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.
If a good, sound argument can be dismissed because it may also be a rationalization, then why make good sound arguments.
I might as well resort to insulting and degrading terms like white hanky and magicsterium and colored fonts.
Somebody asserted as fact what was not fact. Somebody claimed her experience as reason that those alleged facts should be thought of and acknowledged to be true.
Rather than say that the person lied, I said the experience was invalid as an indicator of truth -- it was poor teaching.
It seems to be , as I said, that that was a generous thing to say. I could have said, as you suggest, the person's memory was not functioning well in this instance. That would, of course, have been personal.
And I have seen very bad catechesis. So it seems to me a likely explanation.
EVEN if we stipulate that the rest of those scoundrels adduce poor catechesis unfairly, it is still the case that if someone claims authority on the grounds of his or her catechesis and insists that he be believed because of his catechesis in a matter in which he is clearly and demonstrably wrong, it is not a "rationalization" to call the quality of the catechesis into question.
And again, this is NOT about, "you'd have remained catholic if onyl you understood." It is about, "What you are saying indicates that you do not understand or are mistaken in our facts."
Since there is no such thing as a native Latin speaking cadre in the Vatican all the "pure" Latin documents are necessarilly translations from some other language. This may account for so many "poor" translations over the years.
Do you hate the following prayer in Latin and does it irritate you?
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio; contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium. Imperat illi Deus; supplices deprecamur: tuque, Princeps militiae coelestis, Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos, qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo, divina virtute in infernum detrude.
What a lunatic statement.
Firstly, the Romans were men of action - soldiers and engineers. Not effete academicians and half men who play with words, preferring that to the real world. Perhaps that is what irks.
Secondly, English up until 250 years ago was an irrelevant and unimportant regional language. Greek was the lingua franca of the world (incidentally the language that God gave us His word in - the NT certainly, and the OT Septuagint almost certainly) for most of a millennium, then Latin for a millennium, then French for 300 years. English is a bastardization of Norse, French, German and every other European language in a violent melange which has more exceptions than rules.
No doubt I will get in reply the riposte that if English was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for us...
Well I would have said, "begging the question" but in recent years the idiots in the media who wouldn't recognize a coherent argument if they found it in their soup have taken to using that phrase incorrectly. Petitio principii is the only breif way I know of to say, "You are ssuming what you seek to prove."
How can a language be
arrogant, condescending, obscuring, obsfucating, haughty, cheeky and elitist?