The exclusive use of this descriptive method [for treating mystical theology] would lead one to forget that ascetical and mystical theology is a part of theology, and to consider it as part of experimental psychology. In other words, whoever neglects to have recourse to the light of theological principles, will have to be content with the principles furnished by psychology, as do so many psychologists who treat of mystical phenomena in the different religions. This procedure, however, does not take faith into consideration at all; it permits a supernatural cause to be assigned only to facts which are essentially and manifestly miraculous. Other mystical facts, which are deeper and hence less apparently supernatural, it declares inexplicable, or it tries to explain them by placing undue stress on the merely natural powers of the soul. The same remark applies to biographies of the saints, and to the history of religious orders and even of the Church. --Christian Perfection and Contemplation, p. 19.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
You know, if you read a history of 20th century theology you get the idea that these two are far apart. On the other hand, there are passages such as this one in G-L which is reminiscent of Rahner's idea of the mysticism in the ordinary. I think G-L says it better, though: