/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17033623]

What happened to Christian mysticism? It seems that the practices of the Church became increasingly more secular as time went on, doesn't matter if it's the Catholic church, Orthodox or protestant.

[Anonymous No.17033632]

The church always condemned mysticism because it did not fall in line with the dogmas

[Anonymous No.17033641]

>>17033632
No true, plenty of Church fathers and doctors were mystics as well. The counter reformation also brought a revival of Christian mysticism but it seems to be gone now.

[Anonymous No.17033661]

>>17033623
(Neo)Platonism went out of fashion for good after Descartes.

[Anonymous No.17033705]

When materialism became more common. There probably still are mystics, but you just don't hear about them.

[Anonymous No.17033906]

>>17033623
orthodoxy is still mystical
Hesychasm is direct participation in the uncreated light, there's no equivalent in any other denomination

[Anonymous No.17033911]

>>17033906
Interesting. Are there any well known Orthodox mystics alive today?

[Anonymous No.17033929]

>>17033632
The Church's biggest religious order was created by a mystic.

[Anonymous No.17033938]

>>17033911
Yes, the Hesychasts are the monks who dedicate themselves to the practice of hesychasm.
The highest "rank" of Orthodox monk is a 'megaloschemos' monk (pic related). You only get to that point by being of high spiritual development, and they're all elders.
I don't know any specific people that you would call "mystics", but the elder monks fit that category.

[Anonymous No.17034242]

>>17033906
>Hesychasm is direct participation in the uncreated light, there's no equivalent in any other denomination
that's bull. people don't even know what the uncreated light is, all they have is a word and they don't understand what it expresses.

[Anonymous No.17034268]

>>17034242
Watch this:
https://youtu.be/yx0khK_Qe1w
And read Palamas' defence of Hesychasm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesychast_controversy

[Anonymous No.17034335]

>>17033623
In my opinion, Christian mysticism today is better than it was. The reason why I say so is that to me, the Bible has enough to offer. There's no need to add Indian navel-gazing to the list of Christian spiritual practices. I mean you can if you want, it's not necessarily idolatrous, but I fail to see how Indian navel-gazing will set me up with greater riches in heaven.

[Anonymous No.17034353]

>>17034335
You pray for understanding and to become closer to God, not because you're a greedy little shit who wants more stuff when he gets to heaven (as if such a person would to begin with).

[Anonymous No.17034429]

>>17033623
What are some good books on Christian mysticism?

[Anonymous No.17034430]

>>17033705
Bernadette Roberts
Henri Le Saux

[Anonymous No.17034515]

>>17034429
Mystical Theology by Pseudo-Dionysius
Confessions by St Augustine
Life of Moses by Gregory of Nissa
Ascent of Mount Carmel by John of the Cross
The Cloud of Unknowing

[Anonymous No.17034568]

>>17034429
The best in my opinion are, in no particular order;
>The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis
>"The Flowers of the Passion" by St Paul of the Cross
>The Dialogues of St Catherine of Sienna
>A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life by William Law
>A Pilgrim's Progress; from this life to that which is to come, by John Bunyan
I like all these because all of them are based on simple, Christian ideas, taken more or less directly from the gospels. None of that confusing but insipid Indian nonsense.

[Anonymous No.17034573]

>>17034429
FC Happold is a great place to start

[Anonymous No.17034595]

>>17034568
>Insipid Indian nonsen
You're both arrogant and ignorant and you have no idea what Christian Mysticism actually entails.

[Anonymous No.17034641]

>>17034595
No, I've tried to work in it, and I've discovered that it's no good. My love of neighbour or of God was neither increased nor decreased by doing it, but I said to myself; God help me if I waste any more time, as if not thinking will bring me to know the gospel any better!

And that's why I don't believe in it, it's wearisome, and produces neither gain nor loss to me.

[Anonymous No.17034660]

>>17034641
Dismissing things you don't understand is a prime indicator of arrogance. If you were unable to have any real experiences through it and it didn't bring you any closer to God then that's a problem with you, not the texts.

[Anonymous No.17034739]

>>17034660
No, the problem with the texts is that they contain little spiritual insight, and are filled with the most spurious interpretations of things which are quite plainly evident in the gospel.

My especial dislike is for Pseudo-Dionysius, which I've read and find altogether tangential to scripture.

