Correspondence to a leading scholar (and friend) on and of John of the Cross:
I continue to be will with the sinus infection, beginning the sixth week; but. while I remain very weak, and my head when I get up feeling as if body will be out of balance, I can read a little and think some, and am reading what you sent of Payne's writing on mysticism, specifically with John of the Cross as the benchmark.
Already I notice that Payne writes that John felt that the Church was a reliable guide for truths of religion [in his time period]. And I have come to experience that the temporal Church of my time and years has not been reliable so much in His Church as He instituted centuries ago, nor particularly much in the spiritual aspects, and especially not in mystical aspects. Mysticism has become a temporal trend in the temporal Church and the world, and the lines and definitions of mystics and mysticism are quite blurred and thus a broadened field of such which has diluted and dulled the mystical reality.
That includes what is and what is not the Mystical Church and the temporal Church, of which the dualities have become rather fixed in that the Mystical Church is essentially unknown to those in the Church temporal, increasingly temporal--political, confused with the adulteration by humankind over the centuries, particularly from latter Middle Ages. But there is evidence of corruption in clergy and political leaders that St. John Chrysostom (3rd c.) and others then and onward, tried to correct in their lifetimes and from their clerical positions on earth.
Dr. X is working on what is likely his final book, and this one is of some contemporary "mystics" of the Catholic Church. I'm fairly certain he is including Therese of Lisieux as a mystic, and I've never considered her as such. However and more so, she is a great soul who progressed rapidly from a spoiled daughter and little sister to a contemplative soul with magnanimity in love of God and love of others. She mastered the Law of God, His Law of Love, and grasped the reality of intercessory prayer. She wrote simply yet beautifully of this transformation in the book that her sister Pauline, the prioress of Carmel in which Therese lived from age 16 until her early death after several months of severe suffering--I think around age 22 or so.
She had come to union with Christ in various aspects while remaining practical and genuine, including her comment in a letter or diary that had her pain medications been left on her bedside stand in the infirmary, she would have been tempted to to take them all--her pain so great. This admission, to me, has made her quite "real" and all the more heroic, as a result. That is a detail that is not known much and disbelieved by many when mentioned. But a mystic? By the facts, not, but she is a great contemplative and came to many instances of union with Christ in her suffering and evidenced a rapid progression of her soul--yes!
People do not become mystics; but people can each and all become contemplatives and great ones, Contemplatives (or anyone God wills) can have a spiritual or mystical-type phenomenon or more, but that does not mean they are "mystics". Contemplatives can have extreme suffering and then death, but that does not mean they are mystics. Contemplatives can write beautifully of the progression of the soul's journey through passageways to union with God, and penultimately of God's Law of Love and achieve high degrees of living His Law of Love and of near spiritual perfection, and experience portions of union with God while yet on earth, but that does not mean they are mystics.
Why people want to be mystics or ascribe great contemplatives as being mystics, is beyond me, as being a mystic is not the ultimate in the spiritual life, nor a category or state to which persons can attain or ought want to. Why is it that in our times being a mystic is such a great desire to attain or have that label, or to have "mystical experiences" by whatever means including formulaic exercises and practices trying to force some type of altered experiences? It has become quite the trend, and to write about those already heralded in the Catholic Church as mystics when they simply were not, is to diminish what is the ultimate goal of the Christian soul, and that is to be a contemplative and approach and experience union with God through His Law of Love, of which love, and to love to learn to love, is a main purpose of our existences.
Being a mystic is much like being born with an affliction such as cerebral palsy or autism, except is a less acceptable and understood, and less researched affliction. There is much suffering, but the worst of the suffering is that of persecution from within the Church and from other Christians. There are mystical experiences, mystical phenomenon, and also much tribulation caused by assaults of the evil one in varied formats. These--the holy of God and not of God--come early on, from birth on, but are not necessarily noticed by the afflicted one until later, and not recognized as being different from others until often much later. Usually this is when someone other mentions it, and then another and another until the afflicted one, the mystic, has to face that reality which tends to come as a shock to find out that others do not perceive nor have these spiritual and mystical anomalies or also called "gifts" or "graces from God" but of which the mystic finds as ineffable, of His Real Presence, yet arduous and painful due to the responsibilities often attached.
