Problem with this was not ancient language that she used but modern English language. Love to see St Catherine's language at that time what did she actually say in comparsion to modern English language used re her words mentioned above.
All we are trying to do is to navigate our way through this modernist crisis and through this Pontificate. Either we are right or the Modernists are right. I have really doubted like Thomas this year because of the actions of this Pope. He is in danger of turning me into a Bible-believing protestant
I wondered about this myself. The difficulty for many of us ordinary lay people is that we have never studied theology. Or even Philosophy. So we are a bit like beached whales when it comes to discussing things like this. On the other hand people we are concerned about often have multiple Doctorates on these precise areas, things like Scripture Study, Canon Law, Theology, Liturgy, Theology, Philosophy and so on. I mean I dare say you would never be made a Bishop anyway anytime unless you had such advanced studies. So a lay person who throws in their two cents worth feels rather like a lay person wandering into a surgical theatre and telling a Cardiac surgeon how to do things. In addition as a typical Catholic of my generation I always had complete confidence in Popes, Cardinals Bishops, priests and nuns generally. Of course I knew there might be one or two bad ones lurking out there somewhere but still. So it has been a kind of urgent case of running catch up on all this. But I think from what I have read what happened is just about this ( and I am perfectly open to correction, I am well read in Mystical Theology and Spirituality but in this I am more than a little out of my depth).. ..what I think happened is that towards the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th in Germany new ways of studying scripture and theology emerged in Germany and spread to Europe and the rest of the world. (By the way this ties in with Satan being given a hundred years to try and take over the Church). In the Church this lead to two very different theological approaches which are diametrically opposed. One such approach is personified by Pope Emeritus Benedict and the other by our Present Holy Father Pope Francis. I think to understand this gives a good handle on what is going on. Dr Taylor Marshall explains this all at length in conversation with Dr Tim Flanders. I will try and post this as it is well worth watching again and again. I must listen to this again myself. But even though we are only lay people, you don't have to be a Vet to know when a dog has bitten you. Lay people can still tell a heresy when one comes up and punches them in the nose. Now let me see it I can find this...
I don't think that the Church gives the opening for anyone, Bishop, Cardinal, priest, layperson to declare a Pope a Formal heretic. it's just not in the script. He's the main man , the Vicar of Christ and that's all she wrote. I think the Dubia Cardinals were simply asking questions that centred around possible Material Heresy, though they were not directly pointing any fingers.
St Catherine does not deny that a pope can be an incarnate devil. She is not saying that all popes are intrinsically good. She is saying that, no matter how wicked they might be, we should continue to honour them, for God's sake. How do we honour them? I think the best way to do this is to pray for them. I don't see St Catherine saying that we must honour what we perceive as their heresies or wickednesses. We know from Galations 1:8 that we must disregard what contradicts the Gospel, even if such contradiction is preached to us by 'an angel from heaven'. I suggest St Paul takes precedence even over St Catherine, just as the aforesaid angel does with respect to a pope. In other words, just as we are advised to love the sinner, but hate his sin, St Catherine is saying we must love the pope, but hate his sins. This applies no matter how grave are those sins, to the extreme of those that might be committed by a devil from Hell. St Catherine is not saying that we acquiesce with those sins, nor, as a saint who was reknowned for giving popes an earful of her mind, that we refrain from condemning those sins, or indeed the methods, words and actions of the particular pope who perpetrates them. Love Pope Francis, which is not the same as liking him. The profoundest expression of love for a fellow human is to wish for his eternal salvation; the most fruitful method of such a desire is prayer. The only way for a sinner to achieve salvation is to repent of his sins and make a firm purpose of amendment. The best thing one can do for Pope Francis is to pray for all this.
Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. The only way this can make any sense is that our life is totally abandoned to the will of God! Imagine a little new born lamb safe in the herd, with it's mother and aunts and cousins and their father all living safely on the side of a beautiful mountain. One day a pride of lions comes and kills all the sheep! except one, they kill your dad, your mum, all your aunts and cousins and you are the only one left. The lions have no thought to kill this scrawny lamb because they have had their fill. What does this little lamb do? as the pride of lions walk away. This little lamb is innocent and he can't fathom what has just happened he sees the lions walking away and he calls to them but they don't answer, he follows them and mourns for his family. He lays down beside the lions and rests his little head on the bosom of the leader and he sleeps! He will probably be the next victim tomorrow but he trusts in the only thing he knows, which is his life, this is all he can do! Maybe we are all called to this? Maybe this is complete surrender? In innocence maybe we are called to lay our head on the bosom of satan, ever so trusting in the plan of God! Maybe this is what St Catherine of sienna meant (if she said that at all)?
It appears that you are deliberately misquoting Scripture. The verse does NOT say “disregard what contradicts the Gospel”. It says that one who preaches another gospel is anathema, or accursed, in other translations. Douay-Rheims Bible Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. +
I didn't deliberately misquote scripture, because I didn't quote it in the first place, but made a reference to it. I used that reference in order to draw an inference from it, that being that one ought to ignore a false gospel. So what you appear to be implying, but I wouldn't be as certain in my accusations as you, is that if someone does preach a false gospel, one should not disregard it? If this is not what you are saying, what on earth is it that you are saying? I would appreciate a retraction of your accusation.
