Your frustration with what "We are told repeatedly" has some merit when considered in it's totality. On the other hand derisively dismissing what an ex-Catholic says about what they were taught and what their Catholic relatives and friends believe as simply "you were poorly catechized" is a simplistic and disengenerous argument.
The fact is, especially by your standards, that the vast majority of Catholics throughout the world are and always have been "poorly catechized".
I certainly hope you have cooled off enough in the last few days to reconsider whether your challenge which follows is realistic by any standards.
If your catechesis was as good as you say, you will be able to translate this:
Verbum caro, panem verum verbo carnem efficit: fitque sanguis Christi merum, et si sensus deficit, ad firmandum cor sincerum sola fides sufficit.
Tantum ergo Sacramentum veneremur cernui: et antiquum documentum novo cedat ritui: praestet fides supplementum sensuum defectui.
Do you honestly believe 1% of the Catholics in the world could pass your test?
Also, I see no valid for your crying to the Religion Moderator over this matter.
Absolutely.
GMTA
INDEED.
EXTREMELY WELL PUT, IMHO.
THX.
Yep!
I think there's a danger of slipping into a contention: If enough people are poorly catechized, no one is poorly catechized. What's wrong with this proposition: If everybody has a bad education, then nobody has a bad education.
Lots of catholics make no effort to see that the fruit of their loins is catechized, or to edumicate themselves. Among those that do, sound teachers are mighty thin on the ground. This must be the ninety-eleventh time I mention that in another congregation I heard the deacon RCIA instructor teach an ethical principle specifically condemned in Veritatis Splendor without mentioning its controversiality.
It is more of a lament than an insult to say someone was poorly catechized. It's a reflection on the catechists, not the catechumens.
BUT, still, if someone says the thing that is not and claims to know it to be true because she was catechized (or should have been) it is argumentatively legit to question the quality of the catechesis. Metmom could have checked on the veracity of what she asserted. Instead She asserted it backed up the assertion with the assertion that she had been Catholic and that's what Sr. Mary Sadistica told her (or words to that effect.)
Under those circumstances I see no obligation whatsoever to refrain from questioning the quality of Sr. Mary Sadistica's instruction.
YOU, Alte Regius, questioned Aquinas's authority. Well, a lesser than Aquinas is here. Why not question?
The first quote is from Pange Lingua. The second is from Tantum Ergo, which is the last two verses of Pange Lingua Around the world Tantum Ergo is sung at Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. I think I might get 1% on that. On the first quote maybe fewer.
But I never said that bad catechesis is unusual. If 98% of the people get the measles that doesn't mean it's not a disease. If fewer than 1% of Catholics can't get the second quote, they've been treated badly. I can see a parish singing the Pange Lingua only once a year, on Holy Thursday. But even in small Scottsville VA they have Benediction at least monthly. A couple of years of that and the people will know the Tantum Ergo. If they don't trouble to figure out what it means when it says, "Let faith stand in for the deficiency of the senses," then, well, they ought to keep silent about transubstantiation.