Happens all the time.
I got used to it from the crevo threads.
The mentality seems to be that if you really understood ________, of course you’d agree with them about it and believe as they do. It’s apparently just beyond some people’s comprehension that someone could really know what a belief system is and still reject it.
I know what the Catholic churches I attended taught. I know what the relatives who were priests and a nun believed to be Catholic doctrine. I know what the Catholics I grew up with, went to school with, and worked with believed to be true about Catholicism as THEY were also taught. Even the convert to Catholicism believed the same things those raised Catholic did- the very things that I keep getting told I’m wrong about being the official Catholic church doctrine.
That kind of attitude about those who reject Catholicism being very poorly catechized, is a very condescending, smug attitude, an attitude which I have found to be incredibly consistent in the most faithful, practicing Catholics I’ve known in my life.
However, the accusation just rolls off my back. I know the truth about how much I know about Catholicism as it is taught, practiced and lived amongst the aforementioned Catholics, and FRoman Catholics constant comments about that don’t faze me. I expect no less, and so am not disappointed.
I sleep well at night regardless.
The mentality seems to be that if you really understood ________, of course you’d agree with them about it and believe as they do.
No, that is an error. That is not my "mentality."
What I am saying is NOT, "if you understood this, you'd agree," but "It is clear from what this person asserts to be unquestionable fact about what we teach that he does not KNOW what we teach."
I am content that you all should disagree. I am not content when you insist that I say what I do not say and don't say what I do say. I am NOT at all content when someone insists that something is a fact when it is clearly NOT a fact.
If someone wants to disagree with transubstantiation, that's okay. If he wasn't to talk about it, fine.
But if he says what amounts to "The doctrine is wrong because such and such doesn't happen," when the doctrine SAYS precisely "such and such doesn't happen," then I have legitimate grounds to say that that person doesn't understand the doctrine.
And then to suggest that I am saying "I know you don't understand, because if you understood you'd agree," is just nonsense and displays not only an ignorance of doctrine cloaked by false knowledge but an ignorance of me, cloaked by the same sort of falsehood.