2014 03 12 monastic theology libre

8/11/2019 2014 03 12 Monastic Theology Libre

1/11

The Turn to Experience in Contemporary TheologyDavid S. Koonce, L.C., S.T.D.

Required course in dogmatic theology, Pontifical AthenaeumRegina ApostolorumAcademic Year 2013-2014, second semester

LECTURE 3. EXPERIENCE IN MONASTIC THEOLOGY

March 12, 2014

1. The dawn of the monastic paradigm

After Augustine, a new paradigm of religious experience will emerge in the circles ofWestern monasticism, thanks to the influence of John Cassian (c.360-c.435) and Benedict ofNursia (c.480-543).1Though Cassian is often overlooked in the history of theology, recentlyscholarly works by A.M.C. Casiday, Columba Stewart, and others have begun to examine his

contribution as a theologian of interest in his own right, yet one who must be consideredwithin the monastic tradition to which he belonged and which he intended to perpetuate. 2

Cassians most important works were the Conlationes or Conferences (ca. 419-426),which are meditative and directed to the homo interior, and theDe institutiones coenobiorumet de octo principalium vitiorum remediis (ca. 419-429)more commonly known by theabbreviated title Institutioneswhich are concerned with the practical realities of monasticlife and are directed to the homo exterior.3In both of these writings, Cassian systematized thespiritual writings of Origen (185-232) as they had been passed on by Evagrius Ponticus (345-399), though his spirituality also reflects the influence of Syrian monasticism.4

Central to Cassians understanding of monasticism was the goal of purity of heart, whichwas itself oriented eschatologically to the reign of God.5The goal of purity of heart meanta contemplative stance toward all human experience, including human experience of God.6Unlike Augustine, Cassian conceives of religious experience not so much as an exercise incognition as a concrete practice whose pillars are the reading of Scripture, prayer, and theapplication of faith to daily life. Prayer, though, is the real motor of religious experience,since in prayer the monk arrives at a deeper awareness of Gods presence in thecircumstances of daily life.7Within monastic tradition, prayer was regarded as the very fontof theology, and therefore Cassian related his theological project to the monastic experienceof prayer, which he conceives of as an encounter with the Triune God.8

1cf.Ibid., 439.2cf. A.M.C.CASIDAY, Tradition and Theology in St. John Cassian, Oxford University Press,

Oxford 2006, 12.3cf. H.GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei Experimentalis, 126-127.4C.STEWART, Cassian the Monk, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1998, viii.5cf.Ibid., viii.6Ibid., viii.7

cf. H.GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei Experimentalis, 439.8cf. A.M.C.CASIDAY, Tradition and Theology in St. John Cassian, 12.


2/11

Lecture 3. Experience in monastic theology

2

The most intriguing aspect of Cassians theology of prayer is his emphasis on experiences ofecstasy and tears, combining elements of the spiritual theology of Evagrius Ponticus with thekataphatic spirituality of the Syrian tradition, marked by affective, experiential mysticism.Thus, Cassian may have served as a bridge for both traditions to enter the Latin West.9

Nevertheless, the experience that prayer confers does not yield new theologicalinformation about God. What it entails is rather an existential involvement in the Bible andthe authorities, which are the normative sources for Christian life.10The Bible, though, canonly be understood by one who lives by it, and so contemplative knowledge and practicalknowledge go hand in hand.

The relationship between contemplative and practical experience is a recurring theme inhis writings. In the preface to the Institutiones, Cassian states that whatever he knows, heknows not by education or hearsay, but from experience; furthermore, his writings must beread with experience gained through diligence and effort, or else they will be

incomprehensible. In turn, these findings based on experience must be kept alive throughconversations with experienced spiritual fathers, lest the spiritual life wither.11Elsewhere, inConference 14, Cassian offers three demonstrations that practical knowledge andcontemplative or spiritual knowledge are inseparable, for without practical knowledge, onecannot advance to spiritual knowledge, and without spiritual knowledge, one cannotcomprehend the biblical texts.12 As Columba Stewart notes about this conference, Toconcentrate on Cassians presentation of the four senses of Scripture is to miss his mainpoint. His real concern is the reminder that growth in virtue is the key to acquiring insightinto the Bible.13

