to rescue us. That’s real manhood, sacrifice out of love. That’s a hubby if I ever saw one

BTW, the Biblical concept of meekness doesn’t equate to doormatness. It actually means that someone has complete control over themselves and is wise enough to know when and how is the right way of harnessing their abilities. The meek are those who don’t burn the White House down because they don’t like Obama. Instead they use lawful channels to express their frustration and try to change things. Jesus was meek because he didn’t summon that legion of angels in the garden.

 

[Pakesh]

FIRST

Theotokos means mother of God. Rather than detract from Christ, this actually safeguards an important truth about Christ i.e. That Christ was indeed one person with two natures, human & divine.

SECOND

Mary is never there to replace Christ. Mary should be given the proper role in every Christian’s life. That is the role of spiritual mother. Mary is the person who leads us to Christ.

Think about it, God could have just chosen to drop Jesus down from the sky. Did he? No. Instead, he chose to use the blessed Virgin Mother to participate bringing about our salvation, Christ. So all the grace of the world was given to us through Mary’s co-operation to bear Christ.

Does this mean God was powerless and needed her help?

NO!! It means God desired it to be that way. God chose to bestow the honor on the blessed Virgin Mother and giver her the role she plays today. It is us who seem to be so confused that we think to honor her and ask her for help takes away from the glory of God. But its simply not true. In fact, to think we know better on how to approach these things, takes away from how God willed things to be and seems to suggest we know better than God.

Now, through the blood of Christ, we become brothers and sisters of the Lord. Thus Mary becomes our spiritual mother. When we pray to the blessed Mother, we ask her to lead us to Christ. We ask her to introduce us to Christ as she first did. We ask her to intercede for us to her son as she did in Cana. Once again, did Jesus really had to wait till Mary told her to turn water in to wine? Not at all. Did he tell Mary to ask the people with the wine problem to talk to him directly? Not at all. He performed a miracle at the request of his mother simply because it pleased him.

So in a sense, Marian devotion and trust in her intercession is not a cult. It is simply an acceptance of a truth. If Marian devotion is a cult, so would be our faith in Jesus.

God Bless

:clapping:
Well said. I am interested in how some posters are worried about the “cult of Mary” in the west. Frankly, my gut reaction is that sounds very Protest-ant.
God Bless,
Pakesh

 

[brgregmack]

One of the most powerful weapons we have against Satan and his armies is love and praising God. Expressing our love for Christ in such a way makes the devil flee.

 

[AndyP2010]

Don’t read something about God that turns you on I guess? In the mean time, talk to a psychiatrist, because that has to be unhealthy.

Okay… then I guess a spousal approach to God isn’t for you. Approach God some other way. No one is saying that you can only approach him as a Spouse and there’s really not some substantial amount of Catholics who do approach him as such, even if some saints who were consecrated religious did.
I personally don’t approach God as a Spouse, but I see nothing with those who choose to approach him as such.

I think you both have a problem in that Holy Scripture describes our whole relationship with our Lord as being spousal, Christ himself talks of it constantly. Genesis begins with God creating a proper mate for man and Revelation ends with the wedding feast of the Son of Man, the Lamb of God with the Church as his bride. For the OP try reading Peter Kreefts Is there Sex in Heaven?

 

[ClamDigger]

I think you both have a problem in that Holy Scripture describes our whole relationship with our Lord as being spousal, Christ himself talks of it constantly.

Seeing as how I’ve cited several verses from Scripture that compare Christ to a lover, I hardly see how this applies to me…

Genesis begins with God creating a proper mate for man and Revelation ends with the wedding feast of the Son of Man, the Lamb of God with the Church as his bride. For the OP try reading Peter Kreefts Is there Sex in Heaven?

How do I have a problem with approaching God as a spouse? Because I don’t generally experience that feeling? I don’t see how that is a problem… I generally view him more as a friend or a beloved family member (sometimes even as a child if I’m praying to the Infant of Prague). Just because I don’t approach God the same way as St. Teresa of Avila doesn’t mean that I am approaching God in the wrong way.

 

[ClamDigger]

For the OP try reading Peter Kreefts Is there Sex in Heaven?

I skimmed through this article, and it makes no sense to me when read in light of Christ’s words: “And Jesus answering, saith to them: Do ye not therefore err, because you know not the scriptures, nor the power of God? For when they shall rise again from the dead, they shall neither marry, nor be married, but are as the angels in heaven.” --Mark 12.24-25
If we will no longer be married or marry, why would we still engage in the marital act?

 

[Celticnovice]

Okay. I’m going to hazard some comments here just because the mystics, both East and West, are very near and dear to my heart.

First, yes this so-called “sexual” language does exist among the mystics of the East, just as the “battle” language exists among the mystics of the West. Eastern and Oriental mysticism abounds with language of “sweetness,” love for mankind," “compassion,” “tender mercy,” “gentleness,” etc. Browse through some of the homilies of St. John Chrysostom, or the writings of St. Symeon the New Theologian and you should find some pretty good examples.

The thing is, the mystics are simply using faultering language to describe the infinite Mystery that they have experienced. The closest analogy in human experience that one can find to describe God’s relation to our souls is the marital relationship (not just the sexual aspect of it [which is the high-point of the marital relationship in the same way as reception of Communion is the high-point of the Mass/Liturgy; it doesn’t make the rest of the relationship or Mass/Liturgy irrelevant or unimportant]).

