Eastern Mysticism

[Chesterton]

Why is Eastern Christianity more mystical than Western?

Before the Great Schism, would an observer have recognized a difference between East and West in regards to mysticism? Were the ideas now associated with “Eastern Orthodox mysticism” once the same in the West?

I understand that from the East's perspective, there's much to criticize about the West's idea of the role of reason (and I agree) but it seems that cropped up later (12-13th century?).

 

[gzt]

I guess the first and most important thing to clarify is what you think you mean by mystical and why Orthodoxy seems more mystical (by your observation) than Western Christianity. Another thing to note is that Catholicism has no shortage of "mystics" (such as Juan de la Cruz, the anonymous author of "The Cloud of Unknowing", the contemplative orders such as the Carthusians, Trappists...).

 

[ProScribe]

In the West, typically you see secular ideology and other cultural factors that do not express Eastern mysticism. It has alot to do with culture and the religion most predominant in that society. In the Western Church, different theological and philosophical ideas took shape apart from Eastern Christianity.

 

[E.C.]

Why is Eastern Christianity more mystical than Western?

Before the Great Schism, would an observer have recognized a difference between East and West in regards to mysticism? Were the ideas now associated with “Eastern Orthodox mysticism” once the same in the West?

I understand that from the East's perspective, there's much to criticize about the West's idea of the role of reason (and I agree) but it seems that cropped up later (12-13th century?).

Well, like gzt said a clarification of mystical may be needed.

But if you mean what I think you mean, than just remember that most of the East's ways of doing things can be summed up like this, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

 

[Gwenyfur]

not to be a smart aleck...
but...

It's mystery


Sorry...my orneriness got the better of me

 

[Mikeb85]

Why is Eastern Christianity more mystical than Western?

Judaism, and early Christianity after it, always were what you could call 'mystical'. Why is 'Eastern' Christianity more mystical? Because it's the original Christianity.

Before the Great Schism, would an observer have recognized a difference between East and West in regards to mysticism? Were the ideas now associated with “Eastern Orthodox mysticism” once the same in the West?

Many of the spirituality we associate with 'Western' Christianity developped after the schism. For example, there is no record of any stigmatics before Francis of Assisi... Scholasticism, obsession with visions, and other parts of Western spirituality came after the schism. It's pretty clear that before the schism, Western spirituality was much closer to the Eastern, more 'mystical' faith...

Now, to get back to the original question:

Why is Eastern Christianity more mystical than Western?

I think alot of it has to do with Rome's need for 'proof'.

Leading up to the schism, Rome started making claims of it's universal jurisdiction over all of Christendom. But these claims had no basis, so they started coming up with all sorts of fabricated 'proof' to back up their claims. Forged documents like the Donation of Constantine, a robber council (which was overturned), claims of Peter's supremacy over the apostles (conveniently forgetting Peter was also Bishop of Antioch), etc... Rome has never ceased trying to 'prove' their position.

This attitude seems to have crossed over into their faith as well. Stigmata is 'proof' of one's holiness, visions are used as 'proof' of doctrines, spirituality, etc... And they even needed to intellectualize their faith to 'prove' it's validity to our human reasoning. And of course, this attitude didn't stay with Rome - as the protestants were the offshoot of the Roman church, they also inherited this attitude... Many of them abuse scripture to try to 'prove' their own positions, many of them use junk science to try to 'prove' God's existence, etc...

Why has this never developped in the East? Because there's never been any doubt the Orthodox church is truly the 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church', and there's no doubt our faith is the true faith.

 

[Julina]

Judaism, and early Christianity after it, always were what you could call 'mystical'. Why is 'Eastern' Christianity more mystical? Because it's the original Christianity.



Many of the spirituality we associate with 'Western' Christianity developped after the schism. For example, there is no record of any stigmatics before Francis of Assisi... Scholasticism, obsession with visions, and other parts of Western spirituality came after the schism. It's pretty clear that before the schism, Western spirituality was much closer to the Eastern, more 'mystical' faith...

Now, to get back to the original question:


I think alot of it has to do with Rome's need for 'proof'.

Leading up to the schism, Rome started making claims of it's universal jurisdiction over all of Christendom. But these claims had no basis, so they started coming up with all sorts of fabricated 'proof' to back up their claims. Forged documents like the Donation of Constantine, a robber council (which was overturned), claims of Peter's supremacy over the apostles (conveniently forgetting Peter was also Bishop of Antioch), etc... Rome has never ceased trying to 'prove' their position.

This attitude seems to have crossed over into their faith as well. Stigmata is 'proof' of one's holiness, visions are used as 'proof' of doctrines, spirituality, etc... And they even needed to intellectualize their faith to 'prove' it's validity to our human reasoning. And of course, this attitude didn't stay with Rome - as the protestants were the offshoot of the Roman church, they also inherited this attitude... Many of them abuse scripture to try to 'prove' their own positions, many of them use junk science to try to 'prove' God's existence, etc...

Why has this never developped in the East? Because there's never been any doubt the Orthodox church is truly the 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church', and there's no doubt our faith is the true faith.

that makes a lot of sense.
i think mysticism is one of the biggest reasons why i sometimes have trouble explaining some things to me protestant friends. They want "proof" but i don't always have it. I can't.

 

[E.C.]

that makes a lot of sense.
i think mysticism is one of the biggest reasons why i sometimes have trouble explaining some things to me protestant friends. They want "proof" but i don't always have it. I can't.

That's right!

They want to know what steak tastes like they need to eat it themselves! We can't tell them how it tastes in a language they would understand!

Especially since was today was Meatfare.