Benedict, through the promulgation of his Rule, will spread Cassians views throughoutthe monasticism of the Latin West. TheRegula Benedicticonserves many traces of Cassiansinfluence in its experiential orientation, though the term experientia is used only once(Regula Benedicti 1.6 in Sources Chrtiennes 181, p.438), where Benedict discusses thequestionable practices of the Sarabaite monks. In that instance, experience refers toexperiential knowledge of a valid rule of monastic life rather than experience of God.Concerning the experience of God, Benedict is sober in his description of such an experience.He does not base it on visions or on Gods action within the soul, but only on the Word ofGod proclaimed in the Scriptures and interpreted for the concrete practice of the communityby the abbot.14

In monastic reading of Scripture, special prominence was given to the Psalms. Therecitation of the Psalms provides a key for grasping the monastic understanding of

9C.STEWART, Cassian the Monk, viii.10cf. H.GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei Experimentalis, 145.11cf.Ibid., 126-127, See also: CASSIAN,Inst. Praefatio5-7.12cf. C.STEWART, Cassian the Monk, 92.13Ibid., 92.14cf. H.GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei Experimentalis, 142-143.


3/11


3

experience, since the Psalms encompass the whole range of human experience, and bypraying them with wisdom (Regula Benedicti 19.4: Psallite sapienter), the monk is able tosympathize with Christ, with the Church and with others.15

The practical guidelines for monastic life laid down in the Rule of St. Benedict will fix

what religious experience means for theology until the twelfth century. In this monasticparadigm, religious experience is identical with the experience of God as mediated by theScriptures. This experience is given in prayer and is verified by professing the articles ofChristian faith and by striving to live a life of Christian virtue. Consequently, the aim of thetheological works written from the fifth to the eleventh centuries is to foster a religiousexperience as an encounter with God.16

Until the ninth century, theology is the result of monastic meditation on the sacrapagina, but from the ninth century onward, a new way of doing theology slowly emerges, inwhich the relationship between theology and experience will be redefined. The shift, though,

is not immediate, nor even immediately apparent. It will take a series of three major conflictsto bring the paradigm change to light.

2. Ratramnus of Corbie versus Radbertus Pascasius

The first signs of a new paradigm appear in the conflict between Paschasius Radbertus(786-c.860) and Ratramnus of Corbie (d. after 868) over the real presence of Christ in theEucharist; the underlying difficulty, however, is primarily methodological.17

Both cite the Church Fathers in support of their own view, but each applies them

differently. Paschasius Radbertus uses the patristic texts in the traditional monastic andmeditative manner, while Ratramnus has a more systematic method. PaschasiusRadbertus orders his quotations rather poetically and inaccurately, never checking theauthenticity of his sources. Ratramnus clearly differentiates between his Biblical andpatristic sources on the one hand and his own opinions on the other. His quotations donot serve as meditative aids, but as proofs for his argumentation.18

The relevance of this difference for the development of the notion of religiousexperience and its relationship to theology should not be overlooked. By differing fromPaschasius Radbertus in the use of sources, Ratramnus inadvertently opens the first fissures

in monastic theology. Whereas Paschasius Radbertus uses the Church Fathers in a meditativeway, joining texts intuitively rather than according to the strict rules of logic, and with littleinterest in resolving internal contradictions, Ratramnus sees his sources as authorities whosetexts can no longer be juxtaposed meditatively; rather, their opinions must be carefully

15cf.Ibid., 144.16cf.Ibid., 439.17cf. H.GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei Experimentalis, 439.18Ibid., 154.


4/11


4

evaluated and selected for logical consistency. Ratramnus thus represents a new style oftheology, which a more traditional theologian like Radbertus sees as a departure from thecorrect understanding of monastic meditation. Thus, by advocating a new approach to usingScripture and the authorities, Ratramnus issues one of the first challenges to the dominantparadigm of experientially oriented theology.19 In the emerging paradigm, the truth of a

theological position is ensured by proof from authority and logical consistency. In somecases, a position which is methodically proven to be true is opposed to an officialecclesiastical condemnation based on practical religious considerations.20

3. Berengar of Tours versus Lanfranc of Le Bec

Nearly two centuries later, another Eucharistic dispute erupts between Berengar of Tours(999-1088) and Lanfranc of Le Bec (c.1005-1089). With the controversy between Berengarand Lanfranc, the course of theology enters into new territory.21 Whereas the controversybetween Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus revolved around methodology, in this new

controversy, the content of the faith was at stake as well; hence, it expanded into a generalecclesiastical controversy concerning the right relationship between faith and dialecticalreasoning. On one side of the controversy stood traditional monastic experiential theology, onthe other stood the dialecticians, champions of discursive reasoning.22

