Mysticism in the East, West, and Orient

[dzheremi]

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I’m not so sure that’s a correct characterization. One has to keep in mind that the RCC – and to my view particularly in these Novus Ordo days – de-emphasizes the mystical in favor of the legal, so if someone failed to “find the mystical aspect” I’d not be surprised.

I’ll put it this way, with apologies in advance to anyone who will protest “well, that’s not MY experience of the Catholic Church”… (I know. Just like I’m not wearing your clothes, or cooking your food, or kissing your wife goodnight, either. )

The last thing I did before leaving Oregon in July of 2009 was take a trip to Mt. Angel Abbey on the coast with my Father of Confession. He knew I had been struggling for some time by that point with the Catholic Church, and thought it would help to show me another side of Latin spirituality (as I had been already to see the Ruthenians, and that hadn’t really been the revelation he’d maybe hoped it would be). If you’ve never been to the Abbey and happen to be in Mt. Angel, Oregon, I really recommend it. It’s beautiful, very serene, the monks are serious and committed, they have a great bookstore (which sells some books by HH Pope Shenouda III, my FOC pointed out while we were there…hahaha), etc. But because it is so wonderful, and so serious (almost to the point of being dour, but maybe that’s just my memory coloring it that way), I was actually kind of mad. How could it be that there was this kind of spirituality here, but just a few hours away at home in the church in Eugene, we had jazz bands and people with folk guitars ruining everything on a relatively regular basis? I was actually kind of mad. I mean, my FOC would always extol the East and the Orient, encourage me to learn more Byzantine hymns in Arabic (this is what I did instead of learning the family lineage of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in the Arabic class I had been taking at the local university), etc. So he seemed on board with many of the things that I was being exposed to at the time, and yet in actual practice, none of this was reflected in the masses that he served. I remember I once asked him why it was, since he was such a lover of St. Ephrem, that we didn’t have these kinds of traditional hymns in our mass (hey, give me a break…I didn’t realize at the time how out of place that would be; I just figured “St. Ephrem is better than this Marty Haugen stuff, and Father would obviously approve”). He told me that the senior priest (my FOC was in his mid-30s) wouldn’t have it, since he was afraid that if we did anything too traditional, we’d lose a lot of people, since it was a college town and of course kids need guitars and harps and standup basses, or whatever. That confused me then, and it confuses me now. I think I was…I dunno…25? Maybe a little older than the target demographic, but still…it doesn’t wash with me.

So it is not that I don’t recognize that there is this strain in Latin Catholicism, though I must say that in terms of actual “mystic” RC writers such as St. Therese, St. John of the Cross, etc., I tried them all in the course of my attempt to discern where I should be, and found them to be either creepily carnal or surprisingly dry/detached; I got way more out of the likes of G.K. Chesterson, who is of course not a mystic at all, but I still love him to this day. But anyway, I think this entire approach is wrong-headed. Were I searching for “mysticism” I’d be following some Indian yogi. The idea of even having some kind of separate category of spirituality that is “mystical” seems weird to me, especially when it doesn’t really impact the everyday practice or experience of the mass in the vast majority of parishes in America (Catholicism elsewhere is something else; I’ve been to tiny Mexican villages that were a lot more like my experience in the Coptic Church in terms of pastoral guidance in the everyday life than anything I subsequently experienced in the Latin Church). It’s like…for the Maronites, do they say that St. Maroun was a “mystic”? I kind of doubt it, because that requires a context where he is set apart from the everyday practice of the faith, and that makes no sense, as he founded that particular expression of the faith! Do you see what I mean? There is no “mysticism” when we’re just talking about what you do. That’s just everyday life. That’s what I like about Orthodoxy. Looked at from the outside it seems mystical and weird or whatever, but I will tell you that there’s nothing “mystical” at all about cooking ful muddames for dinner 210+ nights out of the year, but we do it because it’s part of how we live our faith, day in day out. Sobriety is the name of the game. If you read the monastic literature of the East and the Orient, you’ll see that many saints fled “mystical” experiences, such as contact with angels.

