Monasticism = Gnosticism?

[Donald45]

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+

 

[East_and_West]

Monastics do not mortify their flesh because they believe the flesh is evil as the gnostics did. Rather, they do so to help detach themselves from all earthly cares and focus solely on God.

 

[Donald45]

Monastics do not mortify their flesh because they believe the flesh is evil as the gnostics did. Rather, they do so to help detach themselves from all earthly cares and focus solely on God.

One can see here the inherent spirit/matter dualism I referred to. As you write, the monastic seeks to “detach [himself] from all earthly cares” (material realities) in favor of placing more attention on God (spiritual realities). “Earthly cares” are equated with “that which is physical, spiritually distracting, worldly, unspiritual,” in opposition or contrast to the purely spiritual (God).

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

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[Woodstock]

The difference to me is the theological underpinnings.

The Gnostics believe that Jesus Christ had one divine nature and therefore everything not of that nature is inferior and to be despised.

Catholic monastics believe that Jesus Christ had two natures, being fully human and fully divine. They accept the role of the physical world in our corporate salvation as well as in their individual theosis. They do not rebuke the flesh, but use it for their spiritual worship. They make prostrations and practice fasting and abstinence not as a denial of the role of the physical world in their salvation, but as an embracement of it. They seek to align their physical bodies, their mental will, and their spiritual longing and to point them all toward the will of God.