Berengar was born into a wealthy family of Tours, and after an outstanding education, hereturned to his home town as canon of the college of Saint Martin. From 1032 onward, heserved as grammaticusin the cathedral school. Although professing himself to be unschooledin Scripture (rudis in illa scriptura divina), he nevertheless devoted much attention to theEucharist, applying dialectical reasoning, but without familiarizing himself with the

19cf.Ibid., 155-156.20Ratramnus approach to theological method is made clear in his involvement with another

dispute, this time over the doctrine of gemina praedestinatio(twin predestination) advance byGottschalk (d. 869), a monk of Fulda and later of Orbais. Gottschalk followed a method that his abbot,Rabanus Maurus (c.780-856), had introduced into the Carolingians schools, consisting in a catenatechnique of joining sentences from the Church Fathers in a non-contradictory way. The controversyengulfed all of the leading theologians of the day, and when Bishop Hinkmar of Rheims (d. 882) andKing Charles the Bald of France (823-877) requested the opinion of Ratramnus, he judged thatGottschalks teaching was in agreement with Augustines, and therefore should be considered a good,

Catholic position. Ratramnus judgment coincided with that of other recognized theologians, such asPrudentius of Toyes (d. 861) and Lupus of Ferrires (d. 862), for all three followed the same methodthat Gottschalk himself had employed.cf. U.G.LEINSLE,Introduction to Scholastic Theology, trans.Michael J. Miller, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C. 2010, 74-75.

21For an extensive biography of Lanfranc, see: M.T.GIBSON,Lanfranc of Bec, Clarendon Press,Oxford 1978; see also the older study by A.J.MACDONALD,Lanfranc: A Study of His Life, Work &Writing, Oxford University Press, London 1926.

22cf. H.GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei Experimentalis, 156. For a concise but complete summary of howthe conflict widened to include nearly all of the other major theological figures of the time, see: cf.G.R.EVANS, Solummodo sacramentum et non verum: Issues of Logic and Language in theBerengarian Controversy, in G.D'ONOFRIO(ed.),Lanfranco di Pavia e l'Europa del secolo XI: Attidel convengo internazionale di studi (21-24 settembre 1989), Herder, Roma 1993, 383-387.


5/11


5

statements of the Scriptures and the Church Fathers regarding the Eucharistic presence. Whenat last he does read the Gospel of John and the Pauline epistles, he discovers in them proofsfor his own views, for he reads them as a dialectician, drawing logical conclusions from theterms used, without regard for the spiritual nature of the sources.23 When around the year1048 Berengar read Ratramnus treatise on the Eucharistwhich Berengar mistakenly

thought to have been written by John Scotus Eriugena (c.815-c.877)he revived thecontroversy by claiming to have rediscovered the authentic tradition of the Church which hadbeen eclipsed by the vulgar understanding of his contemporaries.24

Lanfranc, abbot of the monastery of Bec, was Berengars principle adversary.25 Sinceboth Berengar and Lanfranc appealed to the authority of Augustine, the battle hinged on thecorrect interpretation of Augustine, who, as both parties knew, had a positive attitude to theuse of dialectics in theology. Indeed, Lanfranc himself had an excellent education in the useof dialectics. The problem was how and when to use dialectics in theology. Lanfrancconcludes that when it comes to considering the mysteries of faith, the holy authorities shouldbe preferred, since purely logical reasoning is insufficient for grasping holy affairs. Thus,Lanfranc posits that dialectics is used perversely when it is applied to matters of faith that inthemselves lie beyond human reason.26

Berengar reacted energetically to Lanfrancs position.27 For Berengar, dialectics isidentical to the use of reason, and since man is in the image of God in virtue of the power ofreason, to forfeit dialectics would be to forfeit reason and thus to abdicate ones dignity as animage of God. Berengar argued that dialectics should not simply be used on occasion andunder certain conditions; rather, every believer has not only the right but also the duty to usedialectics. Consequently, Berengar considered ratiothe human capacity to judge, thehighest of human facultiesto be the most important instrument for finding truth, whereas as

he resorted to the authorities only to support the findings of reason. 28In doing so, Berengarturns the medieval understanding of theology on its head.29Consequently:

