Are the visions/writtings of Anne Catherine Emmerich valid?

[beafedor]

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich (17774-1824) had visions and her confessor put them into writing. There are 3 books that I have at home: one book on the life of the Blessed Virgin Marie, another one on the life of Mary Magdalene and one about the Passion of Christ. They give us details that are not provided in the Bible (like the infancy of Mary and Mary Magdalene, the shape of the Cross, the death of Mary in Ephesus…) The footnotes say that these books do not contradict Sacred Scripture. The books have a “nihil obstat” and “imprimatur”.

Now it’s totally clear in my mind that these books are not a substitute for nor part of the Inspired Word or God.

Is it Ok to use these books as extra material in a bible study? And to what extend can they be used?

I personally find the book about Mary Magdalene very inspirational and I can relate to the girl described in the book.

Thanks and God Bless

 

[Monica4316]

If it has the “nihil obstat” and “imprimatur”, then all is good

I’ve read that these writings are accepted by the Church, but there are some issues with translation etc and some wonder if the person who wrote down what Emmerich was saying, made a few mistakes.

But since it has the nihil obstat, they didn’t find anything contrary to Scripture or Church Tradition,…and Anne Catherine was beatified, - so yes I think we can read them.

I really like the “Dolorous Passion” book, that’s the one I have

 

[bpbasilphx]

What do you mean by “valid”?

They might be approved by the Church as private revelations, but it does not follow that they are de fide.

Remember that visions since Pentecost are always given in terms the visionary can understand. They are NOT part of the official teaching of the Church.

 

[beafedor]

If it has the “nihil obstat” and “imprimatur”, then all is good

I’ve read that these writings are accepted by the Church, but there are some issues with translation etc and some wonder if the person who wrote down what Emmerich was saying, made a few mistakes.

But since it has the nihil obstat, they didn’t find anything contrary to Scripture or Church Tradition,…and Anne Catherine was beatified, - so yes I think we can read them.

I really like the “Dolorous Passion” book, that’s the one I have

Thanks Monica. I love all 3 of them. I wish I could read them in my own language because old english words make the reading difficult.

I’m confused because 2 years ago, I lent “Mary Magdalene” to a friend who was leading a bible study class about her. A priest told her that she shouldn’t use the book as extra material because it’s heretical and Anne Catherine is not a valid Saint (???) The priest who had been an Orthodox priest for many years, was then a convert to the Catholic Church, he is now deceased.

 

[Monica4316]

What do you mean by “valid”?

They might be approved by the Church as private revelations, but it does not follow that they are de fide.

Remember that visions since Pentecost are always given in terms the visionary can understand. They are NOT part of the official teaching of the Church.

only public revelation is de fide in the Church

as for private revelations, we should only believe those that have been shown to be from God, ie: approved. The Church doesn’t require us to believe in any private revelation and doesn’t say it’s FOR SURE 100% from God, but if nothing against faith or morals have been found - we’re allowed to believe in it.

I tend to believe the Church approved private revelations, and they help me… I believe God still speaks to the world today

Thanks Monica. I love all 3 of them. I wish I could read them in my own language because old english words make the reading difficult.

I’m confused because 2 years ago, I lent “Mary Magdalene” to a friend who was leading a bible study class about her. A priest told her that she shouldn’t use the book as extra material because it’s heretical and Anne Catherine is not a valid Saint (???) The priest who had been an Orthodox priest for many years, was then a convert to the Catholic Church, he is now deceased.

I’ve heard this too, from someone at this forum, I think. I think the issue some people have is they don’t know if Emmerich’s friend - who wrote it down, as she was speaking - got everything right. And Emmerich was beatified mostly for her holy life and ‘heroic virtue’. But most people think - if it has the nihil obstat, that means we can read it, because the Church has examined it and found no mistakes.

I guess wait and see what others here say

God bless!

 

[thistle]

What also has to be remembered is that any declaration by the Church saying these messages are worthy of belief applies to there being nothing contary to faith and morals. It does not mean everything said is accurate and true.

Examples:

St Bridget said Christ was nailed to the Cross upright and in place and four nails were used for his hands and feet.
Anne Emmerich said Christ was nailed to the Cross on the ground and three nails were used.

Obviously they both cannot be correct.

Catherine Emmerich said that Mary died 13 years after our Lord.
St. Bridget said 14 years.
Marie de Agreda said 21 years.

Obviously they all cannot be correct.

And from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"…Concerning the revelations of Marie de Agreda and Anne Catherine Emmerich, …If there is question of a particular fact related in these books and not mentioned elsewhere, we cannot be certain that it is true, especially in minor details. In particular instances, these visionaries have been mistaken: thus Marie de Agreda teaches, like her contemporaries, the existence of crystal heavens, and declares that one must believe everything she says, although such an obligation exists only in the case of the Holy Scriptures. … Catherine Emmerich has likewise given expression to false or unlikely opinions: she regards the writings of the pseudo-Dionysius as due to the Areopagite, and says strange things about the terrestrial Paradise, which, according to her, exists on an inaccessible Mountain towards Tibet.

