Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich

[Aloysium]

When we meet an apparent intellectual contradiction, it forces us to go beyond the confines of our limited understanding. Catholic truth is a living truth, not simply ideas. In a case such as this, I would formulate a question to ask the Holy Spirit. He guides us. Sometimes the question itself provides the answer. Often, it takes time. With regards to Saints, I tend to focus on their ability to love since that is what makes them saints.

 

[Thorns]

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!

Saints are people too, so no one expects them to be free of sin or to decipher the truth all on their own. For many of the examples dmar198 gave, there was already well established teaching on many of the issues he brought up, yet somehow these saints still had a difference in opinion on things that were already known in the Church. IMO, their difference in opinion despite the teachings borders on “heresy.”

Like these…

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.

How did these saints not know that this was false? Christ Himself, taught that many would choose the wide gate that leads to death. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their lack of works and their hypocrisy. Jesus said “Those who call me Lord, Lord shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only those that do the will of the Father.” In Revelation, it talkes about the goats being cast into the Lake of Fire. There were the parables of the rich man in hell and the portrayal of those in hell not being able to cross to the other side. St. Paul refers to people drinking judgement upon themselves. God the Father wiped out many cities for their sins which lead to death. How could these saints not have known the very basics of Judaism/Christianity and that there was indeed a hell that people were/are/will be sent to? Sacred Tradition existed well before the NT was written as well, so they would have definitely known.

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

The Church maintains that the Blessed Virgin’s Immaculate Conception was well known from the early Church and passed on through Sacred Tradition. How did these people earn the title of Saint while being wrong on many theological truths and basics?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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?

I’m a little confused. If this was part of the vision itself (and not just Anne Emmerich’s opinion), wouldn’t that discount the validity of the vision?

 

[Dorothy]

I’m a little confused. If this was part of the vision itself (and not just Anne Emmerich’s opinion), wouldn’t that discount the validity of the vision?

I believe it is a mixture of what was known at the time, and the piety of the prayerful person.

In Mary of Agreda’s book “The City of God” there were glaring errors about the circumference of the earth.

It appears to me that the “information” gotten from private revelations comes with a lot of static, and that is why they are, at times, put on the list of forbidden books, then taken off the list of forbidden books, etc.

The confusion that may be taken up by some of the readers of literature of this kind can be disturbing to some, but edifying to others. It seems that it depends on how they are reading it, and how it touches their spirit.

That is why I always heartily recommend the book “A Still Small Voice” by Father Benedict Groeschel.
He explains a lot of things about this matter.

 

[ynotzap]

When a woman conceives, a process is started. Immediately there is life and immediately there is a process. This process leads to the development of a human. The process from beginning to end is a process designed by God. Any interference with this process is opposed to God’s will. This process also involves life on a basic level of life, the union of active sperm and an ovum, where there is this animated activity there is life. This activity is the sign of life. St. Thomas speaks of three stages of life, the vegetative, the sentient, and the rational life. God’s process could, and does involve all three stages. The vegetative stage involves growth, nourishment, healing and even reproduction of seed , the sentient stage involves much of the same characteristic that are found in the vegetative stage with the addition of the five senses and locomotion and the accompaniment of physical muscular and nervous system etc. We go through these stages, and finally we go through the rational stage, the infusion of the soul directly by God.with its powers of intellection, and volition, free will and reason. This part of man is spiritual. Some metaphysicians may or do think that the rational soul is capable of all three stages of animate activity Others may or do think that life may involve individual stages of development In either case it doesn’t really matter at what stage the rational soul was infused, because all stages are designed by God in the creation of man. So abortion at any stage is murder. Humans beget humans not vegetables,or animals It is self-evident, but self evidence is not self-evident to some (the supreme court), common sense is not so common, and the supreme court is not so supreme.

 

[DanAl]

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.

First a clarification: not all living things have rational souls.

Second, there’s no dogma as to when the fetus is ensouled.

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.

A lack of soul does not make abortion licit. Sperm has no soul, yet contraception is still a mortal sin.

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?

Then I am afraid you will have to stop reading many saints such as Augustine, St Jerome, Aquinas, and Venerable Mary of Agreda since they all believed that ensoulment did not immediately take place when the sperm and egg are fertilized.

Yes, I am very inclined to believe that ensoulment does not take place at conception, but that doesn’t bother me me since it is still a terrible sin to procure an abortion.

 

[DanAl]

Yes, I am very inclined to believe that ensoulment does not take place at conception, but that doesn’t bother me me since it is still a terrible sin to procure an abortion.

And to forestall the “what about Jesus, did he lack a soul at the moment of conception?” argument. Yes, I believe that Jesus had a soul at the moment of conception.

 

[Thorns]

So is anyone going to answer the question about how a person can hold “heretical” beliefs on well established teachings (even at that time too) and still earn the title of Venerable and Saint?

 

[Dorothy]

So is anyone going to answer the question about how a person can hold “heretical” beliefs on well established teachings (even at that time too) and still earn the title of Venerable and Saint?

I can’t help but to keep recommending the book “A Still Small Voice” by Father Benedict Groeschel.

He explains a lot in that small book.

St. Catharine of Siena, a Doctor of the Church, thought wrongly, at one time, about a doctrine of our Blessed Mother. She believed she had heard that in her private revelation.

It helps to understand that spiritual directors can help their directees by asking for their obedience. A sign of the holiness of the directees is their obedience to legitimate authority.

St. Thomas Acquinas, another Doctor of the Church, pondered and prayed about something that, at the time, was puzzling him.

This does not mean that they were not virtuous or very holy people.