Against Catherine Emmerich

[JReducation]

I believe that Brother may be right. However, I did not want to leave this issue unaddressed. There are many who come to these threads and read this stuff then leave believing that it must be true because “it’s traditional.” There is nothing traditional about the original post.

One of these days, many people are going to learn that tradition has many expressions and some expressions may appear quite novel to many of us, because they have been ignored or simply unknown by the man in the pew.

The process leading up the canonization is certainly one of those that has a tradition of its own, which is not well known. It has rules of its own that are not found in the books. Those rules are in books and documents that are not made available to the world. Only those who are involved in this work ever go looking for them. Sometimes, students of Church history or students of Ascetical Mystical Theology would go looking for them, because it is pertinent to their area of study. That’s how I came across many of these documents. Mystical and Ascetical Theology was my STD. I never had to read this stuff at the M.Div. level. It’s not relevant to those who are going into pastoral work, especially those going into parishes. Nonetheless, these traditions exist and are ratified by the appropriate authorities.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[philipmarie]

What! I so am not!

I was seeing your responses all the time riff-raff!(ok I’m just kidding by calling you riff-raff, that’s the way proud people speak to those ‘lower then them’), and I certainly was not trying to ‘teach’ you anything. I’m just saying thatCatherine Emmerich erred.

Let us say that Catherine Emmerich is very holy and saintly, that she had visions of Chirst and all that… but at least, don’t you agree that her so called ‘Life of Christ nd Mary’ is just a collection of meditations and not a true revelation from God? Don’t tell me that God and Mary showed her visions while she was meditating (that sort of would be a locution) but that they were only the meditations of holy nun (who had a VERY, VERY great imagination!)

Also, isn’t it unfair that black races whould be treated like that? Or at least, isn’t it a bit rash to say that their skin is the result of some curse rather than of the sun?

Also, don’t you agree that the visionary unintentionally downgraded Mary’s virtue? I mean, Mary would never go off and cry in despair. She is the Mother of holy hope (Eccl 24:24) and so would never despair that She would lose Her Virginity (especially after She vowed it to God!)

 

[JReducation]

What! I so am not!

I was seeing your responses all the time riff-raff!(ok I’m just kidding by calling you riff-raff, that’s the way proud people speak to those ‘lower then them’), and I certainly was not trying to ‘teach’ you anything. I’m just saying thatCatherine Emmerich erred.

Let us say that Catherine Emmerich is very holy and saintly, that she had visions of Chirst and all that… but at least, don’t you agree that her so called ‘Life of Christ nd Mary’ is just a collection of meditations and not a true revelation from God? Don’t tell me that God and Mary showed her visions while she was meditating (that sort of would be a locution) but that they were only the meditations of holy nun (who had a VERY, VERY great imagination!)

Also, isn’t it unfair that black races whould be treated like that? Or at least, isn’t it a bit rash to say that their skin is the result of some curse rather than of the sun?

Also, don’t you agree that the visionary unintentionally downgraded Mary’s virtue? I mean, Mary would never go off and cry in despair. She is the Mother of holy hope (Eccl 24:24) and so would never despair that She would lose Her Virginity (especially after She vowed it to God!)

If I may play “Brother” at this point, I think that you may have created an unnecessary situation for yourself. Allow me to show you.

1. You went after Catherine, because in your opinion, she makes statements that are contrary to the faith forgetting that great men such as Bonaventure, Francis of Assisi, Catherine of Siena (OK, not a man), Thomas Aquinas and even Augustine also did the same. But they were not aware that these were contrary to the truth. Therefore, they are not accountable for them. If Catherine makes such statements, I’ll have to take your word for it, because I have not read her writings, obviously the Church is not holding her accountable for them. So why are you doing it? That’s just creating a problem for yourself.
2. You are forgetting that mystics are human beings. They have private revelations. The Church is OK with that. Look at the revelations to St. Faustina. Some were very strange. However, the Church ran with the request for Mercy Sunday. It’s really up to the Magisterium, not up to us, to decide what the Church takes from the private to the public. You are making it an issue for the laity. It does not belong there. It is not the laity’s right to determine what private revelations should say or not say and how they should be interpreted. That’s up to the proper ecclesial authorities. You’re going to be bashed for overstepping, everytime you run into a member of the hierarchy or a theologian who is orthodox. An unorthodox theologian would love to join you in doing the job of the Magisterium. An orthodox one would cringe.
3. Finally, as I said in two, mystics are human beings. Sometimes, they don’t always correctly communicate what they see or hear in their visions, because sometimes they don’t understand. Bernadette is a wonderful example. She had no clue that she was talking to the Mother of God. She kept saying, “the Lady”. When asked what the Lady’s name was, she had no clue what the Immaculate Conception meant, because the Lady did not explain it. It was explained to her much later by the local priests. St. Francis heard the crucifix say, “Go repair my Church” and he went out to beg for stones. He rehabilitated three churches and finally stopped. He died not knowing that his religious order would save the Church of the Middle Ages. He never understood the message from the cross at San Damiano.

