Mystics and doctrine?

[hazcompat]

DIALOGUE WITH THE GREAT WORLD RELIGIONS
It is possible for Christians to share the spiritual riches of other religions, as long as they bear witness to God’s definitive revelation in Jesus Christ
Pope John Paul II

…

Church is on pilgrimage with all genuinely religious people

This necessary discernment does not hinder interreligious dialogue. In fact, for many years meetings with the various monastic communities of other religions, marked by cordial friendship, are opening ways for the mutual sharing of other spiritual riches “with regard to prayer and contemplation, faith and ways of searching for God or the Absolute” (Dialogue and Proclamation, n. 42). Mysticism, however, can never be invoked to support religious relativism in the name of an experience that would lessen the value of God’s revelation in history. As disciples of Christ, we feel the urgent need and the joy of witnessing to the fact that God manifested himself precisely in him, as John’s Gospel tells us: “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known” (Jn 1: 18).

This witness must be given without any reservation, but also in the awareness that the action of Christ and his Spirit is already mysteriously present in all who live sincerely according to their religious convictions. And with all genuinely religious people the Church continues her pilgrimage through history towards the eternal contemplation of God in the splendour of his glory.

Peace

 

[Vouthon]

But as I noted --there is various different orthodox uses of the terms over the centuries and various schools…

Yep, it can get very confusing when reading different authors. However, it should be noted that contemplative prayer varies between individual people anyway. We all have our own unique relationship with God and walk with Him, so there isn’t any hard and fast rule. Mystics who have gone before us are like wayfarers, trying to “guide” us through their own subjective experience, often by objectifying it into a kind of basic “itinerary” or “path”. These are simply useful guides, not hard rules.

As long as the person is orthodox, nonetheless, it doesn’t really matter when we find such slight discrepancies. The actual “experiences” or “states” are so amazingly similar, no matter how they materialize or what definition they choose to use for them.

St. Teresa for example was very much a character given to ecstasies and flights of the spirit. You will not find much of an “acquired contemplation” in her writings, whereas St. John of the Cross devotes far more attention to it.

 

[Bookcat]

Interesting article: zenit.org/en/articles/interior-prayer-founded-on-loving-much

(more on him: frjacquesphilippe.com/book/time-god)

(he mentions differences between prayer and Buddhist practices…)

 

[Bookcat]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19891015_meditazione-cristiana_en.html

 

[hazcompat]

“all who are led by the Spirit of God” are “children of God”

Rom 8:14

The true goal of our Christian life consists of acquiring God’s Holy Spirit. Fasting and vigil, prayer, mercy, and every other good deed performed for Christ — are means for acquiring the Holy Spirit of God. Only deeds performed for Christ give us the fruits of the Holy Spirit

St. Seraphim of Sarov

Peace

 

[Vouthon]

It seems to me that Catholic mystics seem to skirt doctrine and not necessarily hold orthodox views. They tend to place a higher focus on the experience of the presence of God and place doctrinal issues as irrelevant or not knowable. Would this a be fair characterization? I had always viewed the Catholic Church as being fairly dogmatic in terms of adherence to doctrine, yet the mystics seem very much on their own path yet respected none-the-less.

Don’t you have to agree to catechism to be a Catholic?

Thanks
-Fred

Dear Fred

None of the mystics approved by the church have “skirted doctrine”. In fact, they were all completely submissive to Holy Mother Church, and often before their writings you will find statements affirming that if anything contrary to the teachings of the faith is found therein, they will recant whatever error is so attributed.

The mystics do not lead lives separate from the Church. The sacramental life of the Church is essential, indeed fundamental, to their full spiritual maturation.

After her intense mystical experience in 1473, during confession, St. Catherine of Genoa received the Eucharist every single day, something extremely uncommon for a lay person in the middle ages. She became more involved in the life of the church and more obedient a daughter of the church, the deeper and more interior her spiritual state became.

