Anne Catherine Emmerich's - The Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ

  • Thread starter Thread starter crimson_dragon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

crimson_dragon

Guest
I heard parts of the “Anne Catherine Emmerich’s - The Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ” were used for the movie “the passion”. could anyone give me more info on her and her book, and also whether her and her writings are inline with the church or not.
 
Here’s my feeble attempt

I believe she’s either Venerable or Blessed Anne Emmerick.

She was a peasant girl who lived from 1774 to about 1824. She bore the stigmatic wounds of the Passion on her hands, feet,side, as well as the bleeding crown of thorns on her head.

The Passion of Our Lord - was a day-by-day transcription of her visions and mystical experiences.

The Passion is part of a large work. Life of Christ which give an account of Jesus’ three year public ministry. Very interesting stuff. I have yet to read something that is contrary to Church teaching, but I believe that the volumes do not contain an Imprimatur, so…

hope i helped

cephas
 
Well, this book has an Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat… so we know that there is NOTHING in this book that is contradictory to the Catholic Faith.

The week after I saw The Passion movie (twice), I ordered the book from Barnes & Noble bookstore. It’s been sitting out on a side table for me to read anytime I get the guts up to open it. 😛

Haven’t had the guts to open and read it yet, though. :rolleyes:

book: ISBN 0-89555-210-8

Audio book on CD (for CD players that are able to play MP3):
11 and 1/2 hours on 1 MP3-CD
ISBN 0-89555-976-5
same low price for either one from the publisher:
2 copies – $14.00 each = $28.00
www.tanbooks.com

Publisher is TAN.

TAN Books and Publishers, Inc.
P.O. Box 424
Rockford, IL 61105
1983
toll free phone number: 1-800-437-5876

search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=O9t1VxriGO&isbn=0974909807&itm=1

Nihil Obstat: Georgius D. Smith, D.D., Censor Deputatis

Imprimatur: Edm. Can. Surmont, Vicarius Generalis, Westonmaterii, Die XXI Maii MCMXXVII

This translation was published circa 1928 by Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd., London. Another edition of this translation was published in 1968 by The Christian Book Club of America, Hawthorne, California.

Liberary of Congress Catalog Card No.: 83-70406

Back cover says:

“The DOLOROUS PASSION has been inspring thousands since it first appears in 1833 – being based on the detailed visions of Our Lord’s Passion and Death as seen by Venerable Anne Catherine emmerich (1774 - 1824), a German Augustinian nun, and recorded by Clemens Brentano, a prominent literary figure of the day. A saintly person from her youth and a great mystic and victim soul, Sister Emmerich was privileged by God during almost a lifetime of ecstatic visions to see all of the events of Our Lord’s suffering and death, wqhich visions we can now underwstand in hindsight were a great gift from God to the world. Her account of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ, while faithful to the bible, is heart-rending, edifying and surprising – and filled with intimate detale. THE DOLOROUS PASSION recounts with incredible precision the horrendous sufferings undergone by our Savior in His superhumanly heroic act of Redemption. Also illuminating is its description of Mary’s participation in the sufferings of her Son, so that this book gives the reader a poignant understanding of why Our Lady is often called our “Co-Redemptrix” and “Queen of Martyrs.” THE DOLOROUS PASSION is a singular book that conveys a lasting impression of the terrible Agony of Our Lord, of His infinite love for us that motivated His Agony, and how His Passion and Death were brought on by each person’s sins. Here is a bok that gives one a holy feeling just to read it. here is a book that will melt a heart of stone!”

p.s. Veronica Anne again, here. I asked my priest about that “co-redemptrix” angle on our Lady. His reply was that “co-redemptrix” has never been a term used by the Church because that terms seems to say that she, too, brought on our redemption. Which is, he says, absolutely not the case because ONLY Jesus, redeemed us. (didn’t want anyone to go away thinking that “co-redemptrix” is a valid term to call our Lady just because whoever wrote the back cover of this book had the right to say “co-redemptrix.”)

P.P.S. Please say a prayer that I’ll muster up the guts to open this book.
 