You’re writing as if you demand that the mystic understand the revelation. God does not demand that of the mystics. He is trying to communicate grace, not theology. In these experiences, God is drawing the person into an experience of his Divine Life, not calling them into a classroom to teach them theology. God is going to use images and symbols that help the person experience his love and experience union with him. You may be paying attention to the wrong things in Catherine’s writings. Try going back to them and pay attention to the relationship between her and God and Mary. Try to understand that this was meant for her, not for the world. It was tapered to bring her into the mystical union, not you and me.

These things can be helpful to us, but they are not meant for us. Look at the writings of Teresa of Avila and Catherine of Siena. Their mystical experiences were meant for them, not you and me. We can learn a great deal about the soul, about grace, about prayer, about love, about virtue and much more by reading them. We don’t read them as if we were reading science books looking for data. Instead of cornering yourself as judge and jury for Catherine, try to be student of spiritual theology and learn from her spiritual life. What made her a saint? What drew her into such intimacy with God? How does God show his love? What does her experience tell you about God? What does her experience tell you about man’s relationship with God? That’s how you read the msytics.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Also, don’t you agree that the visionary unintentionally downgraded Mary’s virtue?

No I do not think so, Mary was a human being and mother. I do not see anything downgrading her.

Can you answer my question though. Where does the Church Teach that Mary never fainted. You claimed that St Catherine was teaching heresy by saying that she did.

 

[JReducation]

Let’s get some things right. Mary was a human mother. She was free of sin, not free from humanity. We see this in the scritpures and in Church tradition. Several examples come to mind.

1. Jesus is lost in the temple. Mary tells him that they have been looking for him. She is anguished, as any mother would be, especially in those days when children were snatched up and sold into slavery. It would be unnatural for a mother not to be anguished. She chides Jesus for putting her through this worry.
2. We see St. Joseph struggling with the information that he has received from Mary. It stands to reason that a young woman who is betrothed to a man whom she loves would feel anxiety in this case. She loves him. She has something to tell him that is not easy to explain. She knows that he has the legal right to divorce her. This is not what she wants. I can’t imagine a young woman, who is in love, going to bed with a smile on her face, under these circumstances. She probably experiences the same concerns as any woman in love, even one who is telling the truth.
3. The Church has always cultivated a devotion to the Sorrowful Mother. We have the sorrowful mysteries of the rosary. We have the prophecy of Ana that Mary’s heart would be pierced. Obviously, Mary experienced great emotional pain over the events of Holy Thursday and Good Friday. Let’s remember that she did not know that he would rise. Even if she had known, watching her son being tortured would upset even the most contemplative mystic. Mystics do not cease to have human feelings. On the contrary, they become more sensitive to human suffering than the rest of us. They can be overwhelmed by the sorrow they feel in the presence of suffering. This is not a sinful act. It certainly is not voluntary. Fainting, while we don’t know whether Mary fainted or not, is not out of the question for a person who is very tuned in to human suffering. She is the Sorrowful Mother because she truly experience sorrow in all of its dimensions. What Mary did not experience was resentment; but that’s very different from sorrow and the emotions that come with sorrow.
4. Tradition tells us that Mary was the constant companion of the Beloved Disciple. Well, the story tells us that he was arrested several times and made to suffer quite a bit. It is highly doubtful that Mary would face this stoicly. John was very young when she goes to live with him. He was much younger than Jesus. To her, he was another son. One can safely assume that she may have loved him as a mother loves a son and worried about him as any mother loves and worries over a son. This was her second time around.

