F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/68c62/68c629956b9840fb35d308de8da3d6bb006b3d8a" alt="40.png"
I am sure you are absolutely right -in the way you perceive it yourself. I just do not see it as you do.Even if such a generalization were true, it would still, in this case, be an ad hominem attack. You can dodge the point all you want, but avoiding the substance of an argument by raising a smoke screen of irrelevant personal specualtion about the disputant is harldy an appeal to dispationate (not to mention courteous) reason.
Here is what you wrote:
“Just like a Protestant to say that the Catholic Church is steeped in invincible ignorance.”
Here is what** GAssisi **wrote:
“The book also includes all the patristic proof that invincible ignorance has been preserved in the Catholic Church continuously down to this day…”
Even if one were to deliberately misread his choice of words as referring to the reality rather than the concept of “invicible ignorance”, only constructive misrepresentation could equate “has been preserved in” with “is steeped in”. And even if you legitimately insist on your a literal metaphor of “soaking in liquid” (“steeped in”) it would logically and gramatically read “invincible ignorance is steepd in the Catholic Church”, not the other way round. But this would not have quite served your intended purpose in mockery. So you twisted his words by inverting subject and object so as to make the words say plainly what they did not, and you then mocked the author (and the Catholic Church) in the process.
Quod est demonstrandum.
Irenicist