Blessed John of Ruysbroeck states that the first requirement for a contemplative is this:

The man who would live in the most perfect state of Holy Church must be a good and zealous man; an inward and ghostly man; an uplifted and God-seeing man; and an outflowing man to all in common. Whenever these four things are together in a man, then his state is perfect; and through the increase of grace he shall continually grow and progress in all virtues, and in the knowledge of truth, before God and before all men.

Hear now three things which constitute a good man. The first, which a good man must have, is a clean conscience without reproach of mortal sin. And therefore whosoever wishes to become a good man must examine and prove himself with due discernment, from that time onward when he could first have committed sin. And from all these sins he must purge himself, according to the precept and the custom of Holy Church.

The second thing which pertains to a good man is that he must in all things be obedient to God, and to Holy Church, and to his own proper convictions. And to each of these three he must be equally obedient: so shall he live without care and doubt, and shall ever abide without inward reproach in all his deeds.

The third thing which behoves every good man is that in all his deeds he should have in mind, above all else, the glory of God. And if it happens that by reason of his business or the multiplicity of his works, he has not always God before his eyes, yet at least there should be established in him the intention and desire to live according to the dearest will of God.

Behold, these three things, when they are possessed in this way, make a man good. And whosoever lacks any one of these three is neither good nor in the grace of God; but whenever a man resolves in his heart to fulfil these three points, how wicked soever he may have been before, in that very instant he becomes good, and is susceptible of God, and filled with the grace of God.

saints.sqpn.com/the-sparkling-stone-by-blessed-jan-van-ruysbroek/

This is how Blessed Ruysbroeck begins “The Sparkling Stone”. The Church, adherence to her doctrines, participation in her sacramental life and a clean conscience without mortal sin are the first requirements for one about to embark on the mystical path.

This is before Ruysbroeck even gets into describing any mystical experiences! Later on in the book he even states, “true faith is the foundation of all holiness and all virtues”.

The mystics are often the most devoutly orthodox.

This is not something confined to Catholicism either. Rumi, the well known Muslim mystic, was a jurist and scholar of Shariah law.

 

[fhansen]

It seems to me that Catholic mystics seem to skirt doctrine and not necessarily hold orthodox views. They tend to place a higher focus on the experience of the presence of God and place doctrinal issues as irrelevant or not knowable. Would this a be fair characterization? I had always viewed the Catholic Church as being fairly dogmatic in terms of adherence to doctrine, yet the mystics seem very much on their own path yet respected none-the-less.

Don’t you have to agree to catechism to be a Catholic?

Thanks
-Fred

Two of the greatest Catholic mystics I know of, John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila, were both very dogmatic, earning the title " Doctor of the Church". They simply knew in a more direct, experiential manner the meaning of the dogma.

 

[ZenFred]

There are many posts with excellent points and questions and a lot to think about.
Frobert, I’m familiar with the dark night of the soul in Christian teaching and I experienced in the past as a Christian. In the context of Zen and Buddhism, I’m not sure if there is a parallel and having only practiced myself for a month I haven’t run into it yet. There is a lot of points along the way where I realize my own failings and clinging to illusion/sin and work to let go of things separating me from God’s presence.

