Never the Twain Shall Meet

Posted on 2013-07-12 by Logres

I chose to write on The Dark Cloud of Unknowing to illustrate something that is true that has been discussed here (that East & West are not divergent in Tradition). The author was an anonymous Englishman during the 14th century; ergo, a quintessential “Western” mystic on an isolated island in the West. It is unknown who he was, but it is thought he was in the East Midlands (based on his language). He came after Richard Rolle, and before Walter Hinton, and is roughly contingent with Julian of Norwich. On the Continent, during this time of the Hundred Years War & plague, the great German mystics also appeared. Europe was stirring with heresy, and the Reformation was not far off.

Romanides and Athanasios Bailey (whose Orla.Pubs is off the web now) maintain that the West lost the concept of “energetic” salvation; that is, the West favored a juridical model in which God “reckoned” righteousness or (prior to the Reformation) “declared” or “atoned” man into righteousness. This is the “ransom” theory that developed from Anselm. While we agree that certainly the deviations of Truth in the West have taken the form described by Romanides, we do not concur that the essence of Western Tradition is accurately described: the trend, perhaps, but not the essence or remnant (and there is always a remnant, Romanides should know this).

Specifically, the Frankish and Norman conquests of the West (followed by wars of conquest aimed at the Eastern Empire) are supposed to have caused the entire and widespread loss of genuine Christian understanding (and, given Eastern theology’s emphasis on right wisdom of God and categories of thought, any resultant vital Christianity). However, as we shall see, Western communions made use of negative theology, and were aware of the same dogmas which governed Eastern apophaticism, however much it may be granted that it received less emphasis the farther West one went. As one author points out, the more cataphatic Western theology has (as a safeguard against God-in-man’s-image) the idea that the Logos is the archetype of man’s Image. As an aside, I will note that the Eastern Church considers the 12th or 13th centuries an era in which sensual pleasure and softness enter the Western spirituality; the reply to this would be to note that while this is true, undoubtedly, it also came as part of the Troubadour movement, and could be viewed more positively (as Cologero has suggested) as a particular emphasis on Logos, peculiar to the West.

Additonally, John Scotus Erigena had translated Dionysius from Greek into Latin much, much earlier in the Isles, so the English had access to negative theology, which influenced the author of the Dark Cloud, and bore fruit in his treatise. It should be unnecessary to point out that the age of Cathedral building was founded on Dionysian theology, and had already taken shape.

No one can think of God. Therefore it is my wish to leave everything that I can think of  and choose for my love the thing that I cannot think. For while God may be loved but not thought. God can be taken and held by love but not by thought. Therefore though it is good at times to think of the kindness and worthiness of God in particular, and though this is a light and a part of contemplation, nevertheless, in this exercise, it must be cast down and covered over with a cloud of forgetting. You are to step above it stalwartly but lovingly, with a devout, pleasing, stirring of love and desire to pierce that darkness above you. You are to smite upon the thick cloud of unknowing with a sharp dart of longing love and do not cease no matter what happens. 6:130-131.

This, “For the love of Jesus is very well said.” For in the love of Jesus there is your help. Love is so powerful  that it makes everything one (common). Therefore love Jesus and everything that he has is yours. By his godhead he is the maker and giver of time. By his humanity he is the very keeper of time. And by his Godhead and humanity together he is the truest guide of the choice and use of time. Knit yourself then to him by love and by faith. And by virtue of that knot you shall be a familiar partner with him and with all who are so knitted to him by love… 4:366-373. The example of all this is shown in the life of Christ. PC23:24.170  Mary models the way of contemplative prayer. So she hung her love and her longing desire in this cloud of unknowing, and learned to love what she could not see clearly in this life by the light of understanding in her reason, nor truly feel in the sweetness of love in her affection; so much so that she paid little attention to whether she had been a sinner or not. Yes! And so often I think that she was so deeply affected in the love of the Godhead that she scarcely noticed the beauty of his precious and blessed body as he sat so handsomely speaking and teaching before her. It seems from the gospel that she was oblivious to anything else either bodily or spiritual. XVI: 834-842

The author makes the same energy/essence distinction that the Eastern Church makes: we never become God by nature, but only by grace.
Rather than “the Jesus prayer”, we instead have this:

“Schort preier peersith heven.”

(This, by the way, would even find an echo in the Puritan theology of “Heaven Taken by Storm”).  The use of one syllable words like “God” or “Love” are recommended for unceasing prayer, which builds on confession and regular meditation on revealed mysteries.
It is preferable to meditate on God’s goodness, rather than one’s own sin (contra-Calvinism), since whatever one thinks about “sits between” God & the self, although he does not deny that exoteric or ordinary religious meditation lays a foundation from which to build true contemplation, by God’s grace, later on, which is given regardless of merit or dis-merit, but according to desire.