What we have to understand about Mary is that she was an ascetic and a mystic. An ascetic feels pain, but the mystic is consoled with inner peace. However, inner peace does not make pain go away. It makes pain tolerable for the love of the Beloved.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hesychios]

These mistakes do not necessarily border on heresy but what damage these may do! And here ar ejust a few of them:

Emmerich says that in a few instances (at the Flagelation of Christ and the carraige of the Cross) the Blessed Virgin fainted. This is heresy, as God would never allow His Mother who is all perfect …

Where do you get that?

Is there a dogma that says she is ‘all perfect’, or is that your opinion?

 

[DaveBj]

You cannot make a serious argument based on something you read off of Wikipedia.

You can if what was read out of Wikipedia is true. Arguing that the source is tainted; therefore the assertion is false is a logical fallacy.

(Full disclosure: I’m not a big fan of private revelations, so I’m staying out of the Catherine Emmerich argument.)

DaveBj

 

[Acolythus_sum]

Where do you get that?

Is there a dogma that says she is ‘all perfect’, or is that your opinion?

Holy Mother Church says she is perfect…see CCC #411: “Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.”

 

[mskejj]

I think Jesus fell more with pain then with fainting, as He could not lose the use of His reason (except when dying of course), RB2.

2. Emmerich has racist tendencies.

This is what forced me to write this refutation of Catherine Emmerich, and it is her allged racism. At first, I merely denouned this as Wikipedia’s bluff but then after seeing another bit of her writing, I decalred to myself and to Mary that She was most definitely a racist for saying these things. Just look at what she said (taken from wikipedia):

In the Bible, it is recounted how Noah got drunk and went to sleep totally naked. His son, Ham, pouncing upon him went to tell his brothers (with carnal delight) but they, instead of making fun of their dad, grabbed a claok and covered him (although when he woke up and after breakfast, they gave him a sharp rebuke!). Noah as a punishment curses… Ham’s son, Canaan. And here’s what Miss Emmerich has to say, this ‘theologian’ who inspires lay theologians!

One reason why you can’t take everything Wikipedia says as fact (they often times misinterpret things)…If you read Biblical commentaries you will find that what the “actual” sin was…covering up his nakedness meant Ham had sexual intercourse with his father’s wife (his own mother)…hence the curse from Noah upon him…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Holy Mother Church says she is perfect…see CCC #411: “Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.”

So then please show where fainting and showing sorrow are sinful.

 

[thistle]

Holy Mother Church says she is perfect…see CCC #411: “Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.”

What does that have to do with fainting?
Show us the Church teaching that says fainting is a sin!

 

[otjm]

Holy Mother Church says she is perfect…see CCC #411: “Mary benefited first of all and uniquely from Christ’s victory over sin: she was preserved from all stain of original sin and by a special grace of God committed no sin of any kind during her whole earthly life.”

If by “perfect” you mean that she was sinless, then we can agree. If, however, you mean that because of sin, she could not or would not or did not faint, the text you quote does not speak to that. It only speaks to her sinlessness. Fainting is not a moral issue; it is a physical issue. Physical issues such as loss of consciousness are not matters of morals. Or faith, for that matter.

 

[Zooey]

The canonization process, as we know it today, began with the second millennium. Prior to that, there were only Episcopal Canonizations. That’s how you get some saints in the Oriental Churches and others in the Roman Church. The process was not centralized.

Even before the process was ever centralized, two things have never changed. First, even Episcopal canonizations ran past the pope, though he was not the one doing the canonizing. Second, canonization is an infallible decree. We can’t pick and choose whom we venerate.

I can pick and choose my devotions. That’s a horse of a different color. I cannot choose whom I venerate. I’ll offer an example. In the diocese where I am, there are two new parishes: Bl. John XXIII and Bl. Teresa of Calcutta. Some people who called themselves “traditionalists” objected to the latter, because Bl. Teresa of Calcutta “prayed with non-Christians” and because she said, “If you’re a Jew, be a good Jew; a Muslim must be a good Muslim; and a Hindu a good Hindu,” etc. The response from the Church was that people were free to disagree with her. But they were not free to refuse her as the patron of their parish. Once the Vatican says that you venerate, venerate you must. One act of veneration for blessed and saints is to make them patrons of parishes and other religious organizations and institutions. The bishop who erected those parishes was very clear that to leave the parish, because one does not wish to honor the patron is to unjustifiable.

