Monasticism = Gnosticism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Donald45
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Donald45

Guest
One of the earliest enemies of Christianity was Gnosticism, a heresy which held to a spirit/body (immaterial vs. material) dualism. “Spirit” (the immaterial) was “good” or “more real,” while “body” (the material) was “evil” or “less real.” The former was to be desired and sought, while the latter was to be eschewed and avoided. A later form of this error was known as Docetism, which believed that the material was illusory, and spirit was real. Thus, Docetists held that Jesus only appeared to be a physical being, but was actually only divinity. The Catholic Church has consistently rejected such a view as a denial of the Incarnational Principle, the idea that the created order (the material world) has been sanctified through the incarnation of Christ, is therefore inherently good (Genesis: “And God saw that it was good”), and is no less real or good than immaterial realities.

Here’s my question: This appears to conflict with the Catholic ideal of m*onasticism *(monastic spirituality), in which one seeks to draw nearer to God (the immaterial or spiritual) through a denial or rejection of the things of the temporal world (the material or bodily). Thomas a’Kempis’s Imitation of Christ is a famous example of this:

"Learn to despise this world of outward things, and devote yourself to what lies within; there, within you, you will see the coming of God’s kingdom."

Here is the immaterial/material dualism mentioned above. The implication here is that “the world” (= “things of the physical world”) is “bad” in relation to “spiritual things,” that material realities are less desirable or less substantial than immaterial realities, that the “soul” is to be valued far above external, bodily concerns. So, spiritual (internal) things are virtuous and desirable, while material (external) things are dubious and detract from spiritual realities, which we are do seek above such mundane “unspiritual” pursuits.

So, in light of this, is not the monastic ideal a form of neo-gnosticism? Is this popular Catholic approach to spirituality (immaterial vs. material/spirit vs. body) essentially a Docetic view of reality? If so, how can we Catholics justify such an approach?

Any thoughts?

Blessings,

Don
+T+
 
Here’s my question: This appears to conflict with the Catholic ideal of m*onasticism *(monastic spirituality), in which one seeks to draw nearer to God (the immaterial or spiritual) through a denial or rejection of the things of the temporal world (the material or bodily). Thomas a’Kempis’s Imitation of Christ is a famous example of this:

"Learn to despise this world of outward things, and devote yourself to what lies within; there, within you, you will see the coming of God’s kingdom."

Here is the immaterial/material dualism mentioned above. The implication here is that “the world” (= “things of the physical world”) is “bad” in relation to “spiritual things,” that material realities are less desirable or less substantial than immaterial realities, that the “soul” is to be valued far above external, bodily concerns. So, spiritual (internal) things are virtuous and desirable, while material (external) things are dubious and detract from spiritual realities, which we are do seek above such mundane “unspiritual” pursuits.

So, in light of this, is not the monastic ideal a form of neo-gnosticism? Is this popular Catholic approach to spirituality (immaterial vs. material/spirit vs. body) essentially a Docetic view of reality? If so, how can we Catholics justify such an approach?

Any thoughts?

Blessings,

Don
+T+
How so? Even today the expression “of the world” can mean that which draws me away from God. It does not mean that which is material. So, discarding the things of this world is the same as “dying to oneself” and isn’t anything like Gnostism.
 
How so? Even today the expression “of the world” can mean that which draws me away from God. It does not mean that which is material. So, discarding the things of this world is the same as “dying to oneself” and isn’t anything like Gnostism.
If the Catholic/monastic approach limited its definition of “the world” merely to “that which draws one away from God,” that might be enough to distinguish it from a neo-gnostic or docetic position. However, “the world” is assumed in the literature to refer to “the external, material, or bodily” in opposition or contrast to “the internal, immaterial, or spiritual.” “The things of this world,” as opposed to “the things of God”; “worldly concerns” in contrast to “spiritual concerns.”

So, the connection seems to be the affirmation of a spirit/matter dualism:

~ “spiritual” (immaterial) = “good/virtuous/real” vs. “natural” (material) = “bad/dubious/less real”

Therefore, in the Catholic monastic approach, the former is to be preferred and sought over the latter, which is to be denied, avoided and shunned. This is a view that any gnostic or docetist would understand and affirm wholeheartedly.

So, again, I’m not sure how to reconcile these two Catholic ideals: [1] the Incarnational Principle, vs. [2] the monastic approach to Catholic spirituality.

Blessings,

Don
+T+
 
If the Catholic/monastic approach limited its definition of “the world” merely to “that which draws one away from God,” that might be enough to distinguish it from a neo-gnostic or docetic position. However, “the world” is assumed in the literature to refer to “the external, material, or bodily” in opposition or contrast to “the internal, immaterial, or spiritual.” “The things of this world,” as opposed to “the things of God”; “worldly concerns” in contrast to “spiritual concerns.”

