Monastic Theology, Scholastic Theology and the Dionysian Tradition of Mystical Theology

Jean Khoury

Summary: The history of Christian theology reveals a progressive differentiation between theological reflection and the lived spiritual life. A number of twentieth-century theologians and historians, including Hans Urs von Balthasar, Jean Leclercq, F. Vandenbroucke, Keith Egan and Philip Sheldrake, have described this development as a gradual “divorce” between theology and spirituality. The International Theological Commission has itself acknowledged that, towards the end of the Middle Ages, the unified structure of Christian wisdom began to break apart, theology fragmented into specialised disciplines, and the spiritual life increasingly developed “aside from a rationalising university theology, and even in opposition to the latter”. (Vatican)

Pope Benedict XVI provides an important qualification to this account. Drawing especially on Jean Leclercq, he distinguishes between twelfth-century monastic theology and scholastic theology, but refuses to regard them as mutually exclusive or to condemn scholasticism as such. Monastic theology was characterised by lectio divina, biblical exegesis, prayer, contemplation and conversion, whereas scholastic theology sought rational clarification of the mysteries of faith. Benedict sees the two as capable of fruitful integration, and presents the Victorine school as an important example of such a synthesis. (Vatican)

Yet a third thread must be added to this account: the Dionysian tradition of theologia mystica. Beginning with the transmission of Pseudo-Dionysius into the Latin West, especially through the translations of John Scotus Eriugena and later John Sarrazin, a distinctive theological tradition developed around apophatic theology, contemplation, mystical union, theosis, and the transcendence of conceptual knowledge. This tradition passed through monastic, Victorine, scholastic, Carthusian, Rhineland and Flemish contexts. In Thomas Gallus, Hugh of Balma and the author of the Cloud of Unknowing, it developed an increasingly affective interpretation in which love and desire became central to the mystical ascent. (JSTOR)

The historical consequence is therefore not simply a binary opposition between monastic and scholastic theology. Christian theology developed through at least three interacting traditions: the sapiential-biblical tradition of monastic theology, the rational-systematic tradition of scholastic theology, and the Dionysian tradition of mystical theology. The recovery of a proper Spiritual Theology today therefore requires neither a rejection of scholastic theology nor a nostalgic return to monasticism. It requires the reintegration of theology, spiritual experience, Scripture, contemplation, doctrine, philosophical reason and the transformation of the human person in Christ.

Introduction

Christian theology was not originally conceived as an academic discipline standing alongside the spiritual life. The Fathers did not ordinarily distinguish “theology” from “spirituality” in the manner familiar to modern theological faculties. Knowledge of God was inseparable from conversion, prayer, asceticism, worship and participation in the mystery revealed in Christ.

The modern distinction between theology and spirituality therefore presents a historical question. When did theology become primarily an intellectual discipline, while the lived pursuit of holiness came to be treated as something belonging to another domain? When did mystical theology cease to be regarded as theology proper and become instead a specialised branch of “spirituality”? And, perhaps most importantly, was this development caused by scholastic theology itself? The answer requires considerable nuance.

There certainly was a progressive differentiation. Jean Leclercq’s study of medieval monastic culture was fundamental in bringing this question to prominence. His L’Amour des lettres et le désir de Dieu, first published in 1957, became a classic precisely because it revealed a form of theology in which intellectual culture, Scripture, literary formation, prayer and the desire for God remained inseparable. (Éditions du Cerf)

Hans Urs von Balthasar subsequently made the problem explicit in his famous reflections on theology and sanctity. The historical tragedy, in his view, was that theology gradually ceased to be the expression of a life transformed by God. Vandenbroucke would later speak explicitly of “The Divorce of Mysticism from Theology”, tracing the increasing separation of mystical experience from theological reflection. (Cambridge University Press)

Yet Pope Benedict XVI offers an important corrective. He does not describe the history as a simple fall from good monastic theology into bad scholastic theology. Rather, he identifies two distinct theological models which emerged in the twelfth century, each with its own legitimate contribution. And even this twofold model is incomplete.

Running through the medieval period is another tradition, originating in the reception of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite: theologia mystica. This tradition cannot be reduced to monastic theology, although it flourished within monastic contexts; nor can it be reduced to scholastic theology, although many scholastic theologians appropriated it. It constitutes a distinctive line of theological reflection on the knowledge of God in contemplation, on the limits of conceptual knowledge, on the purification of the intellect, on desire and love, and ultimately on union with God. It is this third thread that allows us to see the history of theology in a more comprehensive manner.

