Replies

One of the alleged RF rules is not to make personal remarks. Talking about my capacity to understand something is a personal remark. The entire exchange was about my capacity.

The VAST majority of my posts are not about trying to get someone to agree with Catholic teaching, but to clarify what that teaching is. I may also try to offer and advocate depictions of "mind-sets" in which certain propositions or behaviors which differ between Catholics and non-Catholics would be consistent with those things about which we agree. And I will try to analyze arguments.

For example, I am engaged in a slow process (at your invitation, BTW) to lay the groundwork for some basic concepts of scholastic realism. We've done Aquinas's "first way" -- the unmoved mover argument. We've looked at the idea of the reality of universals. Next I will try to address "substance." These posts have tried to sketch not only what the ideas are but how a reasonable person would think them.

Then, as an example of the second class, I try to look at, say, Marian devotion, and present the notion that it is an outgrowth or flowering of devotion to Christ.

Old Reggie was making some point, which I didn't quite get, but it led me to find that JP2 said:

Thanks to [the writings of (I assume)] Saint Louis of Montfort, I came to understand that true devotion to the Mother of God is actually Christocentric, indeed, it is very profoundly rooted in the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity, and the mysteries of the Incarnation and Redemption".

So I spend some effort arguing not that this MUST be so, but that it COULD be so.

And, as is evident, if somebody argues, for example, that Marian devotion is bad because it is easily abused, then we need to look at the capability of good things to be used badly, and to inquire into whether the abuse of, say, Oxycontin means there is no good use for that medication.

If somebody contests a point I am making, but their argument seems to be be directed to some other point not the one I am making, I will say they don't understand me. Otherwise, we 'take it to the next level' and reason backwards to find where the differing premises are or forwards to look for reductios. As far as I can tell, that's how dialogue (the art which the vulgar call 'talking') works.

Now if somebody says that Transubstantiation cannot be true because the "bread" does not have the appearance of "flesh" and the "wine" does not clot, I have every reason to say that that person does not understand the doctrine.

Nothing in that statement indicates that when they understand it they will then agree. And, in fact there have been a few small signs, in the hailstorm of outraged abuse, that there are a few tentative steps being made in that direction.

Specifically both you and metmom have insisted that I have no alternative to mean a "symbolic" event, rather than a 'real' one.

Of course, the defect in this counter is the air of triumph, the projection of certainty, the barely cloaked, "aHA!" This is remarkable, because when somebody displays, as I say, not just ignorance, but certainty about something which is not true, it would seem prudence and humility would suggest a little reduction in the incidence of premature end-zone dances.

But I am delighted that in the midst of the self-granted triumphal procession, a really good question is raised: in what respect, if any, is it right to say this is "merely symbolic?" Related questions would be 'What is the difference between spiritual and symbolic?', 'What is the locus of symbols?' 'Whether there can be 'true' or 'false' symbols.'

To me, your side has at once a harder goal and too eager a tendency to descend to triumphalism, though some on my side do a pretty good end-zone dance too. I have the easier goal because I am just trying to get a coherent expression of what I scarcely understand myself. It is made harder because of the abundance of abusive terms and phrases, AND the sensitivity of having to say to somebody, "You may think you 'know' that, but you don't, because it's not true."

Mind you, if the effective conveying to one another that (a) you understand what I am saying and (b) you still disagree is REALLY a goal, I think it is far more likely to be achieved if the white hankies and the other terms of abuse were used less. Usually it is clear to me that you disagree, but I end up having no understanding of the reasons (as distinct from the causes) for the disagreement. All I read is outrage and abusive language. I cannot find (not saying it's not there) a coherent reasonable disagreement. Consequently I have no way of knowing whether there is any understanding of the points I am advocating. Rejection is clear, understanding, not so much.