So, the connection seems to be the affirmation of a spirit/matter dualism:

~ “spiritual” (immaterial) = “good/virtuous/real” vs. “natural” (material) = “bad/dubious/less real”

Therefore, in the Catholic monastic approach, the former is to be preferred and sought over the latter, which is to be denied, avoided and shunned. This is a view that any gnostic or docetist would understand and affirm wholeheartedly.

So, again, I’m not sure how to reconcile these two Catholic ideals: [1] the Incarnational Principle, vs. [2] the monastic approach to Catholic spirituality.

Blessings,

Don
+T+
First, if you insist on using your definitions of the terms rather than the Church’s then you will not be able to reconcile them.

The monastics were called to serve God in a unique way. To imply that this uniqueness included the discarding the most fundamental element of the truth is ludicrous.
 
First, if you insist on using your definitions of the terms rather than the Church’s then you will not be able to reconcile them.
Even a casual reading of the literature of monastic spirituality reveals clearly the validity of the point I was making.
The monastics were called to serve God in a unique way. To imply that this uniqueness included the discarding the most fundamental element of the truth is ludicrous.
Thank you for your opinion, but I can’t quite line up with it at this point. Monasticism is based on a desire to withdraw from “the world” in order to be closer to God. “The things of the world” are seen as an inherent distraction from “the things of the spirit.” Why? Because they’re material, temporal, natural, and creaturely, as opposed to “spiritual things” which are identified with the immaterial, eternal, supernatural, and divine. Why separate from human society unless that society is equated with “the world,” and is assumed to be somehow detrimental to one’s “soul” (the internal, spiritual, immaterial)? So, we find in this the spirit/body (immaterial/material) dualism also present in gnostic/docetic worldviews.

I agree that this conflicts with the Catholic Incarnational Principle, but don’t see how to reconcile the inconsistency.

Blessings,

Don
+T+
 
Our explanation of the terms anachoresis and enkrateia has made clear that askesis signifies not simply a selfish quest for individual salvation but a service rendered to the total human family; not simply the cutting off or destroying of the lower but., much more profoundly, the refinement and illumination of the lower and its transfiguration into something higher. The same conclusion could be drawn from an examination of other key ascetic terms, such as hesychia (stillness, tranquillity, quietude). This too is affirmative rather than negative, a state of plenitude rather than emptiness, a sense of presence rather than absence. It is not just a cessation of speech, a pause between words, but an attitude of attentive listening, of openness and communion with the eternal: in the words of John Climacus, “Hesychia is to worship God unceasingly and to wait on him… The Hesychast is one who says, 'I sleep, but my heart is awake”’ (Song 5.2). Interpreted in this positive way, as transfiguration rather than mortification, askesis is universal in its scope-not an elite enterprise but a vocation for all. It is not a curious aberration, distorting our personhood, but it reveals to us our own true nature. As Father Alexander Elchaninov observes, “Asceticism is necessary first of all for creative action of any kind, for prayer, for love: in other words, it is needed by each of us throughout our entire life…
Every Christian is an ascetic.” Without asceticism none of us is authentically human.
 
“The things of the world” are seen as an inherent distraction from “the things of the spirit.”
I don’t think that is the case though; that they are seen as a distraction. St. Paul even appoints people to oversee the immediate needs of the church while he commits himself to continual prayer. Cloistered religious are dedicated to praying for the needs of the church. That drawing away is for a purpose perhaps more than as a running away, although, certainly I am sure for those who find the world a temptation to sin (perhaps from having previously led a very sinful life) this drawing away is necessary.

But as for another view on created things and the material, Fr. Dubay put it in his book “Fire Within” when speaking of John of the Cross says: “John sees created splendor as normally enkindling a great love in the human person, a love that is soon thirsting for a far greater vision of and immersion into the divine beauty than infinite reality can possibly trigger. Discursive meditation, then, is to lead one rapidly to so penetrating a yearning for the Beloved’s presence that nothing short of Him can cure her grief. Nothing worldly satisfies one who has tasted the divine: ‘Any other communication further increases and awakens her appetite, like the crumbs given to a famished man.’ Created messengers are no longer adequate. The knowledge of God they bring is ‘remote’. Lofty John portrays the growing soul to be thirsting now for nothing less than some direct contact with the Fountain: ‘You have revealed Yourself to me as through fissures in a rock; now may You give me that revelation more clearly.’ Through the beauties of creation God has communicated ‘as if joking with me; now may You truly grant me a communication of Yourself by Yourself’. Good as meditation is, the holy person will find that finite beauty is only a messenger. An intermediary is no longer enough: ‘May You, then, be both the messenger and message’”.

