Where Is The Holy Grail?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='kafka' post='1785484' date='Feb 19 2009, 11:57 AM']My understanding is that her works were set aside when considering her beautification since the process is based on who one is and if one has lived virtue heroically and to a high degree, and not on what one writes.[/quote]
From Divinus Perfectionis Magister 1983


2. If the Servant of God has published any writings, the Bishop is to see to it that they are examined by theological censors.

3. If the writings have been found to contain nothing contrary to faith and good morals, then the Bishop should order persons qualified for this task to collect other unpublished writings (letters, diaries, etc.) as well as all documents, which in any way pertain to the cause. After they have faithfully completed their task, they are to write a report on their investigations.


A priest from my old diocese who was martyred in Guatemala is being put forward, and I had to send in copies of letters he had written me 35 years ago. They look at everything available. Her passion narrative got a lot of negative press as being anti-Semitic because that is what Mel Gibson based his Passion of the Christ movie on. Since she spoke a Westphalian dialect, she had someone who translated her works into proper German. They are saying the anti-Semitic tone is due to his translation, and not to her, so they are allowed to disregard.

This process is one of the reasons, I believe, that John Paul wanted his personal papers destroyed after his death. It's not that they contained anything "un-saintly," but because he just didn't want his privacy violated like this after his death. His wishes were not carried out by his executor.

[kafka]

well then from that point of view her works must be free from substantial errors of faith and morals, since they beautified her. She dictated to the person who recorded her visions, and would have him re-read everything to her. I cant imagine how one today in our modern times could sit down and decide which lines were are attributed to Emmerich, and which ones were of her translator's.

Without going into a whole long explanation, that whole link between Mel's Gibson's movie-possible Jewish racial slurs-and the connection to Blessed Anne's works was blown out of proportion.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='kafka' post='1785519' date='Feb 19 2009, 12:59 PM']well then from that point of view her works must be free from substantial errors of faith and morals, since they beautified her. She dictated to the person who recorded her visions, and would have him re-read everything to her. I cant imagine how one today in our modern times could sit down and decide which lines were are attributed to Emmerich, and which ones were of her translator's.

Without going into a whole long explanation, that whole link between Mel's Gibson's movie-possible Jewish racial slurs-and the connection to Blessed Anne's works was blown out of proportion.[/quote]

That's why I was asking if they had excluded her Holy Grail writings as well. I guess the only way that they can figure out how much is the translator, is to compare to her actual writings in Westphalian. If she was dictating, it might be impossible, and they may exclude all of those. If they have included her Holy Grail writings in what they evaluated for errors, you can see how that would totally change the way we are allowed to view them.

I agree about the Mel Gibson thing. I'm still not sure what part of the Passion was supposed to have been anti-Semitic. I just did a paper on the Passion narrative of Mark, and I don't remember anything from Mel's movie that conflicted. Maybe I need to watch it again.

[kafka]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1785597' date='Feb 19 2009, 03:33 PM']That's why I was asking if they had excluded her Holy Grail writings as well. I guess the only way that they can figure out how much is the translator, is to compare to her actual writings in Westphalian. If she was dictating, it might be impossible, and they may exclude all of those. If they have included her Holy Grail writings in what they evaluated for errors, you can see how that would totally change the way we are allowed to view them.[/quote]
I found an excellent article concerning Blessed Anne and the Brentano writings.
[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3586&CFID=27407569&CFTOKEN=20376610"]http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/lib...FTOKEN=20376610[/url]
All the writings were excluded from the beautification process:

"In the reopened case, the Brentano writings are a moot point. Since Brentano wrote Emmerich's visions down, and not Emmerich herself, they cannot technically be considered Emmerich's writings. They therefore bear no positive or negative weight in the case. Critics of this decision must remember that the experts involved in the process are just that -- well-experienced experts in the field of beatification and canonization affairs. They are following stringent and accepted rules. This should be realized before criticizing the behavior of the sacred congregation involved in the case. By excluding the writings, they were, however, by no means condemned."

This is very interesting, since it basically leaves her private revelations to the judgment of the sensum fidelium. It leaves the decision of her work up to the grace of the Holy Spirit working through the Faithful in general. And as is mentioned in that same above article many famous Catholics recommended her works, and countless, millions of Catholics over the past two centuries have believed her visions authentic and have benefited from them. I hear her descriptions of the Blessed Virgin's house and environs in Ephesus were used to locate and excavate what is known today as the House of the Virgin Mary, which Popes and Bishops have venerated, and which was miraculously preserved from a wild fire a couple of years ago (saving more than a few pilgrims).

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='kafka' post='1785414' date='Feb 19 2009, 12:15 PM']Metaphors and symbols are figures of speech. The way in which she describes her visions is plain, and straightforward, in sort of a first person narrative style, as if she were present at the events she describes.[/quote]

The Book of Revelation to John was written in a first-person style too, though maybe not so plain and straightforward, but obviously some parts are supposed to be interpreted more literally than others. But who knows... it doesn't make much difference to me either way.

[MithLuin]

I told them we've already got one...

According to the Indiana Jones movie, the grail was taken by St. John to the cross, and used to catch some of Jesus' blood in it. Not sure why he would do that or where [i]that[/i] legend came from, but anyway, that might be a motivation for considering it very special.

And yes, Petra was used as the set for the location of the grail in that movie.



To be honest, I have no reason to suspect that the cup Jesus used at the Last Supper still exists. I'm sure it was broken and destroyed ages ago.

Edited February 23, 2009 by MithLuin

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1788956' date='Feb 23 2009, 12:03 AM']To be honest, I have no reason to suspect that the cup Jesus used at the Last Supper still exists. I'm sure it was broken and destroyed ages ago.[/quote]

Yeah, the early Christians weren't too keen on keeping relics.

Just kidding, but curious why you're so certain? If there isn't a real Holy Grail, that Monty Python movie was meaningless!