Comparing Julian's The Plague And Pseudo-Dionysius

Julian’s ability to describe the vastness of God seems to be unmatched by any save for those who utilize apophatic theology. While her perception that we must know our smallness and “to nought everything that is made in order to have God who is unmade,” does echoes the enigmatic and paradoxical writings of Pseudo-Dionysius, and her embrace of the limitations of mankind’s ability to comprehend God’s vast love echoes The Cloud of Unknowing; she never dips into apophatic descriptions of the divine. In her optimistic obedience, she humbly recognizes the eternal vastness of God and seeks the path of becoming united with the divine substance. In fact, she asserts that she “never desired any bodily sight or showing from God, but compassion,” At least
After describing her vision of all of creation contained in “a little thing, the size of a hazelnut,” in the palm of her hand, accompanied by the overwhelming sense of God’s love for something so frail, Julian professes, “I may never have complete rest nor true bliss; that is to say, until I am fastened to him that there is absolutely nothing that is made between my God and me.” This yearning for God feeds her theologies. In a society experiencing The Plague, the afterlife was a matter of great concern, and although she yearned for unity with God, she “thought this vision was shown for those that should live.” Julian did not embrace the supernatural belief systems that accompanied her world of plague and indulgences with the vigor one might expect from one with such profound yearnings for God. To the contrary, while describing her near-death experience, Julian professes a desire to continue in this life “so that I might have loved God better,” Julian’s solidarity with Augustine’s sentiment that “our hearts are restless until they rest in you” exists beside a strong affinity for this life and a hopeful optimism for those existing within it. These simultaneous values are reflected in Julian’s understanding of
The “higher” is substance and the other is sensuality. A person’s substance is their divine essence. Julian never goes so far to say it is uncreated (as Eckhart does) but she does reflect on the vastness of the soul and reflects that when she perceived the substance of humankind united with the divine substance, they were indistinguishable. However, she immediately follows by pronouncing that “God is God, and our substance is a creature in God,” thus allowing herself to profess her vision honestly while abiding within the doctrine of the church. The second part of personhood is sensuality. While God the Father, the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Christ the Mother all join in humanity’s substance, Christ alone joins in sensuality through the incarnation. In Christ the Mother, “our parts are kept undivided,” therefore, Christ is Julian’s path to unity with God. Julian’s focus on Jesus was not uncommon and her appeal was furthered due to her visions and writings contributing to the popular practice of meditating on the cross, a practice still largely participated in