He did not say that there would be consequences. WHAT FOLLOWS IS MY OPINION. My guess is that if you try to get married in another parish and you are asked why you don’t do it in your canonical parish, you may be embarrassed when you have to say that you don’t like the patron or you don’t agree with the selection of the patron. Of course, the receiving pastor can then turn you back to your parish, since you do not have a good reason not to marry there.

I’m not trying to derail the thread to talk about marriage. I’m giving an example of mandatory veneration. If Catherine were the patron of your parish, you have no choice but to accept that. Otherwise, how can you justify trying to get sacraments in another parish, in those cases where the permission of the home pastor is required, such as marriage. Do you say that you don’t want to marry in that parish, because you don’t want to acknowledge Catherine or because you believe that you know something about her that the Church does not know? If you say something like that, the Church can come back and say that the problem is not Catherine. The problem is you. So . . . you don’t want to go there.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Wow. That was so well said. Just wow.

Now: I am only the Friendly Neighborhood Methodist around CAF, but when did that ever keep me from expressing an opinion?
I have fainted. Yes,yes, I know I am scarcely in the picture at all, but hear me out:
I have a heart condition. I had open heart surgery some years back (& have tests coming up this week, to see if they need to do more: please, pray for me).
When my heart went wonky, I went into congestive heart failure. My blood pressure dropped to near nothing, I saw lights, & woke up in hospital.
That is what fainting is, you see. It is not (as the Victorians opined) a girlish weakling act from a lack of courage. It is simply when your blood doesn’t make it to the brain, & over you go.
How in Heaven’s name does that equate to heresy then, if C.E. writes that the Virgin Mary fainted? Isn’t the Blessed Mother as entitled to low blood pressure as the rest of humanity??
IMHO, the OP misunderstands the nature of fainting. Unless he can produce a medical degree,and that in good standing, I’m sticking to that opinion.:twocents:

So:shrug: shoot me.

 

[philipmarie]

Many people misunderstood what I said and before I begin, don’t say that ‘I’m changing my mind’. I never had the thoughts with which you interpreted what I meant to say!

Sorrow is NOT a sin. I never, ever even said that Mary did not become sad. Not only that, I believe and and always have beleived that Mary was more sad and sorrowful than allof us put together at Her Son’s Passion. She is the Mother of Sorrows. When I said though, that She would have willingly crucified Her Son for us, I never meant it to mean that She would remain with a vague expression.

But, and this is true and Mary did this without even performing a material sin… She DID and willngly DID offer Her Son to be crucified out of love for us. For Mary so loved the world that She gave up Her only Son for us.

I do not imagine the Blessed Virgin remaining with, a wooden expression. If She always remained unflinching not only in Her facial expression but in Her heart (becuase our facial expressions are changed becuase of the stirring of our heart for those who do pay attention at rubbish public schools) especially when Her children suffer, I wouldn’t be able to call Her the Mothe rof Mercy. For Mary feels our Sorrows more than we do and She does not revile him who comes to Her but accepts Him with love. Many Siants declare that She’s anxious to recieve us (see The Glories of Mary).

Maybe I should have kept my mouth closed. I admit that there are a few instances where Emmerich reveres the Blessed Virgin very much such as calling Her the Temple of God and all that but, these few instances which I showed could have made dire conqequences to those who believed them. Maybe I was a bit uncharitable and unfair. And fainting is not a sin. I’m not saying that becuase somebody fainted he sinned. I’m just saying that, like death, fainting or swooning is a relic of original sin*.

*Adam always had the use of reason until he fell, and so did Eve. There was no carnal feelings in their marital intercourse until the fall. When they realized that they were naked did they become subject to carnal temptations. But anyway, the only lust that is good is inside marraige and Marraige only. I even read a book that more people are called to get married than to the Priesthood or the religous life!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Many people misunderstood what I said and before I begin, don’t say that ‘I’m changing my mind’. I never had the thoughts with which you interpreted what I meant to say!