I guess in a way, I am against mysticism as a thing, but I can still recognize that a more serious kind of spirituality is something that is in the Latin Church, however small and hidden away it can seem (and my FOC even agreed with this, as we had stopped to get some lunch on the way back from the Abbey and I asked him why it seems that we have to drive out of our way to go visit Catholics actually LIVING the faith in a serious, consistent manner; he said, to the best of my recollection, that it was not really hidden away, but it does take some digging to find. Poor guy…)

Note from Moderator:

The discussion that ensued from this post on mysticism was sufficiently off-topic to create a new thread from it. Please see here for the original discussion asking if one may receive Communion in the Eastern Catholic Churches with a serious sin on the soul.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator

 

[Marybeloved]

So it is not that I don’t recognize that there is this strain in Latin Catholicism, though I must say that in terms of actual “mystic” RC writers such as St. Therese, St. John of the Cross, etc., I tried them all in the course of my attempt to discern where I should be, and found them to be either creepily carnal or surprisingly dry/detached; I got way more out of the likes of G.K. Chesterson, who is of course not a mystic at all, but I still love him to this day. But anyway, I think this entire approach is wrong-headed. Were I searching for “mysticism” I’d be following some Indian yogi. The idea of even having some kind of separate category of spirituality that is “mystical” seems weird to me, especially when it doesn’t really impact the everyday practice or experience of the mass in the vast majority of parishes in America (Catholicism elsewhere is something else; I’ve been to tiny Mexican villages that were a lot more like my experience in the Coptic Church in terms of pastoral guidance in the everyday life than anything I subsequently experienced in the Latin Church). It’s like…for the Maronites, do they say that St. Maroun was a “mystic”? I kind of doubt it, because that requires a context where he is set apart from the everyday practice of the faith, and that makes no sense, as he founded that particular expression of the faith! Do you see what I mean? There is no “mysticism” when we’re just talking about what you do. That’s just everyday life. That’s what I like about Orthodoxy. Looked at from the outside it seems mystical and weird or whatever, but I will tell you that there’s nothing “mystical” at all about cooking ful muddames for dinner 210+ nights out of the year, but we do it because it’s part of how we live our faith, day in day out. Sobriety is the name of the game. If you read the monastic literature of the East and the Orient, you’ll see that many saints fled “mystical” experiences, such as contact with angels.

Dzheremi, what is your understanding of ‘‘mysticism’’? Why do you say that it is separated from the mystic’s everyday life? What you’re referring to are ‘‘mystical phenomena’’- what you call talking to angels etc which may or may not be present in a saint or a Catholic’s life (and as these carmelite saints you referred to have taught us in the Latin rite- are NOT in any way signs of holiness) That’s not mysticism in Latin tradition. I don’t think St. Therese the little flower had such experiences, her life was as ordinary as ordinary can be.

Doing everything with the love of God, for the love of God (and souls)- I don’t think I could come up with a better sentence to describe these saints you referred to here and the entire spiritual/mystical theology of the Latin Church.

 

[dzheremi]

Marybeloved,

I am saying that in the Orthodox Church, I do not see “mystics”. To me, even having a category of “mystic” seems strange…“mystic” as opposed to what? What makes a person a “mystic”? If it is being solitary, then all non-cenobites would fit the bill. If it is mere navel-gazing, then I don’t think any monk fits. If it is being an anchorite, then I guess St. Shenouda is one, or Fr. Lazarus el-Antoni (though I’ve never known an anchorite to appear on TV before…), or you could say that all monks are sometimes mystics. Really, who would fit there? St. Anthony? Amma Syncletica? Abdelmasih el-Habashi? I chose three who lived very different lives to show that there really is no category to be made here. It seems to be something of a wastebasket.