I. The Separation between Spiritual Life and Theology

The first millennium of Christianity does not know the sharp distinction between theology and spirituality that has become familiar in modern times. The theologian is normally also the exegete, pastor, ascetic, liturgist and spiritual teacher. Theology emerges from the Church’s encounter with the mystery of God, and that encounter transforms the person who knows.

The distinction is not therefore initially between “theology” and “spirituality”. It is between different ways in which theology can be pursued and different dimensions of the same Christian wisdom. This is precisely why the work of Jean Leclercq is so important. His famous title, L’Amour des lettres et le désir de Dieu, expresses an essential characteristic of medieval monastic theology: intellectual culture is not opposed to the desire for God. Rather, intellectual culture is placed at its service. Benedict XVI later drew directly on this insight, observing that the desire to know and love God through his Word leads the monk to investigate Scripture in all its dimensions. (Vatican)

In monastic theology, Scripture is not merely an object of academic investigation. It is the Word through which God addresses the person. Hence the movement from reading to meditation, from meditation to prayer, from prayer to contemplation, and from contemplation to transformation. Benedict XVI expresses the consequence with remarkable clarity “Theology thus becomes meditation, prayer, a song of praise and impels us to sincere conversion.” (Vatican)

This sentence is crucial because it prevents us from defining monastic theology as simply “less intellectual” than scholastic theology. The monk studies grammar, philology, Scripture, the Fathers and the literary tradition precisely because he seeks God. Indeed, Benedict’s use of Leclercq in his 2008 address at the Collège des Bernardins is even more striking. He cites Leclercq’s insight that “eschatology and grammar are intimately connected with one another in Western monasticism”. (Éditions du Cerf) The reason is theological: if God speaks through the biblical Word, then attention to language is part of the search for God. The problem arises when this organic unity begins to fragment.

F. Vandenbroucke’s classic study, “The Divorce of Mysticism from Theology”, describes the increasing tendency to separate theological doctrine from sanctity and mystical experience. He cites Balthasar’s complaint that modern saints were increasingly treated as if they had left dogma to “the schools” and become merely “lyricists”. (Cambridge University Press)

The International Theological Commission provides an important contemporary confirmation of this historical diagnosis. In Theology Today, it states: “Towards the end of the middle ages, the unified structure of Christian wisdom, of which theology was the keystone, began to break up.” (Vatican) It continues by describing the fragmentation of theology into specialised disciplines and the tendency for theology to distance itself from the Word of God. The consequence was especially significant: “the spiritual life began to develop aside from a rationalising university theology, and even in opposition to the latter.” (Vatican) This is a remarkably strong ecclesial formulation.

The historical process should nevertheless not be reduced to the statement that “scholasticism caused the divorce”. That would overlook the fact that scholastic theology itself was initially a legitimate development within Christian theology, and that many of its greatest representatives remained profoundly spiritual and contemplative. The question is rather what happened when theology became progressively differentiated, specialised and institutionalised. At that point, the history becomes much more interesting.

II. Pope Benedict XVI’s Position: Monastic Theology and Scholastic Theology

Pope Benedict XVI provides perhaps the most balanced contemporary theological interpretation of this transition. In his General Audience of 28 October 2009, entitled “Monastic Theology and Scholastic Theology”, he describes the flourishing of Latin theology in the twelfth century. Theology developed simultaneously in two environments: monasteries and urban schools. Benedict consequently speaks of two theological models: “monastic theology” and “scholastic theology”. (Vatican) The distinction is primarily one of emphasis and method.

Monastic theology is fundamentally rooted in Scripture. Benedict calls it “an uninterrupted biblical exegesis”. Its characteristic practice is lectio divina: Scripture is read, meditated upon, prayed and contemplated. The intellectual and spiritual dimensions remain inseparable. The monk does not believe that merely theoretical interpretation is sufficient. The text must be read “in the spirit in which it was written”. Literary knowledge therefore serves spiritual knowledge. Grammar serves contemplation.

