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
A saint’s teaching —— even if she is a Doctor of the Church -— does not become a part of the sacred deposit of the faith. Saints do not, of themselves, exercise the authority of the Magisterium.
We have to pay a certain attention to literary and social context. So many of us, when we read religious texts especially, seem to suspend our ability to detect elements like rhetorical hyperbole.
Jesus says, for instance, that anybody who does not *hate* his father, mother, brother, sister, wife, and children, for His sake, is not worthy of Him.
Then He says to honor father and mother, says we must be perfect like our heavenly Fsther who always gives good gifts to His children, commsnds us to love brother and sister and neighbor.
Context.
I wouldn’t put up with any pastor that would preach surrender to evil. Do have done so in WWII would have made things even more hellish on earth than they were.
And so is it now.
God help me and the millions more in our army, each doing what we hope we can for that which is Good, Right and True.
I would humbly suggest reading the comments on Father Z’s site. Context is given along with the fact that St. Catherine called a Pope to task herself.
Our priest said today that St. Catherine was the only one who could see the ring the Lord gave her.
I figure anything going on with the Pope is in the Holy Spirit’s job description and since I definitely do not try and tell the Holy Spirit what to do, I just stay in the trenches and be a “mule” for my parish. Move heavy objects, try and teach catechism to teens, help with service projects, stuff like that. Other than that, a daily “Jesus, I trust in You” and Rosary keeps me somewhat sane between Sunday Mass. :)
Canon lawyer, Dr. Edward Peters:
“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.” I’m sorry. I don’t care who said it. I’m fed up with pious nonsense begin passed off as profound verities. Let this quote from one of my all-time most favorite saints (if you have not read Undset’s bio of her, do so today!) remind us all that great holiness is still possible even for folks who, at least once in their glorious lives, said something stupid.
Yes, that’s what we do. And nobody who is off-focus can stop us, no?? The Pope is not my pastor. Eisenhower did not control each and every soldier - they made their own decisions. Had he done so, regardless of how Right he was, we would not have won the War. Each and every soldier made decisions if they had to, no?
“So Jesus’ teaching only applied to his immediate environment 2000 years ago,”
No. That is NOT what I said. Try again.
“but Catherine’s teachings are to be considered contemporary because she lived 550 years ago,”
She lived over 600 years ago. And all people are contemporary to their own times. No one is contemporary to our time unless they are alive in our time. Is that difficult to understand? No, it isn’t.
What I said was simple enough as well: “How about by [sic] not taking Jesus’ comments out of their historical context or forgetting about the fact that Catherine lived 1300 years later? What is the likelihood you would understand it if you can’t understand what Catherine said?”
“and I’m a bigot for asking about an apparent direct contradiction with Christ, and too ignorant, really, to even ask anything at all?”
YOU - in your very question - create a straw man because Jesus and Catherine were talking about TWO DIFFERENT THINGS AND IN TWO DIFFERENT TIMES. As I said: “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.”
Anyone can see this. It’s OBVIOUS. It’s the whole point of what she was saying, to whom she was saying it and why she was saying it. And all of that apparently escapes you.
“LOL, you know, I was raised in the Church and left it because of the unbelieveable level of arrogant, contemptuous jackassery I had to deal with for asking the simplest of questions.”
I don’t believe you were “raised in the Church” and I have no reason whatsoever to believe you bothered to HONESTLY ask “the simplest of questions”.
“So occasionally, I ask similiar questions here, to check that decision I made - just simple, straightforward, and honest questions about my actual understanding.”
No, there’s not a single scrap of reason to believe that’s what you do. If it were true that that’s what you were doing then at least on occasion you would be asking a question that wasn’t so obviously grounded in error, or a clear straw man. But that never seems to happen.
“And you never fail me - rushing out of whatever priest hole you live in,...”
Oh, and there we see the real spirit of “similiar questions” and “actual understanding.” See, it only takes a little pressure on the anti-Catholic’s scab and the pus of prejudice comes poring out now doesn’t it?
“to spew invective as hard and fast as you can, utterly blind to your own hatred - and yes, you portray real, genuine hatred. It rolls off of you like a black cloud of filth.”
Nope. I just know what I’m dealing with. My posts hit a nerve again and again and again. It comes from years and years of experience of dealing with anti-Catholics and catching them lying, misrepresenting things, making things up out of thin air, taking things out of context, making straw men, apparently imaging things and generally having near nervous break downs when anyone dares to point out their obvious errors.
“So for your consistency, thank you - really.”
I appreciate yours too. I know when you post it will be filled with errors, mistakes, misrepresentations and straw men. I also know when I refute your errors, I’ll get posts like the one I am responding to now - which prove I was right in the first place because you won’t even deal with the points I made.
“Once again, you have absolutely confirmed my decision to leave the Church, and I think I’m pretty much done with any more reality checks, because you ARE the reality of the Church, and I need to just accept that.”
