Re: St. Paul

Ryan asked a question in the post below, and I thought it deserved a full post answer. He asked if St. Paul himself was not a Catholic mystic.

First, it really depends on who you're asking. Myself, I wouldn't use the word Catholic, though I might say catholic. But that really isn't the important part there.

Yes, Paul was a mystic. He had spiritual gifts of prophecy, tongues, speaking, and had more visions than you could shake a stick at.

But that's not really what modern mysticism is all about. Very few people talk about having visions these days. Even fewer talk about prophecy, healing, and so forth. Most modern mysticism is about "hearing" God, "feeling" God, "experiencing" God.

And that is the part I have problems with. Nobody talks about literally hearing God. It's never an audible voice. And when they talk about feeling God, it's never through one of the other 4 physical senses. So what, then, are they talking about?

Is it mental? Emotional? It would seem to be, given how some people talk about it, but there is also the possibility of a "sixth sense" type of experience here. But even talking about that is akin to nailing jello to the wall. Imagine trying to explain color to a person blind from birth. You can't. They just don't have the sensory experience to grasp the most basic concept. The same would be for a "sixth sense"; you can't explain it to someone who has never experienced it.

Was Paul a mystic? Of course. But certainly not in the sense of today's mystics. When the Bible discusses the mystical experience of the faith, communing with God, people actually communed with God; they talked verbally with him, they received dreams or visions, they were in the very presence of the Lord of Hosts.

And it is modern mysticism's severe distinction from that which explains my problems with it.