Scholastic theology has a different immediate orientation. It develops in the schools and takes the quaestio as a central methodological instrument. An authoritative text generates a question; reason investigates the question; opposing arguments are considered; distinctions are established; and a synthesis is sought. Benedict is emphatic that this is not a degeneration of theology. Scholastic theology seeks to demonstrate the rational coherence of the faith. It establishes conceptual precision, clarifies distinctions and seeks to articulate the unity and harmony of Christian Revelation. (Vatican)

His presentation of Bernard and Abelard is illuminating. He describes them symbolically as representatives of two theological tendencies, which can be called a “theology of the heart” and a “theology of reason”. Bernard emphasises fides, while Abelard emphasises intellectus. Yet Benedict’s purpose is not to choose one against the other. (Vatican) This is fundamental. For Benedict, the Christian intellectual tradition does not have to choose between faith and reason, contemplation and conceptual clarity, or love and intelligence. Indeed, he concludes his 2009 catechesis by returning to the unity of these dimensions: “Faith and reason, in reciprocal dialogue, are vibrant with joy when they are both inspired by the search for intimate union with God.” (Vatican)

The most important historical example is the school of Saint-Victor. In his catechesis on Hugh and Richard of Saint-Victor, Benedict describes Saint-Victor as achieving a “felicitous synthesis” between the two models: monastic theology, oriented towards contemplation of the mysteries of faith in Scripture, and scholastic theology, which uses reason to scrutinise these mysteries and develop theological synthesis. (Vatican) This is a decisive observation.

The historical problem cannot therefore be identified simply with the existence of scholastic theology. There is nothing inherently destructive about theological rationality. The danger appears when the rational mode becomes detached from the spiritual, biblical and ecclesial purpose of theology. This distinction is essential for any contemporary recovery of Spiritual Theology. We do not need less theology. We need theology that has recovered its proper finality. And here another historical thread enters the picture.

III. A Third Thread: The Dionysian Tradition of Theologia Mystica

The distinction between monastic and scholastic theology remains insufficient because it does not adequately account for the distinctive tradition that emerged through the reception of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite.

The Dionysian Corpus entered the Latin West through translations, above all the ninth-century translation of John Scotus Eriugena. Eriugena’s version remained enormously influential for centuries. In the twelfth century John Sarrazin produced another Latin translation, which became particularly important for later medieval theologians. (OUP Academic) This transmission was not merely the introduction of another spiritual author. It introduced a distinctive theological conception of mystical knowledge.

The very title Mystical Theology is significant. Dionysius did not speak simply about “mystical experiences”. He spoke about theologia mystica. Mystical theology was therefore presented as a form of theological knowledge: a knowledge that reaches its limit when the intellect encounters the transcendence of God.

Dionysian theology insists that God is beyond every created concept and every created name. Affirmative theology is necessary, but it must ultimately be surpassed through negation, not because God is unknowable in an absolute sense, but because the divine reality exceeds every finite mode of conceptual apprehension.

Paul Rorem’s studies are particularly important here. He identifies Eriugena and Hugh of Saint-Victor as major figures in the early Latin reception of Dionysius and emphasises the development of Dionysian apophatic theology within medieval Western theology. (JSTOR)

But the tradition does not remain static. The reception of Dionysius gradually develops into what contemporary scholars describe as the medieval Dionysian affective tradition. Recent scholarship identifies a line running through Hugh of Saint-Victor, Thomas Gallus, Bonaventure, Hugh of Balma and the author of the Cloud of Unknowing. The characteristic development is the increasing importance given to love, desire and affect in the mystical ascent. (OUP Academic) Thomas Gallus is especially important. He interprets Dionysius in such a way that affective love becomes a privileged mode of ascent towards God. The intellectual faculty is not simply discarded; rather, love becomes capable of reaching beyond what conceptual reasoning can accomplish.

This creates a remarkable theological trajectory: Dionysius → Eriugena → Victorine reception → Thomas Gallus → Hugh of Balma → Cloud of Unknowing → later affective and mystical traditions.

Hugh of Balma is particularly significant because Viae Sion Lugent, also known as De Theologia Mystica, represents an explicit medieval treatment of mystical theology as such. The work is deeply indebted to Pseudo-Dionysius and develops a theology of the mystical ascent through purification, contemplation and love. (OUP Academic) This means that the Dionysian tradition cannot be simply assigned to either side of the monastic/scholastic divide. It moves across the divide. It can be found in monastic contexts. It can be found in the Parisian schools. It influences scholastic theologians. It generates distinctively mystical authors. And eventually it contributes to the development of late medieval affective spirituality.