I have no reason to believe you ever used any post from me as a reality check for anything other than your own posted errors.
“Because the truth is that for all it’s claims, the Church CREATES creatures like you, utterly devoid of the love of Christ, soul predator looking for victims, and I have zero interest in getting near such a stink ever again.”
Let’s use your logic: If my post - which point out your error - shows the Church created me and I am somehow “utterly devoid of the love of Christ, soul predator looking for victims” then what does it say about your faith, your sect, that you repeatedly post what are not only error laden posts but clearly straw men? FR does not allow me to ascribe motive to your posting. I don’t have to. It’s obvious.
“So this is a good thread - it made that really clear to me, and in doing so, reflected once and for all to what Catholicism really is.”
And yet, it is almost guaranteed, that this will not be the last time you post straw men kind of question is it? So, it isn’t “once and for all” is it?
“Because really, what a devious question I asked, eh?”
Show me where I said it was devious. Like I said, “...anti-Catholics ...making things up out of thin air...apparently imaging things...”
“A Saint directly contradicting the words of Christ”
That’s not what happened. 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.” DO YOU NOT SEE THE DIFFERENCE THERE???
“- when everyone knows Christ was only talking about those people with him then at that time, and that obedience to the Pope has absolutely nothing to do with obedience to Christ, within the Catholic Church. Yeah, what a scoundrel I am to even ask!”
So you’re now clearly saying you already had come to a definite conclusion and your question was not in good faith?
“Again, thank you for being such a TRUE Catholic. As a result of your efforts, I have no more questions.”
There’s no logical reason to conclude you had any to begin with.
“I just happen to be a fan of Catherine of Sienna, and so getting attacked over an honest query about her hit me particularly wrong, especially today.”
Yes, you’re such a big fan that you spell it as Sienna.
And here was the answer to your honest query - which you apparently won’t deal with:
“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.”
Keep skipping it and we’ll all see how “honest” your “query” was.
Anti-pope guided by anti-Holy Spirit.
“even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them”
That’s ridiculous, prima facie absurd, and is akin to saying black is white or some other inherent contradiction.
[8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. Galatians; Chapter 1
Saint Paul to the Galations 1:6-10
[6] I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. [7] Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
http://drbo.org/chapter/55001.htm
since Catherine of Sienna told off the corrupt pope for living it up in France and told him to get his bottom back to Rome, I think the good father is quoting her out of context.
The problem is not the pope’s letter/report per se (lots of it is good). It is a footnote that is the problem, which may have been slipped into the report.
And shame on the Pope for not correcting the impression that is being pushed by the MSM.
Myself, I agree with Confucius: Marriage and family are duties. Love follows if you are lucky.
All the talk of “love” and “compassion” are nothing more than letting sociopaths get away with their own selfish desires.
Yes, therein lies the difference between a "bad" pope and a "heretic" pope. Bad popes still deserve our obedience because they still teach and preach the Catholic Faith. A heretic "pope" does not. In fact, a manifest, heretic pope that teaches and preaches to the universal church heresy is outside the Church and therefore no pope at all.
Yes, see my post 35.
you said: “I figure anything going on with the Pope is in the Holy Spirit’s job description....”
And I concur. Through good and bad, Christianity has survived due to the faith of Christians and the power of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Given the inescapable context of "action within the Church," it is presumable that Catherine was warning against one's "faith in Christ" ever leading to a rejection of one's father. Also, recognizing her sainthood (even by my morally reprehensible, mortally erroneous and satanic inclusion of an extra "n" in her name) would lend an extra power to her restriction against contextual leeway in interpretation.
After all, why else would she invoke the extremity of the contrast of Satan vs. the Pope if not to emphasize the absoluteness, the NON-contextuality, of her point?
So the problem of contextual interpretation is then further magnified by her apparent opposition to the direct words of Christ Himself.
None of this is even remotely an attack on the Church, but rather an inquiry into the limits and boundaries of doctrinal interpretations and contextual meanings. To a true Catholic scholar it's actually a fascinating situation, because saint's lives consist in walking the razor's edge in their teachings, while Jesus combines infinite power, infinite love, and yet often a playful challenge to "get it right" in His.
So clearly, but hardly surprisingly, you've missed the pleasure of this subtle interplay of potential meanings. In your fervent effort to erase the legitimacy of every aspect of my personal spiritual life, you've given no evidence of recognizing the actual subject under examination at all. In fact, your belief in the "power" of your "question" just shows how sophomoric and facile your so-called understanding really is.
What's really appalling, however, is your intense desire to use your limited beliefs to create and destroy enemies who literally only exist in your own mind. 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. And you've demonstrated it many, many times - including on this thread.
Get help.
“Given the inescapable context of “action within the Church,” it is presumable that Catherine was warning against one’s “faith in Christ” ever leading to a rejection of one’s father.”
No.
