Quoting mystics like Rumi

  • Thread starter Thread starter goodcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

goodcatholic

Guest
Rumi is a Sufi mystic (from the Islam Religion as far as I know). I have read little of him but I wonder the value of putting them in the same basket as Catholic mystics like Therese of Avila. I am a work in progress at the moment and cant see Catholic saints and mystics on the same level as mystics in other faiths. Maybe with a more “open” mind I will accept a discussion that validates Rumi in the same way.
Is this a case opening ones’ mind more or just putting up boundaries? Only read Catholic mystics? Will reading a mystic like Rumi only confuse Catholics more?
 
Rumi is a Sufi mystic (from the Islam Religion as far as I know). I have read little of him but I wonder the value of putting them in the same basket as Catholic mystics like Therese of Avila
Rumi isn’t a mystic. How can a Muslim be a mystic and reject the true God? They don’t believe in the Trinity. They don’t believe that God became man. They don’t believe Jesus died on the cross to save sinners. They believe the Bible has been corrupted. The Muslim “Jesus” will one day return to break the Cross. Therefore, Muslim “mystics” pervert the Truth and reject the plan of salvation.
 
Here’s one definition.
MYSTIC:
a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.
 
Read them all. You can’t decide that something is true or false just because you want to. Ask, seek, and knock for truth rather than predetermining it.That’s the only way you’ll find out if you’re honestly not sure to begin with. Read them all, alongside Catholic saints. In the end Catholicism will come out shining.
 
I think I can safely summarise your pov as “No”. Only Catholic mystics are worth reading. Muslim “mystics” are fakes. (in your opinion)
 
Read them all. You can’t decide that something is true or false just because you want to
I would qualify your advice by adding.“Be fully grounded in the Catholic mystics” first.
 
I see no reason to start there if an objective approach to finding truth is the purpose-and it should be. But, yes, definitely don’t leave them out
 
I think I can safely summarise your pov as “No”. Only Catholic mystics are worth reading. Muslim “mystics” are fakes. (in your opinion)
My POV is that you won’t find the truth from someone who rejects Jesus Christ and claims that the OT and NT is corrupt. I didn’t say only Catholics are worth reading. Read Orthodox or Protestant. They believe in Jesus. They believe in the Bible.

Islam is anti-Christ. They say Christianity is shirk - the worst form of idolatry. Their “Jesus” will return and break the cross and will serve the Mahdi. In other words, their “Jesus” will be the false prophet. Islam is no good.
 
Last edited:
Some might argue that reading their theology might confuse Catholics too.
At least they believe in the Trinity and Jesus as Saviour of the World. Islam does not. Islam is an evil religion and no good Catholic would disagee with that statement. Anybody who loves Jesus would see the evil in a belief that denies his divinity and his crucifixion.
 
First off, there’s no question that Rumi was interested in knowing God better through direct mystical experience. So he was a mystic. His example of life and his beliefs are not particularly useful to us as Christians, but it’s silly to say it didn’t happen at all. Catholicism does not deny that God occasionally speaks to pagans or to those living in heresy. God is always calling everyone to know Him better, to learn the truth about Him from His revelation. People often accept God’s invitation, and then turn back at the door before entering the Church. This is sad, but it doesn’t mean God’s dealings with them never existed.

The main reason to read Rumi is not that he was a mystic to be imitated, but that he wrote good mystical poetry. Rumi’s poetry is part of the heritage of all educated people. Just as pagan poetry was good enough to be quoted by St. Paul in his Epistles, and just as Donne’s poetry is worth reading by Catholics even though he never joined up with us, so it is useful and interesting to read Rumi’s poetry. As many early Christians have explained in detail, the great art of non-Christian cultures belongs to Christians by right, and should be studied by them. “Whatever is good, whatever is true” belongs to Goodness Himself and Truth Himself, and we are part of Him. Spiritually speaking, great art is “the spoils of the Egyptians.”

As with the Song of Songs and a lot of the medieval and Spanish mystical poets in Europe, Rumi’s poetry is about seeing God as a sort of invincible romantic lover, and the human soul as a nervous girl. If this kind of stuff helps you, have fun. If it weirds you out, don’t read the man.
 
Last edited:
But St. John of the Cross is awesome in this area of poetry, and unique for blending a great poem (“The Dark Night of the Soul”) with a couple of great advice books on mystical prayer (The Ascent of Mount Carmel and its sequel about higher level stuff, The Dark Night of the Soul). So if you do like that trope, don’t miss him out in favor of Rumi. Read them both!

There are a couple of caveats.
  1. People talk about Sufism, which was followed by Rumi, as if it is an exclusively peaceful Muslim sect. It’s not. Just like most sects of Islam, it depends on the geopolitics of each Sufi area. However, it’s true that a lot of other Muslim groups are hostile toward Sufism. (But then, that’s true of just about every separate Muslim group.)
  2. The place of poets in Islamic society is always pretty weird, because the Koran and hadith explain that it was totally okay for Muhammad to order the assassination of poets who disagreed with him, or who satirized him. (Among other examples, he ordered the killing of a woman poet who had five young kids. She was killed in her tent, by a guest, with her baby still at her breast. All this, when poets were traditionally given the right to travel freely and sing whatever they wanted to anyone.) And yet, the place of poetry was so important to individual Islamic people that poetry has managed to remain strong under such oppressive conditions.
The place of music in Islamic society is even more tentative, as the Koran and hadith appear to forbid both instrumental and sung music; and yet, they also survive. So there’s always something edgy about Muslim people quoting even the most classical and approved poets, and a lot that is edgy about them singing Rumi. Usually this doesn’t matter much; but it mattered a lot when ISIS was in power.
 
