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.