Author Topic: The Dialogue of Saint Catherine of Siena. (Read 8823 times)

Centroamerica · « **on:** June 19, 2016, 01:28:28 PM »

I wanted to create a poll to see what the majority of Catholics believe regarding the private revelations of God the Father to Saint Catherine of Sienna. If you have read this classic work, please take the poll. Thanks.

Please comment about your vote.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #1 on:** June 19, 2016, 01:32:04 PM »

This isn't worded well and should be corrected. I meant this option to be for those who would argue that such a great saint would not lie about this revelation, so the work must be believed, especially if one considers that canonizations before V2 were always considered to be infallible. In other words, you believe it is true and also that to doubt it touches on papal fallibilty making it binding.

"To choose to not believe that the Dialogue was received by a private revelation to Saint Catherine of Sienna means to say that the canonized saint lied about her revelation and committed a grave act of deception."

Centroamerica · « **Reply #2 on:** June 19, 2016, 02:19:03 PM »

I just voted on this poll. I have been using the Dialogue for mental prayer on weekdays. I haven't read the entire thing but most of it. I voted that I believe it is true and to some point binding because if you claim it isn't true you accuse a canonized saint of a grave sin. (That was the third, poorly worded option). I still believe it is private revelation, but being the work of a canonized saint calling upon papal infallibility gives it a binding nature (unless you would make some silly claim like that it was fraudulently attributed to her.)

I guess the options could be a little better.

PG · « **Reply #3 on:** June 19, 2016, 02:45:39 PM »

centroamerica - you are getting ahead of yourself. The real question is whether pre v2 canonizations are infallible. Canon Hesse says he personally believes that they are, but that the church does not dogmatically teach it. I respect that answer. However, in my case, I do not believe that pre v2 canonizations are infallible. I don't mean to derail your thread, but you are pivoting on unstable ground. Because, it is not a decided subject.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #4 on:** June 19, 2016, 02:58:47 PM »

Quote from: PG

centroamerica - you are getting ahead of yourself. The real question is whether pre v2 canonizations are infallible. Canon Hesse says he personally believes that they are, but that the church does not dogmatically teach it. I respect that answer. However, in my case, I do not believe that pre v2 canonizations are infallible. I don't mean to derail your thread, but you are pivoting on unstable ground. Because, it is not a decided subject.

I appreciate your post, and I agree with Canon Hesse. I guess that if one chooses to believe that Saint Catherine of Siena were not truly a saint, there would be no definitive argument. The question remains: Would anyone accuse the saint of fabricating a fraudulent work such as this?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** June 19, 2016, 05:46:47 PM »

No, a canonized saint could not have lied about so grave a matter. Yes, canonizations are infallible. No, that is not dogma in the strict sense but it's at least proximate to faith. To deny it would be an extremely grave sin against the faith, just not heresy proper. Heresy proper severs from membership in the Church. So to deny this would be a mortal sin against the faith though it would not strictly put you outside the Church.

So, no, she did not lie. Nevertheless, it can sometimes happen that what comes from a visionary's own mind crosses over into what comes from God ... without any prejudice against the person's sanctity. So one might question the authenticity of the Dialogues or at least some parts of them without necessarily having to accuse the visionary of mendacity.

So until such a time as the Church were to definitively rule on these works, only God knows for sure how authentic they are.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** June 19, 2016, 05:47:48 PM »

You pose a false dilemma: either these Dialogues are truly from God or the St. Catherine lied. Thus I cannot vote in your poll as currently worded.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #7 on:** June 19, 2016, 06:26:21 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

No, a canonized saint could not have lied about so grave a matter. Yes, canonizations are infallible. No, that is not dogma in the strict sense but it's at least proximate to faith. To deny it would be an extremely grave sin against the faith...