 

[malphono]

The last thing I did before leaving Oregon in July of 2009 was take a trip to Mt. Angel Abbey on the coast with my Father of Confession. He knew I had been struggling for some time by that point with the Catholic Church, and thought it would help to show me another side of Latin spirituality … If you’ve never been to the Abbey and happen to be in Mt. Angel, Oregon, I really recommend it. It’s beautiful, very serene, the monks are serious and committed, But because it is so wonderful, and so serious … I was actually kind of mad. How could it be that there was this kind of spirituality here, but just a few hours away at home in the church in Eugene, we had jazz bands and people with folk guitars ruining everything on a relatively regular basis? … and yet in actual practice, none of this was reflected in the masses that he served. I remember I once asked him why it was, since he was such a lover of St. Ephrem, that we didn’t have these kinds of traditional hymns in our mass … He told me that the senior priest (my FOC was in his mid-30s) wouldn’t have it, since he was afraid that if we did anything too traditional, we’d lose a lot of people, since it was a college town and of course kids need guitars and harps and standup basses, or whatever. That confused me then, and it confuses me now.

So it is not that I don’t recognize that there is this strain in Latin Catholicism, though I must say that in terms of actual “mystic” RC writers such as St. Therese, St. John of the Cross, etc., I tried them all in the course of my attempt to discern where I should be, and found them to be either creepily carnal or surprisingly dry/detached;…

… It’s like…for the Maronites, do they say that St. Maroun was a “mystic”? I kind of doubt it, because that requires a context where he is set apart from the everyday practice of the faith, and that makes no sense, as he founded that particular expression of the faith! Do you see what I mean? There is no “mysticism” when we’re just talking about what you do. …

I guess in a way, I am against mysticism as a thing, but I can still recognize that a more serious kind of spirituality is something that is in the Latin Church, however small and hidden away it can seem (and my FOC even agreed with this, as we had stopped to get some lunch on the way back from the Abbey and I asked him why it seems that we have to drive out of our way to go visit Catholics actually LIVING the faith in a serious, consistent manner; he said, to the best of my recollection, that it was not really hidden away, but it does take some digging to find. Poor guy…)

Well, that just about sums up what I meant. When I said “mystical” I of course didn’t mean the actual mystics (yeah, I find them to be pretty dry, too, almost to the point of being surreal. But did you mean Ste Thérèse de Lisieux or St Teresa of Avila? And BTW, you’re right: Mor Moroun is NEVER referred to as a “mystic”) but rather that exact spiritual “seriousness” (for lack of a better term – apparently I’m not doing well with vocab today) which you mention.

 

[dzheremi]

Well, that just about sums up what I meant. When I said “mystical” I of course didn’t mean the actual mystics (yeah, I find them to be pretty dry, too, almost to the point of being surreal. But did you mean Ste Thérèse de Lisieux or St Teresa of Avila? And BTW, Mor Moroun is NEVER referred to as a “mystic”) but rather that exact spiritual “seriousness” (for lack of a better term – apparently I’m not doing well with vocab today) which you mention.

I meant Therese de Lisieux, but I can’t spell anything in French to save my life…

 

[malphono]

I meant Therese de Lisieux, but I can’t spell anything in French to save my life…

Among the two, the real “mystic” is the other one. Ste Thérèse was actually, as noted below, quite simple and ordinary.

I don’t think St. Therese the little flower had such experiences, her life was as ordinary as ordinary can be.

She was barely literate and her simplicity is rather remarkable.

 

[mardukm]

I am saying that in the Orthodox Church, I do not see “mystics”. To me, even having a category of “mystic” seems strange…“mystic” as opposed to what? What makes a person a “mystic”? If it is being solitary, then all non-cenobites would fit the bill. If it is mere navel-gazing, then I don’t think any monk fits. If it is being an anchorite, then I guess St. Shenouda is one, or Fr. Lazarus el-Antoni (though I’ve never known an anchorite to appear on TV before…), or you could say that all monks are sometimes mystics. Really, who would fit there? St. Anthony? Amma Syncletica? Abdelmasih el-Habashi? I chose three who lived very different lives to show that there really is no category to be made here. It seems to be something of a wastebasket.