So I wrote that you can do no better than the Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis, or A Serious Call by William Law. These men speak the truth that a religious life is for everybody, that wisdom is common, and that there is nothing better for the soul than prayer.

What I most object to, when it comes to certain mystical writers, Pseudo-Dionysius in particular, is how Brahmanical their outlook is; as if they've reached some exalted state. Such a view of oneself, I think would set anyone very low in the kingdom of God.

[Anonymous No.17034761]

>>17034739
Your opinions are worthless next to those of the Church fathers and your pride is obviously obfuscating your perception of your own ignorance. It would be better if you stopped spouting your nonsensical, childish theological positions for all the world to see and adopted some humility, at least enough to stay quiet on manners you clearly know nothing about.

[Anonymous No.17034785]

>>17033623
Why do you think that the Orthodox Church is no longer practicing or teaching mysticism? >>17033911
Alive today would be hard since a proper mystic would probably be canonized after his death, but no saint would dare think himself as one during his own lifetime. However, the famous monasteries of Mt. Athos have many monks practicing ceaseless prayer, to a point where one can pray through their supra-rational faculty which is what experiences God directly, at least that's my understanding. That's a mystical practice at least.

Though you could go "TEKNIKALLY!!" and say that every Church mystery (sacrament but in ortho lingo) is in fact mystical, even simply attending divine Liturgy is some sort of spiritual experience.

[Anonymous No.17034800]

>>17034761
Oh sorry, I forgot I was speaking to an orthoLARPer or tradcath zoomer, so the Christianity of Charles Dickens and John Bunyan is a childish theological position.

Let me tell you, there's a reason Martin Luther happened to you.

[Anonymous No.17034810]

>>17034739
Hey, I've read the Divine Names but never got that impression. Can you expand on why you think St. Dionysius (yeah I accept the genuine authorship) is apparently not Christian proper? Like "spurious interpretations" or how it's "brahmanical/prideful"?
>>17034761
Take it easy anon, we should get to understand him before we could judge him anything close to that.

[Anonymous No.17035003]

>>17034810
Sure, it's been a while, but I grabbed the following quote, which I find incomprehensible and unlike the gospels:
>From Chapter IV
>Now let us consider the name of "Good" which the Sacred Writers apply to the Supra-Divine Godhead in a transcendent manner, calling the Supreme Divine Existence Itself "Goodness" (as it seems to me) in a sense that separates It from the whole creation, and meaning, by this term to indicate that the Good, under the form of Good-Being, extends Its goodness by the very fact of Its existence unto all things. For as our sun, through no choice or deliberation, but by the very fact of its existence, gives light to all those things which have any inherent power of sharing its illumination, even so the Good (which is above the sun, as the transcendent archetype by the very mode of its existence is above its faded image) sends forth upon all things according to their receptive powers, the rays of Its undivided Goodness.

Look, I try to be generous; so let's suppose Pseudo-Dionysius means to speak of Matthew 5:45, that God causes the sun to rise upon the just and the unjust. Even being as that may be, there is no reason for this excess of verbiage, and certainly no need to say something so bizarre as "Supra-Divine Godhead," an epithet which personally rings my Gnostic alarm. I half expect to hear of the Demiurge next.

Moreover, it is my opinion that much study is a weariness to the flesh (Ecclesiastes 12:12). I also believe that Jesus spoke truly when he said that the lowliest and most ignorant will dine with Abraham, Issac and Jacob, and that the coins I've given to beggars on the street will be given back to me as rich jewels. Therefore I see no reason for Dionysius to be writing, if he is not writing to show these least of people how to enter the kingdom of God, in language they can understand.

Therefore, if I don't have to read Dionysius to be saved, I will pass.

[Anonymous No.17035014]

>>17033632
What about all the saints that are canonized by the church?

[Anonymous No.17035020]

>>17034800
>orthoLARPer or tradcath zoomer
Not him but wtf are you even talking about?

[Anonymous No.17035117]

>>17035020
It's a meme, referencing young men who recently converted from atheism because they think it fits with their /pol/tard ideology. They are sticklers for theology and the church fathers. Really they would settle for going to hell if they could burn Marxists at the stake.

[Anonymous No.17035166]

>>17035020
I said it because his argument was basically to hide under the skirts of the church fathers, but not to try to teach me how I was mistaken.

[Anonymous No.17035341]

>>17034268
I read some of the wiki but I don't get what your point is. what are you saying? are you being such a pompous Eastern Orthodox person that you don't believe that others have communion with God? seeing the light is nothing more than having a vision that represents a reality. Eastern Orthodox people are not unique because they see some spiritual influx of light.

[Anonymous No.17035448]

>>17034739
>Pseudo-Dionysius in particular, is how Brahmanical their outlook is;
what do you expect, he liked the Greeks and he was a philosopher, and he uses what he has available to him. everyone is born into a culture. you can definitely find parallels of his words in the gospels. apophatic contemplation is the same thing as becoming blind so that we may be healed, it is the same as being crucified with Christ but this also speaks of acting in reality and of our will, not just understanding. there is the "do not lean on your own understanding" which fundamentalist tend to reduced to nothing more then "only what the Bible says is true".

Christianity's greatest mysticism is a mysticism of love. asceticism alone is not good enough. Without Love personality is reduced to nothing and there is only some simplistic Universal Soul. we Christian Mystics believe in the kingdom of God which is the Holy Spirit. How can there be a kingdom If Only God is? the positive expression of reality is summed up in the trinity and it is as equally important as the Divine simplicity or a Divine Darkness, of which we already walk in.

[Anonymous No.17035500]

>>17035003
you kind of sound like a normal fundy Christian to me. what is salvation to you? to me it is to be with God. if you can't find worth in his words then it's kind of strange because they make perfect sense to me. it's a real shame that the majority of Christians are not taught proper methods of biblical interpretation.

[Anonymous No.17035881]

>>17035003
I'll give you my own interpretation of what he said and why he would write such works

>Now let us consider the name of "Good" which the Sacred Writers apply to the Supra-Divine Godhead in a transcendent manner, calling the Supreme Divine Existence Itself "Goodness" (as it seems to me) in a sense that separates It from the whole creation, and meaning, by this term to indicate that the Good, under the form of Good-Being, extends Its goodness by the very fact of Its existence unto all things.
A classic example of why people may call St. D a (neo-)platonist because it was also common for them to attribute "the Good" or "Goodness" as a name for their God/Monad. But I think all is being said here is that God isn't just maximally good, as if His goodness is just the 'largest amount', so to speak, but something way above that. We, as created things, are finitely good, and we are evil according to the deficiency of goodness (and God is the source of goodness) within us, much like holes within some shape, the holes only exist relative to the shape. God is wholly separate from creation and transcendent in so far that He is uncreated, His goodness is so abundant that it is not finite, impossible to fully grasp. He is truly wise, but also beyond our own wisdom. Human nature can be understood and defined (rational mortal animal) but His nature can never be known or defined somehow.

tl;dr God is so incomprehensible that He is fundamentally above divinity, goodness, being etc as we understand those concepts. We can say non-fundamentally but truthfully that God is indeed all of those things, but to say that isn't really describing God's nature proper.

>For as our sun, through no choice or deliberation, but by the very fact of its existence, gives light to all those things which have any inherent power of sharing its illumination, even so the Good (which is above the sun, as the transcendent archetype by the very mode of its existence is above its faded image) sends forth upon all things according to their receptive powers, the rays of Its undivided Goodness.

Imagine the Sun as God, and Sun's rays as grace and the goodness of God. God simply emanates all of it, it's up to us to properly perceive, receive and experience it all. Neither does God deliberate, because to deliberate would mean He had to think a bit before choosing, but that would imply not being omniscient after all.

I can agree that there is a lot of lofty language, common rhetorical practice from ancient days. I can understand the suspicion of gnosticism, but it's just that these gnostics heavily borrowed from the platonists, who happened to have a similar apophaticism (explaining or describing an incomprehensible/transcendent being) to the Christians, although I think there are very important differences.

cont., 1/2

[Anonymous No.17035916]

>>17035003
>Moreover, it is my opinion that much study is a weariness to the flesh (Ecclesiastes 12:12). I also believe that Jesus spoke truly when he said that the lowliest and most ignorant will dine with Abraham, Issac and Jacob, and that the coins I've given to beggars on the street will be given back to me as rich jewels. Therefore I see no reason for Dionysius to be writing, if he is not writing to show these least of people how to enter the kingdom of God, in language they can understand.
While theology shouldn't be a purely academic, intellectual endeavor, there should still be some of it there. I do not deny that one need not be educated to be saved, but surely it can also be beneficial to know your own faith? Look at the classical, patristic defenses and formulations of trinitarianism against the arians, eutychians, sabellians etc. It's like a combination of both using Scripture and using philosophy (not exclusively hellenic philosophy!) to defend the faith. It isn't just about explaining the ethics of Christianity, it's also about explaining the metaphysics and even epistemology. Bad doctrine leads to bad practice as the letter to Titus begins with, and to understand what goodness is as much as we can, we should try to understand as much as God wants and allows us to understand Him through what He has revealed to us.