40.png
Cephas:
I believe that the volumes do not contain an Imprimatur, so…

hope i helped

cephas
Click to expand...
Actually, The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ DOES have both the Imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat.

👍
 
Veronica Anne:
Actually, The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ DOES have both the Imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat.

👍
Click to expand...
Veronica Anne, thanks very much for clarifying. I thought i remembered seeing one when i looked at the book in a bookstore not too long ago.

I have the 4 volume set and it is missing the imprimatur, that is why i said i didnt think that they had it. I have a 1954 edition.

Read it, it is soooooo excellent, really. it helps meditate on his passion in a new way, as you probably already know. 👍
 
Veronica Anne,
I find it interesting that you can’t get the courage to pick up that book. The reason I mention that is I had a similar experience. There had been a shrine to Venerable Catherine Emmerich a short distance from our home. It was a storefront packed full of pictures of her in ectasy, items connected to her in someway and of course religious items to buy. I went into this shrine a couple of times and each time I found I just wanted to run away. I never felt peace there. It was only there a few years and the Archdiocese asked that they close it. Today it is a dress shop.

Have wondered why the Church has never canonized her or even promoted her writings.

pat
 
Pat,

The uncomfortable feeling you had was pobably because this “shrine” might have been TOO much. Almost ‘idolatrous’. But remember that she is Venerable. if im correct (and this labeling might have been revised), when the process of canonization is begun for some one they are give the title Servant of God. when that process is over they are called Venerable, being acknowledge by the Church. Then Blessed finally canonized a saint.
also, the Book (Dolorous Passion) has the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat - nothing in the book is contrary to church teaching (i know im being very loose with this translation, be nice) 😃

cephas
 
When the Church examined Anne Catherine Emmerichs life for sanctity, her books were specifically excluded. Since her books were dictated and not hand-writtern the Church could not be sure what she actually had said.She became a blessed based on the merits of her heroic virtue.
 
I read three of the four books by Anne Catherine Emmerich several years ago. Interestingly, I had also ready Ven Mary of Agreda’s Mystical City of God, and there were certain differences in the life of Mary, for example…
 
You call download a PDF version of the book at the below link. I though the detail in the book was absolutely incredible. The secular media condemned her as being anti-semetic because of this book. I didn’t see that at all, just like Mel’s movie wasn’t.

catholicplanet.com/ebooks/Dolorous-Passion.pdf
 
Cephas,

According to published reports, Pope John Paul II is to beatify Anne Catherine Emmerich in October 2004.
 
The day after I saw Mel Gibson’s movie, I downloaded the PDF version of this (listed by others in this thread) and started reading. I have not yet finished (got side tracked by a few other books…I problem of mine!), but what I have read is terrific. The details documented shed a new light on the Passion of the Lord and make it very real. You have to take it for what it is - a personal revelation - but knowing that it does not contradict anything with the Church is comforting.

I recommend this as a read for anyone interested in another great tool for reflecting on the suffering of our Lord.

God Bless,

Mike
 
With Emmerich we ought to have been more careful.Yes, the Mel Gibson film animates the scenes in her alleged visions-she was a favourite of the painter Tissot and watching “The Passion” I was reminded very much of his colour schemes, but I don’t believe her case is strong enough for beatification.

In accounts of the Blessed Mother’s early life she says things which don’t stand verification…do you think Mary wore a ring when she was married or that the furniture of Jewish houses included altars ? Jesus goes off to Cyprus on a ship…Everyone initially enthused that she seemed to know the Holy Land from top to bottom, until it was discovered that Brentano had a useful stack of maps! And of course bearing in mind where the lady came from, the Jews are devilishly mean beyond the revisions of Nostrae Aetate.

She leaves Mary in the Temple-now that’s not the practice of the Jews-it derives from the pious novel-gospel where a pagan convert had assumed that Mary was a hierodule as in the Temple of Diana at Ephesus.Unless Mary lived like Anna the prophetess, I can’t see that the tradition is anything but spurious.Strangely Mary’s mother is S Anne…in Emmerich’s visions she is almost an Old Testament Carmelite.

