Tactics on Internet
craftiest1 asked this question on 8/28/2000:
Why was this question not answered completely the question I believe was this,
were these things said? and if they were said how do they reconcile with the RC teachings?
I think that to answer the way the 4 have so far is to say.
"well the Catholic Church doesn’t believe this, and no Christian does" (forget about it)
How is that answering the question? some insight please can you all please elaborate more on this I want to know and I know my good Catholic friend RMW82 would like to know as well.
real answers please.
mscperu gave this response on 8/29/2000:
After reading you question I copied the citations but I did not answer. Why?
You question is deeply flawed in method.
It’s the unsound technique of past times when you accumulated a bunch of citations and thought you had proof.
Since when can you cheerily presume that the same word (cut off from context) has the same meaning during 300 years?
Since when can you blissfully suppose that the same word (cut off from context) has the same meaning in Rome, Alexandria, and Gaul?
Add to this the consideration that you are looking at this same poor misused word with mind frame of XXI century. Don’t you think that there is an additional blemish of method? You talk with youngsters, you talk with Afro or Latin people and they use the same word and are worlds apart. That’s in the same country, in the same year.
You see the mistake of the citations offered?
Let me offer an other consideration.
What was the intent of the Ecumenical Councils? Christians were announcing the Gospel to persons of their time.
Itinerant philosopher had popularized philosophical concepts. Sophism had conquered rhetoric the communication instrument of politics, law and transaction between educated people. This system had been adopted by the Roman Empire. They translated from Greek. Even the primary and secondary education was a Greek replica taught in Latin.
Paul on the Areopagus is an example how Christians talk to educated people. Some way the Christian Preachers had to explain Holy Trinity, One God in three Persons. They had to present in some way the Second Person of the Holy Trinity incarnated, one Person, real God and real man.
Evangelization occurs in the language of the hearer and in his concepts. It’s enthralling to observe how the Church Fathers create a new language. The use the same word but it has a new meaning. Look at the concepts of person, nature, etc.
This process was not without trial and error. The Ecumenical Councils had to define what doctrine was according to Gospel (oral and written). It was necessary because assuming a philosophical concept without screening had as a consequence that Jesus Christ wasn’t real God or real man. This was not an academic discussion. The Christian community participated ardently. Read the charming description of Saint John Chrysostome: when you go to the market place the seller tells you that there are three persons, the barber discusses with his clients if Christ is homoousios o homoiousios. After the Council of Ephesus there was a solemn procession and the whole town was applauding the bishops.
The Apostolic Fathers were coining a new language (Ireneaus, Clement, Origene, and Tertullianus for Latin). A very potent reason not to cut out citations and put them as questions. You have to look at them one by one. That’s why theology can’t begin with speculations. First historical investigation.
So you see it’s impossible to answer the question like that.
And that’s the real answer.
So you may understand now that I’ll offer you an example that makes it impossible for an innocent man to answer truthfully:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
This kind of questions is used by crafty lawyer to trip innocent witness.
Your kind of question reminds me of the dialogue with the separated brethren. They throw at you a bunch of Bible passages and think that’s it. It’s like using a scissor to eat soup. You have to use spoons. The spoon is Tradition. And much of Tradition is locked up in the treasure chest of the Fathers. You have to open it and look at the items one by one.
By the way:
For a Catholic it’s enough to point out the teaching of the Church. But if you want explanations then please proffer questions that are sound in method. If they are flawed you can’t answer!
That’s the real answer.
PS. I’ll append this answer to your two questions so that innocent readers may read under counsel.