I warmly recommend this volume containing Benedict XVI’s General Audience series on the Doctors of the Church.
Posted on 04/29/2016 3:45:06 PM PDT by NYer
Today is the – in the post-Conciliar, modern, non-traditional – Ordinary Form – Novus Ordo Calendar – Feast of St. Catherine of Siena, Patroness of Europe and named by Paul VI as Doctor of the Church. Thus, her life and works reflect something of the Church’s own role as Teacher. Her head may be venerated in Siena and the rest of her in Rome in the Church Santa Maria sopra Minerva (near the ecclesiastical tailor Gammarelli where we are having vestments made – PLEASE CONTRIBUTE!)
I warmly recommend this volume containing Benedict XVI’s General Audience series on the Doctors of the Church.
Benedict XVI gave a wonderful general audience address about here. HERE
During my recent exile/sojourn in New York City, and during one of my visits to the Met, I spotted three little paintings depicting moments in the life of this great saint. These panels, tempera and gold leaf on wood, were part of an altarpiece commissioned after Catherine was canonized in 1460. They are based on her biography by Bl. Raymond of Capua (+1399), who was Catherine’s spiritual director. Think about that, Fathers! There are two more of these panels in another part of the Met, but it was closed off the day I was there.
This panel shows a common theme for Catherine, her “mystical marriage” with the Lord, as he places a ring on her finger.
According to Bl. Raymond, Christ appeared to Catherine holding a human heart in his hand. He opened her side and put the heart into her saying, “Dearest daughter, as I took your heart away from you the other day, now, you see, I am giving you mine, so that you can go on living with it for ever”. Thus, Catherine experience what St. Paul wrote, “And I live, now not I; but Christ liveth in me. And that I live now in the flesh: I live in the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered himself for me.” (Gal 2:20). She has the mystical-cloud, floating-above-the-rooftops thing going on and, from His gestures, you can tell that the Lord is talking to her. For her part, she gestures to herself, as if to say, “Unworthy me?”
Again according to Bl. Raymond:
“For the seven year period prior to her death, Saint Catherine of Siena took no food into her body other than the Eucharist. Her fasting did not affect her energy, however. She maintained a very active life during those seven years. As a matter of fact, most of her great accomplishments occurred during that period. Not only did her fasting not cause her to lose energy, but became a source of extraordinary strength, she becoming stronger in the afternoon, after having received our Lord in His Eucharist.
In Rome there is a chapel where Catherine received Communion in this manner and priests can say Mass there.
NB: Talk about “turning your back to the people!” I always enjoy these old depictions of Mass. You can see interesting details, such as vestments, etc.
So, there is a little touch of Catherine for you today.
I will also call to your minds something she wrote about Popes.
Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him.
— Saint Catherine of Siena in St. Catherine of Siena, SCS, p. 201-202, p. 222.
And, to Florentines, who were rebelling against Pope Gregory XI:
“He who rebels against our Father, Christ on earth, is condemned to death, for that which we do to him, we do to Christ in heaven – we honor Christ if we honor the pope, we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the pope… I tell you that God will and has so commanded that even if the priests and the pastors of the Church and Christ on earth were incarnate devils, it is seemly that we are obedient and subject to them, not for their sake, but for the sake of God, out of obedience to Him, for He wills that we should act thus.
“Know that the son is never in the right against the father, even if the father is ever so evil and unjust, for so great is the good which he has received from the father, that is, life itself, that he can never repay him for it. And we have received the life of grace from the Church, which is so great a benefit, that we can never, by any kind of homage or gratitude, pay the debt we owe.”
From Anne Baldwin’s Catherine of Siena: A Biography. Huntington, IN: OSV Publishing, 1987, pp.95-6
No.
I am a Catholic scholar.
LOL, I believe you - truly I do.
Oh, and here's my rebuttal, parsed to your level of scholarship:
Yes.
“You’re gone.”
Nope. And clearly even you must not have believed that or you wouldn’t have posted to me again. Apparently you can’t help yourself. You also can’t make an argument.
