Cyprian "On Church Unity": Who is *in* the Church? Q #2 [An answer proposed]

[Clark]

Nemo said, "I've quoted the definition of that phrase from the dictionary. Where is your dictionary definition?"

Dueling dictionaries is not going to resolve this.

The important point here is not the phrase to denote what you did. The important point is that you represented Cyprian as having said something according to the text that he did not say. I will be happy to have a different phrase to describe that if you know one.

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary says: " put words into a person's mouth (a) tell a person what to say; (b) represent a person as having uttered words previously stated."

I don't understand the "previously stated" thing but there is no hint here of the person really meaning something else. It says, to "represent a person as having uttered words ..." Which is what you did.

As I say, the term isn't what's important. What's important is representing him as having said something he did not say. This is not being careful with the text. This is representing an inference (not in the text) as a paraphrase of a speaker.

[Ruth]

I think this last question proposed by Nemo 'why does Cyprian think he is in the church and Novatian not' is really good.

I think it really gets to the heart of the matter. How do we get this wonderful theory of unity to work out in practice.

As I said before, I am most impressed by the wonderful statements and the pastoral wisdom in the treatise. But.. I also think that in practice things are often much more complicated and I also have this feeling that Cyprian overstepped his own boundaries and (perhaps for the greater good, as he saw it) organized something against Novatian.

I agree with Clark that this is probably my 'personal take' and admit that I also have an aversion against authority that makes me doubt the 'official story' without reading the original documents.

However I have my doubts if we will find anything that brings more light to that in these texts, since no letters of Novatian have survived.

[Kerstin]

Nemo wrote: "I've been taught since childhood not to rely on authority, but always check an opinion or theory against the facts. Please don't take it personally."

I don't.
When you think of authority, how does acting in good faith figure into this? Is authority automatically suspect? or is it more questioning, "can this be true?"

[Nemo]

Kerstin wrote: "When you think of authority, how does acting in good faith figure into this? Is authority automatically suspect? or is it more questioning, "can this be true?""

We're getting off topic. This thread is about Cyprian, not Nemo. :) But just in case others are wondering the same thing...

In the context of this discussion, I'm using the word "authority" interchangeably with "expert", i.e., someone who has gathered more facts, gained more knowledge than the average person. An authority has no more "good faith" than an average person.

By "question authority", I mean questioning whether the facts he presented are accurate, whether he is making valid inferences from those facts, what his assumptions are, and whether his arguments are logically consistent, and so on.

[Nemo]

Clark wrote: "This is representing an inference (not in the text) as a paraphrase of a speaker. .."

I would concede that Cyprian didn't explicitly say that the policy is humane, but implicitly.

Paraphrasing a speaker isn't putting words into his mouth, although the speaker didn't actually say those words; To state the implicit meaning of the speaker is not putting words into his mouth either.

P.S. Our discussion about "putting words into someone's mouth" borders on what people call "anal retentive". But I'm certainly glad I'm not the only "picky" one in the group. :)

[Clark]

Nemo said in message 11: "I think, in the early Church, heresy and schism are used interchangeably to refer to divisions in the Church caused by differences in beliefs and doctrines."

The following is the opening of Chapter 23 in the Didascalia. It seems to me to distinguish between schism ("seeking the primacy") and heresy. For instance, it says if schism is bad, heresy must be much worse. I present it as one datum; not as a proof.

"Before all things beware of all abominable and evil and bitter heresies, and fly from them as from a blazing fire, and from those who adhere to them. For if when a man makes a schism, he condemns himself to fire together with those who go astray after him, how much more if one go and sink himself in the heresies. For know this, that if any of you covet the primacy and dare to make a schism, he shall inherit the place of Korah and Dathan and Abiram, he and they that are with him, and with them he shall be condemned to fire ...."

The whole chapter has references to schism and heresy, which may reinforce or zap my one-sentence impression.