St. Catherine of Siena quote source?

[itsjustdave1988]

Perhaps, the so called quote, given in the original post, is not a quote (as many have successfully contested) but rather a paraphrasing (perhaps it’s better described as a mis-paraphrasing) of the following, taken from St. Catherine’s letter in To Gregory XI which was graciously provided by itsjustdave1988.

If that’s the case, they fail to capture what St. Catherine is actually saying. St. Catherine is admonishing Pope Gregory for his bad behavior, which has nothing to do with indiscreet obedience to ANYTHING which the pope has commanded of his superiors.

St. Catherine is not advocating that subordinates disobey the pope’s duly approved canonical and liturgical norms (as Lefevrism advocates). On the contrary, Pope Gregory failed to correct those who needed correction, which other popes have done, deserving the kind of gentle admonishment which St. Catherine models in her letter. This does not even come close to applying to a situation where no positive precept is referred to in St. Catherine’s letter.

Here’s the supposed quote (or paraphrase):

“There are times when those who obey . . … are heading for Hell.” (St. Catherine to Pope Gregory XI, 1376.) "

The other citation often offered by Lefebvrists is:

“Alas, Most Holy Father! At times, obedience to you leads to eternal damnation.”

This isn’t a paraphrase at all, nor do I think it intends to do so. If is simply a “internet” quote which has no known basis, which has been passed around uncritically by Lefebvrists supposing that St. Catherine would approve of their sinful disobedience.

Furthermore, such a teaching is completely contrary to what she ACTUALLY states in other letters and her Dialogue with regard to the virtue of obedience, especially to the Holy Father. Specifically, that that Divine obedience NEVER prevents us from obedience to the pope, the more perfect the one the more perfect the other.

Within this letter there is no positive command of Gregory that if we were supposed to OBEY, which would lead to DAMNATION.

See more here: Did Paul disobey Peter?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

This does seem rather silly. I mean, are we to say that there are abuses when people receive on tongue therefor receiving on the tongue is evil? …

The claim is clearly absurd. I’ve seen a person receive on the tongue, then when they made their way to the back of the santuary, they spit it out.

By the bizzare logic we’ve witnessed, " The problem is— that one act cannot be divorced from the other. Sacrilege happens—because communion ON THE TONGUE happens."

Contrary to the claims made here, the pope did not equate abuse to receipt in the hand. He was very clear that when they OBEY the approved ecclesiastical discipline, that such abuse would not occur.

“That, in the early Church, the faithful STOOD when receiving into their HANDS the consecrated particle can hardly be questioned.” (Catholic Encyclopedia - Genuflexion, newadvent.org/cathen/06423a.htm )

Sacrilege? Rubbish.

 

[Walking_Home]

The claim is clearly absurd. I’ve seen a person receive on the tongue, then when they made their way to the back of the santuary, they spit it out.

Contrary to the claims made here, the pope did not equate abuse to receipt in the hand. He was very clear that when they OBEY the approved ecclesiastical discipline, that such abuse would not occur.

---

I did not claim communion on the tongue was 100% foolproof. But why on earth add insult to injury—by continuing communion in the hand which greatly increased sacrilege. Isn’t it enough that it can happen with communion on the tongue—that we have to fling the door open so that more sacrilege can be piled on top. It’s like seeing our Lord Christ being nailed to the Cross—and we are not satisfied with the number of nails used—that we give them more.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

---

… why on earth add insult to injury—by continuing communion in the hand which greatly increased sacrilege.

Perhaps when you are elected pope, you will be so kind as to right the wrong teaching of St. John Chrysostom, as you clearly see it as “dangerous” and “harmful” ecclesiastical discipline (despite the condemnation of Pius VI which prohibits such a view).

St. Cyril of Jerusalem:

“When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.” ((Cateches. Mystagog. v.(1))

I for one am quite content to receive in the manner this pious man describes, without fear of committing impiety.

 

[Walking_Home]

Perhaps when you are elected pope, you will be so kind as to right the wrong teaching of St. John Chrysostom, as you clearly see it as “dangerous” and “harmful” ecclesiastical discipline (despite the condemnation of Pius VI which prohibits such a view).

St. Cyril of Jerusalem:

“When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.” ((Cateches. Mystagog. v.(1))
I for one am quite content to receive in the manner this pious man describes, without fear of committing impiety.

---

The first time it surprised me—using the “early Church” argument–it won’t suprise me again.

It seems—that is one of the main problem that we have in our time. We no longer fear —so what does it matter–if sacrilege is increased.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

---

The first time it surprised me—using the “early Church” argument–it won’t suprise me again.

It seems—that is one of the main problem that we have in our time. We no longer fear —so what does it matter–if sacrilege is increased.

