A fantastic article - as a "Sophianical Homeopath," this dichotomy created from faulty historical presuppositions is glaringly evident in the microcosm of my chosen medical art as much as it is in the Church itself.
Those Christian homeopaths who adopt a "disenchanted" worldview are quick to distance themselves from the Deism of its founder, Samuel Hahnemann, as insufficiently Christian. They are equally quick to distance or obfuscate his obvious debt to Paracelsus, a debt not found in his writings explicitly but clear in the formulae he used for the trituration of minerals.
This results in a mechanized view of a craft whose understanding of health is, at some level, vitalist.
Others strive to make it a more "mystical" art by emphasizing not the pneuma, but psychosocial analysis over a given pathology, which, while well-intentioned, ends up being highly Cartesian in its post-Freudian (read: esoteric) approach without actually ending people's suffering - the highest goal of the Earthly Physician and our Lord, the one true Physician.
This tension could not be farther from the deeply infused metaphysic of the great Russian Orthodox Priest, Wonderworker, and homeopath, St. John of Kronstadt, who understood the fruits of Renaissance medicine and the deposit of Tradition as deeply infused. As his Earthly sojourn was but a Century ago, this problem has become far worse in a fairly brief time.
Thank you for this piece. A very pertinent and piercing read that asks all the right things of contemporary Catholics to consider and reconsider.
When I read your use of “theotic gnosis” I instantly thought “Καθολικὴ θέα”. Sight, or apprehension, according to the whole. The clergy and laity simply MUST recover this if we are to be prepared for the coming logical conclusions of modernity.
On my first reading of Mysticism, Magic, & Monasteries, I approached Sebastian Morello’s arguments on esotericism with a mixture of hesitation and intrigue. Yet after a second reading, an illuminating conversation with Dr. Peter Kwasniewski about my initial reservations, and further reflection, I have been largely won over by his book. I have even begun incorporating some of its insights into my own work, hopefully creatively extending Morello’s worldview into broader realms of literature, imagination, and liturgy. I wish to thank Dr. Morello for his remarkable contribution and to acknowledge his book's deepening influence on my thought.
I still have grave concerns. I will definitely say about all this talk of hermeticism, magic, etc., but I did love your part on the Pythagoreans, which is quite excellent, as I've been using them as a foil in my geometry class all the time this year.
The Pythagoreans put number as the fundamental principle of reality and saw an equivalence between numbers and the mind. If one takes this idea—but turns number into an idol—and machine, you get Cartesianism and the self-centered left hemisphere attitudes that rule modernity. If you see the fundamental principle, on the other hand, as living mind (the Word/Logos) then you have Christian philosophy, and in particular St. Maximos the Confessor’s view of man, who, by knowing the world, is mediator and microcosm of the world back towards God.
In my youth, I came across many of these so-called 'gurus' and 'adepts' in my search for true spirituality and the Church.
The most crucial issue I see in modern 'esoteric' circles is the desire to be removed from religion and the obligations that come with being part of a true Mystery Tradition. Catholicism and Orthodoxy both fit the bill for this. If there is no canon law, the Saturnal structure of the three lines/dimensions of the triangle/pyramid is missing—hence all the gnosis the (pseudo, usually, though hopefully virtual) initiate receives spills out and leads to the corruption of his soul, until he is regularized into the Tradition of the Church. Guénon was absolutely correct when he taught that esotericism requires exotericism, though his conclusions as to how to accomplish this were completely wrong.
Hopefully, the young men now will see that the path forward is to look backward, and not just gander at our ancestors, but to actually embrace their outlook and ways. The hyper-rationalist Neo-Scholasticism of modern-day Catholic society will fade away, with God's help, and Ficino's dream of the Neo-Platonic Academy will be fulfilled with the help of modern technology and widespread literacy.
Reminiscent too of Hanegraaf’s description of esotericism as “rejected knowledge” of the Western academy: not debunked, but simply defined out of the curriculum.
