mysticism

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

billcu1

Guest
I am interested in catholic mystycism so are there any writing of my favorite saint about it, Paul ? Otherwise I know of Teresa of Avila and John of the cross, Hildegard of bidgen but who else? What are these locutions I’ve read about?
 
What are these locutions I’ve read about?
“An interior locution is a mystical concept used by various religions, including the Roman Catholic Church. In an interior locution, a person reportedly receives a set of (usually auditory) ideas, thoughts, or imaginations from an outside spiritual source. Interior locutions are most often reported during prayers. An interior locution is a form of private revelation, but is distinct from an apparition or religious vision because no supernatural entity is reported as present during the interior locution.”

I hope this helps to answer your question on that part. Unless you meant what was the content matter of these locutions, which would require as many answers as there have been locutions, and would take a lot of research and a very long reply. 🙂

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
 
The best overview / distillation of the subject that I have read is the book in my signature below.
The book extensively quotes the saints and the bible, though I can’t say how much is from Paul.
Some of the saints quoted are (besides Teresa and John) Catherine of Sienna, Bernard of Clervieux, Theresa of Lisieux, Francis De-Sales - and there might be a couple of more that I am missing.

Peace
James
 
why is it that when reading or hearing about the word mysticism, to me it refers to magic, I take it that would be wrong but I have no idea what It means let alone why it should be considered valid. Considering that in any CCD class I had growing up, listening to homilies such a word has never been mentioned or explained, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exisit only that I don’t understand.
 
Not usually considered a book on Catholic mysticism, but The Imitation of Christ leads me to think in a mystical manner.
 
why is it that when reading or hearing about the word mysticism, to me it refers to magic, I take it that would be wrong but I have no idea what It means let alone why it should be considered valid. Considering that in any CCD class I had growing up, listening to homilies such a word has never been mentioned or explained, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist only that I don’t understand.
I can only speak from my own understanding here…but generally the Latin Rite Church tends more towards a Thomist" outlook - reasons and rationales for how we approach faith - and there is certainly nothing wrong with this. However the Eastern Rite Churches tend more toward what we call the “mystic” approach.
The main difference is that the western approach tends to be much more “defined” where as the eastern approach is not as concerned with defined answers to everything.

The more defined approach that we are taught as children is actually built upon the more mystical (monastic) approach. However, a problem can arise when (as too often happens) the “rules” and “definitions” are taught without sufficient weight given to the underlying spirituality of the faith. When this happens one can be left with a very superficial faith…Lot’s of practice…lot’s of rule following…but (possibly) lacking in real growth in holiness.

There is also the problem and danger of people mixing the wrong kind of mysticism with the right kind. For this reason, the mystic path needs to be entered on slowly and carefully, with prayer and sound Catholic guidance. This is why it is not mentioned in homilies…though it may actually be alluded to by other names (monasticism being one)

I repeat that this is just my understanding based on my own experience…I may have explained things really poorly…If so I apologize and ask others to make the necessary corrections.

Peace
James
 
I can only speak from my own understanding here…but generally the Latin Rite Church tends more towards a Thomist" outlook - reasons and rationales for how we approach faith - and there is certainly nothing wrong with this. However the Eastern Rite Churches tend more toward what we call the “mystic” approach.
The main difference is that the western approach tends to be much more “defined” where as the eastern approach is not as concerned with defined answers to everything.

The more defined approach that we are taught as children is actually built upon the more mystical (monastic) approach. However, a problem can arise when (as too often happens) the “rules” and “definitions” are taught without sufficient weight given to the underlying spirituality of the faith. When this happens one can be left with a very superficial faith…Lot’s of practice…lot’s of rule following…but (possibly) lacking in real growth in holiness.

There is also the problem and danger of people mixing the wrong kind of mysticism with the right kind. For this reason, the mystic path needs to be entered on slowly and carefully, with prayer and sound Catholic guidance. This is why it is not mentioned in homilies…though it may actually be alluded to by other names (monasticism being one)

I repeat that this is just my understanding based on my own experience…I may have explained things really poorly…If so I apologize and ask others to make the necessary corrections.

Peace
James
👍
 
why is it that when reading or hearing about the word mysticism, to me it refers to magic, I take it that would be wrong but I have no idea what It means let alone why it should be considered valid. Considering that in any CCD class I had growing up, listening to homilies such a word has never been mentioned or explained, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exisit only that I don’t understand.
I am pretty sure you have heard the word “mystery” discussed, and mysteries are things which are mystical. Stop your thought process that mysticism refers to magic because such thought process is incorrect. It is instead a prejudice you have adopted for one reason or another. Some experts would say it is a construct of your ego for the purpose of either increasing or maintaining your ego. The ego is the worldly self we are called to die to in order to become alive in Christ.
 
I am pretty sure you have heard the word “mystery” discussed, and mysteries are things which are mystical. Stop your thought process that mysticism refers to magic because such thought process is incorrect. It is instead a prejudice you have adopted for one reason or another. Some experts would say it is a construct of your ego for the purpose of either increasing or maintaining your ego. The ego is the worldly self we are called to die to in order to become alive in Christ.
I can assure you I am not prejudice towards what ever mysticism is, hence why I was asking a question and thus as it was a question there is no ego involved.

if anyone has any links which can elaborate on the topic I would appreciate it an thank you for the replies thus far.
 
