Carmelite Mysticism Historical Sketches - Introduction

The lectures on the development and progress of Carmelite mysticism written by the Rev. Titus Brandsma, O. Carm., Ph.D., formerly rector of the Catholic University of Holland and professor of the history of mysticism and Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy in the same school, will be doubly welcome. First, authoritative works on Carmelite life and history written in English are somewhat rare; second, the author by his many years of research and lecture in the matter discussed is eminently qualified to speak. The lectures are a development of the lecture given at the Catholic University in Washington on July 26, 1935.

It seems well to single out for comment a few points from the many important conclusions drawn by Father Brandsma. The first concerns the foundation of the Carmelite Order. Father Brandsma together with the early Fathers of the Church assumes that the Prophet Elias was the founder and inspiration of all eremitical and religious life. Whatever ideal other orders and religious may have added to those offered by the great Prophet of Carmel, the Carmelites have chosen to retain Elias for their ideal and teacher and have always striven to realise in their own lives the example set by him. They have never recognized any other teacher. They alone of all those who in the beginning strove to imitate the great Prophet, remain faithful to their first ideal and so have every right to claim the Prophet Elias as their Founder.

The second point refers to the spirit of prayer and contemplation of the Order of Carmel. The learned author points out that it is a mistake to point to St. Teresa and St. John of the Cross at the beginnings of the Carmelite school of mysticism. These two saints were trained in the spiritual life and made their religious profession under the mitigated Rule of Carmel. They were, therefore, only continuing the tradition of the Order in which they had made their religious profession and were transmitting to posterity the spirit of Carmel imbibed from their parent Order. Thus the spirit of prayer and mysticism is not different in the two Orders of Carmel; rather it is the same, since one spring gives rise to the two streams flowing side by side.

The third point deals with the Marian character of the writings of St. John of the Cross, the Mystical Doctor. Some have criticised St. John of the Cross and have tried to show that he has neglected the Virgin Mother of Carmel in his writing whereas as a Carmelite he should have made much of her. Our author shows how St. John assumes devotion to Mary as common Carmelite heritage. It was as useless to enlarge on what was taken for granted as to enlarge on the fact that one breathes. He shows that St. John's doctrine cannot be conceived without devotion to Mary the Mother of God.