A mystic's desire is to be "normal", and the normal person's desire now seems to be "mystic." And so it is that the greatest souls, the great contemplatives who progressed through various passageways or even few or one or two, are somehow being labeled as "mystics" when they were not born with this affliction, and somehow being a contemplative who learned to listen to and pray in deep communication with God, to have deep spiritual and also practical grasp of His Living Word and His Real Presence and learned to love as God loves--is not great, not good enough?
Merciful heavens!
Have you considered Therese of Lisieux a mystic? I'm wondering, for now I've read persons referring to "mystical prayer" and that they "have" mystical prayer, whatever that is, for pity's sake. There is deep and unitive prayer for anyone who passes through various prayer states, not necessarily in any order but often in an order from more literal and conscious to spiritual, subconscious, to spiritual and unconscious or prayer of union with God of which God provides that experience and not by the person's doing other than through availing oneself to God and striving in love. But I cannot think of what on earth or otherwise would be "mystical prayer"! Why must everything that is wondrous and of God be labeled now as "mystic" or "mystical"? Simply is unnecessary and--silly.
There is some element of pride going on, that being a mystic or mystical is somehow the greatest and best of any attainment spiritually or of God, when it is actually a choice of God for souls prior to birth, and in temporal reality quite an affliction of much suffering temporally and spiritually throughout life. Mystics do have a purpose and mission, determined by God, and in some instances are signs of God's presence among us through God's choosing to give the person who is a mystic some visible mark such as stigmata or gift to be utilized to the benefit of humankind and reminder of God's existence, such as gift of miracles in healing or other temporal interventions of which the mystic is utilized for such.
Otherwise, they suffer in hiddenness and pray, and have their experiences in solitude, or what signs given are more doubted and thus the mystic is persecuted by humankind, especially those in the temporal Church--but even this is God's will and for the growth of the person who is afflicted from birth, and whose prayers and love is part of the progression to union with God, and in contemplation of His Real Presence,
Does this make sense? Do you see how the label is being misused and in effect creating confusion, and making it even less likely for persons to grasp that they can come to God and progress through the passageways spiritually, in life, and grow in contemplation of God and in His Law of Love, for the label "mystic" and "mysticism" is not going to matter but will instead be a stumbling block of their own deception and confusion over what is not a way to God but rather God's choice for certain souls to live what is a type of affliction--when we remove the notion that an affliction is necessarily "bad".
This, then, gets into the understanding of suffering as a means of learning to love and of union with Christ's suffering, and as reparative for the soul and for whatever and however God wills to use the suffering if offered. And it is suffering ongoing and from early on, not a suffering that is one's death suffering that God has chosen for them, more a temporary suffering even if severe and molds and grows them all the more to His Real Presence.
Whatever. I'm not going to help people grasp, not when Dr. X and others mislabel and confuse the term "mystic" with probably "holiness" or "contemplative" in highest degree. Or when a temporally approved person in a temporal Church vocation, has determined he has achieved what that person says is "mystical prayer"--what is this which is indeterminate and infeasible? I see that others have written books on how to "have mystical prayer" of which the authors are Protestants, Catholics, and New Age personages. Most of these simply take the steps of prayer of contemplative and unitive prayer stages and re-label them as "mystical prayer." Others develop techniques, exercises mental and bodily, and formulas that they suggest will provide "mystical prayer" as the result.
So it goes. They are labels and labels only. Mystic and mystical have various definitions that have evolved and are altered by humankind over the years, as well. Does not matter. One is what God has chosen, labeled this or that, or not. Even being transgender in the temporal world is now trendy with advantages--of which many people are fearful to point out the hypocrisies and pragmatic injustices. To speak truth means they may be "canceled" by those who determined themselves to decide what is relative truth when is but temporal confusion or personal, temporal, life choice.
God bless His Real Presence in us!
Love in His Love....
No comments:
Post a Comment