[Anonymous No.17035938]

>>17035500 (checked)
>Am I a fundie?
I am being metaphorical when I talk of jewels in heaven, my view of salvation is to be with God and to live eternally after the resurrection in the new creation. I take this from the Apostle's Creed "we look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come."

I'm an Anglican, but I suppose the reason why I stay Anglican is because the fundies are nuts but the Catholics and Orthos seem like they skew towards legalism. I don't believe any church is a really great choice in comparison with Jesus I guess. But as you might expect, I have been taught by liberal sorts of Christians with evangelical roots, and I myself could be best described politically as being Blue Tory by dint of having a brain, yet red as Lenin at heart.

>>17035448
Although the Areopagite deserves sainthood, I'm not sure that St. Dionysius the Areopagite is the same as the writer of Pseudo-Dionysius. That being said, it's a unique argument that perhaps some things of his could be actually the man himself, and you know how old documents go; a little added, a little subtracted, nobody cared about authorship the same way as we do now.

I agree that the greatest mysticism is the mysticism of love, but even though I've lived alone for a number of years, and don't need any company to feel happy, I'm a terrible ascetic. I suppose I have narrowed myself into what God desires of me in a more meta sense, but I'm a fornicator and unjust, even though I've fornicated very little.

Knowing myself, I think that love is better than asceticism, much better in fact. But by no means do I reduce things to what the Bible says only is true, it's just that much study is a weariness to the flesh (Ecclesiastes 12:12). Or as Alan Watts put it; when you get the message, hang up the phone. Meaning that, to translate to the Biblical idiom, we have a duty to do the work of Him that sent us, because the night is coming in which no man can work (John 9:4). Even though I am by no means perfect, and perhaps because I have lived alone so long, I don't want to have my nose in a book when there are people to bring even the slightest comfort to.

So the thing is, you really don't need to read Pseudo-Dionysius, because all you need is faith. If you want the mysticism of love, read A Christmas Carol by Dickens and you will be spiritually better off.

[Anonymous No.17036069]

>>17035881
>>17035916
>Apophaticism
I like apophaticism a lot because it drags Christianity from the open jaws of dogmatic Hellenism, which says that all things that can be said can also be rationally deduced.

I suppose it makes it one of those books to read for someone given to conflating philosophy with religion. My own preference is not to un-say what God is, but to say as little as possible. Perhaps though, as I have been trained as a lawyer, I have a low tolerance for words that are not precisely meaningful.

[Anonymous No.17036123]

>>17033623
>greek theologians b like: any speech about god (theology) not rooted in the empirical experience of the illumination of the nous by the uncreated light of tabor is empty and devoid of significance
>reject rationalism and tell theologians to drop the philosophy books and pick up a komboskini
>’muh where my mysticism @???’

[Anonymous No.17036157]

>>17036069
Are you the anon I responded to? But in any case, try this paper for apophaticism https://marcsandersfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Jacobs-Phil-Fundamentality-and-Apophatic-Theology.pdf
real simple, easy stuff to read although a bit wordy sometimes. But I like it, made sense of St. Dionysius' hyper-talk for me because I was thinking before that he was rejecting true dichotomies as false somehow lol.

[Anonymous No.17036165]

>>17036123
>any speech about god (theology) not rooted in the empirical experience of the illumination of the nous by the uncreated light of tabor is empty and devoid of significance
bruh wthhhhhhh so only full-blown hesychasts can say anything about God or theology???

[Anonymous No.17036206]

>>17035938
>Even though I am by no means perfect, and perhaps because I have lived alone so long, I don't want to have my nose in a book when there are people to bring even the slightest comfort to.
>So the thing is, you really don't need to read Pseudo-Dionysius, because all you need is faith. If you want the mysticism of love, read A Christmas Carol by Dickens and you will be spiritually better off.
no one needs to read him neither do all need to listen to Dickens. both can be a blessing to a person. some souls like this others that, it is God's pleasure to give to us. I have watched a live play of the Christmas Carol and it was excellent.

