I have always believed in BoD and BoB -- not implicit faith, mind you, but BoD.  So this doesn't tell me anything I don't already know.  But thanks anyway, because this clears up whatever doubts I may have had remaining.  St. Catherine is pretty much infallible in my eyes and one of my favorites.

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.

Secondly, St. Catherine's revelations are in no way part of the Church's magisterium.  If Our Lord intended to reveal this as Church doctrine, He would have done so in the Sacred Scriptures or through Tradition, not through St. Catherine "dialogues"--which, her personal sanctity notwithstanding, could have been the fruits of her own active imagination.

We have quite a few mystics, who though renowned for their personal heroic virtue, actually contradict one another at times in the content of their "revelations."  Perhaps there's a reason why it's almost always women who have such revelations.

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.  

Secondly, St. Catherine's revelations are in no way part of the Church's magisterium.  If Our Lord intended to reveal this as Church doctrine, He would have done so in the Sacred Scriptures or through Tradition, not through St. Catherine "dialogues"--which, her personal sanctity notwithstanding, could have been the fruits of her own active imagination.

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.  

We have quite a few mystics, who though renowned for their personal heroic virtue, actually contradict one another at times in the content of their "revelations."  Perhaps there's a reason why it's almost always women who have such revelations.

If you are referring to concrete facts or controverted opiniosn about the spiritual life, then you may be correct, but if you are referring to doctrine, then you are sorely mistaken.  Even if there is an apparent contradiction, due care must be taken with regard to their words lest you be accused of taking advantage of different forms of expression in order to further a pet opinion.  

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.

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.

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.  

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?