Sorrow is NOT a sin. I never, ever even said that Mary did not become sad. Not only that, I believe and and always have beleived that Mary was more sad and sorrowful than allof us put together at Her Son’s Passion. She is the Mother of Sorrows. When I said though, that She would have willingly crucified Her Son for us, I never meant it to mean that She would remain with a vague expression.

But, and this is true and Mary did this without even performing a material sin… She DID and willngly DID offer Her Son to be crucified out of love for us. For Mary so loved the world that She gave up Her only Son for us.

I do not imagine the Blessed Virgin remaining with, a wooden expression. If She always remained unflinching not only in Her facial expression but in Her heart (becuase our facial expressions are changed becuase of the stirring of our heart for those who do pay attention at rubbish public schools) especially when Her children suffer, I wouldn’t be able to call Her the Mothe rof Mercy. For Mary feels our Sorrows more than we do and She does not revile him who comes to Her but accepts Him with love. Many Siants declare that She’s anxious to recieve us (see The Glories of Mary).

Maybe I should have kept my mouth closed. I admit that there are a few instances where Emmerich reveres the Blessed Virgin very much such as calling Her the Temple of God and all that but, these few instances which I showed could have made dire conqequences to those who believed them. Maybe I was a bit uncharitable and unfair. And fainting is not a sin. I’m not saying that becuase somebody fainted he sinned. I’m just saying that, like death, fainting or swooning is a relic of original sin*.

*Adam always had the use of reason until he fell, and so did Eve. There was no carnal feelings in their marital intercourse until the fall. When they realized that they were naked did they become subject to carnal temptations. But anyway, the only lust that is good is inside marraige and Marraige only. I even read a book that more people are called to get married than to the Priesthood or the religous life!

But you did say that saying Mary fainted is a heresy and I am still waiting for actual Church Teaching to backup your opinion on this, otherwise everything else you have said really has no weight with me.

 

[Acolythus_sum]

I didn’t say that Mary fainting was a sin. I was replying to the question of whether there is a dogma of Mary’s perfection or not.

 

[otjm]

Maybe I should have kept my mouth closed.

There is an old phrase: better to keep one’s mouth closed and thought a fool, than to open it and be proved a fool.

Maybe I was a bit uncharitable and unfair.

Perhaps we could include “over-reaching”?

And fainting is not a sin.

No kidding.

I’m not saying that becuase somebody fainted he sinned. I’m just saying that, like death, fainting or swooning is a relic of original sin*.

So is dying; and the last time I looked, theologians were split as to whether or not Mary actually died, or was assumed at the point of death. Perhaps they are in heresy also?

*Adam always had the use of reason until he fell, and so did Eve. There was no carnal feelings in their marital intercourse until the fall. When they realized that they were naked did they become subject to carnal temptations. But anyway, the only lust that is good is inside marraige and Marraige only. I even read a book that more people are called to get married than to the Priesthood or the religous life!

You need to acquaint yourself with a teensy bit of moral theology. Lust inside a marriage is just as much a sin as lust outside marriage.

Your knowledge of theology would appear to be in need of a slight brush up. Before you decide to take on theologians who appear to have far more training in it than you, you need to at the minimum understand what the process is for canonization; your comments would indicate that you are not thoroughly familiar with it.

 

[JReducation]

The problem that I see with the OP’s argument is that he agrees with the idea of canonization, but then decides to take on those who are responsible for making it happen. If you beleive in the process, but you also believe that they are not doing it right, because they’re letting all of these errors slide under the radar, then why have the process in the first place? It sounds like it does not work and it’s not as infallible as Catholics have believed.

My feeling is that I never support anything that does not work.

On the questions about Mary, there is a real danger of idolatry here. I’ll point to one single statement, “Mary so much loved the world that she gave her only begotten son.” That sentence was written about the Father, not about Mary. We cannot give Mary attributes that belong to God.

Mary so much loved the Father that she surrendered to his will, “Behold the servant of the Lord. Be it done to me according to your word.”

