Talk:Mystical theology

How can we improve this article?
The information in this article should simply be added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism and then this article removed.199.48.195.232 (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The title is completely misleading. You land here looking for information on mysticism, yet there is only Roman Catholic Mysticism listed at all, which is misleading.

--Einder_Darkwolf (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2012 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.25.91 (talk)

The text is really good, but it creates the potentially mistaken impression that there is only one mystical theology, while in fact there are many authors with different persepectives as well as commonalities. My question is, does it make sense to subdivide the article into more sub-headings, and show contributions of several authors on each? Hust asking.

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just done a minimum to create a short lead section, and add just a little context. Yes, it makes sense to introduce subsections to clarify different perspectives. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make a try, please correct if you don't like it. There is another point I am wondering about. Is mystical theology limited to a certain time? Or, are modern writers like St. Terese of Lisseaux, a "Church doctor"!, or Thomas Merton (his early writings) candidates to be mentioned? I have no firm view on this.

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The textbook, Light From Light - An Anthology of Christian Mysticism, used by DePaul University in Chicago, lists both mystics you reference, with Fr. Merton covered in the last chapter, chronologically. It seems the criteria for its editors' inclusion had to do with whether a given school of thought flowed therefrom - and was deemed "systemtic" - without attempting to elaborate on any given system (beyond perhaps, 'repent'), commencing with Origen. However, it notes Fr. Merton's development of no new school, but rather, lists his work for having sucessfully synthesized certain preexisting writings. It appears now that Fr. Merton's previous abbot, Fr. Thomas Keating, in his trilogy's last writing, that he goes beyond where Fr. Merton left off (with New Seeds of Contemplation), especially in Invitation To Love. So, if the ground for inclusion beginning with Origen, as the first systematic theologian on mysticism is a "system", then Fr. Merton just might update the matter at hand, as first raised by St. Paul: for the reason he preferred the gift of prophecy over tongues (e.g. anothers' edification - being always timely, always timeless). PWR Finder (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC) P.S. The Wikipedia page "Christian Mysticism" lists the most exhaustive compilation of mystics (per se), I've ever seen. It may be useful for your purposes.

Mystical theology and mysticism
Bernard McGinn (1991) The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mysticism; Crossroads Publishing Co, NY (in 4 vol):  "...the term mystical theology antedated the coining of the word mysticism by over a millenium..." p. xiv vol. 1. The first volume, Foundations of Mysticism, is 343 pp. long with nearly 100 pp of notes, 40 pp. Bibliography. If you can wade through something that long it is readable.--Margaret9mary (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirect
I've redirected the page to Christian contemplation, which treats the topic more substantial. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   13:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Moved info from Christian contemplation
I've moved a substantial amount of information from Christian contemplation to Mystical theology. See Talk:Theoria (Eastern Orthodox Churches) for the history of this information. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mystical theology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019224511/http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Mysticism to http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Mysticism
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019224606/http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Dionysius_the_Pseudo-Areopagite to http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Dionysius_the_Pseudo-Areopagite

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

St Francis?
Why is there a picture of St Francis in the Roman Catholic section? He is not otherwise mentioned in this article. 2601:602:A000:3100:701A:1B84:EED:A889 (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Difference between mysticism and mystical theology
I believe there is a mistake by editors and in the article that "mystical theology" is limited the theology of extreme mysticism, which is I admit the easy impression to get from some treatments of it. As has been pointed out, that is better handled by e.g. the Christian mysticism page.

Instead, Mystical Theology is that branch of theology (distinguished from systematic or scholastic theology etc) which is concerned with the self-disclosure of God and its affect, devotion and experience of humans: the heart not just the head.

I am not denying that "Mystical Theology" is sometimes used for the theology of extreme mystical states: indeed, I suspect that for (e.g., Greek) Orthodox writers this is the primary or even exclusive meaning. But its focus in the West is, I believe, broader than this, being perhaps more interested in the devotional life of lay-people in pews more than of ascetics in mountains, if that makes sense. (With no disrespect to those Saints intended.)

The Oxford Handbook of Mystical Theology puts it well:

"mystical theology, far from being narrowly concerned with specialized spiritual experiences, engages with the whole range of Christian beliefs and teachings, theology ‘in its totality’ as Merton says; and second, mystical theology explores and interprets every doctrine to help believers find there a doorway into a living, transformative encounter with the divine reality to which, Christians believe, their theological language is meant to point—allowing Christians, as Merton puts it, to live into their theology."

So, for example, we should class Erasmus as a Mystical Theologian despite his being highly academic, because of his teaching on encountering Christ in the Gospels (his Method of True Theology) and being imprinted by it (his philosophia christi): however, he is far from the immoderate ecstatic saint we might associate ineffable mysticism with. (We might note von Hugels "Mystical Element of Religion: As Studied in Saint Catherine of Genoa and Her Friends" in this regard too.) (We can note here Pseudo-Dionysius' Mystical Theology where our intellectual conceptions of God progressively run out of steam the closer we come to God.)

Now I am not saying that the article is wrong by limiting itself from the Greek historical definitions that continually circle back to mysticism (rather than daily devotional life), but that it is limitation that does not match some Western uses of the term (in theology or academia)

So I would like (us) to flesh out the current entry more with this kind of consideration, and pehaps even move the non-theological mysticism more to its proper articles elsewhere? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ I have revised the lead, and added citations. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Catholic section
The Catholic section seems misleading?

For example "Theology indeed can only focus on what God is not, for instance considering God a spirit by removing from our conception anything pertaining to the body, while mysticism, instead of trying to comprehend what God is, is able to intuit it." This is not Catholic teaching, AFAIK. The key teaching is neither cataphatic nor apophatic but analogia entis:

“For between creator and creature there can be noted no similarity so great that a greater dissimilarity cannot be seen between them." — Fourth Lateran Council (1216)

This allows positive theology in the same breath as negative": analogy does not have to be (and cannot be) perfect in order to be real.

Indeed, the idea of that theology can only focus on what God is not would seem to rule out any theological mention of the incarnation, which would be a strange position for any Christian/Trinitarian theology such as Catholic theology (i.e. to define God as only the Father, in effect.)

Lacks citations too. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ I went back to the cited book, and found that the paragraph is not a good summary of what the source says: in fact, it explicitly deals with both the via negativa and the use of analogy. So I have improved the paragraph accordingly, and put in the names of Aquinas and Dionysius.
 * However, it is not clear to me that the "inuiting" of God by using analogy is indeed "mystical"; Aristotle and Przywara would call them perfectly normal forms of human cognition, surely...? Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)