Thinking may not goodly be getyn withoutyn reding or heryng comyng before…Ne preier may not goodly be getyn in bigynners and profiters withoutyn thinkyng comyng bifore.

How will they believe, if they have not heard? He suggests that many are against contemplation, and have a false humility (thinking that their piety is perfected as high as may go in exoteric meditation) because they are simply unaware of any higher path (they have not heard, and are deceived in imagination). So this is a defense of the esoteric or contemplative way, but he preserves their unity by arguing that the higher active path & the lower contemplative path are actually the same path. Additionally, he links these three paths with the “beginner”, “proficient”, & “perfect” which we see used by Garrigou-Lagrange in his small work on Christian conversions.

I will also note some affinity in this work with later Western development in Pierre-Caussade’s Sacrament of the Present Moment.  I believe that one could take Western manuals such as these (while recognizing legitimate shortcomings and criticism) and build an impressive library of religious contemplation that would bear and stand comparison with modern day Eastern modes or models.

The point is not to say “nu-uh, we have it too” but rather encourage Western readers to look deeper into their own tradition – not without reason is it said (not to our honor) that prophets are not without honor, except in their own country.  But why go so far East? Surely there are far spiritual and physical countries at hand, who have more elective affinities with our background, that remain, yet, Christian?

The author of The Cloud advocates two interesting strategies for overcoming mental “thoughts” and entering into love. Firstly, one can “look over the shoulders” of the daily thoughts which crowd you, focusing on something beyond them, while not obliterating them directly. Secondly, one can “cower down to them and surrender to them”. This last strategy is particularly recommended by him as a means of annihilating the enemies, for God will swiftly come to the rescue of His children who lie helpless before a wild boar. Additionally, this keeps the Ego from getting involved in combat, which only “messes things up” (according to this mystical author).

He is not advocating Quietism (since one continues outward religious observance) but, rather, the attention to thoughts: observing their arrival with discretion and judgement, a practice that is fundamental, say the Fathers of the Philokalia. One surrenders to the interior work of God, while exercising patience and obedience outwardly. Again, we see that Christianity is in this sense, martial, since the soldier maintains discipline in a fight which is not necessarily (even by esoteric standards) appearing to go well. Hope is instead placed in the action of Grace, rather than merely the enhancement of Nature. This is the Christian legacy, both inwardly and outwardly.

The author also translated Dionysius’ Divinitie Hid, & wrote several other treatises, which quote Augustine, Aquinas, Aristotle, and Richard St. Victor (placing him within the European stream). Those who will pursue God through “un-thinking” Love will end up grasping many intellectual mysteries along the way, and the Love we have is passive only towards God : it actively overcomes discursive thought (placing all creatures whatsoever in a “cloud” of forgetting) and is naked only towards God, being active in the sense that it moves instinctively back to the source of all Being, God who exists by Nature in the state we must attain through Grace alone.

The same attention to thoughts that is recommended in other Traditions is found here, embedded within the Christian tradition.

…If a man happened to be your deadly enemy and you heard him cry out with such terror, in the fulness of his spirit, this little word “fire!” or this word “out!” you would have no thought for his enmity, but out of the heartfelt compassion, stirred up and excited by the pain expressed in that cry, you would get out of bed even on a night in mid-winter, to help him put out the fire, or to bring him comfort in his distress. O Lord, if a man can be moved by grace to such mercy and compassion for his enemy, his enmity notwithstanding, what compassion and what mercy will God have for the spiritual cry of the soul welling up and issuing forth from the height and the depth, the length and the breadth of his spirit, which contains by nature all that a man has by grace, and much more!.

Honor Your Dead, Your Fathers

Link
Romanides argues that the Franks decimated Roman urbanization & established feudalism in an effort to maintain a precarious grip on overextended power from their home bases:

“In the time of Pippin of Herestal (697-715) and Charles Martel (715-741), many of the Franks who replaced Roman bishops were military leaders who, according to Saint Boniface, “shed the blood of Christians like that of the pagans.” In order to defend itself against foreign interference and protect itself from the fate of conquered Romans elsewhere, the papacy promulgated electoral laws in 769, according to which candidates for the papal dignity had to be cardinal deacons or presbyters of the city of Rome, and Romans by birth. Only Roman nationals were allowed to participate in the elections. Thirteen Frankish bishops were in attendance when these decisions were made.^{[ 5 ]}

Meanwhile, Roman revolutionary activity in Gaul had not yet been fully suppressed. Pippin III had died the year before and Charlemagne and his brother Carloman had taken over the rule of Austrasia and Neustria. Within the surprisingly short period of only twenty-two years, from 732 to 754, the Franks had defeated the Roman-Arab alliance, swamped all the provinces of Gaul, and had swept into Northern Italy. This was made possible by the new feudal order which was first established in Austrasia and Neustria. The Roman administrative units of the civitates were abolished and replaced by the military comitates. The former free Romans were transferred en masse from the cities and were established on the slave labor camps called villae and mansi, alongside the serfs. They were called villeins (villains), a term which, for understandable reasons, came to mean enemies of law and order.

