The Mystical experience and Clericalism

[Vouthon]

If mystics are included among the clergy, then, evidently, it would seem they can be compatible.

Let's take look at an example. In Christianity, there is an esoteric realization of Christ. If you removed that esoteric realization, then you would no longer have an exoteric manifestation of Christianity that contained the fundamental essence of Christianity. You can have a group of people who lose their connection to the divine experience, and so it is possible for the two to be at odds with each other. It's just that they are not necessarily so opposed.



There is a saying, "Where two or more are gathered in my Name, I am there." The mystic experience is not diminished by the presence of more people. In fact, it can be enhanced.

Let's consider, f you have an officiator for a large group... that's really just the natural thing to do, isn't it?
Can the orchestra produce good music without the conductor?
Yes! But it is much more difficult to do. The conductor coordinates the actions of the individual members of the orchestra and helps them to realize their potential, even if the conductor is not the composer and makes no sound.

I agree - fundamentally and absolutely agree with everything you say. So very well put! Your analogy to an orchestral conductor harmonizing the instrument-players in order to help them "realize their potential" is just beautiful.

 

[sojourner]

Here's my perspective from the viewpoint of one who is a mystic and a member of the clergy. I don't think there's inherently a conflict between clergy and mystics. After all, the main job of clergy is to represent Christ to the people, and that's a mystical activity. The clergy bring the mysteries of the Faith to the people. Mysticism is nothing more or less than "experiencing God." In my estimation, if the clergy aren't experiencing God and teaching/leading their people in doing the same, then they're not doing their job.

The priest doesn't replace Christ in the sacraments of the Faith. S/he acts as a lens to focus attention and energy. It's not necessary, but it is beneficial.

That's why I list "shamanism" in my description. Many uninformed people feel that I've either eschewed the Faith, or that I'm practicing a contradiction -- that Xy teaches against shamanism. But nothing could be further from the truth! The shamanic "journey" is nothing more or less that prayer/meditation/contemplation. That's all! The role of the shaman is to bring a higher vibration or level of consciousness. Isn't that what we do in worship? Listen to this description of shamanic work:
"Stepping into the center of the spiral, you stand at the heart of Creation, right here, right now. Here, communication becomes communion. speaking becomes sacred poetry. The Great Mystery, recognizing our sincerity, enjoying our celebration, and touched by our transcendence, drops her robes of material form, and reveals, from horizon to horizon, inconceivably vast realms of shimmering, iridescent Light. Language falls away, and we're speechless. Nothing can be said, and there is nothing to say.
Without effort, without trying, we notice beauty all around us. As we see the beauty, beauty speaks to us, and when we say, "Oh, this is so beautiful!" in grateful recognition of our communion, Creation expands her beauty. We are now speaking the original language, speaking with Creation, speaking the language of deep beauty. We have arrived at the center of it all."

Isn't that what happens in worship? We create beauty and recreate what God created in the first place? We come into alignment with God, and the Spirit speaks in "sighs too deep for words?" In worship, are we not enlightened through beauty, art, and spiritual deepening? In what way is this at odds with a member of the clergy leading such an act, or being a medium of enlightenment to the people?

 

[Vouthon]

Here's my perspective from the viewpoint of one who is a mystic and a member of the clergy. I don't think there's inherently a conflict between clergy and mystics. After all, the main job of clergy is to represent Christ to the people, and that's a mystical activity. The clergy bring the mysteries of the Faith to the people. Mysticism is nothing more or less than "experiencing God." In my estimation, if the clergy aren't experiencing God and teaching/leading their people in doing the same, then they're not doing their job.

I had no idea you were a clergyperson @sojourner, that is fascinating to know. If I may ask, what church are you an ordained minister of?

A great post, I agree with you that there is no 'inherent' conflict between clericalism and mysticism.

 

[sojourner]

I had no idea you were a clergyperson @sojourner, that is fascinating to know. If I may ask, what church are you an ordained minister of?

A great post, I agree with you that there is no 'inherent' conflict between clericalism and mysticism.

It is a mainstream, Protestant denomination. I choose not to reveal it, in order to protect myself and that of the denomination I serve from negative and mean-spirited comments that seem to be so prevalent here.

 

[PearlSeeker]

What is the role of a priest? It is someone authorized to offer sacrifice for a community. The basic function then is leading collective rituals that connect with the Sacred (in RCC sacraments as channels of grace) and at the same time connect the community of believers.

The Catholic priest (for example) also has a function of a spiritual teacher and assistant. But this is also a domain of lay people. Basic priesthood (above) is still reserved for clergy only.

I don't see any reason why clergy as such would oppose mystical experience. Liturgy is suppose to introduce to mystery and invoke a feeling of sacred.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Your OP was a bit to long for me to dissect this late at night. But as to your general question, there is no reason that mysticism cannot coexist within a clerical religion. The most obvious example would be the great mystical tradition in Catholicism, and you don't get more clerical than Catholicism.