As far as Mary fainting . . . the truth is that people faint for the reasons that another poster properly posted. Fainting or syncope, as it is called in the medical community, has many biological and psychological cuases. The genesis of syncope is related to human weaknesses, either organic or emotional, sometimes both. Most of these human weaknesses are the result of Original Sin. Since Mary was preserved from Original Sin, then she cannot experience its consequences. Human weaknesses, THAT RESULT FROM ORIGINAL SIN, are not in her schema of predictable behaviors. If she fainted, the cause was not a weakness that is rooted in Original Sin.

Did she faint?
Is it important?
Would I pay a lot of money and spend 7-years in graduate school to get an STD just to know? HECK NOOOOOOOOOOOO

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Norval]

I am amazed as how mole hills become mountains.
I started to read “The Life of Christ” about 8 years ago, it has been a long time and any more I am short on memory. (my computer has much more) I read the foreword of the book and then started to read the book, then I went back and reread the foreword. In the foreword it gives the caution or advisement that Sister or defrocked sister Anne Catherine Emmerich did not write the book but related her visions (private revelations) to Clemens Brentano, who scribed her thoughts. I got the idea from the preface of the book that private visions or revelations are subject to the personal interpretation of the viewer. It was also pointed out that her visions provide a wealth of information not found in the bible.

After digesting those thoughts I purchased and read Her biography. The main reason I did that was to get her views on things. I wanted to get in her head so I could better understand the “Life of Christ”. One of the first things I learned was she was illiterate. She was also a very sensitive soul and of poor health. When Napoleon closed the convent she was in she was taken to the house of a priest’s friend to be cared for.

It seems she was very sensitive to holy objects even during ecstasy. While or during ecstasy a priest could pass his consecrated had before her closed eyes and her head would follow the hand. If a consecrated host was brought into the room during an ecstasy her head would immediately turn to the host. She bore the stigmata including the cross over her heart and the crown of thorns. In her later years she subsisted mostly on water and the Holy Eucharist.

There was not much interest in her works or visions until a young priest decided to check out something about Christ’s death and he found what he was looking for exactly where Sr. Emmerich said it would be. It is from her works that Mary’s house was found.

She is or was s suffering soul for the abuses going on in the world during that period of time. She was born September 8, 1774 and died February 9, 1824. She received the stigmata in 1812.

I do not know that I would recommend her 2 volume biography but I would recommend the 4 volume “Life of Christ”. Very interesting. There is an incident with the “good thief” who was crucified with Jesus.

God Bless !!!

 

[MarkInOregon]

1. Emmerichs writings on the life of Christ and Mary are not true, autenthic visions but are rather, as the publishers say, meditations.

Everyone here read Emmerichs account on the Passion (Mel Gibson’s 2004 film was based alot on these accounts) which is very, very moving indeed. I cried the first time I read… however, this book and her other The Life of Chirst show that these are not based on true, authenthic visions but were either a), meditations or b), illusions of the devil.

I think that they were meditations. Note that are way of thinking, unless aided by Mary and Jesus (and even then it could happen), is fallible. A few individuals had to fix the manuscipt for some theological mistakes and even the finished version still included alot of mistakes and inconsistencies.

These mistakes do not necessarily border on heresy but what damage these may do! And here ar ejust a few of them:

Emmerich says that in a few instances (at the Flagelation of Christ and the carraige of the Cross) the Blessed Virgin fainted. This is heresy, as God would never allow His Mother who is all perfect to lose the use of Her reason. Saint Cajetan wrote a phamphlet refuting the notion that Mary fainted during the Passion; Garrigou lagrange speaks alot about this privilege of Mary’s.

I’ll be the first to admit that I am not all that sharp–so would you please explain to me how fainting equates to the loss of the ability to reason? Would this line of thought also mean that Mary could not sleep? Could you please elaborate on this point – and can you also point out the official Church teaching this speculation contradicts (something more than a pamphlet even if its by a Saint - as not everything Saints have written through the centuries agree with Church dogma).

Pardon my ignorance–but is Mary “all perfect” and is this official church teaching? This is an area that I have not studied much. I know she was saved or preserved from original sin and remained sinless but that fact that she needed to be saved from it would imply to my feeble mind that she was not “all perfect”. When I hear “all perfect” that starts to sound like deification and makes me uncomfortable. I guess it depends on how we define and what we mean by “all perfect”

Peace of Christ