Author Topic: The Dialogue of Saint Catherine of Siena. (Read 8811 times)

Centroamerica · « **Reply #45 on:** June 23, 2016, 01:09:38 PM »

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:

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #46 on:** June 23, 2016, 01:42:44 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican

We have here a private revelation teaching what is precisely called explicit baptism of desire, baptism of blood, the sacrament of confession, and a perfect act of contrition (which as Trent teaches, requires that the person desire to go to confession to a priest, as it says above "requires with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers").

Any arguments on those observations?

That is all this thread is, no revelation. What is the big deal? Practically every BODer rejects this "revelation" by their belief that anyone can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, without confession, and without a perfect act of contrition with the intent to confess to a priest. They totally reject this revelation , yet they post it as proof (of what?).

Ladislaus · « **Reply #47 on:** June 23, 2016, 03:36:08 PM »

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.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #48 on:** June 23, 2016, 04:07:27 PM »

Baptism of desire is de fide. This is not a disputable point. If you look on my blog, you will see plenty against the Modernist anti-Christs occupying Rome. Again, you bear false witness against me and crack out rash accusations. I'm not particulary typing against the Modernists on this thread because they haven't come here spreading heresy like the deniers of Catholic dogma have. Frankly, Modernists don't always pretend to be 100% Catholic like the perverse Feenyites do. The Feenyite non-Catholic heretics give the illusion of being fully Traditional Catholic, but they mix a drop of poison in the glass of otherwise pure water and come here offering drinks to thirsty souls. They inadvertently give glory to God just as the demons in hell do, against their own will, because they strengthen the true servants of God.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #49 on:** June 23, 2016, 04:37:33 PM »

The most adamant defenders of strict EENS are Spaniards and South Americans. I never heard anything my whole life but that ALL Protestants and Jews (the only non-Catholics in South America) go to hell.

Likely, I am of an older generation, because if Catholics in South America believed that today, they would not have all become Protestants like they have.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #50 on:** June 23, 2016, 04:41:40 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican

Quote from: Last Tradhican

We have here a private revelation teaching what is precisely called explicit baptism of desire, baptism of blood, the sacrament of confession, and a perfect act of contrition (which as Trent teaches, requires that the person desire to go to confession to a priest, as it says above "requires with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers").

Any arguments on those observations?

That is all this thread is, no revelation. What is the big deal? Practically every BODer rejects this "revelation" by their belief that anyone can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, without confession, and without a perfect act of contrition with the intent to confess to a priest. They totally reject this revelation , yet they post it as proof (of what?).

The OP of this thread is typical of what I call Faux-BODers, Fake BODers, they claim to believe in the baptism of desire, then they deny it by believing that people can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, without confession, and without a perfect act of contrition with the intent to confess to a priest.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #51 on:** June 23, 2016, 04:46:18 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican

Quote from: Last Tradhican
Quote from: Last Tradhican

We have here a private revelation teaching what is precisely called explicit baptism of desire, baptism of blood, the sacrament of confession, and a perfect act of contrition (which as Trent teaches, requires that the person desire to go to confession to a priest, as it says above "requires with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers").

Any arguments on those observations?

That is all this thread is, no revelation. What is the big deal? Practically every BODer rejects this "revelation" by their belief that anyone can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, without confession, and without a perfect act of contrition with the intent to confess to a priest. They totally reject this revelation , yet they post it as proof (of what?).

The OP of this thread is typical of what I call Faux-BODers, Fake BODers, they claim to believe in the baptism of desire, then they deny it by believing that people can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, without confession, and without a perfect act of contrition with the intent to confess to a priest.

Will you quit trolling me and adding more libel here. The amount of libel against me on this thread is incredible.

Cantarella · « **Reply #52 on:** June 23, 2016, 05:01:21 PM »

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:

The same could be argued about St. Gregory nαzιanzen, eastern doctor of the Church . Was he infallible when he explicitly denied the notion of a salvific Baptism of Desire?

What think you?

Cantarella · « **Reply #53 on:** June 23, 2016, 05:35:16 PM »

In other words Centroamerica, (or any other BODer in this thread) why would you think St. Catherine's words on Baptism are infallible, but reject those of St. Gregory nαzιanzen in which he explicitly denies B. of Desire?

Both are Doctors of the Church.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #54 on:** June 23, 2016, 05:40:11 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican

Quote from: Last Tradhican
Quote from: Last Tradhican

We have here a private revelation teaching what is precisely called explicit baptism of desire, baptism of blood, the sacrament of confession, and a perfect act of contrition (which as Trent teaches, requires that the person desire to go to confession to a priest, as it says above "requires with contrition of heart, confessing, when able, to My ministers").

Any arguments on those observations?

