tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-864209521536699332.post5453445154142451750..comments2023-05-09T04:27:27.901-07:00Comments on The Girl Who Was Saturday: Truth, Justice, and ... Equivocation?TGWWShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13727516543273059122noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-864209521536699332.post-36095211596020644202012-09-01T13:28:22.682-07:002012-09-01T13:28:22.682-07:00I do wonder. I don't know.
Hm. We are bound...I do wonder. I don't know.<br /><br />Hm. We are bound to be obedient to ex cathedra teachings, and to the ordinary magisterium; and a current bull would seem to fall under the latter, and an encyclical under the former; but an older bull ... ? Because they tend to be more disciplinary than doctrinal, I'm not sure. I can't help seeing that one as something of a contemporary TGWWShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10600123603258365909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-864209521536699332.post-79856671856212570672012-09-01T09:56:05.539-07:002012-09-01T09:56:05.539-07:00Since you bring up the Summa, I wonder what Theres...Since you bring up the <i>Summa</i>, I wonder what Theresa of Avila would have to say on the matter.<br /><br />But I wasn't worried about St. Thomas or Chesterton on those things; rather, I referred to a declaration by one of the Popes Innocent to which I am bound to be obedient. And the best resolution I can think of is that <i>equivocation</i> can be the name of many things (even supposingBelfry Bathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00514867101036143597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-864209521536699332.post-18609853242949054572012-09-01T07:07:19.386-07:002012-09-01T07:07:19.386-07:00As for the "equivocation = lying" proble...As for the "equivocation = lying" problem ... I don't think it's so easy as that. In the Summa, for example (not that St. Thomas is infallible either!) his definitions leave plenty of room open for equivocation, I think (and of course, we all know about my infallibility). And there's the famous story about Athanasius ...<br /><br />The basic point is, one cannot simply <i>TGWWShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10600123603258365909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-864209521536699332.post-83691557933274667542012-09-01T06:58:59.423-07:002012-09-01T06:58:59.423-07:00Oh, I don't think you're astray at all. I...Oh, I don't think you're astray at all. I've always thought equivocation gets an unfair bad rap, especially from folks like Chesterton - who, for all his wisdom, was not infallible In any case, it's easy to see historically why the English would have been very uncomfortable with the word.TGWWShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10600123603258365909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-864209521536699332.post-78175063674200835492012-08-31T11:26:59.805-07:002012-08-31T11:26:59.805-07:00Equivocation, eh? Now I am troubled. For indeed,...Equivocation, eh? Now I am troubled. For indeed, I cannot think of a current English word as descriptive as "equivocation" for the kind of honesty I'm trying to develop; and furthermore <a href="http://disputations.blogspot.ca/2012/07/st-alphonsus-and-christian-remembrancer_13.html" rel="nofollow">it would seem that</a> the equivocations I am endorsing would normally fall into theBelfry Bathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00514867101036143597noreply@blogger.com