St. Catherine of Siena quote source?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jmj603
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For he sees his subjects commit faults and sins, and pretends not to see them and fails to correct them; or if he does correct them, he does it with such coldness and lukewarmness that he does not accomplish anything, but plasters vice over; and he is always afraid of giving displeasure or of getting into a quarrel.
Click to expand...
The letter is admonishing the pope for failure to correct errors of his subjects, as someone pointed out earlier in the thread. It had nothing to do with the pope leading the faithful (i.e., the Church universal) personally into error with regard to faith or morals.

Taking the quote out of context as the OP did (it was erased by the moderator) to show that the Church, through her Vicar, is teaching error is really devious and worthy of condemnation. All throughout the thread, the OP was denigrating the Church. No, it was not an innocent mistake based on a wrong reading of the letter. The quote was a ploy to spread falsehood, as it has also been done on the websites which initiated it.
 
Joysong said:
Quote:
For he sees his subjects commit faults and sins, and pretends not to see them and fails to correct them; or if he does correct them, he does it with such coldness and lukewarmness that he does not accomplish anything, but plasters vice over; and he is always afraid of giving displeasure or of getting into a quarrel.

The letter is admonishing the pope for failure to correct errors of his subjects, as someone pointed out earlier in the thread. It had nothing to do with the pope leading the faithful (i.e., the Church universal) personally into error with regard to faith or morals.

Taking the quote out of context as the OP did (it was erased by the moderator) to show that the Church, through her Vicar, is teaching error is really devious and worthy of condemnation. All throughout the thread, the OP was denigrating the Church. No, it was not an innocent mistake based on a wrong reading of the letter. The quote was a ploy to spread falsehood, as it has also been done on the websites which initiated it.
Click to expand...
You left out the rest of what St. Catherine said.

"For he sees his subjects commit faults and sins, and pretends not to see them and fails to correct them; or if he does correct them, he does it with such coldness and lukewarmness that he does not accomplish anything, but plasters vice over; and he is always afraid of giving displeasure or of getting into a quarrel. All this is because he loves himself. Sometimes men like this want to get along with purely peaceful means. I say that this is the very worst cruelty which can be shown. If a wound when necessary is not cauterized or cut out with steel, but simply covered with ointment, not only does it fail to heal, but it infects everything, and many a time death follows from it.

Oh me, oh me, sweetest “Babbo” mine! This is the reason that all the subjects are corrupted by impurity and iniquity. Oh me, weeping I say it! How dangerous is that worm we spoke of! For not only does it give death to the shepherd, but all the rest fall into sickness and death through it. Why does that shepherd go on using so much ointment? Because he does not suffer in consequence! For no displeasure visits one and no ill will, from spreading ointment over the sick; since one does nothing contrary to their will; they wanted ointment, and so ointment is given them. Oh, human wretchedness! Blind is the sick man who does not know his own need, and blind the shepherd-physician, who has regard to nothing but pleasing, and his own advantage–since, not to forfeit it, he refrains from using the knife of justice or the fire of ardent charity! But such men do as Christ says: for if one blind man guide the other, both fall into the ditch. Sick man and physician fall into hell. Such a man is a right hireling shepherd, for, far from dragging his sheep from the hands of the wolf, he devours them himself.”
 
Walking_Home said:
While I agree–communion on the tongue will not offer 100% protection from sacriledge—it does greatly diminish the occurance. Now as to negative infallibility—it was our late Pope who connected — “However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species” to communion in the hand. That does shed a different light on “negative infallibility”.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid I have to disagree with your reading of what the old Holy Father said. He didn’t say that communion in the hand per se was the CAUSE of the deplorable lack of respect, but rather made the observation that disrespect was occuring in the context the reception of communion in the hand. Thus, I don’t think it diminishes the idea of negative infallibility (which is a quite traditional teaching of the Church). I do agree with you that communion on the tongue probably DOES diminish the occurance of problems (I rec. on the tongue). What would fix it all the way around is good, sound catechesis, which I’m sure we would both agree is grievously lacking. It would fix it for everyone save those truly and maliciously bent on evil and I don’t think that communion on the tongue would stop THEM.
 
AlexV said:
The same old tiresome oversimplification.

Popes are “infallible” in very narrow circumstances. Not everything a pope approves discipinarily is necessarily efficacious.

Paul VI allowed experimentation in the Mass. That’s a fact. He told the Consilium for implementing Vatican II that experiments could be conducted.

Did they lead to rather un-efficacious results? Certainly one could argue they did.

