Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: ServusInutilisDomini on October 02, 2022, 11:11:34 AM
-
The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary:
In the afternoon, when her confessor again asked her for the names of the three holy kings, she answered, Mensor, the brown-faced one, after Christ's death received the name of Leander on his baptism by St. Thomas. Theokeno, the old, yellow-faced one, who was ill when Jesus visited Mensor's camp in Arabia, was baptized Leo by St. Thomas. The brown-skinned one, who was already dead when Jesus made His visit, was called Seir or Sair.' Her confessor asked her: How then was he baptized?' She answered smiling and without hesitation: He was already dead and had received the baptism of desire.' Her confessor then said: I have never heard these names in my life: how then did they get the names of Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar?' She replied: They were called this because it goes with their character, for these names mean: (1) He goes with love; (2) He wanders about, he approaches gently and with ingratiating manners: (3) He makes rapid decisions, he quickly directs his will to the will of God.' She said this with great friendliness, and expressed the meaning of the names by making pantomimic gestures with her hand on the bed-coverlet. It must remain for the language experts to decide how far these words can be made to bear these meanings.
https://biblehub.com/library/emmerich/the_life_of_the_blessed_virgin_mary/xiii_the_journey_of_the.htm
It isn't clear whether it was directly revealed to her that Sair received a baptism of desire or whether she made the inference herself.
I would assume she wouldn't be speaking with such confidence if it wasn't revealed for she was usually shy and timid.
-
The Mystical City of God by Venerable Mary of Agreda
Volume IV
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/agreda/vol4/vol4.shtml
Chapter XIII
THE BLESSED MARY SENDS THE CREED TO THE DISCIPLES AND OTHERS OF THE FAITHFUL; THEY WORK GREAT WONDERS WITH IT; THE APOSTLES RESOLVE TO PARTITION THE EARTH AMONG THEMSELVES; OTHER DOINGS OF THE GREAT QUEEN OF HEAVEN.
230. Saint Peter then continued:
[. . .]
“The servant of Christ, our dearest brother Thomas, will follow his Master preaching in India, in Persia and among the Parthians, Medes, Hircanians, Brahmans, Bactrians. He shall baptize the three Magi Kings and, as they shall be attracted by the rumor of his preaching and his miracles, he shall instruct them fully in all things according to their expectations.”
[. . .]
-
https://biblehub.com/library/emmerich/the_life_of_the_blessed_virgin_mary/xiii_the_journey_of_the.htm
It isn't clear whether it was directly revealed to her that Sair received a baptism of desire or whether she made the inference herself.
I would assume she wouldn't be speaking with such confidence if it wasn't revealed for she was usually shy and timid.
Meh, multiple questions. If the one was dead before Our Lord visited (where? presumably Limbo of the Fathers), Baptism had not been instituted yet. What's the actual translation of "Baptism of Desire" here, as that term is a very recent one? Emmerich's works were actually produced by Brentano, and there are many questions about how much were embellished by him. There's also a question of the degree to which all this was "revealed" vs. the "visionary" injection her own perception of things into it. There's a reason the Church didn't canonize her ... most likely because the Church doesn't want to have the canonization taken as an endorsement of everything in these books. There are some direct contradictions between Emmerich and Agreda, and even a few others. trad123 pointed one out on this very question where Mary of Agreda says that all three were baptized. I personally suspect that neither is correct, since if I had to guess, at least 2 of the 3 were already deceased before Our Lord rose from the dead. 33 years had passed since their visit to Bethlehem, and my guess is that they were on the older side when they visited (as I doubt that you'd have a bunch of 20-somethings who would be classified as Magi).
There's also a curiosity in Emmerich about Our Lord visiting one of these in Arabia ... and there's no Tradition of Our Lord ever having gone there, whether before His Death or after His Resurrection.
-
Meh, multiple questions. If the one was dead before Our Lord visited (where? presumably Limbo of the Fathers), Baptism had not been instituted yet. What's the actual translation of "Baptism of Desire" here, as that term is a very recent one? Emmerich's works were actually produced by Brentano, and there are many questions about how much were embellished by him. There's also a question of the degree to which all this was "revealed" vs. the "visionary" injection her own perception of things into it. There's a reason the Church didn't canonize her ... most likely because the Church doesn't want to have the canonization taken as an endorsement of everything in these books. There are some direct contradictions between Emmerich and Agreda, and even a few others. trad123 pointed one out on this very question where Mary of Agreda says that all three were baptized. I personally suspect that neither is correct, since if I had to guess, at least 2 of the 3 were already deceased before Our Lord rose from the dead. 33 years had passed since their visit to Bethlehem, and my guess is that they were on the older side when they visited (as I doubt that you'd have a bunch of 20-somethings who would be classified as Magi).
There's also a curiosity in Emmerich about Our Lord visiting one of these in Arabia ... and there's no Tradition of Our Lord ever having gone there, whether before His Death or after His Resurrection.
Honestly... I find the book weird so far. It has already claimed that Christ was born on the 25th of November and the Annunciation on the 25th of February, both a month earlier than the Church celebrated. Furthermore, there's a weird statement that Christ was born 8 years prior to what we count from and that the first four years of Christ's life were completely forgotten. What does that even mean?