Peter Tyler’s study of the Carthusians and the Cloud of Unknowing is particularly useful here. He explicitly describes the period as one in which Dionysian reception contributed to the development of the affective spirituality that would form the basis of late medieval theologia mystica. (OUP Academic)

Bernard McGinn’s historical work is equally important because he warns us against treating medieval mysticism as a single uniform phenomenon. He describes Christian mysticism historically as the accumulation and interaction of different layers of tradition. The early monastic layer was profoundly biblical and liturgical, while later developments incorporated new theological and intellectual forms. (Cambridge University Press)

The Dionysian thread therefore gives us a different way of understanding the medieval transformation of theology. It is not simply: Monastic theology → Scholastic theology → separation from spirituality. Rather: Patristic theology → multiple medieval developments, including monastic, scholastic and Dionysian mystical traditions, interacting with one another. The Dionysian tradition is particularly significant because it preserves within theology itself a powerful reminder that theological knowledge cannot be reduced to conceptual mastery. The ultimate object of theology is not a proposition. It is God. And the end of theological knowledge is therefore not simply intellectual possession of information about God, but participation in the divine mystery. This is why the Dionysian tradition becomes so important for the subsequent history of mystical theology.

Synthesis: Three Threads, One Christian Theology

The three traditions should not be understood as three competing theologies in the modern sense. They are better understood as three different emphases within the development of Christian theological consciousness. Monastic theology asks: How does the Word of God become wisdom in the person who receives it? Its characteristic movement is from Scripture to lectio divina, meditation, prayer, contemplation and transformation. Scholastic theology asks: How can the mysteries received in faith be understood, articulated, distinguished and defended through reason? Its characteristic movement is from authority to quaestio, disputatio, distinction, clarification and synthesis. Dionysian mystical theology asks: What happens when the human intellect, having reached the limits of conceptual knowledge, is drawn beyond itself into the mystery of God? Its characteristic movement is from theological affirmation through negation towards contemplation, desire, union and theosis. These are not necessarily contradictory. Indeed, the greatest theologians frequently embody more than one. Anselm demonstrates this magnificently. He belongs to the development of scholastic theology, yet his theology remains profoundly contemplative. His fides quaerens intellectum does not mean faith being replaced by reason. It means faith seeking understanding. Bonaventure similarly cannot be placed comfortably in one category. His theology is intellectually rigorous, deeply Franciscan, Augustinian and Dionysian, and directed towards the transformation of the person. Thomas Aquinas is equally important. His theology is scholastic in method, but his understanding of wisdom, contemplation, charity and beatitude prevents us from identifying scholasticism with rationalism. The problem therefore lies not in differentiation itself. Differentiation can be fruitful. The problem is disintegration.

This distinction is precisely what allows Benedict XVI’s position to complement the critiques of Leclercq, Balthasar, Vandenbroucke and the International Theological Commission. The emergence of scholastic theology was not itself the “fall”. The danger came when the theological disciplines progressively became autonomous from one another, when theology became detached from Scripture, when intellectual knowledge became separated from contemplation, and when spiritual life became separated from theological knowledge.

The International Theological Commission’s diagnosis is therefore particularly significant. Theology eventually became fragmented into specialisations that could lose sight of their deeper unity; at the same time, spiritual life could develop alongside—and even in opposition to—university theology. (Vatican)

The Dionysian tradition reveals something further: the Church never completely lost the theological tradition of contemplation. It continued to survive. It travelled through different institutions and theological schools. It was transmitted through translations, commentaries and mystical treatises. It entered the Victorine world, the Franciscan world, the Carthusian world, the Rhineland tradition and the Flemish tradition. And it eventually contributed to the theological environment from which the great Spanish mystics emerged. The third thread is therefore not merely an additional chapter in the history. It may be the thread that allows the other two to be properly interpreted.

Theological Consequences

The need to develop a proper Spiritual Theology

If theology and spiritual life have historically become separated, then the solution cannot simply be to add a small subject called “spirituality” to the theological curriculum. What is needed is a properly theological discipline of Spiritual Theology. Spiritual Theology must ask theological questions about the actual transformation of the human person by grace. It must therefore study the action of the Trinity in the Christian, the life of grace, the virtues, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, prayer, contemplation, purification, discernment, growth in charity, spiritual warfare, suffering, union with Christ, Marian participation, ecclesial life and the different stages of the spiritual journey. It must be theological because its object is not merely religious experience. It is the Christian transformation of the person in Christ through the Holy Spirit towards the fullness of charity and union with God.