In the Latin Catholic Tradition, “mystical” refers to living life in the Spirit. I didn’t use the word “spiritual” because you would like confuse that with something like the charismatics or pentecostals. It’s more like what the term “spirit” means in the aphorism “living according to the spirit of the law, instead of the letter of the law.” It’s not a category, but something that is supposed to imbue your entire life. I guess you never really did experience the mystical Tradition of the Latin Catholic Church since you don’t know what it means. You read about it, but you had more of a juridic mindset when you were in the Latin Catholic Church, and just set it aside as another “category.” For me, when I read about the mystical Tradition of the Latins, I appreciated it very much and understood it in my heart, for it really resonated with my experience of the Coptic Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

Among the two, the real “mystic” is the other one. Ste Thérèse was actually, as noted below, quite simple and ordinary.

I read the other one too, but she doesn’t stick out in my mind as much because the French one was much more unnerving to me (with apologies to all Catholics on this point; I’m trying to be honest about my reaction, not slander your saint). Maybe I’d like Therese de Avila if I re-read her now. I don’t know.

 

[mardukm]

So it is not that I don’t recognize that there is this strain in Latin Catholicism, though I must say that in terms of actual “mystic” RC writers such as St. Therese, St. John of the Cross, etc., I tried them all in the course of my attempt to discern where I should be, and found them to be either creepily carnal or surprisingly dry/detached;

Maybe that’s because you were not yet have a proper heart to appreciate what you read? Maybe you were still too juridical in your mindset? For example, I know a LOT of people who find the OT to be dry and “creepily carnal,” but I don’t. I think it just depends on what level you are at in your spiritual growth.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Marybeloved]

In light of these discussions, I’d like to direct readers to the Latin work on the interior life, (which is a condensed and integrated teaching of the Latin spiritual tradition of the interior life, it’s a summary of a course on the same taught in the Angelicum in Rome): Its called: ***The Three Ages of the Interior Life ***by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P

If anyone is looking for an authentic treatment of Latin spiritual wisdom, please take a look at it: It can be read totally free of charge here: christianperfection.info/index.php

Of note is this exhortation found in the Introduction Chapter:
christianperfection.info/tta3.php

III. THE AIM OF THIS WORK

       How shall we deal with the interior life? We shall not take up in a            technical manner many questions about sanctifying grace and the            infused virtues that have been treated at length by theologians. We            assume them here, and we shall revert to them only in the measure            necessary for the understanding of what the spiritual life should be.

Our aim is to invite souls to become more interior and to tend to union with God. To do so, two very different dangers must be avoided.

Rather frequently the spirit animating scientific research even in these matters tarries over details to such an extent that the mind is turned away from the contemplation of divine things. The majority of interior souls do not need many of the critical studies indispensable to the theologian. To understand them, they would need a philosophical initiation which they do not possess and which, in a sense, would hamper them who in an instant and in a different manner go higher, as in the case of St. Francis of Assisi. He was astonished to see that in the course of philosophy given to his religious, time was taken to prove the existence of God. T**oday, occasionally exaggerated specialization in studies produces in many minds a lack of the general view needed to judge wisely of things, even of those in which they are especially interested and whose relation with every thing else they no longer see. The cult of detail ought not to make us lose sight of the whole. Instead of becoming spiritual, we would then become materialistic, and under pretext of exact and detailed learning, we would turn away from the true interior life and from lofty Christian wisdom.

On the other hand, many books on religious subjects that are written in a popular style, and many pious books lack a solid doctrinal foundation. Popularization, because the kind of simplification imposed upon it is material rather than formal, often avoids the examination of certain fundamental and difficult problems from which, nevertheless, light would come, and at times the light of life.

       ***To avoid these two opposite dangers, we shall follow the way            pointed out by St. Thomas, who was not a popularizer and who is still            the great classic authority on theology. He rose from the learned            complexity of his first works and of the ****Quaestiones disputatae            to the superior simplicity of the most beautiful articles of the **           Summa theologica. He ascended to this height so well that at the            end of his life, absorbed in lofty contemplation, he could not dictate            the end of his Summa because he could no longer descend to the            complexity of the questions and articles that he still wished to            compose.*

The cult of detail and that of superficial simplification, each in its way alienates the soul from Christian contemplation, which rises above these opposing deviations like a summit toward which all prayerful souls tend.

