Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich

[Povero]

Some months back I began reading a book “from the visions of…” the aforementioned person. On or about page 72 I stopped because of the following:

(in regard to the" Immaculate Conception: the Birth of Our Lady", approximately second paragraph beginning with “When seventeen weeks and five days after the concept of the Blessed Virgin Mary had gone by… I saw that this was the instant in which for the first time the child moved with in her…It was made known to me that the Blessed Virgin’s SOUL (my emphasis) was united to her body five days earlier than with other children, and that her birth was twelve days earlier.”

Essentially, this text tells us that the SOUL of a Human Being is not united to the BODY in utero until SEVENTEEN WEEKS GESTATION. This belies our belief that ALL life, even one day after conception, has a soul and a purpose. In fact, not only does it belie that belief, but it also exonerates ABORTION OF AN EMBRYO OR FETUS before SEVENTEEN WEEKS GESTATION, which means (if one is to follow this logically) that ABORTION of an unborn child INTO THE FOURTH MONTH OF PREGNANCY is not sinful since there is NO SOUL present. I stopped reading this book at this page. I have no idea why this woman is called “venerable” but I know full well that the soul is part of the moment of conception. WHAT SAY YOU TO THIS? Agree, disagree? Other comments?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Some months back I began reading a book “from the visions of…” the aforementioned person. On or about page 72 I stopped because of the following:

(in regard to the" Immaculate Conception: the Birth of Our Lady", approximately second paragraph beginning with “When seventeen weeks and five days after the concept of the Blessed Virgin Mary had gone by… I saw that this was the instant in which for the first time the child moved with in her…It was made known to me that the Blessed Virgin’s SOUL (my emphasis) was united to her body five days earlier than with other children, and that her birth was twelve days earlier.”

Essentially, this text tells us that the SOUL of a Human Being is not united to the BODY in utero until SEVENTEEN WEEKS GESTATION. This belies our belief that ALL life, even one day after conception, has a soul and a purpose. In fact, not only does it belie that belief, but it also exonerates ABORTION OF AN EMBRYO OR FETUS before SEVENTEEN WEEKS GESTATION, which means (if one is to follow this logically) that ABORTION of an unborn child INTO THE FOURTH MONTH OF PREGNANCY is not sinful since there is NO SOUL present. I stopped reading this book at this page. I have no idea why this woman is called “venerable” but I know full well that the soul is part of the moment of conception. WHAT SAY YOU TO THIS? Agree, disagree? Other comments?

Why get so uptight about this when you ought to know that your early fathers commented about this issue long before she did?

 

[Dorothy]

Povero,

Please be aware that the writings of mystics have to do with their own interior life and how they interpret how they are being “enlightened”.

For instance, in Mother Mary of Agreda’s writings there are found errors of science that had to do with what people believed about certain measurements of earth at that time.

I do believe such writings have value, as long as the person reading them has some understanding of how to perceive them.

 

[dmar198]

Some months back I began reading a book “from the visions of…” the aforementioned person. On or about page 72 I stopped because of the following:

(in regard to the" Immaculate Conception: the Birth of Our Lady", approximately second paragraph beginning with “When seventeen weeks and five days after the concept of the Blessed Virgin Mary had gone by… I saw that this was the instant in which for the first time the child moved with in her…It was made known to me that the Blessed Virgin’s SOUL (my emphasis) was united to her body five days earlier than with other children, and that her birth was twelve days earlier.”

Essentially, this text tells us that the SOUL of a Human Being is not united to the BODY in utero until SEVENTEEN WEEKS GESTATION. This belies our belief that ALL life, even one day after conception, has a soul and a purpose. In fact, not only does it belie that belief, but it also exonerates ABORTION OF AN EMBRYO OR FETUS before SEVENTEEN WEEKS GESTATION, which means (if one is to follow this logically) that ABORTION of an unborn child INTO THE FOURTH MONTH OF PREGNANCY is not sinful since there is NO SOUL present. I stopped reading this book at this page. I have no idea why this woman is called “venerable” but I know full well that the soul is part of the moment of conception. WHAT SAY YOU TO THIS? Agree, disagree? Other comments?

First of all, even those Catholics in the Middle Ages who thought that the soul didn’t come into the body until 17 weeks gestation, they still did not support abortion, and it does not follow logically that you have to support abortion if you believe in that position. It is my understanding that they treated early abortions similarly to contraception: they didn’t know it killed a person, but they knew it prevented a natural birth which otherwise would have occurred, thus violating the plan of God.

Secondly, you are not required to believe that this person actually received a private revelation.