This also means that Spiritual Theology cannot be reduced to psychology, phenomenology or pastoral technique. Psychology can illuminate aspects of the human subject. Phenomenology can describe experience. Pastoral theology can consider the application of theological principles. But none of these by themselves constitutes Spiritual Theology. Spiritual Theology must remain rooted in Revelation, Scripture, Tradition, doctrine, sacramental life and the lived wisdom of the saints.

The Dionysian tradition reminds us that the ultimate object of theology is God himself; Leclercq reminds us that the study of Scripture and theology must remain ordered towards the desire for God; Benedict reminds us that reason and contemplation belong together.

The need for an integral theology

The recovery of Spiritual Theology should not create another compartment within theology. That would merely reproduce the problem. The deeper need is an integral theology. Dogmatic theology needs Spiritual Theology because doctrine is not merely information about God. Christian doctrine reveals the mystery into which the believer is called to enter. Spiritual Theology needs dogmatic theology because Christian spiritual experience must be discerned according to the truth of Revelation. Biblical theology needs Spiritual Theology because Scripture is not merely an historical document. It is the Word of God received in the Church and intended to transform the believer. Moral theology needs Spiritual Theology because Christian morality cannot be reduced to the fulfilment of external norms. The Christian is called to transformation in charity. Liturgical theology needs Spiritual Theology because the liturgy is not simply something the Christian studies or attends; it is the sacramental participation in Christ’s worship of the Father. Mariology needs Spiritual Theology because Mary’s role cannot be adequately understood merely through isolated doctrinal propositions; Mary must also be understood within the economy of grace and the transformation of the Christian person. Mystical theology needs systematic theology because mystical experience must be interpreted within the truth of Revelation. And systematic theology itself needs mystical theology because the mystery it studies can never be exhausted by conceptual formulations. The proper response to fragmentation is therefore not another specialisation but reintegration.

Practical Consequences

The first practical consequence concerns theological education. A future formation in theology should not produce people who know increasingly more about God while becoming increasingly disconnected from prayer, Scripture, liturgy and holiness. Theology should form theological intelligence, but theological intelligence should itself be ordered towards wisdom.

The second consequence concerns lectio divina. If Leclercq and Benedict are correct, then Scripture must regain its place not simply as one theological source among others but as a living source of theological formation. The study of Scripture and the prayerful reading of Scripture should not become two unrelated activities.

The third concerns spiritual direction. Spiritual direction requires theological competence because discernment cannot be separated from the truth of the faith. But it also requires knowledge of the dynamics of spiritual growth, purification, prayer and transformation. This is precisely where a mature Spiritual Theology becomes indispensable.

The fourth concerns the study of the saints. The saints should not be treated merely as devotional figures whose writings are mined for quotations. They are witnesses to the theological reality they describe. Their writings constitute an important locus for theological investigation. This is particularly important for Teresa of Ávila and John of the Cross. Their works should not be confined to a department of “spirituality” as though they were merely describing subjective religious experience. They should be studied as theological witnesses to the transformation of the human person by grace.

The fifth concerns mystical theology. The Dionysian tradition demonstrates that mystical theology has its own intellectual history and theological genealogy. It should therefore not be treated as an optional appendix to spirituality.

The sixth concerns discernment. The recovery of Spiritual Theology must not produce arbitrary prescriptions about spiritual practice. Spiritual growth requires discernment. It requires Scripture, Tradition, the sacramental life, sound doctrine, prudent spiritual direction and attention to the concrete action of the Holy Spirit.

The seventh concerns the relationship between knowledge and love. The Christian tradition does not ultimately oppose knowledge and love. The highest Christian knowledge is itself transformed by love. Benedict’s formulation is particularly suggestive: “Love becomes intelligence and authentic theology wisdom of the heart, which directs and sustains the faith and life of believers.” (Vatican) This could almost serve as a definition of the theological task we need to recover.

Conclusion: Towards a Reintegration of Theology

The history of Christian theology should therefore not be narrated simply as a fall from an original unity into scholastic rationalism. The reality is more complex—and more hopeful. The Christian theological tradition developed through several interacting currents. The monastic tradition preserved the unity of Scripture, prayer, contemplation, wisdom and transformation. Scholastic theology developed the extraordinary intellectual resources necessary for conceptual precision, rational coherence and systematic articulation. The Dionysian tradition preserved and developed a distinctive theological understanding of contemplation, apophatic knowledge, desire, mystical union and participation in God.