“LOL, I believe you - truly I do.”
Of course you do. If someone’s looking for a Catholic scholar in posts exchanged between the two of us, they’ll see you fail on both counts.
“Oh, and here’s my rebuttal, parsed to your level of scholarship: Yes.”
Just remember: Siena has one “n”.
I won’t be thinking about this the rest of the night. I bet you will be.
I won’t be thinking about this the rest of the night. I bet you will be.
You could throw a pile of crap against my front door and I'd think about you all night, too. But what have you gained by that, and more importantly, why is it important to you that I think about your all night? What kind of goal is that for a "Catholic scholar"?
Also, the first post I spelled siena correctly. The second time, the autocorrect on my tablet decided I was naming the color, and I missed it. Again, why is such a triviality important to you? For a Catholic scholar, you seem best at simply writing "no" and then unleashing a torrent of personal abuse. Why is that? And why do you think what your are doing has anything to do with Catholicism? Or is it simply paranoia, the belief that anyone thinking differently than you is floating a devious "straw man"?
Are you missing some strawberries?
“You could throw a pile of crap against my front door and I’d think about you all night, too.”
Yeah, you would. I wouldn’t. Your posts are the equivalent.
“But what have you gained by that, and more importantly, why is it important to you that I think about your all night?”
It isn’t important to me. It’s just a fact.
“What kind of goal is that for a “Catholic scholar”?”
It isn’t a goal. It’s just a fact. And you’re proving it’s true right now.
“Also, the first post I spelled siena correctly.”
And there you just didn’t, but you “just happen to be a fan of Catherine of Sienna…”
“The second time, the autocorrect on my tablet decided I was naming the color, and I missed it.”
Oh, the horrors of having to feel like it needs explanation.
“Again, why is such a triviality important to you?”
It isn’t. But it apparently is to you.
“For a Catholic scholar, you seem best at simply writing “no” and then unleashing a torrent of personal abuse.”
Kettle. Pot. “For that need, for that craving in yourself, you really should get some professional help. Because that’s not an expression of your deep Catholic faith, nor your profound spiritual understanding, but rather a primitive and truly satanic desire to just flat-out hurt people while defending your claims to the moral high ground through abuse.” Do you know what the word “hypocrisy” means? If so, do you know how it applies to what you posted?
“Why is that?”
I posted no personal abuse at all.
“And why do you think what your are doing has anything to do with Catholicism?”
And why do you think what you are doing has anything to do with Catholicism?
“Or is it simply paranoia, the belief that anyone thinking differently than you is floating a devious “straw man”?”
So you think paranoia is a belief that someone is thinking differently than someone else and/or that he is “floating” a “devious” straw man?
“Are you missing some strawberries?”
Nope. Are you missing a dictionary? Or is your dictionary missing an entry for “paranoia”?
Remember, Siena still has one “n”.
You remind me of “Silas” in “The Da Vinci Code”.
“You remind me of “Silas” in “The Da Vinci Code””
You remind me of Karl Childers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAgSUFT4cVk
Of course I do - to Silas, everyone who disagrees with him is Karl Childers.
That's why he's Silas.
Or is it that you're obsessed with me personally? You got a twitch for me, Silas? Because on this very thread, several people have acknowledged the legitimacy of my question - and that's all I did, was ask a question - yet you haven't hound-dogged any of them. But I get your special care, don't I? For me, there is the hatred and the obsession. Why is that, Silas? After all, I didn't call you out - you attacked me personally over my question. It suddenly became very important to you that my question be exposed as the "straw man" I was using to undermine the sanctity of the Church.
Pissed me off, too. I really wasn't in the mood for the descent of malicious insanity - I was in a good mood, a contemplative mood. And then - you showed up.