 

[mardukm]

Maybe I’d like Therese de Avila if I re-read her now. I don’t know.

That’s imminently possible, now that you have a truly Oriental perspective in matters.

Of course, I’ve felt dry reading the Fathers too, but that is admittedly only due to my own spiritual state at the time, and has nothing to do with the Fathers themselves.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Marybeloved]

I read the other one too, but she doesn’t stick out in my mind as much because the French one was much more unnerving to me (with apologies to all Catholics on this point; I’m trying to be honest about my reaction, not slander your saint). Maybe I’d like Therese de Avila if I re-read her now. I don’t know.

The little flower? Unnerving? How sad.

 

[dzheremi]

In the Latin Catholic Tradition, “mystical” refers to living life in the Spirit.

Alright.

I didn’t use the word “spiritual” because you would like confuse that with something like the charismatics or pentecostals. It’s more like what the term “spirit” means in the aphorism “living according to the spirit of the law, instead of the letter of the law.” It’s not a category, but something that is supposed to imbue your entire life.

Yeah, okay. I can dig it.

I guess you never really did experience the mystical Tradition of the Latin Catholic Church since you don’t know what it means. You read about it, but you had more of a juridic mindset when you were in the Latin Catholic Church, and just set it aside as another “category.”

Well if you have a better word to describe the fact that there are Catholics specifically recognized as “mystics” and those who are not, I’ll use that word instead. And indeed I was talking about a category, but not to the disparagement of Catholics. You’ll notice, I hope, that I brought up Coptic examples, to show how I don’t think there is this idea “mystic” among us. I could be wrong, but it strikes me as inherently opposed to the sobriety that so attracted me to Orthodoxy in the first place (or, rather, showed me that I could be Orthodox too; it wasn’t just for monks or people born in a certain country). Again, the difference is between setting up a certain person as the example of a “mystic” (as you must do if we’re even going to talk about “Catholic mystics” or “Orthodox mystics” or whatever), and just living your everyday life, whether in a monastery or in a tiny apartment or wherever. One is particularized along the experiences of many different people set up as examples of the mystical tradition; one is just life. I’m no more mystical when I pray from the Agpeya than when I make myself a sandwich (of course, I hope I should be more focused when praying the Agpeya, but hopefully you get what I mean).

For me, when I read about the mystical Tradition of the Latins, I appreciated it very much and understood it in my heart, for it really resonated with my experience of the Coptic Tradition.

Good. Good for you.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Marybeloved,

The little flower? Unnerving? How sad.

I think you have to be in the right spiritual frame of mind to appreciate the mystics. Dzheremi has admitted that he had more of a juridic mindset as a Latin Catholic because that was what he was imbued with (or at least that was his perception). So I can appreciate where he is coming from. I’ve had dry moments in my life when even reading Scripture felt like a pure intellectual exercise.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Well if you have a better word to describe the fact that there are Catholics specifically recognized as “mystics” and those who are not, I’ll use that word instead. And indeed I was talking about a category, but not to the disparagement of Catholics. You’ll notice, I hope, that I brought up Coptic examples, to show how I don’t think there is this idea “mystic” among us. I could be wrong, but it strikes me as inherently opposed to the sobriety that so attracted me to Orthodoxy in the first place (or, rather, showed me that I could be Orthodox too; it wasn’t just for monks or people born in a certain country). Again, the difference is between setting up a certain person as the example of a “mystic” (as you must do if we’re even going to talk about “Catholic mystics” or “Orthodox mystics” or whatever), and just living your everyday life, whether in a monastery or in a tiny apartment or wherever. One is particularized along the experiences of many different people set up as examples of the mystical tradition; one is just life. I’m no more mystical when I pray from the Agpeya than when I make myself a sandwich (of course, I hope I should be more focused when praying the Agpeya, but hopefully you get what I mean).