The tragedy occurred not when these distinctions emerged, but when their organic relationship was progressively weakened. Jean Leclercq helps us recover the unity of learning and the desire for God. Benedict XVI helps us understand that monastic and scholastic theology are not enemies but complementary theological modes. The Dionysian tradition reminds us that theology itself has a mystical horizon: the knowledge of God cannot finally be separated from transformation, contemplation and union. The result is a much richer theological programme.

We do not need to abolish scholastic theology. We need to recover its place within an integral theological synthesis. We do not need to romanticise monastic theology. We need to recover its understanding of theology as wisdom ordered towards God. We do not need to treat mystical theology as an esoteric supplement. We need to recognise that theologia mystica belongs to the great theological tradition of the Church. And we do not need to oppose theology and spiritual life. We need to rediscover why, in the deepest Christian sense, theology exists for the knowledge of God, and the knowledge of God exists so that the human person may be transformed by God and united to him in love. The ultimate recovery, therefore, is not merely the recovery of “spirituality”. It is the recovery of theology as a wisdom of communion with God.

Note: The three-thread model should not become another taxonomy. Its real value is theological. Monastic theology protects the biblical and sapiential character of theology; scholastic theology protects its rational and conceptual integrity; Dionysian mystical theology protects the transcendent and transformative end of theological knowledge. An integral theology needs all three. In that sense, the recovery of Spiritual Theology is not a movement away from theology towards experience. It is, paradoxically, a movement back towards a fuller understanding of what theology itself is.

Bibliography

Primary and ecclesial sources

Benedict XVI. “Monastic Theology and Scholastic Theology.” General Audience, 28 October 2009. This is the central Benedictine text for the distinction between the two medieval theological models. (Vatican)

Benedict XVI. “Two Theological Models in Comparison: Bernard and Abelard.” General Audience, 4 November 2009. Particularly important for Benedict’s interpretation of fides and intellectus. (Vatican)

Benedict XVI. “Hugh and Richard of Saint-Victor.” General Audience, 25 November 2009. Essential for the idea of a synthesis between monastic and scholastic theology. (Vatican)

Benedict XVI. Address to the World of Culture, Collège des Bernardins, Paris, 12 September 2008. Essential for his use of Jean Leclercq and the relationship between the search for God, Scripture, grammar and intellectual culture. (Éditions du Cerf)

International Theological Commission. Theology Today: Perspectives, Principles and Criteria. Vatican City, 2011, especially §§67–68. Particularly valuable because it explicitly describes the fragmentation of the medieval unity of Christian wisdom and the subsequent separation of spiritual life from rationalising university theology. (Vatican)

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. The Mystical Theology, together with The Divine Names, The Celestial Hierarchy, The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and the Letters.

John Scotus Eriugena. Periphyseon and his translations and commentaries on the Dionysian Corpus.

Hugh of Saint-Victor. Didascalicon and his commentary on the Celestial Hierarchy.

Thomas Gallus. Expositio super Mysticam Theologiam and related Dionysian commentaries.

Hugh of Balma. Viae Sion Lugent / De Theologia Mystica.

Anonymous. The Cloud of Unknowing.

Jean Leclercq and monastic theology

Jean Leclercq, O.S.B. L’Amour des lettres et le désir de Dieu: Initiation aux auteurs monastiques du Moyen Âge. Paris: Cerf, 1957; subsequent editions. This remains the foundational study for the modern recovery of the concept of monastic theology. (Éditions du Cerf)

Jean Leclercq. “Théologie traditionnelle et théologie monastique.” Irénikon 37 (1964): 50–74. The article is particularly important for the question of whether “monastic theology” should be understood as a special theological species or as the continuation of the older theological tradition. (Scribd)

Jean Leclercq. “The New Theologies of the Early Twelfth Century.” Mediaeval Studies 53 (1991): 327–336. (Scribd)

Theology, sanctity and the separation from spirituality

Hans Urs von Balthasar. “Theology and Sanctity.” Originally published in 1948. This is one of the foundational twentieth-century statements of the problem of the separation between theological teaching and Christian holiness. A scholarly discussion identifies Balthasar’s central concern as the separation of “teaching and life”. (ResearchGate)

F. Vandenbroucke, O.S.B. “The Divorce of Mysticism from Theology.” Life of the Spirit 5, no. 52 (1950): 158–166. (Cambridge University Press)

F. Vandenbroucke, O.S.B. “The Divorce of Mysticism from Theology—II.” Life of the Spirit. Particularly useful for the later medieval development of mystical theology and the Rhenish tradition. (Cambridge University Press)

Keith Egan. “The Divorce of Spirituality from Theology.” In Theological Education in the Catholic Tradition, edited by Patrick W. Carey and Earl C. Muller. New York: Crossroad, 1997, 296–307.