I’m sorry but when I now read Emmerich I can see where some more inferior work derived its initial energy…God forbid that we ever accept the Poem of the Godman or Man God (I’ve forgotten)with its ludicrous screwdrivers and slang theology.Emmerich was a child of her time, what she saw in her head was not the truth and her reputation in my reckoning needs no further adjustment.I think Mr Gibson rather than the Office of Causes served it best.
 
Very interesting comments from everyone. I started reading Anne Catherine Emmerich’s book before I saw “The Passion of The Christ”. I thought it was so very good. It gave me such detail of Christ’s sufferings and such, but then I viewed “the movie” (7times) during Lent, and when I went back to finish the book, it was very hard to read. I couldn’t help but find inconsistancies from what I had viewed. I’m not saying it was different from the Gospels, it could have been Mel’s own creative genius that differred from her writings, but I thought the way Mel Gibson portrayed different details were much more believable than what Ann Catherine wrote. I was wondering what other people thought of it…?

God Bless,
Paula
 
I can’t imagine this suffering nun wanting any gain from all of this. Her 'life and times" books I’ve been reading during adoration and the detail is actually something that we can’t digest, let alone understand. We know Jesus from the Bible and so anything else seems almost unreal. The thing is, with these stigmatists and visionaries, Padre Pio, Therese Nuemann, Theresa of Avila, St. Gertrude and so on, THEY ALL SEEM TO BE SAYING AND SEEING THE SAME BASIC THINGS. Even Holy people like Mother Angelica… she said the Child Jesus turned to her and said he wanted a temple built. Catherine E. talks about playing with the Child Jesus in a field and He was showing her how to knit baby clothes. I mean this is some kind of imagination if it’s not true? My point is she had the wounds, and why would she make this all up? We just can’t understand that when the veil is lifted for some, things are seen that we don’t see. Are there not angels present at evey mass? Did Padre Pio and others really experience the trans- reverberation? They are saints. St. Theresa of Avila says that people need to realize that this level of holiness is there for all to attain, we just don’t realize the implications of the undertaking of so great a sacrifice. I always kind of thought that saints were born that way. We are all called to be saints! And so we don’t see or understand and so we doubt. Peace and love George
 
george eastlake:
I can’t imagine this suffering nun wanting any gain from all of this. Her 'life and times" books I’ve been reading during adoration and the detail is actually something that we can’t digest, let alone understand. We know Jesus from the Bible and so anything else seems almost unreal. The thing is, with these stigmatists and visionaries, Padre Pio, Therese Nuemann, Theresa of Avila, St. Gertrude and so on, THEY ALL SEEM TO BE SAYING AND SEEING THE SAME BASIC THINGS. Even Holy people like Mother Angelica… she said the Child Jesus turned to her and said he wanted a temple built. Catherine E. talks about playing with the Child Jesus in a field and He was showing her how to knit baby clothes. I mean this is some kind of imagination if it’s not true? My point is she had the wounds, and why would she make this all up? We just can’t understand that when the veil is lifted for some, things are seen that we don’t see. Are there not angels present at evey mass? Did Padre Pio and others really experience the trans- reverberation? They are saints. St. Theresa of Avila says that people need to realize that this level of holiness is there for all to attain, we just don’t realize the implications of the undertaking of so great a sacrifice. I always kind of thought that saints were born that way. We are all called to be saints! And so we don’t see or understand and so we doubt. Peace and love George
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church plays exactly the part that she professes to play: something that knows what we cannot be expected to know, but should probobly accept if we really knew it. G.K. Chesterton
 
I read the “Dolorous Passion” (and the four Gospel Passions) before seeing the movie (three times).

There is nothing in the this account which contradicts the Gospels. What it does is fill in the gaps in the story with a lot of details to flesh out the Gospels.

It may or may not be inspired and accurate, but it does seem to make sense if you were going to write your own story of the Passion.

Perhaps the most interesting thing I found in the book is that she claims that Simon of Cyrene was a pagan, not a Jew, as portrayed in the movie.

I suspect that Gibson made that change to soften the blows which he expected from those screaming that the movie was anti-Semetic.

Ray Marshall
Minneapolis
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top