That’s because Paul’s decision to allow experiments in 1967 wasn’t infallible - positively or negatively.
Click to expand...
No one is arguing that popes don’t make prudentially unsound decisions. I’m simply arguing the old traditional idea that a discipline cannot lead the faithful astray, not that everything that proceeds from any given pope’s mouth is founded on sterling judgement. It has more to do with Christ’s promise to the Church, with the Holy Spirit’s protection of the Church, than to an extreme ultra-montanist leaning (I love the fact that the popes aren’t crowned anymore, for example:)).
 
laudamus_te said:
I didn’t say “off topic,” I said you’re changing the subject. You stated that a pope cannot teach error. Now you are apparently changing your statement, but why can’t you at least admit that you were wrong without changing the subject to make appear that you were right?
Click to expand...
Um, I think I qualified it for you in the post immediately after you raised the objection.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
I’m afraid I have to disagree with your reading of what the old Holy Father said. He didn’t say that communion in the hand per se was the CAUSE of the deplorable lack of respect, but rather made the observation that disrespect was occuring in the context the reception of communion in the hand. Thus, I don’t think it diminishes the idea of negative infallibility (which is a quite traditional teaching of the Church). I do agree with you that communion on the tongue probably DOES diminish the occurance of problems (I rec. on the tongue). What would fix it all the way around is good, sound catechesis, which I’m sure we would both agree is grievously lacking. It would fix it for everyone save those truly and maliciously bent on evil and I don’t think that communion on the tongue would stop THEM.
Click to expand...
Of course you say—you disagree. How else would you carry forth your argument. You “disagreeing” does not change the late Pope himself making the connection between communion in the hand and the “deplorable lack of respect”. How can this sacrilege occur “in the context” of communion in the hand—if not because communion in the hand is allowed.

"In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist.
 
Walking_Home said:
Of course you say—you disagree. How else would you carry forth your argument. You “disagreeing” does not change the late Pope himself making the connection between communion in the hand and the “deplorable lack of respect”. How can this sacrilege occur “in the context” of communion in the hand—if not because communion in the hand is allowed.

"In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Because if I agree with you on this point (IE, that it is BECAUSE of a legitimately allowed discipline of the Church that this disrespect is occuring, that IMPIETY is occuring), I’m disagreeing with Trent and there’s an anathema attached to that! I try to avoid those.

The pope clearly states that this doesn’t include those who DO receive Holy Communion in the hand reverently and worthily. This seems to at least implicitly state that the mode of reception is a neutral to which either good or evil can be brought.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Because if I agree with you on this point (IE, that it is BECAUSE of a legitimately allowed discipline of the Church that this disrespect is occuring, that IMPIETY is occuring), I’m disagreeing with Trent and there’s an anathema attached to that! I try to avoid those.

The pope clearly states that this doesn’t include those who DO receive Holy Communion in the hand reverently and worthily. This seems to at least implicitly state that the mode of reception is a neutral to which either good or evil can be brought.
Click to expand...
Communion on the tongue–may not be 100% foolproof–but it does greatly diminish the possibility of sacrilege. I have not read where a Pope specifically associates it with deplorable disrespect as our late Pope did with communion in the hand. How can something be “neutral” when it can and does increase the possibility of sacrilege—to where a Pope makes a statement that it does happen.

Yes —there are those who do receive reverently—but at what cost. Who pays the price—if not our Lord Jesus Christ. Who has become more important.
 
Walking_Home said:
Communion on the tongue–may not be 100% foolproof–but it does greatly diminish the possibility of sacrilege. I have not read where a Pope specifically associates it with deplorable disrespect as our late Pope did with communion in the hand. How can something be “neutral” when it can and does increase the possibility of sacrilege—to where a Pope makes a statement that it does happen.

Yes —there are those who do receive reverently—but at what cost. Who pays the price—if not our Lord Jesus Christ. Who has become more important.
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing that the Pope didn’t mention the two together in the same paragraph. I’m arguing that it does following that he is saying that communion in the hand is impious of itself. He doesn’t say that.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
I’m not arguing that the Pope didn’t mention the two together in the same paragraph. I’m arguing that it does following that he is saying that communion in the hand is impious of itself. He doesn’t say that.
Click to expand...
The problem is— that one act cannot be divorced from the other. Sacrilege happens—because communion in the hand happens.
 