Philip Sheldrake. Spirituality and History: Questions of Interpretation and Method. London: SPCK, 1991. Particularly important for the historical emergence of spirituality as a differentiated theological field.

Monastic and scholastic theology

Marie-Dominique Chenu, O.P. La théologie au XIIe siècle. Paris: Vrin, 1957. A fundamental study of the transformation of theological method in the twelfth century.

Marie-Dominique Chenu, O.P. Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rik Van Nieuwenhove and Joseph Wawrykow, eds. The Theology of Thomas Aquinas. Useful for resisting simplistic interpretations of scholastic theology as merely rationalistic.

Rik Van Nieuwenhove. Studies on thirteenth-century theology, Aristotelianism and the development of later Western theological rationality.

Dionysian tradition and mystical theology

Paul Rorem. Pseudo-Dionysius: A Commentary on the Texts and an Introduction to Their Influence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. A foundational study of the Dionysian Corpus and its reception, including Eriugena and Hugh of Saint-Victor. (OUP Academic)

Paul Rorem. The Dionysian Mystical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015. Particularly useful for following the development of Dionysian mystical theology and its medieval reception. (JSTOR)

Boyd Taylor Coolman. The Medieval Affective Dionysian Tradition. Oxford University Press. Particularly important for Thomas Gallus and the development of the affective interpretation of Dionysius. (OUP Academic)

Peter Tyler. “The Carthusians and the Cloud of Unknowing.” In The Oxford Handbook of Dionysius the Areopagite, pp. 428–453. Oxford University Press, 2022. Particularly important for Hugh of Balma, the Cloud, Carthusian spirituality and “affective Dionysianism”. (OUP Academic)

David Albertson, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Dionysius the Areopagite. Oxford University Press, 2022. Especially the chapters on the Latin reception and John Sarrazin.

John Sarracenus and his Influence, in The Oxford Handbook of Dionysius the Areopagite, pp. 328–342. Particularly important for understanding the second major Latin translation of Dionysius and its influence on the medieval schools. (OUP Academic)

Jasper Hopkins. Hugh of Balma on Mystical Theology: A Translation and an Overview of His De Theologia Mystica. Minneapolis, 2002. Particularly useful for direct work on Hugh of Balma. (IUScholarWorks)

Dennis D. Martin. Carthusian Spirituality: The Writings of Hugh of Balma and Guigo de Ponte. New York: Paulist Press, 1996.

The history of Western mysticism

Bernard McGinn. The Foundations of Mysticism: Origins to the Fifth Century. New York: Crossroad, 1991. Volume I of The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mysticism. (Google Books)

Bernard McGinn. The Growth of Mysticism: Gregory the Great through the Twelfth Century. New York: Crossroad, 1994.

Bernard McGinn. The Flowering of Mysticism: Men and Women in the New Mysticism, 1200–1350. New York: Crossroad, 1998.

Bernard McGinn. The Harvest of Mysticism in Medieval Germany. New York: Crossroad, 2005.

Bernard McGinn. “The Changing Shape of Late Medieval Mysticism.” Church History. This is particularly valuable for understanding how different layers of monastic, biblical, liturgical, intellectual and affective mysticism interact historically. (Cambridge University Press)

For the later trajectory towards John of the Cross

Francis Ruello. Théologie mystique. 2 vols. Paris: Cerf, Sources Chrétiennes, 1995–1996.

Alois M. Haas. Studies on the relationship between medieval mystical theology, theologia mystica and German mysticism.

Andrew Louth. The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition: From Plato to Denys. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.

Andrew Louth. The Wilderness of God. London: Darton, Longman and Todd.

Walter Principe, C.S.B. Toward Defining Spirituality. Theological and historical analysis of the emergence and meaning of “spirituality” as a theological category.

Louis Bouyer, Jean Leclercq, François Vandenbroucke and Louis Cognet. Histoire de la spiritualité chrétienne. Paris: Aubier. This multi-volume history remains an important resource for situating the development of Christian spirituality within the wider theological tradition.