 

[oopstypo]

most heresies that have been opposed by the Church have been anti-mystical. variations of old heresies tend to crop up in protestantism such as iconoclasm and even gnosticism. obviously a church referred to as orthodox would try to remain completely opposite of those types of heresies. also any church that takes a legalistic approach to Christianity as the roman church does, will inevitably get tripped up over the concept of mystery.

 

[ArmyMatt]

it's the big difference between St Gregory Palamas and Thomas Aquinas. Palamas wanted to experience God, Aquinas wanted to think about God.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I wonder though, before the schism, like not a decade before but in.... say... AD700 was there a difference between mysticism in the East and West? Did it express itself differently according to the culture surrounding said mystic.

From there I would wonder if we can responsibly judge the mysticism of even the Modern West with our own criteria. I mean IF there was some kind of difference that existed before the Schism (and certainly we couldn't criticize it because it's not as if the East was more Christian the the Western Church of that time), and i realize that such has yet to be established, then isn't it a bit out of our realm to know how God would express Himself 'mystically' in other cultures, especially after they would grow apart?

 

[E.C.]

I wonder though, before the schism, like not a decade before but in.... say... AD700 was there a difference between mysticism in the East and West? Did it express itself differently according to the culture surrounding said mystic.

The Rule of St. Benedict comes to mind. He said to "work and pray" as well as be obedient to one's superior. A few times some ornery, disobedient novice would try to poison Benedict's food only to have the food "rescued" by a raven. From what I've heard about the various Roman monastic orders the Benedictines, who are pre-Schism, are probably the closest to Eastern monasticism that the West will have without becoming Eastern.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Not that your comment is at all irrelevant to my question, but I suppose I am looking at more the mystical side. Many Orthodox, for example, are quick to criticize stigmata bc 1) it never occurs in the East and 2) it never occurred in the Church (at least is not recorded other than the theories some have regarding the "thorns" St Paul suffered from) anywhere before the schism.

It seems to me that the only fair point is point 2). But we tend to give point 1) equal validity. I would think the only way we could use point 1) with equal validity would be if there were no differences in how mysticism expressed itself before the schism in both East and West (bc even at that time, it seems to me that the culture and therefore theological expression were different in nature, even if they worked towards the same truth).

So, I am not asking so much for the theory and practice of monasticism, but rather it's "mystical" spiritual fruits. Were there any distinctly eastern western nuances pre-schism?

 

[Michael G]

The influence of Aquinas on western thought must be emphasized. Aquinas robbed the western church of most of its belief in mystery. In the philosophy of Aquinas everything is explained and there is very, very, very little room for faith and mystery. There is only room for reason in his teaching and his teaching took over most western thought after his life.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Was a mystic before his famous vision?

I guess I never thought of him as a mystic but rather just a scholar of theology.

 

[Mikeb85]

Not that your comment is at all irrelevant to my question, but I suppose I am looking at more the mystical side. Many Orthodox, for example, are quick to criticize stigmata bc 1) it never occurs in the East and 2) it never occurred in the Church (at least is not recorded other than the theories some have regarding the "thorns" St Paul suffered from) anywhere before the schism.

It seems to me that the only fair point is point 2). But we tend to give point 1) equal validity. I would think the only way we could use point 1) with equal validity would be if there were no differences in how mysticism expressed itself before the schism in both East and West (bc even at that time, it seems to me that the culture and therefore theological expression were different in nature, even if they worked towards the same truth).

Points 1 and 2 are related. The reason it never happened in the East AND never happened pre-schism, is because the 'East' maintains pre-schism spirituality.

So, I am not asking so much for the theory and practice of monasticism, but rather it's "mystical" spiritual fruits. Were there any distinctly eastern western nuances pre-schism?

A better question would be were there any distinctly Western nuances in the West pre-schism? Because the fact is, everything we associate with 'Western' spirituality developped after the schism...

Here's a good article describing the change in the West
http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/v10i2.htm

A bit about Francis of Assisi (the first documented 'stigmatic')
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Points 1 and 2 are related. The reason it never happened in the East AND never happened pre-schism, is because the 'East' maintains pre-schism spirituality.

Well, that's the question. Surely it maintains pre-schism Eastern spirituality, but was this universal?

A better question would be were there any distinctly Western nuances in the West pre-schism?

Agreed. So, I defer to that question.

 

[Mikeb85]

Well, that's the question. Surely it maintains pre-schism Eastern spirituality, but was this universal?

Everything I've researched suggests it was universal, not East/West as the RCC and some modern ecumenists like to suggest.

For instance, in the West there weren't different monastic 'orders' until after the schism (contrary to popular opinion St. Benedict did not found a monastic 'order', and his 'rule' greatly resembled those of the Desert Fathers).

Everything we associate with 'Western Spirituality', whether it's the different orders, stigmata, scholasticism, etc..., can all be seen developping shortly after the schism. Even early Western practices, liturgies, etc..., are closer to the East than to the medieval West. 'Western' spirituality as we see it today did not exist in the pre-schism church.

 

[Hoankan]

MOD HAT ON:

Moratorium is in effect. If you have not heard about it or are unsure of its wording, please go here. All violations and quotes of violating posts will be removed as soon as my eyes spot them as I have done.

 

[Michael G]

The Rule of St. Benedict comes to mind. He said to "work and pray" as well as be obedient to one's superior. A few times some ornery, disobedient novice would try to poison Benedict's food only to have the food "rescued" by a raven. From what I've heard about the various Roman monastic orders the Benedictines, who are pre-Schism, are probably the closest to Eastern monasticism that the West will have without becoming Eastern.

That really depends on what group of Benedictines you are talking about. Some are quite conservative and traditional, others are very liberal and non-traditional. Sometimes great differences between tradition and modernism exist within the same monastary. It isn't fair to say one order by rule is more or less traditional than an other order.