Catholic view on Evelyn Underhill

  • Thread starter Thread starter weirdcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

weirdcatholic

Guest
I was wondering if anyone had a good understanding of evelyn underhill’s views of mysticism and the catholic church’s view. Is any of evelyn’s perspective on mysticism not in line with the teaching of the catholic church or the church’s view of mysticism?
 
I’ve never heard of her before, but I did a little research on the Internet, and found she was an Anglo-Catholic, and it seems Anglicans hold her up as someone to look to. Hopefully others who know more than I do will chime in, but it seems to me, you should probably avoid her.
 
Avoid Evelyn Underhill? :eek:

She is about the 20th century’s greatest scholar of Catholic mysticism, precisely because she was a mystic in her own right.

The only reason she couldn’t come into full communion with the Catholic Church was because her Anglican husband was anti-Catholic and prevented her. This extenuating social circumstance notwithstanding, she identified with Catholicism.

Her understanding of Catholic mysticism was second too none.

She wrote in one of her Letters:
"…The day after I came away (the Feast of the Purification), a good deal shaken but unconvinced, I was ‘converted’ quite suddenly, once and for all, by an overpowering vision which had really no specifically Christian elements, but yet convinced me that the Catholic religion was true…"
Click to expand...
-(Letter, 14 May 1911)
Click to expand...
Ignoring her because she happened to remain in the Anglican Communion would be a travesty. All the baptized are placed in imperfect communion with Holy Mother Church.

St. Isaac of Nineveh was a Nestorian yet his works are universally revered throughout Christendom because they are theologically orthodox. Evelyn Underhill is in the same boat.
 
Vouthon said:
Avoid Evelyn Underhill? :eek:

She is about the 20th century’s greatest scholar of Catholic mysticism, precisely because she was a mystic in her own right.

The only reason she couldn’t come into full communion with the Catholic Church was because her Anglican husband was anti-Catholic and prevented her. This extenuating social circumstance notwithstanding, she identified with Catholicism.

Her understanding of Catholic mysticism was second too none.

She wrote in one of her Letters:

Ignoring her because she happened to remain in the Anglican Communion would be a travesty. All the baptized are placed in imperfect communion with Holy Mother Church.

St. Isaac of Nineveh was a Nestorian yet his works are universally revered throughout Christendom because they are theologically orthodox. Evelyn Underhill is in the same boat.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. As said, I have never read any of her writings. Maybe I’ll investigate them now as well. Thanks.
 
One would have to judge each work and assertion.

She drew from Catholic Saints and writers etc but that does not mean her approach or understanding was per se correct…

Her writings should be seen as “her writings” and evaluated in light of Church Teaching as well as Catholic Theology.

There are I would note as well - various schools of theology --various orthodox approaches to Spiritual Theology. And many different orthodox writers who could disagree with each other on various theological questions.
 
The question really is what her views on mystical theology were in comparison to the catholic view on mystical theology.
 
weirdcatholic said:
The question really is what her views on mystical theology were in comparison to the catholic view on mystical theology.
Click to expand...
There are various schools of theology --various orthodox approaches to Spiritual Theology. And many different orthodox writers who could disagree with each other on various theological questions.

I imagine some things she writes --many writers on Mystical Theology would agree with as well as there would be things there would be a disagreement with…

(and remember though she draws from Catholic sources she was an Anglican)
 
She was not a Catholic writer so I imagine there is going to be a mixture…
 
PS: I also have read that she went through various periods in her life and her writings…that to can have a bearing on such…so what was early was well early and was later could be rather different (perhaps more Catholic?).

In any case one must approach her writings (if one does–and I am not here recommending one does) as such and with prudence and circumspection. Remembering they are not the work of a Catholic Theologian or writer who has the benefit of the Teaching Office of the Church

(and I personally would not recommend just anyone to read her works…given what I have noted…rather I would point readers to the various works by Catholic writers).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top