St Bridget's Revelations

[dasilvd003]

Hi everyone,

I had started to read St. Bridget’s revelations the other day and was finding them very enlightening until I came across this passage from Chapter 35:

Mary, the Mother of God spoke to the bride of Christ and said: “My daughter, consider the suffering of my Son, for his limbs were like my own limbs and his heart like my own heart. For just as other children use to be carried in the womb of their mother, so was he in me. But he was conceived through the burning charity of God’s love. Others, however are conceived through the lust of the flesh. Thus, John the evangelist, his cousin, rightly says: ‘The Word was made flesh.’

I can understand slight inconsistencies but I do not know of any reputable source that states that St. John the Apostle was related by blood with Jesus. This line made me pretty much question the supernatural origin of the revelations entirely which is discouraging but it seems pointless reading them if there is such a blatant inaccuracy.

Thoughts?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Hi everyone,

I had started to read St. Bridget’s revelations the other day and was finding them very enlightening until I came across this passage from Chapter 35:

Mary, the Mother of God spoke to the bride of Christ and said: “My daughter, consider the suffering of my Son, for his limbs were like my own limbs and his heart like my own heart. For just as other children use to be carried in the womb of their mother, so was he in me. But he was conceived through the burning charity of God’s love. Others, however are conceived through the lust of the flesh. Thus, John the evangelist, his cousin, rightly says: ‘The Word was made flesh.’

I can understand slight inconsistencies but I do not know of any reputable source that states that St. John the Apostle was related by blood with Jesus. This line made me pretty much question the supernatural origin of the revelations entirely which is discouraging but it seems pointless reading them if there is such a blatant inaccuracy.

Thoughts?

The thesis is not unique to Saint Bridget of Sweden.

The influence of the Revelations, in sacred art and elsewhere, was profound.

I am not sure why an individual would set them aside on the basis you advance…they have had the Church’s approbation for centuries as have, for example, the writings of Catherine of Siena, even though she is supposed to have had a revelation denying that the Virgin Mary was the Immaculate Conception.

It is a fundamental point in mystical theology that one does not read private revelations as if one were reading a historical account, since these mystical experiences vary one from other. The classic maxim has to be applied: Quidquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur (whatever is received is received according to the mode of the receiver).

Father William Most wrote an essay touching upon these topics, which happily has been made available by EWTN. You might find it useful.

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/DISSPR.TXT

 

[RPRPsych]

Hi everyone,

I had started to read St. Bridget’s revelations the other day and was finding them very enlightening until I came across this passage from Chapter 35:

Mary, the Mother of God spoke to the bride of Christ and said: “My daughter, consider the suffering of my Son, for his limbs were like my own limbs and his heart like my own heart. For just as other children use to be carried in the womb of their mother, so was he in me. But he was conceived through the burning charity of God’s love. Others, however are conceived through the lust of the flesh. Thus, John the evangelist, his cousin, rightly says: ‘The Word was made flesh.’

I can understand slight inconsistencies but I do not know of any reputable source that states that St. John the Apostle was related by blood with Jesus. This line made me pretty much question the supernatural origin of the revelations entirely which is discouraging but it seems pointless reading them if there is such a blatant inaccuracy.

Thoughts?

The text here isn’t consistent across versions.

Here’s another version I found: en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Revelations_of_Saint_Birgitta#Chapter_35_-_Mary_Identifies_with_Her_Son.27s_Pain_at_His_Passion

In this text, there is no mention of John the evangelist, but only “his cousin John”. That would be St John the Baptist, whose mother was the cousin of Our Blessed Lady (Luke 1: 37).

The objection then arises: weren’t the words “the word made flesh” written by St John the Evangelist and not St John the Baptist? Yes, but the first chapter of St John’s Gospel draws extensively on the words and testimony of St John the Baptist, who calls Jesus “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” and who testifies that Jesus was the Messiah. The phrase may have come from John the Baptist and been used by the Evangelist John.

If this explanation is true (and reading John 1 suggests that it is plausible at least), then the only difficulty is the word “evangelist” in your text, which was probably introduced erroneously by an editor. Voila!

 

[Todd977]

According to the article on “Salome” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, there is “a well-grounded probability that … Salome … is … the mother of the sons of Zebedee,” James and John, and “some writers conjecture more or less plausibly that she is the sister of the Blessed Virgin.” If Salome is the Virgin Mary’s sister, then that would make John the evangelist Jesus’ cousin.

 

[dasilvd003]

The text here isn’t consistent across versions.

Here’s another version I found: en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Revelations_of_Saint_Birgitta#Chapter_35_-_Mary_Identifies_with_Her_Son.27s_Pain_at_His_Passion

In this text, there is no mention of John the evangelist, but only “his cousin John”. That would be St John the Baptist, whose mother was the cousin of Our Blessed Lady (Luke 1: 37).

The objection then arises: weren’t the words “the word made flesh” written by St John the Evangelist and not St John the Baptist? Yes, but the first chapter of St John’s Gospel draws extensively on the words and testimony of St John the Baptist, who calls Jesus “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” and who testifies that Jesus was the Messiah. The phrase may have come from John the Baptist and been used by the Evangelist John.

If this explanation is true (and reading John 1 suggests that it is plausible at least), then the only difficulty is the word “evangelist” in your text, which was probably introduced erroneously by an editor. Voila!

Hmm…I appreciate your efforts in trying to reconcile the discrepancy, but it seems akin to Muslim apologists trying to explain why Our Lady is referred to as “Aaron’s sister” in the Quran - I just don’t buy it. I think you and I can both agree that the passage from St. Bridget’s revelations is clearly referring to St. John’s passage from the first chapter of the Gospel he wrote. Arguing that maybe St. John the Baptist referred to Jesus in the same words is mere speculation and not worth arguing in my opinion. This is clearly a biblical inaccuracy.

 

[Nelka]

 

[kdbueno]

St. Bridget of Sweden’s revelations approves that conceptual truth is possible.