The Visigoths in Spain were overthrown by the Romans, who opened their city gates to the Berbers and Arabs. The Franks reacted with determination to avoid the occurrence of the same in Francia (Land of the Franks) by abolishing Roman urban society.

By the middle of the eighth century, the Frankish armies of occupation were overextended far beyond Austrasia and Neustria, where the main body of their nation was established. They could not yet afford to take over the church administration of Papal Romania as they had done elsewhere. It was expedient to play the part of liberators for the time being. Therefore, they appointed the Roman pope as a vassal of Francia. The measure of freedom left to the Romans in Papal Romania depended on their right to have their own Roman pope, bishops, and clergy. To lose this right would have been tantamount to the same loss of freedom suffered by their compatriots in Northern Italy and Francia. Therefore, they had to be very careful not to incite the Franks.

The Romans had made alliances with the Arabs (and Jews) and succeeded in overthrowing Visigothic Spain. Romanides is clear what his argument is:

The church in Francia remained in the grip of a tyrannical Teutonic minority.

Strangely enough, Romanides admits that the Donation of Constantine was a deliberate forgery by the West Romans (done in Francia) which was a cloak-and-dagger effort to convince the Franks that there was imperial and religious sanction to Rome’s complete independence (from Charlemagne’s meddlings). This forgery (in Romanides’ work) is really not condemned, but rather exonerated. There is no doubt that Romanides is right that there was a struggle for power between the remnants of Romanity and the “free Franks”, or that the medieval Church was founded upon the French feudal structure which eventually triumphed in the Lombard struggle over the papacy. He even goes so far as to credit the French Revolution with restoring the balance against the invading, subjugating Franks, who had believed that God had given them the imperium by divine right of trial in battle (and here, Dugin’s emphasis on Chaos as salvific finds a benefactor and friend in Romanides).

There is no mention of Frankish loyalty to Rome during the invasion of the Huns under Attila.  It is hard to see how Romanides can credibly call a province like Gaul legitimately “Roman”, given that Caesar had conquered the tribes there, & yet when similar foederati tribes had remained loyal to the Romans during the ensuing incursions, but had predominantly paid the price in blood and treasure by defeating Rome’s enemies on the battlefield, Romanides regards them as aliens. The fact that the Frankish tribes from the Harz regions finally made a political reality out of what had become a social reality (the death of Roman political structure in the West) seems more or less appropriate. Romanides here sees primarily an ethnic struggle, where it would (even in his own account) seem to have been one more of faction – Rome certainly wanted to remain within the sphere of Byzantium, bad enough to lie about it; but it also tried to reclaim its frontiers.

John Ruskin’s account of these doings seems far more sane and noble. Although admitting that the French people of 1789 were such that “no people had ever been so loyal in vain”, he nonetheless wrote a paean to the Frankish people and their Christianity in What Our Fathers Told Us: Bible of Amiens.

I return gladly to the dawn of chivalry, when, every hour and year, men were becoming more gentle and more wise; while, even through their worst cruelty and error (eg., the incident of the Vase of Soissons & Clovis), native qualities of noblest cast may be seen asserting themselves for primal motive, and submitting themselves for future training. Constantine’s victory only gave form and dying color to the falling walls of Rome, but the Frank and Gothic races, thus conquering and thus ruled, founded the arts and established the laws which gave to all Europe her virtue joy and virtue. And it is lovely to see how, even thus early, the Feudal chivalry depended for its life on the nobility of its women. There was no vision seen, or alledged, at Tolbiac. The King prayed simply to the God of Clothilde.

Ruskin has some other interesting passages on the college of Augurs begun by Numa, and the vestal virgins, and the supreme pontiff (who makes sacrifical offerings on behalf of the whole human race). Ruskin sees through the “stench of the barbarian tribes” into the soul of what gave the Gothic birth, as distinct either from Classical youth or Arabic cradle.

We are not to see in Frankish monarchies a dull literalism – surprisingly, the Franks did not always adhere to strict “monarchical” lines of succession. Adalberon (the same archbishop who exonerated Adalbero of Laon from charges of adultery with Emma of Italy, brought by fellow nobility), was a chancellor who decisively acted against the ruling dynasty in favor of Hugh Capet.