Waiting for the spin on this is like waiting for Obama to blame guns...
[/color]

Quote from: God the Father speaking of Christ's words to Saint Catherine

Where did the soul know of this her dignity, in being kneaded and united with the Blood of the Lamb, receiving the grace in Holy Baptism, in virtue of the Blood? In the Side, where she knew the fire of divine Charity, and so, if you remember well, My Truth manifested to you, when you asked, saying: 'Sweet and Immaculate Lamb, You were dead when Your side was opened. Why then did You want to be struck and have Your heart divided?' And He replied to you, telling you that there was occasion enough for it; but the principal part of what He said I will tell you. He said: Because My desire towards the human generation was ended, and I had finished the actual work of bearing pain and torment, and yet I had not been able to show, by finite things, because My love was infinite, how much more love I had, I wished you to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to you open, so that you might see how much more I loved than I could show you by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show you the baptism of water, which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood, shed for Me, which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also in those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of fire without the Blood, because the Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because, through love was It shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of man, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin unless he wish to do so; but, falling, as he will, into the guilt of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of Blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of Blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But, if the soul be unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood. But if you are able to confess, I wish you to do so, and if you are able to, and do not, you will be deprived of the fruit of the Blood. It is true that, in the last extremity, a man, desiring to confess and not being able to, will receive the fruit of this baptism, of which I have been speaking. But let no one be so mad as so to arrange his deeds, that, in the hope of receiving it, he puts off confessing until the last extremity of death, when he may not be able to do so. In which case, it is not at all certain that I shall not say to him, in My Divine Justice: 'You did not remember Me in the time of your life, when you could, now will I not remember you in your death.'

"You see then that these Baptisms, which you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite. This is in virtue of the infinite Divine nature, united with the finite human nature, which human nature endures pain in Me, the Word, clothed with your humanity. But because the one nature is steeped in and united with the other, the Eternal Deity drew to Himself the pain, which I suffered with so much fire and love.

PG · « **Reply #8 on:** June 19, 2016, 07:52:01 PM »

Here is canon hesse talking about the possibility of saints who may not be saints - minute 112:30

In response to canon hesse's suspicion, yes, the pope has keys. But, Christ also provides another instrument. Recall the parable of the cockle and the good seed. Recall the parable of the marriage feast.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #9 on:** June 21, 2016, 03:32:53 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

No, a canonized saint could not have lied about so grave a matter.

Never heard of St. Catherine of Sienna's "Dialogue". What grave error did she say?

Centroamerica · « **Reply #10 on:** June 21, 2016, 03:38:10 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican

Quote from: Ladislaus
No, a canonized saint could not have lied about so grave a matter.

Never heard of St. Catherine of Sienna's "Dialogue". What grave error did she say?

New to the Catholic Church? Welcome home if you are. If you're not (or even if you are), you should know that you have an obligation to continue to read about your Faith well after Catechism classes.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #11 on:** June 21, 2016, 05:56:02 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican

Quote from: Ladislaus
No, a canonized saint could not have lied about so grave a matter.

Never heard of St. Catherine of Sienna's "Dialogue". What grave error did she say?

I have $5000+ library on the subject of the Catholic Faith, all traditional and most pre-1900's and maybe 3-5 books are Novus Ordo conservative (which I didn't read past one chapter).

This "Dialogue" is private revelation, not something I am attracted to.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #12 on:** June 21, 2016, 06:20:46 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican

Quote from: Last Tradhican
Quote from: Ladislaus
No, a canonized saint could not have lied about so grave a matter.

Never heard of St. Catherine of Sienna's "Dialogue". What grave error did she say?

I have $5000+ library on the subject of the Catholic Faith, all traditional and most pre-1900's and maybe 3-5 books are Novus Ordo conservative (which I didn't read past one chapter).

This "Dialogue" is private revelation, not something I am attracted to.

Especially since it came from a woman, Heavens to Betsy!

Centroamerica · « **Reply #13 on:** June 21, 2016, 10:28:51 PM »

Bishop Faure recommended St. Catherine of Siena's the Dialogue to me in a confession in Holy Week of 2014 back when he was a priest.