“Also, recognizing her sainthood (even by my morally reprehensible, mortally erroneous and satanic inclusion of an extra “n” in her name)”
It is not “morally reprehensible, mortally erroneous and satanic”. It is just an error that shows you probably don’t know much about her and yet you claim you are a fan of hers. It’s about credibility.
“would lend an extra power to her restriction against contextual leeway in interpretation.”
Jesus and Catherine were discussing two different things to two different audiences in two different times. Complain all you like, but that impacts proper interpretation. You seem to keep ignoring that fact.
“After all, why else would she invoke the extremity of the contrast of Satan vs. the Pope if not to emphasize the absoluteness, the NON-contextuality, of her point?”
She did so precisely because some people regarded the pope of her day as an evil man, a tool of the devil (after all he was French!). Also, she specifically used the name Satan when addressing rebels about their rebellion against a pope they called a devil. The Devil (Satan) IS a rebel. The Florentines were rebels. Yet they called the pope Satan. St. Catherine wasn’t stupid. She knew how to get the Florentines to think about their actions. And, of course, all of this apparently goes right over your head. Context.
“So the problem of contextual interpretation is then further magnified by her apparent opposition to the direct words of Christ Himself.”
No, because there is no “apparent opposition to the direct words of Christ Himself.” As I have already pointed out on more than once occasion (but you keep ignoring it): “Jesus and Catherine were discussing two different things to two different audiences in two different times. Complain all you like, but that impacts proper interpretation.”
“None of this is even remotely an attack on the Church, but rather an inquiry into the limits and boundaries of doctrinal interpretations and contextual meanings.”
No, it’s an attack on the Church. I’ve seen you do this before: posting a straw man. You’re creating - wittingly or unwittingly - a false premise and false argument. Look at how many times you insisted - without any evidence - that Catherine spoke in “opposition to the direct words of Christ Himself” when they were in fact talking about different things in different times to different audiences.
“To a true Catholic scholar it’s actually a fascinating situation,”
I am a Catholic scholar. It’s not fascinating because it’s a false juxtaposition, a straw man, that you’re posting. The only thing possibly fascinating about it is the obvious misrepresentation about it from you. And that’s not really fascinating at all because it is so painfully obvious.
“because saint’s lives consist in walking the razor’s edge in their teachings, while Jesus combines infinite power, infinite love, and yet often a playful challenge to “get it right” in His.”
I bet anti-Catholics like the sound of their own words.
“So clearly, but hardly surprisingly, you’ve missed the pleasure of this subtle interplay of potential meanings.”
I missed nothing because between the two of us you’re the one admitting you didn’t understand it: That’s why you were asking questions wasn’t it, right? If they were honest questions, that is. I posted the answer. I missed nothing at all. You’re still apparently missing quite a bit.
“In your fervent effort to erase the legitimacy of every aspect of my personal spiritual life,”
What? Either someone’s “personal spiritual life” has legitimacy or it doesn’t. Nothing I can do will change that either way. The very fact that you posted such a comment may tell us what you think of that legitimacy.
“you’ve given no evidence of recognizing the actual subject under examination at all.”
Not only did I do that - but I answered your question and did so in my first post to you. What you posited was a false premise. I posted the correct answer to your question with the correct understanding of what was mentioned.
“In fact, your belief in the “power” of your “question” just shows how sophomoric and facile your so-called understanding really is.”
Except that I was correct and continue to be and that’s why you’re not even attempting an argument to the contrary, right?
“What’s really appalling, however, is your intense desire to use your limited beliefs to create and destroy enemies who literally only exist in your own mind.”
In just two posts you created a false juxtaposition, a false premise, and then you attributed a false motive to me. I, on the other hand, made no errors of any such kind and don’t believe I really have any enemies here in mind or fact. For someone to be my enemy, he can’t simply be some nobody who posts obviously erroneous blather on the internet. That’s not an enemy. There are other and better labels for such a person, but enemy certainly isn’t one of them. An enemy is someone who can actually oppose you, perhaps withstand you, give you some trouble, be a challenge. That is not the case here. I have no enemies here. I never have.
“For that need, for that craving in yourself, you really should get some professional help.”
Well, since you have now - for the third time - engaged in “mind reading”, I suggest you seek out what you suggest.
“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.”
No, I was simply right all along. Whether or not a person is hurt by the truth can not be my concern when the truth itself is at stake. If anyone here is “hurt” by someone pointing out the truth, he should refrain from posting to those who care about the truth. Perhaps he can take up knitting or some other activity to occupy his time if he finds discussing issues of truth to fraught with difficulties and risks. He should leave the discussion of truth to those who are adult enough to handle it.
“And you’ve demonstrated it many, many times - including on this thread.”
All I demonstrated was that your premise was wrong - it was a false juxtaposition. The answer you need is right here (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.”
“Get help.”
“Siena” has one “n”. There’s some help for you.
You’re gone.
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.