 

[beafedor]

What do you mean by “valid”?

They might be approved by the Church as private revelations, but it does not follow that they are de fide.

Remember that visions since Pentecost are always given in terms the visionary can understand. They are NOT part of the official teaching of the Church.

I’m sorry, the word valid is confusing. When I wrote my question I couldn’t come up with a better word. My excuse: English is not my first language and often I struggle to find the right word to express myself.

What I meant is two things:
-are her visions officially recognized by the Church (this I was not sure about since a Priest told my friend it was not 2 years ago)

-are her books the kind of material that we can quote in a bible study, for example the story of Mary Magdalene -starting at age 9- as a wealthy sinful girl who repented, relapsed twice and finally amended her life.

Sorry for my lack of clarity in my question and thank you for your answers.

 

[beafedor]

What also has to be remembered is that any declaration by the Church saying these messages are worthy of belief applies to there being nothing contary to faith and morals. It does not mean everything said is accurate and true.

Examples:

St Bridget said Christ was nailed to the Cross upright and in place and four nails were used for his hands and feet.
Anne Emmerich said Christ was nailed to the Cross on the ground and three nails were used.

Obviously they both cannot be correct.

Catherine Emmerich said that Mary died 13 years after our Lord.
St. Bridget said 14 years.
Marie de Agreda said 21 years.

Obviously they all cannot be correct.

And from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"…Concerning the revelations of Marie de Agreda and Anne Catherine Emmerich, …If there is question of a particular fact related in these books and not mentioned elsewhere, we cannot be certain that it is true, especially in minor details. In particular instances, these visionaries have been mistaken: thus Marie de Agreda teaches, like her contemporaries, the existence of crystal heavens, and declares that one must believe everything she says, although such an obligation exists only in the case of the Holy Scriptures. … Catherine Emmerich has likewise given expression to false or unlikely opinions: she regards the writings of the pseudo-Dionysius as due to the Areopagite, and says strange things about the terrestrial Paradise, which, according to her, exists on an inaccessible Mountain towards Tibet.

Thank you for posting this. I too have read my Confirmation Saint’s writings (St Bridget) and have been puzzled at the differences in both accounts of the Passion.

Also Anne Catherine says that the Cross was shaped as an X. Never heard of that before. I’ve been wondering if it is something I should meditate on, believe, forget?

The Gospels and Acts don’t have a lot of details about the Mysteries that we pray in the Rosary. Following what you have shared, it shouldn’t be advisable to use the visions of these Saints to pray or to study Holy Scripture.

What then shall we do in our spiritual life with the visions that have been granted to these holy people?

 

[Monica4316]

Regarding the minor details:

we have to remember that private revelations are not infallible, EVEN IF TRUE, and are affected by the personality of the ‘seer’. But if the Church has accepted them, we’re allowed to read them.

 

[Monica4316]

What then shall we do in our spiritual life with the visions that have been granted to these holy people?

Personally, when I read Emmerich’s book “the Dolorous Passion”, I found it really moving… it helped me understand that Our Lord really went through indescribable pain during His Passion. This was not something I’d ever thought about before in detail. The book forced me to. So maybe these books are meant to inspire us in our own devotion?

 

[sing4joy]

What then shall we do in our spiritual life with the visions that have been granted to these holy people?

I would use them carefully as something uplifting, but I would not use them as a major part of my spiritual reading. I would suggest, besides the Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, anything by BenedictXVI [or when he was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger]. I also suggest modern, theologians who are faithful to the Magesterium, such as Scott Hahn, Mike Aquilina, there are many of these. Another source are priests faithful to the Magesterium, such Fr. Benedict Groeschel and Fr. Andrew Apostoli. And other laypersons such as Marcus Grodi and Karl Keating. This is not a complete sample by any means, just my latest group. I’ve learned so much about the Mass lately from listening to Scott Hahn CD’s. I got a bunch for $3 each at www.saintjoe.com Ithink its .com]

Personal revelations are something I firmly believe the Holy Spirit gives to people, but, they are personal, and someone else may inadvertantly get an idea different from what the person receiving the revelation meant. I’m really cautious since I once got really thrown for a loop by some things that had not been faithful to the Magesterium. :stretcher:

I hope that something I’ve said is helpful to some. I’m sort of new here and am an adult convert to the Church. That was the happiest day of my life. I love the Church, and the Faith. I don’t know what I’d do without God; He’s my best friend. :bounce: I love Him dearly.

sing4joy

 

[BVM_1221]

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich (17774-1824) had visions and her confessor put them into writing. There are 3 books that I have at home: one book on the life of the Blessed Virgin Marie, another one on the life of Mary Magdalene and one about the Passion of Christ. They give us details that are not provided in the Bible (like the infancy of Mary and Mary Magdalene, the shape of the Cross, the death of Mary in Ephesus…) The footnotes say that these books do not contradict Sacred Scripture. The books have a “nihil obstat” and “imprimatur”.

