Petitio principii. It is not a rationalization. and to say it is is a personal attack AND mind reading.
I have given two examples when someone both claimed superior knowledge and went on to say things demonstrably false. Actually, with the false accusation that we withhold the chalice, that's three matters of fact. They do not depend on agreement with the Church or anything of that kind. They are statements about the Church which are simply false.
The Church does permit married priests. I know of several.
The Church does offer the chalice, usually.
The Church does not teach anything that would lead anyone who knew the teaching to expect that the failure of the Sacred Body to look like flesh or the failure of the Precious Blood to behave like blood serves to contradict the teaching.
These are ascertainable things, and in all of them false assertions were made. Shall I then say the teaching was good?
Heck, I was told when I was in protestant seminary that one reason transubstantiation was first put forth was to assure people precisely that it would look, taste, smell, or feel or anything like flesh and blood. So it is even more amazing. As a Protestant I knew the doctrine better than that! Would someone well catechized make these gross errors of fact? And we're not talking about errors of
Then why aren't there more married priests? And I personally know priests who left the priesthood, and had to, because they got married.
The Church does offer the chalice, usually.
But not always and not until fairly recently. Besides, that had been corrected in subsequent posts. That was NOT the case when I last attended any masses on a regular basis and had not been the custom the entire time I attended mass in my growing up years. I did not persist in insisting that was the case once it was brought to my attention that it had changed since then.
The Church does not teach anything that would lead anyone who knew the teaching to expect that the failure of the Sacred Body to look like flesh or the failure of the Precious Blood to behave like blood serves to contradict the teaching.
Still working on translating that one.
These are ascertainable things, and in all of them false assertions were made.
Whatever happened to unity and consistency of teaching of the Catholic church anyway? If priests are permitted to be married, why is it so pervasive and such pervasive knowledge that Catholic priests are celibate?
6. That’s why I think of it as beneath you to cling to that rationalization.
Petitio principii. It is not a rationalization. and to say it is is a personal attack AND mind reading.
NOT AT ALL. For a given sequence of language followed by another typical sequence of language THAT = RATIONALIZATION--to more than psychologists, actually. As Skinner would likely say--one doesn't have to care about what's in the black box; or infer goings on therein. That sequence thing by definition = RATIONALIZATION.
NOW, it is arguable in virtually every case, as to whether the EVIDENT OBVIOUS IS TRULY FACT. However, on the face of it--A RATIONALIZATION is in play. And, yes, of course, this cuts both ways . . . in Proddy land as well.
Besides, given our complex minds, I don't think either one of us wants to put on hip waders and muck about in the other's mind, trying to 'mind-read' therein.
I think what speaks to Proddys that RATIONALIZATION is going on is the knee-jerk application of that phrase "poorly catechised" IN EVERY CASE--100% OF THOSE I've read for 10+ years on FR.
I realize this is going to result in tons more Latin, however, I HATE THE LATIN. I find it arrogant, condescending, obscuring, obsfucating, haughty, cheeky and elitist. English has the largest vocabulary in all of history and plenty words to use to get the most complex or nuanced idea across.
I have given two examples when someone both claimed superior knowledge and went on to say things demonstrably false. Actually, with the false accusation that we withhold the chalice, that's three matters of fact. They do not depend on agreement with the Church or anything of that kind. They are statements about the Church which are simply false.
I UNDERSTAND THAT.
What even you seem to either NOT UNDERSTAND or dismiss overly glibly are the following:
1. As my Dissertation Chairman said--LIFE IS SO COMPLEX, JUST ABOUT ANY COCKA-MAY-MEE EXPLANATION WILL DO.
2. Which, being interpreted in this case means . . . THE CATECHISM IS INCREDIBLY COMPLEX. Y'all keep minimizing that--but it is an inescapable fact.
3. The PRACTICES REGARDLESS OF and often contrary to THE CATECHISM ARE INCREDIBLY VARIED AND COMPLEX AS WELL AS PERVASIVE ACROSS THE GLOBE. This is often denied. However, the cat is out of the bag.
4. Not only are the EXPERIENCES of former RC FREEPERS GREATLY VARIED ACCORDING TO ANY SINGLE CLAIM OF WHAT THE CATECISM REALLY TEACHES, the experiences of virtually all us PRODDYS WHEN WE TALK TO RC'S IN OUR NETWORK=ARE ALSO GREATLY VARIED --PARTICULARLY compared to ANYONE'S SINGULAR INSISTENCE of what the CATECHISM REALLY says.
