Anne Catherine Emmerich

[poternosterque]

Question:I was reading a book called Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary and it said she entered the temple at age 3. I would like to know if the Church considers this to be incorrupt or not. I would also like to hear about other sites that talk about this matter.

 

[thistle]

Question:I was reading a book called Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary and it said she entered the temple at age 3. I would like to know if the Church considers this to be incorrupt or not. I would also like to hear about other sites that talk about this matter.

That information is from The Protoevangelium of James which is a writing the Church does NOT consider to be inspired.

 

[bankerdavid]

We just don’t know. There’s too many possibilities. The author is said to have been influenced (not the author, but the penman) by other works.

But remember that the Catholic Church does not endorse or decry any private revelation. They might say they’re without theological error, but they never say ‘this is true’ or ‘that is true’ about someone’s visions.

My advice would be to read the book anyway. It’s better than reading some of the trash out there. And it may give you insight into the life of the Jews in ancient Palestine. I’m reading it now, in small chunks, because her details are so vivid. And they tell us who’s who in the Bible…

 

[Joe_Kelley]

That information is from The Protoevangelium of James which is a writing the Church does NOT consider to be inspired.

However, it has some credibility as a history text. I think that is our only source for Anne and Joachim as the names of Mary’s parents. We celebrate the Presentation of Mary as a Memorial on November 21. I think the Eastern Churches have a greater celebration for it.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

However, it has some credibility as a history text. I think that is our only source for Anne and Joachim as the names of Mary’s parents. We celebrate the Presentation of Mary as a Memorial on November 21. I think the Eastern Churches have a greater celebration for it.

It is our only recorded source, perhaps, but oral tradition has carried the names to us regardless. We do expect that Mary had real parents with real names…
And even if we DO have them, it’s hard to say we’re even saying them right.
Joshua and Jesus are very different sounding names in English – but they are just two different translations of ONE name from the original languages.

In heaven, the saints will be given new names by God – so, really, I don’t think it a terribly worthwhile endeavor to figure out if those two names are actual or figurative; I mean – Adam means red dirt; I GUESS it could be an honorable name in heaven – but he probably is happy to have another one now…

I’ll have to look into the eastern celebration… that sounds very oral tradition oriented.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

We just don’t know. There’s too many possibilities. The author is said to have been influenced (not the author, but the penman) by other works.

But remember that the Catholic Church does not endorse or decry any private revelation. They might say they’re without theological error, but they never say ‘this is true’ or ‘that is true’ about someone’s visions.

My advice would be to read the book anyway. It’s better than reading some of the trash out there. And it may give you insight into the life of the Jews in ancient Palestine. I’m reading it now, in small chunks, because her details are so vivid. And they tell us who’s who in the Bible…

Oh, the bishops cry about many private revelations a lot… and people get told to shut up; and well if the whole church doesn’t “decry” it, we’re supposed to obey the bishops… supposed to… supposed to… supposed to… hey wait, did I say that right?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Question:I was reading a book called Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary and it said she entered the temple at age 3. I would like to know if the Church considers this to be incorrupt or not. I would also like to hear about other sites that talk about this matter.

The church considers that which entered the temple at 3 to be incorrupt, yes; assumpting that to be Mary.

As to Ann Catherine Emmerich – her writings have been modified; or suspected of modification; or well – they have at least two witnesses saying there is a problem.

Most likely, however, Mary entered the women’s porch of the Temple in Jerusalem at around 88 days or less… (Or was it 80 days around the world? or 40? oh, I forget…)
But she was less than three the first time she went in, (if she was anywhere around Jerusalem at all!)

As to when she first entered the temple, that has to be at the Immaculate conception; eg: that is the temple of Christ’s BODY; not the building made of rocks or rockettes or whatever…

I hope you get my drift… Equivocation is a big problem with a devil around; and God has to master the devil – hence be master of equivocation. But God does not lie – at all; just read thrice – comment once. Emmerich did her best, but don’t be surprised if part of the message was garbled.