In the Western tradition, if you want to read books that are more about what is known as the “active life” (i.e. ascetic practice to overcome one’s faults, practice of the virtues, etc.), perhaps you would more enjoy Thomas a Kempis’ “Imitation of Christ,” or Scupoli’s “Spiritual Warfare” (which was also edited and revised into an Eastern version by St. Nikodimus of the Holy Mountain). Also, check out St. Francis de Sales’ “Introduction to the Devout Life” along with the “Spiritual Exercises” of St. Ignatius of Loyola. All of these books are wonderful examples of spiritual warfare along the lines of what you seem to be seeking.

Totally agree with this post.

 

[Alfonsus]

I skimmed through this article, and it makes no sense to me when read in light of Christ’s words: “And Jesus answering, saith to them: Do ye not therefore err, because you know not the scriptures, nor the power of God? For when they shall rise again from the dead, they shall neither marry, nor be married, but are as the angels in heaven.” --Mark 12.24-25
If we will no longer be married or marry, why would we still engage in the marital act?

You sure you skimmed it trough?
Peter Kreeft did not say that people will have sexual relationship/sexual act/marital act like people on earth.
The first thing he highlight in the article is that we will keep on being male and female, our sexuality intact and bought to perfection.

 

[Alfonsus]

Totally agree with this post.

So do I. I’m quite close with St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross works, since my mentors were Carmelites.

What I can say is that their experience were so intense that they have no words to describe it. The best analogy they can provide is the same analogy the Scripture provide, analogy of spousal relationship.

Of course, as an analogy, it still do not enough to describe what they actually experienced. But those were the best they can say.

That is why every mystic, always greatly misunderstood (and received harrasment). Because what they wish to convey is just beyond words.

Heck, we can’t even describe how a rose smells using words.
Sweet? Smells good? Well, perhaps my socks smell good too. The same smell I wonder?

 

[jwinch2]

In the Western tradition, if you want to read books that are more about what is known as the “active life” (i.e. ascetic practice to overcome one’s faults, practice of the virtues, etc.), perhaps you would more enjoy Thomas a Kempis’ “Imitation of Christ,” or Scupoli’s “Spiritual Warfare” (which was also edited and revised into an Eastern version by St. Nikodimus of the Holy Mountain). Also, check out St. Francis de Sales’ “Introduction to the Devout Life” along with the “Spiritual Exercises” of St. Ignatius of Loyola. All of these books are wonderful examples of spiritual warfare along the lines of what you seem to be seeking.

Good stuff! Does anyone have additional suggestions about theologians to read from the Western Tradition that approach things from what the OP termed a more masculine perspective?

Thanks!

 

[ClamDigger]

You sure you skimmed it trough?
Peter Kreeft did not say that people will have sexual relationship/sexual act/marital act like people on earth.
The first thing he highlight in the article is that we will keep on being male and female, our sexuality intact and bought to perfection.

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… ?

 

[Aramis]

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… ?

How else would they have begat the nephilim and the grigori?

Seriously, Jewish understanding of angels included them being able to know and be known in a sexual manner. Moreover, to be tempted by mortal women.

 

[ClamDigger]

How else would they have begat the nephilim and the grigori?

Seriously, Jewish understanding of angels included them being able to know and be known in a sexual manner. Moreover, to be tempted by mortal women.

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

 

[WoundedIcon]

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… ?

He seems to simply be saying that we will be gendered in Heaven and partake in the higher form of whatever physical sexuality points to in Heaven.

 

[jonnyws]

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?

We need to be careful not to render erotic love something purely of this world, something sinful and something that is only material. The Pope talks about erotic love and our need to reorder and redeem it in Christ rather than deny it in his encyclical letter ‘Deus Caritas Est’. I think what the mystics you mention have found is not something base but rather that very reordering and redemption of the erotic that we so often think of as sinful rather than God given.

Nowadays Christianity of the past is often criticized as having been opposed to the body; and it is quite true that tendencies of this sort have always existed. Yet the contemporary way of exalting the body is deceptive. Eros, reduced to pure “sex”, has become a commodity, a mere “thing” to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity. This is hardly man’s great “yes” to the body. On the contrary, he now considers his body and his sexuality as the purely material part of himself, to be used and exploited at will. Nor does he see it as an arena for the exercise of his freedom, but as a mere object that he attempts, as he pleases, to make both enjoyable and harmless. Here we are actually dealing with a debasement of the human body: no longer is it integrated into our overall existential freedom; no longer is it a vital expression of our whole being, but it is more or less relegated to the purely biological sphere. The apparent exaltation of the body can quickly turn into a hatred of bodiliness. Christian faith, on the other hand, has always considered man a unity in duality, a reality in which spirit and matter compenetrate, and in which each is brought to a new nobility. True, eros tends to rise “in ecstasy” towards the Divine, to lead us beyond ourselves; yet for this very reason it calls for a path of ascent, renunciation, purification and healing. POPE BENEDICT XVI, ENCYCLICAL LETTER DEUS CARITAS EST]

 

[Madaglan]

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?

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.