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.
Quick comment on my way to a nap.
Am happy to redouble my efforts toward understanding and demonstrated understanding.
“All I read is outrage and abusive language”
“Rejection is clear, understanding not so much”
Yes
Thanks
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.
Last I checked, affirming another FREEPER’S capacity or anything else in a positive, supportive, confirming way was, is and always has been quite allowed.
IIRC, Someone had questioned it or challenged it. I stood up for you and your capacities.
I suppose you could persuade me to stop doing so. However, I think you’d have a hard time doing so. I happen to like you and think a lot of you and of a number of things about you.
Speaking for myself, and likely for all former Catholics, if you're trying to explain the doctrine of transubstantiation so that we can understand it, save your keyboard.
I was not so *poorly catechized* that I do not understand what the Catholic teaching is about it. I understand completely what is taught about it because I remember what I believed about it and it wasn't different from what you're explaining.
My point is that it's wrong and the challenges are WHY I believe it to be wrong. There are too many contradictions and inconsistencies in the teaching. The justification and explanations that Cathlics have to put forth and believe in direct violation of any kind of reasoning is staggering. Catholics HAVE to claim that you just have to accept that it happens by faith, because there's no other way that that any reasoning mind can justify the belief. And honestly, God doesn't expect us to kiss our brains good-by when we become followers of His.
The interpretation of the Scripture surrounding the institution of communion and the teaching about the cup and bread being the body and blood of Christ as a symbolic ceremony is easily supportable by Scripture, while there is plenty of Scripture that disallows the meaning that the Catholic church has attached to it.
As far as the whole Mary worship thing, while you can, no doubt, point to various statements made by the Catholic church over the years to *prove* that the Catholic church does not endorse the worship of Mary, for all practical purposes, it does. For one thing, what happens in practice is that people treat Mary as deity. They relate to her as such by praying to her as they ought to pray to God the Father only. Everything they do in practice screams *worship*. The Catholic church has not discouraged publication of prayers to Mary that are idolatrous. They have given their official approval to the publication of material in books that is just out and out wrong. Lies, in reality.
If the Catholic church is going to have any credibility in its claims that Mary worship doesn't occur, then it needs to get the message out to its parishioners and much more strongly discourage the kind of behavior that is worship in practice.
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.
SOUNDS GOOD TO ME. THANKS.
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.
THAT’S ALL WELL AND GOOD.
AND PROBABLY IT IS WORTH YOUR DOING FOR THOUSANDS OF LURKERS.
However, I’m skeptical that it will add a lot that’s effectively significant to the REAL PRESENCE issues.
However, I will certainly read what you offer with a fair-mindedness and respect of you as my Christian Brother seeking to be helpful.
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.
I think that effort is doomed to fail from the beginning. However, I will read what you offer as charitably as possible.
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.
That’s a very understandable analogy. I don’t think it’s a remotely fitting analogy.
Perhaps Curarie might have been a better selection of a drug for the analogy.
However, I think for most Biblically sound and thoughtful Proddys . . .
the issue is NOT HOW CLOSE TO THE CLIFF WE CAN DANCE WITH MARY . . .
THE ISSUE IS
HOW FAR AWAY CAN I GET TO AVOID ANY HINT OF OFFENSE TO GOD IN SUCH MATTERS.
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.
That sounds reasonable.
However, I would encourage you . . . when you say that they don’t understand you—to encourage/instruct what minimal sort of response would be necessary for you to feel understood. I assume it would normally be a paraphrase in that person’s own words which you considered accurate enough to rate “understanding” as a fitting label on the exchange.
Yes???
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.
Practicing what I preach . . .
I understand that you believe a Proddy saying that “the Big T cannot be true because the appearance of the elements does not match the appearance of flesh and blood” is an indication that said Proddy does not understand the Big T as you do and as you believe the RCC teaches it.
Is that close enough?
I suppose a whole collection of words will have to be redefined and vetted between us . . . to me, said list of words will still necessarily collapse into either
"OTHER THAN SYMBOLIC" commonly known as "REAL," "OVERTLY REAL," "TANGIBLY REAL," "COMMON SENSICALLY REAL," "OBSERVABLY REAL," etc.
Therefore, it would be useful to me to see how any of your terms, ideas, concepts, constructs, 'realities' can fit in any other category than those two.
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.
IF you think that Proddys have a corner on that sort of display, THEN I have to question how much we've been existing on the same planet in all this.
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.’
THOSE ARE WONDERFUL QUESTIONS . . . though I think some of them are a bit . . . over weighted and bordering, if not over the line of prissy.
Nevertheless, I’ll be blessed to dialogue with you about them.
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.”
I don’t know that we are slated to agree about “abusive phrases” in this time/space dimension . . . though I’d dearly love it if we could.
You may, hopefully, have noted that I rarely use such phrases with you.
I’d guesstimate that 75% of my use of them, if not 85% or more . . . is in response to folks who GREATLY DESERVE THEM because their attitude or their word choices or their “arguments” are so outrageously begging for such.
A lot of the time in life, I prefer to give folks what they desperately are begging for even if they are not consciously admitting at all that they are doing so.
I don’t know IF you have noticed or not,
EVEN WHEN A chronically mean-spirited and relentlessly personally assaultive RABID CLIQUE bloke or blokess becomes civil with me, I TEND to immediately return civility in kind.
Again--I rarely use them with you. I'm willing to earnestly try and use them even less with you. No promises about responses to the rabid clique folks.
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.
I'm happy to earnestly work to increase the understanding of the reasons for my disagreements.
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.
I think you are saying that the 'outrage' emphasized in my words and phrasing and style clouds your discernment of my reasons for my outrage and disagreement. Is that close?
MOST of the time, the dramatic language is designed to jar some folks out of their stereotypic tunnel vision and Vatican Vulcan Mind-Meld mentalities long enough to consider the issues at least a bit more fair-mindedly and fresh. I realize such is not likely to occur in the short term. I have a lot of life-long data to believe that even such outrageous language does foster such ponderings down the road--and often, fosters such ponderings very productively.
Thanks for your kind and clear post.