 

[steve53]

Jewish women, purified and not in their “courses”, coould enter the second courtyard of the Second Temple, which was in the Inner Sanctuary stronghold. The Inner Sancturary stronghold was about twenty acres in size and protected by 60 foot walls. The women had their own special entrances to the second courtyard, but were proscribed from passing into the third courtyard, or the elevated fourth courtyard, where the sanctuary building was.
A bigger question was if children under the age of 13 were allowed in? I doubt it. It would serve no real purpose, and they could start crying and chasing around like kids do.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Jewish women, purified and not in their “courses”, coould enter the second courtyard of the Second Temple, which was in the Inner Sanctuary stronghold.

Purification from loss of blood in the course of a month was something like 33 days: so if a woman was loosing blood every 28 days, she generally wouldn’t be going to temple.

Interestingly enough, a woman who has just had a child; and women like Sarai who was barren did not always have regular cycles; and hence they would be pure under the Mosaic Law often enough to enter the temple.

Moses & God weren’t harsh regarding giving even a non-immaculately conceived woman time to heal – eg: purification time from loss of blood at birth; So that the mother who did not bleed heavily after birth, could go to the temple with the child for the presentation after a month of healing or so.

The Inner Sancturary stronghold was about twenty acres in size and protected by 60 foot walls. The women had their own special entrances to the second courtyard, but were proscribed from passing into the third courtyard, or the elevated fourth courtyard, where the sanctuary building was.

Yes. It was a fortress for defense, just as heaven will have a “Mote” between the temple and the Damned; God has to defend his temple. And generally, a woman wouldn’t be expected to enter those inner areas at the time of Jesus; as God had not opened heaven to a bride yet; and so the sign value was that it was still closed while our unclean blood prevented us from entering. Not even men could enter the inner most court (naos) – but only the high priests (and incense offering under priests into the partition before it) and then generally with a rope attached to the high priest lest God strike him dead and they have to fish him out (which would also make those removing him unclean…) etc.

Interesting that Caiphas who condemned Jesus to death was not struck dead, isn’t it?

Exceptions to the rule aren’t spelled out well in scripture, though, and so we are still having to assume things.

A bigger question was if children under the age of 13 were allowed in? I doubt it. It would serve no real purpose, and they could start crying and chasing around like kids do.

A child under 13, as a girl, would be far more likely than a girl after 12; (bleeding issues every month!!!) and as for serving no real purpose, Jesus said as a Jew under the Law – suffer not the little children to come unto me.

If their parents brought these children and younger, and they were obedient as many 7 year olds can be (and some 3 year olds – my daughter can be when with me…though not so much with her mother) – then there is no reason to bar them when the Law does not forbid them. If their Father is admitted; I don’t see why the child would be banned that is under his authority and would obey him and keep quiet.

Even St. Paul says, as a child I lived – but when the Law came (??13??) I died.

In the Sin of Core, in the desert, where they came too close to the inner temple – God did not kill off the tribe’s children; but those who were found with relatives in other tribes were spared being swallowed up whole into the earth. It is these children, whom we find many of the songs of the Psalms being attributed to – it is these children whom were designated temple singers in the second temple. It is these children who were given to parents who were not so arrogant as to demand access to the first seat in the temple – and were therefore blessed by God parents who cared properly for them rather than parents who cared mostly for themselves.

Samuel, himself, was a boy given to the high priest when God still dwelt in the tent as Shiloh. A boy. It does not say he dwelt in the Naos (inner most temple) – but on the other hand – he did have locutions in the place he slept; and there were priests quarters associated with the tent of meeting. Moses himself took a child from another man and named the child “Jesus”. It is this child Whom Moses raised in service of the temple and meeting tent that would become known to us as Joshua – “God’s saving” grace came through a child to bring the Israelites into the promised land.

The child is what was promised from the time of Adam and his unnamed wife; whom he halfway correctly named Eve in anticipation of the promise. So, it is clear that Young boys could have value in the temple – and I see no reason why a virgin, like the Unnamed Eve, before any sin could be imputed to her under the law – would be banned according to LAW. If you’re speculating based on social custom and prejudices – I don’t know; but if you’re speculating based on Law – find first a reason why the child must be forbidden; don’t judge rashly.

