Mary's life after the crucifixion

  • Thread starter Thread starter halleone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan_64 said:
That is not a negative judgement against the visions. It simply says that her beatification was not linked to the visions and that the writings cannot be authenticated. That is not the same as saying that the writings are deemed inauthentic.

The faithful are free to believe the visions (as they are free to reject them). That is the case with private revelations that have not been declared to be non-supernatural.
Click to expand...
You are confusing two distinct concepts. Private revelations do not have to be accepted.

But in this case, it cannot be established what of the materials that exist originate with the visionary or reproduce what she is relating as an alleged private revelation. That is an entirely different matter.

The writings had to be set aside from the analysis carried out in a cause for beatification because what actually can be traced back to Anne Catherine Emmerich could in no way be established.

A judgement cannot be arrived at concerning a private revelation when you cannot establish what is authentically the content of the alleged private revelation from the recipient of the alleged private revelation…in such an instance, there is no data to analyse.

The judgement, in essence, is we cannot know if any given passage in these works is hers or not.

The writings cannot be attributed in any real sense to Anne Catherine Emmerich. That is the whole point. Forensically, it is not possible to even begin to establish, let alone successfully conclude, what of the material actually truly originates with Anne Catherine Emmerich.

To say there is not a negative judgement is to miss the point that there is nothing extant upon which one can formulate a judgement.

Indeed, when the assessment is that it is impossible to even isolate what originates with the visionary, as opposed to what is material redacted in from other sources, there is no basis upon which to conclude a judgment that is either positive or negative.

That is why the conclusion of both the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as well as the Congregation for the Causes of Saints was what it was.
 
Private revelations do not have to be accepted, of course.

However the Church does make judgements regarding whether they are of supetnatural origin, are not of supernatural origin, or whether this cannot be determined.

In the case of Blessed Anne Emmerich’s visions, the Church has neither ruled as supernatural or non-supernatural.

The faithful are free to accept the validity of these visions if they wish. That is the case until the Church instructs otherwise.
 
Brendan_64 said:
Private revelations do not have to be accepted, of course.

However the Church does make judgements regarding whether they are of supetnatural origin, are not of supernatural origin, or whether this cannot be determined.

In the case of Blessed Anne Emmerich’s visions, the Church has neither ruled as supernatural or non-supernatural.

The faithful are free to accept the validity of these visions if they wish. That is the case until the Church instructs otherwise.
Click to expand...
Don Ruggero’s posts present the Church’s position on the matter.
  • We don’t know what, if anything attributed to her, was written by her.
  • If she did actually communicate anything in the work attributed to her, the value of her writings has never been shown to be of supernatural origin anyway, and is not affected by her beatification.
  • This is not a case of some body of writings that the Church has never assessed. It was assessed, quite extensively. Prudence should take this into account. We are not awaiting a pending decision by the Church.
 
Brendan_64 said:
The faithful are free to accept the validity of these visions if they wish. That is the case until the Church instructs otherwise.
Click to expand...
No, the Church instructs prudence.
The Magisterium has defined certain matters as public revelation, and others, much less important, as approved private revelation.
These writings have been assessed. They don’t fall into either category of public, or approved private revelation.
It is not prudent for a layperson to “accept the validity” of other books as New Testament, beyond the 27. It is not prudent for a layperson to “accept the validity” of unapproved private revelations.
The term “until the Church instructs otherwise” is a slippery slope.
(The Church has never instructed me to regard the Fox News, or CNN, or Jack Chick, as not being part of public or approved private revelation. So what? Do I accept their validity as approved private revelation until the Church specifies not to?)
In this matter, the Church **has **instructed, as to which things are public revelation, and to which things are approved private revelation.
 
joeybaggz said:
Ths Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a dogma of the Catholic faith, and the feast day commemorating it is (I believe) August 15. Personally it is a wonderful concept as it prefigured our own resurrection of the body. He assumption (not ascension!) was a gift of her son. It is an extra biblical dogma (not anti biblical as some of our BOC friends might say), but, at least for me, it is supported by the scriptural truth that the beloved disciple John stood by Mary’s side at the crucifixion, and Jesus himself gave Mary into John’s temporal care. John would have known what happened to Mary and made it known to the other apostles.

Shalom
Click to expand...
The Orthodox also celebrate Mary’s dormition and celebrate Mary as Queen of Heaven, believing " that the Theotokos was not in any sense of form captive to death and thus translated to the fullnest of life in Christ, body, soul and spirit." This is not dogmatized for Orthodox, but it is still an important belief.

I cite this, as some accuse this of being only a medieval (or even twentieth century) Roman Catholic innovation.
 
Crusaderbear said:
I’ve heard she was 72, and passed on (maybe died, maybe assumed into heaven) somewhere in southern Turkey. Doing the math - birthed Jesus abot 15, 33 years later he was crucified, so Mary was about 48 at that time. So another 24 years. She was supposedly a major player in the early Christian expansion.

I’m sorry, but can’t remember where I read that, I’ll look around some…
Click to expand...
There should be no maybe about for a catholic.
 
Xystus said:
There should be no maybe about for a catholic.
Click to expand...
I read it as him saying that she may have died and then been assumed into heaven, or may have been assumed into heaven without dying.

The Western Church is clear that she was assumed into heaven, but from what I have read, it has not definitively spoken on the point of whether she experienced death before the Assumption.
 
The Eastern Churches have always been unanimous it seems that the Theotokos died (the Feast of the Dormition), as our Liturgical texts indicate. I believe the West also was in agreement on this issue during the first millennium. In addition, another Catholic user online mentioned it wasn’t until the 17th century that theologians discusses the possibility that she did NOT die before being assumed.

Correct me if I’m wrong on the last point.
 
Thank you for the correction. I’m not too aware of the traditions regarding her life in the west, are there any resources you might be able to point me to?
 
Some unholy rows reflect people who have a strong vested feeling regarding the **Marian **subject. They argue that Mary **must **have died, or that she did **not **die, at the time of the Assumption. Either row is equally unholy.

But some resistance to speculation are not unholy, but a practical necessity. I am looking at this from the **dogma **POV. We need to keep reaffirming that this aspect is not dogmatically defined, one way or the other. End of story. Anything else is speculation.

It’s always tempting for either of the unholy rowers to suggest their side is the “older and more traditional view” and therefore, kinda/sorta/almost a distant cousin of being part of the dogma. (Not saying you would do that, but the guy down the street). First, I bet both sides claim “older and more traditional”. Second, so what? Lots of good and bad practices and beliefs are old and traditional, but the only part of the dogma that is **Tradition **is what Pope Pius said.

I don’t want to discourage speculation, but when I am in the neighborhood of Extraordinary Infallibility, I try to err on the side of silence.

I suppose it would be interesting to suggest that since St. Joseph was a father figure for Christ, he must have been immaculately conceived as well as Mary.
:eek:
Leave the dogma alone, as it is! Even if you found 60, or 600, references in the first century to this, that adds nothing to an Infallible Definition.

It is not an unholy row to resist speculation, either for or against. When in the neighborhood of Infallible Definition, just leave it at that. There are lots of other non infallibly defined topics we can more safely speculate about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top