- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed.
“The Church on earth is endowed already with a** sanctity that is real though imperfect**.” In her members perfect holiness is something yet to be acquired: “Strengthened by so many and such great means of salvation, all the faithful, whatever their condition or state - though each in his own way - are called by the Lord to that perfection of sanctity by which the Father himself is perfect.” CCC 825
and
"Christ, ‘holy, innocent, and undefiled,’ knew nothing of sin, but came only to expiate the sins of the people. The Church, however, clasping sinners to her bosom, at once holy and** always in need of purification**, follows constantly the path of penance and renewal."299 All members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that they are sinners.300 In everyone, the weeds of sin will still be mixed with the good wheat of the Gospel until the end of time.301 Hence the Church gathers sinners already caught up in Christ’s salvation but** still on the way to holiness:**
The Church is therefore holy, though having sinners in her midst, because she herself has no other life but the life of grace. If they live her life, her members are sanctified; if they move away from her life, they fall into sins and disorders that prevent the radiation of her sanctity. This is why she suffers and does penance for those offenses, of which she has the power to free her children through the blood of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit." CCC 827 (bold mine)
G
GKC
Guest
I understand. But that, it seems to me, is special pleading and logic-chopping, and not (personally) convincing. To say that not all is black is not necessarily to say that all is white. Some may be gray.
#33 necessarily means something. While my interest, generally, is in history, I have little interest in Luther, despite owning the standard number of the standard bios (5-6). But one might consider why #33 was there at all. Presumably it was in response to something Luther said or wrote, or was thought to have said or written. Which would possibly something along the lines of “The Holy Spirit does not will the burning of heretics” or “Heretics are being burnt, contrary to the will of the Holy Spirit”. Maybe. If so, why would Luther have asserted something like that? In the abstract? Doesn’t seem convincing to me. Because there were cases/threats of such occurring, in the society of the time? Seems likely to me. And #33 is a corrective to such a statement. If so, as I asked regularly, what did Leo mean to imply/teach/require assent to? That Luther’s assertion (if it was made) conveyed something incorrect. Again, why? In the abstract, a misunderstanding of the nature of the Holy Spirit? Or a recognizable (to the audience) defense of the hypothetical burning of heretics?
Hard to tell.
GKC
P
PRmerger
Guest
Perhaps. But I would be surprised if you told me that you had never used “special pleading” or “logic-chopping” in any theological discussions–perhaps with atheists in providing apologia on hard sayings of the OT? (Yes, yes, I get that you don’t want to go there, but I’m just sayin’
)Clearly, in discussions of this sort “special pleading” and “logic-chopping” (whatever that is!) are sometimes required.
P
PRmerger
Guest
And this has been answered, ad nauseum.
One more time with one response, although there have been others:
There is the possibility that the application of the death penalty was willed in one period, but is not willled today. There is also the possibility that he wills it in the case of some offenses against the faith but not others, or that he wills it in the case of some individuals but not others, or that he neither wills for nor against it.(source: Akin)
G
GKC
Guest
And what is the possiblity of what it said, for the day it was written? That the Spirit willed it, possibly. And that was what Leo was intending to assert.
Hard to tell.
Sorry about your stomach.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Wouldn’t surprise me at all.Perhaps. But I would be surprised if you told me that you had never used “special pleading” or “logic-chopping” in any theological discussions–perhaps with atheists in providing apologia on hard sayings of the OT? (Yes, yes, I get that you don’t want to go there, but I’m just sayin’
Clearly, in discussions of this sort “special pleading” and “logic-chopping” (whatever that is!) are sometimes required.
But I find my special pleading more generally pleasing.
GKC
P
PRmerger
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
I had actually re-thought it as “I find my special pleading especially pleasing”. Symmetrical.Let’s change it to this: but i find my special pleading more generally pleasing
in homage to the late, great e.e. cummings.
Anyway, although you are being tongue-in-cheek here, I think it’s a rather trenchant point. You are ok with logic-chopping but not with Catholic logic-chopping.
Not a fan of dropping a penny in a slot.
I’m ok with my logic chopping. I look askance at others’ logic chopping, regardless of adjectives. My doxy is orthodoxy, heterodoxy is somebody else’s doxy, as the saying is.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
J
josie_L
Guest
Yes, a deduction GKC but we need more than a “logical” deduction if we wish to state that Leo X was reiterating official Church teaching, i.e., if a practice is based on a (official) teaching per se then what pray tell was Leo X basing himself on? He doesn’t say nor for that matter do we know if the error in question (#33) is heretical, false, scandalous, or offensive: “Other errors are either heretical, false, scandalous, or offensive to pious ears” (taken from Exsurge Domine)? We know that the (teaching) evidence for purgatory, indulgences, papacy/primacy . . .etc. are well-documented within the Church but not much can be said for the “official” teaching you wish to “logically” deduce from one papal bull? And this is not hair splitting GKC (I will not convict the CC on so little evidence).
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
You have to give me some props, man. I’m only 35 so I should get a little credit for keeping up with you old school references…
Everyone I know tells me, “how old ru anyway? You shouldn’t know that?” about just about everything. From WWII to Laurel and Hardy to Jack Benny or old cars, old music, you name it, I’m not bad
I might be the only 35 year old in the U.S. to know who Kolchak the Night Stalker was!
Everyone I know tells me, “how old ru anyway? You shouldn’t know that?” about just about everything. From WWII to Laurel and Hardy to Jack Benny or old cars, old music, you name it, I’m not bad
I might be the only 35 year old in the U.S. to know who Kolchak the Night Stalker was!
G
GKC
Guest
He was Darren McGavin.You have to give me some props, man. I’m only 35 so I should get a little credit for keeping up with you old school references…
Everyone I know tells me, “how old ru anyway? You shouldn’t know that?” about just about everything. From WWII to Laurel and Hardy to Jack Benny or old cars, old music, you name it, I’m not bad
Like me, as said, you were born old.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Logically, Leo could proclaim the teaching.
But it is hard to tell what he was doing.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
I see it as a nod to efficiency and single-mindedness. Credit where credit is due.Now this is a case of special pleading/hair splitting.
But, sure, special pleading is often in the eye of the beholder.
GKC
- Status