The debate about the Eucharist thereby becomes at the same time a debate about thecorrect method for theology. Thus in 1059 there are discussions in Rome not only about

23cf. H.GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei Experimentalis, 155-160.24cf. J.DE MONTCLOS, Lanfranc et Brenger: les origines de la doctrine del a

Transsubstantiation, in G.D'ONOFRIO(ed.),Lanfranco di Pavia e l'Europa del secolo XI, 298.25

Lanfranc assumed the adversarial role somewhat unwillingly, for it was Berengar who pickedthe fight with him. For a detailed but concise account of the beginning of the controversy, see:Ibid.,297-299. For a more ample treatment of the controversy, see: M.T.GIBSON,Lanfranc of Bec, 63-97.

26cf. H.GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei Experimentalis, 164-165. See also A.CANTIN, La position prisepar Lanfranc sur le traitement des mystres de la foi par les raisons dialectiques, in G.D'ONOFRIO(ed.),Lanfranco di Pavia e l'Europa del secolo XI, 361-380.

27For an ample presentation of Berengars position that is sympathetic to his difficulties if not tohis doctrine, see: M.CRISTIANI, Le ragioni di Berengario di Tours, in G.D'ONOFRIO(ed.),

Lanfranco di Pavia e l'Europa del secolo XI.28Ibid., 347.29cf. H.GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei Experimentalis, 166-167, cf. BERENGAR,Rescriptum1, CCCM

84, p. 85-86.


6/11


6

the Eucharist, but also de eminentia rationis ["on the excellence of reason"] and deimmunitate auctoritas ["on the immunity, i.e., incontrovertible character ofauthority"].30

What, then, does the dispute between Berengar and Lanfranc contribute to the study ofthe historical relationship between theology and experience?31At the heart of the issue is adebate concerning two types of discourse, one purely logical, the other prayerful andmeditative. Which type of discourse is proper to theology?32The controversy does not settlethe question, but as result of the dispute, it becomes more apparent that what began as a smallfissure has widened into a theological rift; a new theological method is emerging in which theclarity of discursive reasoning is valued over the intuitive immediacy of religiousexperience.33

4. Anselm of Canterbury

Before becoming bishop of Canterbury, Anselm (1033-1109) was a monk at Le Bec,where he was an eyewitness to the conflict between Berengar and his abbot, Lanfranc.34Amazingly, sympathies for Berengars dialectic approach ran strong even in Lanfrancs ownmonastery of Le Bec:

Not ten years after the Rescriptum in which Berengar exalted reason, the monks ofLe Bec were to ask their scholaster Anselm to prove the religious truths, beginning withthe existence of God and the Trinity, according to the necessities of reason and theevidence of truth.35

In answer to the request of his students, Anselm wrote the Monologion in 1076,committing to paper proofs for truths known by faith concerning Gods existence andproperties without recourse to arguments from Scripture. Instead, Anselm relied only uponreasonable argumentation, for he was convinced that since the things which the Christian

30U.G.LEINSLE,Introduction to Scholastic Theology, 79. cf. BERENGAR,De sacra coena adversusLanfrancum, ed. W.H. Beekenkamp, Den Haag, 1941, , 18.

31The nucleus of the problem can be posed in these terms: Berengar identifies dialectics with

reason, and the denial of dialectics would lead to the abdication of reason. Lanfranc, on the otherhand, recognizes that dialectics and reason are not simply identical. There can be an unreasonable useof dialectics. Even so, Lanfranc is handicapped in the debate, for although he does not considerdialectics and reason to be identical, he nevertheless, like Berengar, considers dialectics andphilosophy to coincide; for this reason, Lanfranc does not chide Berengar for using dialectics, but forusing it badly. cf. G.DONOFRIO, Lanfranco teologo e la storia della filosofia, in G.D'ONOFRIO(ed.),Lanfranco di Pavia e l'Europa del secolo XI, 218-219.

32cf. H.GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei Experimentalis, 167. The question of the type of discourse properto theology will return when considering Van Roos contributions. See 8.2. below.

33cf.Ibid., 439-440.34U.G.LEINSLE,Introduction to Scholastic Theology, 79.35H.GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei Experimentalis, 171.


