Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich

[kujo]

Hey ya'll. I've been reading some of the writings of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich during this Holy Week. I know she's a controversial figure in Church history, but I was wondering what ya'll think of her?

[thessalonian]

[quote name='kujo' post='1228840' date='Apr 3 2007, 06:27 PM']Hey ya'll. I've been reading some of the writings of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich during this Holy Week. I know she's a controversial figure in Church history, but I was wondering what ya'll think of her?[/quote]

I'm not too familiar with her writings. I know that they were a basis for some of Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion.

[cmotherofpirl]

Her writings were NOT considered when she was made blessed, only her virtuous life.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1228898' date='Apr 3 2007, 07:32 PM']Her writings were NOT considered when she was made blessed, only her virtuous life.[/quote]
Why weren't they, out of curiosity? If you know.

[cmotherofpirl]

Most of what is attributed to her writings was actually done by a German poet named Clemens Brentano. Since the Church cannot distinguishe between what Emmerich said and Clemens wrote down, her writings were excluded from any consideration.

[Totus Tuus]

When I was in the monastery, bringing up Anne Catherine Emmerich was a bold act in conversation.

I read "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ" without knowing a [i]thing[/i] about the author (narrator, I should say), and before I really knew anything about what the term "private revelation" meant. From that unbiased point-of-view, I labeled the book, after reading it, probably the best literary aid I have ever encountered for helping me to participate in the Passion and Lent.

I also liked her writings on Mary Magdalene which Tan recently compiled (from the 4-Volume Life of Christ), but didn't really spend much time meditating on it. I spend most of my time meditating on the actual Scripture passages pertaining to May Magdalene rather than Bl. Anne's book.

After learning that she was a controversial figure (and hearing what those who were opposed to her writings had to say, in the monastery), I laid off her writings for a while. Picking up her writings on the Blessed Mother, I came across a passage where she implied that Our Lady's soul was not united with her body until about six months into St. Anne's pregnancy. That was disconcerting, considering she was saying that this was what had been revealed to her. After all, how could Our Lady be the [i]Immaculate Conception[/i] if she didn't have a soul at the moment of her conception? I know Thomas Aquinas had similar views, but his were based on the science of his day and not what was revealed to him. Maybe I misinterpreted what Bl. Anne was trying to convey, I'm not sure.

Anyway, all of that said, my current view on her is that the Church must not think she's that terrible because it was Holy Mother Church who raised her up to the rank of Blessed. They didn't throw her case out before she got to Servant of God [i]or[/i] Venerable [i]or[/i] Blessed. So I'm not sure if, by raising her up like that, they are confirming that her private revelation leads to the public revelation of the Church, or simply that she led a holy life worthy of sanctity. But she would either have been lying (and therefore not holy), or hallucinating, from what I can see.

Ergo, I think her revelations were legitimate. But I am waiting for the Church to make that statement, like everyone else is.

Edited April 4, 2007 by Totus Tuus

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Totus Tuus' post='1229021' date='Apr 3 2007, 11:20 PM']When I was in the monastery, bringing up Anne Catherine Emmerich was a bold act in conversation.

I read "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ" without knowing a [i]thing[/i] about the author (narrator, I should say), and before I really knew anything about what the term "private revelation" meant. From that unbiased point-of-view, I labeled the book, after reading it, probably the best literary aid I have ever encountered for helping me to participate in the Passion and Lent.

I also liked her writings on Mary Magdalene which Tan recently compiled (from the 4-Volume Life of Christ), but didn't really spend much time meditating on it. I spend most of my time meditating on the actual Scripture passages pertaining to May Magdalene rather than Bl. Anne's book.

After learning that she was a controversial figure (and hearing what those who were opposed to her writings had to say, in the monastery), I laid off her writings for a while. Picking up her writings on the Blessed Mother, I came across a passage where she implied that Our Lady's soul was not united with her body until about six months into St. Anne's pregnancy. That was disconcerting, considering she was saying that this was what had been revealed to her. After all, how could Our Lady be the [i]Immaculate Conception[/i] if she didn't have a soul at the moment of her conception? I know Thomas Aquinas had similar views, but his were based on the science of his day and not what was revealed to him. Maybe I misinterpreted what Bl. Anne was trying to convey, I'm not sure.