I think though, in my irritation over you (and that's really all you are, an irritant) I overreacted against the Church. It is, still, in my personal experience, the source of a remarkable number of creatures like you. But it is also the source of many wonderful people in my life, and I will not lump you in with them. They are as far from you as Christ's love and compassion - literally. You know them not. And they are Catholic, and I respect them greatly and their faith as well.
I'm done with you here. As enamored as you are in being a snarling mad dog for the Church, sniffing out devious straw-men that no one else but you can see, I find you nothing more than a waste of time. So goodbye, Silas.
“Of course I do - to Silas, everyone who disagrees with him is Karl Childers. That’s why he’s Silas.”
Except it was not for disagreement that you remind me of him. I’m not surprised you would get it wrong.
“Or is it that you’re obsessed with me personally?”
No, and if I were that would mean there wasn’t much there to be obsessed with.
“You got a twitch for me, Silas?”
No, but you’ve been thinking about this all weekend apparently. If there’s a twitch, it’s all yours.
“Because on this very thread, several people have acknowledged the legitimacy of my question - and that’s all I did, was ask a question - yet you haven’t hound-dogged any of them.”
Again, I posted the answer to your question. I have done it several times. Here it is again: “Jesus was talking about setting a man against his father in His own day and metaphorically later on. He was not discussing what Catherine said. Jesus was talking about faith in Him setting a man against his father. Catherine was talking about a man being obedient to his father because of faith in Christ.”
You keep avoiding it. But there it is.
“But I get your special care, don’t I?”
Nope. I treat every anti-Catholic here the same. Like it or not you don’t get any different treatment than any other.
“For me, there is the hatred and the obsession. Why is that, Silas?”
For me, your apparent imaginings are your obsession. Why do you have them, Karl?
“After all, I didn’t call you out - you attacked me personally over my question.”
Nope. I just stated the truth. There were no personal attacks at all.
“It suddenly became very important to you that my question be exposed as the “straw man” I was using to undermine the sanctity of the Church.”
No. It is no more important than the post of any other anti-Catholic at any other time. You might want to believe you’re special, but you’re not. And you certainly won’t be treated that way by me. Every anti-Catholic gets treated the same.
“Pissed me off, too.”
Started sharpening the mower blade, huh? In other words, I was right all along and what I said hit home? That was obvious from the start.
“I really wasn’t in the mood for the descent of malicious insanity - I was in a good mood, a contemplative mood. And then - you showed up.”
If you can’t handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you can’t handle the truth, either change your heart so you can or stop pursuing it. Your question was answered. It’s just that simple.
“I think though, in my irritation over you (and that’s really all you are, an irritant) I overreacted against the Church.”
That might be a nice, convenient explanation for what you did, but it hardly seems rational in any case.
“It is, still, in my personal experience, the source of a remarkable number of creatures like you.”
And anti-Catholicism routinely only produces people who not only don’t know the truth, but who can’t handle it and lash out at those who tells it to them.
“But it is also the source of many wonderful people in my life, and I will not lump you in with them.”
Go ahead and don’t. It is irrelevant what you do when you’re working from error in any case.
“They are as far from you as Christ’s love and compassion - literally. You know them not. And they are Catholic, and I respect them greatly and their faith as well.”
Your opinion, grounded in your own error - for we have seen that it is not grounded in truth and you have already talked about being “pissed off” and irritated - is irrelevant.
“I’m done with you here.”
That’s the second time you have said something like that. I think you should stick to your own word then. It might help you.
“As enamored as you are in being a snarling mad dog for the Church, sniffing out devious straw-men that no one else but you can see,”
It’s interesting that you have more than once labeled your own straw man as “devious”. In post #28 I even asked you to show me where I ever said it was “devious”. Of course you failed to do so. I never said it was “devious”. You apparently keep imagining that.
“I find you nothing more than a waste of time.”
And yet you keep posting to me - even after you say you’re done. I have no reason to believe what you say even about your own point of view.
“So goodbye, Silas.”
Keep sharpening that mower blade, Karl. At least something you have then will be sharp.
Pay no mind to those self-proclaimed "catholic scholars" who are running around nowadays in "francischurch".