7/11


7

believes about God are necessarily true, they can be discovered through necessary reasons. 36For Anselm, however, ratio is no longer identified simply with logical consistency, butincludes also the philosophical analysis of metaphysical concepts; consequently, theunderstanding of the faith is determined not simply by rules of logical consistency inconformity with the art of dialectics, but is also governed by metaphysical insight. Only

metaphysics offers theology an understanding of the rationes necessariae that make themysteries of the faith intelligible in a way that would be binding even to merely humanunderstanding.37

Even so, for Anselm, operating within the framework of a monastic, Augustinianunderstanding of theology, the prerequisite for a correct understanding of the faith issoliditas fidei [firmness of faith], acquired through sapientiae et morum gravitas[wisdom and serious comportment].38 Theology also requires the cultivation of all thepowers of the soul, not just the intellect. As an educator of other monks, Anselm recognizesthat although mans natural powers are given to him to pursue God as his end, these powersare nevertheless damaged and require cultivation. The man who seeks God needs not only akeen intellect, but also the training of the will and the emotions.39

Anselm is a thinking man, but he thinks like a monk, and he considers all of his writingsto be points of departure for the contemplation of God. Furthermore, his theology, as the pathto understanding the faith, is always inserted into and ordered to the praxis of the life offaith.40 For Anselm, this means that his theological writings are closely related to prayer,and they appropriate the traditional monastic terminology for prayer. In the Prologue to the

Monologion, he describes the work as a meditatio, in which each sentence must be pondered(ruminare). The Prooemiumto the Proslogionstates the intention of the work in thoroughlymonastic terms: it is intended to be an example of meditation on faith by reason (meditandi

de ratione fidei), reasoning silently (tacite secum ratiocinando), and mentally exploring theunknown (quae nesciat). Yet, while the Proslogion, is embedded in prayer, chapters 2through 25 of that work nevertheless seek to prove numerous matters of faith sola ratione.41

In proceeding in this way, Anselm shows himself to be both the heir to traditionalmonastic theology and a foundational influence on the new approach to theology.

36

cf.Ibid., 172-173. A more exhaustive treatment of the texture of Anselms thought can be foundin S.VISSER -T.WILLIAMS,Anselm, Great Medieval Thinkers, Oxford University Press, Oxford2009.

37cf. U.G.LEINSLE,Introduction to Scholastic Theology, 81.38Ibid., 81, cf. ANSELM,Ep. de inc. Verbi, 1 in F.S.SCHMITT(ed.),Anselmi Cantuariensis Opera

Omnia,II., Rome 1940, 6.5-7.4 [Henceforth, the Opera Omnia of Anselms works will be referred toby the editors last name, Schmitt, and the volume number].

39M.M.ADAMS, Anselm on faith and reason, The Cambridge Companion to Anselm, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge 2004, 35, cf. ANSELM, Orationes sive Meditationes, Prologus (SchmittIII: 3.2-4);De Concordia3.6 (Schmitt II: 270.28).

40U.G.LEINSLE,Introduction to Scholastic Theology, 80.41cf. H.GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei Experimentalis, 175-176.


8/11


8

[Anselm] is an inheritor in the field of religious experience. Anselm writes in acerebral but at the same time spiritual style. The experience he recalls is not asentimental emotion, but the human experience on an intellectual level: our experienceof knowing things (comparable with the concept of experiential knowledge he haslearnt from Augustine)42

Nevertheless, Anselms work represents an innovation, since his method does notcorrespond to traditional monastic theology, since he neither quotes amply from norcomments on the Scripture and the auctoritates. Hence, Anselm marks the transition from thelectio to the quaestio, and therefore he stands as the precursor to thirteenth centuryscholasticism. Indeed, theologians who came after Anselm increasingly severed themethodological ties with meditation and contemplation that he had always sought toconserve.43

Although Anselm attempts to mediate between the older monastic theology and the new

scholastic method, after him, the path of theology bifurcates into the rational way of theschools and the experiential way of the cloister. Scholarly masters reign in the first, whereasspiritual masters predominate in the second. The first are drawn to the universities, the secondremain in the monasteries. Although initially the line of demarcation between the twoparadigms is blurred, by the end of the twelfth century, the separation is evident. The conflictbetween the two approaches is personified in the dispute between Peter Abelard (1079-1142)and Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153).44

5. Peter Abelard

Abelards thought accelerates the emergence of scholastic theologys proper method,distinct from the method of monastic theology. Abelards work brings into question therelationship of faith and reason, accentuating the rights of faith and the autonomy of reason. 45

According to the testimony of hisHistoria calamitatumhe used the same techniqueas Anselm of Canterbury: students asked him for a human, philosophical proof for theTrinity. But there was an essential difference. Anselm held to the premise if I do notbelieve, I shall not understand, while Abelards students claimed that they could notbelieve if they did not understand.46

42Ibid., 176.43cf. H.GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei Experimentalis, 176-177.44cf.Ibid., 440.45cf.Ibid., 442. For a more in-depth treatment of Abelard's theory of cognition, see: cf. K.