I don’t see why you would automatically assume “mystic” is a category, any more than you would assume “ascetic” is a mere category. These words are used because they represent an ideal. It doesn’t mean they should be categorized away as if they are to be separate from the life of the people. Everyone is enjoined to be mystical, despite having in mind the ideal of a “mystic”, just as everyone is enjoined to be ascetical, despite having in mind the ideal of an “ascetic.”

For a professed Oriental, you sure are continuously hung up on categorizing and terminologies. Perhaps you have not really left behind your juridical mentality, or do you notice that this only comes up when you feel you are trying to argue a point?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Marybeloved]

…showed me that I could be Orthodox too; it wasn’t just for monks or people born in a certain country… and just living your everyday life, whether in a monastery or in a tiny apartment or wherever. One is particularized along the experiences of many different people set up as examples of the mystical tradition; one is just life. I’m no more mystical when I pray from the Agpeya than when I make myself a sandwich (of course, I hope I should be more focused when praying the Agpeya, but hopefully you get what I mean).

Dzheremi, what you’ve said here is precisely the teaching of St. Therese the little flower- She felt she was too little to scale the great heights and the great deeds of many saints. So she concentrated on a simple spirituality of a little child- Doing everything for love of God. Waking up in the morning, praying, eating, cleaning her teeth- little ordinary things, all done with great love of God.

In her own words:

‘‘There is one ONLY THING to do here below: to love Jesus, to win souls for Him so that He may be loved. Let us seize with jealous care every least opportunity of self sacrifice. Let us refuse Him nothing - He does so want our love!’’

‘‘Love!..that is what I ask…I know but one thing now - to love Thee, O Jesus! Glorious deeds are not for me, I cannot preach the Gospel, shed my blood…what does it matter? My brothers toil instead of me, and I, the little child, I keep quite close to the royal throne, I love for those who fight.’’

''How shall I show my love is proved by deeds? Well - the little child will strew flowers…she will embalm the Divine Throne with their fragrance, will sing with silvery voice the canticle of love.

Yes, my Beloved, it is thus that my life’s brief day shall be spent before Thee. No other means have I of proving my love than to strew flowers; that is, to let no little sacrifice escape me, not a look, not a word, to avail of the very least actions and do them for Love. I wish to suffer for Love’s sake and for Love’s sake even to rejoice; thus shall I strew flowers. Not one shall I find without shedding its petals for Thee…and then I will sing, I will always sing, even if I must gather my roses in the very midst of thorns - and the longer and sharper the thorns the sweeter shall be my song.’’

If anyone is interested, please read the autobiography of St. Therese de Lisieux the little Flower, that most little, simple and beloved saint of the Latins. It’s called: The Story of a Soul.

You can read it free here: catholicbible101.com/St.%20Therese%20Story%20of%20a%20soul.pdf

 

[malphono]

I think you have to be in the right spiritual frame of mind to appreciate the mystics.

Maybe I’m just naive on this point, but this thread is the first I’ve heard of Ste Thérèse de Lisieux referred to as a “mystic”

 

[Marybeloved]

Maybe I’m just naive on this point, but this thread is the first I’ve heard of Ste Thérèse de Lisieux being considered a “mystic”

Really? She is. Even mentioned as such in the Three ages of the Interior life, I believe.

Just did a quick Google search on st Therese de Lisieux mystic and came up with so many articles (including carmelite ones) where she’s clearly called a mystic.

 

[TrueLight]

Brother Peter, anecdotal evidence: my Orthodox friend refers to me as a uniate. I know he said that, with love, and fun.

Can someone explain to me why some call each other “brother” but leave that out when addressing other people?

Does that mean the rest of us are not worthy of being called brother or sister?

 

[mardukm]

Maybe I’m just naive on this point, but this thread is the first I’ve heard of Ste Thérèse de Lisieux referred to as a “mystic”

Really, despite sister Marybeloved’s response, I’m the naive one cause I don’t often keep track of the descriptives attached to the names of mystics since I’ve read a bunch of them. I just know them by their “first names.”

Blessings,
Marduk