Author Topic: The Dialogue of Saint Catherine of Siena. (Read 8814 times)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #120 on:** July 12, 2016, 09:18:16 AM »

Quote from: Disputaciones

Quote from: Centroamerica

Fact of the matter is that Ladislaus and the other obstinant heretics that have commented on this thread denying baptism of blood and desire have to do mental jumping of hurdles to clutch onto to their arrogant denial of something that is constant in Church teaching.

Quote from: Cantaheretic

No private revelation can ever contradict dogma. They have merit as long as they affirm what the Church teaches.

Notice she doesn't say that they have merit if they are true. The only thing that matters is that they don't contradict Feenyism. then, they have "merit". What a joke!

So, which is it? The Dialogue of St. Catherine is authentic private revelation of what God the Father conversed with her or not?

In order to clutch onto the faithless heresy you breath to propagate, you are forced to one of the following actions:

a. Deny that the Dialogue is authentic and accuse the Church of promoting a fraud.

b. Take the Ladislaus route and accuse St. Catherine of "being confused" about what both God the Father and Christ said to her, even though it is extremely clear.

c. Deny that St. Catherine is a true Catholic saint and accuse her of a blasphemous lie.

Take your pick, chooser.

Yeah. And like I said, you can also add the Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden because in them, Jesus Himself expounded the doctrine of BOD.

I think the Revelations of St. Bridget are even more highly approved of by the Church than the Dialogue is.

VERY interesting. Thank you for this information.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #121 on:** July 12, 2016, 09:22:11 AM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Centroamerica

Fact of the matter is that Ladislaus and the other obstinant heretics that have commented on this thread denying baptism of blood and desire have to do mental jumping of hurdles to clutch onto to their arrogant denial of something that is constant in Church teaching.

Quote from: Cantaheretic

No private revelation can ever contradict dogma. They have merit as long as they affirm what the Church teaches.

Notice she doesn't say that they have merit if they are true. The only thing that matters is that they don't contradict Feenyism. then, they have "merit". What a joke!

So, which is it? The Dialogue of St. Catherine is authentic private revelation of what God the Father conversed with her or not?

In order to clutch onto the faithless heresy you breath to propagate, you are forced to one of the following actions:

a. Deny that the Dialogue is authentic and accuse the Church of promoting a fraud.

b. Take the Ladislaus route and accuse St. Catherine of "being confused" about what both God the Father and Christ said to her, even though it is extremely clear.

c. Deny that St. Catherine is a true Catholic saint and accuse her of a blasphemous lie.

Take your pick, chooser.

I rather do not dig into this with you, Centroamerica. Frankly, I'm not sure you are mentally stable to handle this topic, after these type of emotional breakdowns:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/?a=topic&t=38849&min=12&num=3

In other words, you have no argument and choose to cleave to your heresy out of obstinate pride of not searching for any truth, but simply being right, which is clearly manifested in the endless debates with non-Catholics like yourself.

:heretic:

Well-stated. Ladislaus is always saying "My position" this and "My position" that as if we should care. His position on the issue is not Catholic. How about Bellarmine's position is this and Liguori's position is that and Aquinas this and Pius XII that?

Why not simply quote the catechisms, Saints, Father, Doctors, Popes as I do and others do and let the people decide for themselves?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #122 on:** July 12, 2016, 09:25:21 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Centroamerica
FEENYITES ARE FATHERLESS BASTARDS AND ARE NOT CATHOLIC. THEY SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO SPREAD THEIR VENOM PUBLICLY. THE BEST PLACE FOR THEM IS THE STAKE BECAUSE THEY ARE HARDENED HERETICS THAT WILL MOST LIKELY NEVER REPENT. THE COMMON GOOD CALLS FOR THEIR BLOOD.

It's strange that the BoDers have such incredible venom and hatred for "Feeneyites". Centro, when's the last time you called for the same treatment of the V2 Papal Claimants? Never have you uttered such harsh words against the modernists and heretics of the Conciliar establishment. They openly deny EENS, whereas Feeneyites defend it. Answer is that the Cushingite heretics like Centro despise the dogma EENS ... for entirely emotional reasons. You see, the Cushingites care not for the rare case of someone who has the Catholic faith, intends to become Catholic, and then dies before actually receiving the Sacrament. It's all about eroding EENS. And their ecclesiology ends up being identical with that of Vatican II ... which they denounce so vociferously.

The incredible irony. The kettle calling the snow black again.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #123 on:** July 12, 2016, 09:30:44 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Centroamerica
FEENYITES ARE FATHERLESS BASTARDS AND ARE NOT CATHOLIC. THEY SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO SPREAD THEIR VENOM PUBLICLY. THE BEST PLACE FOR THEM IS THE STAKE BECAUSE THEY ARE HARDENED HERETICS THAT WILL MOST LIKELY NEVER REPENT. THE COMMON GOOD CALLS FOR THEIR BLOOD.