GUILFOY, Mind and Cognition, in J.E.BROWER -K.GUILFOY(eds.), The Cambridge Companion toAbelard, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004, 200-222.

46H.GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei Experimentalis, 225, cf. PETER Abelard,Historia Calamitatum, ed.D. N. Hasse, de Gruyter Texte, Berlin, 2002, 44.


9/11


9

Abelards method of dialectics is perfected in his Sic et non, in which he clarifies hishermeneutical principles for resolving the many contradictions which can be found in theauctoritates. After listing several other methods that in todays terminology would belong toa historical-critical approach, Abelard finally concludes that many contradictions can beresolved if one recalls that the same word can be given different meanings by different

writers. Yet even so, there is no single page of Sic et nonin which Abelard acknowledges thespiritual sense of Scripture, nor is there any connection with the existential understanding ofthe sacra pagina. Abelard thus exalts the methods borrowed from the triviumwhile whollyignoring the experientially orientated method of the monasteries.47

In the eyes of critics such as Bernard and William of Saint Thierry, though, it seems thatAbelard goes too far, subordinating faith to reason. Indeed, for Abelard, understanding is aprecondition for faith, and consequently faith can be subjected to the rules of dialect thatgovern the intellect. Bernard, though, sees the danger of reducing religious truth to the samelevel as any other kind of truth that is open to dialectical analysis.48

6. Bernard of Clairvaux,doctor experientiae

Bernard is a veritable doctor experientiae.49His work is heir to both the Augustinian andthe Benedictine traditions. Like Augustine, he emphasizes self-knowledge as the basis forknowledge of God, and in Augustinian fashion, he describes the path to God as leading fromthe sensible to the intelligible, from outward to the inward to the upward. Yet, he representsthe climax of monastic theology to an even greater degree, since for Bernard religiousexperience is a matter of experiencing the doctrines of faith more than understanding them. 50

Within the monastic tradition, Bernard is without doubt the most consistent theoreticianof religious experience. He speaks frequently of both religious and lay experiences, and hepresumes that his audience has been exposed to both. At the beginning of the Sermones super

47cf. H.GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei Experimentalis, 229. Geybels relies heavily on the work of UlrichKpf, who in takes his cue from Gerhard Ebelings identification of theErfahrungsdefizitin theologyto study the notion of religious experience in the theology of St. Bernard. cf. U.KPF,Religise

Erfahrung in der Theologie Bernhards von Clairvaux, Beitrge zur Historischen Theologie 61, J.C.B.Mohr, Tbingen 1980, 2.

48

cf. H.GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei Experimentalis, 442.49Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) was always considered to be a talented preacher and a highlypraised pedagogue, but his greatness as a theologian in his own right was generally overlooked untilthe groundbreaking work of tienne Gilson and Jean Leclercq. Bernards properly theologicalcontribution can only be truly appreciated within the context of experiential monastic theology, andshould not be judged according to the canons of scholastic theology.Ibid., 181, where Geybels basesthis assessment on E.GILSON,La thologie mystique de saint Bernard, J. Vrin, Paris 1947 and on cf.J.LECLERCQ, Saint Bernard et la thologie monastique du XIIe sicle, in Saint Bernard thologien:

Actes du Congrs de Dijon, 15-19 septembre 1953, Editiones Cisterciensis, Rome 1953, 7-23.50cf. H.GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei Experimentalis, 440. For a study of Bernards intellectual

achievements, see also G.R.EVANS, The Mind of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Clarendon Press, Oxford1983.