What puzzles me is that her life was full of miracles and she had the stigmata and all, her visions didn't contradict anything in Scripture even though she never read it and yet I don't get it how the Church could get all of these things so wrong. I realize why the Church both didn't condemn and didn't canonize her but I somehow expect the books would be put on the Index if they were harmful but they must've gotten an imprimatur instead.
-
Honestly... I find the book weird so far. It has already claimed that Christ was born on the 25th of November and the Annunciation on the 25th of February, both a month earlier than the Church celebrated. Furthermore, there's a weird statement that Christ was born 8 years prior to what we count from and that the first four years of Christ's life were completely forgotten. What does that even mean?
What puzzles me is that her life was full of miracles and she had the stigmata and all, her visions didn't contradict anything in Scripture even though she never read it and yet I don't get it how the Church could get all of these things so wrong. I realize why the Church both didn't condemn and didn't canonize her but I somehow expect the books would be put on the Index if they were harmful but they must've gotten an imprimatur instead.
Yes, I have little doubt about her personal holiness, but she was bed-ridden and could not write. These books were produced by Clemens Brentano and not Katherine herself. So, at the end of the day, who knows what percentage of it accurately reflects things the Katherine Emmerich saw and how much is Brentano's imagination and/or embellishment? Was he interrogating her and possibly asking leading questions? We'll probably never know in this life. And, then, in between, one could be exceedingly holy and still be simply "mistaken" about having "seen" something that perhaps was the product of her own imagination. Women especially are prone to more active or vivid imaginations. St. Theresa of Avila, whenever some nun was reported to her as having visions, replied that the "visionary" should be given more meat in her diet. So Emmerich's personal holiness did not make her immune from such mistakes, nor would such mistakes be incompatible with her personal sanctity. And yet the Church has opted not to canonize her, and I would bet a lot that this has been primarily because the Church did not want to be seen as endorsing her books as if they were all authentic revelation, and thereby subject the Church to ridicule and mockery from her detractors as a result if some problems were later discovered with them.
Mary of Agreda's works were initially condemned by (the majority decision of a) large panel of theologians.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemens_Brentano
However, some posthumous investigations in 1923 and 1928 made it uncertain how much of the books he attributed to Emmerich were actually his own creation and the works were discarded for her beatification process.
Recall that he was a poet and a novelist, so some embellishment is highly likely.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clemens_Brentano
Recall that he was a poet and a novelist, so some embellishment is highly likely.
How unfortunate. The visions are so detailed and full of information, if it was 100% reliable it would be a treasure.
-
How unfortunate. The visions are so detailed and full of information, if it was 100% reliable it would be a treasure.
Ven. Maria de Agreda's Mystical City of God is more reliable, albeit still private revelation, I would go with her account over Emmerich. Although I still like Emmerich's books.
-
The saints who recount the life of Christ, or of Mary, do not attempt to teach the intricacies of doctrine, but to assist meditation and appreciation for Our Lord's Passion. Any scandal taken is contrived, and the purpose of that saint's writings is lost on people who miss the point.
-
The Mystical City of God by Ven. Mary of Agreda is definitely trustworthy and has been approved by numerous Popes, saints and highly esteemed theologians for hundreds of years. (My old copy has about 15 pages quoting a the numerous approbations over the years.)
The same can not be necessarily be said of the revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich. I person believe that she was a good and holy person. The problem is the man who wrote and published her revelations was a protestant and surely embellished and changed things. So, we don't have trustworthy writings for her.
-
The Mystical City of God by Ven. Mary of Agreda is definitely trustworthy and has been approved by numerous Popes, saints and highly esteemed theologians for hundreds of years. (My old copy has about 15 pages quoting a the numerous approbations over the years.)
The same can not be necessarily be said of the revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich. I person believe that she was a good and holy person. The problem is the man who wrote and published her revelations was a protestant and surely embellished and changed things. So, we don't have trustworthy writings for her.
In the Mystical City of God, there is an account of Mother Mary encouraging Pope Peter to start administering the Sacraments. For a short time, there was an internal debate among the Apostles as to which Baptism to administer, the one of St. John the Baptist or of Our Lord. St. Peter and the Apostles quickly conclude that it is to be the Water Baptism of Our Lord.
-
Ven. Maria de Agreda's Mystical City of God is more reliable, albeit still private revelation, I would go with her account over Emmerich. Although I still like Emmerich's books.
There are def problems with her writing, it was condemned by Pope Urban VIII in 1625, the congregation of the inquisition in 1681 and Innocent XI forbid it from being read. Then the censure was confirmed after a more careful thirty-two session study of Croset's translation. Only thing going for it is that the decree of Innocent XI was suspended for whatever reason, but only in Spain. Any further requests to suspend the decree was ignored.