 

[patrick457]

Not even men could enter the inner most court (naos) – but only the high priests (and incense offering under priests into the partition before it) and then generally with a rope attached to the high priest lest God strike him dead and they have to fish him out (which would also make those removing him unclean…) etc.

Interesting that Caiphas who condemned Jesus to death was not struck dead, isn’t it?

Nope, likely just plain ol’ pious urban legend, that. The first source to record the rope thing was the medieval Kabbalistic work Zohar.

 

[AdorationServe]

That’s *Blessed *Anne Catherine Emmerich by the way.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Nope, likely just plain ol’ pious urban legend, that. The first source to record the rope thing was the medieval Kabbalistic work Zohar.

Hmmm…
I’ll have to look, but as I recall – the rope was attached to a bell that was supposed to have been tied on so that one could know whether or not the priest was still moving; that much, at least, I do find in scripture tied to the very same reasoning; although it was on a tunic – hmmm … wasn’t Jesus supposed to have a seamless tunic?

Exodu 28:33 And beneath at the feet of the same tunic, round about, thou shalt make as it were pomegranates, of violet, and purple, and scarlet twice dyed, with little bells set between:
Exodu 28:34 So that there shall be a golden bell and a pomegranate, and again another golden bell and a pomegranate.
Exodu 28:35 And Aaron shall be vested with it in the office of his ministry, that the sound may be heard, when he goeth in and cometh out of the sanctuary, in the sight of the Lord, and that he may not die.
…
Exodu 28:42 Thou shalt make also linen breeches, to cover the flesh of their nakedness, from the reins to the thighs:
Exodu 28:43 And Aaron and his sons shall use them when they shall go into the tabernacle of the testimony, or when they approach to the altar to minister in the sanctuary. lest being guilty of iniquity they die. It shall be a law for ever to Aaron, and to his seed after him.

Aaron was the first high priest; no one else was allowed in at the time.
So, considering that he might die – as scripture says – how do you think they would they have solved the issue if he did?

And since you know the Kabbalisticness, what was the motive for saying such a thing for Zohar? eg: why would he make such a thing up?

 

[patrick457]

Hmmm…
I’ll have to look, but as I recall – the rope was attached to a bell that was supposed to have been tied on so that one could know whether or not the priest was still moving; that much, at least, I do find in scripture tied to the very same reasoning; although it was on a tunic – hmmm … wasn’t Jesus supposed to have a seamless tunic?

There was nothing about any bells yet in the original version of the rope legend as found in the Zohar. Rather, “a knot of rope of gold hangs from his leg, from fear perhaps he would die in the Holy of Holies, and they would need to pull him out with this rope.” In another place within the same work: “A chain was tied to the feet of the High Priest when he entered the Holy of Holies, so that if he dies there they will take him out, since it is forbidden to enter there…Then there is joy among the higher and lower beings. If not, they were all in sorrow and knew that their prayer was not accepted.” Besides, the high priest only entered the sanctum once every year on the Day of the Atonement. At that time he only wore linen garments: he did not even wear the robe of the ephod with pomegranates and bells on it. So why does he have a golden chain round about his ankle?

My personal guess is that the author of the Zohar was confronted with the same dilemma as you have presented: what if the high priest died inside the Holy of Holies? How would you get his corpse out if no one could enter the sanctum?

I need to mention here that the story has no basis in Scripture, in contemporary sources such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and Josephus, and even in later rabbinic literature like the Talmud (one could even argue that it contradicts the claims of the Zohar). Yet you see it parroted even in otherwise reliable sources even to this day.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

There was nothing about any bells yet in the original version of the rope legend as found in the Zohar. Rather, “a knot of rope of gold hangs from his leg, from fear perhaps he would die in the Holy of Holies, and they would need to pull him out with this rope.” In another place within the same work: “A chain was tied to the feet of the High Priest when he entered the Holy of Holies, so that if he dies there they will take him out, since it is forbidden to enter there…Then there is joy among the higher and lower beings. If not, they were all in sorrow and knew that their prayer was not accepted.” Besides, the high priest only entered the sanctum once every year on the Day of the Atonement. At that time he only wore linen garments: he did not even wear the robe of the ephod with pomegranates and bells on it.