Anyway, all of that said, my current view on her is that the Church must not think she's that terrible because it was Holy Mother Church who raised her up to the rank of Blessed. They didn't throw her case out before she got to Servant of God [i]or[/i] Venerable [i]or[/i] Blessed. So I'm not sure if, by raising her up like that, they are confirming that her private revelation leads to the public revelation of the Church, or simply that she led a holy life worthy of sanctity. But she would either have been lying (and therefore not holy), or hallucinating, from what I can see.

Ergo, I think her revelations were legitimate. But I am waiting for the Church to make that statement, like everyone else is. [/quote]

She can't be accused of lying because we have no clue to what her actual private revelations were. They were dictated.
The Church isn't going to make a statement, unless you consider it a statement that her "writings" were NOT considered at all. I'd consider that a statement.

[kujo]

I have been told by my buddy Mark (whose nickname is "Aquinas" due to his immense knowledge of all things Catholic) that her writings, specifically those in the [i]Dolorous Passion[/i] can be misconstrued as anti-Semitic and, thus, are very controversial; however, seeing as how her "visions" are prevalent in most of the Passion plays and Stations of the Cross depictions I've ever seen, I think it's safe to say that her detractors are [b]wrong.[/b]

Reading her dictation is drawing me closer to Christ during this Holy Week. Whether or not her "visions" are true, this is what they are accomplishing. That very fact makes her worthy of sainthood if you ask me.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='kujo' post='1229239' date='Apr 4 2007, 01:31 AM']I have been told by my buddy Mark (whose nickname is "Aquinas" due to his immense knowledge of all things Catholic) that her writings, specifically those in the [i]Dolorous Passion[/i] can be misconstrued as anti-Semitic and, thus, are very controversial; however, seeing as how her "visions" are prevalent in most of the Passion plays and Stations of the Cross depictions I've ever seen, I think it's safe to say that her detractors are [b]wrong.[/b]

Reading her dictation is drawing me closer to Christ during this Holy Week. Whether or not her "visions" are true, this is what they are accomplishing. That very fact makes her worthy of sainthood if you ask me.[/quote]
The point is the Church doesn't know if they ARE her writings. Her writings are generally not present in Passions plays and Stations of the Cross, those are traditions far older than anything attributed to her. Read by all means, and I have, but understand they were not written down by her, and are not blessed by the Church.

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1229412' date='Apr 4 2007, 08:57 AM']The point is the Church doesn't know if they ARE her writings. Her writings are generally not present in Passions plays and Stations of the Cross, those are traditions far older than anything attributed to her. Read by all means, and I have, but understand they were not written down by her, and are not blessed by the Church.[/quote]

Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Thank you for sharing

[kujo]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1229412' date='Apr 4 2007, 09:57 AM']The point is the Church doesn't know if they ARE her writings. Her writings are generally not present in Passions plays and Stations of the Cross, those are traditions far older than anything attributed to her. Read by all means, and I have, but understand they were not written down by her, and are not blessed by the Church.[/quote]

Good call. Thank you CM

[Lounge Daddy]

I am glad for this post ...
my own questions were answered as well

[Moneybags]

I just read and wrote a review on the "Dolorous Passoin". [b]It was amazing![/b]

[url="http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2007/04/dolorous-passion-of-our-lord-jesus.html"]http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2007/04/...lord-jesus.html[/url]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='St. Benedict' post='1237356' date='Apr 10 2007, 02:19 AM']I just read and wrote a review on the "Dolorous Passoin". [b]It was amazing![/b]

[url="http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2007/04/dolorous-passion-of-our-lord-jesus.html"]http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2007/04/...lord-jesus.html[/url][/quote]
Again, they are private revelations and may or may not be accurate.

[Moneybags]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1238689' date='Apr 11 2007, 11:29 AM']Again, they are private revelations and may or may not be accurate.[/quote]

But the Church does approve of these reveleations. I, like Mel Gibson and other Catholics, will continue to believe in them.