I feel a powerful lack of sobornost, and I wish the church or monastery could truly fill that for me, I wish I could fit in with them. life in general is greater than understanding alone. the great thing about understanding is giving it to others. I'm to the point where I don't even look into the Bible unless it is to concern myself with someone else. I don't have an understanding that much at all unless it is to try to help. I still have sobernost but it's mostly with the people who are geniuses that I sought out to know God better. it's mostly in spirit with books. I myself cannot function well in the world. I long for a better community and a better way of life in this world but i myself am weaker than most in being capable of doing this. to most Christians I'm a heretic and I can't fit in, because I went too far and my nature had me isolated and mostly concerned with God.

it's nice to know that you have an understanding that is better then that which is common. I'm sure that you are on the right path.

[Anonymous No.17036368]

>>17036157
Yes, the Anglican of strong views, you just began to give answers I needed. I will read the pdf.

>>17036206
God bless friend, I hope God gives you the kind of friends you desire.

I haven't heard a thing that would lead me to the impression that you're a heretic. Nothing about the trinity, the Demiurge, or works based salvation, nope, the codes check out.

[Anonymous No.17036433]

>>17036165
yes, daddy Romanides says so.
less autistically, theology can’t be separated from the life of the church (which is literally participating in the mystical body of christ). The verb “δοξαζω” in the greek has the double meaning of believe (dogma) and to worship/magnify. Thus, a question of theological dogmatics were not historically and could never be separated from the practice of seeking God directly through mystical contemplation.

“The one who prays is the theologian” — Evagrius
“Theology without prayer is the work of demons” — Maximus

[Anonymous No.17036861]

>>17036368
np, if my ramblings arent making sense and read more like pseud rants let me know, I'll try to simplify myself :^)
>>17036433
Ok but it's not like every professor that teaches in ortho seminaries is a hesychast bro lol.

[Anonymous No.17036922]

>>17036433
only God can know God. at least that's what Jesus says. in fact I don't even know myself compared to how much God knows me, I am incomprehensible to myself. it's a great joy to the child who comprehends that God is infinite love and wisdom, I could think of no greater comfort and no greater hope. that he is as he is shows that the soul shall forever enjoy him. since he is a consuming fire all conceptions of him that do not endure burn up and those that remain continue in the heat. what I know that endures is this I in the fire, because I am his beloved and he is mine.

[Anonymous No.17037059]

>>17036861
>Ok but it's not like every professor that teaches in ortho seminaries

The world is not ideal. I made no pretense it was, “bro”. Pic related.

>>17036922
God is incomprehensible in his essence but makes himself known in his energies/activity. I am not implying people can gaze into the essence of God. Nice poetry pasta.

[Anonymous No.17037131]

>>17037059
>God is incomprehensible in his essence but makes himself known in his energies/activity.
me too

[Anonymous No.17037210]

>>17036922
>>17037131
after in your OP bemoaning the ‘disappearance’ of mysticism in christianity, you are now arguing against mysticism in theology??

>>17035003
>much study is a weariness to the flesh (Ecclesiastes 12:12)
You sound like my adventist friend. The pietist dichotomy between mysticism understood as quietism and theology is false.

[Anonymous No.17037374]

>>17037210
>after in your OP bemoaning the ‘disappearance’ of mysticism in christianity, you are now arguing against mysticism in theology??
I didn't make the OP. systematized mysticism is pretty sad though. even if mysticism is supposedly alive, it's probably dead. after all, repeating correct words is not mysticism. people love men more than God and that's why they accept those coming in the name of someone else other than of our father. humans want to be servants but only the son abides in the house forever.


where have I argued against mysticism in theology? there are no higher declarations than those Jesus Christ said. I will speak on the level of the mysticism Jesus Christ experienced.

[Anonymous No.17038344]

>>17037210
>The pietist dichotomy between mysticism understood as quietism and theology is false.
I'm that guy and I agree with you. My only contention against a large swathe of Mystical books has been as I said, I'm legally trained and as you must understand from my chosen profession, my tolerance for words that aren't strictly important is awfully low. I'm really an analyst and in my religion also.