Catholic scott
“Zen, I know, is clear about shedding our attachment to the material samsaric world but unlike Christianity (or Amida Buddhism) has no notion, I think I’m right in saying, of infused contemplation or external help by way of God’s Grace. Therefore attaining satori flows from our own efforts as a necessary consequence of them as opposed to achieving Union because transforming Love has cast the lover into the arms of the Beloved in the tenderest of embraces. This I think is a clear difference.”
Mostly right. Zen is about shedding out attachment to illusions of thought and is normally seen as a something attained by individual effort. I follow the subschool of Soto Zen, which places special emphasis on not striving (because isn’t that a form of attachment?) and that the satori we are looking for is right here, right now. In fact, we think just the act of sitting in meditation IS enlightenment. I don’t know if I really understand all that, but I do think the teaching of nothing to attain is very powerful. I also think it makes sense within a Christian perspective of God seeking us and we being found by Him rather by our own effort as you argue. A lot of you commented that experience of God should not be “sought” after and to some degree I agree. The process of seeking God though my Zen practice is weakening the grasp of my sinful/ego/thinking mind and encountering divine presence in that place of non-thought.
Vouthon,
“ whereas this external divine agent does not exist or picture at all for Zen Buddhists.”
I think you are right in terms of most Zen Buddhists. However, the teaching is that the experience of Satori is indescribable, drawing from traditions of Taoism. In general, Zen embraces not-knowing and deemphasizes doctrine. Personally, I think to say that is not God is as much of a mistake to say that it is God.
This is really where I find myself at the moment. I find the traditional Zen explanation of Satori as “true nature”/”Buddha-nature” of the self not quite matching what I experience in meditation. I sense a transcendence and compassion and out-reaching of the presence I cannot describe that seems more personal and external than just my own true-nature. I also remember moments during my time at a Christian when I had felt that same presence within the church and continue to feel that when I got to church with my family. I could also not shake the anxiety of being wrong in leaving the church despite my best efforts. It tipped the balance when I was shown the works of John of Ruysbroeck, which I’m still working on but feel he describes exactly what I feel as well as any Zen teacher.
So I place my trust in the presence I feel during Satori and trust that it is Christ in the present and in my justification of my soul (since I’ve been baptized and confirmed and never renounced my faith). One of you posted about the importance of continuing in the sacraments and I agree that being in the church and receiving the sacraments gives support and depth to my practice. So that’s why I use Christian language to describe my Zen experience because it often parallels.
At the same time, I find great value in my Zen practice as a way to find liberation from suffering caused by my clinging to illusions of thought and false self-identifying with my sinful nature rather than my true nature that is justified thru Christ. I wonder if this more to do with my own fault of placing my faith in my beliefs rather than God in the past than in the merits of Zen over Christianity. I think the rigor and devotional nature of Zen helps me to sense God in ordinary, daily life. I am much happier, more at peace, and even my Post-traumatic stress disorder has been cured by my practice (or by God’s grace and the ability to accept may be more accurate).
I don’t mean to ramble but trying to describe how I find myself between Zen and Christianity, but it is a good place for me and I embrace my not-knowing. I do not at all wish to challenge your beliefs as I think God is God and truth is truth and is beyond my understanding.

Why do you guys think?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Why do you guys think?

This seems to be a typo, but is too interesting a question to pass up.
I think because it is something that I do: a part of my human nature.
It makes the world understandable, coherent: illusory or otherwise.
It is the means by which I relate to, connect with and am able to get about in the world of which I am a part.

What do I think?
I believe here or elsewhere you said it yourself:
for a Zen Buddhist, you think and talk a lot.

 

[ZenFred]

Hahaha…

Why do I think is quite the koan…
And yes I get in trouble for thinking too much a lot with my teachers.

 

[catholicscot]

@ZenFred
You say that the rigour and devotional method of Zen is helpful. Is there anything unique in these methods that cannot be found also within Christianity?

Also, going of at a slight tangent, I’m currently writing a little series of blogs on the attractions that Eastern spirituality has for Westerners. It would be helpful if you could give me some ideas as to why you found yourself looking in that direction in the first place.

 

[catholicscot]

Also, I meant to add, I’m hoping that in the my next part of the series, Enlightenment Too? Who Needs Buddha 3?, I can explore experiences in Christianity which might be compared to the Buddhist idea of enlightenment or satori. Does anyone have any ideas or particular accounts which might be helpful in framing my argument?

 

[ZenFred]

Scott,

In writing about Buddhism you need to be careful to differentiate between schools and even then different sub schools and individual teachers can vary greatly. Is it really difficult to talk about Buddhism as a whole. As a side note, my teachers and most teachers have no problem with having Christain students. They say Buddhism doesn’t make religious claims, which isn’t exactly true, but it’s definitely not exclusivist.