So how does this pertain to the impossibility of indiscreet obedience to the Pope which St. Catherine describes?

Does the pope force you to receive in the hand (a pious and ancient practice)? If not, then how does this even remotely have anything to do with the fabricated quote from St. Catherine, or her CLEAR teaching (contrary to Lefebvrist claims and practice) that the more perfect our obedience to the Holy Father, the more perfect our obedience to God?

 

[Walking_Home]

So how does this pertain to the impossibility of indiscreet obedience to the Pope which St. Catherine describes?

Does the pope force you to receive in the hand (a pious and ancient practice)? If not, then how does this even remotely have anything to do with the fabricated quote from St. Catherine, or her CLEAR teaching (contrary to Lefebvrist claims and practice) that the more perfect our obedience to the Holy Father, the more perfect our obedience to God?

---

We went off on an tangent of communion in the hand—when I responded to JKirk.

I see that using the “early Church” continues. Kinda makes me wonder who you have been hanging around with.

Ps. This is my last post dealing with communion–since we have already been adviced to take it to the other thread.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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!

I’m sorry I haven’t been able to get back to post, I’ve had a busy day.

With respect, there is nothing silly or prideful about the argument, at least on the part of those who are defending the concept of obedience to the Holy Father. Also, we didn’t bring up communion in the hand, Walking Home did. I don’t think it should consume the thread, but even though, as he admits, it was a tangent (and we all go off on them), it’s an important one.

This is what I don’t understand. “Traditionalists” sould be the first to advocate obedience to the Holy Father. They should be the first to defend the clear declaration of the Council of Trent that the disciplines of the Church CANNOT lead the faithful to impiety. Yet, as Bear said, they keep dancing around it. Why? It’s traditional.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I’m sorry I haven’t been able to get back to post, I’ve had a busy day.

With respect, there is nothing silly or prideful about the argument, at least on the part of those who are defending the concept of obedience to the Holy Father. Also, we didn’t bring up communion in the hand, Walking Home did. I don’t think it should consume the thread, but even though, as he admits, it was a tangent (and we all go off on them), it’s an important one.

This is what I don’t understand. “Traditionalists” should be the first to advocate obedience to the Holy Father. They should be the first to defend the clear declaration of the Council of Trent that the disciplines of the Church CANNOT lead the faithful to impiety. Yet, as Bear said, they keep dancing around it. Why? It’s traditional.

You know, I am so tired of disparaging remarks about traditionalists. It’s getting really old, and I’m tired of people here painting us all with the same brush. Whenever there is a conflicting viewpoint between people, the old weapon, “Well what do you expect from a traditionalist?” is quickly drawn. :yawn: :yawn: :yawn:

 

[BobP123]

They should be the first to defend the clear declaration of the Council of Trent that the disciplines of the Church CANNOT lead the faithful to impiety.

I would think so too. But when our chief disciplinarian comes out with Progressio Populorum statements and holding related discussions as to the benefits of ABC which obviously lead a lot of faithful to impiety, one could have easily fallen into some very false obedience.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You know, I am so tired of disparaging remarks about traditionalists. It’s getting really old, and I’m tired of people here painting us all with the same brush. Whenever there is a conflicting viewpoint between people, the old weapon, “Well what do you expect from a traditionalist?” is quickly drawn. :yawn: :yawn: :yawn:

I’m sorry, Paramedic Girl, I’m NOT disparaging traditionalists. I’m asking a question that keeps getting sidestepped. Either Trent was correct in stating that the disciplines of the Church regarding her sacraments cannot lead the faithful to impiety or Trent was wrong. Since Trent was an ecumenical council and since her decisions were ratified by the competent authority, the Pope, we KNOW that the declaration, to which an anathema was attached, has to be true. A true taditionalist should be defending that.

With respect, this is the SAME dodge as saying that we’re bashing the SSPX when we point out the truth of their situation.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I would think so too. But when our chief disciplinarian comes out with Progressio Populorum statements and holding related discussions as to the benefits of ABC which obviously lead a lot of faithful to impiety, one could have easily fallen into some very false obedience.

I’m sorry, Bob, could you illuminate me? I’m drawing a blank. The Pope is teaching that ABC is ok?

 

[AlexV]

Unfortunately, Kirk lives in a liturgical fantasy land.

ALL that is protected by the Holy Spirit in these instances is that the Church’s specifically approved act IN SE (i.e., in itself) is not going to be something that can harm you.

However, in PRACTICE that morally neutral discipline can be a nightmarish disaster.

Ignoring that reality is what has caused so many problems since the 60’s. Asserting that everything’s fine and dandy because of “negative infallibility” misses the point.

