This woman was a stigmatist, who was born , 1786 or so. She was beatified, and then in 1928 it was dropped, but started again by Paul 6th. Gonenowhere since. She predicted all this trouble in the Church, and after John Paul 2, almost total collapse, would take place. Anyone know anymore about this?

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 19, 2002

Answers

Here is a fairly detailed biographical sketch:

http://www.emmerich1.com/ANNE_CATHERINE_EMMERICH.htm

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 19, 2002.

Ed, Her visions were ''scenes'' experienced in her mind, which she related as they transpired; not predictions or prophesies. I've read all of this. Naturally, any appreciation of their prophetic value is purely speculative.

In the books on her visions and about her life, the authors very pointedly submitted to all final judgments that the Catholic Church might declare in the end as to veracity. The ''predictions'' themselves were very cryptic; all we can draw from them is a coming upon the Church of future tribulation. --NOT nearly a total collapse or defeat but in fact, a great victory for the Church, which was to come under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Michael the Archangel. A time of tribulation and unrest is already self- evident; no one needs prophesies. BTW; She is not beatified, she is called ''Venerable,'' a step prior to.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 19, 2002.

Of course they were prophecies, Gene... what else could they have possibly been? They weren't scenes of the her present or past, so what else could it have been?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 19, 2002.

No, Emmerich never said, ''There will be,'' or Then will be''-- She says, ''I saw a short man, dressed in black. He is . . .'' etc., as if she were witnessing.

I realise these portend to something yet to come; but calling them ''prophesies''--? They're cryptic as well; we know nothing about the persons or places. Her view is like a surreal dream. I much prefer her visions of the past. She names names, and gives the places and time. She even describes every saint in detail.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 19, 2002.

And keep in mind - they were *private* revelations, so they don't carry the same weight as the prophecies in Scripture. Take 'em or leave 'em. :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), December 20, 2002.

Chris,
To be entirely fair, I think Ed realises that. But, all of us can speculate. I myself have much devotion to Anne Catherine Emmerich. Her life and experiences are wonderful reading, and have real value for the pious faith we all cultivate. Have a blessed Christmas!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 20, 2002.

Whatever anyone thinks of it, it is vry interesting. again, I suppose that it means, whatever we want it to mean, according towhat we believe, or hope to prove, to ourselves, or to others.

Holy Christmas, Christine, Eugene, Emerald. Frank, and all the rest.

God bless all,

Ed.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 20, 2002.

Hi Ed, Merry Christmas to you too.

I think she saw something, and it meant something which stands alone apart from what people might wish for.

Portend to something to come, or prophecy? What exactly is the distinction to you make here?

Christine, don't forget... the whole is always greater than the part. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 20, 2002.

Ed, no offense meant -- in fact, I have the 4-volume set of her writings at home! I find them very good for meditation on the lives of Mary and Jesus.

A merry Christmas to you too! :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), December 20, 2002.

Christine, I do not have the 4 volumns, but I do have one book by the lady. I can't find it offhand (probably somewhere in the attic), but I have the 4 volumns of "City if God" by sister Mary of Jesus.

I don't know what that has to do with it, but I just thought I'd throw that in.

I do agree with Dave, and Emerald, however that , Emmerich was a true seer, and when she said something about dough being raised in the basement, but that it did not rise, is a matte of concern to me.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 20, 2002.

Dear Emerald;
It may seem I'm waffling,

Portend to something to come, or prophecy? What exactly is the distinction to you make here? --

To be strictly understood I'll say, Emmerich did not have prophesy for her intention. Her visions can be inferred as revealing some future event, but she's not a prophet. Our faith makes very clear demands on us, not to try divining the future.

There are a few disconcerting features about Emmerich's visionary reach. She reported seeing a garden of Paradise up in a Himalayan region protected from the outside world. She saw unicorns; and related the unicorns had miraculous powers over the animal kingdom. A few odd particulars like these; which boggle the imagination. Together with knowledge of future events, all Church- related. These may have contributed to a ''hands off'' retreat from her beatification process??? I don't know.