Islam is anti-Christ. They say Christianity is shirk - the worst form of idolatry. Their “Jesus” will return and break the cross and will serve the Mahdi. In other words, their “Jesus” will be the false prophet. Islam is no good.
That is really too harsh and not the way the Church looks at Muslims.

Here is what the Church says we should believe about Muslims and Islam.

Nostra Aetate #3:

"The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom."

@Saxum ask yourself - are the words you are speaking promoting peace and mutual understanding? Or are they inciting hostility, fear, and ignorance?
 
Rumi was a poet, and so his writings were often enigmatic and open to varied interpretation. Dreamers say, “If only more Muslims and Christians thought the way he did, we would have a lot less war and violence carried out in the name of religion.”

A poem of his like “Only Breath” sounds too much like the relativism which religious fundamentalists are taught to reject:

“Not Christian or Jew or Muslim, not Hindu, Buddhist, sufi or zen. Not any religion or cultural system…
…I belong to the beloved, have seen the two worlds as one and that one call to and know, first, last, outer, inner, only that breath breathing human being.”

Wait, a Muslim wrote that? Reminds me of John Lennon’s “Imagine.” If Rumi wrote today he would likely be dismissed by many as New Age.
 
That is really too harsh and not the way the Church looks at Muslims.

Here is what the Church says we should believe about Muslims and Islam.
My words are harsh but I can’t help how I feel about Islam. I’ve got a very good Muslim friend and my uncle converted to marry his Muslim wife. I don’t hate Muslims. But I hate Islam. I’ve done some research and I believe the terrorism committed by Islamists is condoned and promoted by Muhammad and the Quran.

I know what NA says about Islam but it’s a policy document and doesn’t have the authority of a dogmatic constitution. It can be changed. It should be changed IMO because it ignores the fact that Islam persecutes Christians around the world. I want to think with the mind of the Church, but I struggle with this issue.
 
know what NA says about Islam but it’s a policy document and doesn’t have the authority of a dogmatic constitution. It can be
NA is a document coming from the highest level of Magisterial Authority - it is an infallible and extraordinary teaching of an Ecumenical Council.

Catholics are bound to give full assent of faith to all the teachings of VII - not just the dogmatic constitutions.

It’s about “catching more flies with honey” and seeing the glass half full. Catholics are called to focus on our similarities and to understand others to foster an environment of mutual trust and understanding, rather than focus on our differences and sow discord. We don’t pretend they don’t exist or deny them, it’s just we don’t make them our main focus.
 
Last edited:
Catholics are bound to give full assent of faith to all the teachings of VII - not just the dogmatic constitutions.
In the past, I’ve read that different types of document have different levels of authority. I spoke to a priest who told me that this particular document is pastoral i.e it isn’t on the same level as doctrine.

Plus, the Catholic Church fought crusades against the Muslim aggressors. Many Saints and Popes have spoken out against it. How do we square Vatican II with the previous teachings and actions?
 
Last edited:
Many Saints and Popes have spoken out against it. How do we square Vatican II with the previous teachings and actions
Different courses of action and discipline at different times.

Medieval times were very different from modern times in many ways.

And even if the VII documents were non-infallible, they would still be documents produced by the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church that require a full religious assent of all believers.

Catholics are simply not allowed to willfully dissent from the documents of VII on any point whatsoever - at least not in good faith.

I’m not saying you don’t act in good faith, I think it’s clear you do.

I used to be very negative towards Islam as well. But I spent a lot of time researching the documents of VII and praying and thanks be to God I have been able to come to terms with all that the Church has taught me.

Humbly submit to the teachings of the Church and try to understand them, don’t fight against them - if they make you uncomfortable, try even harder to understand why the Church is teaching this.

Lastly, remind yourself: do you think all the Bishops and scholars of VII were ignorant of history or past teaching and somehow you are more knowledgeable than them? Or is it possible all the Bishops and best scholars in the world had a better understanding of things and discerned the will of God better than you alone today?

I know I personally defer to the Bishops and scholars.
 
Last edited:
Whattttt?

“Nostra Aetate” is a pastoral document. It was produced by a pastoral Council, for that matter. There is very little from Vatican II that has any kind of doctrinal authority, and what there is, is not anywhere near to invoking Papal infallibility. (Or conciliar infallibility, for that matter.) If you don’t believe me, consult the Council Fathers and find out.

I like “Nostra Aetate.” It has some remarkably good things in it. But it didn’t come down from on high on tablets of gold.

There are a few nice things which can be said about Islam as a belief system, and “Nostra Aetate” says most of them. But frankly, there are a lot of heresies out there which provide better information about God than Islam does, and the Church still calls them heresies and anathema. There are also workarounds for the blunt phrasings; but the blunt phrasing is still the exact technical way to describe untrue belief systems.

Meanwhile, there are hundreds of thousands of martyrs who were killed by Islam, and there are millions of Christians who have lived their lives in subjection or slavery because of Islam. In 2013, Pope Francis canonized the 800 Martyrs of Otranto, and that’s also part of our dialogue with Islam.

So don’t overstate your case, Spyridon. If you want to defer to the bishops and scholars and popes, remember Otranto too.
 
Last edited:
Vatican II is an Ecumenical Council.

Ecumenical Councils are one of two forms of Extraordinary Magisterium alongside Papal ex Cathedra.

I’ll repeat myself: Catholics do NOT have the liberty to dissent from the documents of VII in good faith - they require full religious assent.

Maybe @FrDavid96 can help.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top