Mystical Theology

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 3 2005, 10:35 PM']This is not from the actual writings of St. Catherine, but from an anti-Catholic parody!
Nice try at mockery, but this is the equivilent of using Monty Python as a source of religious history.  (Especially ironic for someone who is usually so picky about the "historical accuracy" of his sources!)  You have once again proven that you are not truly driven by a desire for historical accuracy, but only to use whatever means you can to atttack and mock the Catholic Church. 

Really, LittleLes, have you nothing better to do with your time??
[right][snapback]631158[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Quite possibly you are correct. This would be pushing the story of the "mythical betrothal" a bit far and combining legends. Please cite the source of your evidence. I'm told that the original account was dictated by Catherine in about 1370 in her "The Dialoge," Perhaps, when time permits' I'll read in its entirety to see what Catherine is said to have claimed.

"There is an interesting painting by Peter Paul Rubens ( 1577-1640)called "The Mystical Marriage of Catherine of Sienna," depicting one of her fantasies/visions. Catherine is standing there as a bride, extending her fourth finger to receive the wedding ring. In this case, the ring is Christ's severed foreskin, which the baby Jesus, held in his mother's arms, is attempting to tug over Catherine's finger."

However, there is the following:

"Apart from its physical importance as a relic, the Holy Foreskin is sometimes claimed to have appeared in a famous vision of (Click link for more info and facts about Saint Catherine of Siena) Saint Catherine of Siena. In the vision, Jesus mystically marries her, and his amputated foreskin is given to her as a wedding ring. However, this has not been traced any earlier than a seventeenth-century anti-Catholic parody, and as such is of dubious credibility."


And there is this from the Catholic Encyclopedia on "Mythical Marriage.":

"In many of the lives of the saints, the wide sense is intended. Here the mystical marriage consists in a vision in which Christ tells a soul that He takes it for His bride, presenting it with the customary ring, and the apparition is accompanied by a ceremony; the Blessed Virgin, saints, and angels are present "

The whole subject of auditory and visual hallucinations termed "mystic experiences," which suggest schizophrenia or extreme suggestability, is fascinating.

And in our own day, an Italian priest named Fr. Gobbi has claimed mystical "locutions" of hearing voices of Mary. Of course, when one of his "messages" seemed to be in error, he lost some creditability

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 4 2005, 10:11 AM']RESPONSE:

Quite possibly you are correct. This would be pushing the story of the "mythical betrothal" a bit far and combining legends.    Please cite the source of your evidence. I'm told that the original account was dictated by Catherine in about 1370 in her  "The Dialoge," Perhaps, when time permits' I'll read in its entirety to see what Catherine is said to have claimed.

"There is an interesting painting by Peter Paul Rubens ( 1577-1640)called "The Mystical Marriage of Catherine of Sienna," depicting one of her fantasies/visions. Catherine is standing there as a bride, extending her fourth finger to receive the wedding ring. In this case, the ring is Christ's severed foreskin, which the baby Jesus, held in his mother's arms, is attempting to tug over Catherine's finger."

However, there is the following:

"Apart from its physical importance as a relic, the Holy Foreskin is sometimes claimed to have appeared in a famous vision of  (Click link for more info and facts about Saint Catherine of Siena) Saint Catherine of Siena. In the vision, Jesus mystically marries her, and his amputated foreskin is given to her as a wedding ring. However, this has not been traced any earlier than a seventeenth-century anti-Catholic parody, and as such is of dubious credibility."
And there is this from the Catholic Encyclopedia on "Mythical Marriage.":

"In many of the lives of the saints, the wide sense is intended. Here the mystical marriage consists in a vision in which Christ tells a soul that He takes it for His bride, presenting it with the customary ring, and the apparition is accompanied by a ceremony; the Blessed Virgin, saints, and angels are present  "

The whole subject of auditory and visual hallucinations termed "mystic experiences,"  which suggest schizophrenia or extreme suggestability, is fascinating.

And in our own day, an Italian priest named Fr. Gobbi has claimed mystical "locutions" of hearing voices of Mary. Of course, when one of his "messages" seemed to be in error, he lost some creditability
[right][snapback]631334[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


:rotfl: You miss the point AGAIN!!!!! :crackup:

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 4 2005, 11:29 AM']:rotfl:  You miss the point AGAIN!!!!!  :crackup:
[right][snapback]631396[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

No I understand the point perfectly. It's religious illusion pretending to be reality.

[Semperviva]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 4 2005, 01:47 PM']It's religious illusion pretending to be reality.
[right][snapback]631508[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

who's to say it's not the other way around.......that its not simply reality that you are making into illusion by nothing othere that declaring it to be false illusions......but maybe you could think about it both sides of it and not be so intolerant, hhmmm? lol

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 4 2005, 02:47 PM']RESPONSE:

No I understand the point perfectly. It's religious illusion pretending to be reality.
[right][snapback]631508[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


PARTY LINE....