Pope Francis, has praised Herr Heretic Walter Cardinal Kasper as a "very sharp theologian". This same "theologian", who has denied the historicity of Christ's Resurrection in his book, and, as early as 1993, signed, along with other German heretics, a petition to Rome to allow Holy Communion for unrepentant public adulterers. Well now Francis is "in the house" and he has given free reign to Kasper at both SinNods.
"Yesterday, before falling asleep, though not to fall asleep, I read, or re-read, Cardinal Kasper’s remarks. I would like to thank him, because I found a deep theology, and serene thoughts in theology. It is nice to read serene theology. It did me well and I had an idea, and excuse me if I embarrass Your Eminence, but the idea is: this is called doing theology while kneeling. Thank you. Thank you.”
Isn't that heresy? How can he remain a priest, let alone a Cardinal?
“Pay no mind to those self-proclaimed “catholic scholars” who are running around nowadays in “francischurch”.”
ebb, if you’re going to talk about me have the courage to ping me. Otherwise, don’t ping me. Now, if you wanted to show something, you could go ahead and tell Talisker what you think about “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”. Your opinion of it would mean Talisker is going exactly where after death?
Oh hi, Silas. Long time no see. Anyway, there's this guy? I think he called himself Pope Benedict? And before that, for a quarter of a century, he was, lemme see, oh yeah, something called "Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith"? Which is, like, a "Catholic scholar" like you - but of course not as high level as you.
Anyway, concerning your personal issue here, your intense concern for my soul, and "extra ecclesiam nulla salus," here's what that Pope Benedict guy wrote:
"What concerns us is no longer how 'the others' will be saved. Certainly we know, by our faith in divine mercy, that they can be saved. How this happens, we leave to God. The point that does concern us is principally this: Why, despite the wider possibility of salvation, is the Church still necessary? Why should faith and life still continue to come through her? In other words, the present day Christians no longer question if their non-believer brothers can reach salvation. Overall, they desire to know what is the meaning of their union with the universal embrace of Christ and their union with the Church."
(Joseph Ratzinger, "Necessita della missione della Chiesa nel mondo," in La Fine della Chiesa come Societa Perfetta, Verona: Mondatori, 1968, pp 69-70).
So like, being a Catholic scholar and everything, I thought maybe you could offer any corrections you see are necessary in this Pope guy's opinion? I'd appreciate it, if you've got the time. Thanks again, Silas.
Francis has never met a heretic he didn’t like. Or a godless muslim for that matter.
Unless you’re claiming ebb tide is Pope Benedict XVI everything you posted has nothing to do with ebb tide’s opinion of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Thanks for proving once again, Karl, how you can’t make an argument.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3294783/posts
You’re welcome, Karl. Here you are in your element: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwbtqZj_ciU
My reply was to Vlad, aka Silas, not you. He just used you as an excuse to attack me again anyway. It seems I live in his head rent-free. Lucky me.
So you're cool with Benedict's interpretation?
Thanks, that what I wanted to know.
“My reply was to Vlad, aka Silas, not you. He just used you as an excuse to attack me again anyway. It seems I live in his head rent-free. Lucky me.”
Don’t be dishonest. ebb tide posted to YOU a quote from ME. I responded to both of you.
And if you’re living rent free in my head - and believe me that’s a tremendous over estimation of how much you rate - then why do YOU keep posting to me after you said you would stop? Clearly you can’t.
“So you’re cool with Benedict’s interpretation? Thanks, that what I wanted to know.”
I don’t think it is what you wanted to know, but ask ebb tide. Oh, that’s right: no guts. Questions only get asked by anti-Catholics when they can be used against Catholics. When an anti-Catholic (who does nothing but bash the Catholic faith) encounters a supposed Catholic (who does nothing but bash the Catholic pope) suddenly there is common cause between them and questions that might separate those new found buddies don’t get asked. No guts. Right, Karl?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pz2kXoDo_s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.