Scholasticism and mysticism in the medieval west

[rasbat]

The theology of the middle ages has always been of great interest to me. My studies in school have been dedicated to medieval history but when I get to the church it has been more based upon institutions and even physical structures themselves rather than the high concepts underlying them. more pure history rather than historical theology in other words. One thing which has been a bit confusing is the divide between medieval scholastic theology with its rationalism and clearly defined systems etc, existing alongside an incredibly mystical spirituality. I can see some ways these two things may go together. We can understand God through reason and define doctrine etc, and then when outside the classroom become immersed in the mystery, but these two ways of approaching the divine seem to be in such stark contrast. Is this separation what was going on? I have always been a bit unclear. how can we have Thomas aquinas alongside someone like Julian of norwich or Joachaim of fiore. Rational treatises on theology existing alongside with collections of fabulous miracles, visions, and ecstatic revealations? how can we have the summa theologiae and the cloud of unknowing produced in this same environment? I know any era is complex and today my neighbor might connect to God in a completely different frame of mind than me, but was there really this separation between theology and spirituality in the high and late middle ages? was it more a separation of the monastic world and the universites? what?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The theology of the middle ages has always been of great interest to me. My studies in school have been dedicated to medieval history but when I get to the church it has been more based upon institutions and even physical structures themselves rather than the high concepts underlying them. more pure history rather than historical theology in other words. One thing which has been a bit confusing is the divide between medieval scholastic theology with its rationalism and clearly defined systems etc, existing alongside an incredibly mystical spirituality. I can see some ways these two things may go together. We can understand God through reason and define doctrine etc, and then when outside the classroom become immersed in the mystery, but these two ways of approaching the divine seem to be in such stark contrast. Is this separation what was going on? I have always been a bit unclear. how can we have Thomas aquinas alongside someone like Julian of norwich or Joachaim of fiore. Rational treatises on theology existing alongside with collections of fabulous miracles, visions, and ecstatic revealations? how can we have the summa theologiae and the cloud of unknowing produced in this same environment? I know any era is complex and today my neighbor might connect to God in a completely different frame of mind than me, but was there really this separation between theology and spirituality in the high and late middle ages? was it more a separation of the monastic world and the universites? what?

Your question is too complex for me to answer.

Suffice it to say Thomas Aquinas was caught between the rock (the universities) and the hard place (the monasteries). There is reason to argue he embraced them both, that the whole thirteenth century embraced them both, and ever since that is why the thirteenth century is so beloved both by the scholars and the mystics.

 

[John_Martin]

The theology of the middle ages has always been of great interest to me. My studies in school have been dedicated to medieval history but when I get to the church it has been more based upon institutions and even physical structures themselves rather than the high concepts underlying them. more pure history rather than historical theology in other words. One thing which has been a bit confusing is the divide between medieval scholastic theology with its rationalism and clearly defined systems etc, existing alongside an incredibly mystical spirituality. I can see some ways these two things may go together. We can understand God through reason and define doctrine etc, and then when outside the classroom become immersed in the mystery, but these two ways of approaching the divine seem to be in such stark contrast. Is this separation what was going on? I have always been a bit unclear. how can we have Thomas aquinas alongside someone like Julian of norwich or Joachaim of fiore. Rational treatises on theology existing alongside with collections of fabulous miracles, visions, and ecstatic revealations? how can we have the summa theologiae and the cloud of unknowing produced in this same environment? I know any era is complex and today my neighbor might connect to God in a completely different frame of mind than me, but was there really this separation between theology and spirituality in the high and late middle ages? was it more a separation of the monastic world and the universites? what?

Thomas Aquinas, whom I love dearly as my teacher, was also a mystic in his own right, having visions of angels, hearing our Lord question him.

I myself am absorbed in the intellectual side, yet this intellectual side actually provides clarity of thought for experiencing the mysteries. The Eucharist must be consumed as the flesh and blood of our Lord; we pray for and expect miracles; we contemplate the Name of our Lord and the Host of His Body; we expect divine inspiration; we talk to Saints.
I have friends in my parish who speak in tongues, and, it is actually from them that I learned to recognize the Spirit’s activity in my life, yet aided by the intellectual tools I find in the Summa I am able to explain the workings of the soul and the mysteries of the Diving to those who do not experience the depth of either side of the equation.

The intellectual and mystical spirituality work extremely well together, I find.

John Martin

 

[hazcompat]

Don’t forget Saint Bonaventure!

Peace

 

[rasbat]

these are good responses. I just wonder a bit more specifically about how the tension between earlier scholastic thought and monastic spirituality came eventually to be reconciled. For example st. Bernard of Clairvaux writes in several places about the schoolmen and their philosphies in a very unimpressed tone. I cannot remember which treatise but he even calls them “scritinizers of majesty”. because they even made the attempt to understand with the mind what was going on rather than sitting back and taking the ride so to speak. i just know there was tension in the early years between this sort of monastic thought very grounded in patristic writings and intuitive, mystical, almost eastern orthodox in character spirituality, and the universities with their masters and the new mendicant orders beginning to play roles there. In one response here I saw reference to st. Thomas’s mysticism which is very interesting. I had heard mention of this before and should look into it more. This is what I mean. was it oftentimes the same people engaging in both aspects of the spiritual life, the rational and mystical, or two separate camps following one or the other? so what say you? is medieval spirituality a synthesis or separate sides of a coin in this matter?