In a message dated 01/14/2000 12:11:02 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
> My own plea to return to a discussion of medieval religion was prompted by
> this remark in one of the messages: "Because the Church needs to be seen as
> perfect, it simply cannot admit ANY wrongdoing of its saints. That is one
> reason why it has little credibility in the rest of the world." I have no
> problem with a discussion of John Chrysostom on the Jew nor even
reflections
> on their relationship to 20th century infelicities.
>
> Thomas Sullivan, OSB
>
Fr. Sullivan,
I always thought the claim of your respondent was a popular fallacy rather
than an article of faith--that the Church does not actually claim the saints
are perfect, although many people erroneously believe that this is what the
Church teaches.
Could somebody please clarify the theology, or the logic? I'm not interested
in whether the saints are perfect, but in whether the Church ever made belief
in the perfection of the saints any kind of article of faith. My guess is
that the Church didn't do this or wouldn't do this. If one believes that only
God is perfect, it's too illogical to attribute perfection to the saints. It
elevates them to the level of God, which in turn conflicts with the
proposition that there is only one God.
Sorry to sound like a warmed-over scholastic, but hope people see the point.
It's certainly a very medieval point. Many of Dante's saints make small
mistakes in what they say in the Commedia. Not everyone agrees with me that
this is of any importance. I think it's Dante's way of reminding us that only
God is perfect, that no human being--not even a saint--can be perfect. And
I'd regard that, in turn, as a very pious, orthodox, Catholic point for him
to be making.
pat sloane
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|