Either way, the book is obviously suspect. If something getting that much censure and kicking up controversy amongst theologians isn't suspect then I don't know what is. The statements which the reports present on the Catholic Encyclopedia are pretty sketchy to say the least. I'm not sure I would call it safe by any means like how one may call "The Imitation of Christ" by Kempis safe.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01229a.htm
-
There are def problems with her writing, it was condemned by Pope Urban VIII in 1625, the congregation of the inquisition in 1681 and Innocent XI forbid it from being read. Then the censure was confirmed after a more careful thirty-two session study of Croset's translation. Only thing going for it is that the decree of Innocent XI was suspended for whatever reason, but only in Spain. Any further requests to suspend the decree was ignored.
Either way, the book is obviously suspect. If something getting that much censure and kicking up controversy amongst theologians isn't suspect then I don't know what is. The statements which the reports present on the Catholic Encyclopedia are pretty sketchy to say the least. I'm not sure I would call it safe by any means like how one may call "The Imitation of Christ" by Kempis safe.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01229a.htm
If I had known that I wouldn't have bought the book.
-
If I had known that I wouldn't have bought the book.
If you read the whole CE article, you'll see that any censure given was not held universally or perpetually, although her work was continually contested, probably by demonic forces. No censure was held in Spain, which suggests at least some censures were politically motivated. As shown prior in this thread, the saints like Agreda were not trying to provide doctrinally perfect content but to provide meditative assistance based on their own perspective. Blessed Mary Agreda provides a deeply detailed and passionate look at the life of Christ and Our Lady that serve to deepen love of the Holy Family.
-
If I had known that I wouldn't have bought the book.
Don't be discouraged. It's well worth reading.
-
Don't be discouraged. It's well worth reading.
I agree, just needs to be taken with a little grain of salt here, knowing that it's not a theology manual and that it's likely been embellished.
-
Don't be discouraged. It's well worth reading.
I misunderstood. I thought he was talking about Emmerich's books. Now I'm relieved they weren't condemned. I forgot I literally talked about this with Ladislaus.
-
I agree, just needs to be taken with a little grain of salt here, knowing that it's not a theology manual and that it's likely been embellished.
Little grain of salt means you go into it expecting error or at the least the possibility of error, I don't get why someone would recommend writings which border on erroneous theology. Would you recommend something like Valtorta like Bp. Williamson and just look over the error (to put it lightly)? Makes no sense.
-
If you read the whole CE article, you'll see that any censure given was not held universally or perpetually, although her work was continually contested, probably by demonic forces. No censure was held in Spain, which suggests at least some censures were politically motivated. As shown prior in this thread, the saints like Agreda were not trying to provide doctrinally perfect content but to provide meditative assistance based on their own perspective. Blessed Mary Agreda provides a deeply detailed and passionate look at the life of Christ and Our Lady that serve to deepen love of the Holy Family.
Her work was continually contested by demonic forces? You mean learned Thomistic theologians that didn't opine on it in the same way you do? I was just stating that due to it's controversy by legitimate authorities (with also a valid basis to find issue) it wouldn't be exactly safe. Something which is obvious since others say you have to take caution when reading it lol. Also, she wasn't ever beatified (even by v2 antipopes from what I can tell) so I'm not sure why you're calling her blessed. And the condemnation, by the way, WAS effective in Spain, it was just suspended for Charles II.
-
Her work was continually contested by demonic forces? You mean learned Thomistic theologians that didn't opine on it in the same way you do? I was just stating that due to it's controversy by legitimate authorities (with also a valid basis to find issue) it wouldn't be exactly safe. Something which is obvious since others say you have to take caution when reading it lol. Also, she wasn't ever beatified (even by v2 antipopes from what I can tell) so I'm not sure why you're calling her blessed. And the condemnation, by the way, WAS effective in Spain, it was just suspended for Charles II.
There were certain copies printed in various languages that were condemned because they had errors in them. The original was not condemned from what I understand. I will create a thread and share the "Approbations" from the introduction to the book in its own thread in a few minutes.
Bishop Sanborn had at one time condemned the writings of Ven. Mary of Agreda's City of God and told a friend of mine not to read it because it was condemned. After I shared the Approbations with her from my old copy and she shared it with him, he stopped criticizing it from what I understand.
-
Little grain of salt means you go into it expecting error or at the least the possibility of error, I don't get why someone would recommend writings which border on erroneous theology. Would you recommend something like Valtorta like Bp. Williamson and just look over the error (to put it lightly)? Makes no sense.
I don't think Emmerick's theology is erroneous, just that I believe some of the narratives regarding the details of Christ's Life should be understood as a combination perhaps of fact and fiction, a novel attempting to depict Our Lord's life in vivid detail combined with some actual private revelation ... so a blend. Some of this embellishment could be Emmerich herself "interpreting" something she saw, or thought she saw, while some could be due to Brentano fancying himself a great poet and novelist. That's not to say there's theological error in her works.
Valtorta is a different story entirely.
-
Some argue that the condemnations were partly due to a significant Jansensist element at the Sorbonne. Rome ended up lifting the condemation at some point.
-
Some argue that the condemnations were partly due to a significant Jansensist element at the Sorbonne. Rome ended up lifting the condemation at some point.
Yes to THIS for the Mary of Agreda Mystical City of God.. :incense: