I don't think saying something that is untrue in a discussion among alleged adults about tings of importance is the same as teasing. I don't know your brother and would hesitate to guess why he teased.
I'm assuming the term you all are talking about is transubstantiation. I am intrigued that you think it is okay for others to attack a belief and misrepresent a belief which they do not understand. I think it is contemptible. Yes, good may come of it, but it is still contemptible. I think it is a kind of lie to say, as though one knew it to be true, a thing which one hasn't taken serious trouble to ascertain. 1000 silverlings does not say, "As far as I can tell" or "to the best of my knowledge" or "It sure seems to me that ..." He makes his claim as though he knew it to be so, when he doesn't because it's not true. So I still think, whatever good may come of it, that it is negligent or malicious.
It is also sowing dissension. He could have asked. he could have said, "I've heard such and such. Is that so?" and we could have talked about the priest's role in a friendly way. But he chose to say something he did not know as though he knew it.
YES, good may have come of it. But it was not good to do.
There are good ways to make a legitimate challenge & this was not one of them.
I don't think saying something that is untrue in a discussion among alleged adults about tings of importance is the same as teasing. I don't know your brother and would hesitate to guess why he teased.
I didn't say that the two possibilities you named had to be wrong, only that there was at least one more possibility that I could see. My brother teased because he was unthinking, not because he was malicious. Not caring if one causes harm is not the same thing as having harm as the goal. Need to have intent to harm as the goal to qualify as malicious.
I'm assuming the term you all are talking about is transubstantiation.
I had no idea that transubstantiation of the priest was involved. I only knew that Catholics don't believe that the priest "becomes" Christ. I think I see why my use of the term "placemarker" got the reaction it did now.
I am intrigued that you think it is okay for others to attack a belief and misrepresent a belief which they do not understand.
While I'm intrigued that you think that's what I think. Going after a sacred cow by first misrepresenting it is a straw man, so it's not very effective. If there is iron in a belief it will withstand all attacks. If your belief begins to crumble under assault, is it a worthy belief to hang your hat on? If you don't know whether or not your belief is up to the test, do not blame the one that is beating on the door. Do the work you need to do so you *know* your belief is worth defending.
I think it is contemptible.
Understandable. Your indignation is justified, so try to change the behaviour of the other guy. Shame him into shaping up. Expend your energy on him.
It is also sowing dissension.
It is. If you cooperate with it, you own it too.
He could have asked. he could have said, "I've heard such and such. Is that so?" and we could have talked about the priest's role in a friendly way.
I don't think he wants to learn more about your beliefs. I could be wrong, but that's the way I see it. Use what he sends your way or move on.
But he chose to say something he did not know as though he knew it.
He owns his action & you own your reaction.
YES, good may have come of it. But it was not good to do.
You look like you could use a glass of lemonade.
From this website:http://www.adoremus.org/JPIIadlim1198.html
Pope John XXIII in a radio message to the 16th Eucharistic Congress of Italy on Sept. 13, 1959, (AAS 51. 713) said he hoped all would grow in their fervor and veneration for the Blessed Virgin,"the Mother of the Mystical Body, of which the Eucharist is the symbol and vital center." And he added: "We trust that they will imitate in her the most perfect model of union with Jesus our Head; we trust that they will join Mary in the offering of the Divine Victim."