Thirdly, if you do believe this person received a private revelation, the church allows that they can be mixed with error because they are not divinely inspired in the same way that the Bible is. Our human expectations can get in the way of divine revelation sometimes if God does not intervene in the way He did with the writing of the Bible.

Thus, you are still free to read that book, and learn from it, provided you understand that that part is in error.

 

[Dorothy]

First of all, even those Catholics in the Middle Ages who thought that the soul didn’t come into the body until 17 weeks gestation, they still did not support abortion, and it does not follow logically that you have to support abortion if you believe in that position. It is my understanding that they treated early abortions similarly to contraception: they didn’t know it killed a person, but they knew it prevented a natural birth which otherwise would have occurred, thus violating the plan of God.

Secondly, you are not required to believe that this person actually received a private revelation.

Thirdly, if you do believe this person received a private revelation, the church allows that they can be mixed with error because they are not divinely inspired in the same way that the Bible is. Our human expectations can get in the way of divine revelation sometimes if God does not intervene in the way He did with the writing of the Bible.

Thus, you are still free to read that book, and learn from it, provided you understand that that part is in error.

Thank you for your post. You explained that more thoroughly than I could have.

 

[Povero]

First of all, even those Catholics in the Middle Ages who thought that the soul didn’t come into the body until 17 weeks gestation, they still did not support abortion, and it does not follow logically that you have to support abortion if you believe in that position. It is my understanding that they treated early abortions similarly to contraception: they didn’t know it killed a person, but they knew it prevented a natural birth which otherwise would have occurred, thus violating the plan of God.

Secondly, you are not required to believe that this person actually received a private revelation.

Thirdly, if you do believe this person received a private revelation, the church allows that they can be mixed with error because they are not divinely inspired in the same way that the Bible is. Our human expectations can get in the way of divine revelation sometimes if God does not intervene in the way He did with the writing of the Bible.

Thus, you are still free to read that book, and learn from it, provided you understand that that part is in error.

Thank you so very much for this post. Perhaps I should stick to the things the Church has sanctioned and steer clear of “private revelations” since they often cause me distress.

 

[DaveBj]

First of all, even those Catholics in the Middle Ages . . .snip

Thus, you are still free to read that book, and learn from it, provided you understand that that part is in error.

You said it better than I would have.

 

[Povero]

Why get so uptight about this when you ought to know that your early fathers commented about this issue long before she did?

Do you respond to every question with such hostility or is this just my lucky day?

 

[Miserissima]

There a tiny bit more to note in context of the culture. “Seventeen weeks” may have been less legalistic to St. Anne. The Jewish notion to expect life, not consider it a life, was not in confirming viability but in feeling the quickening of the baby. I’d invite one of tee more learned folks to weigh in on this.

Thank you so very much for this post. Perhaps I should stick to the things the Church has sanctioned and steer clear of “private revelations” since they often cause me distress.

Wise advice for anyone whose faith could be shaken by lack of context of writings, but Ven. Anne’s private revelations have been approved by the Church, unlike many Internet crackpots who insist they have their own revelations.

 

[Dorothy]

There is a book filled with much wisdom about private revelation and how to understand it.

The book is “A Still Small Voice” by Father Benedict Groeschel.

It helped me to understand how to process such writings, among other things such as approved apparitions, weeping statues, etc.

I highly recommend this book.

 

[Thorns]

First of all, even those Catholics in the Middle Ages who thought that the soul didn’t come into the body until 17 weeks gestation, they still did not support abortion, and it does not follow logically that you have to support abortion if you believe in that position. It is my understanding that they treated early abortions similarly to contraception: they didn’t know it killed a person, but they knew it prevented a natural birth which otherwise would have occurred, thus violating the plan of God.

Secondly, you are not required to believe that this person actually received a private revelation.

Thirdly, if you do believe this person received a private revelation, the church allows that they can be mixed with error because they are not divinely inspired in the same way that the Bible is. Our human expectations can get in the way of divine revelation sometimes if God does not intervene in the way He did with the writing of the Bible.

Thus, you are still free to read that book, and learn from it, provided you understand that that part is in error.

One would think making statements that are theologically incorrect (some might call it “heresy”) would nullify or prevent a person’s status from being “venerable” and on the way to sainthood. Why isnt that the case and why would anyone want to continue reading something that contains errors?

 

[Povero]

One would think making statements that are theologically incorrect (some might call it “heresy”) would nullify or prevent a person’s status from being “venerable” and on the way to sainthood. Why isnt that the case and why would anyone want to continue reading something that contains errors?

EXACTLY. Thank you.