5. You or anyone has plenty of opportunity to say VIRTUALLY any combination of things are true or untrue and in some significant corner of Roman Catholicism, such would likely be true.
THE SAME IS TRUE FOR FORMER RC'S AND EVEN FOR PRODDYS OBSERVING RC'S IN THEIR SOCIAL NETWORKS!
The Church does permit married priests. I know of several.
The Church does offer the chalice, usually.
.
The Church does not teach anything that would lead anyone who knew the teaching to expect that the failure of the Sacred Body to look like flesh or the failure of the Precious Blood to behave like blood serves to contradict the teaching.
6. However, we have had repeatedly on FR claims of flesh appearing . . . 'bread' and blood appearing 'wine' . . . which, IIRC, was claimed to have even been blood typed.
7. Some of those sorts of things sound like exceptions. Some of them seem to be regional things. Some of them seem to be particular Parish's reflecting their leader's perspectives, sensibilities etc. as is normal for effective, powerful and/or controlling leaders.
8. Certainly it is clear to Proddys and to our minds and observations, ANY FAIR-MINDED OBJECTIVE OBSERVERS, that IN SPITE OF a standard liturgy etc. etc. etc. THERE'S A LOT OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED, OFFICIALLY PROPAGATED, OFFICIALLY MANAGED VARIABILITY (HOWEVER INFORMALLY OR 'with a wink and a nod' or ostensibly under the table or in spite of the Catechism) under the Vatican Umbrella. YOU'VE EVEN ARGUED SUCH WHEN IT WAS CONVENIENT FOR YOU TO DO SO.
These are ascertainable things, and in all of them false assertions were made. Shall I then say the teaching was good?
9. I think that's also a straw dog unbecoming of what I construe to be your above average integrity.
10. YOU SEEM TO TRY AND CONVINCE PRODDYS THAT 100% OF ALL the 10,000's of data points of the Catechism are all LOCK STEP BELIEVED *AND* ACTED OUT 100% THE SAME WAYS IN 100% OF THE PARISHES ALL AROUND THE GLOBE. Laying aside the nonsensicalness of that inferred stance . . . that we PRODDYS FEEL SLAPPED WITH 24/7 . . . AND IT JUST AIN'T SO. CAN'T BE SO IN SUCH A LARGE COMPLEX ORGANIZATION--AS YOU HAVE ALSO NOTED--WHEN IT WAS CONVENIENT TO DO SO.
11. OF COURSE, in ANY organization that large and that spread out and that old, there are going to be SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES from congregation to congregation; county to county; State to State etc. etc. etc. AND ALL THOSE EXPERIENCES ARE GOING TO BE GENUINE, TRUE, ROMAN CATHOLIC EXPERIENCES; AUTHENTIC ROMAN CATHOLIC EXPERIENCES. And it is a very CHEEKY pile of nonsense to pretend, much less INSIST otherwise.
11.1 I can hear some screaming that they can't be authentic Roman Catholic experiences if they are contrary to some tiny corner of the Catechism and THEIR personal interpretation thereof. etc. etc. yada yada yada.
That's not my definition. My definition of authentic Roman Catholic experience is a given typical mind set and more or less accepted body of belief and practice in a particular congregation or subgroup of a particular congregation that endures over time without strict hierarchical discipine to root it out--and usually with abundant hierarchical aiding and abetting said beliefs and practices if not actually propagating them, instructing them and modeling and leading them.
Heck, I was told when I was in protestant seminary that one reason transubstantiation was first put forth was to assure people precisely that it would look, taste, smell, or feel or anything like flesh and blood. So it is even more amazing. As a Protestant I knew the doctrine better than that! Would someone well catechized make these gross errors of fact? And we're not talking about errors of
That's just another illustration of what I've said above. YES! SOMEONE WELL CATECHIZED might well make such gross errors. NO ONE--NOT EVEN THE POPE RUNS AROUND LOOSE WITH EVEN THE READER'S DIGEST PURIFIED CONDENSED VERSION OF THE CATECHISM ON THE TIP OF HIS ACTIVE MEMORY. SHEESH! It's tooooo huge a body of pontifications.
AND, AS I'VE ILLUSTRATED ABOVE, NO TWO CONGREGATIONS, much less different regions are going to provide EXACTLY THE SAME RC EXPERIENCE OR EDUCATION. Sigh.