 

[Harel13]

It is the 'essential' of 'essentials' for us: the ultimate end-point of justification / salvation in Christ, the entire purpose (in our theology) underpinning the divine economy, God's incarnation in Christ. Literally nothing else matters apart from it, everything else is commentary so to speak. This simple mantra passed down in the church's sacred tradition is the essence, the heartbeat, the soul, the lifeblood of Christianity: "God became human so that we might become God".

If I had to give a doctrinal summation of Christianity in one short sentence, it would be that. Theosis. It's deemed by us to be the very rationale of creation, the incarnation, the crucifixion, the resurrection etc. Absolutely everything written or passed down is an elucidation, in some form, of this essential dogma of the faith.

Hey Vouthon,
I was wondering: Does "Theosis" mean becoming part of God or becoming gods alongside God or under gods? And if the latter, is this state of existence different from angels?

 

[Vouthon]

Hey Vouthon,
I was wondering: Does "Theosis" mean becoming part of God or becoming gods alongside God or under gods? And if the latter, is this state of existence different from angels?

Good question Harel!

Theosis is not judged to change the ontological distinction between Creator and created essences (i.e. the 'blessed' do not become part of God's nature - God has no parts, He is incorporeal and utterly simple).

However, 'experientially', the souls of the blessed perceive no difference between themselves and God (such that the subject/object distinction breaks down perceptually) and they attain union with God.

The tradition describes this both as becoming "God" by grace or becoming "gods" (plural, in terms of the lesser divine beings/angels) just as 'God' is by nature.

Moreover, there is the belief that God 'knew' everyone he created from eternity in His Divine Mind, so in a sense "we" have always existed (archetypally but not literally) within God - but we are still created beings dependant upon Him. The cleansing of the 'image' of the soul is thought to make a person aware of this and thus 'feel' themselves to have been always eternally 'in' God - even though, in fact, we are still created and came into existence by Him.

In this respect, we partake of the divine nature by grace.

Jesus did describe this as akin to an 'angelic' mode of life, as he discussed in relation to the world to come after the Last Judgment:

"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Matthew 23:30).

 

[Harel13]

Good question Harel!

Theosis is not judged to change the ontological distinction between Creator and created essences (i.e. the 'blessed' do not become part of God's nature - God has no parts, He is incorporeal and utterly simple).

However, 'experientially', the souls of the blessed perceive no difference between themselves and God (such that the subject/object distinction breaks down perceptually) and they attain union with God.

The tradition describes this both as becoming "God" by grace or becoming "gods" (plural, in terms of the lesser divine beings/angels) just as 'God' is by nature.

Moreover, there is the belief that God 'knew' everyone he created from eternity in His Divine Mind, so in a sense "we" have always existed (archetypally but not literally) within God - but we are still created beings dependenant upon Him. The cleansing of the 'image' of the soul is thought to make a person aware of this and thus 'feel' themselves to have been always eternally 'in' God - even though, in fact, we are still created and came into existence by Him.

In this respect, we partake of the divine nature by grace.

Jesus did describe this as akin to an 'angelic' mode of life, as he discussed in relation to the world to come after the Last Judgment:

"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Matthew 23:30).

Thanks!

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Is a priesthood / clerical system a barrier to, or at least inhibitor of, 'unmediated mystical experience' on the part of individual seekers or not?

Dear Vouthon,

Thank you for creating this thread; it is very good, I think.

If priesthood/clerical systems were incompatible with personal, mystical experiences, how could there be such beautiful writings by great religious ministers about their own mystical encounters?

I am not myself member of a congregation, but I have met several religious ministers whose personal, spiritual experiences have been of great blessing to their vocation and work.

What I have sensed however, is that not all clerical systems are so approving of mystical experiences amongst their ministers and rather discourage them from speaking in such terms.

Luckily, not talking about it, does not diminish the profound spiritual impact that it has on someone’s perspective and ability to inspire others in wonderful ways.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I think there is no unity in mystic experience. The mystic experience can vary from individual to individual. There may be some commonality but not unity. Priest OTOH try to create a unity between those mystics they accept as divinely inspired. They developed an accepted canon to judge the validity of a mystic experience. Since mystic experience can fall outside of this canon, the priest and the mystic can find themselves at odds over the spiritual "truth".

Dear Nakosis

Here, it may be of value to emphasise that, although such experiences will vary in description*, the overall message from and effect of a personal, mystical encounter, seldom does. Which is why they are distinguished (from psychosis/daemons/whatever-one-calls-non-divine-experiences-within-one’s-worldview) by what they result in and not by how they are described. The proof is in the pudding, so to say.

*[God] “speaks” in the concepts - not words - that you best will understand.

Over time, place, faith and person, mystical experiences echo the same information (through varying words and parables; yes):

• Spiritually, Man is One.
• His being dwells in the Divine.
• All that can occur there, must occur.
• All that will occur there, shall be experienced and understood (collectively).

Thus, over time, place, faith and person, mystical experiences have had the same effect on its “experiencers”: A noticeable increased sense of humility, selflessness (freedom from self) and will to be of service to others.


Humbly
Hermit