You also make an excellent point that I could find everything I like about Zen could be found in a Christain monastic tradition. However I consider myself “Christain” now and I feel the balance works really well for me. I attend an episcopal/Anglican Church, so that worse than being Buddhist anyways, right? HaHa.

Why did I become attracted to Buddhism? Primarily because it was different and the old path wasn’t working. It encouraged questions (even as many as I have, the thinking too much is mostly a joke) and basis answers on experience rather than faith. Zen in particular has a very iconoclast approach which is refreshing. Finally I was impressed by the deep conviction and compassion of the teachers.

Hope that helps, Fred

 

[ASonOfGod]

It seems to me that Catholic mystics seem to skirt doctrine and not necessarily hold orthodox views. They tend to place a higher focus on the experience of the presence of God and place doctrinal issues as irrelevant or not knowable. Would this a be fair characterization? I had always viewed the Catholic Church as being fairly dogmatic in terms of adherence to doctrine, yet the mystics seem very much on their own path yet respected none-the-less.

Don’t you have to agree to catechism to be a Catholic?

Thanks
-Fred

Is it that or is it that they are “outside of the box” so to speak and someone who isn’t is having a problem keeping up? If it can’t be proven, then it isn’t true in my eyes, so they can be as “close to God” as they want but dependent on their level of wisdom and experience, they could be possibly getting played by fallen angels.

Glory be to El Elyon

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Great responses thanks!

I find the Christians mystics resonate deeply with me and have a similar approach to my Zen practice. The point of writing is to express poetically and through analogy what can’t be expressed and the focus of everything is on the experience of God. Everything else is straw as St. Thomas said and he was one of the greatest doctrinal theologians of all time.

I also agree that unchecked spirituality is very dangerous. The search for God must be one in which the focus is taken off the self. In Zen, if we encounter a vision of any kind during meditation we are supposed to ignore it and continue with meditation. We might gain insight but insight is not our goal, it is that experience of God (satori).

By the way, I appreciate the Catholic position on the war in Iraq as I fought there and know first hand how much of a terrible mistake that was. It is amazing the terrible things we will do when we think we are right.

Thank you all for you posts -Fred

Iraq was a mistake from the get go. G.B. was warned by his father not to do it. But G.H.B. was just as big of an idiot. There was no excuse for the U.S. to pull Saudi Arabia’s chessnuts out of the fire. That was all about oil dollars and nothing else.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It seems to me that Catholic mystics seem to skirt doctrine and not necessarily hold orthodox views. They tend to place a higher focus on the experience of the presence of God and place doctrinal issues as irrelevant or not knowable. Would this a be fair characterization? I had always viewed the Catholic Church as being fairly dogmatic in terms of adherence to doctrine, yet the mystics seem very much on their own path yet respected none-the-less.

Don’t you have to agree to catechism to be a Catholic?

Thanks
-Fred

For Catholic mystics, the rule is you never learn of true mystics until after their death. For a true mystic is humble and meek and does not seek notoriety and flees from it. And always, a Catholic mystic gives first place to Catholic Doctrine and never allows his mystical life to transgress the Truth of the Faith. Rather he employs the Truth of Faith in his mystical life. He is a child of God and His Revelation through the Church, he is not a child indulging in personal fantasys and sloppy emotionalism.

Linus2nd

 

[frobert]

For Catholic mystics, the rule is you never learn of true mystics until after their death. For a true mystic is humble and meek and does not seek notoriety and flees from it. And always, a Catholic mystic gives first place to Catholic Doctrine and never allows his mystical life to transgress the Truth of the Faith. Rather he employs the Truth of Faith in his mystical life. He is a child of God and His Revelation through the Church, he is not a child indulging in personal fantasys and sloppy emotionalism.