It's strange that the BoDers have such incredible venom and hatred for "Feeneyites". Centro, when's the last time you called for the same treatment of the V2 Papal Claimants? Never have you uttered such harsh words against the modernists and heretics of the Conciliar establishment. They openly deny EENS, whereas Feeneyites defend it. Answer is that the Cushingite heretics like Centro despise the dogma EENS ... for entirely emotional reasons. You see, the Cushingites care not for the rare case of someone who has the Catholic faith, intends to become Catholic, and then dies before actually receiving the Sacrament. It's all about eroding EENS. And their ecclesiology ends up being identical with that of Vatican II ... which they denounce so vociferously.

This is pure SSPXism,( or Laisneyism if you prefer). The first place outside of conciliarism that I experienced this type of odd hostility to objectively defined doctrine using all manner of theological hypotheses to rescue natives and other souls who are not part of the Church. It is clearly a liberal outlook on the doctrine of exclusive salvation which in the end denies it.

A private revelation of a Saint or a thrice defined dogma of the Church which must be held, as declared, to be saved, ....take your pick.............

Yes the SSPX clergy is wrong. The CMRI is wrong. All the traditional clergy are wrong as are the catechisms, sound theologians, Fathers, Doctors, Saints and Popes who speak to the issue and you are right. I get it.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #124 on:** July 12, 2016, 09:32:25 AM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

So, then Blessed Pope Pius IX was a promoter of heresy and non-Catholic? Truth is that Cantarella and Ladislaus are non-Catholics who risk being condemned by the very dogma they pretend to defend.

Quote from: Blessed Pope Pius IX

On the other hand it is necessary to hold for certain that ignorance of the true religion, if that ignorance be invincible, is not a fault in the eyes of God. But who will presume to arrogate to himself the right to mark the limits of such an ignorance, holding in account the various conditions of peoples, of countries, of minds, and of the infinite multiplicity of human things?

Insert Ladislaus and Cantaheretic after the retorical question of the Supreme Pontiff.

Nice Post! :applause:

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #125 on:** July 12, 2016, 09:35:34 AM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican

I believe that most of the people on CI actually learn from what is being expounded here by those with an open mind to truth and doctrine. Unfortunately, there are some who will never learn anything because they have a "horse in the race".

I have read these EENS debates for years now, and have seen the gradual expansion of knowledge on the subject, which has come about as a result of the discussions by people who are seeking truth. At this point in time, I believe the best source for up to date information on the subject of EENS, is to be found on Cathinfo.

As it happens, anyone that has taken part in these debates for a time and still believes that people can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, has "a horse in the race" regarding the salvation of non-Catholics. And that is the ONLY problem today, that long time Catholics on CI can still believe that "people can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, and without baptism of blood".

What is "expounded" here is mass disagreement which leads to the total confusion of many. This is not where the good willed should come to learn. Please read the sound theology manuals, Denzinger, the Catechism of Trent and Catholic sources. On the confusing issues of the day see where the traditional clergy are all in agreement whether SV or R & R such as they are on BOB/D and you will be safer than you would by learning from the contradictions posted here.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #126 on:** July 12, 2016, 09:38:21 AM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Ladislaus

If you believe in BoD, you must state that the Sacrament, operating through the votum, or "desire", saves; to state that the subjective dispositions can be salvific without reference to the Sacrament is heretical ... and it's also Pelagianism. So you must state, as the post Trent Doctors did, that people receive the Sacrament of Baptism in voto rather than that they are saved without it.

I have no problem with this statement, if I understand it correctly. My only problem would be with the conditional particulate that starts the phrase. It's not an "if" clause. It is dogma, so it must be believed.

I would also state that nobody who dies outside of the Catholic Church is saved. If they are saved, they are saved in the Catholic Church. There is no debate on this issue. I follow the Church regarding interpretation of this and reject all personal interpretation of the Feenyite sects.

Ladislaus is not an authority on the issue. Anyone who dies with a supernatural Faith and perfect charity is saved within the Church even if his desire for baptism and or membership is implicit. That is what the Church teaches.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #127 on:** July 12, 2016, 10:08:08 AM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Anyone who dies with a supernatural Faith and perfect charity is saved within the Church even if his desire for baptism and or membership is implicit. That is what the Church teaches.

Except that no one in the new dispensation can have supernatural faith and perfect charity without Baptism; that's dogma defined quite clearly by Trent.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #128 on:** July 12, 2016, 10:58:10 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Anyone who dies with a supernatural Faith and perfect charity is saved within the Church even if his desire for baptism and or membership is implicit. That is what the Church teaches.

Except that no one in the new dispensation can have supernatural faith and perfect charity without Baptism; that's dogma defined quite clearly by Trent.

Incorrect.