The Mystical Element of Religion, as studied in Saint Catherine of Genoa and her friends, Volume 2 (of 2)Hügel, Friedrich, Freiherr von
Religion
The Mystical Element of Religion, as studied in Saint Catherine of Genoa and her friends, Volume 2 (of 2)
Hügel, Friedrich, Freiherr von
Catherine, of Genoa, Saint, 1447-1510
soul’s consciousness of possessing it, already holds within itself
sufficient, indeed abundant motives, (in the fulfilment of its own
deepest nature and of its now awakened requirements of harmony,
strength, and peace through self-donation), for giving itself ever more
and more to God.
(3) And with regard to the Joannine teaching, it will be enough for
us to refer back to the texts discussed in the preceding chapter, and
to note how large and specially characteristic is here the current
which insists upon the reward being already, at least inchoatively,
enclosed in the deed itself, and upon this deed being the result and
expression of Eternal Life operating within the faithful soul, even
already, Here and Now. Only the declaration that “perfect love casteth
out fear,” that it does not tolerate fear alongside of itself, 1 John
iv, 18, appears to be contrary to the Pauline doctrine that Perfect
Love, “Love” itself “beareth all things, believeth, hopeth, endureth
all things,” 1 Cor. xiii, 7. Love then can animate other virtues: why
not then a holy fear? But this Joannine saying seems in fact modelled
upon St. Paul’s quotation and use of a passage from the Septuagint:
“Cast out the bondwoman (the slave-servant) and her son, for the son
of the bondwoman shall not be heir together with the son of the free,”
Gal. iv, 30; and hence this saying will not exclude “children of the
free-woman,”--a holy fear as well as faith, hope, patience,--but
only “children of the slave-woman,” superstition, presumption,
weakmindedness, and slavish fear.
2. _The “Pure Love” controversy._
In turning now to the controversy as to, Pure Love (1694-1699) and its
assured results, we shall have again to distinguish carefully between
the lives and intentions of the writers who were censured, and the
doctrines, analytic or systematic, taught or implied by them, which
were condemned. This distinction is easier in this case than in that of
Quietism, for the chief writer concerned here is Fénelon, as to whose
pure and spiritual character and deeply Catholic intentions there never
has been any serious doubt.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account