My personal guess is that the author of the Zohar was confronted with the same dilemma as you have presented: what if the high priest died inside the Holy of Holies? How would you get his corpse out if no one could enter the sanctum?

I need to mention here that the story has no basis in Scripture, in contemporary sources such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and Josephus, and even in later rabbinic literature like the Talmud (one could even argue that it contradicts the claims of the Zohar). Yet you see it parroted even in otherwise reliable sources even to this day.

Thank you, I learned something new. I’m not sure why I recalled it that way; but your references are pretty convincing.

Your brother in Christ,
–Andrew.

 

[steve53]

Purification from loss of blood in the course of a month was something like 33 days: so if a woman was loosing blood every 28 days, she generally wouldn’t be going to temple.

Interestingly enough, a woman who has just had a child; and women like Sarai who was barren did not always have regular cycles; and hence they would be pure under the Mosaic Law often enough to enter the temple.

Moses & God weren’t harsh regarding giving even a non-immaculately conceived woman time to heal – eg: purification time from loss of blood at birth; So that the mother who did not bleed heavily after birth, could go to the temple with the child for the presentation after a month of healing or so.

Yes. It was a fortress for defense, just as heaven will have a “Mote” between the temple and the Damned; God has to defend his temple. And generally, a woman wouldn’t be expected to enter those inner areas at the time of Jesus; as God had not opened heaven to a bride yet; and so the sign value was that it was still closed while our unclean blood prevented us from entering. Not even men could enter the inner most court (naos) – but only the high priests (and incense offering under priests into the partition before it) and then generally with a rope attached to the high priest lest God strike him dead and they have to fish him out (which would also make those removing him unclean…) etc.

You have to make a pretty strong case to override Josephus regarding the rituals at the Second Temple. There were definitely separate entrances for women into the Inner Sanctuary’s second courtyard. “Course” would mean the 5-7 day menstrual cycle that occurs during the COURSE of a month, and usually every month. When the period is over, the women undergo some sort of water purification, and they can enter the second courtyard.
No reason to think otherwise.
To twist around Old Testament passages to make that case is weak and borders on the disingenuous. To say that all fertile women who menstruate could not enter the temple, except for the one’s who had just given birth (so their periods were hormonally suppressed for 3-5 months to allow the new baby to gain sustenance from the mother without another pregnancy occurring), is, frankly, silly. So the only women allowed into the second courtyard were fertile women who had just given birth, or prepubescent girls who would come in either alone or with other young girls, or by their fathers’, or by a post-menopausal female?
That is incredibly convoluted even for Jewish law, and Josephus doesn’t even come close to suggesting it.
Again, no reason for kids to enter the second courtyard just on a practical level. In the first courtyard, they might even have had places where parents could leave their kids to enter the most holy inner sanctuary.
The rope myth has been busted the Patrick already.
Onward!

 

[patrick457]

Thank you, I learned something new. I’m not sure why I recalled it that way; but your references are pretty convincing.

Your brother in Christ,
–Andrew.

Some versions of the story do imagine that the ‘rope’ was fitted with bells or somesuch, if I’m remembering it right. (Darn, now I’M the one who can’t remember! ) Glad to be of service.

 

[patrick457]

The rope myth has been busted the Patrick already.
Onward!

“Somebody set up us the bomb”?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The quote mechanism got broken; so I’m just cutting from where it is clear, feel free to add back…

You have to make a pretty strong case to override Josephus regarding the rituals at the Second Temple. There were definitely separate entrances for women into the Inner Sanctuary’s second courtyard. “Course” would mean the 5-7 day menstrual cycle that occurs during the COURSE of a month, and usually every month. When the period is over, the women undergo some sort of water purification, and they can enter the second courtyard.
No reason to think otherwise.

I’d love to see the quotes from Josephus that you are referring to.
My own wife has has menstrual cycle bleeding which goes far beyond 7 days; women who have had many children often become spot bleeders throughout the month. I think you are referring to:

Levit 15:19 The woman, who at the return of the month, hath her issue of blood, shall be separated seven days.