It led me to rationalizing. I see many of her gifts as genuine; but some visionary experiences may be symbolical and, like any prophesy, conditional. --We must detach ourselves as we read her more mysterious accounts. This is called prudence, one of the Christian virtues.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 20, 2002.

Oops! Just goes to show I need new glasses - you're right, the 4 volume set is City of God by Ven. Mary Agreda! I know I have *something* by Anne Catherine Emmerich somewhere ... film at 11!

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), December 20, 2002.

Ok, I see; yeah that makes sense Gene. The particulars you mentioned, the things alluded to seem somewhat familiar to me but still bizarre enough to hold at arms length. It would be interesting to see it in context. I like the intense awareness of the other side she had, a feel for both the hidden holy and profane things, in objects and places.

I haven't read everything of hers yet and have yet to find a good source that puts it all together in one place; I need to dig deeper I think.

The accounts of suffering always lend credence. All in all, your point is well taken and makes sense. In these things, a sense of the whole and a fitting-in with the rest has safety in it; the likeness to writings of other saints, the presence of a self denial, suffering and lesser-ness, and all the other good stuff that make a saint a saint. That's where I draw the credence from first.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 20, 2002.

Sr. Emmerich, officially only a "venerable," is a saint in my opinion not for her visions but for her fantastic willingness to suffer for the good of souls and to overall live her life in imitation of Jesus. The woman had terrible injuries (from workplace accidents) and later terrible illnesses. She went through what so many people go through from those kinds of things: the indignities and humiliations of being an invalid. But, as her biography shows, she offered these in union with Jesus to God for the good of souls. And, she suffered them imperfectly but with growing union with Jesus. In other words, she wasn't perfect but she became better and better of a person through her illnesses and the openness to the grace of God which those illnesses produced in her. And, she showed kindness and compassion to others throughout all of this. Then, her illnesses worsened and she received the stigmata -- and she still suffered for the good of souls. Meanwhile, when she was able, she sewed clothes for poor children; she listened to people who needed to talk; she offered spiritual counsel to those who sought it; she endured endless skeptical "inquiries" about her stigmata and other spiritual labors; and she generally lived a good and holy life. It was her willingness to live and give LOVE in all of these sufferings which forged her into a saint. As she reports in one of her visions of Jesus, Jesus told her that it is not visions which make a soul holy but it is practicing the virtues and living life in union with God that makes a soul holy. As for her visions of the life of Jesus, they are interesting and they can stimulate fervor, but they are no substitute for the Gospel. I find her biography to be far more inspiring than her visions of the life of Christ because her life was a living witness to the life of Christ -- and thus it helps instruct me (and the rest of us) to better imitate Jesus too. Her biography is also very useful reading for anyone who is born "psychic" or "spiritual" or whatever term you use and wants to remain a good Christian -- she showed loyalty to the Church and humility about her gift (which was also a burden) and without becoming involved in the goofiness or evil that so often masquerades as spirituality these days. In conclusion, I think Sister Emmerich is a saint because she accepted the invitation of Jesus to live in intimate union with God through all of her life and especially all of her sufferings and burdens, and I ask her to pray for me and for us all. God Bless.

-- John (johng3110@hotmail.com), May 30, 2003.

John,
I have much the same feeling for Anne Catherine Emmerich. I'm very devoted to her.

We can never say for sure to what extent her visions or perceived revelations were given us from God. That they were extraordinary, I think everyone agrees.

We shouldn't always accept some things she saw as prophetic. Possibly in some mystical sense they are, some of the scenes. But as faithful Catholics we should let the events unfold, and never anticipate too much. Nevertheless. As the saintly and mystic soul, she is up there with the greatest. I think she's a true bride of Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 31, 2003.