Errors in the Writings of Mystics

  • Thread starter Thread starter sealabeag
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Good to know. Helps with errors in her writings. But then my next question is why Catholic would bother with them, and the Church doesn’t take a negative position on them?
 
Her writings were removed from the index of forbidden books, and as such are not condemned. It does not make sense to remove writings from an index and still condemn them. Of course the Church has not approved her alleged visions/apparitions but at thesame time has not forbidden anybody from reading it. There is quite a good number of priests and lay faithful who read it. As for her cause to sainthood, I do not think it has been submitted. I will look for the official updated stand of the church on her writings and post you a link when I have time.
It’s just like Medjugorje right? Apparitions have not been approved there, but Church has not forbidden anybody from going there
 
Also, the Index of Forbidden Books no longer exists .
 
Last edited:
Sorry @Tis_Bearself , I just re-read your post and noticed you mentioned the index was abolished. Anyway I ll check out the official stand on her writings and post links
 
Leferdion said:
Her writings were removed from the index of forbidden books, and as such are not condemned.
Click to expand...
If you’re talking about Maria Valtorta, please provide a source that her writings were removed from the Index. As far as I know they were never removed and were on there until the Index was abolished.
TK421 said:
Also, the Index of Forbidden Books no longer exists .
Click to expand...
This is a reasonable statement, but we have on the other hand the statement of Cardinal Ratzinger, (who became Pope Benedict as we all know), stating that the Index continues in moral force. From Wikipedia:
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in his letter 144/58 of 31 January 1985, entrusted to Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, Archbishop of Genoa, the decision whether to inform a priest of his archdiocese that the Valtorta work had indeed been placed on the Index , which keeps its moral force, and that “a decision against distributing and recommending a work, which has not been condemned lightly, may be reversed, but only after profound changes that neutralize the harm which such a publication could bring forth among the ordinary faithful”.[18][19] Cardinal Siri not only informed the priest, but also published (with the name of the priest removed) the text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, when Maria’s book is published now, the Church requires it to contain a disclaimer at the beginning that
“in any future reprint of the volumes, each should, right from its first page, clearly state that the ‘visions’ and ‘dictations’ referred to in it cannot be held to be of supernatural origin but must be considered simply as literary forms used by the author to narrate in her own way the life of Jesus”.
Click to expand...
So basically in the view of the Church, this is a fictional life of Jesus, not supernatural in origin, that might be dangerous for the faithful to read.

I realize that there is some little cult of Maria Valtorta that has sprung up, not least because the Medj seers have referenced her, but it’s important for people to know the Church’s actual position on “The Poem of the Man-God”, which is that it’s not a mystical private revelation, it’s fiction. If somebody still wants to read it with that in mind, fine. It’s their own responsibility to make sure they are not led astray, and also that they don’t lead other people into conflict with the Church.
 
Last edited:
TK421 said:
As the 2nd person of the Trinity he was omniscient but at the Incarnation he took on all of the foibles of humanity (minus sin). This includes physical emotions, going to the bathroom, being educated, sleeping, being tired, etc. So when he was helping out Joseph, for example, he was learning the trade as any human would.
Click to expand...
I would also add that to be fully human means to not know all things. Not to be all wise.Scripture does say He grew in wisdom. To be uncertain. To be confused. Not to see cleary. If He was truly human, He experienced all that. None of that is sin.
 
Leferdion said:
Anyway I ll check out the official stand on her writings and post links
Click to expand...
The official stand is what I just posted in my post above - the Church still disapproves of her writing and requires publishers to put a disclaimer in the front saying it’s basically a fictional life of Jesus.

Unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation out there on this topic because some people are really into Maria Valtorta and are hoping for some outcome like what happened with St. Faustina where the Church changed its mind later about her writings.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know. But it could be that the world is only around 6000 years old.
 
Well, yes and no. The writings of Bl. Anne have been approved. The problem lies that what she actually wrote greatly differs from what is attributed to her. One of the processes of Beatification is examination of authored material and finding nothing which goes against Catholic teaching. In reality Bl. Anne wrote very little which survives today. The book which was attributed to her, which was quoted above, was primarily written by Clemens Brentano. Bl. Anne did not speak German, only a dialect, so the words Bretano wrote were never hers but a summarized translation. In addition to this, Bretano almost never took notes during his meetings with Bl. Anne and thus expanded and filled in gaps in his recollection with his own words. These writings were again edited years after Bl. Anne’s death, contributing to a even greater discrepancy.

So yes, Bl. Anne’s visions were approved through the process of her beatification. What those visions exactly were, however, remains largely a mystery as they have been blurred through the manner in which they were handed down.
 
CRM_Brother said:
Well, yes and no. The writings of Bl. Anne have been approved. The problem lies that what she actually wrote greatly differs from what is attributed to her. One of the processes of Beatification is examination of authored material and finding nothing which goes against Catholic teaching. In reality Bl. Anne wrote very little which survives today. The book which was attributed to her, which was quoted above, was primarily written by Clemens Brentano. Bl. Anne did not speak German, only a dialect, so the words Bretano wrote were never hers but a summarized translation. In addition to this, Bretano almost never took notes during his meetings with Bl. Anne and thus expanded and filled in gaps in his recollection with his own words. These writings were again edited years after Bl. Anne’s death, contributing to a even greater discrepancy.

So yes, Bl. Anne’s visions were approved through the process of her beatification. What those visions exactly were, however, remains largely a mystery as they have been blurred through the manner in which they were handed down.
Click to expand...
That is not correct. The alleged writings of Anne Emmerich have not in any shape or form been approved by the Church.
Also I could make up a fictitious story about Jesus and have nothing that actually contradicts Church teachings.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the clarification.
Are there any private revelations that are definitely with no question attributable to Blessed Anne so we can rely on them as being the approved ones?

I think that’s also what the other poster is getting at. If there were revelations that we could definitely attribute to Blessed Anne and no one else, those would be approved due to her beatification, and would also have been considered during her beatification process. But I’m unaware of any such revelations currently in existence that fall in that category. Have I missed something?
 
Last edited:
The real point here isn’t the age of creation or steps of canonization. The point is that Blessed Anne Catherine Emerich apparently experienced a vision of some sort, a personal spiritual revelation from God. These are always intended by God to lead a person forward in his or her journey and open the person more to God and his love and goodness. How God expresses and relates himself in such a spiritual experience isn’t meant to be understood in a physical way.

An individual experience can also have meaning for others, even for all, but again, we are to seek to know God in the experience, not seek to know what God alone knows.
 
Exactly, the alledged account of her visions was not approved. The Church has accepted that she did have visions. Just not the content which have been publicized by Brentano. What little we have of her writings is from only a few letters in the Westphalian dialect whether written by a direct scribe or by her own hand.
 
No, you didn’t miss anything. From what I’ve heard, there are only a few letters from her and nothing which describes her visions. It is somewhat like the case St. Jean Marie Vianney. We only know that he had visions of the Blessed Mother because a maid walked in on them, but we don’t know what they talked about.
 
Would you have a problem with this mystic if she stated that Jesus said the world was as old as you prefer it to be?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top