Now it’s totally clear in my mind that these books are not a substitute for nor part of the Inspired Word or God.

Is it Ok to use these books as extra material in a bible study? And to what extend can they be used?

I personally find the book about Mary Magdalene very inspirational and I can relate to the girl described in the book.

Thanks and God Bless

For myself, I regard the books as pious fiction. Entertaining in their own way, but thyat’s it. This is my attitude towards all private revelations. YMMV:shrug:

 

[Shin]

For myself, I regard the books as pious fiction. Entertaining in their own way, but thyat’s it. This is my attitude towards all private revelations. YMMV:shrug:

Towards all of them? That’s a bad attitude.

There’s a spiritual meaning in these all, that is more important then trying to view them as historical recreations, which even those who received them did not necessarily consider them as.

 

[thistle]

For myself, I regard the books as pious fiction. Entertaining in their own way, but thyat’s it. This is my attitude towards all private revelations. YMMV:shrug:

You may choose not to read private revelations, and that is your right, but those which the Church has deemed worthy of belief cannot simply be dismissed as “pious fiction”.
By stating that you are saying the Church is wrong.

 

[Monica4316]

You may choose not to read private revelations, and that is your right, but those which the Church has deemed worthy of belief cannot simply be dismissed as “pious fiction”.
By stating that you are saying the Church is wrong.

 

[beafedor]

Also Anne Catherine says that the Cross was shaped as an X. Never heard of that before. I’ve been wondering if it is something I should meditate on, believe, forget?

Correction: she said Jesus’ Cross was shaped as a Y not an X… sorry it was late when I posted this last night.

 

[beafedor]

I would use them carefully as something uplifting, but I would not use them as a major part of my spiritual reading. I would suggest, besides the Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, anything by BenedictXVI [or when he was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger]. I also suggest modern, theologians who are faithful to the Magesterium, such as Scott Hahn, Mike Aquilina, there are many of these. Another source are priests faithful to the Magesterium, such Fr. Benedict Groeschel and Fr. Andrew Apostoli. And other laypersons such as Marcus Grodi and Karl Keating. This is not a complete sample by any means, just my latest group. I’ve learned so much about the Mass lately from listening to Scott Hahn CD’s. I got a bunch for $3 each at www.saintjoe.com Ithink its .com]

Personal revelations are something I firmly believe the Holy Spirit gives to people, but, they are personal, and someone else may inadvertantly get an idea different from what the person receiving the revelation meant. I’m really cautious since I once got really thrown for a loop by some things that had not been faithful to the Magesterium. :stretcher:

I hope that something I’ve said is helpful to some. I’m sort of new here and am an adult convert to the Church. That was the happiest day of my life. I love the Church, and the Faith. I don’t know what I’d do without God; He’s my best friend. :bounce: I love Him dearly.

sing4joy

Thanks for sharing your enthusiasm it’s great! I love our Faith and I think we should encourage one another as St Paul says in his letters. (off topic: if you check out the threads I started, there is one about that). I’m also a “new” (revert) Catholic.Thanks for your insights and advice. I will look into the saint joe website.

You guys got me thinking and I found that there are different types of “writings of the Saints”:

-the lives of the Saints
-the prayers written by the Saints
-the visions of the Saints
-the writings of the “Doctors of the Church”

Is that correct and can anyone define how we should read/use each of these types of “writings of the Saints”? Thanks and God Bless

 

[Mom2Bruno]

The lives of the Saints can be used to acquaint us with new Heavenly Helpers.

The prayers of the Saints are useful for prayer life. You don’t have to pray each and every prayer written by every saint. There might be some that you find better suited to your prayer style.

The visions of the Saints… I think they can be very inspiring. As long as they are approved by the Church, then it’s fine to read them for inspiration and spiritual growth. I wouldn’t use them as meditations on the Rosary. I think for the Rosary, it’s best to stick with the four Mysteries. Don’t try to pull in anything new, even if it’s from an approved vision.

Doctors of the Church… to me, that’s quite a goal. Their works are often at a higher level. It’s best to read those works in very small pieces, focusing on each passage. Learn from the Doctors’ words.

To the OP, I love your love of the Faith. It’s great that you are trying to grow spiritually. I flipped through Emmerich’s books at a Catholic store. The older language can be a bit daunting at times. I would like to have each volume, eventually.

 

[Monica4316]

Just to correct something I said before here… Its a rumour that Bl Catherine Emmerich’s writings were altered and its not a proven theory… The writings have an imprimatur so i think that means we can read them

 

[Pilsen]

I remember reading in one of Catherine Emmerich’s books of her relaying that, after Jesus had died, he descended into Hell - the place of damnation. I think she said she witnessed Jesus saying something to Judas.

But the church teaches that Jesus went to the lower part of purgatory, even though the Apostles Creed refers to hell.

But if the Church deems nothing written in her books as contrary to the faith, how should one interpret the above?

Can the Church get it wrong ever? I heard that initially (before St JPII) St Faustinas diary wasn’t approved by the church?