[Semperviva]

[i]Apart from its physical importance as a relic, the Holy Foreskin is sometimes claimed to have appeared in a famous vision of Saint Catherine of Siena. In the vision, Jesus mystically marries her, and his amputated foreskin is given to her as a wedding ring. However, this has not been traced any earlier than a seventeenth-century anti-Catholic parody, and as such is of dubious credibility.[/i]


.....it seems to me that although the origin of the story may be dubious ... i see no reason to consider this a reason to dismiss the story as imaginitive parody or mockery...it is very in line with tradtion i think....for ex, one ceremony the Church held in practice for a long time (don't know the name of it, its pre-vat 2 i think) has the priest light a candle saying prayers and then plunging the candle into the baptismal font as a symbol[i] (good word, symbol)[/i] of Christ impregnating the church with the divine life...so i don't see why anyone should be weirded out by that idea, and of course, if it was true, that Christ give such a thing to Catherine of Siena, S[b]atan would try right away try to pervert it and make it seems foreign and weird[/b](btw, clinical and terms like like "amptated foreskin" just don't seem like the right way to refer to Christ even though it may or may not have happened)...and the fact that this idea was made into a parody it seems just the patternand typical mark of of SAtan's work-just like he tried to corrupt every other truth as the father of lies and it only makes sense that an embittered Protestant would make fun of anything Catholic and if anything the fact that it was a parody at all means there was maybe some basis in the whole story in reality as well... maybe...because parodies start with something real

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 4 2005, 05:22 PM'][i]Apart from its physical importance as a relic, the Holy Foreskin is sometimes claimed to have appeared in a famous vision of Saint Catherine of Siena. In the vision, Jesus mystically marries her, and his amputated foreskin is given to her as a wedding ring. However, this has not been traced any earlier than a seventeenth-century anti-Catholic parody, and as such is of dubious credibility.[/i]
.....it seems to me that although the origin of the story may be dubious ... i see no reason to consider this a reason to dismiss the story as  imaginitive parody or mockery...it is very in line with tradtion i think....for ex, one ceremony the Church held in practice for a long time (don't know the name of it, its pre-vat 2 i think) has the priest light a candle saying prayers and then plunging the candle into the baptismal font as a symbol[i] (good word, symbol)[/i] of Christ impregnating the church with the divine life...so i don't see why anyone should be weirded out by that idea, and of course, if it was true, that Christ give such a thing to Catherine of Siena,  S[b]atan would try right away try to pervert it and make it seems foreign and weird[/b](btw, clinical and terms like like "amptated foreskin" just don't seem like the right way to refer to Christ even though it may or may not have happened)...and the fact that this idea was made into a parody it seems just the patternand typical mark of of SAtan's work-just like he tried to corrupt every other truth as the father of lies and it only makes sense that an embittered Protestant would make fun of anything Catholic and if anything the fact that it was a parody at all means there was maybe some basis in the whole story in reality as well... maybe...because parodies start with something real
[right][snapback]631660[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Some of us still insist on reality rather than "oh so cute" religious fiction.

[scardella]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 4 2005, 06:06 PM']RESPONSE:

Some of us still insist on reality rather than "oh so cute" religious fiction.
[right][snapback]631693[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You're acting like religion is fiction...
In reality, non-religion is much more fictional and new.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 5 2005, 09:40 AM']You're acting like religion is fiction...
In reality, non-religion is much more fictional and new.
[right][snapback]632083[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

No. That's not what I wrote.

However, it is necessary to separate fact from fiction in religion, science, scripture, etc.

In the case of religion, if people can be convinced that they are dealing with a pronouncement of God, they usually will believe anything without examining the basis of the claim. That's the real danger with religious teachings. They frequently are not closely examined. Many just accept them as true.

LittleLes

[scardella]

Well, it would seem consistent with what we know about Satan.

[philothea]

Note to Semperviva: Prolly best to ask things like this somewhere besides the Debate Table, unless you actually wanted this nonsense.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jul 5 2005, 03:56 PM']Well, it would seem consistent with what we know about Satan.
[right][snapback]632419[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

What is the source of your information about Satan?

[Apotheoun]

Isn't this thread supposed to be about mystical theology?

[Semperviva]

[quote name='philothea' date='Jul 5 2005, 06:31 PM']Note to Semperviva: Prolly best to ask things like this somewhere besides the Debate Table, unless you actually wanted this nonsense.
[right][snapback]632535[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

...... ...haha....yeah, diden't really want the nonsense either.....oopsie daisy..

[Semperviva]

so...question.....meister eckhart....german mysticfrom 1300's and was a theologian as well as 'father of german mysticism'.... i believe he got excommunicated for his mystical teachings....but don't (it seems) alot of mystics [i]originally[/i] get censored for their teachings, maybe just cuz they sometimes seem so rad. at first ...yah know?

Edited July 6, 2005 by Semperviva

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 6 2005, 10:03 AM']Isn't this thread supposed to be about mystical theology?
[right][snapback]633113[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

Sure. Doesn't Satan play a big role in mystical theology?

[Apotheoun]

Certainly, but this discussion appears to be simply an intellectual exercise. Mystical theology is about the experience of God in prayer. The participation of man in God's own uncreated life and glory. It isn't definitional or conceptual, it is experiential and personal.

Blessing to you,
Todd

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 6 2005, 10:51 AM']Certainly, but this discussion appears to be simply an intellectual exercise.  Mystical theology is about the experience of God in prayer.  The participation of man in God's own uncreated life and glory.  It isn't definitional or conceptual, it is experiential and personal.
[right][snapback]633196[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 6 2005, 10:51 AM'] Mystical theology is about the experience of God in prayer.  The participation of man in God's own uncreated life and glory.  It isn't definitional or conceptual, it is experiential and personal.

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

How do you rule out illusion?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 6 2005, 10:07 AM']RESPONSE:

How do you rule out illusion?
[right][snapback]633260[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
How do you rule out rationalism?

Mystical theology isn't about emotions or intellect, it transcends both, because it is a participation in God's uncreated energies.

You are a rationalist, and that is why you fear what you cannot understand.