Crown the Duke. He is most illustrious by his exploits, his nobility, his forces. The throne is not acquired by hereditary right; no one should be raised to it unless distinguished not only for nobility of birth, but for the goodness of his soul.

Adalberon would later plot against Capet. Even the sins of medieval times tended to exonerate and recognize God. And here, I will end with the best defense possible against the modern accusation of “using God’s name” to do “Satan’s work” (leaving aside the rhetorical ellisions and fallacies which render this idea feasible to our minds); Edmund Burke:

The age of chivalry is gone. — That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever. Never, never more, shall we behold a generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart, which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom. The unbought grace of life, achieved defensive nations, the nurse of the manly sentiment and heroic enterprise is gone! It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that chastity of honor, which felt a stain like a wound, which inspired courage while it mitigated ferocity, which ennobled whatever it touched, and under which vice itself lost half its evil, by losing all its grossness. . . . 

This is what occured under Charlemagne, and more, if we can accept Ruskin’s account, which is by no means unsympathetic to ancient Rome. Why did Byzantium pursue a policy of attempting to subordinate the Western half of the imperium, when it was clear that the quarrel would end badly?

This entry was posted in Catholicism, Chivalry, Christianity, Civilization, Middle Ages, Tradition, Western Civilization and tagged Bible of Amiens, Franks, John Romanides, John Ruskin by Logres.Bookmark the permalink.Edit

My colleague Lisa Ruddick thinks she knows where: contemporary training in the humanities, she has argued, is soul-destroying because it requires students to dissociate themselves from their own aesthetic and moral responses to what they read. I think she's onto something. I know she's onto something...

Fencing Bear wonders how the humanities lost its soul? Meanwhile, Walter Russell Mead's thesis is touted by OneCosmos as the answer to the problem of "how then, should we live?" ~

The dynamic religion of the Anglo-American sphere has not just been able to coexist with, but thrive upon, the same sort of skepticism that is so corrosive and ultimately fatal to static religion. In other words, the Anglo-American style of religiosity was well-suited not just to usher in science, but to then assimilate it and endow it with a transcendent meaning it cannot otherwise possess...

I normally agree with virtually anything Robert Godwin has to say, but in this case, he's guilty of over-simplifying, at the very least. It's true that eternal change could become permanent eternality, in a sense, and I suppose in some sense it has to be true in that way. However, the Anglo-American "way" is not the only "progressive" model out there, let alone conceivable. If Schuon can't address some of these things, Evola & Guenon certainly could. And I certainly agree that without transcendence, you are "trapped in history & conditioned as a subject in your own narrative" like Hegel.

His reply is here.

Matthew:

I don't disagree with anything you said, except that history demonstrates that it is quite difficult to maintain any dynamic synthesis over time. Even if Guenon were correct about the necessary deterioration brought about by time -- and I reject that thesis entirely -- there is no virtue in simply surrendering to entropy. Nor do I think that we should in any way devalue the historical time into which we are born, which is as providential and valuable as any -- or, it is our duty to render it so.

11/03/2010 07:18:00 AM

Let us here what the Orthodox would say ~

Fr. Romanides has an overarching thesis: the purpose of the Church is to heal man of spiritual illness brought on by the Fall (this spiritual illness is characterized by the quest for happiness) and enable him to know God. His secondary thesis is that dogmatic controversies throughout the history of the Church are caused by those who do not understand the function of the Church as a spiritual hospital. Thus, the real difference with the West is their loss of this understanding which occurred because the Western ecclesiastical institutions were subverted by political forces into mere political institutions. As political institutions they became concerned with man's happiness instead of his glorification; with mere forgiveness of sins rather than purification.

There is no difficulty with this, save one ~ purification is taken to mean an abstention from Created Order & enjoyment of it to such a degree that one is not allowed to maintain the Empire. It is perhaps this, in which one can find the failure of Byzantium ~ not in its theology, but in its lack of civic order and recognition of any kind of natural law. Perhaps they will say that we Westerners have not the sight to see. But I say that we can look at St. Martin of Tours (as Joel Dietz has reminded me) and ask "why did you not serve in the Legion? Is Christ not a friend of centurions, as well?". Byzantium despite all its theological rectitude & purity, was unable to sustain an order of shared, public good. This, not invasion, brought about its collapse.

Meade may be far too much of the opposite tinge, yet surely no True Religion can ignore the Caesarian slant of the Bible. Purification cannot mean "taste not, touch not". Even Schmemman seems to have aimed at changing this part of Orthodoxy to a degree.