Fascinating and highly illuminating piece. I myself am a heretic and an apostate, but I certainly recognise that being brought up a Catholic in Ireland in the last century has better fitted me for Sorcery than most other backgrounds I can think of...
And I have always resisted the temptation - a very real one - of becoming a charlatan guru or a self-serving cult leader.
I must note, with relish, this little typo: "the tyranny of the bourgeoise" ... Who is this woman? Is she in the room with us now...? Is she...your mother? Ironically, quite a Freudian slip-of-the-pen....
Good article. I do still think the byzantine angle is important even in this context however. Also, as the good (albeit secular) doctor Hanegraaf mentions, freshness of dissemination of jewish texts were also pretty important to the moment…
Fascinating article! Both erudite and very readable. I’ll confine myself to three comments if that’s ok.
We’ve seen initiates from many different traditions go power mad, sex mad and money mad. I have personally observed this in action more than once. But I think that what it means is that the powers and insights initiation offers bring with them very special temptations. Degrees of initiation ought not to outpace moral development, but it happens.
I think you’re right that the Neoplatonic philosophers of the Renaissance were interested in rationality - but I think esoteric philosophy has always been concerned with that. They wanted to identify a perennial philosophy and this would be a major part of later esoteric movements too, such as the Theosophical Society and Anthroposophy. Tomberg’s magnum opus is concerned with that too.
Tied in with this, I think there is a paradoxical feature of esoteric movements which is that there is always a strong impulse to make them public. Some would argue that when Jesus raised Lazarus, he was doing in public what previously would only have been done in a Mystery School. Blavatsky was attacked by the nabobs of male dominated secret societies for making secret teachings pubic in her books. Steiner did the same in his books and lectures. They thought that in many respects the time for secrecy was past and that these teachings ought to be freely available.
A fantastic article - as a "Sophianical Homeopath," this dichotomy created from faulty historical presuppositions is glaringly evident in the microcosm of my chosen medical art as much as it is in the Church itself.
Those Christian homeopaths who adopt a "disenchanted" worldview are quick to distance themselves from the Deism of its founder, Samuel Hahnemann, as insufficiently Christian. They are equally quick to distance or obfuscate his obvious debt to Paracelsus, a debt not found in his writings explicitly but clear in the formulae he used for the trituration of minerals.
This results in a mechanized view of a craft whose understanding of health is, at some level, vitalist.
Others strive to make it a more "mystical" art by emphasizing not the pneuma, but psychosocial analysis over a given pathology, which, while well-intentioned, ends up being highly Cartesian in its post-Freudian (read: esoteric) approach without actually ending people's suffering - the highest goal of the Earthly Physician and our Lord, the one true Physician.
This tension could not be farther from the deeply infused metaphysic of the great Russian Orthodox Priest, Wonderworker, and homeopath, St. John of Kronstadt, who understood the fruits of Renaissance medicine and the deposit of Tradition as deeply infused. As his Earthly sojourn was but a Century ago, this problem has become far worse in a fairly brief time.
Thank you for this piece. A very pertinent and piercing read that asks all the right things of contemporary Catholics to consider and reconsider.
When I read your use of “theotic gnosis” I instantly thought “Καθολικὴ θέα”. Sight, or apprehension, according to the whole. The clergy and laity simply MUST recover this if we are to be prepared for the coming logical conclusions of modernity.
On my first reading of Mysticism, Magic, & Monasteries, I approached Sebastian Morello’s arguments on esotericism with a mixture of hesitation and intrigue. Yet after a second reading, an illuminating conversation with Dr. Peter Kwasniewski about my initial reservations, and further reflection, I have been largely won over by his book. I have even begun incorporating some of its insights into my own work, hopefully creatively extending Morello’s worldview into broader realms of literature, imagination, and liturgy. I wish to thank Dr. Morello for his remarkable contribution and to acknowledge his book's deepening influence on my thought.
https://bernardus66.substack.com/p/ecstasy-a-sacramental-cosmos-and?r=gazm8&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
The problem, imho, arises when seekers have no Christian foundation. That is particularly true nowadays.
I owe a great deal to Tomberg. His book is beside me now.