Walking_Home said:
Yes —there are those who do receive reverently—but at what cost. Who pays the price—if not our Lord Jesus Christ. Who has become more important.
Click to expand...
In all of this relentless arguing about Communion in the hand, that is what is being forgotten. Anyone who defends Communion in the hand, merely because “the Popes have allowed it,” is so blinded by this authority which allows it that they are ignoring the injuries that Our Lord is being subjected to on a daily basis when fragments of His Body are dropped and trod upon. This is a travesty, and some of you are so caught up in silly and prideful debate that you can’t see it!
 
laudamus_te said:
In all of this relentless arguing about Communion in the hand, that is what is being forgotten. Anyone who defends Communion in the hand, merely because “the Popes have allowed it,” is so blinded by this authority which allows it that they are ignoring the injuries that Our Lord is being subjected to on a daily basis when fragments of His Body are dropped and trod upon. This is a travesty, and some of you are so caught up in silly and prideful debate that you can’t see it!
Click to expand...
Especially since it started out as an abuse.
 
What I am saying is—by knowing our own history —we can know when and how the line is being blurred. Our history is our only connection to Christ–to knowing what Truth is and what it is not—otherwise we become a make it up and/or a change it up as we go Church. Falling back on --the line is blurred so we will not be answerable to God—is no excuse when we do have access to–and knowledge of our past.
Click to expand...
Again, are you saying that Church is teaching something contrary to Truth?!
 
laudamus_te said:
How about using your God-given intelligence, instead of looking for a quote? You may not follow anyone, including the Pope, in error. As a Catholic, you are expected to know what is the truth and what is in error. You will suffer the consequences if you do, and using the “obedience” excuse isn’t going to cut it. This is my understanding of our Faith, as I have been taught, and I’m not going to sift through the internet for a handy little quote to back it up. It’s basic Catholicism we’re talking about here. If you disagree, it’s your soul.🤷
Click to expand...
Got church teaching for that one? First of all we have to go back to whether or not you are speaking of a popes personal opinion or an official public teaching. You have yet to prove that a pope can err in an offical public teaching or if he has. This would all be your interpretation. BTW, I didn’t go looking for quotes, I found them while reading. This whole thread was brought about because someone put forth a false quote which was contrary to everything St. Catherine has said. If you don’t want to discuss quotes then don’t.🤷 I for one love the writings of St. Catherine. My God given intelligence tells me they are good.
 
AlexV said:
The problem is that the number of times the popes have actually used their infallible teaching capacity is quite a bit fewer than what some people seem to think.
Click to expand...
Of course now this get’s us into the negative infallibility of ecclesiastical disciplines. It would seem that there are more organs of infalliblity than an ex cathedra document. So, while it may be few than some people think it would also appear that it is more than some others think.
 
Genesis315 said:
So the infallibility of the Council fo Trent only applies to a specific time because times are so different and they didn’t know what the future would be like? That’s pretty much textbook modernism.
Click to expand...
:rotfl: You saw that too, huh? It seems like plenty of people like to spend plenty of time rationalizing when and why they can be disobedient to the pope and yet I still don’t think I’ve seen a Church document to this effect.🤷
 
itsjustdave1988 said:
I think the quotes above from saints and doctors shows that it is quite TRADITIONAL for Catholcis to obey the Roman Pontiff when it comes to his formal teachings, promulgated in his constitutions, decrees, declarations, encyclicals, as well as the approved ecclesiastical disciplinary norms for the universal Church, most especially canon law and liturgical norms.

The dubious claim, unprecedented in all of Catholic history, is that we can discard the teachings of an Ecumenical Council, disobey universal canon law, and the duly approved liturgical norms of the Latin Rite and still be considered a “good Catholic.”

Yet, that’s not what this thread is about, is it? It was about the rather dubious citation of St. Catherine of Siena in support of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff.

Can anybody quote one verifiable source from St. Catherine which supports the claim that obedience to the Roman Pontiff can sometime lead to eternal damnation? If not, then why do Lefebvrist apologist cling to such a claim?
Click to expand...
OK, just to be fair, not all Lefebvre apologists do this. That said, I haven’t seen one condemn it yet.
 
Walking_Home said:
Communion on the tongue–may not be 100% foolproof–but it does greatly diminish the possibility of sacrilege. I have not read where a Pope specifically associates it with deplorable disrespect as our late Pope did with communion in the hand. How can something be “neutral” when it can and does increase the possibility of sacrilege—to where a Pope makes a statement that it does happen.

Yes —there are those who do receive reverently—but at what cost. Who pays the price—if not our Lord Jesus Christ. Who has become more important.
Click to expand...
Diminishing the sacrilege is one thing and causing the sacrilege is another. The discipline of receiving in the hand (and just so you know I don’t favor this practice) does not cause the sacrilege. That would be someone’s sinful nature.

BTW, people receiving in mortal sin is also a sacrilege and has been done time and again on the tongue and in the hand. The only difference here is that people can see (at least sometimes) the sacrilege occurring.

Anyways, our conversation here does little to change the fact that there is a negative infalliblility attached to disciplines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top