I am interested in catholic mystycism so are there any writing of my favorite saint about it, Paul ? Otherwise I know of Teresa of Avila and John of the cross, Hildegard of bidgen but who else? What are these locutions I’ve read about?
Locutions are thought transmissions; they can be word for word communication in your own language; the awareness that one is being communicated to by another-who’s in control of the "event’- as clear and distinct as when we’re speaking to anyone else in the normal way.
 
I can assure you I am not prejudice towards what ever mysticism is, hence why I was asking a question and thus as it was a question there is no ego involved.

if anyone has any links which can elaborate on the topic I would appreciate it an thank you for the replies thus far.
I apologize for any misunderstanding.
 
Locutions are thought transmissions; they can be word for word communication in your own language; the awareness that one is being communicated to by another-who’s in control of the "event’- as clear and distinct as when we’re speaking to anyone else in the normal way.
I’ve never heard of the word “locution” before. However, your explanation just blew my mind. I never knew what to call it. I had many of them in the past, very deep ones, and more recently ‘single thought’ ones. Wow.
 
I can only speak from my own understanding here…but generally the Latin Rite Church tends more towards a Thomist" outlook - reasons and rationales for how we approach faith - and there is certainly nothing wrong with this. However the Eastern Rite Churches tend more toward what we call the “mystic” approach.
The main difference is that the western approach tends to be much more “defined” where as the eastern approach is not as concerned with defined answers to everything.

The more defined approach that we are taught as children is actually built upon the more mystical (monastic) approach. However, a problem can arise when (as too often happens) the “rules” and “definitions” are taught without sufficient weight given to the underlying spirituality of the faith. When this happens one can be left with a very superficial faith…Lot’s of practice…lot’s of rule following…but (possibly) lacking in real growth in holiness.

There is also the problem and danger of people mixing the wrong kind of mysticism with the right kind. For this reason, the mystic path needs to be entered on slowly and carefully, with prayer and sound Catholic guidance. This is why it is not mentioned in homilies…though it may actually be alluded to by other names (monasticism being one)

I repeat that this is just my understanding based on my own experience…I may have explained things really poorly…If so I apologize and ask others to make the necessary corrections.

Peace
James
So where would be the best place to start? The rosary?
 
newadvent.org/cathen/10663b.htm ( the part I read is under historical sketch, addressing Christianity )

( also read the criticism part which to some degree addresses what the Catholic Church has to some degree acknowledge or refuted , and may acknowledge to a point ).

So granted this one link I found is not the entire authority on the subject nor has it explained every aspect of mysticisim but it has given me a round about understanding of it so some small degree.
He has assigned as its ultimate end the direct vision of Himself, the Beatific Vision. But this end can be reached only in the next life; in the present life we can but prepare ourselves for it with the aid of revelation and grace. To some souls, however, even in the present life, God gives a very special grace by which they are enabled to feel His sensible presence; this is true mystical contemplation. In this act, there is no annihilation or absorption of the creature into God, but God becomes intimately present to the created mind and this, enlightened by special illuminations, contemplates with ineffable joy the Divine essence.
If this link / website is even remotely close,

then my question is , is there some kind of thought process by some of the faithful that there is something one can pray or do to I guess for the lack of a better expression or phrase : physically encounter Christ / God in the flesh in the present physical state we are in here on earth.

is that the idea of mysticism ?

if it is , emphasis IF

should we not be feeling this sense of mysticism when we are in Adoration, participating at Mass, in our daily prayer life, when we go to encounter Christ by Eucharistic Communion. ?

why so many categories of faith ?
 
Locutions are thought transmissions; they can be word for word communication in your own language; the awareness that one is being communicated to by another-who’s in control of the "event’- as clear and distinct as when we’re speaking to anyone else in the normal way.
If I were to tell my psychiatrist that I was having locutions he would label me as schizophrenic. There really is a fine line between religious experiences and schizophrenia. Religious people need to be careful around atheistic psychiatrists.
 
I appreciate this link, as it gave a bit more understanding, but I still do not see the difference between this label of " mysticism " versus any Catholic who choses to live for Christ and serve Christ as a religious, nor do I see the difference in this concept of " mysticism " vs how Catholics celebrate the mass, go to adoration, or the basics of the Catholic faith in general.

this just seems like a spin off or another way to categorize the word Faith, or Christian,

A Rose by any other name is still a Rose.
 
If I were to tell my psychiatrist that I was having locutions he would label me as schizophrenic. There really is a fine line between religious experiences and schizophrenia.
I know what you’re getting at but, in reality, there’s no connection whatsoever. No confusion, no disorder, no delusions of grandeur in mysticism, just humble awe before gifts directly given.
Religious people need to be careful around atheistic psychiatrists.
I’m sure this would tend to be quite true.
 
I appreciate this link, as it gave a bit more understanding, but I still do not see the difference between this label of " mysticism " versus any Catholic who choses to live for Christ and serve Christ as a religious, nor do I see the difference in this concept of " mysticism " vs how Catholics celebrate the mass, go to adoration, or the basics of the Catholic faith in general.

this just seems like a spin off or another way to categorize the word Faith, or Christian,

A Rose by any other name is still a Rose.
Having personally experienced the difference (even though I didn’t know there was a ‘name’ for it), I can assure you there is a difference. That doesn’t make one better or worse than another. It’s a gift from God, for whatever reason He sees fit. It definitely isn’t widespread knowledge in every day Catholicism; many would have no idea what it is. Even my mother, a lifelong Catholic educated for 13 years in the Catholic schools when they were taught by nuns, doesn’t understand it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top