But – it does not allow them to return immediately in that case:

Levit 15:25 The woman that hath still issue of blood many days out of her ordinary time, or that ceaseth not to flow after the monthly courses, as long as she is subject to this disease, shall be unclean, in the same manner as if she were in her flowers.

cf.
Matth 9:20 And behold a woman who was troubled with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment.

What happens in Matthew is clearly a violation of the Law; and relates to the fact that Jesus is taking the un-cleanness of the woman upon himself in order to bring it to purification. Again, it’s the sign value which I am pointing to.

To twist around Old Testament passages to make that case is weak and borders on the disingenuous. To say that all fertile women who menstruate could not enter the temple, except for the one’s who had just given birth (so their periods were hormonally suppressed for 3-5 months to allow the new baby to gain sustenance from the mother without another pregnancy occurring), is, frankly, silly.

I don’t think so; The promise of the messiah is that the woman shall be saved through her child. The blood itself is clearly called “uncleanness”. I mentioned “something” like 33 days because that’s what I remembered; I’m not claiming exactness… but let’s look up the passages rather than swing the apologetic axe…

All the miraculous births in the line of the messiah go from highly fertile women and even whores/IDOLATERS, such as (Eve, Rahab, Ruth, David’s multiple wives, Solomon’s, and converge on a Virgin) (Mary).

The ancient promise comes through women who lost their period all together – Sarah. etc. which is God showing both his clean-ness, holiness and power.

The holiest of the OT was John the Baptist – and he too comes from an “infertile” mother.

So the only women allowed into the second courtyard were fertile women who had just given birth, or prepubescent girls who would come in either alone or with other young girls, or by their fathers’, or by a post-menopausal female?

I didn’t say that. I did say it was more likely

Those women would be allowed in far more easily than one who menstruated and who had spot bleeding – YES! Notice the woman had the issue of blood for 12 years ?? that too is a sign value.

That is incredibly convoluted even for Jewish law, and Josephus doesn’t even come close to suggesting it.

Josephus also said not to marry foreign women because of the Law – and he himself broke that Law. Josephus’ reputation is about what was POPULAR in pharisaical thought – he is useful, but he isn’t a primary source about the Law – but he is one interpretation thereof. The Qumran Community is another such interpreter. Let me point out – the King of the day (Herod) who was building the temple was not a pure Jew; and that although many convoluted things were done to obey the letter of the law – none the less, there were concessions made to him as king. (Later the Romans would force construction details to change as well…).

Again, no reason for kids to enter the second courtyard just on a practical level. In the first courtyard, they might even have had places where parents could leave their kids to enter the most holy inner sanctuary.
The rope myth has been busted the Patrick already.
Onward!

Hey, if you wish to pick on me – you’re going to get it back. Where does it say in the LAW that children are forbidden to enter with their parents, if the child is obedient???

Patrick457 fought fair, you do the same. I’m not omniscient, but neither am I stupid.

 

[steve53]

You are dancing around the issue.
Josephus is not just one source, he is the ONLY source for what actually happened in the Temple in those days. And he was a Priest and grew up there.
So to challenge Josephus, well, the ball is in your court. Firmly. And to quote the Old Testament (800 years previously) or something fished out of the Talmud just isn’t going to cut it- with me, at least.
And there were three separate entrances for women- on the north, south, and east sides of the eastern part of the inner sanctuary. You were arguing that after their periods, women were unclean for several more weeks, based on an old testament verse. No reason to think that. Why three separate entrances if most of the women allowed in would be only girls and post-menopausal women? Frankly, I don’t think the women would have stood for such an irrational exclusion.
You have to think logically, here. And sure, kids might have been allowed in the holy inner sanctuary. But how many parents would assure that their kids are well behaved, and those kids are the first to act up? That’s what the first courtyard was for. Everyone could go there and get a measure of religious spirituality.
As for Josephus and marriage, he married a Jewish woman, as I recall, and not a gentile. He changed his name on the order of Vespasian.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

You are dancing around the issue.
Josephus is not just one source, he is the ONLY source for what actually happened in the Temple in those days. And he was a Priest and grew up there.
So to challenge Josephus, well, the ball is in your court. Firmly. And to quote the Old Testament (800 years previously) or something fished out of the Talmud just isn’t going to cut it- with me, at least.