The point is that as lovely as the created world is, for one truly in love with God, it is worth foresaking knowing that there is something far better to be obtained, even in our earthly life; the union with God obtained through contemplation. Of course, one need not join a monastery to do this, but one definately has to at least cultivate an inner sanctuary where God can dwell.

Not sure how well that addresses the question, but the goal of a religious, in drawing away from the world, isn’t so much a rejection of creation as if it were evil, as it is a foresaking it for something Infinitely Better.
 
Here’s my question: This appears to conflict with the Catholic ideal of m*onasticism *(monastic spirituality), in which one seeks to draw nearer to God (the immaterial or spiritual) through a denial or rejection of the things of the temporal world (the material or bodily).
That is not what I understand monasticism to be about. It does have some potentially Gnostic tendencies, but monasticism is very “bodily” in lots of ways–manual work, chanting, concrete bonds of community, special clothing. . . .
Thomas a’Kempis’s Imitation of Christ is a famous example of this:
"Learn to despise this world of outward things, and devote yourself to what lies within; there, within you, you will see the coming of God’s kingdom."
Not all outward/inward dichotomy is automatically Gnostic. But I think this kind of language is dangerous and less than ideal.

Edwin
 
Thanks to all for your insightful comments. Let me try to summarize a Catholic reply to my original post:

~ the phrase “the world” refers not to material reality per se, but rather to “that which draws one away from God.”

~ monastic spirituality is not a rejection of the material world as if it were inherently evil, but rather a forsaking of it for something infinitely superior; a form of self-denial in which one forgoes that which is temporally good for what is eternally valuable.

~ not all “outward/inward” dichotomies are necessarily or automatically gnostic or docetic. One must take into account the theological/philosophical rationale behind the language.

~ the created order is affected by the Fall (is itself “fallen”). Though still “good” (Gen. 1:31) and sanctified through the Incarnation, it is nevertheless fallen from what it should be, and thus may serve as a hinderance to spirituality, as much as a help to it.

~ monastic spirituality reaches beyond
the created order to attain a deeper union with God, who is a pure Spirit (Jn. 4:24). It goes beyond that which reflects the Creator to focus on that which is reflected by the creation, that is, God himself. So, then, it’s not a rejection or forsaking of the material world, but a transcendence of it in order to take on the image of the Transcendent Creator.

This is my basic synopsis of the answers given so far. Any comments or clarifications?

Blessings,

Don
+T+
 
Thanks to all for your insightful comments. Let me try to summarize a Catholic reply to my original post:

~ the phrase “the world” refers not to material reality per se, but rather to “that which draws one away from God.”

~ monastic spirituality is not a rejection of the material world as if it were inherently evil, but rather a forsaking of it for something infinitely superior; a form of self-denial in which one forgoes that which is temporally good for what is eternally valuable.

~ not all “outward/inward” dichotomies are necessarily or automatically gnostic or docetic. One must take into account the theological/philosophical rationale behind the language.

~ the created order is affected by the Fall (is itself “fallen”). Though still “good” (Gen. 1:31) and sanctified through the Incarnation, it is nevertheless fallen from what it should be, and thus may serve as a hinderance to spirituality, as much as a help to it.

~ monastic spirituality reaches beyond
the created order to attain a deeper union with God, who is a pure Spirit (Jn. 4:24). It goes beyond that which reflects the Creator to focus on that which is reflected by the creation, that is, God himself. So, then, it’s not a rejection or forsaking of the material world, but a transcendence of it in order to take on the image of the Transcendent Creator.

This is my basic synopsis of the answers given so far. Any comments or clarifications?

Blessings,

Don
+T+
This seems be a reasonable synopsis. Has the apparant contradiction been resolved?
 
This seems be a reasonable synopsis. Has the apparant contradiction been resolved?
I find some of the points to be stronger than others, but this seems to provide a good starting point for understanding the issues involved.

Can anyone add anything to the above synopsis of the Catholic position?

Blessings,

Don
+T+
 
Monasticism
Those living in the service of the word(s) given from the fathers who must service of descent (St Francis).

Gnosticism
Those living in the services as examples of the true word (Angels) and the proof the before fathers were the teachers.
 
I would add that one of the principal reasons for withdrawing from the the world is simply to avoid things that distract us from prayer, mediation and serving God.

The self discipline and self-denial required to actually do this allow the person to focus more of their time and energy on spiritual things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top