Disputaciones · « **Reply #14 on:** June 23, 2016, 12:39:38 AM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Ladislaus
No, a canonized saint could not have lied about so grave a matter. Yes, canonizations are infallible. No, that is not dogma in the strict sense but it's at least proximate to faith. To deny it would be an extremely grave sin against the faith...

Waiting for the spin on this is like waiting for Obama to blame guns...
[/color]

Quote from: God the Father speaking of Christ's words to Saint Catherine

Where did the soul know of this her dignity, in being kneaded and united with the Blood of the Lamb, receiving the grace in Holy Baptism, in virtue of the Blood? In the Side, where she knew the fire of divine Charity, and so, if you remember well, My Truth manifested to you, when you asked, saying: 'Sweet and Immaculate Lamb, You were dead when Your side was opened. Why then did You want to be struck and have Your heart divided?' And He replied to you, telling you that there was occasion enough for it; but the principal part of what He said I will tell you. He said: Because My desire towards the human generation was ended, and I had finished the actual work of bearing pain and torment, and yet I had not been able to show, by finite things, because My love was infinite, how much more love I had, I wished you to see the secret of the Heart, showing it to you open, so that you might see how much more I loved than I could show you by finite pain. I poured from it Blood and Water, to show you the baptism of water, which is received in virtue of the Blood. I also showed the baptism of love in two ways, first in those who are baptized in their blood, shed for Me, which has virtue through My Blood, even if they have not been able to have Holy Baptism, and also in those who are baptized in fire, not being able to have Holy Baptism, but desiring it with the affection of love. There is no baptism of fire without the Blood, because the Blood is steeped in and kneaded with the fire of Divine charity, because, through love was It shed. There is yet another way by which the soul receives the baptism of Blood, speaking, as it were, under a figure, and this way the Divine charity provided, knowing the infirmity and fragility of man, through which he offends, not that he is obliged, through his fragility and infirmity, to commit sin unless he wish to do so; but, falling, as he will, into the guilt of mortal sin, by which he loses the grace which he drew from Holy Baptism in virtue of the Blood, it was necessary to leave a continual baptism of Blood. This the Divine charity provided in the Sacrament of Holy Confession, the soul receiving the Baptism of Blood, with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers, who hold the keys of the Blood, sprinkling It, in absolution, upon the face of the soul. But, if the soul be unable to confess, contrition of heart is sufficient for this baptism, the hand of My clemency giving you the fruit of this precious Blood. But if you are able to confess, I wish you to do so, and if you are able to, and do not, you will be deprived of the fruit of the Blood. It is true that, in the last extremity, a man, desiring to confess and not being able to, will receive the fruit of this baptism, of which I have been speaking. But let no one be so mad as so to arrange his deeds, that, in the hope of receiving it, he puts off confessing until the last extremity of death, when he may not be able to do so. In which case, it is not at all certain that I shall not say to him, in My Divine Justice: 'You did not remember Me in the time of your life, when you could, now will I not remember you in your death.'

"You see then that these Baptisms, which you should all receive until the last moment, are continual, and though My works, that is the pains of the Cross were finite, the fruit of them which you receive in Baptism, through Me, are infinite. This is in virtue of the infinite Divine nature, united with the finite human nature, which human nature endures pain in Me, the Word, clothed with your humanity. But because the one nature is steeped in and united with the other, the Eternal Deity drew to Himself the pain, which I suffered with so much fire and love.

This is where Feeneyism and rejecting the teaching of the Church leads you to: absurdity and insanity.

Once you embrace the error that you can pick and choose what to believe in (sounds like Protestantism!) and go against the common teaching of theologians, you end up in absurdities such as this one.

You reject BOD, a Catholic teaching, and now you have found a saint that teaches it in private revelation, so you're forced to choose between your false dilemma.

Well guess what? Saint Bridget of Sweden also teaches BOD in her revelations.

Will you also reject hers?

You also subscribe to the error of accepting only infallible things, and thinking highly of Hesse.

You asked Last Tradican if he's new to the Church and told him to read up on Catholicism.

The irony!