 

[dmar198]

One would think making statements that are theologically incorrect (some might call it “heresy”) would nullify or prevent a person’s status from being “venerable” and on the way to sainthood. Why isnt that the case and why would anyone want to continue reading something that contains errors?

Ann Emmerich’s statement wasn’t heretical because the Church had not yet given a definitive judgment that the human soul enters the body at conception. Because this matter had not been given a definitive judgement yet, Catholics were free to believe one way or another at the time without falling into heresy. St. Thomas Aquinas is another example of a medieval Catholic who thought that the human soul didn’t enter the body until several weeks after conception – see the Summa Theologica Part 3 Question 33 Article 2.

On this point, I think it is important to remark that very nearly all of the Church Fathers from whom we have received a large body of writings were wrong about something theological. Some have argued that St. Gregory Nazianzen is an exception. I haven’t read his writings, so I don’t know. But if you go through the Fathers, every now and then you find that one of them got this wrong, another got that wrong, because they were not perfect and the matter had not yet been judged.

St. Cyprian thought that non-Catholics cannot administer a valid baptism. He was wrong.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nyssa thought that all men would eventually be saved. They were wrong.

St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, and St. Anselm all thought that the Blessed Virgin was conceived with original sin. They were wrong.

But we still read all their writings. When we come across something in their writings that the Church has judged to be an error, we recognize that it hadn’t made that decision yet when they were writing, we forgive them, and we move on. We should have the same attitude toward Venerable Ann Emerich.

Does that make sense?

 

[Miserissima]

One would think making statements that are theologically incorrect (some might call it “heresy”) would nullify or prevent a person’s status from being “venerable” and on the way to sainthood. Why isnt that the case and why would anyone want to continue reading something that contains errors?

Because Ven. Anne was talking from the POV of Sts. Anne and Joachim in the context of the Judaic custom of the era.

 

[Thorns]

Ann Emmerich’s statement wasn’t heretical because the Church had not yet given a definitive judgment that the human soul enters the body at conception. Because this matter had not been given a definitive judgement yet, Catholics were free to believe one way or another at the time without falling into heresy. St. Thomas Aquinas is another example of a medieval Catholic who thought that the human soul didn’t enter the body until several weeks after conception – see the Summa Theologica Part 3 Question 33 Article 2.

On this point, I think it is important to remark that very nearly all of the Church Fathers from whom we have received a large body of writings were wrong about something theological. Some have argued that St. Gregory Nazianzen is an exception. I haven’t read his writings, so I don’t know. But if you go through the Fathers, every now and then you find that one of them got this wrong, another got that wrong, because they were not perfect and the matter had not yet been judged.

St. Cyprian thought that non-Catholics cannot administer a valid baptism. He was wrong.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nyssa thought that all men would eventually be saved. They were wrong.

St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, and St. Anselm all thought that the Blessed Virgin was conceived with original sin. They were wrong.

But we still read all their writings. When we come across something in their writings that the Church has judged to be an error, we recognize that it hadn’t made that decision yet when they were writing, we forgive them, and we move on. We should have the same attitude toward Venerable Ann Emerich.

Does that make sense?

Most of these would appear to be heresies, since they are either taught in Scripture or through Sacred Tradition. So it was known, but some of these saints still held different opinions. How could they make it to sainthood while being heretical?

 

[Dorothy]

There is a book filled with much wisdom about private revelation and how to understand it.

The book is “A Still Small Voice” by Father Benedict Groeschel.

It helped me to understand how to process such writings, among other things such as approved apparitions, weeping statues, etc.

I highly recommend this book.

The above book would help clear up a lot of misunderstandings about private revelation.

 

[Povero]

Most of these would appear to be heresies, since they are either taught in Scripture or through Sacred Tradition. So it was known, but some of these saints still held different opinions. How could they make it to sainthood while being heretical?

Agreed. Awaiting explanation, there are some brilliant people on this forum.

 

[The_Serpent]

Agreed. Awaiting explanation, there are some brilliant people on this forum.

None of the Canonized Saints have the gift of infallibility. It is a character of the teaching Church when it speaks in a Ecumenical Council, or a Papal statement that makes clear the teaching is infallible presented by the Pope. You should expect all the Saints to have made mistakes or errors of some sort. Shhhh!

 

[Aloysium]

Perhaps there is a message in all this, that we develop our personal, loving relationship with God, praying for guidance from the Holy Spirit and validating our thoughts with what the Church teaches. Shouldn’t we be seeking to be saints ourselves?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Perhaps there is a message in all this, that we develop our personal, loving relationship with God, praying for guidance from the Holy Spirit and validating our thoughts with what the Church teaches. Shouldn’t we be seeking to be saints ourselves?

Perhaps this is the Spirituality forum?