Painting is "Semele" from Jannik (2025) https://www.instagram.com/p/DRc-MU5jXKs/?img_index=1
Ah thank you! I was really having a hard time finding this one. I will amend. Much appreciated - Nina
Absolutely brilliant piece!
Morello came into my life precisely .
I still have grave concerns. I will definitely say about all this talk of hermeticism, magic, etc., but I did love your part on the Pythagoreans, which is quite excellent, as I've been using them as a foil in my geometry class all the time this year.
The Pythagoreans put number as the fundamental principle of reality and saw an equivalence between numbers and the mind. If one takes this idea—but turns number into an idol—and machine, you get Cartesianism and the self-centered left hemisphere attitudes that rule modernity. If you see the fundamental principle, on the other hand, as living mind (the Word/Logos) then you have Christian philosophy, and in particular St. Maximos the Confessor’s view of man, who, by knowing the world, is mediator and microcosm of the world back towards God.
Very interesting piece. Thank you for sharing.
Beautiful article.
In my youth, I came across many of these so-called 'gurus' and 'adepts' in my search for true spirituality and the Church.
The most crucial issue I see in modern 'esoteric' circles is the desire to be removed from religion and the obligations that come with being part of a true Mystery Tradition. Catholicism and Orthodoxy both fit the bill for this. If there is no canon law, the Saturnal structure of the three lines/dimensions of the triangle/pyramid is missing—hence all the gnosis the (pseudo, usually, though hopefully virtual) initiate receives spills out and leads to the corruption of his soul, until he is regularized into the Tradition of the Church. Guénon was absolutely correct when he taught that esotericism requires exotericism, though his conclusions as to how to accomplish this were completely wrong.
Hopefully, the young men now will see that the path forward is to look backward, and not just gander at our ancestors, but to actually embrace their outlook and ways. The hyper-rationalist Neo-Scholasticism of modern-day Catholic society will fade away, with God's help, and Ficino's dream of the Neo-Platonic Academy will be fulfilled with the help of modern technology and widespread literacy.
Reminiscent too of Hanegraaf’s description of esotericism as “rejected knowledge” of the Western academy: not debunked, but simply defined out of the curriculum.
Fascinating and highly illuminating piece. I myself am a heretic and an apostate, but I certainly recognise that being brought up a Catholic in Ireland in the last century has better fitted me for Sorcery than most other backgrounds I can think of...
And I have always resisted the temptation - a very real one - of becoming a charlatan guru or a self-serving cult leader.
I must note, with relish, this little typo: "the tyranny of the bourgeoise" ... Who is this woman? Is she in the room with us now...? Is she...your mother? Ironically, quite a Freudian slip-of-the-pen....
Good article. I do still think the byzantine angle is important even in this context however. Also, as the good (albeit secular) doctor Hanegraaf mentions, freshness of dissemination of jewish texts were also pretty important to the moment…
Fascinating article! Both erudite and very readable. I’ll confine myself to three comments if that’s ok.
We’ve seen initiates from many different traditions go power mad, sex mad and money mad. I have personally observed this in action more than once. But I think that what it means is that the powers and insights initiation offers bring with them very special temptations. Degrees of initiation ought not to outpace moral development, but it happens.
I think you’re right that the Neoplatonic philosophers of the Renaissance were interested in rationality - but I think esoteric philosophy has always been concerned with that. They wanted to identify a perennial philosophy and this would be a major part of later esoteric movements too, such as the Theosophical Society and Anthroposophy. Tomberg’s magnum opus is concerned with that too.
Tied in with this, I think there is a paradoxical feature of esoteric movements which is that there is always a strong impulse to make them public. Some would argue that when Jesus raised Lazarus, he was doing in public what previously would only have been done in a Mystery School. Blavatsky was attacked by the nabobs of male dominated secret societies for making secret teachings pubic in her books. Steiner did the same in his books and lectures. They thought that in many respects the time for secrecy was past and that these teachings ought to be freely available.
What do you think of Owen Barfield and Rudolf Steiner in this vein?