That is all this thread is, no revelation. What is the big deal? Practically every BODer rejects this "revelation" by their belief that anyone can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, without confession, and without a perfect act of contrition with the intent to confess to a priest. They totally reject this revelation , yet they post it as proof (of what?).

The OP of this thread is typical of what I call Faux-BODers, Fake BODers, they claim to believe in the baptism of desire, then they deny it by believing that people can be saved without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, without confession, and without a perfect act of contrition with the intent to confess to a priest.

It is really very simple, all that a BODer has to say is that they believe in explicit baptism of desire as taught by St. Thomas, and they reject the teaching that a non-believer in Jesus Christ, the Incarnation, and the Holy Trinity can be saved. It is that simple. Yet, as anyone can see, they will not do it, as the OP demonstrates. They are so embarrassed of what they believe ("that anyone can be saved without without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, without confession, and without a perfect act of contrition with the intent to confess to a priest"), that they are afraid of speaking about it openly and with conviction.

Matto · « **Reply #55 on:** June 23, 2016, 06:57:39 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican

It is really very simple, all that a BODer has to say is that they believe in explicit baptism of desire as taught by St. Thomas, and they reject the teaching that a non-believer in Jesus Christ, the Incarnation, and the Holy Trinity can be saved. It is that simple. Yet, as anyone can see, they will not do it, as the OP demonstrates. They are so embarrassed of what they believe ("that anyone can be saved without without baptism, without explicit baptism of desire, without baptism of blood, without confession, and without a perfect act of contrition with the intent to confess to a priest"), that they are afraid of speaking about it openly and with conviction.
[/quote]
I used to not believe in BOD but now I do only for those who believe in Christ and the Trinity and the Incarnation. I do not believe that non-believers can be saved. I know there are a lot of traditionalists who believe that nearly anyone can be saved by baptism of desire no matter what they believe, but I do not believe this.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #56 on:** June 23, 2016, 08:25:56 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

The same could be argued about St. Gregory nαzιanzen, eastern doctor of the Church . Was he infallible when he explicitly denied the notion of a salvific Baptism of Desire?

What think you?

The huge difference here is that St. Gregory nαzιanzus did not claim that God Himself or God the Son came down from heaven and said it to him. He stated a simple opinion like St. Thomas did when he denied the Immaculate Conception. The parallel is good because both were respected theologians, Doctors of the Church, and fallible saints. A saint such as St. Catherine claiming that both God the Father and God the Son explained baptism of desire in very clear terms is very hard to dismiss and the non-Catholic Feenyites have few options. Ladislaus dismisses it as a case of the "confused saint". Apparently, St. Catherine is not alone in being accused by Ladislaus. He must also apply this to Saint Bridget's private revelation. The circus never ends with you impostors who seek to steal the Truth from souls.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #57 on:** June 23, 2016, 08:55:30 PM »

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.

I was reading Fr. Berry's book on the Church and he mentioned another case where BOD would be in effect. He mentioned the case where someone is putatively baptised and believes himself to be baptised and the Church considers him to have been baptised but in fact there was a defect in matter, form or intention which was not recognized. Fr. Berry stated that such a person would not be damned because their intention was to enter the Church and it was not their own fault that the sacrament was invalidly administered. I wonder if NO baptisms might be invalid in some cases due to the faulty intention of some of these "priests" some of whom are truly wicked. In any case, I would think this type of situation would be even more rare than the death of a catechumen. But it is an interesting case to consider.

JPaul · « **Reply #58 on:** June 23, 2016, 09:31:57 PM »

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.............

Cantarella · « **Reply #59 on:** June 23, 2016, 09:44:43 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

In other words Centroamerica, (or any other BODer in this thread) why would you think St. Catherine's words on Baptism are infallible, but reject those of St. Gregory nαzιanzen in which he explicitly denies B. of Desire?

Both are Doctors of the Church.

Centroamerica claims that what makes St. Catherine's words infallible, (and therefore true, without the possibility of error) while St. Gregory nαzιanzen's false is that she said that God told her so. Sorry, but you will not find any theological source which would support such a notion of infallibility. What makes something infallible is only determined by the highest authority of the Church. Private revelations, even by saints, may contain error, because they are fallible.

Pope Pius XII states here that not even the works of the most eminent Doctors constitute the principal source of truth.

Quote from: Pope Pius XII, Allocution at the Gregorian, Oct, 17, 1953

The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctors, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth. The Church certainly considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and she accords them the highest praise; but, by divine mandate, the interpreter and guardian of the Sacred Scriptures and depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation, she alone by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost is the source of truth.

Centroamerica simply chooses to believe in St. Catherine's words on Baptism, while reject St. Gregory's because he has a highly emotional attachment to the distorted version of BOD, as evident by his mental breakdowns on this subject.