Author Topic: God the Father and His Son Reveal Baptism of Desire and Blood (Read 3861 times)

Caminus · « **Reply #10 on:** February 25, 2010, 01:01:03 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: Ladislaus
First of all, St. Catherine of Siena, though she was a great saint in many ways, is no "Doctor of the Church", for she was never part of the Ecclesia Docens. But that's a different issue.

She taught the Church true spiritual doctrine, thus she was indirectly part of the teacing office of the Church. God can and has in fact raised up several souls to teach who were not part of the canonical office.

EVERY saint teaches in a certain way, so then why not just call every saint a Doctor of the Church. That title cannot be conferred upon those who are not part of the Church teaching (i.e. minimally a priest).

Again, you assert, but do not demonstrate. Your argument can be reduced to the absurd. Why not just call every bishop and priest a "doctor of the Church" in the proper and strict sense?

Caminus · « **Reply #11 on:** February 25, 2010, 01:04:33 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Caminus
They were not cited as such. But if you admit the fact that the revelation was authentic and that those words were communicated to her by the Father and the Son, then you would be directly contradicting the words of God Himself, which though not heretical, would be at least temerious.

In canonizing a saint, the Church in no way asserts that every teaching or belief of theirs is true (cf. St. Thomas on the Immaculate Conception) nor every revelation true or authentic. Even St. Theresa of Avila spoke about criteria for discerning between true divine locutions and suggestions of the imagination (criteria which she affirms she had to apply even in her own case). Consequently, there could be an admixture of divinely inspired thoughts and personal imagination.

Caminus, you need only read the words of your own St. Faustina.

This is just more special pleading. Let's face it, you just don't like the words so you are straining to disqualify it in any way you can, isn't that correct?

In this particular case, we have God the Father reminding her of what Jesus Christ said to her. In this particular case, we have an ancient, approved and authentic revelation to one of the greatest mystics of the Church. It is not an argument from authority, rather it is yet another piece of evidence in the long line of our doctrinal tradition which you reject based upon false premises viz. that there is a causal relation between these doctrines and liberalism.

Caminus · « **Reply #12 on:** February 25, 2010, 01:05:55 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Caminus
If you are referring to concrete facts ...

Wrong. God does not contradict Himself in any way.

I'm referring to their writings about the spiritual life in general. Now lets have it, do you hold that this revelation is authentic?

Caminus · « **Reply #13 on:** February 25, 2010, 01:09:30 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: C.M.M.M
Do you know any contradictions off hand? I'd be interested in looking at them.The only problem with written tradition and scripture is that people can twist them to support themselves, which isn't a problem at all if you recognize a living, breathing group to maintain a constant teaching.

Catherine Emmerich and Mary of Agreda contradict one another on NUMEROUS points in their writings. Just do a quick web search.

I agree that we need the Church to interpret Tradition, but St. Catherine's writings are not a new source of Revelation.

Name one and we'll see if it has to do with particular facts or the truth of doctrine. No one is denying the imagination can get in the way or that their interpretation can be amiss so to refer to such in the case at hand is disingenuous at best. What evidence to you cite to distinguish the falsehood of this part from the rest of the authentic revelation?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** February 25, 2010, 01:13:54 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Again, you assert, but do not demonstrate. Your argument can be reduced to the absurd. Why not just call every bishop and priest a "doctor of the Church" in the proper and strict sense?

Nonsense. Being a member of the Church Teaching is a prerequisite for being honored by the title of Doctor of the Church, but does not guarantee it. You can be a member of the teaching Church without becoming a saintly Doctor of the Church but you cannot become a Doctor of the Church without being a member of the Church teaching.

You cannot become a Doctor Ecclesiae without being part of the Ecclesia Docens.

So what do you think of St. Faustina, Caminus?