As I said, I’d love to see the quotes from Josephus. Won’t you find them for us?

And there were three separate entrances for women- on the north, south, and east sides of the eastern part of the inner sanctuary. You were arguing that after their periods, women were unclean for several more weeks, based on an old testament verse.

Do go back and read exactly what I said; I don’t recall bringing a verse to the forum at first, but simply recalling from memory a period of time – say 33 days. And I also made clear that I was uncertain of the amount of time.

33+7=40 is most likely why I remembered 33.

Why is it so important to catch me in an error?

No reason to think that. Why three separate entrances if most of the women allowed in would be only girls and post-menopausal women? Frankly, I don’t think the women would have stood for such an irrational exclusion.

Even if it did – practice does not imply proper interpretation of God’s intention. Interestingly enough, Josephus also has entire books attempting to preserve the books of the Torah as he understood them – AND HIS rendition of scripture does not agree well with the copies we have today.

You have to think logically, here. And sure, kids might have been allowed in the holy inner sanctuary. But how many parents would assure that their kids are well behaved, and those kids are the first to act up? That’s what the first courtyard was for. Everyone could go there and get a measure of religious spirituality.

From the Beginning, in the Garden of Adam and Eve which was the inner temple of its day – children were meant to be. Now I am going to focus on your thinking… and my experience.

As for Josephus and marriage, he married a Jewish woman, as I recall, and not a gentile. He changed his name on the order of Vespasian.

His earlier marriage, yes… but not his later one(s) – from what I have seen.

But let me drive this point home; The very purpose of Adam and Eve was to bring forth Holy children for God. This was their task when access to the temple was not cut off by cherubim because of their sin. (The garden of Eden was also a temple) Using reason, I find attempts to exclude children because what they “might” do is sheer folly when examining God’s plan for the temple.

If the parents Judge badly, then the parents are liable.

Let me give two examples of how serious this is: Contraception and Messiah.
In the Case of Onan, he was struck dead for spilling his seed – that which brings forth children. Men who spill seed accidentally are not punished – but Onan was killed outright. It wasn’t really because he dishonored his brother – but because he didn’t want the child. People today dishonor their brothers contraceptively, and God doesn’t bother to strike them dead. But Onan didn’t want the BODY of the messiah to come through him; He was evil and the child could not be his – that is the holy Child which God desired.

Any study of the topic will show that God wanted children to come to his temple; and that priests who attempt to shut them out are misguided.

As a second example, I’ll point to a Fr. Joseph Jacoberger formerly of the Archdiocese of Portland. When the Cathedral of St. Mary’s was being refurbished – my firstborn Son Stephen screamed in the temporary place for Mass. Some 15 years ago now. I took him OUTSIDE and even then – Fr. Jacoberger asked me not to bring my child to church there, because he said some “old” people were having trouble hearing. The result was that I took my child to Assumption Church in N. Portland where a pedophile priest was being hidden and we weren’t told about it (of course.). I thought, at the time, that Fr. Jacoberger was a prudent priest and even highly recommended him to remain at the Cathedral for Archbishop Vlazny’s first – but I tell you – he brought shame on the entire archdiocese. His directions about sexuality and the meaning of children were confused; and in the end, he himself ended up leaving the priesthood for a woman; not for love of a child.

Any priest who despises the children, even the troublesome ones, is being put to the test by God; and if they fail to shepherd the children, they will not long be able to shepherd the sheep either.

Practice of individuals is not indicative of what God desires us to learn from his perfect plan for the temple and it’s models through history. Josephus was a traitor to the Jewish faith, and proclaimed the Romans equivalent to the “messiah”. He is one historical reference, but I’ll not give him pride of place when it comes to interpretation; but only when it comes to history and even then with some care to double-talk out of kissing up to his Pagan Roman superiors.

He was a very proud man.