In any case, it’s always good to remember that if you’re in the typical US parish, you are enjoying an Indult Mass that uses a 1985 translation of a 1974 Latin Missal that is now out of date anyway.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Unfortunately, Kirk lives in a liturgical fantasy land.

ALL that is protected by the Holy Spirit in these instances is that the Church’s specifically approved act IN SE (i.e., in itself) is not going to be something that can harm you.

However, in PRACTICE that morally neutral discipline can be a nightmarish disaster.

Ignoring that reality is what has caused so many problems since the 60’s. Asserting that everything’s fine and dandy because of “negative infallibility” misses the point.

In any case, it’s always good to remember that if you’re in the typical US parish, you are enjoying an Indult Mass that uses a 1985 translation of a 1974 Latin Missal that is now out of date anyway.

Alex, since I’ve resumed posting, I’ve tried very hard to be respectful to those who take the opposing view. “Liturgical fantasy land” is hardly respectful. You don’t know me or what I’ve endured over the last two years in terms of new priests and liturgical abuse.

Further, AGAIN, I’m not saying that prudential wisdom cannot be questioned or commented on. I’m saying that we cannot call the disciplines promulgated by the Church as impious in and of themselves. It goes to the authority of the Church and Christ’s protection of her in the exercise of that authority.

You take the postion that communion in the hand allows for profanation and sacriledge and should be abolished. I take the position that communion in the hand CAN be concurrent with profanation and sacriledge (but so can they be concurrent with other disciplines) and that care and the proper catechesis are provided to ensure against irreverence or to at least minimalize it.

 

[AlexV]

Liturgy isn’t an ontology classroom.

Just because something “in se” can’t be impious doesn’t mean it isn’t the doorway to some pretty serious problems, including sacrilege.

Liturgical practice exists in the real world, not the philosophy classroom. That’s one of the problems with the Novus Ordo and liturgy by committee in Swiss hotels.

 

[AJV]

I’m sorry, Bob, could you illuminate me? I’m drawing a blank. The Pope is teaching that ABC is ok?

Ostensibly according to no. 37

1. There is no denying that the accelerated rate of population growth brings many added difficulties to the problems of development where the size of the population grows more rapidly than the quantity of available resources to such a degree that things seem to have reached an impasse. In such circumstances people are inclined to apply drastic remedies to reduce the birth rate.

There is no doubt that public authorities can intervene in this matter, within the bounds of their competence. They can instruct citizens on this subject and adopt appropriate measures, so long as these are in conformity with the dictates of the moral law and the rightful freedom of married couples is preserved completely intact. When the inalienable right of marriage and of procreation is taken away, so is human dignity.

Finally, it is for parents to take a thorough look at the matter and decide upon the number of their children. This is an obligation they take upon themselves, before their children already born, and before the community to which they belong—following the dictates of their own consciences informed by God’s law authentically interpreted, and bolstered by their trust in Him.

 

[AlexV]

That document may one day be recognized as one of the worst disasters of a disastrous pontificate.

 

[Joysong]

Just because something “in se” can’t be impious doesn’t mean it isn’t the doorway to some pretty serious problems, including sacrilege.

I believe this thread is devoted to whether one is required to obey the Vicar of Christ, and whether he is able to lead the faithful into error. Much has already been posted to show that yes, we obey, and no, the pope cannot by Divine protection lead the faithful into error.

If we are all on the same page as we should be, then maybe we can agree that there may be problems, schisms, sacrileges, and that the entire history of the Church is not free from them. I believe Jesus, being omnicient, would have foreseen that His Body and Blood could be subject to abuse, yet in His extreme love He chose to institute the sacrament for the sake of all who would adore Him and loving receive Him, and that He might indwell us.

If Christ saw fit to entrust Himself in this manner to the Church, who are we to insist that the pope honor our perception of how it should be done. Does anyone think that Jesus used a paten, or that there were no fragments, or that they all received on the tongue? I seriously doubt it.

The readings at Mass the other day were from Genesis where Hagar felt the abuses she incurred were sufficient reason to depart from Sarah. But an angel of the Lord instructed her to go back and submit to her mistress, in spite of abuse. St. Paul insists, too, that slaves obey their masters, not only the good and moderate, but also to the severe. 1 Pt. 2:18

The principle of obedience to authority does not excuse us when the discipline is less than perfect; otherwise, we would all be like Luther. Those who hold the authority will be accountable, for who can see their hearts but God; yet we for our part are to be submissive.

St. Catherine’s writings are very clear, as well, and I do have the book. If any doubts remain, I will gladly submit more “proof.”

 

[AlexV]

Popes have, on occasion, been heretics. They can indeed “lead the faithful into error”, except in the very narrow cases where they are infallible. Infallibility is very narrow indeed. Some popes have been heretics, after all.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’m sorry, I have to attend to something, I will respond latter.