Linus2nd

I think the CC tells us who it determines is a mystic only after death but they are likely to miss many true mystics who fall under their radar because a mystic doesn’t seek notoriety. Of course, there are differences of opinion as to the nature of mystics such as the poet mystics Rumi and Kabir who we know through their poetry.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I’m currently writing a little series of blogs on the attractions that Eastern spirituality has for Westerners. . .

I can see a number of reasons why people are attracted to Eastern religions:

• They seem more mysterious and esoteric, appealing to people who have a sense that there is more than the mundane. Along theses lines, “No prophet is accepted in his hometown.”
• The Church is seen as a set of rules and standards. There may be a belief that there is more freedom in Eastern thought: Kama Sutra?
• Catholicism involves the revelation of God and His purpose in scripture, which may be seen as being made more complicated by philosophy and theology. Zen seems very simple: to quiet the mind and free oneself from illusion rather than learning about various teachings, dogma. It therefore seems more personal and easier to do: just sit there.
• Eastern thought seems to imply that the search is basically to find oneself. That would be the reason for going to India, because that’s where you are when you get there.
• I think there is a lot of “bad press” about the Church and religion in general. Eastern spirituality may seem less “religious” to some.

 

[catholicscot]

Scott,

In writing about Buddhism you need to be careful to differentiate between schools and even then different sub schools and individual teachers can vary greatly. Is it really difficult to talk about Buddhism as a whole. As a side note, my teachers and most teachers have no problem with having Christain students. They say Buddhism doesn’t make religious claims, which isn’t exactly true, but it’s definitely not exclusivist.

You also make an excellent point that I could find everything I like about Zen could be found in a Christain monastic tradition. However I consider myself “Christain” now and I feel the balance works really well for me. I attend an episcopal/Anglican Church, so that worse than being Buddhist anyways, right? HaHa.

Why did I become attracted to Buddhism? Primarily because it was different and the old path wasn’t working. It encouraged questions (even as many as I have, the thinking too much is mostly a joke) and basis answers on experience rather than faith. Zen in particular has a very iconoclast approach which is refreshing. Finally I was impressed by the deep conviction and compassion of the teachers.

Hope that helps, Fred

@ZenFred

Thanks for the helpful response. You are right about the complexities of Buddhism but what I am looking at this the kinds of spirituality of Eastern origin which seem to have most appeal to Westerners. I have to generalise in the short blog form. What seems to me to be the common elements are

A stripping out of supernatural elements like reincarnation, hell realms or gods.

An impersonalism making it as different as possible from Christianity.

A central focus on meditation which is quite different to how most Buddhists, Taoists or Hindus in Asia actually practice their faith

A linkage between the spirituality and Western philosophical liberalism

An insistence on relativism.

Your point about iconoclasm sounds interesting could you expand it a little do you think?

BTW my name isn’t Scot. I am a Catholic from Scotland hence CatholicScot.

 

[catholicscot]

I can see a number of reasons why people are attracted to Eastern religions:

• They seem more mysterious and esoteric, appealing to people who have a sense that there is more than the mundane. Along theses lines, “No prophet is accepted in his hometown.”
• The Church is seen as a set of rules and standards. There may be a belief that there is more freedom in Eastern thought: Kama Sutra?
• Catholicism involves the revelation of God and His purpose in scripture, which may be seen as being made more complicated by philosophy and theology. Zen seems very simple: to quiet the mind and free oneself from illusion rather than learning about various teachings, dogma. It therefore seems more personal and easier to do: just sit there.
• Eastern thought seems to imply that the search is basically to find oneself. That would be the reason for going to India, because that’s where you are when you get there.
• I think there is a lot of “bad press” about the Church and religion in general. Eastern spirituality may seem less “religious” to some.

Thank you for your helpful response. I had thought about some of these points but the idea of over complication through theology and philosophy hadn’t occurred to me. It is something Protestant Evangelicals sometimes object to in Catholicism saying we have made a simple message unnecessarily complicated. This might be worth writing about in its own right I’m glad you brought it up