10/11


10

Cantica Canticorum(=SCC 1.9), he urges his listeners to recall their own experience in orderto understand a phenomenon such as a spontaneous prayer of thanks.51Although from time totime, Bernard will use a concrete personal experience as a starting point for discussingreligious experience, more often than not for Bernard, the term experience involves aninterplay of ones own and others experiences.52

According to our doctor experientiae, a Christian has need of affective access toChristian tradition. If that is lacking, he cannot make contact with this tradition, basedas it is on experience. This religious experience is not a matter of intuitive emotion orvague forms of spiritualism, but of a lifelong existential process of growth, in whichlife is given meaning through Christianity.53

Bernard must grapple with the problem of relating experience itself with theunderstanding of experience. For Bernard, the Christians own experiences are connected tothe sacred histories. Sacred Scripture contains the most fundamental deposit of religious

experience, and consequently the reading of the Bible generates further experiences. There isthus a mutual, reciprocal relationship between ones personal experiences and the experiencesrecorded in Scripture: personal experience helps the reader to understand Scripture, andScripture helps the reader to understand his own personal experiences.54Yet, understandingScripture through experience presupposes that affectusand intellectusgo together.55Indeed,for the abbot of Clairvaux, the three functions of the soul (voluntas-affectus-intellectus) worktogether in a single process of knowledge.56 For Bernard, experience always takes place inthe interior of the person, and is distinct from sensory perception. When referring to sensoryperception, Bernard uses the term sentire, whereas the term experiri tends to refer to theinterior reactions of the person.57

Concerning the content of religious experience, Ulrich Kpf, in a valuable study onBernard, proposes three main categories in Bernards thought: experiences of doom,experiences of salvation, and spiritual experiences. While experiences of doom fall into threemain classestrials, failures, and compulsion (necessitas)experiences of salvation are soplentiful in Bernard that it is difficult to arrange them into subcategories. The final category,spiritual experiences, is reserved for the highest mystical experience, which is to savor thesweetness of God present not only in ecstasy, but also during daily life, in trials, and even insuffering.58

51cf. H.GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei Experimentalis, 181-182.52cf.Ibid., 182-183.53Ibid., 441.54cf. H.GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei Experimentalis, 191.55Ibid., 193.56cf.Ibid., 193.57cf.Ibid., 207.58cf.Ibid., 197-200; see also U.KPF,Religise Erfahrung in der Theologie Bernhards von

Clairvaux, 63-99.


11/11


11

Regarding the subject and the object of religious experience, in Bernards thought,religious experience is virtually unlimited with respect to both. Since the human subject isalways growing, it has an inexhaustible capacity for acquiring new experiences. The object ofreligious experiencewhich for Bernard is Christian traditionis almost equally limitless,since Scripture contains an unfathomable richness of Christian experiences. Still, some

experiences are unique: only Mary has had the experience of giving birth to Gods Son.59

Bernard sees the Christian soul as taking part in a dynamic experiential process. The believerwho has experienced God will do anything to relive that experience, since the first experiencegives rise to a desire for another encounter. The repetition of the experience, though, cannotsimply be produced by some technique, since it is in the nature of gift; it can be evoked andprepared, however, by the practice of neighborly love and by the commitment to a sincereChristian life. Hence, the commitment to Christian ethics is the surest verification of anauthentic religious experience.60

For Bernard the core of Christian religious experience is the contact which God makeswith the Christian believer. God reveals Himself as the content of an experience that HeHimself causes, within the individual, through the Word. The believer for his partexperiences Gods interventions as feelings of pleasure or discomfort. The believer isaffected (affici) in such a way that his passions can detect it. Religious experiences cantherefore be internally perceived as pleasant and unpleasant. The believer can then laterextract knowledge of God from the content of his experience. This requires schooling,since knowledge gained through sensory perception relates to clearly defined externalobjects, but experiential knowledge relates to experiences of good and evil, happinessand misery, pleasure and displeasure, all referring to God as their source.61

For Bernard, religious experience is a kind of knowledge that is distinct from bothexternal sensory perception and from discursive reason.62It is a kind of affective knowledgeacquired not by the intellect but by the internal senses. The most striking characteristic of thiskind of affective knowledge is its immediacy. Nothing outside itself intervenes in the process,not even discursive reason, which can only interpret the experience afterwards. AfterBernard, the mystics of the thirteenth century will exalt this immediate relationship with Godin opposition to the scholastics.63

59cf. H.GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei Experimentalis, 441.60cf. H.GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei Experimentalis, 441.61Ibid., 441.62cf. K.MCDONNELL, Spirit and Experience in Bernard of Clairvaux, Theological Studies58

(1997), 3-18.63cf. H.GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei Experimentalis, 442.

2014 03 12 monastic theology libre

Documents